A330Driver.....
Here's the alternative (and correct) answer to your presumtions that either 1) U.S. aircrews don't fly with charts, or 2) U.S. aircrews don't believe waypoints exist if they don't see them on their CRT/LCD screen. It's also why you'll hear U.S. crews refusing a clearance as you've described.....direct to a waypoint not found on their previous "as cleared" flight plan, and with nothing else forthcoming from ATC.
Their confusion with the waypoint lies in the fact thay they've not received airway routing beginning at the new waypoint, to either their destination or to re-join what they've been previously been cleared for. When hearing the single-waypoint clearance with no subsequent airway, the assumption on the U.S. crew's part is that the point is downroute somewhere in what's already been programmed.
This is because you'll never receive such a clearance in the U.S...an off-routing waypoint and nothing else. To accept it means that's your new clearance limit, and is not the same as receiving an off-route vector. This is also why you'll hear refusals for such a clearance found in UK/Euro. Personally, I don't refuse it, but I do request additional airway routing.
Now, I'm sure that if you receive a clearance to a new (or even downroute waypoint you're not familiar with) it's all crystal clear.....for example you hear; "A330Driver, cleared direct puppy". You of course automatically know it's spelled "PUPPI", as opposed to, say,.... PUPEE, PUPPE, PPUPY, PUPAY, PUUPI, or perhaps even PUPPY, but not everyone was blessed with your skill at instant interpretation and correction for regional accents and inflection, or knows every tidbit on the charts by heart.
Yes it's sad but true, given no other indicator such as a new airway, us Yanks sometimes have to ask for phonetic spelling in order to find out and confirm against our flight plan that the new assigned waypoint is nowhere on our cleared route, and then confirm spelling in order to begin looking for it somewhere on the charts (if we remembered to bring them) or program it into the FMS (so we really believe in it). You should market and sell the secret knowledge/skill you possess that bypasses this unique Yank-dysfunction. Then you could really cash in on American ineptitude, thus ensuring a lifetime of hot meals for you.
As someone so keen on R/T that you feel you could feed yourself pointing out the deficiencies in others, then I'm sure you can understand that real communication also means ATC telling the pilots what the plan is for them......just in case someone loses comm capability altogether. If it happens while you're on your route, you continue. If you've received an off-route vector, you return to your cleared route. But if you've recieved and accepted a clearance to a new waypoint only (which certainly sits on another airway, or perhaps an intersection) , what's the course of action for the remainder of the flight if you lose comm?
If I'm flying from LHR to HECA or OLBA and lose it over Paris approaching this new point-in-space with no real ROUTE clearance, who knows what I'll choose? Oh well, C'est la vie!
Once, just as an experiment when I was new to the aforementioned UK/Euro phenomena and in order to learn more, I flew the entire length of Italy from Switz to Greece receiving and accepting off-route, direct-to-waypoint clearances from them. No airway routing subsequent to each was ever offered, merely new "direct-to" assignments to waypoints not on our flightplan as we approached each one. Except for the FIRs, we were never on, or assigned, an airway or consecutive waypoints. It became a great game, trying to predict which way ATC was going to send us as we approached each limit and searching for the new place on the chart (we maybe even had to get spelling for some...I dont remember things like that). As a matter of fact, I think the F/O who was with me that day still owes me a few beers for being the better ATC mind-reader. Since we never knew what ATCs plan was for us (apparently being so Top Secret even we couldn't be told) I figured if we lost comms we'd just wander back somehow to our original routing, because at least then they'd know what we intended to do. We kind of got the feeling they didn't really care what we did, however.
You see in the U.S., direct-to-waypoint clearances aren't stand-alone points in the sky....they actually belong to something much larger having to do with how you'll get from Point A to Point B. They go something like this (and usually with a heads-up such as "new routing for you advise ready to copy"); "XXXFlight Xxx, cleared to destination present positon direct WANKR, J-191 TOSSR, blah blah blah PMPUS, as previously cleared".
You'll notice that the direct-to waypoint is merely the beginning of an actual route clearance that continues to Point B. The pilot actually knows what's expected of him after that point, and upon accepting it, it become his "Last Assigned Route". In other words, the crew knows what to fly if comms are lost. This is, indeed, unlike what you oftimes get in UK/Eurocontrol. I don't sweat it much...I just pull their teeth and get more info...but there's certainly nothing wrong with refusing a clearance to a point that goes nowhere.
The readback issue...
You don't have to agree with me..I'm just stating the ATC Saturation/Congestion Facts of Life for you. Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety. The more aircraft, the more instructions, the less airwave time available, the more instructions, the more time readbacks for each one eat up, and so on....until him re-hearing what he just told you is getting in the way. He wouldnt be dropping the requirement if it weren't.
Non-radar, readbacks are indeed the best tool the controller has to predict that communication took place. I say "predict" because a readback is nothing more than theoretical, and doesn't guarantee to him that you've set your altitude, heading/speed bug, or FMS correctly. True communication takes place only if the real-world reaction aligns with what was said. Non-radar, the controller never really knows if what's happening out there is what has been communicated and agreed upon.
In a radar environment, even with a readback, the only true validation for the controller that communication took place between himself and the crew is always when he sees the airplane doing what he instructed. The real world reaction where midairs occur. A readback validates nothing in this reality...it's more like a promise to act using the language of re-communication. When saturated to the breaking point, he/she doesn't want or need your promise, they want and need your compliance. It's up to you and your other crew memeber to ensure reception, understanding, and comply without what is at that point merely a feel-good exercise for your benefit only, in that you think he's setting his priorities wrong. Let us know when you become a controller in the NYC Tracon and re-educate them on how and what communication procedures work best in an extremely dynamic, saturated airspace environment. I'm sure they could learn a thing or two about priorities....they have little experience with it.
Needless to say, unless he's using "break", readbacks are still expected, which is to say the vast majority of the time. But if time management demands that a controller make the decision to re-prioritize the readback tool to lesser importance while relying on his radar to compensate, it's done to achieve a higher level of safety than if they were required. If dropping them were detrimental to safety in those situations where time is of the utmost importance, then there would be aluminum chaff-cloud events appearing over Chicago, Atlanta, and the NYC area at least once a week.
Oops, and here I said I was through with this thread.
IDunno...
Sorry to break this to you old chap, but I never mentioned "bring your A Game" or "having a laugh" at work.
Funny, in the years I was based at ORD I never remember having "no traffic around". Kind of difficult for the busiest airport on the planet, don\'t you think? Especially when you consider that Midway (airline and corporate), and busy corporate/genav fields such as Palwakee, DuPage, Waukegan, etc, are all sitting nearby ORD and underneath Chicago Class B. They also utilize and are handled by Approach, and airspace is assigned for their arrivals and departures. In fact, if you added up the traffic movements for ORD and included all the airports in just the Chicagoland area underneath and near it\'s airspace, you might find it equals or exceeds on a daily basis the number of movements for the entire island of Great Britain.
Now, call me "crazy" too, but maybe they\'re keeping you above those other conflicts? You know, until you\'ve pointed it out, in the many hundreds of times I flew in and out of there I never realized they were keeping me high for no good reason. Just to screw with me and force me into my A Game.... Bastards!
I\'m sure you\'ve heard of nose abatement...gee I wonder if that may come into play.
Next time you go in there, when flying an arrival getting assigments you\'re unhappy or petulant about, just ask them why its the way it was. No doubt they\'ll be happy to answer all your questions. Please post their reasons here.
I\'m sorry if you think that U.S. ATC doesn\'t look at accidents everywhere and try to learn from them. I\'m sorry if you think they ignore it, or don\'t teach it. I\'m sorry you think we think "that\'s jest fine and dandy, that\'s jest how we do it". I\'m sorry you think we\'re "jest" a bunch of yokels. I\'m sorry you think you get lied to by what you think are crummy-attitude JFK controllers. I\'m sorry that you think every time you go there they\'re trying to kill you.
But most of all, I\'m sorry you even have to show up to endure it.
Last edited by AMF; 2nd Jul 2005 at 14:41.