BeechTalk - BT - We only give clearances to helicopters...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2008, 23:39

So has anyone every been to KDAG in Barstow/Daggett CA? It was one of the fuel stops on a recent trip I made. Nothing at Airnav indicates anything unusual about it. Does seem to have an military base or something on it (airnav indicates 49% military traffic and when we were there we saw a lot of military helicopters). Anyway, on to the story:

We landed and refueled, then called FSS via telephone to pick up an IFR clearance. The weather was VFR with 4500 ft ceilings (bases were about 6500 MSL) but I was trying to do "the right thing." After being on hold for a few minutes, the briefer comes back and informs me that approach can only issue clearances to helicopters. I was annoyed that I had spent 5 minutes on the phone trying to pick up a clearance that I could've just got in the air so I quickly said thanks and hung up. We took off and called ATC. We got a squawk code, were id'd on radar, then told to expect our clearance as we climbed through 7,000 ft. I told the controller that we would be unable to maintain VFR as the ceilings were at 6500. He told me that their minimum vectoring altitude in that area was 7500 and that he was unable to issue a clearance until I reached that altitude. Hmm. I assume he could hear the sarcasm in my voice when I said "You guys seem to have a really good system here, what other options are available to us?" I was told I could turn back west (180 degrees from my intended course) to climb above or just look for a break in the clouds. I simply continued on course about 500 ft below the cloud deck and after a few minutes the controller must have sensed my frustration because he issued me a clearance.

This seemed really odd. What if the clouds had been much lower? How would I have obtained a clearance? Why do they only issue clearances to helicopters? Something else to mention, this airport has both a GPS 22 and a GPS 26 approach. As we were approaching to land we requested the GPS 26 but were denied because of the proximity of restricted airspace, which is close but not conflicting with the route on the approach. We were instead issued the GPS 26 approach.

Has anyone run into a situation like this before?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2008, 12:39

Username Protected wrote:

Has anyone run into a situation like this before?

There is a departure procedure in place http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0712/SW3TO.PDF, so it really sounds like ATC (OR FSS) may have dropped the ball on this one IF you filed the departure procedure

Rwys 22, 26, climbing right turn
heading 090° and DAG R-223 to DAG VORTAC, then
climb in DAG holding pattern (NE, right turns, 223°
inbound) to 7500 before departing on course.

I'd call the ATC folks and see exactly what happened.

Allen

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2008, 16:52

Username Protected wrote:

Has anyone run into a situation like this before?

There is a departure procedure in place http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0712/SW3TO.PDF, so it really sounds like ATC (OR FSS) may have dropped the ball on this one IF you filed the departure procedure

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2008, 17:14

Username Protected wrote:

I dunno, sounds like they dropped the ball even if he didn't file the DP. My understanding is their standard operating procedure in the case that someone does not file a DP should be to amend the clearance unless "No DP" is in the remarks. Presuming he did not file No DP, they should assign it to him and then give clearance.

All that aside, DP or no, giving clearance only to helicopters is very peculiar.

I think the annotation no DP means you do not have a written copy in your possession, that's all that is. DP is never "mandatory" just as a STAR is not mandatory.

Now, that's not to say like you say above, you won't get the amended clearance that "just so happens" to be the DP, or even radar vectors that just "happens" to put you on the DP.

Same would go for a STAR, you can put no STAR, but I'd bet the radar vectors would just so happen to put on on that STAR along with the other arrivals.

Whatever the case, something slipped up.....

Allen

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2008, 13:47

Username Protected wrote:

So has anyone every been to KDAG in Barstow/Daggett CA? It was one of the fuel stops on a recent trip I made. Nothing at Airnav indicates anything unusual about it. Does seem to have an military base or something on it (airnav indicates 49% military traffic and when we were there we saw a lot of military helicopters). Anyway, on to the story:

We landed and refueled, then called FSS via telephone to pick up an IFR clearance. The weather was VFR with 4500 ft ceilings (bases were about 6500 MSL) but I was trying to do "the right thing." After being on hold for a few minutes, the briefer comes back and informs me that approach can only issue clearances to helicopters. I was annoyed that I had spent 5 minutes on the phone trying to pick up a clearance that I could've just got in the air so I quickly said thanks and hung up. We took off and called ATC. We got a squawk code, were id'd on radar, then told to expect our clearance as we climbed through 7,000 ft. I told the controller that we would be unable to maintain VFR as the ceilings were at 6500. He told me that their minimum vectoring altitude in that area was 7500 and that he was unable to issue a clearance until I reached that altitude. Hmm. I assume he could hear the sarcasm in my voice when I said "You guys seem to have a really good system here, what other options are available to us?" I was told I could turn back west (180 degrees from my intended course) to climb above or just look for a break in the clouds. I simply continued on course about 500 ft below the cloud deck and after a few minutes the controller must have sensed my frustration because he issued me a clearance.

This seemed really odd. What if the clouds had been much lower? How would I have obtained a clearance? Why do they only issue clearances to helicopters? Something else to mention, this airport has both a GPS 22 and a GPS 26 approach. As we were approaching to land we requested the GPS 26 but were denied because of the proximity of restricted airspace, which is close but not conflicting with the route on the approach. We were instead issued the GPS 26 approach.

Has anyone run into a situation like this before?

Have you ever called back later and asked? If you're not comfortable with that, ask a flight instructor that is familiar with the area. I've called several times and either gotten answers to my questions, or gone to the FAA with recommended changes that have lead to modifications in some cases. You can also ask FSDO or Flight Standards in OKC. Just be nice when you call and say you are trying to understand something that doesn't seem to make sense. Start with someone you know well like a flight instructor, if it doesn't make sense then, call back and ask departure how one is to get out of there IFR. Inquiries like this can lead to positive changes or good answers that one needs to understand if they frequent that area. One can never count on getting a clearance in the air in time to stay out of low IMC; therefore, I don't depart without a clearance unless I can get well along before I need the clearance. I've had better experiences calling departure direct for a clearance in many circumstances than calling LM.

Best,

Dave

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2008, 20:17

Sorry guys and gals, it has been a while since I've visited the site. I was thinking of filing a NASA report but I do like the idea of calling the facility to find out more info. What's the best way to obtain the number for that facility?