Flight Following Conditioned on Unreasonable Descent

eetrojan

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
1,531
Location
Orange County, CA
Display Name

Display name:
eetrojan
I made a fun flight today to Big Bear (L35), a little mountain airport in Southern California.

It’s located generally to the northeast of my home airport, John Wayne (SNA). The peaks are 1-2,000 feet higher on either side, but Big Bear valley is about 7,000 feet, so the eastbound altitude on the way in is 9,500, and the westbound altitude on the way out is 8,500.

In either direction, I also need to fly over a small mountain range that rises up to about 6,000 feet at its highest point, the so-called Santa Ana Mountains. The highest point is “Santiago Peak” at about 6,000 feet. My intended flight path had me crossing over this ridge in between “Pleasant's Peak” (4,000 ft) and “Santiago Peak.” (6,000).

In order to have some distance above the ridge line, my preferred crossing altitude is 7,500 or 8,500. This was true even more so today, because the winds were strong.

So, I planned to stay at 8,500 all the way until I crossed that ridge, and then descend for landing at John Wayne. 6,500 is too tight. 4,500 is not happening.

The flight -TO- Big Bear went great. On the way back, though, I had a mildly weird experience.

I established flight following with SoCal Approach on 134.0 as soon as I was out of the Big Bear mountain area - Near Redlands Airport. Then, about 10 minutes later, the first controller on 134.0 handed me to 135.4 and, when I checked in, the new approach controller immediately instructed me to descend to 4,000.

When I told him that I needed to stay high because of the ridge, he replied with a great deal of attitude, “If you want flight following, descend to 4,000.” So, after a moment of thought, I said, “OK, I’d like to cancel,” and he said “Squawk VFR, change approved.”

So, there you go. See ya.

I don’t always use flight following, but I "usually" do – probably about 80% of the time. Plus, this is only one day after the mid-air collision 15-20 miles to the southwest near Torrance, CA.

Now squawking VFR, I went ahead and stayed at 8,500 until I passed the ridgeline (colored in orange below), and then cold-called a third approach controller in the next sector on 124.1. He was pleasant as can be. He got me sequenced into John Wayne like normal, and all ended well.

This the very first time I have ever had attitude from ATC in SoCal. They are usually awesome.

Any idea what this was about?

Did I do something wrong? Should I have done something different?

Joe



Diagram (click for larger version):

Bigger Version

 
Last edited:
I can't explain the attitude, but I do question why deviating 5 miles to the right was not an option.
 
I can't explain the attitude, but I do question why deviating 5 miles to the right was not an option.

It certainly was, but he didn't propose that and it's not my first choice in that it has me unnecessarily flying low, out of my way, and over the 91, in between John Wayne's and Ontario's airspace, an area that I consider to be a pretty busy corridor for non-talking VFR traffic.
 
Last edited:
I've always gone low level up to big bear, that said SoCal has been the only people I've had to say "please mark the tape" to.

Welcome to CA.
 
It's not an IFR altitude. The lowest MEA in the area is 5500, and the terrain is over 1000.

It is, however, in the way of departures from ONT and arrivals to LAX, and the lower altitude was probably to get out of the way of IFR traffic.

There is nothing special about Class C while under flight following, and if winds were enough to add terrain clearance, it would have been a MUCH better option to go around the mountain.
 
Odd. Well you seem to have remained VFR and survived.

As James said, it may have been worth asking them to "mark the tape" and asked for a facility phone number to chat about it after landing to see what the heck was going on, if you were interested enough, but other than that there's not much you can do about it.

It's a "workload permitting" service so ... YMMV.

SoCal airspace was busy and nutty back when I flew there in 1991 on a regular basis, so I doubt it's gotten any better.
 
Interesting. They've lost radar coverage on me over in that area at 4,500. Granted, I don't cross 3,000' above Santiago either...it's less than a minute to cross... But I understand why you would do it. The "feeder" route to OC over the 91 by Corona isn't my favorite place to be either.
 
It's not an IFR altitude. The lowest MEA in the area is 5500, and the terrain is over 1000.

It is, however, in the way of departures from ONT and arrivals to LAX, and the lower altitude was probably to get out of the way of IFR traffic.

There is nothing special about Class C while under flight following, and if winds were enough to add terrain clearance, it would have been a MUCH better option to go around the mountain.

Maybe true, but my first instinct is to fly over things rather than around them, if only because I can. :yes:
 
I wonder if they accidentally tagged your destination wrong, and he thought he needed you down before the ridge.
 
Having flown this area both in PPl and INst training, I'm pretty sure they planned on vectoring you towards Seal Beach, then south. Big iron is coming over the Ortega pass then dropping like a rock into Orange Co. Keeping you out of the fracas could be a good thing. Might have added a few mins to the flight.

Radar services in the basin is always a good thing. Adsb and radar services is better. TCAS and the rest is best.

I "grew up" flying in and out of LA and out here people think I'm nuts when I talk about talking to ATC and flying into bravo like it just another grass strip. I'm like, "what?" And they are like, "you have a death wish!"

I don't get it.
 
Call the TRAcon and ask. They will investigate and tell you the reason.
 
As James said, it may have been worth asking them to "mark the tape" and asked for a facility phone number to chat about it after landing to see what the heck was going on, if you were interested enough, but other than that there's not much you can do about it.

You don't need to play those "mark the tape" or "say initials" snark. All you need to do is note the frequency and the time and call the facility during the next business day.

The phone numbers aren't that hard to find either.
 
I doubt (but could be wrong) the controller was just screwing with you. I suspect he had his reasons because he could see a lot more radar contacts than metal boxes you could see with your eyes. What I don't understand is why I should assume it was an unreasonable descent without hearing ATC's side of the story, maybe he was trying to sequence a number of large jet traffic or provide for wake turbulence protection for you.

Who knows, but you both got what you wanted out of the encounter. You wanted to do things your way, which was ignore ATC if they were inconvenient, and he didn't have to deal with you anymore if you were going to be defiant. Sounds like it was win-win. His obligations/responsibilities are going to be different if you're on Flight Following or not, and the second guessing he gets is going to be different if you're on Flight Following or not, if you don't want to listen to ATC, then you did the what perhaps you should have done and just cancelled.
 
The directional VFR cruising altitudes begin 3,000' AGL. It sounds lake 4,000' MSL would be below that.

The suggested VFR altitudes don't apply if you are receiving ATC assigned altitudes. If they have a block open at 4K eastbound, you might just get it.
 
Just to clarify my suggestion that you call the TRACON:

I didn't mean to imply that the call would be adversarial or snarky. Far from it. If the QC guy doesn't immediately know the reason, he/she will probably figure out who was working the sector and ask them if they remember. If that doesn't work, he/she will check the recording.

In the end you will get an explanation and it will probably be quite reasonable. In the unlikely event that it was a mistake, this is something that they want to know about too. (I had a nearer-miss than I liked at a no-radar Class D one time, called and reported it. At the end of the discussion, the MOA between the ARTCC and the tower was changed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat, and I was thanked for my input.)

More generally, while it can be great fun to ask a specific question like this on POA, it is not the right place to get an accurate answer. You just stir up the usual suspects and all they can do is theorize. The answer comes from calling the facility directly.
 
The suggested VFR altitudes don't apply if you are receiving ATC assigned altitudes. If they have a block open at 4K eastbound, you might just get it.


Oh I know. It's just not common around here.
 
You don't need to play those "mark the tape" or "say initials" snark. All you need to do is note the frequency and the time and call the facility during the next business day.



The phone numbers aren't that hard to find either.


Fair enough. Nothing a controller has ever done has gotten me riled enough to call or ask them to do anything. I would have just cancelled and been along my way in this case without any drama.
 
It's always best to mark the tape,for clarification,and call the facility for a friendly conversation. That way both party's may learn something.
 
Fair enough. Nothing a controller has ever done has gotten me riled enough to call or ask them to do anything.
Me either. I've never asked them to "mark the tape" or anything similar. In fact it never has occurred to me to do so.
 
You don't need to play those "mark the tape" or "say initials" snark. All you need to do is note the frequency and the time and call the facility during the next business day.

The phone numbers aren't that hard to find either.

For what happened here, yeah I'd just squawk 1200 and flip my freq and shrug it off.

In my case it was a guy playing 21 questions as I was running VFR into a area of reduced visibility and was requesting a IFR, he was asking me stuff which had nothing to do with getting my clearance, as I was getting into lower and lower vis.
 
Me either. I've never asked them to "mark the tape" or anything similar. In fact it never has occurred to me to do so.


Maybe it's because we both fly out of a place served by a training tower. I won't say I haven't asked for a "clarification" as a big hint to the trainer and trainee that I'm thinking "WTF?!" Hahaha.

Once in a while the trainer plugged in with them, is the next voice you hear, sorting out the trainee's mess. ;)

I just let 'em get their training done and figure they've got their own internal evaluation stuff. As long as I don't swap paint with anyone else, I'm good.
 
Maybe it's because we both fly out of a place served by a training tower. I won't say I haven't asked for a "clarification" as a big hint to the trainer and trainee that I'm thinking "WTF?!" Hahaha.

Once in a while the trainer plugged in with them, is the next voice you hear, sorting out the trainee's mess. ;)

I just let 'em get their training done and figure they've got their own internal evaluation stuff. As long as I don't swap paint with anyone else, I'm good.
Yeah, and there have been a lot of trainees at Center and TRACON too, over the past few years.

The goofiest screwup recently was when we took off from KBJC IFR and, upon checking in, approach said she didn't have an airplane off KBJC. She insisted we were off KAPA. The thing was, she had another airplane with a female voice which had just taken off from KAPA. All women sound alike to her I guess.
 
Any idea what this was about?

Could be the controller is simply a d!ckhead.

Did I do something wrong?
No.

Should I have done something different?
No.

Understand that you're receiving not just flight following in this area. You're in the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace where participating aircraft receive Class C services which includes separation between IFR and VFR aircraft. The minimum required radar separation is target resolution, the radar returns must not touch. Vertical separation is 500 feet and visual separation can be used. It's possible he was pushing you down to clear a path for IFR aircraft. After you told him you wanted to stay up due to the terrain forcing you to descend or terminate services was damn poor technique on his part.
 
After you told him you wanted to stay up due to the terrain forcing you to descend or terminate services was damn poor technique on his part.

Agreed! I know as a prior USAF controller we'd be in deep kimchi if we did something that. File an ASRS report if it's not too late.
 
Steven is right and just for clarification, "mark the tapes" is so last century. Everything is digital nowadays so just note the time and the date and where you were so they can figure out who's sector you were in. As long as you call within 15 days they'll have a record of it along with who was in position that talked to you. After 15 days they "erase" the log. The sooner you call the better chance that the dick controller will still be in the facility to explain why they said what they said.
 
When I did it, it was more to get the guy to just do his job, I could careless about what management does to him, I just needed less talk and more clearance.
 
Nothing wrong with that either. Over the years I've worked alongside and across from several controllers who need a knot jerked in their head.
 
The suggested VFR altitudes don't apply if you are receiving ATC assigned altitudes. If they have a block open at 4K eastbound, you might just get it.

Is that true outside of B & C airspace?
 
The suggested VFR altitudes don't apply if you are receiving ATC assigned altitudes. If they have a block open at 4K eastbound, you might just get it.

VFR cruising altitudes are not suggestions, they are required by regulation. In airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR aircraft altitudes inconsistent with FAR 91.159 may be assigned.
 
VFR cruising altitudes are not suggestions, they are required by regulation. In airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR aircraft altitudes inconsistent with FAR 91.159 may be assigned.

4000 MSL was under 3000 AGL at that particular location, so 91.159 does not apply. It's not unusual at all to get assigned weird low altitudes approaching a Class C, and he was proximate to three of them, and intending to land at one.

I'm routinely assigned 2000 crossing San Jose, 1400 crossing Oakland, and I get 2500 eastbound over Fresno.
 
I have flown this area several times lately. It's not un common for ATC to assign IFR altitudes to VFR traffic. With all of the big iron around and fitting in the little guys it works for them. I have been VFR and given a IFR altitude and vectored exactly the same route as I have been while on IFR to John Wayne.
 
VFR cruising altitudes are not suggestions, they are required by regulation. In airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR aircraft altitudes inconsistent with FAR 91.159 may be assigned.

§ 91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight level. Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:

That's what I was saying. If on FF or a clearance e.g., under their control, , if ATC gives you an altitude, you are good. The rules are only rules until the rule makers give you another rule to follow instead. Then you follow that new rule until someone else who makes the rules gives you antoher rule to follow.

§ 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions. (a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
 
4000 MSL was under 3000 AGL at that particular location, so 91.159 does not apply. It's not unusual at all to get assigned weird low altitudes approaching a Class C, and he was proximate to three of them, and intending to land at one.

I'm routinely assigned 2000 crossing San Jose, 1400 crossing Oakland, and I get 2500 eastbound over Fresno.

I said nothing about the situation in the OP. It was implied in the message I responded to that VFR cruising altitudes are suggestions. That's not correct.
 
That's what I was saying. If on FF or a clearance e.g., under their control, , if ATC gives you an altitude, you are good. The rules are only rules until the rule makers give you another rule to follow instead. Then you follow that new rule until someone else who makes the rules gives you antoher rule to follow.

No, not if just on flight following. ATC is authorized to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft only when providing Class B, Class C, or TRSA services.
 
Back
Top