My busted clearance
>
--Geoff
-----------------------
Here's a little story on the details of my clearance bust in
Canada last year. I want this to be posted anonymously as I
don't want the FAA or (most especially) my insurance company
to learn about it.
-----------------------
About a year ago, I flew as PIC to Ottawa, Canada on a
business trip in a large twin. When preparing to depart the
Ottawa airport on an IFR flight plan, I had a lot of trouble
understanding the clearance delivery controller due to accent
and rate of speech, not to mention that the clearance's route
of flight had no resemblance to my filed route and that I was
unfamiliar with the area, etc. Anyway, I ended up getting
the clearance wrong even after three readings by the
controller and, as a result, almost immediately after takeoff
I found myself in violation of the route. I was busted and
eventually found to have "deviated from an ATC clearance
accepted by you" and fined $200. (Canadian)
After they told me I'd been "convicted" I finally thought to
ask for a tape of the radio transmissions which, to my
surprise, they supplied pretty quickly although not before I
had already sent in the fine.
After reviewing the tape, I felt they'd been a little harsh
with me because, although I'd made a mistake, the controllers
made quite a few errors themselves that contributed to my
making my error. So.....I'm providing the transcript to you
so you can see what happened and draw your own conclusions.
I've changed to N number to protect the guilty (me.) I've
used an actual N number (my apologies if I've picked the N
number of somebody's 172 out there in netland) rather than
simply writing NXXXX because the way the numbers are spoken
are (trivially) important. I've written out the numbers, etc.
the way they were actually spoken.
--------------------------------------------------
The following transcript was prepared by me from a tape
recording provided by the Canadian authorities. I believe
that this transcript accurately reflects my transmissions
as PIC. The transcription of other speakers is my best
estimate of what is on the tape. The date and time is
October 14, 1993, about 2020Z at the Ottawa airport.
----------------------------------------------------
1110A: Clearance delivery, this is November One One One Zero
Alpha requesting clearance. We are prefiled IFR to the Sault
Ste Marie airport.
Ottawa Clearance Delivery (OCD): One One One Zero Alpha
cleared to Sault Ste Marie, Ottawa, Victor three one six, Jet
five two zero North Bay flight plan route, aaa... correction,
Jet five two zero North Bay, Jet five hundred Sault Ste Marie
direct, depart runway two five, squawk code five five seven
two, departure frequency one two eight one seven.
[Anything missing here? Like an altitude or something?]
OCD: One One One Zero Alpha, clearance.
1110A: One Zero Alpha, we got the squawk of five five seven
two and the frequency one two eight point one seven and we
need for you to repeat the route again for us, a little
slower please.
OCD: One One One Zero Alpha is cleared to the Sault Ste Marie
airport via the Ottawa Victor three one six, Jet five two
zero, North Bay, Jet five hundred Sault Ste Marie direct,
depart runway two five, squawk code five five seven two and
your departure frequency twenty-eight seventeen.
1110A: One One One Zero Alpha, you're going to have to read
it to us slower, we can't write as fast as you're saying it.
We're not familiar with the area, so.....
OCD: Ok, One One One Zero Alpha, I'll get right back to you.
I've got a couple of others waiting here.
OCD: US Air twelve thirty-nine cleared to Baltimore
Washington, Ottawa four SID, center stored route, correction,
flight planned route depart runway two five, squawk code
three six two two, departure frequency twenty-eight
seventeen.
US AIR 1239: Ottawa four center stored route, runway two
five, thirty-six twenty-two, twenty-eight seventeen, twelve
thirty-nine.
OCD: US Air twelve thirty nine, read back is correct. One
One nine for the push back and taxi. What gate sir?
[Other traffic deleted]
OCD: Air Canada one five three cleared to the Toronto Pearson
airport, Ottawa four SID, center stored flight planned route.
[...]
OCD: One One One Zero Alpha, want me to try it again?
1110A: One Zero Alpha please go ahead.
OCD: One One One Zero Alpha, cleared to the Sault Ste Marie
via Ottawa, Victor three one six, transition Jet five two zero,
North Bay, that's Yankee Yankee Bravo, Jet five hundred,
Sault Ste Marie, Sierra Sierra Mike, direct, to depart runway
two five, your squawk code five five seven two, departure
frequency one two eight one seven, and that's with the Ottawa
number four standard instrument departure.
1110A: Ok, we've got the Ottawa four standard instrument
departure, Ottawa V-O-R, ahh, then Victor three one six, ahh
[note my incorrect insertion of Ottawa VOR here]
transition Jet five twenty to ahh North Bay ahhh, Jet five
hundred and then ahhh direct I think was that direct Sault
Ste Marie?
OCD: Affirmative, One One One Zero Alpha, after Sierra Sierra
Mike it's direct.
1110A: One Zero Alpha thank you very much. And we're
squawking five five seven two and one twenty-eight point one
seven.
OCD: One One One Zero Alpha read back is correct. Ground
control one two one decimal nine for taxi and what's your
position on the field?
1110A: One Zero Alpha is at Avitat.
OCD: Roger.
-----------------------------------
Break in transcription. Next segment is after takeoff and
between N1110A and Ottawa departure control. Note that there
is a one minute forty second section of tape with ATC
communicating with other aircraft before the first
transmission to 1110A. The frequency congestion made it
impossible to check in with departure until called by
departure.
-----------------------------------
Ottawa Departure ATC: One One Alpha, Ottawa.
[note the error in my call sign here.]
1110A: One Zero Alpha is with you out of one thousand eight
hundred for five.
ATC: Ok sir, where are you going?
1110A: One Zero Alpha is going to KCIU airport.
ATC: Ok, you just took off runway twenty-five, is that
correct?
1110A: That's right. The clearance was to go to the Ottawa
V-O-R. Is that not correct?
ATC: No sir, you're on the Ottawa four SID which is runway
heading. Turn left now heading two eight zero.
1110A: one Zero Alpha heading two eight zero.
ATC: Ok, November One One Zero Alpha, maintain five thousand,
your heading two eight zero, you're on vectors for the on
course.
1110A: one Zero Alpha, heading two eight three.
-------------------------------------
End of tape. Note that the time consumed from Ottawa
departure's first transmission directed to 1110A and the
acceptance of the vector to heading two eight zero was thirty
seconds.
----------------------------------
The following is my (somewhat self serving) analysis of the
transcript. Note that what I did after takeoff was to fly
runway heading for about one minute while I climbed to about
1000 AGL, cleaned up the aircraft, etc. Then I began a slow
turn towards the Ottawa VOR. Runway heading was 250. The
VOR is 320 degrees and about 10 miles from the Ottawa
airport. After about two minutes of flight, ATC called to
ask me where (in the heck) I was going.
The following enumerated points were made to Canadian authorities.
1) The ATC clearance, as intended to be read was:.
"November One One One Zero Alpha is cleared to the Sault Ste
Marie airport via the Ottawa Four SID, Victor 316, transition
to Jet 520, North Bay, Jet 500, Sault Ste Marie, direct,
depart runway 25, squawk code 5572, departure frequency
128.17."
[The Ottawa Four SID requires you to fly runway heading, climb
to and maintain 5000 ft for a vector to on-course.
Why do the bother to publish this kind of SID anyway? Does
it really save all that many words? Wouldn't it be better/safer
to explicitly state the altitude cleared to? I didn't make this
to the Canadians, just to the net.]
2) I needed to request multiple readings of the clearance.
The clearance was read to me three times at my request
because I had difficulty understanding the controller's
accent and rate of speech. Each reading of the clearance by
the controller was different from the others in significant
ways which made it more difficult for me to comprehend the
clearance.
The clearance was completely different from our flight
planned and filed route. Both myself and my co-pilot were
listening using high quality aviation headsets. We were not
distracted by other activities in the cockpit.
3) The clearance was never correctly read to me in proper
sequence.
Note that in all three readings, the controller says,
"....via Ottawa Victor 316..." without stating the full name
of the Ottawa Four SID. [Note that V316 passes through the
Ottawa VOR.] The Ottawa Four SID is not mentioned at all
until the end of the third rendition of the clearance. The
SID is not given in its correct placement in the clearance.
I interpreted the "via Ottawa V316" language to mean that I
should fly from the Ottawa airport directly to the Ottawa
VOR. I thought this interpretation was reasonable because it
was repeated to me three times. I interpreted the Ottawa
Four SID reference after the third iteration of the reading
of the clearance to have only the effect of providing me with
an altitude limit. Hence, after departure, I flew runway
heading while I cleaned up the aircraft. When I reached
about 1000 ft AGL, I commenced a turn towards the Ottawa VOR.
If the clearance had been read to me correctly, I would not
have flown the SID incorrectly. Note that the correct
clearance provides no means to reach the V316 airway from the
SID, hence a vector from ATC is necessary to fly the route.
However, the clearance as I read it back can be flown without
a vector. After hearing the clearance read in this incorrect
way _three_times_, it was stuck in my head that I should fly
directly to the Ottawa VOR from the airport.
4) The controller read clearances to others using proper
formatting.
In the time between readings of my clearance the controller
read clearances to other aircraft. In these cases, the
controller correctly inserted the full name of the SID in its
proper place in the clearance. Note, however, that the
controller told US Air 1239 that his readback was correct
when it was, in fact, not correct. The read back states
"center stored route" while the controller had corrected this
part of his reading to "flight planned route."
5) I did NOT read back the clearance correctly.
Note that I stated in my read back, "Ottawa Four SID,
_Ottawa_VOR_ V316....." An incorrect readback, in effect,
absolves me from blame for deviation from the intended
clearance because I never accepted the clearance as given.
6) The controller accepted my incorrect readback.
The controller did not notice my incorrect read back of the
clearance and stated, "read back correct." If the read back
error had been noted, the deviation would not have occurred.
7) Frequency congestion prevented timely checkin with
departure.
After takeoff, the departure ATC frequency was congested by
other traffic. I was unable to check in for about two
minutes. Note that I was at 1800 feet on checkin and was
probably climbing at 750 fpm. Had I been able to check in
sooner, the deviation would not have occurred. I began my
turn towards the Ottawa VOR after about one minute of flight.
Thus, I was traveling for one minute with no more than a 70
degree error in heading. At an airspeed of 120 kts, this
means I was not more than 1.5 miles to the right of the
expected course at the time the controller first called me.
8) Departure controller did not take timely action to
prevent further deviation.
On initial contact, the departure controller engaged me in a
discussion of which way I was supposed to be going instead of
simply instructing me to turn to the heading he wanted me on.
This discussion consumed an additional thirty second based on
timing of the tape, allowing me to deviate an additional mile
from the intended course. At least half of the resulting
deviation lies at the doorstep of ATC for not immediately
turning me in the right direction. Also note that the
controller initially called me using an incorrect call sign.
Fortunately, I correctly assumed the controller was calling
me and responded immediately with my checkin.
I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the
controller's delay in giving me a vector indicates that there
was never a significant violation of separation standards.
The controller's tone of voice indicates a mild bemusement,
not a concern. I also note that in the previous minute, the
controller has just dealt with another aircraft going in the
"wrong" direction. Perhaps he was wondering if all the
aircraft coming at him would be going in the wrong direction.
9) No hazardous condition was created by the deviation.
This flight was conducted in excellent VMC conditions. Safe
visual separation was maintained with all other aircraft. No
degradation in safety resulted. This conclusion is based on
my own observations from the cockpit and from analysis of
controller's response and tone of voice to the deviation.
In the above analysis, I am not merely picking nits in my
criticism of the ATC errors. I am simply pointing out that
any operation involving humans will have many deviations from
absolute perfection. Fortunately, minute deviations rarely
have any significant consequence unless the aggregate affect
of many such deviations all sum in a direction leading to
danger. It is obvious that I made an error in understanding
the clearance. But, ideally that error would have been
caught by the readback. My error was caused by the ATC
errors. Had the ATC errors not occurred, no deviation would
have occurred.
The magnitude of the resulting deviation was minimal. What
objective standard of deviation was actually determined? I
was told neither how far off course I was nor what is the
standard for a reportable deviation. My calculation
indicates that I could not have been more than one mile from
the intended flight path when communication was established
with ATC.
The above arguments were given to the Canadian authorities in
writing. I then spoke with one of their inspectors about it.
With respect to Point 1 above, they (the inspector) agree.
With respect to point 2, they agree that the first two
readings were rather fast but that they didn't see my point
about the accent. (Note that the guy I talked to sounded
just like the controller.) He claimed that the third reading
was "painfully slow" while I'd call it "normal" speed. With
respect to point 3, they agree that it wasn't read properly
or in proper sequence and that they've considered this in
counseling of the controller and other training of their
personnel, but continued to assert that I should have gotten
it right anyway. With respect to point 4, they agree but say
it's irrelevant. I pretty much agree except that it shows
the controller was capable of reading the thing right, he
just didn't read it right to me. With respect to point 5,
they agree I didn't read it back properly but assert that
because I did read back the Ottawa 4 SID part, I should have
flown it and if I had, no violation would have occurred. I
agreed that if I'd flown the runway heading until receiving a
vector, I would have been ok. But then I asked him if this
might not have delayed the error until the next step in the
flight. E.g., suppose they say, "N1110A, cleared to on-
course." What do I do? I turn towards and fly to the Ottawa
VOR as I read back. Well, this would be just as wrong as
what I did. Their retort: "well, in that case, it wouldn't
have been your fault." So.....they admit that there's a
problem, but say that the preponderance of the error is on my
side, so I must be punished. Point 6, they agree. Point 7,
they say, "so what, you should have flown your clearance."
Point 8 they say that the controller shouldn't have to be
rushed into giving me a vector and it's still my fault that
I'm going in the wrong direction. Point 9 they agree but say
that if a hazard had in fact resulted then I'd have been in a
lot more trouble with them......bigger fines, certificate
action, etc. As to how far I actually was off course, they
have no idea. That is, there's no radar data to objectively
report where I was vs where I was supposed to be vs where I
say I was. They didn't care for my own calculation of my
position because "there's no way to verify it." He couldn't
tell me what the standard for reportable error was and wasn't
sure if there was one. Basically, I admit I'm going in the
wrong direction so I'm busted.
I'm not complaining very much about the fine. It's pretty
minimal considering the other costs involved in flying or the
amount of time I've devoted to analyzing this thing. But I
do think they were a little hard on me. (Whine, whine,
whimper, whimper. Hold the flames, please.)
I have learned quite a bit from this experience. I will be
paying a lot more attention to getting every detail of the
clearance correct and understood, especially when the
clearance differs from what I've filed. I also bought one of
those little digital playback gadgets which so far has proved
to be approximately useless. The $200 fine was cheaper than
an equivalent amount of dual in the subject of copying and
understanding clearances. I also think that the folks in
Canada might be sharpening up their procedures a bit as a
result of this incident. If so, then it'll all be worth
while, I suppose.
Thanks for listening. Sorry it is such a long post.