Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
That would be a convincing argument if the reg said "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised over VFR aircraft."
Descend at your Discretion
- Thread starter AU_James
- Start date
That would be a convincing argument if the reg said "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised over VFR aircraft."
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The FAA's lawyers take the position that pilots of VFR aircraft in class E are required to follow ATC instructions if they are in contact with ATC.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../2013/Karas - (2013) Legal Interpretation.pdf
Excerpt:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...hority-over-vfr-in-controlled-airspace.60082/
Of course, not everyone agrees with the FAA's attorneys, but unfortunately, the courts have ruled that agencies' interpretations of their own rules will be given more weight than yours or mine.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../2013/Karas - (2013) Legal Interpretation.pdf
Excerpt:
"Pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of
whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b)."
This subject has often been debated here. For example:whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b)."
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...hority-over-vfr-in-controlled-airspace.60082/
Of course, not everyone agrees with the FAA's attorneys, but unfortunately, the courts have ruled that agencies' interpretations of their own rules will be given more weight than yours or mine.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
The part where it's wrong. Instructions are frequently given in the outer areas of Class C and in TRSAs, both of which are Class E airspace. In some cases, even Class G. The outer area of Class C extends to the bottom of radar coverage, which can be the ground.
What part of "You have to follow those instructions you are given" do you not understand?
You would do well to actually read the AIM, even if it's not "regulatory."
Justin M
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 815
- Display Name
Display name:
JM
Well everyone does that! <grin>! And I take a train!
ircphoenix
En-Route
Are you under the impression that class E is uncontrolled airspace?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I think what Hank is getting at is a VFR, receiving basic radar services and inside of airspace that doesn't require separation (D,E,G) should only be vectored on pilot request. There are always exceptions though.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
Yep, had this happen a couple of times flying back in Michigan under the Detroit Bravo. They will even sometimes assign an altitude even though you're actually in Class E airspace. It's to keep proper legal separation between you and big iron, so it's silly to protest. Compliance is not only required, it's also in your best interest.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I once had a controller give me a "fly direct to" instruction from a location that I'm pretty sure was well outside the outer area of the nearest class C air space. It was a considerably more direct route than what I had planned, so the guy was doing me a favor, the dirty rat!
ircphoenix
En-Route
I once had a controller give me a "fly direct to" instruction from a location that I'm pretty sure was well outside the outer area of the nearest class C air space. It was a considerably more direct route than what I had planned, so the guy was doing me a favor, the dirty rat!
I have gotten that before to get me south of another airport because it worked better for the controller's flow. Happy to oblige.
But after reading this thread, I was in class E, so I should've lodged a protest over the dictatorial egotistical controller who thought they could tell me what to do! /sarcasm
denverpilot
Tied Down
Another tip. Any time I get a repeated hint like that which has me wondering why, I just offer up a little more information on the reply...
"Descend, pilot's discretion, planning to start down in about three miles if that works for you, 79M"
Often they'll reply with whatever they were thinking was the upcoming conflict or if they were being passive aggressive and they need you down, they'll just issue the "descend and maintain".
Notable in my mind is the time I got a descent hint and then later a descent instruction that put me too close to terrain for my tastes. I replied that I had the 737 ahead in sight (let's the controller off the hook for separation because I'm VFR) and I'd both turn south a bit and descend in a mile.
Controller was fine with that. He just didn't want us pointed directly at each other at the same altitude, even if he was about to turn the 737 for an approach. It just didn't make him comfortable.
My offer to turn and a set location where he could expect my descent, fixed the worry and also meant I could be a little closer to the 737 before he needed to worry about me not altering altitude or course.
Others have been descents into rural airports where the controller was expecting a jet coming off of them that had an EFC and was departing, but hadn't checked on yet. I often listen to the CTAF simultaneously with the center controller when arriving at such airports, and sometimes it's useful...
"Might need you to descend sooner, theres an IFR Gulfstream about to depart the airport."
"He's rolling now, and should be here in a moment, and I've got him in sight... he's lifting off runway X now, and we have the weather and airport in sight."
"Okay, continue and descend at pilot's discretion, maintain visual separation from that traffic, squawk 1200, radar services terminated, frequency change approved."
"Thanks, 79M."
.... "Center, Gulfstream XXXXX out of 2000 for 8000." ...
"Gulfstream XXX, radar contact, traffic two o'clock, three miles, 3000, a Cessna landing XXX, he has you in sight. Turn right heading XXX, expedite your climb through 3000, climb and maintain 16 thousand for now, higher momentarily. If unable on the climb through 3000, let me know."
"Cessna in sight, expedite through 3000, maintain 16 thousand, heading XXX, Gulfstream XXXXX."
And you get to watch a pretty Gulfstream go by.
If the timing doesn't look like it'll work out, you can turn a bit or descend out of the way of the other aircraft. I've done that after I was "let go" and heard, "Gulfstream XXX, ... disregard, looks like the inbound traffic is turning east, and will be clear of your climb. Cessna 79M if you're still listening here, thanks."
All sorts of ways you can help the controllers out beside them helping you. There's a flow to it. You get better at it over time.
Most important is not to occupy Terra Firma before arriving at the runway, and not occupy the same chunk of air any other airplanes are in, at the same time. Sounds like,you've got that part down, so it's all gooooood. ;-)
Hank S
En-Route
If you're inside the Bravo ring, even underneath, you're controlled. It's other somewhere I've gone more than a couple of times, but I'm durn sure talking to Approach to stay out of trouble. But 50 nm from ATL and away from Macon/ Robbins, I'm not "controlled" and ATC doesnt "instruct."
ircphoenix
En-Route
So you are under the impression that class E airspace is uncontrolled?
Hank S
En-Route
Your friends in "Fly straight out" disagree with you (emphasis in the original):
From the AIM (which is more relevant to us than the 7110.65):
"The local controller may provide pilots flying VFR with generalized instructions which will facilitate operations; e.g., “PROCEED SOUTHWESTBOUND, ENTER A RIGHT DOWNWIND RUNWAY THREE ZERO,” or provide a suggested heading to establish radar identification or as an advisory aid to navigation; e.g., “SUGGESTED HEADING TWO TWO ZERO, FOR RADAR IDENTIFICATION.” In both cases, the instructions are advisory aids to the pilot flying VFR and are not radar vectors. NOTE− Pilots have complete discretion regarding acceptance of the suggested headings or directions and have sole responsibility for seeing and avoiding other aircraft."
From the 7110.65:
"It is important that the pilot be aware of the fact that the directions or headings being provided are suggestions or are advisory in nature. This is to keep the pilot from being inadvertently misled into assuming that radar vectors (and other associated radar services) are being provided when, in fact, they are not."
From the AIM (which is more relevant to us than the 7110.65):
"The local controller may provide pilots flying VFR with generalized instructions which will facilitate operations; e.g., “PROCEED SOUTHWESTBOUND, ENTER A RIGHT DOWNWIND RUNWAY THREE ZERO,” or provide a suggested heading to establish radar identification or as an advisory aid to navigation; e.g., “SUGGESTED HEADING TWO TWO ZERO, FOR RADAR IDENTIFICATION.” In both cases, the instructions are advisory aids to the pilot flying VFR and are not radar vectors. NOTE− Pilots have complete discretion regarding acceptance of the suggested headings or directions and have sole responsibility for seeing and avoiding other aircraft."
From the 7110.65:
"It is important that the pilot be aware of the fact that the directions or headings being provided are suggestions or are advisory in nature. This is to keep the pilot from being inadvertently misled into assuming that radar vectors (and other associated radar services) are being provided when, in fact, they are not."
Shawn
En-Route
That does not negate the fact that if you are given a heading instruction to fly while VFR from ATC that you are obligated to comply with that heading.
azure
Final Approach
Exactly so. And it doesn't matter whether you are under a Bravo when the instruction is given or somewhere far from any such busy airspace, though the controller is probably much more likely to issue such an instruction in areas where traffic is heavier.
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
Correct. A controller can and at times will issue either a hard altitude or heading. If you don't like it all you can do is say you want to cancel FF and squawk VFR (providing you aren't in B, C or D airspace of course).
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think I remember reading that didn't get someone off the hook once. Guy got an instruction, he didn't like it, self terminated his radar service, controller didn't withdraw the instruction by saying "resume own navigation" and he got busted
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
That would be news to me. My understanding (and operating practice) is that you can't force a plane to maintain FF just as you can't force an IFR plane to not cancel and remain IFR.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
This has been cherry picked Hank. The quotes from the .65 are given for "radar identification or as a navigational aid" only. It does say pilots have complete discretion to follow those directions or instructions for those TWO particular cases. It goes on to further authorize tower radar in helping controllers with information and INSTRUCTIONS within the surface area, such as "turn base leg now." That is not an advisory and the pilot is required to follow the instructions IAW 91.123 (b).
Those quotes are also given just for use of tower radar displays. TRACON and ARTCC are different. They have different requirements such as needing to vector VFRs for sequencing to the primary airport or for VFR practice IAPs. Just the fact alone of being authorized to vector in the interest of safety, allows ATC broad control.
I still agree with you in that a VFR under FF, should not be vectored or assigned altitudes in airspace where no separation exists. That is not a service listed for basic radar services and there is no priority afforded for an IFR over VFR. Now does it happen, and do they have the CC letter to back them up? Yep.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Here's a case where a guy's pilot certificate was revoked for ignoring a tower controller's instructions:
https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/4713.pdf
https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/4713.pdf
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. That's true. The way I remember the incident the pilot was given an altitude or a vector. He didn't like it so he just said he was terminating, squawking and said bye bye. The controller didn't withdraw the instruction. The guy in the long robe with the big wood hammer threw the book at him.
ircphoenix
En-Route
It's the common sense test.
If a controller says "turn right 20 degrees, climb and maintain 7,000 for traffic" and you throw a hissy fit, cancel FF, proceed VFR, and run into someone.... well... you won't care anymore, but it won't look good for you posthumously.
If a controller says "turn right 20 degrees, climb and maintain 7,000 for traffic" and you throw a hissy fit, cancel FF, proceed VFR, and run into someone.... well... you won't care anymore, but it won't look good for you posthumously.
Mistake Not...
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,251
- Display Name
Display name:
Mistake Not...
Maybe I'm overthinking this, but both sides are right to a point...
* No one makes you get FF, so you if you don't have it you can't be told what to do in E.
* But, IF you get FF, you've given consent to be ordered around by The Man until such time as you ask to be set free and it's confirmed.
Don't want vectors? Don't get FF.
Seems to me the process of requesting (and being granted) flight following is what changes the "can't vector VFR traffic in E from [CANT] to [CAN]".
* No one makes you get FF, so you if you don't have it you can't be told what to do in E.
* But, IF you get FF, you've given consent to be ordered around by The Man until such time as you ask to be set free and it's confirmed.
Don't want vectors? Don't get FF.
Seems to me the process of requesting (and being granted) flight following is what changes the "can't vector VFR traffic in E from [CANT] to [CAN]".
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I'd do it but I'd wonder why I'm getting a vector and altitude assignment. A traffic advisory would be better. That would allow me to decide if I want a vector or not.
I've never once initiated a vector on a VFR aircraft under FF. I kept my IFR traffic away from them and issued traffic advisories as needed. I stayed within the boundaries that I was required to follow and allowed the PIC to decide the best course of action.
ircphoenix
En-Route
I've gotten vectors before going between KSNA, AJO, KCNO etc... lots of aircraft going through that pass. And I didn't throw a hissy fit. Turns out I very much like NOT running into stuff and the guy on the scope can see more than I can.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Of course you did. Those are areas where sequencing and separation are required. Vectoring and altitude assignments are explicitly authorized.
If you're cruising along under FF in class E, for most cases, ATC should treat you like you never called in the first place. If you were a 1200 code, they can't assign a vector or an altitude because they're not talking to you. They would either issue a traffic advisory to the other aircraft, or vector / altitude restriction on the other aircraft.
It's not a simple matter of saying ATC is control and they can do whatever they want with you. They have specific procedures to follow based on class of airspace and facility LOAs. If it's not covered in their directives, sure they can use best judgement. When it comes to the services to VFR aircraft, it's pretty clear.
ircphoenix
En-Route
The point being that ATC *can* and *will* vector you if need be. And if you *choose* to ignore that direction, you do so at your own peril. If you're not talking, that's all a moot point, since you can't hear a vector anyway.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
And I would ask those controllers who take it upon themselves to vector, why not just apply the rules as they were designed? It's a logical process that has a tiered approach.
You have an aircraft flying at 4,500 ft under FF. "Mooney 345, traffic 10 o'clock, 7 miles, north bound, altitude indicates 4,500." You leave it up to the pilot to use their PIC authority to request a vector. If they choose not to, then "Mooney 345, traffic now 11 o'clock , 4 miles, northbound, altitude indicates 4,500, suggest a heading of 230." You could even throw in a little non standard like I used to use "targets appear likely to merge." If the pilot still doesn't get the hint, then "Mooney 345, traffic alert, 12 o'clock, 1 mile northbound, altitude indicates 4,500, advise you turn left heading 230 immediately."
That's the way the system was designed to operate. You let the PIC decide the best course of action under FF in airspace that doesn't have prescribed separation. You provide them the picture and offer them a suggestion, but they should be the ones making the choice.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Although such instructions are not in accord with the FAA's orders to controllers, until they change the wording of 14 CFR 91.123(b) and/or the published opinions of the FAA's attorneys, I still plan on obeying them absent an emergency, because it's not my responsibility to train controllers, and I don't need the hassle of attempting to do so.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
No doubt, as will I.
the controller has no authority in the above case. I think I would have said, "Jees, thanks"
Class E controlled airspace is a weather restriction. And that little dot is a period
Dave S.
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Messages
- 228
- Display Name
Display name:
thetexan
A controller MAY control any aircraft on his frequency and who request services, and in many cases, the aircraft, MUST accept control such as in Class B, A, C, D.
7110.65
5−6−1. APPLICATION
Vector aircraft:
a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, confidence
maneuver, or when a pilot requests.
b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an additional service.
c. At or above the MVA or the minimum IFR altitude except as authorized for radar approaches,
special VFR, VFR operations, or by Para 5−6−3, Vectors Below Minimum Altitude.
d. In airspace for which you have control jurisdiction, unless otherwise coordinated.
e. So as to permit it to resume its own navigation within radar coverage.
f. Operating special VFR only within Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E surface areas.
g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is established, or when a pilot
requests, or you suggest and the pilot concurs.
(this is just issuing vectors, which is control. I haven't even dealt with altitude assignments which are another control)
and...during the time the controller is issuing instructions the pilot WILL comply...period. Or...he will decline the service if it's optional....or....he will declare an emergency....or....he will say unable because the request would cause unsafe operation, flight into weather, or some other JUSTIFIABLE reasons.
In short, controllers can control, by one procedure or another, aircraft in any airspace. Whether or not the pilot is required to be controlled or volunteers to be controlled depending on the airspace he is in is a different topic.
And, yes, this includes VFR aircraft.
tex
Hank S
En-Route
You're quoting controller regs. We as pilots don't fly under 7110.anything, just the not-so-friendly FARs. Flight Following is voluntary for both pilot and controller, and can be dropped by either at any time. Or are there more controller regs that we pilots don't know about that prevent us from cancelling flight following when the controller is being a butt, or if I want to deviate off to the side to see something or go somewhere else?
"Remain clear of the Bravo" is enough for me. I'm used to being given traffic advisories, including opposing or crossing traffic at the same altitude as the distance gets closer, with what I do being left up to me. Sent out of my way and asked to descend to clear the Approach Gate for the Bravo that I would have been well away from if cleared into the Bravo is a stupid request that costs me time and fuel.
In the future, when told to remain clear of the Bravo, with a course that will now put me through the arrival gate, I'll just cancel FF before making the northern turn to go up the east side of ATL Bravo, and they can deviate the durn airliners around me instead. But I'm not insane, I'll keep the radio tuned in and eyes peeled . . . .
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,227
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
this happened to me a few times too way back when. Now when I get the "descend at your discretion" then depending on where I am I'll either acknowledge and start a slow, 200-300 fpm descent, which sometimes isn't bad since you pick up speed... or if I want to stay high I'll let them know "76V will start VFR descent in 7 miles" <- I think that helps them with traffic, etc.
MarkZ
En-Route
Wow, talk about having a bad day. I'm pretty sure that was a career ender. If I am talking to a VFR aircraft that is flying in conflict with any other aircraft, I will issue traffic. If not in sight, I typically issue one more call and advise "target appears likely to merge." If still not in sight, you bet I'm taking action. If those two VFR aircraft collide in air and fatalities result, do you think I don't go to court because I could have taken action to prevent the development of an imminent situation?
Places like ATL, DFW, and ORD typically run what we call trips. Trips is short for Triple Simultaneous Parallel approaches. Whether we run trips in visual or instrument conditions really only matters to controllers: in instrument conditions we have to sit an extra controller down per runway as a "Parallel monitor." To safely run trips, every runway needs to "turn on" at a certain altitude, and 1,000 feet separated from the other parallels. At a minimum, a trip configuration will need 3,000 feet of altitude, but ORD uses 4,000 feet to buy some vector and sequence room for the middle runway (the middle runway gets fed from opposing fixes, and forcing that controller to sequence at the same altitude is a recipe for disaster). Trips creates a new quagmire for VFR pilots that laterally transition around the Bravo. Because 4,000 feet of altitude are required for separation, each runway must have a "capture point" by which that runway's arrival is established on final, level at the appropriate final altitude, and 1,000 feet separated from all other arrivals operating on the parallel runways. As a result, the capture points for each runway can reach out to 25-30 miles from the threshold! That's the border for most Bravo airspace. When a controller asks a pilot to descend below the finals, or what ATL referred to as the "arrival gate," this is probably what they were referring to.
So, what happens if a VFR pilot wants to play in triple finals at or near the arrivals' altitudes? Well, nothing to the pilot, really. Everyone else, however will move around you. ATC will not allow the development of an imminent situation, and controllers will take the necessary action to ensure all aircraft remain separated. So if a VFR pilot wants to fly with the extended final at 4,000 (which happens to be a popular low final altitude for a trip runway), and they can remain clear of the Bravo, they are free to do so. To compensate, ATC might vector all aircraft around the traffic aircraft, use a different altitude for turning onto the final approach course (which would require coordination with the other final controllers, the supervisor, and all surrounding airspaces), or attempt to issue traffic advisories to allow the IFR aircraft to employ "see and avoid" techniques. The last option is the least efficient, requiring transmission and frequency time better suited for issuing base and final turns, speed instructions, etc.
Deviating a bunch of other IFR traffic around VFR traffic is actually a more frequent occurrence than you'd expect. And you could bet that if I am given the choice of turning an IFR or VFR aircraft, I will generally turn the VFR aircraft. If I'm given the choice of turning and descending a VFR aircraft (potentially delaying him by a few minutes), I will choose that action over either drastically modifying the airspace and traffic pattern for multiple controllers or by delaying several IFR aircraft.
So, when a controller asks you to turn and descend to miss the finals/arrivals/approach gate/etc, maybe playing along wouldn't be such a bad idea, eh?
Hank S
En-Route
ATL has never made me turn, other than to "remain clear of the Bravo" when my direct course would take me over the top of the runway. Going that route VFR, I'm usually at 9500 if weather permits; when IFR, I'm at 9000 and usually have my choice of SINCA or HEFIN. My course is 049 outbound, and the reciprocal coming home, and they always keep me outside the Bravo, turning a 90-minute trip into 2 hours.
I'm tired of them not playing with me, and am about to stop playing with them. Dropping FF will keep me a few miles further from the Bravo on the east or west sides depending on which way around I go, the difference in distance/time is insignificant between the two.
I'm tired of them not playing with me, and am about to stop playing with them. Dropping FF will keep me a few miles further from the Bravo on the east or west sides depending on which way around I go, the difference in distance/time is insignificant between the two.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 17,189
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly
...one of which tells us we must obey ATC instructions in controlled airspace absent an emergency.
Vance Breese
Cleared for Takeoff
I am having difficulty understanding the value in having an adversarial relationship with ATC.
Instructions from ATC have never felt like a power struggle to me.
I am grateful for ATC’s help.
If ATC asks me to do something that is not good for me I have the option of saying “unable” letting them know they need to come up with another plan.
It is not unusual for ATC to vector me too close to a cloud because they can’t see it and I simply say "unable".
If I am flying in severe turbulence ATC may give me an altitude restriction that I am not able to comply with and again I am “unable”.
All my flying is VFR.
Instructions from ATC have never felt like a power struggle to me.
I am grateful for ATC’s help.
If ATC asks me to do something that is not good for me I have the option of saying “unable” letting them know they need to come up with another plan.
It is not unusual for ATC to vector me too close to a cloud because they can’t see it and I simply say "unable".
If I am flying in severe turbulence ATC may give me an altitude restriction that I am not able to comply with and again I am “unable”.
All my flying is VFR.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
FWIW Hank ATL ATC uses many different frequencies for different sectors. There's a tremendous amount of arrivals into ATL, just look at the arrival charts to see where the fixes are and altitudes. Not to mention the departures and SIDs. Based and flew there 24 years and it's very busy from about 6-7am until around 10-11pm. They run more banks of arrival/departure flights there than most other airports. Keep your eyes open!