What to do if unable to talk to ATC after reaching “fly to” limi

[RobertE]

I’m not talking about lost comm procedures when IFR upon reaching a clearance limit but, rather, a simple VFR instruction to fly to such and such a fix.  

What is proper procedure if radio congestion is such that you simply can’t get through to ATC before you’ve reached the point to which you’ve been directed?  Proceed on the same heading and altitude or turn to your on course heading (they know your destination because it’s in the system with flight following)?    I faced this dilemma yesterday over Oakland in airspace where they want to control and separate incoming and outgoing commercial and GA traffic in class C airspace.

[smccray]

You're VFR- see and avoid.  You're required to follow ATC instructions, but unless ATC gives you an instruction to hold at a point (which doesn't really make sense but it has happened to me) you fly on.  Fly to the point as instructed and proceed on your way.  You're required to maintain communication in the class Charlie airspace, but you're not on a clearance and there wouldn't be any good reason not to continue.

[Marauder]

2 minutes ago, RobertE said:

I’m not talking about lost comm procedures when IFR upon reaching a clearance limit but, rather, a simple VFR instruction to fly to such and such a fix.  

What is proper procedure if radio congestion is such that you simply can’t get through to ATC before you’ve reached the point to which you’ve been directed?  Proceed on the same heading and altitude or turn to your on course heading (they know your destination because it’s in the system with flight following)?    I faced this dilemma yesterday over Oakland in airspace where they want to control and separate incoming and outgoing commercial and GA traffic in class C airspace.

Robert -- if they knew your intended route (you already indicated they knew your destination), I would have continued on the route to the destination. 

[Marauder]

But I would still file an NASA report just to CYA. But that is just me. 

[smccray]

5 minutes ago, Marauder said:

But I would still file an NASA report just to CYA. But that is just me. 

My initial thought on reading this was "Why?" but I think you're right.  It's not so much a CYA to me because you're VFR- but it's a good way to report into the system that there may be a safety concern.  It would be easy for the controller to say "fly direct XYZ" then add "Direct Destination" instead of only saying "fly direct XYZ"

I get this instruction all the time flying into my home airport- direct a fix- frequently the FAF on the approach.  Or- when VFR- I'll check in with approach with the ATIS and tell them I'm direct the FAF and they know what I intend to do as it's a common instruction when IFR in VMC.

[DXB]

34 minutes ago, smccray said:

You're VFR- see and avoid.  You're required to follow ATC instructions, but unless ATC gives you an instruction to hold at a point (which doesn't really make sense but it has happened to me) you fly on.  Fly to the point as instructed and proceed on your way.  You're required to maintain communication in the class Charlie airspace, but you're not on a clearance and there wouldn't be any good reason not to continue.

Makes sense.  I'd probably also at least try to raise approach on another frequency while still in class C just to tell them what happened and my intentions. A NASA report might be a good idea too, particularly if not able to establish contact on another frequency.

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, smccray said:

You're VFR- see and avoid.  You're required to follow ATC instructions, but unless ATC gives you an instruction to hold at a point (which doesn't really make sense but it has happened to me) you fly on.  Fly to the point as instructed and proceed on your way.  You're required to maintain communication in the class Charlie airspace, but you're not on a clearance and there wouldn't be any good reason not to continue.

I think I disagree.  If you were only in contact with ATC while VFR, then you can navigate to your heart's content.  But once you ACCEPT an instruction, even while VFR, I think you are REQUIRED to follow those instructions absent an emergency or lost comms.

In this case, if you accepted instructions to "Cleared to XXX intersection" while VFR, you are acknowledging you can find XXX intersection and that you will not proceed past it until further cleared.  I would expect to hold at that intersection using whatever VFR hold I wanted--IFR holds need to be precise for terrain clearance in IMC, which is not relevant here.  On the other hand, if ATC said something like "Fly to XXX intersection," the situation becomes a lot muddier, because that is not clearly a clearance "limit".

[peevee]

if you're VFR and you are on a code and just in class E airspace you need to get in touch with the facility ASAP before S&R procedures go into effect.

[DXB]

21 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I think I disagree.  If you were only in contact with ATC while VFR, then you can navigate to your heart's content.  But once you ACCEPT an instruction, even while VFR, I think you are REQUIRED to follow those instructions absent an emergency or lost comms.

In this case, if you accepted instructions to "Cleared to XXX intersection" while VFR, you are acknowledging you can find XXX intersection and that you will not proceed past it until further cleared.  I would expect to hold at that intersection using whatever VFR hold I wanted--IFR holds need to be precise for terrain clearance in IMC, which is not relevant here.  On the other hand, if ATC said something like "Fly to XXX intersection," the situation becomes a lot muddier, because that is not clearly a clearance "limit".

Interesting discussion - this makes sense to me too.  I suppose an instrument rated pilot would instinctively handle the situation based on those rules even if flying VFR in a class C.  However is a VFR pilot expected to understand the same phraseology? I certainly didn't until recently starting work on the rating, but I've have transited many class Bs and Cs prior to that (luckily never encountered this issue). Also I've never gotten a "cleared to" instruction while VFR in a Bravo or Charlie, but certainly a lot of "Fly direct X".

[midlifeflyer]

35 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I think I disagree.  If you were only in contact with ATC while VFR, then you can navigate to your heart's content.  But once you ACCEPT an instruction, even while VFR, I think you are REQUIRED to follow those instructions absent an emergency or lost comms.

Once you are in contact with ATC in controlled airspace, you are required to obey instructions absent an emergency. 91.123 (b) says:

"Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

Not,

"Except in an emergency or you are VFR, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

 

[jaylw314]

2 minutes ago, DXB said:

Interesting discussion - this makes sense to me too.  I suppose an instrument rated pilot would instinctively handle the situation based on those rules even if flying VFR in a class C.  However is a VFR pilot expected to understand the same phraseology? I certainly didn't until recently starting work on the rating, but I've have transited many class Bs and Cs prior to that (luckily never encountered this issue). Also I've never gotten a "cleared to" instruction while VFR in a Bravo or Charlie, but certainly a lot of "Fly direct X".

Yeah, that leaves it kind of ambiguous, doesn't it?  If "fly direct XXX" was proceeded by my request for flight following and telling ATC my destination and route of flight, that would certainly suggest I can go past XXX.  But the magical word is "cleared."  If you accept a clearance, like "cleared to land," you MUST obey that instruction with any limits until amended.  And "cleared to XXX" unambiguously states you are not to go past it (otherwise you would have been cleared somewhere beyond).

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, RobertE said:

  Proceed on the same heading and altitude or turn to your on course heading (they know your destination because it’s in the system with flight following)?    

Also, I'm pretty sure ATC does NOT enter your route in any system with VFR flight following.  They may write it down on a Post-It and hand it off to the next controller, but I don't think it's official.  Anyone know for sure?

[midlifeflyer]

2 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Yeah, that leaves it kind of ambiguous, doesn't it?  If "fly direct XXX" was proceeded by my request for flight following and telling ATC my destination and route of flight, that would certainly suggest I can go past XXX.  But the magical word is "cleared."  If you accept a clearance, like "cleared to land," you MUST obey that instruction with any limits until amended.  And "cleared to XXX" unambiguously states you are not to go past it (otherwise you would have been cleared somewhere beyond).

I lost track, so I may be missing somehting. The only times you should ever hear the word "cleared" when normal VFR (as opposed to Special VFR) are "Cleared into the Class B" and when receiving a takeoff or landing clearance. 

[carusoam]

Review...

1) pilot was VFR in VMC...

2) In Class C

3) In contact with ATC. 

4) Told to fly direct XXXX.

5) Got to XXXX.

6) Couldn't make contact with ATC after that...

7) You are VFR, outside the class C airspace... fly on... try to let them know you are switching frequencies as you depart their area.

8) FF Often ascertains your final destination and has the ability to add a few waypoints in the middle with you...

9) Expect IFR to be different.  You don't lose contact very easily, there are procedures for that...

10) when IFR and you reach the limit without further clearance, you are now holding until your expected clearance time occurs... (something like that)  IFR always has a plan b for when coms break down...

11) expect to be dropped from the priority.  

12) continue to monitor ATC if able.  You may hear if you are a traffic problem for somebody else...

PP thoughts only, not IFR current...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[midlifeflyer]

7 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Review...

1) pilot was VFR in VMC...

2) In Class C

3) In contact with ATC. 

4) Told to fly direct XXXX.

5) Got to XXXX.

6) Couldn't make contact with ATC after that...

7) You are VFR, outside the class C airspace... fly on...

8) FF Often ascertains your final destination and has the ability to add a few waypoints in the middle with you...

9) Expect IFR to be different.  You don't lose contact very easily, there are procedures for that...

10) when IFR and you reach the limit without further clearance, you are now holding until your expected clearance time occurs... (something like that)  IFR always has a plan b for when coms break down...

PP thoughts only, not IFR current...

Best regards,

-a-

 

I wouldn't try to hard to compare VFR and IFR. 

#4 Direct X. Not a clearance. No such thing VFR en route. So it is not a "clearance limit." Lose comm, continue on your way. See my #7

#6 is going to be unusual once you are flight following,  but it happens. It also depends on a couple of things. So, for example, it happened to me some years back in a pretty empty part of New Mexico. The most important thing to know is, from an ATC perspective,  an unexplained loss of communications is a trigger to get search and rescue operations started.  So the best bet is to communicate with someone. In my case, I called FSS and takeoff and landing them I was talking with ABQ Center and lost comm. They thanked me and relayed the information.

#7. I fly on whether in or out of the Class C. Thinking, "I have reached X; I better get some communication on what to do now" is the problem here. You were en route and told to fly to a  some location, probably for traffic reasons. Unless instructed to "report reaching X" (unlikely), there was no report expected. So, having complied with the instruction, you continue on your way.

#8 whether ATC has a route or not depends, basically, on whether you tell them anything more than the destination. Typically, you are going direct but if, say, I were going to cross a certain mountain pass, I'd probably tell them.

[steingar]

If I did a hold every time I lost touch with ATC VFR I'd still be doing one.  If you can't get in touch with VFR after hitting whatever fix, be on your merry. Its VFR. 

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, RobertE said:

I’m not talking about lost comm procedures when IFR upon reaching a clearance limit but, rather, a simple VFR instruction to fly to such and such a fix.  

What is proper procedure if radio congestion is such that you simply can’t get through to ATC before you’ve reached the point to which you’ve been directed?  Proceed on the same heading and altitude or turn to your on course heading (they know your destination because it’s in the system with flight following)?    I faced this dilemma yesterday over Oakland in airspace where they want to control and separate incoming and outgoing commercial and GA traffic in class C airspace.

Just keep going. You received an instruction to keep you away from other traffic. If the instruction was as simple as you say, there was no reporting requirement. Once you get there, the instruction is over and you are under no restrictions.

Your temporary inability to get through to ATC is not even lost comm. 

[jaylw314]

58 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I lost track, so I may be missing somehting. The only times you should ever hear the word "cleared" when normal VFR (as opposed to Special VFR) are "Cleared into the Class B" and when receiving a takeoff or landing clearance. 

You'll hear "clear" as in "remain clear" or "not cleared."

26 minutes ago, steingar said:

If I did a hold every time I lost touch with ATC VFR I'd still be doing one.  If you can't get in touch with VFR after hitting whatever fix, be on your merry. Its VFR. 

If you are in class C and you lose two-way communication, you are supposed to leave unless you are landing.  Likewise, just being VFR doesn't mean you can do whatever you want if ATC asks you to leave.

[peevee]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

Also, I'm pretty sure ATC does NOT enter your route in any system with VFR flight following.  They may write it down on a Post-It and hand it off to the next controller, but I don't think it's official.  Anyone know for sure?

Yes. In a center It goes in as a VP message. Basically an abbreviated flight plan.

[carqwik]

VFR in Class C...just keep going after you followed the initial instruction, you weren't told anything different and you're not IFR.  If the controller used the word "cleared," he probably just had a brain spasm thinking about another aircraft.  It's like when a controller once gave me an altimeter setting when I was at FL 190...

[Hank]

4 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

You'll hear "clear" as in "remain clear" or "not cleared."

 

When Approach tells me to "remain clear of the Bravo," that is not a clearance. Clearances tell you where to go, and how far, while this tells me where NOT to go. ATL Approach covers thousands of square miles, this restricts me from a 30 mile circle--meaning I can go virtually anywhere else.

[Bob - S50]

Was that something like direct to the Coliseum at 2900' or 2000' in anticipation of crossing over the runways on the way to SQL or PAO?  If that was the case I'd probably turn slightly left to to stay clear of the OAK final, below the SFO Class B, and laterally outside the HWD Class D.  I'd then just plan to stay clear of HWD and below the Class B to my destination.

[midlifeflyer]

15 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

You'll hear "clear" as in "remain clear" or "not cleared."

If you are in class C and you lose two-way communication, you are supposed to leave unless you are landing.  Likewise, just being VFR doesn't mean you can do whatever you want if ATC asks you to leave.

In 25+ years, never heard "not cleared" from a Class C TRACON. "Remain clear," of course, but that's not "cleared" as in receiving a clearance.

Changing your current direction of flight and heading in an unexpected direction to depart the Class C is a judgment call. That aside, I don't see the OP's stated scenario as lost comm. I wouldn't have even tried to call ATC at that point.

i don't think anyone suggested you can disobey an ATC instruction, least of all me.

Edited January 30, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[PTK]

22 hours ago, RobertE said:

I’m not talking about lost comm procedures when IFR upon reaching a clearance limit but, rather, a simple VFR instruction to fly to such and such a fix.  

What is proper procedure if radio congestion is such that you simply can’t get through to ATC before you’ve reached the point to which you’ve been directed?  Proceed on the same heading and altitude or turn to your on course heading (they know your destination because it’s in the system with flight following)?    I faced this dilemma yesterday over Oakland in airspace where they want to control and separate incoming and outgoing commercial and GA traffic in class C airspace.

Robert, just to clarify. My understanding is that you are vfr under flight following and established comm with C. You copied instructions to fly to a certain point in C. You reach that point but are unable to contact atc. If I'm understanding you correctly, once I reached that point I have complied with the instruction. And being vfr I resume own navigation to destination. 

And there's no clearance questions. Once you establish comm with C and you hear your call sign you can proceed into class C following any instructions unless they're busy and tell you to remain clear or outside of C. It''s not like B when vfr traffic must be explicitly "cleared through B" before entering.

It’s not necessary to file a Nasa report either.

[ragedracer1977]

Speaking to the folks comparing to IFR flying.  I’m an IR student.  Getting close to check ride.  Perhaps I don’t understand lost comm procedures.  All clearances require a destination airport.  If I am given instructions to fly to a certain point, but then comms are lost, it was my understanding that i continue to fly my clearance.  If I lose comms and just hold forever at the fly to limit.... that seems like it would be a problem.