ATC: You WILL land here...

roncachamp said:
Military members are told explicitly that they are required to follow all lawful orders. Does the lack of a similar statement in the FARs mean pilots are required to follow all ATC instructions, including those controllers are not authorized to issue?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, it does mean that. It says so in as many words. Whether it should or not is another question.

One might hope people would be willing to say no as an act of civil disobedience, but that does not imply lack of consequences. If there are consequences, you are doing a massive injustice by sweeping that under the rug.

Civil disobedience is only effective when the protesters understand and accept the consequences. It undermines the point to have pilots asking for leniency. And it has every appearance that you are asking pilots to sacrifice themselves for your point.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Well, yes, it does mean that. It says so in as many words. Whether it should or not is another question.
Click to expand...

This issue has come up several times in past discussions. There are no cases on record of pilots being charged with violating instructions controllers are not authorized to issue. Why do you suppose that is?
 
Palmpilot said:
I've been told that "Please state operating initials" serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

Really? They don't use operating initials anymore?

The purpose of doing that is getting the controller's identity so you can more readily talk to the tower chief. It's one thing to say "the guy was causing issues for me" vs "AJ was causing me issues". Then the chief doesn't have to list to everyone's tapes...because it might just be too much to go through at some sites. It helps you help the chief.

If you say "at aprx 1410z, AJ commanded me to land", then they know right where to go. Small site, they probably know anyway.

It also lets the controller know that you intend to follow up on something. It might just be a question as to what he thought was happening or to clarify something confusing or non-standard. Maybe thats not that great sometimes, but it is what it is.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Change the pronouns. Do you still feel the same?
Click to expand...
If I am unable to understand basic instructions and am a risk to someone's flight I wouldn't mind if a controller "exceeded their authority" and made/demanded I land.
Click to expand...
Yes I do feel the same. Why would that make a difference? If they honestly believe that I am putting other people's life's at risk then yes I think it's appropriate for them to do it.

If I disagree with their evaluation -- I'll certainly be having tapes reviewed and will challenge it.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
Really? They don't use operating initials anymore?

The purpose of doing that is getting the controller's identity so you can more readily talk to the tower chief. It's one thing to say "the guy was causing issues for me" vs "AJ was causing me issues". Then the chief doesn't have to list to everyone's tapes...because it might just be too much to go through at some sites. It helps you help the chief.

If you say "at aprx 1410z, AJ commanded me to land", then they know right where to go. Small site, they probably know anyway.

It also lets the controller know that you intend to follow up on something. It might just be a question as to what he thought was happening or to clarify something confusing or non-standard. Maybe thats not that great sometimes, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
You can still call the tower if you have some issue and it's not that difficult to find out who the controller was, especially if you have a time of occurrence.

In any case, when this controller gave her the number to call and "possible pilot deviation" the protocol would have been for the supervisor to review the tapes and possibly escalate it to an inspector reviewing the tapes. If it was found that the controller did something wrong he would hear about it too.
 
bflynn said:
Really? They don't use operating initials anymore?

The purpose of doing that is getting the controller's identity so you can more readily talk to the tower chief. It's one thing to say "the guy was causing issues for me" vs "AJ was causing me issues". Then the chief doesn't have to list to everyone's tapes...because it might just be too much to go through at some sites. It helps you help the chief.

If you say "at aprx 1410z, AJ commanded me to land", then they know right where to go. Small site, they probably know anyway.

It also lets the controller know that you intend to follow up on something. It might just be a question as to what he thought was happening or to clarify something confusing or non-standard. Maybe thats not that great sometimes, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

No need to know the initials. If it's a pilot deviation then the contoller will already have the paperwork done up. The tower chief would have this paperwork already. The tower chief can easily access the position log to find out this information as well. In this case the controller would probably tell the chief he instructed her to land and she denied. The tower chief would then reply by saying he had no authority to make her land. Finally he would tell him "Oh yeah don't assign radar vectors that you're not authorized to give either."

Also pulling the tapes these days isn't the labor intensive thing it used to be in analog days. It's digital and saved for 45 days at most places. If it's a radar separation issue the system automatically tattles and sends out a report to region. No need to "mark tapes" anymore.
 
Everskyward said:
...In any case, when this controller gave her the number to call and "possible pilot deviation" the protocol would have been for the supervisor to review the tapes and possibly escalate it to an inspector reviewing the tapes...
Click to expand...

My recollection is that this controller left out the "possible" part.
 
roncachamp said:
There are those who believe very passionately that FAR 91.123 was written with the knowledge that controllers would sometimes overstep their authority and pilots must follow all such instructions...
Click to expand...

Except in an emergency. I have to concede though, that this incident blows a serious hole in my previous argument. I can't really think of a way to make this fit into the emergency exception.

You mentioned 91.3; the "final authority" language there is contradictory to a literal reading of 91.123(b), and so arguments like these arise. I'm not sure that a clear cut answer is possible or wise for all situations.

You seem sure that the FAA will not pursue an enforcement action for refusing an instruction that is not authorized by the controllers' manual. I hope you're right, but I think I'm going to continue to follow such instructions if they're neither contrary to safety nor egregious usurpations of authority. I think one has to choose one's battles, with safety always being the highest priority.

The demand to land and engage an instructor at the local FBO falls into the egregious category, IMO. I think I would have said "unable," departed the guy's airspace as quickly as possible, and thereafter ceased talking to him. I would then file an ASRS report after landing, and deal with the pilot deviation when or if I heard from the FAA about it.

[Correction: Since she had been given a phone number to call, I might have called once I landed at my destination. Can't say for sure though, given the belligerence of the controller.]
 
Last edited:
what a couple of sphincter controllers.
 
Johnyc said:
MacFly.

By ATP location I meant there is a lot of training activity, inexperienced pilots, and therefore situations could be handeled differently considering the experience level of the pilots. Allowing a situation to spirel out of control could cause bigger issues. Landing her ends the issue and the following phone provides all with a clear understanding of the situation and necessary action could be taken, regroup and move on.
Click to expand...

Roger
 
Clark1961 said:
I suspect you'll be surprised at who actually owns the airspace. Yup, they all cooperate but dig deep enough...the only responsibility a delta tower has is separation on the runway. Yup, they tell us what to do and we generally cooperate but in the end, we are responsible for separation in the delta. Don't ever act otherwise. One hint is that you're never cleared into the delta except by approach or center.
Click to expand...


You don't have to be cleared into class D. Only requirement is establishing comm with the tower.

In 15 years of commercial flying I have never been told by any controller I was cleared to enter the Delta airspace.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
You don't have to be cleared into class D. Only requirement is establishing comm with the tower.

In 15 years of commercial flying I have never been told by any controller I was cleared to enter the Delta airspace.
Click to expand...

In 4 years of hobby flying I have been. Maybe you need to get out more?
 
To throw some clarification (or mud) into the scenario, can a Class D Tower tell you not to enter their airspace upon establishing required Comms?
 
MachFly said:
So you were actually told "your clear to enter into delta airspace"?

What was the scenario?
Click to expand...
I have had this happen as well -- specifically, passing near PTK at 3000 MSL, I've been told "cleared through the Pontiac Class Delta" by Detroit Approach. I've always taken the "cleared" part as a figure of speech meaning that they had worked things out with PTK Tower.

I've never heard "cleared" or anything similar from the Tower however, nor would I expect to. The tower could, of course, say to stay outside their airspace, but absent that, as soon as communications are established (i.e. you hear your full callsign), you have all the authorization you need to enter the Delta.
 
MachFly said:
So you were actually told "your clear to enter into delta airspace"?

What was the scenario?
Click to expand...

Going to MIC under the MSP Bravo on flight following, cleared through ANE Delta.
 
We have a lot of ATC techniques being given here on this thread. I think it's important to distinguish here is what's required and what's not. Unless the D is IFR and you're trying to get in SVFR, there is NO clearance to enter. Only requirement is two way comm. If you're talking to approach, they are responsible to get your transition from tower. Also no requirement to tell you you're cleared through. Yes, a tower guy can tell you to stay clear of the class D as well.

We have a lot of students reading these threads. They don't need to read about false requirements to be cleared into a class D. Next time out flying they'll establish two way comm and circle for 10 mins waiting on the tower to clear them in! :rolleyes:
 
Jaybird180 said:
To throw some clarification (or mud) into the scenario, can a Class D Tower tell you not to enter their airspace upon establishing required Comms?
Click to expand...

Yes. I had it happen once when a crash closed the airport.

"Remain clear of the Class Delta, airport is closed due to a crash, if you want to orbit outside the Delta and call us back when things settle down here, it's going to be a few more minutes."
 
Velocity173 said:
We have a lot of students reading these threads. They don't need to read about false requirements to be cleared into a class D. Next time out flying they'll establish two way comm and circle for 10 mins waiting on the tower to clear them in! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Good point!
 
Palmpilot said:
Good point!
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible. Students do get confused on that point, yours truly included. On intial contact, the student will be told to enter left (or right) traffic for the active runway, but no clearance.

But it is important for a student to ask when unsure. That was how I resolved such a dilemma. On my first foray into Class C (KSJC) I asked the controller if I was cleared. He set me straight right away.
 
Velocity173 said:
We have a lot of students reading these threads. They don't need to read about false requirements to be cleared into a class D. Next time out flying they'll establish two way comm and circle for 10 mins waiting on the tower to clear them in! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No one posted that a clearance was required to enter a Delta, falsely or otherwise.
 
There's this too. Just because you have established two-way communication doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You still need to comply with ATC's instructions unless you have a very good reason not to do so. Perhaps people are getting "clearances" and "instructions" confused.

§ 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
There's this too. Just because you have established two-way communication doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You still need to comply with ATC's instructions unless you have a very good reason not to do so. Perhaps people are getting "clearances" and "instructions" confused.
Click to expand...

Now yer goin' all rule-bound on us....

(insert nose-thumb emoticon here):D

Wonder how many students this comment will confuse?
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I'd need to see the whole story (audio and radar) but-- at some point -- if a pilot is unable to understand basic instructions and is a risk to my own flight I wouldn't mind if a controller "exceeded their authority" and made/demanded they land.
Click to expand...


You might ... as in: when the rookie controller(s) are working the Class D miking up way too long, calls stepped on left and right because he isn't leaving enough time for pilots to respond and to top it off there are three similar AC inbound with 6 or 7 others totaling 10. Had it happen to me ... didn't make the mistake he was screaming about and didn't fight it out on air as the frequency was maxed out ... needless to say, I was sent to the "sin bin" for a 3 lap 360 on downwind. Landed, called tower and had another pilot also vouch they spanked the wrong AC. Had a long talk with the supervisor, they reviewed and agreed with me.
 
danhagan said:
You might ... as in: when the rookie controller(s) are working the Class D miking up way too long, calls stepped on left and right because he isn't leaving enough time for pilots to respond and to top it off there are three similar AC inbound with 6 or 7 others totaling 10. Had it happen to me ... didn't make the mistake he was screaming about and didn't fight it out on air as the frequency was maxed out ... needless to say, I was sent to the "sin bin" for a 3 lap 360 on downwind. Landed, called tower and had another pilot also vouch they spanked the wrong AC. Had a long talk with the supervisor, they reviewed and agreed with me.
Click to expand...
I've certainly had my fair share of controllers making a mistake -- I surely wouldn't care enough to call the tower and talk to the supervisor simply because a stressed controller had me do a few three sixties.
 
jesse said:
I've certainly had my fair share of controllers making a mistake -- I surely wouldn't care enough to call the tower and talk to the supervisor simply because a stressed controller had me do a few three sixties.
Click to expand...

You would if he was using a continuous keyed up mike during most of that "sin bin" time to chastise you further, sprinkled with a couple of directions to the inbounds. You also might if the way you were directed into the 360's was punitive and had little to do with spacing. If I had the ATC live feed for that interaction, it sounded way worse than what the Asian lady received here.
 
I just ran across this apparent confirmation of pilot authority in AIM 4-4-7c:

It is the responsibility of the pilot to accept or refuse the clearance issued.
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
I just ran across this apparent confirmation of pilot authority in AIM 4-4-7c:
Click to expand...

If you read down further there is the part about getting an amended clearance if you decide to refuse the first one. Of course you can deviate from your clearance in an emergency or if the airplane (or you) are not capable of doing what is asked, but these are fairly limited circumstances.

4-4-10. Adherence to Clearance

a. When air traffic clearance has been obtained under either visual or instrument flight rules, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft must not deviate from the provisions thereof unless an amended clearance is obtained. When ATC issues a clearance or instruction, pilots are expected to execute its provisions upon receipt. ATC, in certain situations, will include the word “IMMEDIATELY” in a clearance or instruction to impress urgency of an imminent situation and expeditious compliance by the pilot is expected and necessary for safety. The addition of a VFR or other restriction; i.e., climb or descent point or time, crossing altitude, etc., does not authorize a pilot to deviate from the route of flight or any other provision of the ATC clearance.
Click to expand...
You can negotiate with ATC. I've done that many times. However, they are the ones that are going to be issuing the clearance or instruction. You need to comply unless you have a good reason.
 
Last edited:
ATC: Bugsmasher 123 - you are a threat to aviation, I am ordering you to land on the highway over there...

Also beyond the controller's authority. Where does it end?
 
It's not too hard to find obvious limits. Like 91.3(b) or the boundary of Class G (which is above 0 AGL in most places).

The slippery slope argument is very weak. There are much stronger ones for the issue at hand.
 
Everskyward said:
If you read down further there is the part about getting an amended clearance if you decide to refuse the first one. Of course you can deviate from your clearance in an emergency or if the airplane (or you) are not capable of doing what is asked, but these are fairly limited circumstances.

You can negotiate with ATC. I've done that many times. However, they are the ones that are going to be issuing the clearance or instruction. You need to comply unless you have a good reason.
Click to expand...

I take it you're referring to 4-4-10. In this thread a VFR pilot was given an unwanted landing clearance. I don't think an amended clearance is needed if what the pilot wants to do is not something that requires a clearance in the first place.

For example, when conditions are VFR outside class A airspace, if a controller gives the pilot an unwanted IFR clearance, there is no amendment of the clearance required. All the pilot would have to do is say "Cancelling IFR."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top