Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?

vintage cessna said:
Why would you be denied? If the intent was to go from an IFR flight to a VFR flight then you alone would be responsible.
Click to expand...
The intent was not to go to a VFR flight. It was to stay on the IFR flight plan, which I did.
 
vintage cessna said:
The rule I'm referring to is the same rule from the 7110.65 that the NTSB cites in the report. The report quotes the rule verbatim and cites chapter and paragraph. What else do you want?

It is not the type of rule that is open to interpretation .
Click to expand...
I have not seen the report, at least not recently. We had a lengthy discussion about this accident when it happened which was a number of years ago. I'm going from what I remember about that discussion.
 
Everskyward said:
It was a long time in the past but I know that I would sometimes take off from an airport on the Front Range, IFR from the ground, then get vectored back and forth when going westbound because the airplane didn't have the climb capability to get right to the MIA. To avoid this zig-zagging I would ask for a VFR climb maintaining my own terrain separation. I can't remember being denied.
Click to expand...

Aha, "VFR climb," that must be it. That appears to be covered in section 7-1-2.
 
Everskyward said:
The intent was not to go to a VFR flight. It was to stay on the IFR flight plan, which I did.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the conversation was or what phraseology the controller may have used, but my guess is that controller considered you as a VFR flight once you requested and went on your own.
 
It's also covered in AIM 4-4-8c:

"c. A pilot on an IFR flight plan, operating in VFR
conditions, may request to climb/descend in VFR
conditions."​

Again, there's no mention of a requirement to cancel IFR.
 
Palmpilot said:
7-1-2 doesn't say anything about the pilot cancelling IFR. :dunno:
Click to expand...

No, but it certainly sounds like ATC considers it a VFR flight since alternate instructions must be issued for traffic separation if there is any doubt about the pilots ability to maintain VFR conditions.

At any rate, this doesn't apply to the case at hand either, the pilot has to request it. Nor does it apply to IFR altitude assignments.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
It's also covered in AIM 4-4-8c:

"c. A pilot on an IFR flight plan, operating in VFR
conditions, may request to climb/descend in VFR
conditions."​

Again, there's no mention of a requirement to cancel IFR.
Click to expand...

Whether the aircraft is climbing in VFR or IMC conditions it does not matter, even if the pilot requests it. The IFR MEA/MIA requirement has to be met.
 
vintage cessna said:
Whether the aircraft is climbing in VFR or IMC conditions it does not matter, even if the pilot requests it. The IFR MEA/MIA requirement has to be met.
Click to expand...
That was not my experience because the reason I requested to climb in VFR conditions was that I could't climb fast enough to get to an IFR altitude without zig-zagging.
 
vintage cessna said:
No, but it certainly sounds like ATC considers it a VFR flight since alternate instructions must be issued for traffic separation if there is any doubt about the pilots ability to maintain VFR conditions.
Click to expand...

I've heard a number of pilots, including airline pilots, talk about VFR climbs while on an IFR flight plan, and none has ever said that it resulted in cancellation of their IFR status. I don't think their IFR status could be cancelled without their knowing it, because AIM 5-1-15a and b direct pilots in flight to be explicit about cancelling IFR, and 4-2-10b of the controllers' manual instructs controllers to say "IFR cancellation received" when it happens. Prior to completion of the flight, it's not something that can just be assumed.

The pilots mentioned above have also talked about it as being something that can be used from the ground, so iNdigo/Everskyward is not the only one who has been allowed to do it below the minimum IFR altitude.

At any rate, this doesn't apply to the case at hand either, the pilot has to request it.
Click to expand...

If the pilot did not request it, then it appears that you're right about that.

Nor does it apply to IFR altitude assignments.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reference for that? 91.175(f) specifically omits Part 91 flights from the list to whom 91.175(f)(3) applies. Even for parts 121, 125, 129, and 135, to whom it does apply, 91.175(f)(3) provides an exception when "an alternate procedure or route is assigned by air traffic control." When a VFR climb has been approved, that constitutes an alternate procedure.
 
The Climb VFR thing has nothing to do with canceling. Like the rule says "a pilot on an IFR Flight Plan......" It's a way to get up and down without ATC having to separate you from other IFR traffic. The clearance will include an altitude to maintain. Typical clearances are; Climb VFR, maintain one two thousand, Climb VFR below one four thousand, maintain one six thousand, Descend VFR, maintain seven thousand, Climb VFR below one eight thousand, maintain flight level two three zero, etc. Using it as relief from getting vectored around or getting out of the way routes to comply with MIA's, MVA's and MEA,s works to. It can get you released for departure when otherwise you would be held for release because there is IFR traffic up there. You will be operating in accordance with an IFR Clearance. You will not be separated from other IFR traffic during that time that the VFR restriction is in effect.
 
luvflyin said:
The Climb VFR thing has nothing to do with canceling. Like the rule says "a pilot on an IFR Flight Plan......" It's a way to get up and down without ATC having to separate you from other IFR traffic. The clearance will include an altitude to maintain. Typical clearances are; Climb VFR, maintain one two thousand, Climb VFR below one four thousand, maintain one six thousand, Descend VFR, maintain seven thousand, Climb VFR below one eight thousand, maintain flight level two three zero, etc. Using it as relief from getting vectored around or getting out of the way routes to comply with MIA's, MVA's and MEA,s works to. It can get you released for departure when otherwise you would be held for release because there is IFR traffic up there. You will be operating in accordance with an IFR Clearance. You will not be separated from other IFR traffic during that time that the VFR restriction is in effect.
Click to expand...

I can see how it could prevent delays in climb/descent and eliviate the need for circuitous routes to reach MIA/MEA. But I don't think it allows the controller to assign an altitude lower than the MEA/MIA, nor allow an IFR flight to continue on a route below MEA/MIA once it becomes apparent the pilot can't reach MEA/MIA. And it can't be initiated by the controller.
 
vintage cessna said:
I can see how it could prevent delays in climb/descent and eliviate the need for circuitous routes to reach MIA/MEA. But I don't think it allows the controller to assign an altitude lower than the MEA/MIA, nor allow an IFR flight to continue on a route below MEA/MIA once it becomes apparent the pilot can't reach MEA/MIA. And it can't be initiated by the controller.
Click to expand...

Buddy.....

The controller asked him if he could provide terrain separation... He said YES... Once he cleared the Wind River Range , it was all down hill for the rest of the flight.. he planned on a fuel and bathroom stop in KRAP / Rapid City SD and then home to KMSP...

He was on a IFR fight with a VFR climb on course... Totally legal..:yes::yes:

He was under 180 , so not is Alpha airspace....

He screwed up and hit the far side of the mountain, not the front side...

He had CLEARED the highest terrain...

What part of " he screwed up" don't you get..:confused::confused::confused::confused::dunno:
 
Palmpilot said:
I've heard a number of pilots, including airline pilots, talk about VFR climbs while on an IFR flight plan, and none has ever said that it resulted in cancellation of their IFR status. I don't think their IFR status could be cancelled without their knowing it, because AIM 5-1-15a and b direct pilots in flight to be explicit about cancelling IFR, and 4-2-10b of the controllers' manual instructs controllers to say "IFR cancellation received" when it happens. Prior to completion of the flight, it's not something that can just be assumed.

The pilots mentioned above have also talked about it as being something that can be used from the ground, so iNdigo/Everskyward is not the only one who has been allowed to do it below the minimum IFR altitude.



If the pilot did not request it, then it appears that you're right about that.



Do you have a reference for that? 91.175(f) specifically omits Part 91 flights from the list to whom 91.175(f)(3) applies. Even for parts 121, 125, 129, and 135, to whom it does apply, 91.175(f)(3) provides an exception when "an alternate procedure or route is assigned by air traffic control." When a VFR climb has been approved, that constitutes an alternate procedure.
Click to expand...

We may be talking about different things here. I am talking about IFR altitude assignment . The altitude assigned for an IFR acft must be at least MEA/MIA.

So, if you are IFR at 14,000 and the MIA will change to 16,000, you could request to climb visually to 16,000, but you can't stay at 14,000, even if you say you will visually miss the terrain.

This rule is for climb/descent , so remaining flat at an IFR altitude is not an option either.
 
N801BH said:
Buddy.....

The controller asked him if he could provide terrain separation... He said YES... Once he cleared the Wind River Range , it was all down hill for the rest of the flight.. he planned on a fuel and bathroom stop in KRAP / Rapid City SD and then home to KMSP...

He was on a IFR fight with a VFR climb on course... Totally legal..:yes::yes:

He was under 180 , so not is Alpha airspace....

He screwed up and hit the far side of the mountain, not the front side...

He had CLEARED the highest terrain...

What part of " he screwed up" don't you get..:confused::confused::confused::confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

Where does the NTSB report say the aircraft was on a VFR climb? In fact, he had stopped climbing and indicated he couldn't make 16000. There was nothing legal about this . According to the NTSB , even the controller knew this. So why are you confused?
 
vintage cessna said:
We may be talking about different things here. I am talking about IFR altitude assignment . The altitude assigned for an IFR acft must be at least MEA/MIA.

So, if you are IFR at 14,000 and the MIA will change to 16,000, you could request to climb visually to 16,000, but you can't stay at 14,000, even if you say you will visually miss the terrain.

This rule is for climb/descent , so remaining flat at an IFR altitude is not an option either.
Click to expand...
You have got to be kidding me.

It took four people and almost 20 posts to get you to figure out that everyone is talking about a simple IFR aircraft VFR climb. You also admitted in previous posts that we can't know for sure whether or not the ZLC controller assigned 16,000 or 14,000 feet. Yet you continue to assume the worst out of the controller. Not unlike how you've assumed the worst out of controllers in all your previous posts (avoid FF to be "safe," no controller accountability, unnecessary vectors, worsening/rock bottom work culture, lavish pay/benefits).

Which makes me wonder: did you spend your years in the FAA working traffic, or did you spend your time watching (and auditing) others work traffic?

Instead of arguing worthless drivel, try adding something constructive. Like a suggestion of a correct procedure to get the desired outcome.

"N123, climb V F R at pilot discretion to 16,000."
 
MarkZ said:
You have got to be kidding me.

It took four people and almost 20 posts to get you to figure out that everyone is talking about a simple IFR aircraft VFR climb. You also admitted in previous posts that we can't know for sure whether or not the ZLC controller assigned 16,000 or 14,000 feet. Yet you continue to assume the worst out of the controller. Not unlike how you've assumed the worst out of controllers in all your previous posts (avoid FF to be "safe," no controller accountability, unnecessary vectors, worsening/rock bottom work culture, lavish pay/benefits).

Which makes me wonder: did you spend your years in the FAA working traffic, or did you spend your time watching (and auditing) others work traffic?

Instead of arguing worthless drivel, try adding something constructive. Like a suggestion of a correct procedure to get the desired outcome.

"N123, climb V F R at pilot discretion to 16,000."
Click to expand...

How is this accident about a simple VFR climb? He may have been in VFR conditions, but it was not a VFR climb. Do you understand that? Do you understand that if a pilot states he can't make MIA you have a situation requiring positive control on the controllers part?

I already asked you that if an aircraft went non radar and the last observed altitude was 2000 ft below an upcoming MIA what would you do. Well, what would you do? Nothing? Would you ask for any kind of reports? Nothing?

You have already indicated from the FF thread that you have very little understanding of the job.

What I would suggest for improvement, is that you and people like you make an attempt to increase your level of competency.

And with that, get lost.
 
I've got nothing against controllers making good money. But when the FAA gave controllers a very big pay raise, I thought they should have up the ante and raised the bar on performance and training standards.

But they didn't even keep it at the same level, they lowered the bar.
 
vintage cessna said:
How is this accident about a simple VFR climb?
Click to expand...
Because, in addition to authorization for the aircraft to deviate left or right of course, a VFR climb would have been the proper move. Not a vector below the MIA, and especially not when the closest obstacle is less than 5 miles from the aircraft. Read Ben's account again, he is from the area and knows it well. Your plan of turning an aircraft around after entering the MIA is not just wrong, but dangerous.
vintage cessna said:
He may have been in VFR conditions, but it was not a VFR climb. Do you understand that? Do you understand that if a pilot states he can't make MIA you have a situation requiring positive control on the controllers part?
Click to expand...
Do you understand the rules for climbing through a higher MIA?

A controller is authorized to allow an aircraft to enter a higher MIA provided that: the aircraft's mode C reads an altitude at or above the highest obstacle (it did), the aircraft is on a route of flight that will provide lateral separation from the obstacle (it was), and the aircraft is climbing to the new MIA (it was assigned that altitude, so yes).

Until the pilot reported unable to climb, there wasn't an issue. It was only after the pilot said he couldn't climb that there was an issue.

vintage cessna said:
I already asked you that if an aircraft went non radar and the last observed altitude was 2000 ft below an upcoming MIA what would you do. Well, what would you do? Nothing? Would you ask for any kind of reports? Nothing?
Click to expand...
First of all, read the accident report. The aircraft lost radar contact, and the controller knew about the outage and that contact would resume shortly. The controller issued 16,000 to the aircraft. We can assume that because once he reacquired the target, he asked the pilot to verify he was still climbing. Of course, you disagree but until we have transcripts of audio that's where we stand. You see, contact was lost before the aircraft was near the new MIA. The last moe C readout showed an altitude above the next peak (13,800), so the controller was good on the climb provided the aircraft kept climbing. It was reacquired after the aircraft was inside the higher MIA. Issuing a vector would be the worst move to make. You want to be the controller that turned an airplane into a mountain?

The proper move would have been to offer a VFR pilot discretion climb to 16,000. In addition, authorize left and right deviations from course to allow the aircraft to maneuver around the peaks, hopefully avoiding the mountain wave.
"Climb VFR at pilot discretion, maintain 16,000. Deviations left and right of course approved, when able proceed direct RIW."
vintage cessna said:
You have already indicated from the FF thread that you have very little understanding of the job.
What I would suggest for improvement, is that you and people like you make an attempt to increase your level of competency.
And with that, get lost.
Click to expand...
Don't you have some kids to go yell at for walking on your lawn?
 
N801BH said:
They may not be personally liable .. But this idiot changed the entire ( VFR climb on course / pilot provide their own terrain separation departure....
Click to expand...

How so? A VFR climb is issued only at pilot request, this pilot never requested one, and the controller didn't issue one. Asking if a pilot is able to maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance during a climb to the MIA can be done when a VFR aircraft operating below the MIA requests an IFR clearance and the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions to the MIA. That wasn't the situation here and the controller knew the procedure didn't apply.

Rick was so disgusted, he retired early and ZLC will not NOT give any VFR, or for that matter ANY unpublished departures.. Even if it is crystal clear for 100 miles...
Click to expand...

ZLC will not give any VFR what? This incident didn't involve any VFR operation and they shouldn't be assigning ANY unpublished procedures.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
ATC might have had a clue that the reason the pilot wanted 14,000 was that the airplane couldn't climb higher, but maybe they didn't. When the pilot said he could maintain terrain and obstacle clearance he was taking responsibility for it himself.
Click to expand...

There's no provision for that for aircraft operating IFR.
 
N801BH said:
I am still very confused on what SERCO / the tower controller did wrong..:confused::confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

The NTSB report states; "The [ZLC] controller stated that he believed that the pilot had filed the route, and that he was not aware that the pilot’s flight plan had been amended by JAC ATCT."
 
MarkZ said:
Because, in addition to authorization for the aircraft to deviate left or right of course, a VFR climb would have been the proper move. Not a vector below the MIA, and especially not when the closest obstacle is less than 5 miles from the aircraft. Read Ben's account again, he is from the area and knows it well. Your plan of turning an aircraft around after entering the MIA is not just wrong, but dangerous.
Do you understand the rules for climbing through a higher MIA?

A controller is authorized to allow an aircraft to enter a higher MIA provided that: the aircraft's mode C reads an altitude at or above the highest obstacle (it did), the aircraft is on a route of flight that will provide lateral separation from the obstacle (it was), and the aircraft is climbing to the new MIA (it was assigned that altitude, so yes).

Until the pilot reported unable to climb, there wasn't an issue. It was only after the pilot said he couldn't climb that there was an issue.


First of all, read the accident report. The aircraft lost radar contact, and the controller knew about the outage and that contact would resume shortly. The controller issued 16,000 to the aircraft. We can assume that because once he reacquired the target, he asked the pilot to verify he was still climbing. Of course, you disagree but until we have transcripts of audio that's where we stand. You see, contact was lost before the aircraft was near the new MIA. The last moe C readout showed an altitude above the next peak (13,800), so the controller was good on the climb provided the aircraft kept climbing. It was reacquired after the aircraft was inside the higher MIA. Issuing a vector would be the worst move to make. You want to be the controller that turned an airplane into a mountain?

The proper move would have been to offer a VFR pilot discretion climb to 16,000. In addition, authorize left and right deviations from course to allow the aircraft to maneuver around the peaks, hopefully avoiding the mountain wave.
"Climb VFR at pilot discretion, maintain 16,000. Deviations left and right of course approved, when able proceed direct RIW."

Don't you have some kids to go yell at for walking on your lawn?
Click to expand...


The pilot is on an IFR clnc, says he can't make 160, and your solution is to offer a VFR pilot discretionary climb to 160?

That makes a lot of sense. If you really are a controller, this is really sad.
 
Geico266 said:
I had to go to war with our local ATC because the airport I base at is 15 miles from Lincoln class C . Controllers would routinely "kick loose" traffic 3 miles from the airport. When the traffic made their position call they were already in the pattern! :eek: They seem to be doing a better job now after I complained to the local FSDO Safety Officer.
Click to expand...

You can leave the frequency when you exit the Class C airspace but they shouldn't be holding on to you that long.
 
vintage cessna said:
No, but it certainly sounds like ATC considers it a VFR flight since alternate instructions must be issued for traffic separation if there is any doubt about the pilots ability to maintain VFR conditions.

At any rate, this doesn't apply to the case at hand either, the pilot has to request it. Nor does it apply to IFR altitude assignments.
Click to expand...

Considering the 14,000 altitude rather than +500, I would assume that the controller understood quite well that he was handling an IFR flight.
 
N801BH said:
...He screwed up and hit the far side of the mountain, not the front side...

He had CLEARED the highest terrain...
Click to expand...

This is a key point. This was not a case of being vectored into terrain. This was a case of flying an aircraft with inadequate performance for the conditions, and in conditions that were conducive to downdrafts that were too strong for the airplane to handle. ATC did not make him do that. The winds at mountain top level were over thirty knots, for crying out loud. :eek:
 
Everskyward said:
The controller can't (and didn't) "tell" the pilot maintain his own terrain and obstacle clearance. The controller asked and the pilot said he could. If the pilot had said "negative" I'm almost sure the controller would have turned him around. At least that would have been the proper thing to do.
Click to expand...

The controller can't (but did) ask if the pilot can maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance in this situation.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm going to disagree because there are countless other instances in which a pilot will say they can maintain their own terrain separation and they do it successfully. It gives the pilot and ATC more flexibility when they are on an IFR flight plan in VMC. ATC can't see what you are seeing and has no idea if you are being untruthful or just over-optimistic about whether or not you can maintain terrain and obstacle clearance. Once the pilot says they can it is their responsibility.
Click to expand...

So what are some of those other instances applicable to aircraft operating on an IFR clearance?
 
Everskyward said:
Yes, it's allowed. I have done it as a pilot quite a few times and I have heard other pilots on the frequency do it. You can be below the MIA on an IFR flight plan if you can maintain your own terrain separation.
Click to expand...

So the proof is that you've done it?
 
N801BH said:
Once again.. I respectfully disagree.. Mari has flown around the Rocky mountains for alot of her life.. She knows full well what she is talking about..:yes: Telling ATC that you can avoid hitting rocks is a permissable exception of the rules... Happens 100's of times each day out here....
Click to expand...

If you're correct there must be an exception in FAA Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control authorizing it. Please cite that permissible exception by chapter and verse. If none can be found then it follows that you are not correct, that it's an error whenever ATC authorizes it, no matter how many 100's of times each day it is done.
 
Henning said:
Of course there are exceptions when the pilot is in VMC. The MEA altitude may only physically apply for a very small percentage of the sector, and I can laterally displace myself 1/4 mile and have 4000' under me. Once I accept terrain avoidance, it's mine, and the controller can only assume I am capable of it. From the sounds of it though, the controller didn't handle it the way I am used to it happening. Typically I am advised of rising terrain and what the minimum required IRF altitude ahead of me is. Unless I tell them, "Yeah, I have the pass well in the clear" they keep bugging me. It appears from what is reported, that someone dropped the ball on bugging him about it. Whether that would have changed the outcome is another subject one can argue, but liability wise, the fault exists.
Click to expand...

Please cite those exceptions by chapter and verse.
 
roncachamp said:
There's no provision for that for aircraft operating IFR.
Click to expand...

Consider it from the pilot's perspective, "if the controller said it, it must be ok." Pilots aren't required to know the limitations of 7110.65, therefore typically don't. While the controller may not be allowed to do some things, that does not preclude them from happening, and there is little guidance in the pilot end of the learning material that delves into what the controller may and may not do.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not going to dive into the ATC handbook trying to prove you wrong. I only know what I have done and heard. But you haven't produced a rule either, just written about it.
Click to expand...

But the burden of proof is on those who say this exception exists. If they're right they should be able to point to it in the book. The book is online and fully searchable, it would be easy to find if it actually existed. Nobody is saying that you haven't heard it, they're trying to help you understand that it was a controller error every time you heard it.
 
roncachamp said:
The controller can't (but did) ask if the pilot can maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance in this situation.
Click to expand...
That seems like the only thing that is questionable since I believe the pilot needs to initiate the request for a climb in VFR conditions when on an IFR flight plan. Perhaps the controller got it mixed up with the procedure used when pilots pick up an IFR flight plan in the air. We don't really know for sure what the whole discussion was since I don't think we have the transcripts. But when the pilot answered that he could maintain his own terrain separation I would put the blame right on him.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
But the burden of proof is on those who say this exception exists. If they're right they should be able to point to it in the book. The book is online and fully searchable, it would be easy to find if it actually existed. Nobody is saying that you haven't heard it, they're trying to help you understand that it was a controller error every time you heard it.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, exactly what regulation are you contending has no exception?

I'm a little lost...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top