Pilot and Air Traffic Controller Communication

When you think about it, the IFR system is really a wondrous thing. For example, every airport, navaid, fix and procedure has certain basic characteristics shared by all other similar facilities. For another example, a unique name or identifier is assigned, helping eliminate confusion between ATC and pilots. To navigate from one to another, the operator requests a route, naming the various facilities to be used. A flight plan is filed, or a radio request is made, a controller compares the request to his or her needs and a clearance is issued. On one level, its a simple system. On another, its incredibly complex. So complex, in fact, errors are found every day by pilots and controllers, and then corrected. The result is a relatively safe and efficient national airspace system. One of the keys to making it all work, however, is pilots and controllers cross-checking each others work. Most of the time, no errors are found. Sometimes, though, someone forgets something, or the system proves too inflexible. In those situations, operators and ATC sit down to figure out what went wrong and develop procedures to consider each others needs. This is my tale of finding an omission in the system, and how little effort it took for a fix to be implemented.

Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

FAA consolidations have led to "canned clearances" which, in certain regions like the San Francisco Bay Area, are unpublished and can contain omissions, leaving pilots without a complete, flyable route, especially in lost communication scenarios.
Pilots are responsible for ensuring they can fly any received clearance to an approach fix, and must not accept incomplete clearances, pressing for clarification on routes and lost communication procedures.
Actively reporting identified deficiencies in clearances to ATC supervisors is crucial for improving the system, as controllers are professionals who welcome feedback to ensure safe and effective procedures.