ATC Authority Over VFR in Controlled Airspace

N801BH said:
Agreed.......... The OFF knob on the radio is a wonderful thing...:yes:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the pilot in the Gateway case was in class D airspace, so that option was not legally available to her.

Of course, I've been known to accidentally mis-set the radios. :devil:
 
jspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if you don't want to surrender control of your aircraft to ATC then don't call them for help in locating observed air traffic which may be in such proximity to the position or intended route of flight of your aircraft to warrant your attention?
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, it was Class C, not Class E, but KSJC Tower instructed me to fly into clouds to cross the field. Needless to say, the reply was "unable." They amended the instruction, but if they hadn't for whatever reason, I wasn't going to fly into the clouds.

In Class E once approaching KMRY with flight following, ATC instructed me to begin my descent. The field was officially VFR, but I had trouble sighting the field when I felt I should have seen it. When I eventually found it, I didn't believe the 2500 foot reported ceiling (with an edge just beyond the runway threshold) -- it looked more like 1000. So, I diverted to KSNS instead.
 
Palmpilot said:
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.

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

Maybe. That's why I posed the question.
Click to expand...

I believe you are on the road of 'reducto ad absurdem'. Let me assist you. The entire fleet of all aircraft in the air on 9/11 were ordered to land. ATC issued such instructions. Ergo the WH has the power, which is not to be confused with the authority -- to do such. That power is backed up by military aircraft, which is a whole new fresh can of worms concerning lawful military orders. But, since no one questioned it at the time, it has now expanded the power of the exec far, way, way beyond what it was originally intended.

In a very real sense, what the feds order or decree, and what the public allows them to control are going to have to stop at some point. Of course, as you likely know I've reached my point in the sand, and everyone else has their own line in the sand(or not, some like complete relinqushment of authority to an external) which is further than mine.

So, as I started in this thread, so I will finish. Of course they grant themselves that authority, of course I will ignore the radio when I fly, of course we will continue on in this same vein -- until, at some point we don't.
 
The women in the Gateway case was inexperienced. Still the controller had no authority to force her to land. My response would have been "give me a phone number to call because I'm continuing to my destination." Once outside the class D I'd change freq on my own. On the phone I would be polite and ask if there was a pilot deviation. If not, then we're done here. I'd also ask if that controller's radar feed is certified to issue vectors because I'd be willing to bet its for advisories only.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think they'll tell you. The appearance of military aircraft in your vicinity would also be a clue.
Click to expand...


With JBLM (that's Fort Lewis and McChord AFB to you old timers) nearby we have military aircraft in the area on a routine basis. Other than to avoid a conflict as with any other aircraft, I pay them no mind.
 
As I mentioned in the Gateway thread, I once had a controller essentially try to instruct me to land when I was IFR. As it happened, the conversation was so distracting that I got far enough off course that a missed approach became mandatory under the regs. If that hadn't happened, and if I had seen the airport at DH, could I have been sanctioned if I had flown the missed approach anyway?

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=988559#post988559

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=989693#post989693
 
Ghery said:
With JBLM (that's Fort Lewis and McChord AFB to you old timers) nearby we have military aircraft in the area on a routine basis. Other than to avoid a conflict as with any other aircraft, I pay them no mind.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said "military aircraft showing an intention to intercept you."
 
MAKG1 said:
Well, it was Class C, not Class E, but KSJC Tower instructed me to fly into clouds to cross the field. Needless to say, the reply was "unable." They amended the instruction, but if they hadn't for whatever reason, I wasn't going to fly into the clouds.

In Class E once approaching KMRY with flight following, ATC instructed me to begin my descent. The field was officially VFR, but I had trouble sighting the field when I felt I should have seen it. When I eventually found it, I didn't believe the 2500 foot reported ceiling (with an edge just beyond the runway threshold) -- it looked more like 1000. So, I diverted to KSNS instead.
Click to expand...

Right. I fly into Class C every flight because my home field is a class C and know full well that ATC gives headings all the time to VFR traffic and expect those pilots to comply with those headings. That being said, of course you can reply "unable" and ask for another set of instructions. That's where this whole " have to follow orders" becomes so cloudy to me. If a pilot can say, "unable" then truely ATC does not have the final say- which they should not in my opinion. Therefore, if given an instruction by ATC that the pilot deems unsafe or impractical, a simple "unable" should be sufficient to fix any conflict between the pilot and ATC.

I'm very appreciative of ATC's service and they do a great job all the time, but I don't view them as gods of the sky. I'll listen to their instructions and follow them as long as they don't accidentally put me in danger.
 
N801BH said:
And another BS law...


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

More than you might imagine, but not typical light GA planes. My guess is almost all civilian military contract carriers like Miami Air, Omni Air, National Air Cargo, and others. There are over 1,300 aircraft in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, and I'd guess a significant portion of those have UHF equipment on board. There are other civilian operators such as Phoenix Air and Omega Air that do target towing, ECM testing, and in-air refueling. Those doubtless have UHF.

I know you were probably referring to small GA planes not having UHF, but there are still likely several thousand civilian aircraft that are equipped.
 
Palmpilot said:
"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.
Click to expand...

What makes you think a notice from the Flight Data Center is inherently regulatory? Everything in a NOTAM that is regulatory will have a primary source backing it up (i.e. FAA regulation or statute.) So you need to locate the primary source. The NOTAM isn't primary. FDC can't make up a regulatory requirement like that on its own because it would violate statutory requirements on how regulations are to be created.
 
Just remember that 91.3 is subject to the Monday morning quaterback rule and you can be benched if you cannot substantiate your position. Choose prudently, for my sake and yours. If you go off half-cocked, you make it tougher for the next pilot to justify.
 
Jim Logajan said:
What makes you think a notice from the Flight Data Center is inherently regulatory?
Click to expand...

FDC NOTAMs are clearly defined by the FAA as regulatory in nature
JO 7930.2M:
Section 2. NOTAM System

2-2-1. NOTAM CLASSIFICATION
b. FDC NOTAM. Flight information that is regulatory in nature including, but not limited to, changes to IFR charts, procedures, and airspace usage.
Click to expand...

If FDC NOTAMs are not regulatory, how can an FDC NOTAM declare an approach (which is fully described in the regulations) to be NA or modify the parameters of the approach?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Just remember that 91.3 is subject to the Monday morning quaterback rule and you can be benched if you cannot substantiate your position. Choose prudently, for my sake and yours. If you go off half-cocked, you make it tougher for the next pilot to justify.
Click to expand...

Screw the next pilot. I ain't flying scared of every little b'crat rule so some future schmuck might have it a little easier. If future pilots want freedom they have to take it for themselves. Same as current pilots.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Screw the next pilot. I ain't flying scared of every little b'crat rule so some future schmuck might have it a little easier. If future pilots want freedom they have to take it for themselves. Same as current pilots.
Click to expand...

So, we should tolerate you being a jerk because of your "freedom?"

How about freedom of the rest of us to land while your butt is in the way?

Flying is inherently cooperative, and pilots who don't understand that have no business in the air. It would be nice if flight rules weren't necessary, but you're the textbook example why they are.
 
JeffDG said:
FDC NOTAMs are clearly defined by the FAA as regulatory in nature
JO 7930.2M:
Click to expand...

You are misreading that. It does not say the NOTAMs are regulatory, only that regulation changes that appear in NOTAMs should be labeled or categorization under "FDC NOTAM".

By the way, that is an internal Order and the target audience is FAA personnel, not pilots: "Originators of airmen information are expected to inform the National Flight Data Center (NFDC) in sufficient time before the effective dates of changes to permit publishing of aeronautical data on the various charts or in the appropriate publications."

If FDC NOTAMs are not regulatory, how can an FDC NOTAM declare an approach (which is fully described in the regulations) to be NA or modify the parameters of the approach?
Click to expand...

A good question - you need to locate the statute(s) or CFR regulation(s) that directly or indirectly tell pilots that FDC NOTAMs are regulatory. Otherwise these references become a case of a self-referential or circular claims of being regulatory. My ASA FAR/AIM index just points back to the AIM section regarding NOTAMS.
 
Jim Logajan said:
What makes you think a notice from the Flight Data Center is inherently regulatory?...
Click to expand...

That's what I was taught in ground school, but I don't know the statutory or regulatory underpinning. Even if they weren't regulatory, the sentence "BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE" makes it a moot point for me.

I'm also under the impression that there have been enforcement cases where sanctions for violating FDC NOTAMs have been upheld.
 
weilke said:
Why did he feel that he needed to ask that question ?
Click to expand...
Because there are more fiking morons out there who typ faster than they will ever think, than you would believe.

This, if we are lucky, will end up like (Robert Miller and) the icing interpretation. If we are not lucky, will end up another nail in the coffin of VFR in America. Sigh.
 
Jim Logajan said:
A good question - you need to locate the statute(s) or CFR regulation(s) that directly or indirectly tell pilots that FDC NOTAMs are regulatory. Otherwise these references become a case of a self-referential or circular claims of being regulatory. My ASA FAR/AIM index just points back to the AIM section regarding NOTAMS.
Click to expand...

I'm not above correcting myself, and I found what appears to be one applicable regulation:

SFAR No. 60 to Part 91.

However, unless I am misreading it, all the regulatory NOTAMs seem to be only for rules issued pursuant to 91.139.
 
MAKG1 said:
So, we should tolerate you being a jerk because of your "freedom?"

How about freedom of the rest of us to land while your butt is in the way?

Flying is inherently cooperative, and pilots who don't understand that have no business in the air. It would be nice if flight rules weren't necessary, but you're the textbook example why they are.
Click to expand...

Oops, I'm the jerk. I'm the guy that's going to turn the radios off and fly where I want when I want(within current airspace rules).

Most non-pilots think it was good that all air traffic stopped on 9/11, prolly most pilots think it was good too.

Now, it's ok for ATC to give VFR pilots directional instructions. We've already had a controller get a confused pilot to land the plane. It's ok, we trust the feds, they know what they are doing. It won't be long until we're like Europe, and then worse.
 
docmirror said:
Oops, I'm the jerk. I'm the guy that's going to turn the radios off and fly where I want when I want(within current airspace rules).
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, that may be legal, but you're a hazard if you do that.

Aviation is inherently cooperative. Making yourself a hazard just to assert your power to do so is immature. And reasonably safe flying requires maturity.

You are not only risking your own life, but that of your victims. Midairs always require at least two aircraft.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I'm not above correcting myself, and I found what appears to be one applicable regulation:

SFAR No. 60 to Part 91.

However, unless I am misreading it, all the regulatory NOTAMs seem to be only for rules issued pursuant to 91.139.
Click to expand...

It's possible that all the NOTAMs labeled "special notice" are issued pursuant to 91.139 or a similar regulation, but I'm speculating. I found a list of NOTAMs with that label, including the one we're discussing, on an FAA Web page:

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotW...eryType=ALLSPECIALNOTICES&formatType=DOMESTIC

I also discovered that the Pilot/Controller Glossary defines "FDC NOTAM" as a NOTAM that is regulatory in nature. (It's under the definition of "notice to airmen.") I still don't know the regulatory or statutory underpinning, but that definition imples that the FAA thinks they are all regulatory.

"b. FDC NOTAM− A NOTAM regulatory in
nature, transmitted by USNOF and given system
wide dissemination."​
 
So I shouldn't fly to the extent the rules allow me, to perhaps save a shred of freedom for some unknown future pilot? The old preserve our rights by not exercising them fallacy. Bit naive.
MAKG1 said:
So, we should tolerate you being a jerk because of your "freedom?"

How about freedom of the rest of us to land while your butt is in the way?

Flying is inherently cooperative, and pilots who don't understand that have no business in the air. It would be nice if flight rules weren't necessary, but you're the textbook example why they are.
Click to expand...
 
MAKG1 said:
In a nutshell, that may be legal, but you're a hazard if you do that.

Aviation is inherently cooperative. Making yourself a hazard just to assert your power to do so is immature. And reasonably safe flying requires maturity.

You are not only risking your own life, but that of your victims. Midairs always require at least two aircraft.
Click to expand...

You misconstrue my reasons for turning off my radio. It is not an intent to make myself a hazard. It is intended to go where I want to go, when I want to go with a minimum of outside interference(including ATC). You, on the other hand appear to be one of the advocates of more rules, regulations, control, oversight, management, and authority. Sometimes simply for authority sake itself.

This is where we differ. If my insistence on my liberty to use the NAS any way I please(within the rules of the current airspace) puts myself and others at greater risk, well that is one of the components of liberty in this country, and I think you should learn to live with a little disappointment in that respect.
 
ClimbnSink said:
So I shouldn't fly to the extent the rules allow me, to perhaps save a shred of freedom for some unknown future pilot? The old preserve our rights by not exercising them fallacy. Bit naive.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's naive and selfish to indulge yourself at others expense. That's how you get the "right" taken away from you outright. Not that you ever had the "right" to fly. If you did, there would be no such thing as a certificate.

So, let's be a bit older than 12 and not give those who might like to ban general aviation the ammo they need.
 
docmirror said:
You misconstrue my reasons for turning off my radio. It is not an intent to make myself a hazard. It is intended to go where I want to go, when I want to go with a minimum of outside interference(including ATC). You, on the other hand appear to be one of the advocates of more rules, regulations, control, oversight, management, and authority. Sometimes simply for authority sake itself.
Click to expand...

Wow, you misquote BOTH of us. That takes effort.

Obviously you don't INTEND to make yourself a hazard. But you make yourself one anyway.

Flying is inherently cooperative. Keep your radio on and be a responsible adult.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not that you ever had the "right" to fly. If you did, there would be no such thing as a certificate.
Click to expand...

Someone will be along with the judicial ruling that flying is in fact a right. I'm not going to look it up. And while were at it, rights can be taken away only after due process(criminal trial).
 
MAKG1 said:
Not at all. It's naive and selfish to indulge yourself at others expense. That's how you get the "right" taken away from you outright. Not that you ever had the "right" to fly. If you did, there would be no such thing as a certificate.
Click to expand...

From the Federal Aviation Act of 1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.
 
MAKG1 said:
Wow, you misquote BOTH of us. That takes effort.

Obviously you don't INTEND to make yourself a hazard. But you make yourself one anyway.

Flying is inherently cooperative. Keep your radio on and be a responsible adult.
Click to expand...

Someone edited a post that I was quoting, and it got changed. I won't keep my radio on and I will be a responsible adult. You see, being responsible is the other face of the coin. I am responsible for myself, my actions and in that respect I'll see and avoid, prolly better than 90% of other pilots. I'll abide by the rules of the air, and direction of flight, and lighting, and ground operations. That's being responsible. Keep a radio on so that others can instruct me has nothing to do with ME being responsible.
 
roncachamp said:
From the Federal Aviation Act of 1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.
Click to expand...

And the truth----- shall set you freeeeeeee!

(there's that word again)
 
roncachamp said:
From the Federal Aviation Act of 1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.
Click to expand...

If it can be taken away, it's not a right. Since this is a public law, the so-called "right" can be taken away by changing the law. Can't take away a right through legislation.
 
wsuffa said:
If it can be taken away, it's not a right. Since this is a public law, the so-called "right" can be taken away by changing the law. Can't take away a right through legislation.
Click to expand...

By that reasoning there are no rights.
 
N801BH said:
Do White House orders trump all other orders and laws ?
Click to expand...

I think so, at least at the time they are given. I thought it takes an act of congress to over throw a presidential order. Of course, by the time congress acted, I think we'd run out of gas. lol Who knows. I may be wrong anyway.
 
Palmpilot said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Is it whether the A/C is 'capable' or whether the pilot is 'capable?' Couldn't the aircraft be equipped but the pilot is too busy doing other things on the radios and thus, 'incapable' of monitoring 121.5?
 
TriGear28 said:
Is it whether the A/C is 'capable' or whether the pilot is 'capable?' Couldn't the aircraft be equipped but the pilot is too busy doing other things on the radios and thus, 'incapable' of monitoring 121.5?
Click to expand...

Beats me - but notice that that FDC NOTAM says aviators shall review the indicated section of the AIM. If an aviator can't prove they reviewed that section, then would they be assumed to be violating a regulation?
 
docmirror said:
Someone edited a post that I was quoting, and it got changed. I won't keep my radio on and I will be a responsible adult. You see, being responsible is the other face of the coin. I am responsible for myself, my actions and in that respect I'll see and avoid, prolly better than 90% of other pilots. I'll abide by the rules of the air, and direction of flight, and lighting, and ground operations. That's being responsible. Keep a radio on so that others can instruct me has nothing to do with ME being responsible.
Click to expand...

the word 'monitor' is an inherently 'active' verb. It is responsible to 'monitor' and not required. Turning off the radios has no effect different than having them on and ignoring them. Unless the guy sitting next to you, with a headset on, works for the faa or is otherwise an enemy of yours, you could simply hear and ignore. This would allow you hear the advisory, make an informed decision, and have a heads-up as to what may be coming your way (whether that be traffic, or a potential enforcement action). There is no way for the FAA to know if you have them on or not. So, if that is the stance, turn them on, monitor, make your decisions accordingly, and be safer by having done so. There is no reason to just turn them off outside of stubbornness. IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top