ATC Authority Over VFR in Controlled Airspace

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
22,374
Location
PUDBY
Display Name

Display name:
Richard Palm
The FAA Chief Counsel has issued an interpretation saying that VFR aircraft must obey ATC instructions in controlled airspace:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...erps/2013/Karas_2013_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

Excerpt:

"Pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b). ATC instructions include headings, turns, altitude instructions and general directions...A pilot flying VFR in Class E airspace, which is controlled airspace, is not required to communicate with ATC; however, if a pilot is communicating with ATC and ATC issues an instruction, the pilot must comply with that instruction."

As an attorney friend wrote on the Avsig Forum, "Some folks [can't] help but ask for legal interpretations that end up biting us in the you-know-where...Now we have a half-baked opinion on a hypothetical situation that is not the product of briefing or argument from the pilot's side and will be cited and referred to by FSDO inspectors, litigation counsel, ALJs and the NTSB in enforcement actions."

This question has previously been argued extensively in relation to class E airspace here and on other forums:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=561036#post561036

What I'm wondering is this: Does this interpretation give ATC the authority to order a pilot to land, as was done at Gateway (IWA) last year?


[2022 edit: Fixed broken link to the Chief Counsel opinion]
[2024 edit: Fixed broken link to earlier Gateway thread.]
 
Last edited:
Can't help you with your question from a legal perspective but I can't imagine why anyone would choose to not obey ATC instructions if that pilot chose to be in communication with ATC anyway. If you don't want the help of ATC then don't call them in Class E airspace.

My initial thought to your question is no ATC would not have authority to require a plane to land because decisions regarding landing destinations would fall under pilot in command responsibilities. I would equate it to something like when the tower asks a pilot of a small plane to keep his or her speed up on final- the pilot flying gets to make the call if that is a practical, safe instruction to follow. However, that same command given by ATC in the form of, " maintain 120 knots to the outer marker" sounds to me to be more like a command and I'd then be forced to follow it.

I agree that the ATC system is full of subtle differences and it's often impossible to know if, from a legal perspective, excersizing your responsibilities as PIC could leave you vulnerable to actions against you if something went wrong. That being said, I'll live by the words a CFI told me once which were, " If ATC messes up, they still get to go home after ther shift is up. If the pilot messes up, they might not go home after their shift."
 
Last edited:
Why did he feel that he needed to ask that question ?
 
A. All planes were ordered to land, both IFR and VFR on 9/11/2001. ATC was issuing the instructions.

B. People wonder why I turn the radios off(except GPS and TXP) when I fly. Wonder no more.

C. This was really never in doubt. Of course, it's now in less doubt but one would have to be completely clueless to think a fed agency would deny it's control over anything having to do with the public(flying or otherwise).
 
Why does the FAA post the requester's address? If something were to happen to someone because of an interpretation and they get their ass whipped, can the FAA be held liable for reckless endangerment, or at minimum negligent indifference?
 
A. All planes were ordered to land, both IFR and VFR on 9/11/2001. ATC was issuing the instructions.

B. People wonder why I turn the radios off(except GPS and TXP) when I fly. Wonder no more.

C. This was really never in doubt. Of course, it's now in less doubt but one would have to be completely clueless to think a fed agency would deny it's control over anything having to do with the public(flying or otherwise).

You're required to monitor 121.5 if you have the equipment.
 
Why did he feel that he needed to ask that question ?
In this case,I think it was a good call. When I read the opinion last week, I thought the answer was pretty obvious but, with the number of folks on forums who thought otherwise, better a public opinion from the Chief Counsel to set the record straight than some independent-minded pilot getting his certificate suspended for refusing to obey a clear ATC instruction in controlled airspace.
 
Once I was getting FF from ATL app just outside the class B. She kept giving me vectors that even took me further outside the class B. I terminated FF and went on my merry way. Don't have to use their service in class E but if you do you have to comply with instructions.

No ATC can't make you land unless it's national security. That command will come from SCATANA procedures and it'll be way above the head of the app / local controller on position.
 
Funny the talky squawky fans that want everyone in the system under control will get less VFR participation. You better look out the window ladies, your ATC overlords are not required to provide separation and pilots that wear pants will not be on the radio.
 
Once I was getting FF from ATL app just outside the class B. She kept giving me vectors that even took me further outside the class B. I terminated FF and went on my merry way. Don't have to use their service in class E but if you do you have to comply with instructions.

"Termination of flight following denied, stay with me on this frequency. Fly heading 360."
 
better a public opinion from the Chief Counsel to set the record straight

No one reads those. I'll bet better than than 80% of the pilot population is blissfully ignorant of the Chief Counsel's many conflicting interpretations.
 
Once I was getting FF from ATL app just outside the class B. She kept giving me vectors that even took me further outside the class B. I terminated FF and went on my merry way. Don't have to use their service in class E but if you do you have to comply with instructions.

Keep in mind that the instructions under discussion are issued in violation of Order JO 7110.65.
 
Keep in mind that the instructions under discussion are issued in violation of Order JO 7110.65.

Can you snip and post that for one who isn't familiar with the JO regs please?
 
In this case,I think it was a good call. When I read the opinion last week, I thought the answer was pretty obvious but, with the number of folks on forums who thought otherwise, better a public opinion from the Chief Counsel to set the record straight than some independent-minded pilot getting his certificate suspended for refusing to obey a clear ATC instruction in controlled airspace.

How does this opinion improve what we can do as pilots ?

Based on the statement in the reply 'the remainder of your questions is inappropriate for legal interpretation', this must have been one of a number of inane questions.

Lets say you have a commercial operation and you want to do something that is not clearly spelled out in the regs and it requires an actual interpretation, go ahead, ask 1 question. It seems like there are a couple of people who just need to get questions answered for the sake of being right. I dont think any of these unneccesary questions has ever led to a interpretation that opened up the space we have under the regs (the only one I can think of is that private pilots are allowed to get paid to tow gliders).
 
"Termination of flight following denied, stay with me on this frequency. Fly heading 360."

Use of flight following is not required. Radio contact with ATC in Class E is not required.
 
"Termination of flight following denied, stay with me on this frequency. Fly heading 360."

Yeah that's not gonna happen.

I was working a Falcon 10 once on approach going into HXD. They were about 25 miles NW at 6,000 ft and doing 370 kts GS. Normally I could care less about his speed but he was number two for the visual and I needed him to slow down. I asked him to maintain 250 kts below 10,000 ft for the sequence. He came back with a smart azz reply of "that's an indicated air speed requirement, not true!" I knew darn well the winds aloft weren't that strong and the difference between IAS and TAS at that altitude wasn't that great. So if he wasn't going to slow down, fine, I vectored him behind arriving traffic on final. He immediately came back with an IFR cancelation and switch to advisory. "cancelation received, radar services terminated, SQK VFR, freq change approved." throw the strip to data and be done with him. If he wants to come barreling into an uncontrolled airport VFR and at high speed, that's his prerogative.
 
Last edited:
A. All planes were ordered to land, both IFR and VFR on 9/11/2001. ATC was issuing the instructions.

True, but the situation at Gateway was not a national security emergency. The order to clear all airspace of civilian traffic came from the White House.
 
Last edited:
True, but the situation at Gateway was not a national security emergency. The 9/11 order came from the White House.

And I didn't say the order came from ATC, I said they issued it. How do you know the situation was not a national emergency(at the time)? I'm sure we know that now, but what about when the instruction was given? I haven't read the whole string, but after this new ruling, it looks like an instruction to land, is an order to land. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck.
 
True, but the situation at Gateway was not a national security emergency. The order to clear all airspace of civilian traffic came from the White House.

Do White House orders trump all other orders and laws ?
 
Would you please provide a reference?

"FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE." [emhasis added]

Note the use of the word "shall." The only exception appears to be if the aircraft does not have the capability. For example, I assume that an aircraft with only one radio would not be required to monitor 121.5 if that radio were needed for another purpose.
 
"FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE." [emhasis added]

Note the use of the word "shall." The only exception appears to be if the aircraft does not have the capability. For example, I assume that an aircraft with only one radio would not be required to monitor 121.5 if that radio were needed for another purpose.

Excellent. In good Ayn Rand method, the US govt has made everything illegal. I break a federal law every time I fly. How will I sleep at night?
 
Would you please provide a reference?

Well, there's this:
FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE... NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS
SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM)
FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN
UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF 243.0.
IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE
DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL
SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD
121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT
INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY
RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE.
 
"FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE." [emhasis added]

Note the use of the word "shall." The only exception appears to be if the aircraft does not have the capability. For example, I assume that an aircraft with only one radio would not be required to monitor 121.5 if that radio were needed for another purpose.

And another BS law...


By a show of hands.......... how many civilian aircraft have 243.0 receiving equipment :dunno::dunno:...


Which begs the next question... can one military aircraft force another military aircraft down:dunno::confused:
 
And I didn't say the order came from ATC, I said they issued it.

I'm not saying you said that. My point is that the White House ordering all civilian traffic out of the sky does not tell us one way or the other whether ATC can order an airplane to land on their own authority.

How do you know the situation was not a national emergency(at the time)? I'm sure we know that now, but what about when the instruction was given?

I think they'll tell you. The appearance of military aircraft in your vicinity would also be a clue.

I haven't read the whole string, but after this new ruling, it looks like an instruction to land, is an order to land. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck.

Maybe. That's why I posed the question.
 
Gah, that's a very big document. I wonder where the relevant passages are?

Well, let's narrow it down a bit by looking at just the assignment of headings to VFR aircraft where ATC has no responsibility for separation or sequencing. That would leave aircraft receiving only radar traffic advisories. Relevant passages are, 2−1−6. SAFETY ALERT, 2−1−21. TRAFFIC ADVISORIES, and 5−6−1. APPLICATION.
 
Do White House orders trump all other orders and laws ?

I think the executive branch has some type of authority to deal with national emergencies, but I don't know how far that extends. I'm not a lawyer, and my knowledge of Constitutional law is definitely at the amateur level.
 
Well, I imagine.

Black helicopter!! Run, run for your lives! :lol::lol:

It is rather sad though that the expansion of federal authority seeps into every crack of civil activity. I will stop here before I cross the line.
 
Can't help you with your question from a legal perspective but I can't imagine why anyone would choose to not obey ATC instructions if that pilot chose to be in communication with ATC anyway. If you don't want the help of ATC then don't call them in Class E airspace.

In general, I agree with you.
 
Could we please save opinions about politicians and politics for the "Spin Zone"? Thanks in advance.
 
Back
Top