Got yelled at by ATC....

EdFred said:
What's funnier, is she's the one who wrote the opinions. This is why most lawyers should be sent to the gas chambers.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the line from Rumpole of the Bailey, where he compares himself to a taxi driver who takes all comers.
 
To get pedantic -

FAR 1.1 said:
Air traffic clearance means an authorization by air traffic control, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

I don't get paid the big bucks of a lawyers salary, the FAA might have just effed up on this letter of interpretation however.

If I'm given a heading and altitude to prevent a collision, that is a clearance per FAR 1.1. If that heading and altitude takes you into Bravo you are within controlled airspace and I am cleared to proceed under specified traffic conditions.... :mad2::mad2::mad2:

Its a circular argument.

As previously stated, I ask for the magic words just to cover my butt.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Like everything in life, there's always rotten apples. It'd be a great day if these snarky controllers could do their job and just cut the attitude inherent to these "ive got a secret" reindeer games. The whole thing is petty, unnecessary and avoidable.
Click to expand...

Ding,ding,ding,ding.

However, I have to point out that soooooooooo many vfr pilots are baiting the hook by taking instructions while vfr and not in B or C space. Takes two to tango.
 
RotorDude said:
My experience is that in busy airspace, esp. during rush hour, controllers forget the magic words at least 10% of the time (just a guesstimate).
If I am VFR, and the harried controller blurts out, "Bugsmasher 567, proceed direct XYZ, descend and maintain 3000" and that penetrates the Bravo, I acknowledge and follow the "instruction" like a good boy, and don't try to force myself into the wall-to-wall ATC has with 20 business jets and airliners to say, "verify class B clearance".
If there is any doubt about anything, sure, I'll ask.
And per my percentage above, the vast majority of the time they do tack on "cleared into the B".
Click to expand...

I think that's a very sensible approach. I certainly don't think it's a good idea to argue with ATC over the radio, as was done in one of the examples related earlier in the thread. One of the requirements mentioned in 91.131 is that the clearance must come from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the area, and I suspect that if a vector is given by the controller having jurisdiction, the chances of getting a violation for following it are slim to none. In that situation, I think the interpretation letter is wrong.
 
jaybee said:
To get pedantic -



I don't get paid the big bucks of a lawyers salary, the FAA might have just effed up on this letter of interpretation however.

If I'm given a heading and altitude to prevent a collision, that is a clearance per FAR 1.1. If that heading and altitude takes you into Bravo you are within controlled airspace and I am cleared to proceed under specified traffic conditions.... :mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

I think that's a great point. The only thing I would add to it is that 91.131 requires that the clearance come from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the area involved.
 
Orlando routinely does not give bravo clearances to VFR traffic. I fly it 3 - 4 times a week. I've learned where they want me to be and I pretty much do what happens most of the time.

Even if you go IFR you learn where they are going to route you to.

In any event I busted the bravo on two occasions.. VERY slightly (descending to get below the shelf) - the normal "Are you familiar with the bravo" "affirm. descending now".. never heard anything afterwards.
 
Kritchlow said:
It has been nearly 20 years, but I used to get clearances like that often. XYZ was not always a vor mind you. Coming out of LGA VFR we would get "direct the tower cab", or "proceed to Central Park", or "South Stansion of the Throgs".
Click to expand...

Was that a VFR flyway?
 
Kritchlow said:
Not clear to me.. Vectors for traffic puts a different spin on it IMO. Plus, although the question apparently said altitude assignment, that was prior to the vector. Therefore, it appears the "vector for traffic" did not include an altitude. Splitting hairs? Probably. But that's what everyone seems to do here.

Let me ask you this:
If you are northbound skirting the east side edge of the B, and ATC comes on and gives you a left turn for traffic, and the freq is congested, would you turn into the Bravo?
Click to expand...

ATC wouldn't do that for a VFR flight. If they did they would also say "N1234 cleared into Bravo."
 
jaybee said:
To get pedantic -



I don't get paid the big bucks of a lawyers salary, the FAA might have just effed up on this letter of interpretation however.

If I'm given a heading and altitude to prevent a collision, that is a clearance per FAR 1.1. If that heading and altitude takes you into Bravo you are within controlled airspace and I am cleared to proceed under specified traffic conditions.... :mad2::mad2::mad2:

Its a circular argument.

As previously stated, I ask for the magic words just to cover my butt.
Click to expand...


You need to parse the sentence again and pay attention to the commas. The two phrases that start ", for..." are prepositional phrases. Both apply to the authorization, not each other.

"Air traffic clearance means an authorization by air traffic control, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace."

Rephrasing for clarity, the authorization exists so that collisions can be avoided and so that an aircraft can proceed in controlled airspace.

Now I have to go find my 6th grade English teacher and tell her that she was right. I finally found a use for sentence parsing.
 
bflynn said:
You need to parse the sentence again and pay attention to the commas. The two phrases that start ", for..." are prepositional phrases. Both apply to the authorization, not each other.

"Air traffic clearance means an authorization by air traffic control, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace."

Rephrasing for clarity, the authorization exists so that collisions can be avoided and so that an aircraft can proceed in controlled airspace.

Now I have to go find my 6th grade English teacher and tell her that she was right. I finally found a use for sentence parsing.
Click to expand...

Ummm,,,, yea.... :dunno: pretty sure that is exactly what I said. :confused:

Let me ask you a simple question -
If the controller gives you a heading and altitude do you in turn ask them "are you preventing me from having a collision?" :goofy::rofl:

edit - or let me ask another way -
under what conditions do you think a controller would alter your current heading and altitude and give you another ?
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
Miami Center won't issue a Bravo clearance for Orlando.... Unlike class Charlie, a simple flight following hand off without a clearance is not enough to penetrate ANY Bravo. Simply put, you busted Bravo airspace. I would file a NASA report right away.
Click to expand...


:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:
 
jaybee said:
To get pedantic -



I don't get paid the big bucks of a lawyers salary, the FAA might have just effed up on this letter of interpretation however.

If I'm given a heading and altitude to prevent a collision, that is a clearance per FAR 1.1. If that heading and altitude takes you into Bravo you are within controlled airspace and I am cleared to proceed under specified traffic conditions.... :mad2::mad2::mad2:

Its a circular argument.

As previously stated, I ask for the magic words just to cover my butt.
Click to expand...

We have a winner!!
 
jaybee said:
Ummm,,,, yea.... :dunno: pretty sure that is exactly what I said. :confused:

Let me ask you a simple question -
If the controller gives you a heading and altitude do you in turn ask them "are you preventing me from having a collision?" :goofy::rofl:

edit - or let me ask another way -
under what conditions do you think a controller would alter your current heading and altitude and give you another ?
Click to expand...

Kritchlow said:
We have a winner!!
Click to expand...

I'm weird, I'm gonna say; 'spamcan 345, unable, negative clearance controlled airspace'. But, that's me.
 
docmirror said:
I'm weird, I'm gonna say; 'spamcan 345, unable, negative clearance controlled airspace'. But, that's me.
Click to expand...

what does 91.123 b say ?

"what's your emergency ?"
"ummm... spamcan didn't hear the magic words"
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

to reiterate though, in case it was missed twice earlier in this academic exercise, i ask for the phrase to cover my butt.
 
FastEddieB said:
Seriously, can't you just say, "I stand corrected" and move on?
Click to expand...

I would if I honestly thought I was wrong. There is enough evidence here to back my point.. At least raise a doubt.
 
jaybee said:
what does 91.123 b say ?

"what's your emergency ?"
"ummm... spamcan didn't hear the magic words"
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

to reiterate though, in case it was missed twice earlier in this academic exercise, i ask for the phrase to cover my butt.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. Particularly about being 'in an area which air traffic control is exercised'. This example presumably occurred NOT in a B or C area. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

BTW, I've done exactly this before, and is one of the major reasons I don't often call and ask for help navigating. If ATC wants to steer me around, they are welcome to hop in, sit down, and shut up.
 
Here is the F11 Central Florida Tracon Supe's phone number. Give him a call and bounce all this off him. He will likely want to clear the air, and he'll probably give his controller a corrective action once he hears how he yelled at you. 407-852-7553
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Here is the F11 Central Florida Tracon Supe's phone number. Give him a call and bounce all this off him. He will likely want to clear the air, and he'll probably give his controller a corrective action once he hears how he yelled at you. 407-852-7553
Click to expand...

Did he really "yell"?? One title says that. When I tell my wife something isn't right she says "you yelled at me". In reality there was no yelling.
 
The .65 specifically states "cleared" with the phraseology to enter a Class B. A radar vector is an ATC instruction by definition. ATC instruction has its own sub paragraph within 91.123. An ATC instruction (fly heading) can used to prevent a collision just as an ATC clearance (cleared through the Atlanta Class B) can be used to prevent a collision.

For what it's worth, I asked my bud at ATL approach the question. He said no, a vector does not constitute clearance into the B. If it does happen, be sure to ask if you're cleared into the Class B.
 
Class B is different. There are separation standards that exist nowhere else. That's why you ask and need a clearance. The controller 90 miles away doesn't know squat. They don't know MY SOP and I don't know theirs.

I've yelled at pilots before. Color me unprofessional. I'm sorry, but when a pilot calls for flight following inside the Bravo, without Bravo clearance, over the marker at marker altitude with a 737 threatening to end their life chugging down final I get a little animated. Perhaps next time I'll throw my hands up in the air and if they all survive they'll be happier with dealing with FSDO rather than me saying big bad mean things.
 
jaybee said:
Ummm,,,, yea.... :dunno: pretty sure that is exactly what I said. :confused:

Let me ask you a simple question -
If the controller gives you a heading and altitude do you in turn ask them "are you preventing me from having a collision?" :goofy::rofl:

edit - or let me ask another way -
under what conditions do you think a controller would alter your current heading and altitude and give you another ?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Every authorization is provided to avoid collisions. That does not mean every collision avoidance is an authorization. This is logic 101.
 
Approach_controller said:
Class B is different. There are separation standards that exist nowhere else. That's why you ask and need a clearance. The controller 90 miles away doesn't know squat. They don't know MY SOP and I don't know theirs.

I've yelled at pilots before. Color me unprofessional. I'm sorry, but when a pilot calls for flight following inside the Bravo, without Bravo clearance, over the marker at marker altitude with a 737 threatening to end their life chugging down final I get a little animated. Perhaps next time I'll throw my hands up in the air and if they all survive they'll be happier with dealing with FSDO rather than me saying big bad mean things.
Click to expand...

Telling them the magnitude of their mistake is one thing, loosing your temper and yelling leads me to believe you've not got the self-control to deal with stressful situations.

The most chilling words I ever heard was a controller telling a pilot who not only was busting the airspace but also flying in IMC without a clearance: "Do you know how close you came to hitting another airplane?" (No, it wasn't me).

If you can't deal with pilots doing boneheaded things without losing control, you darned well don't belong on the frequency. Freaking out on the air is detrimental to safety and yes you're darned right if I hear such a thing I'd report it to the facility. I've done so in the past.
 
bflynn said:
Irrelevant. Every authorization is provided to avoid collisions. That does not mean every collision avoidance is an authorization. This is logic 101.
Click to expand...

No, but its an instruction from ATC to 'proceed under specified traffic conditions' and unless you have an emergency under 91.123b to not follow that instruction.... the scenario was frequency was too congested to talk.

So, the controller messes up and doesn't give the magic words (and pilots aren't required to read the 65), the freq is too busy to ask for them, you are going to deviate from the controller's instruction because you didn't hear the magic words ? so your logic is to cause an accident ? :no:

does the phrase can't see the forest for the trees mean anything to you
"why did you not follow my instruction"
"well sir, you see... in 1.1 the sentence has a comma and if you parse it..."
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

now this is just an academic exercise however as I've experienced myself and others have too Orlando doesn't always give the magic words and guess what ? its not a big deal.

this has been fun, thank you all for the laughs.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
You make a good point. Particularly about being 'in an area which air traffic control is exercised'. This example presumably occurred NOT in a B or C area. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

BTW, I've done exactly this before, and is one of the major reasons I don't often call and ask for help navigating. If ATC wants to steer me around, they are welcome to hop in, sit down, and shut up.
Click to expand...

Class E was controlled airspace last I checked. :)
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
No, but its an instruction from ATC to 'proceed under specified traffic conditions' and unless you have an emergency under 91.123b to not follow that instruction.... the scenario was frequency was too congested to talk.

So, the controller messes up and doesn't give the magic words (and pilots aren't required to read the 65), the freq is too busy to ask for them, you are going to deviate from the controller's instruction because you didn't hear the magic words ? so your logic is to cause an accident ? :no:

does the phrase can't see the forest for the trees mean anything to you
"why did you not follow my instruction"
"well sir, you see... in 1.1 the sentence has a comma and if you parse it..."
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

now this is just an academic exercise however as I've experienced myself and others have too Orlando doesn't always give the magic words and guess what ? its not a big deal.

this has been fun, thank you all for the laughs.
Click to expand...

Okay...let me get this straight... You're entering into airspace where the radio so busy that you can't verify that you have clearance to proceed into that congested airspace, and that's okay, in your mind?
 
These kinds of posts show up quite often...and the excuse for NOT having busted the Bravo airspace is usually "But I was on Flight Following"!!!

:mad:
 
FlySince9 said:
Okay...let me get this straight... You're entering into airspace where the radio so busy that you can't verify that you have clearance to proceed into that congested airspace, and that's okay, in your mind?
Click to expand...

Aren't the priorities supposed to be "skin, tin, ticket," in that order? In airspace where the frequency is too busy to get a word in, if I'm sure I heard the instruction correctly, and if the instruction came from the controller having jurisdiction over the class B airspace involved, deviating from it because I didn't hear certain words would change the priority to "ticket, skin, tin." Not gonna happen on my watch.
 
jaybee said:
No, but its an instruction from ATC to 'proceed under specified traffic conditions' and unless you have an emergency under 91.123b to not follow that instruction.... the scenario was frequency was too congested to talk.

So, the controller messes up and doesn't give the magic words (and pilots aren't required to read the 65), the freq is too busy to ask for them, you are going to deviate from the controller's instruction because you didn't hear the magic words ? so your logic is to cause an accident ? :no:

now this is just an academic exercise however as I've experienced myself and others have too Orlando doesn't always give the magic words and guess what ? its not a big deal.

this has been fun, thank you all for the laughs.
Click to expand...

You only find out how a big deal it is if you're expecting other Class-Bs to do what Orlando does.

But an instruction is still not an authorization. I think the reality is that if a controller gives you an instruction that turns you into the class-B for collision avoidance, nobody is going to complain that you busted the bravo.

Glad I could provide some entertainment.
 
MikeELP said:
These kinds of posts show up quite often...and the excuse for NOT having busted the Bravo airspace is usually "But I was on Flight Following"!!! :mad:
Click to expand...

I find it surprising that every student preparing for the written knows EXACTLY what the requirements are ... then you come to the forums ... maybe instead of 709's some should be assigned to re-take the PPL written:eek:
 
EminiTrader said:
Orlando routinely does not give bravo clearances to VFR traffic. I fly it 3 - 4 times a week. I've learned where they want me to be and I pretty much do what happens most of the time.



Even if you go IFR you learn where they are going to route you to.



In any event I busted the bravo on two occasions.. VERY slightly (descending to get below the shelf) - the normal "Are you familiar with the bravo" "affirm. descending now".. never heard anything afterwards.
Click to expand...


That's interesting, coming thru this summer, I was going to fly around, they gave me vectors into it (I don't remember if they gave me the clear phrase), I was at 9500', and it was 7am, but if you want to fly thru it I suggest flying high. Their vectors took me right over the airport. At lower altitudes you are probably in the way, opposite true if skirting it.
 
Palmpilot said:
Aren't the priorities supposed to be "skin, tin, ticket," in that order? In airspace where the frequency is too busy to get a word in, if I'm sure I heard the instruction correctly, and if the instruction came from the controller having jurisdiction over the class B airspace involved, deviating from it because I didn't hear certain words would change the priority to "ticket, skin, tin." Not gonna happen on my watch.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But the pedants will have none of that you see.:rolleyes2:

This ties straight into the Superstition Mt accident. A lot of pilots on this forum are of the demographic that sincerely believes adherence to ATC's instruction is a guarantor of safety. They equate one with the other. They've been brought up in a flight training environment that puts the fear of God in them regarding interactions with controlled airspace, as a bona fide subordinate relationship, because they feel overwhelmed or intimidated by the commercial traffic flow exchanges they hear on that frequency. This is an element of the flight training culture that needs improving.
 
teejayevans said:
That's interesting, coming thru this summer, I was going to fly around, they gave me vectors into it (I don't remember if they gave me the clear phrase), I was at 9500', and it was 7am, but if you want to fly thru it I suggest flying high. Their vectors took me right over the airport. At lower altitudes you are probably in the way, opposite true if skirting it.
Click to expand...

Orlando runways are north-south. They'll routinely route you over the airport from the east or west, eve as low as 2500'. They are also so busy at push times that they'll sometimes just flat ignore spam can requests during those times. If you want to go over from the north or south you need to be much higher.

John
 
hindsight2020 said:
Exactly. But the pedants will have none of that you see.:rolleyes2:

This ties straight into the Superstition Mt accident. A lot of pilots on this forum are of the demographic that sincerely believes adherence to ATC's instruction is a guarantor of safety. They equate one with the other. They've been brought up in a flight training environment that puts the fear of God in them regarding interactions with controlled airspace, as a bona fide subordinate relationship, because they feel overwhelmed or intimidated by the commercial traffic flow exchanges they hear on that frequency. This is an element of the flight training culture that needs improving.
Click to expand...

This is a phenomenal misreading of both the thread and the Superstition Mt accident.

ATC does not guarantee separation under all circumstances. But it sure does under some rather important ones. You do not have to do what ATC says if it will compromise safety. But ATC gives instructions for the purpose of protecting safety. That means you should think carefully about when to ignore it, or when not to seek it. Under most circumstances, the instruction is there to keep you from banging into things or to keep someone else from banging into things. Now, it may not be the correct instruction, but that means it's your job to convey that problem to ATC, and to avoid the situation if possible. But to say that means ATC "guarantees" safety is wrong.

The AIM and all good training is quite clear that ATC is an aid, not a guarantee. As PIC, you must be aware of your surroundings. But in a spam can with no radar in IMC, I can't see the yahoo flying through the clouds without clearance, and ATC can. Even in bright VMC, I can't see the DC-10 on my 6 descending to the same target, and ATC can.

If you are going to ignore or avoid ATC instructions just because they might possibly tell you to do something you don't want, you're a fool. Those things are not done for fun.

The correct thing to do VFR when you don't know the airspace is safe to enter because you don't have clearance, the "skin, tin, ticket" thing is still in the same order. Don't enter the airspace because you might cause a collision with a much faster aircraft that can't see you in time.

The thing to think about is not the Superstition Mt. accident, but rather the Cerritos accident.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Don't enter the airspace because you might cause a collision with a much faster aircraft that can't see you in time.
Click to expand...

Let's ask Cory Lidle and Tyler Stanger about imaginary boundaries in the sky and trying so desperately hard to remain clear of the Bravo for fear of a bust.
 
EdFred said:
Let's ask Cory Lidle and Tyler Stanger about imaginary boundaries in the sky and trying so desperately hard to remain clear of the Bravo for fear of a bust.
Click to expand...

It's sad that so many are more afraid of the Man than the Grim Reaper.
 
I just cannot understand how ATC can give a VFR aircraft a "clearance" to turn anywhere and the aircraft to assume it is safe without keeping your eyes out.

"Turn right heading 280 for traffic" is an instruction, not a clearance. If it was a clearance, it would ascertain right heading 280 will not have mountains, clouds, other aircraft and so on in that direction, if we are outside class B.

So, do pilots blindly turn 280 when this happens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top