---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 08/07/18: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 09:35 AM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Steve Farner) 2. 10:46 AM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Bob Turner) 3. 10:47 AM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (nukeflyboy) 4. 01:27 PM - Re: Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (David Maib) 5. 09:02 PM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Berck E. Nash) 6. 09:55 PM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Kelly McMullen) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 09:35:28 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC From: Steve Farner Hi All- In reading the other replies, I get that technically Dan should have asked for and received a clearance. But, it should have been clear to ATC what Dan was trying to do. It seems like they made his flight unnecessarily difficult for some reason, not sure why. Steve Farner On 8/6/2018 9:05 PM, Dan Masys wrote: > > Sorry in advance for the long post, but I had a strange experience yesterday > trying to open an IFR flight plan and wonder 1) what I did wrong and 2) has > anybody else had a similar experience? > > Background: have been an active instrument rated pilot for 30+ years and > routinely fly my RV-10 IFR, but mostly in the Seattle area. Sunday August 5 > filed an online IFR flight plan from Lincoln Regional (KLHM) to Hawthorne > (KHHR) in downtown L.A. Was a blue sky day everywhere (well, except for > some wildfire smoke) and this was one of those 'administrative IFR' flight > plans to get into the L.A. basin. Radio exchange begins at about 0800 after > departing KLHM VFR, climbing for 11k. > > Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD > Norcal on 125.8: no response, but relatively busy handling arrivals into > Sacramento, so no surprise > [wait for another pause in radio traffic] > Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD > Norcal: RV calling Norcal, stand by. > [Approximately 2 minutes goes by, conversations end between Norcal and > airline traffic] > Another RV calls Norcal and is immediately responded to, given a squawk > code. > After that, thinking I had been forgotten: > Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD. > > No response for another thirty seconds. I get it. This guy is not going to > talk to me and is apparently trying to teach me a lesson. > > Now 40 miles down the road, am in another Norcal sector and try them on > 123.7: > Me: Norcal approach, experimental RV N104LD > Norcal (female voice): RV 104LD, squawk 3636. > Me: 3636 on the squawk. RV104LD is off Lincoln and would like to open my > IFR flight plan to KHHR. > Norcal: 104LD, I can issue your clearance but cannot open your flight plan. > Advise ready to copy. > Me: Ready to copy: > [Clearance is given as filed, and read back successfully] > > Me: Who should I call to open the IFR flight plan? > Norcal: Try Flight Service. > Me: Do you have a preferred frequency for them in this area? > Norcal: Negative, don't have that information. > [I find Murieta Springs Radio frequency and call FSS] > Me: Murieta radio, experimental RV N104LD. > FSS: Say request > Me: I was told to contact you by Norcal, who said they cannot open my IFR > flight plan. > FSS: There must be some confusion. Flight service can only open VFR flight > plans, not IFR flight plans. Go back to Norcal. > Me: Roger. > Me (back on Norcal frequ): Norcal, this is N104LD; contacted Flight Service > and they said they cannot open an IFR flight plan; you have to do that. > Norcal (same female voice): I don't understand what you are requesting. > There is nothing more we can do for you > > [Now 55 miles down the road and level at 11k, I decide to call Oakland > Center] > Me: Oakland Center, experimental RV104LD 10 northeast of Linden VOR at 11k. > Would like to open our IFR flight plan to KHHR. > Oakland Center: You should have opened your flight plan with Norcal > approach. > Me: I tried. (and further explain the strange sequence of events). > Oakland Center: Ok, your flight plan is active. Cleared direct TTE. > Apparently Norcal reacted to your trying to open a flight plan when they had > not issued the clearance yet. First you have to call them to get the > clearance. > Me: Ok, sorry. My mistake. > > Commentary on this rather bizarre interchange: I am totally about learning > new things and apologizing when I make a mistake. But this one still has me > scratching my head. Any thoughts? > > Dan Masys > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 10:46:02 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC From: "Bob Turner" Like everyone else, Im a bit puzzled. One possibility: ATC does not get everything thats on your flight plan. Perhaps the controller thought somehow that you wanted to change your destination contact, or similar. For that youd need to talk to FSS. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482153#482153 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:47:00 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC From: "nukeflyboy" To avoid lengthy clearance read-backs on an ATC frequency I get my clearance on the ground. The number is 888-766-8267 if no ground/clearance delivery frequency is available, like my non-towered airport. You get a window to take off and then contact ATC in the air. All you say is N1234 at 3000 climbing to XXXX because you are in the system. File with ForeFlight and you will get an email back with the real clearance ATC will issue. Use this info to amend your clearance (back in ForeFlight) so when you call, cleared as filed is what you get. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 built and sold RV-10 built and flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482154#482154 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 01:27:53 PM PST US From: David Maib Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC Just the words used, as others have noted. Open my flight plan is almost certainly the problem. Ill usually say something like NXXXX just departed KXXX northeast bound climbing through 2000 squawking 1200, request IFR clearance to KXXX. They almost always come back quickly with a squawk code and once they have a positive ID on you they give you your clearance and youre on your way. Obviously if the frequency is very busy, I shorten that initial call substantially. Interestingly, years ago flying in the Army, we were required to call Flight Service after airborne on an IFR flight and open the flight plan. Powers that be said that guaranteed search and rescue if you didnt show up. Of course you had to remember to close it with Flight Service too. Definitely a belt and suspenders approach. At some point it was decided that we could trust ATC to sound the alarm if they lost us. It did make sense if you were flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace, but that was pretty rare. David Maib > On Aug 7, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Like everyone else, Im a bit puzzled. One possibility: ATC does not get everything thats on your flight plan. Perhaps the controller thought somehow that you wanted to change your destination contact, or similar. For that youd need to talk to FSS. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482153#482153 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:02:08 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC From: "Berck E. Nash" On 08/07/2018 10:33 AM, Steve Farner wrote: > > Hi All- In reading the other replies, I get that technically Dan should > have asked for and received a clearance. But, it should have been clear > to ATC what Dan was trying to do. It seems like they made his flight > unnecessarily difficult for some reason, not sure why. I don't think they were trying to make things difficult, I think they were genuinely confused about what he wanted. After he received his clearance, he asked them to "open his flight plan". I asked in my response, and Dan hasn't answered, but I'm not sure what it is he wanted from them. I don't know, and they didn't either. I think this is summed up pretty well by the controller who said, "I don't understand what you are requesting. There is nothing more we can do for you." I've actually thought about this interaction a bit since it was posted last night, and I've got a few more comments. First: Dan, kudos for coming here and asking for clarification about what happened. This is what good pilots do. I think we've explained why the controller was confused, but I'd love to know what you were asking for and why after you received your clearance. I might be a professional pilot and a flight instructor, but I haven't been flying for 30+ years, and the FAA isn't very good about teaching us how things were way back when. It's possible that something significant has changed since your got your instrument rating, and I can't help the next confused person if I don't know where you're coming from. Second: As pilots, I think we all need to strive for standard radio calls. It's extremely rare that that I hear non-standard phraseology from ATC, but I hear it from fellow pilots (and sometimes myself) every time I fly. GA pilots tend to be worse than airline pilots, but I hear nonstandard nonsense from airline pilots all the time. Some of them are pet peeves. I don't know why, for instance, you feel the need to respond to "squawk 4224" with "4224 in the box." It's non-standard, it takes longer to say than "squawk 4224", but I suspect everyone knows what it means and in the grand scheme of things probably doesn't matter. On the other hand: "Cessna 123's taking the active" is downright terrible, and I hear it all the time. (1) What do you think the active is? (2) Where are you departing? (3) Are you taking off, or just holding in position? Dan's case would be alleviated by using the phrasing listed in the AIM. >From Section 5-2-5: When requesting clearance for the IFR portion of a VFR/IFR flight, request such clearance prior to the fix where IFR operation is proposed to commence in sufficient time to avoid delay. Use the following phraseology: EXAMPLE Los Angeles center, Apache Six One Papa, VFR estimating Paso Robles VOR at three two, one thousand five hundred, request IFR to Bakersfield. Now, I would guess that I've heard that phraseology exactly zero times. More common is probably something along the lines of, "LA Center, Apache Six One Papa is off of pasa robles at three thousand, looking to pick up our IFR to Bakesfield." Part of that is probably because the response to the first request will almost certainly have been, "Apache Six One Papa, do you have a flight plan filed?" The less standard request of "pick up our IFR" implies you have a flight plan in the system. Either one would have worked. But "opening a flight plan" is phraseology that's generally reserved for VFR flight plans. Your IFR flight plan is activated (as such) when you receive a clearance, so I don't think anyone was trying to be difficult here, but rather simply genuinely confused. Early in your transcript, you mentioned that you were ignored. I think this has happened to all of us flying VFR in busy airspace. Sometimes controllers are saturated. I do think that controllers are more likely to ignore a non-standard radio call from VFR traffic than a standard radio call. Slow-speaking or non-standard calls from pilots indicate that a busy frequency is going to get a lot worse if the ATC answers you. There's nothing wrong with the call you typed, but I have no idea how it sounded to the controller on the other end. All this to say: if we could make a little more effort to make radio calls like the AIM suggests we do, I think everyone would be better off. We might find that ATC treats us a little better, and we're probably all safer. Berck ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:55:39 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC I can try to add a little background, as I worked a few years between FSS, tower and radar approach control in the 70's, back when FSS and non-radar were common, and one had to pay a lot of attention about how you were going to get into IFR system if there wasn't a departure procedure from your airport, or there wasn't radio reception, because exactly zero pilots had mobile phones and at least in the area I worked, making a landline call, then jumping in plane to make clearance void time wasn't too practical. Issue for controller was whether you could reach controlled airspace providing your own terrain clearance, and when you got there, whether you would conflict with other IFR traffic. A VFR departure to get IFR should make the first call as N123 off Timbuktu request clearance to Podunk. That gives me a clue you might have filed and I should have a departure strip. If I see nothing I have data man call center, and I ask you if you filed. That assumes you are calling correct sector for your clearance. If I am busy, the rest will be a standby for clearance, or telling you to contact FSS to see if your flight plan has been forwarded. Much of that no longer exists with computers. No more typing flight plan into teletype to go to center, no more calling center on landline to get your clearance, etc. Old days you could expect an hour for processing and transmission of flight plan to correct sector or departure tower/approach control. I did not particularly like calls in the dark, not telling me what you wanted and where you were. Just mean I had to answer your call and hope you don't start with an IFR student type request tying up my frequency. Often good to consult with FBO for standard IFR departure procedures if you are unfamiliar with departing a particular airport. It can get weird. Like Claremont County in Cinncinati...the last time I went out of there IFR, the only place on airport you could get reliable radio with approach control was mid-field. With low ceiling, had to wait for aircraft on approach, even though he broke out 2 miles out, and they couldn't release me until arrival remembered to cancel after landing. Then taxi to end of runway and launch within void time. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Berck E. Nash wrote: > > On 08/07/2018 10:33 AM, Steve Farner wrote: > > > > Hi All- In reading the other replies, I get that technically Dan should > > have asked for and received a clearance. But, it should have been clea r > > to ATC what Dan was trying to do. It seems like they made his flight > > unnecessarily difficult for some reason, not sure why. > > I don't think they were trying to make things difficult, I think they > were genuinely confused about what he wanted. After he received his > clearance, he asked them to "open his flight plan". I asked in my > response, and Dan hasn't answered, but I'm not sure what it is he wanted > from them. I don't know, and they didn't either. I think this is > summed up pretty well by the controller who said, "I don't understand > what you are requesting. There is nothing more we can do for you." > > I've actually thought about this interaction a bit since it was posted > last night, and I've got a few more comments. > > First: Dan, kudos for coming here and asking for clarification about > what happened. This is what good pilots do. I think we've explained why > the controller was confused, but I'd love to know what you were asking > for and why after you received your clearance. I might be a > professional pilot and a flight instructor, but I haven't been flying > for 30+ years, and the FAA isn't very good about teaching us how things > were way back when. It's possible that something significant has > changed since your got your instrument rating, and I can't help the next > confused person if I don't know where you're coming from. > > Second: As pilots, I think we all need to strive for standard radio > calls. It's extremely rare that that I hear non-standard phraseology > from ATC, but I hear it from fellow pilots (and sometimes myself) every > time I fly. GA pilots tend to be worse than airline pilots, but I hear > nonstandard nonsense from airline pilots all the time. Some of them are > pet peeves. I don't know why, for instance, you feel the need to > respond to "squawk 4224" with "4224 in the box." It's non-standard, it > takes longer to say than "squawk 4224", but I suspect everyone knows > what it means and in the grand scheme of things probably doesn't matter. > > On the other hand: "Cessna 123's taking the active" is downright > terrible, and I hear it all the time. (1) What do you think the active > is? (2) Where are you departing? (3) Are you taking off, or just > holding in position? > > Dan's case would be alleviated by using the phrasing listed in the AIM. > >From Section 5-2-5: > > When requesting clearance for the IFR portion of a VFR/IFR flight, > request such clearance prior to the fix where IFR operation is proposed > to commence in sufficient time to avoid delay. Use the following > phraseology: > EXAMPLE=88=92 > =9CLos Angeles center, Apache Six One Papa, VFR estimating > Paso Robles VOR at three two, one thousand five > hundred, request IFR to Bakersfield.=9D > > Now, I would guess that I've heard that phraseology exactly zero times. > More common is probably something along the lines of, "LA Center, Apache > Six One Papa is off of pasa robles at three thousand, looking to pick up > our IFR to Bakesfield." > > Part of that is probably because the response to the first request will > almost certainly have been, "Apache Six One Papa, do you have a flight > plan filed?" The less standard request of "pick up our IFR" implies you > have a flight plan in the system. > > Either one would have worked. But "opening a flight plan" is > phraseology that's generally reserved for VFR flight plans. Your IFR > flight plan is activated (as such) when you receive a clearance, so I > don't think anyone was trying to be difficult here, but rather simply > genuinely confused. > > Early in your transcript, you mentioned that you were ignored. I think > this has happened to all of us flying VFR in busy airspace. Sometimes > controllers are saturated. I do think that controllers are more likely > to ignore a non-standard radio call from VFR traffic than a standard > radio call. Slow-speaking or non-standard calls from pilots indicate > that a busy frequency is going to get a lot worse if the ATC answers > you. There's nothing wrong with the call you typed, but I have no idea > how it sounded to the controller on the other end. > > All this to say: if we could make a little more effort to make radio > calls like the AIM suggests we do, I think everyone would be better off. > We might find that ATC treats us a little better, and we're probably > all safer. > > Berck =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.