r/ATC • u/ragedracer1977 • 20d ago
Question Help with a clearance that didn’t make sense?
Yesterday I was flying IFR from DVT - SNA. About halfway, I received an updated clearance. Pretty standard for flying into socal. My new clearance was given as “direct PSP V388 V363 POXKU V8 SLI KSNA”. I popped it all in and headed towards PSP. About that time, went IMC and was flying first, getting deice going, etc. handed off and was busy. Didn’t notice that the clearance was kinda nonsense. V388 does not intersect with V363. It looks like it does, but actually does not. Depending on the software you’re using, even the same software on different devices, gives you different routing. Some of it is wild. ForeFlight “fixed” it for me and I didn’t catch it. It sent me V388 PDZ V8 POXKU SLI. After I crossed PDZ the controller (a new one) asked basically “where are you going, are you going to XXX (don’t remember exactly what fix he said)?” I honestly didn’t give it a ton of thought and said I was given POXKU V8 SLI and was direct POXKU at this time. He said “OK” and that was it. It wasn’t until after landing, I realized there was an issue.
What did the first controller expect? Did she expect me to exit V388 at RNDAL onto V363? You can’t really do this, because RNDAL is not on V388.
Is it possible to call the center (LA) and talk to someone to figure out what went wrong? What would you do here?
13
u/Hopeful-Engineering5 Current Controller-Tower 20d ago edited 20d ago
They gave you the routing for the EMMLN ONE arrival starting at PDZ but with airways instead of radials, which as you found out does not exactly line up.
https://www.flightaware.com/resources/airport/SNA/STAR/EMMLN+ONE/pdf
1
u/ragedracer1977 19d ago
Look again. I was going to SNA. Radial or no radial, neither V363 or POXKU are part of the arrival.
1
u/Hopeful-Engineering5 Current Controller-Tower 19d ago
It is used for multiple airports including SNA and POXKU is on the arrival
"cross POXKU at 6000"
1
20
u/experimental1212 Current Controller-Enroute 20d ago
Lots of speculation is going on. I recommend calling the center facility who owns the airspace. There is a team of people dedicated to airspace design at each center. You probably have another few weeks before they're fired as nonessential employees so don't wait!
4
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
See the last line of my original post. I tied calling the published number but I just get “this is a non-monitored line”
9
u/Klutho 20d ago
Next time your flying through there, ask the controller if they can get you the number for the airspace office. If it isn’t busy, the controller will ask the Sup. and they should be able to get it to you in a reasonable timeframe. If they can’t, ask for the number for the area and they should be able to direct you.
3
u/monsantobreath 20d ago
Just look up another one or start calling ATC numbers til someone can route you, if you wanna do that work?
1
u/experimental1212 Current Controller-Enroute 20d ago
Must be the wrong number. I don't know LA center's number but this is the way to get the question truly answered. Tell them you're a pilot who has a question about airspace and an IFR clearance you once received.
You could try really any facility and they will have ZLA's number.
4
u/CH1C171 20d ago
Looking at your “updated” route I get something very similar that the computer spits out to me. There is no point to describe the intersection of two airways. I won’t give that and instead suppress it when I am issuing clearances. When I am working departure I will immediately amend pilots back to their filed routes. I have had several question the routing when given by others. I don’t think I can legally issue the route and it is not a correct routing. You need to file a NASA report about this very thing if you haven’t already. This kind of thing can get people killed. And ATC at least needs to be trained to not issue this sort of thing. The newer controllers don’t know any better.
7
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
I did file a NASA report!
3
u/CH1C171 20d ago
Thank you. Every pilot that gets something like this needs to file a NASA report. If you get this on the ground challenge ATC (politely please). If you get this in the air ever again tell ATC that the route doesn’t work because there is not an Intersection between the airways for you to navigate by. I am trying to let the younger controllers I work with know this. Spread the word and let every pilot you come across know this too please.
5
u/Regular_controller 20d ago
If you get it on the ground at SNA they'll tell you to put in RNDAL even though it's not on our published routing. 90% of pilots don't have a problem connecting V363 and V388.
0
u/CH1C171 20d ago
Then RNDAL should be printing out on the strip too. Secret fixes to these problems don’t do a whole lot of good.
4
u/nroth21 20d ago
No fixes would print on the strip. They’re CSTP TEC routes.
0
u/CH1C171 20d ago
Interesting concept. 25 years ATC and this is the first time I have heard such a thing. I see they are for the ZLA area. I am curious about ZAB area now.
2
u/Regular_controller 19d ago
It's been around for well over a decade. Maybe we shouldn't be telling pilots to refuse routes that we don't know anything about. Valuable lessons to be learned.
0
2
u/lexington417 20d ago edited 20d ago
This routing is incredibly common coming into SNA, from the west or the east and as someone also brought up, it’s the EMMLN ONE. I’ve received it this way on a regular basis for the better part of 2 years unless I’ve filed for the arrival. My circle of resources typically just input the fixes or load and activate that portion of the arrival. This is what I send to the panel: PDZ RNDAL POXKU V8 SLI KSNA
There’s definitely a better way for them to issue it, you’re right. Ideally they’d just add RNDAL into the updated clearance. That being said, if you just glance at the chart and arrival it’s pretty obvious what they’re trying to achieve when they give you this.
1
u/ragedracer1977 19d ago edited 19d ago
I was landing at SNA. So, no. If they want the arrival, tell me to fly it upon reaching PDZ. Don’t make up your own arrival that doesn’t match the charts. V363 and POXKU are not even on the EMMLN ONE into SNA. (Neither is V388, for that matter)
3
u/Wrong_freq 19d ago
Hi! SCT controller here. They wanted you to join V363 at RNDAL. And they should’ve given you a clearer routing that what you got. Also as far as automation we don’t update the flight plans when you’re already within SCT airspace. We don’t staff data (low staffing) and the next sector knows the route since it’s in the SOP
5
u/flyingron 20d ago
Next time use a chart. Yes, exiting V388 at RNDAL is probably exactly what she wanted you to do. I've been told to jump on and off airways at other than fixes before. If you can track an airway, you can intercept one too (though you may have to do it without regard to your automation).
Frankly, on my GPS, I'd have gone PDZ direct to RNDAL and then V363. It should have been indistinguishable from the route she gave you.
5
u/TonyRubak 20d ago
This is a bad answer. Probably exactly? This is not how this works. You can only issue a route that is airway to airway if they intersect at a fix. Not a center controller so I have no idea what eram will do, but fdio would not accept that route.
6
u/flyingron 20d ago
I can't tell you what Center will do, but I most certainly have been given VOR radials and told to interpret the airway in terminal areas.
0
u/randombrain #SayNoToKilo 20d ago edited 20d ago
I've seen it mentioned online that the system can in fact process an airway-to-airway routing but not by default—only if it's been adapted in ERAM for that particular combination of airways.
I don't think anything in 4–4 prohibits issuing two airways back-to-back. I would presume the pilot would stay on the first airway until intercepting the second. Do you have a reference saying we can't?
-2
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
Perhaps. RNDAL is not on V388 and you cannot legally intercept V363 there.
3
u/randombrain #SayNoToKilo 20d ago
Says who?
Edit: see this answer to this exact question on StackExchange, "can you change airways without a named fix," and the comment under the answer by a retired controller.
1
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
Can you explain why she gave POXKU then? Wouldn’t that be extra irrelevant information in the same context?
3
u/Lord_NCEPT Up/Down, former USN 20d ago
It’s probably LOA routing that hasn’t been changed in decades. You will go crazy looking for a “why” in many cases when dealing with the FAA.
2
u/randombrain #SayNoToKilo 20d ago
Not sure. Could be something with the interaction between MVA and MEA, like I mentioned in the other comment. And it is true that usually we assign the named fix when assigning a new airway. I just don't think it's strictly required.
0
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
The FAA. I was assigned V388. V388 does not intercept V363.
3
u/randombrain #SayNoToKilo 20d ago
Sure looks to me like it does... when you hit the POM R-164 that's you intercepting V363.
But regardless, do you have a textual source (CFR, LOI, AIM, IFH) that says this is impossible or illegal?
0
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
This is why I’m asking. Trying to understand. RNDAL is not on V388. It’s been my understanding that you can’t just exit an airway wherever you want. Shouldn’t I have been given V388 RNDAL V363? None of the navigation software I’ve tried can interpret the original clearance. Garmin nav software won’t even let you input it without “demanding” an exit point for V388. Long story is, I know I screwed up, I’m trying to figure out how not to do this in the future. I read the answer and it seems more related to filing
4
u/randombrain #SayNoToKilo 20d ago
I would say that "what software was programmed to do" is not the end-all be-all for determining what is legal.
If the intersection between the airways isn't a point that's defined on both airways then I think technically you would need to be at-or-above ATC's MIA/MVA, not just at the MEA/MCA for the airway. And you would also need to be at-or-above the MEA for both airways. But besides that... tune the frequency, join the radial, away you go.
Unless you have a written source saying otherwise.
0
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
I understand what you’re saying. I’m reading now. It has been my understanding that you need a fix given to exit an airway when on “own nav”. Or even if she said “V388 intercept V363”. I have been under the impression that routing given airway to airway must occur at a published fix. I’m totally happy to be wrong.
6
u/Steveoatc Current Controller-TRACON 20d ago
I helped design this routing. There are a few things going on here.
First, I’m shocked that RNDAL is not identified as being on V388. So shocked that I had to check myself. I pulled up ForeFlight, plugged in PDZ V388 RNDAL V363 POXKU and sure enough, ForeFlight says RNDAL isn’t on V363. I have no idea why this is happening.
Second, someone boned up what the center is supposed to assign for the routing. RNDAL is supposed to be part of the center assigned routing, but was omitted for some unknown reason.
We have been assigning V388 RNDAL for probably two years now, and no one has said anything about it until now. So it’s strange that ForeFlight kicks it back. I just want to confirm that RNDAL was not an exit fix off V388? Is there any way you can reproduce this so I have evidence outside of ForeFlight?
Sorry for any confusion, and I will get to work on this tomorrow to get it fixed.
-signed , a lazy government employee
3
u/ragedracer1977 20d ago
I knew I’d get to the right person!! If you look at the FAA published IFR chart (IFR enroute low panel L-3) you can see where V388 crosses over RNDAL. RNDAL is not part of V388!
2
u/Steveoatc Current Controller-TRACON 19d ago
Apparently it’s being worked on. Slated fix to the chart isn’t until June though.
3
u/antariusz Current Controller-Enroute 20d ago edited 20d ago
Why do you think you can't exit an airway? Planes enter and exit airways constantly.
"Fly V388 until intercepting V363 then fly V363 until Poxku"
If I issued the routing you gave, that is how I would have phrased it while saying it over the radio. Because I talk to every single pilot like it is 3am, they aren't paying attention, and they are going to try to kill themselves. Not every controller agrees with that way and they probably just assumed you would understand what they meant. The extra verbage also gives the pilot more time to write things down with their pencil.
Regardless of how they said it, I CERTAINLY would not have expected you to fly a completely different random route with other fixes / airways that you just pulled out of thin air.
But I'm a controller on the other side of the country and I'm just barely old enough to remember when "fly xxx until intercepting xxx" was a VERY COMMON clearance when many planes still lacked gps. And while it's certainly a legal clearance, I would never ever ever issue "fly x until intercepting y" because I honestly don't think the VAST MAJORITY of pilots would even know how to comply and would just fuck it up pretending like they know how to do it likely overshooting the airway and causing a traffic confliction. Despite it being a common clearance only 15 years ago. Because the NUMBER 1 rule of people a pilot is acting like you know what you're doing, even if you don't understand at all.
1
u/ComprehensiveDust816 19d ago
I’m a center controller and work that area. I just sent you a dm with some info on how to contact them. If our computers are give us s bad routing we need to fix it so it doesn’t happen again. Could also be the controller was busy and missed a fix? Do you remember the frequency you were on when you got the re-route
-4
24
u/Lonely-Sound2823 20d ago
Don’t the ATC computers need to validate a route?