ATC: You WILL land here...

Whether or not she was a hazard to the flying public is unclear. She however was very calm in her interactions with both ATC and ground control. I do not know if I would have been as outwardly calm. Certainly, inwardly I would not have been.

From everything I have read we are supposed to follow the controllers orders unless it is unsafe. Maybe I am wrong. But if I am right then could any of us had said unable if he demanded that we land at such and such airport if it was safe to do so.

If he was going after her because she misunderstood his orders, then I should be calling the tower on numerous occasions. I have never been requested to do so by the way. I think we all occasionally misunderstand ATC's requests, or miss them entirely; I know when I was doing my IFR training there were times my instructor and I interpreted what ATC told us differently. Half the time she was right and half the time I was. Add to that the number of times that ATC gave us requests that were just impossible such as going to a waypoint in New Jersey when I was flying in Florida, the mistake ratio is pretty even.

I would really like to know the outcome of this scenario, and what the individual parties involved have to say. Certainly, it seems to me that the tower(ATC?) and the ground were "out to get her" but whether that is the case or just my perception I do not know.

One last thought. Can the tower or ATC ground me, which is sort of what they essentially did when he told her she could not fly out without an instructor. I do believe that ground said instruction, but it was not clear to me whether he meant progressive taxiing which would have been an appropriate recommendation or instruction with an instructor which is just ridiculous. I have been to airports with my instructor where she was as unfamiliar with the taxiways as I was. I was very thankful for progressive taxi and safe chart in those cases.


Doug
 
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...
Change the pronouns. Do you still feel the same?

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...
 
roncachamp said:
Negative.
Click to expand...

Thus the point of my question. Certainly, I believe they can instruct me to land, but to tell me I need an instructor to fly if I have a valid certificate to fly the plane in the conditions of the flight there is not much they can do to stop me from leaving the airport. Though, I guess if it is a towered controlled airport ground control could not give me clearance to leave the FBO, and the tower could not give clearance to take off.

Doug
 
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.
 
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...

If she was as big of a risk some people are making her out to be I personally would have had her fly OUT OF THE AREA, but unstead the controller decided to bring her back and add her to the mix, which in my mind was questionable. Kinda like a teacher not sending a disruptive student to the office but chew them out in front of the class. And then bringing the teacher from the next classroom over, (substitute that other teacher as the ground controller) and have them get some licks in too. If this really happened I would like to think this was/will be reviewed by the FAA and we might hear of the outcome of that investigation.:dunno:
 
roncachamp said:
An altitude the controller lacked the authority to specify, and we don't know that she wasn't climbing to it.



Which indicates what?



He sounded incompetent.



Where would this evidence come from? There's none on the tape, what other source could there be?
Click to expand...

I will first say that based on the (incomplete) recording, I'm on the pilot's side, even though she seems in over her head from the beginning. I think the controller overstepped his bounds, loaded stress on himself, this pilot, and everyone at the airport uneccessarily, and even let her distract him to the point where he was screwing up ("now... who is it that was talking about Falcon?"). He took a typical Class D nuisance and turned it into a fiasco, IMHO.

But I understand his intentions, so my question, for you as a controller, is:
Under what circumstances would you, if you were a tower controller at a Class D, assume authority beyond your assignment as outlined by the FARs, because you felt it would be irresponsible to send some "awkward" pilot on his way? Can you even imagine a scenario where you'd take a pilot who could obviously fly the airplane and talk on the radio (albeit without much confidence and with some confusion) and rather than help them get where they intend to go, order them to land at your airport, then proceed to ground them and strip them of their PIC privileges?
 
douglas393 said:
Thus the point of my question. Certainly, I believe they can instruct me to land, but to tell me I need an instructor to fly if I have a valid certificate to fly the plane in the conditions of the flight there is not much they can do to stop me from leaving the airport. Though, I guess if it is a towered controlled airport ground control could not give me clearance to leave the FBO, and the tower could not give clearance to take off.
Click to expand...

They cannot require you to land.
 
Not to prolong my misery, but I know they can in a TFR, and I am pretty sure that the regulations require me to follow their instructions unless it is not safe for me to do so. So if they tell me to land and it is safe for me to land, would not telling them unable or otherwise refusing to land be against regulations? This all is assuming I am flying under the control of ATC.

Doug
 
douglas393 said:
Not to prolong my misery, but I know they can in a TFR, and I am pretty sure that the regulations require me to follow their instructions unless it is not safe for me to do so. So if they tell me to land and it is safe for me to land, would not telling them unable or otherwise refusing to land be against regulations? This all is assuming I am flying under the control of ATC.

Doug
Click to expand...
I don't think ATC orders you to land in a TFR. They just advise you that if you don't, you will be intercepted by someone who DOES have the authority to order you to land.
 
azure said:
I don't think ATC orders you to land in a TFR. They just advise you that if you don't, you will be intercepted by someone who DOES have the authority to order you to land.
Click to expand...

In the recent Denver incident with the 182, the controllers stated "those aircraft will be escorting you to Centennial".
 
Security TFRs yes. Plenty of other TFRs where you're not gonna be intercepted if you're not talking to ATC you might not even have known you violated a TFR.
 
rottydaddy said:
I will first say that based on the (incomplete) recording, I'm on the pilot's side, even though she seems in over her head from the beginning. I think the controller overstepped his bounds, loaded stress on himself, this pilot, and everyone at the airport uneccessarily, and even let her distract him to the point where he was screwing up ("now... who is it that was talking about Falcon?"). He took a typical Class D nuisance and turned it into a fiasco, IMHO.

But I understand his intentions, so my question, for you as a controller, is:
Under what circumstances would you, if you were a tower controller at a Class D, assume authority beyond your assignment as outlined by the FARs, because you felt it would be irresponsible to send some "awkward" pilot on his way? Can you even imagine a scenario where you'd take a pilot who could obviously fly the airplane and talk on the radio (albeit without much confidence and with some confusion) and rather than help them get where they intend to go, order them to land at your airport, then proceed to ground them and strip them of their PIC privileges?
Click to expand...

There are no circumstances under which I would overstep my authority.

What do you feel the controller's intentions were? What was the purpose of the climb to 3500? The descent to 2600? The headings? Assuming her original intent was to land at KIWA, the controller should have provided the instructions necessary to sequence her for landing. It doesn't sound like that's what he's doing.
 
douglas393 said:
Thus the point of my question. Certainly, I believe they can instruct me to land, but to tell me I need an instructor to fly if I have a valid certificate to fly the plane in the conditions of the flight there is not much they can do to stop me from leaving the airport. Though, I guess if it is a towered controlled airport ground control could not give me clearance to leave the FBO, and the tower could not give clearance to take off.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe ATC can require you to land?
 
roncachamp said:
Why do you believe ATC can require you to land?
Click to expand...
Unless I am incorrect, but if I am flying under the control of ATC(eg. IFR, in class B, class C, class D, and I guess even flight following) and they give me instructions to do something, (typically would be fly to that waypoint, fly some vector, fly at some altitude, etc), unless it is unsafe, I am not comfortable to do it, or my plane is unable to do it, I am obligated under regulations to do it. I do not believe the regulations for the most part specifically say what ATC can and cannot tell you to do(I know there are certain instructions that they cannot give such as line up and hold short to a student pilot), but I do not remember any regulation that specifically tells them that they cannot tell someone to land. So on the basis of that I would assume that if they told me to land and it was not unsafe, out of my capabilities, or out of my planes capabilities, I would be obligated to land at their direction.

If the regs specifically say that they cannot do it well then in the words of Rosanne Rosannadanna "nevermind."

Doug
 
douglas393 said:
Unless I am incorrect, but if I am flying under the control of ATC(eg. IFR, in class B, class C, class D, and I guess even flight following) and they give me instructions to do something, (typically would be fly to that waypoint, fly some vector, fly at some altitude, etc), unless it is unsafe, I am not comfortable to do it, or my plane is unable to do it, I am obligated under regulations to do it. I do not believe the regulations for the most part specifically say what ATC can and cannot tell you to do(I know there are certain instructions that they cannot give such as line up and hold short to a student pilot), but I do not remember any regulation that specifically tells them that they cannot tell someone to land. So on the basis of that I would assume that if they told me to land and it was not unsafe, out of my capabilities, or out of my planes capabilities, I would be obligated to land at their direction.

If the regs specifically say that they cannot do it well then in the words of Rosanne Rosannadanna "nevermind."
Click to expand...

Controllers are required to provide ATC services in accordance with Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. There is nothing in that weighty tome that gives controllers the authority to require a pilot to land at an airport not of the pilot's choosing. If there was it would be in direct conflict with FAR 91.3(a).
 
roncachamp said:
Controllers are required to provide ATC services in accordance with Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. There is nothing in that weighty tome that gives controllers the authority to require a pilot to land at an airport not of the pilot's choosing. If there was it would be in direct conflict with FAR 91.3(a).
Click to expand...

Okay. Then I stand corrected.

Thanks.

Doug
 
ATC told many airplanes to land on 9/11. Of course the pilot can decline or negotiate but they better have an explanation.
 
roncachamp said:
If there was it would be in direct conflict with FAR 91.3(a).
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand that statement. If taken at its face value, "landing clearance canceled" or "remain clear of class C" could both be ignored under less than emergency conditions by citing 14 CFR 91.3(a). 91.3(b) doesn't apply unless dealing with an emergency.

Why does 14 CFR 91.123(b) not apply to the example at hand, but does to the ones I mentioned? This is inside Class D, and is apparently fallout from busting that airspace. Class D is an "area in which air traffic control is exercised." It may be exceeding authority, but giving the one finger salute would seem to make this a pilot violation as well.
 
SCATANA procedures to close U.S. airspace used to be in the FARs when I started flying, and included published authority to require one to land anywhere deemed required by ATC.

A quick Google shows it's been superseded by ESCAT, which is regional. Similar authority, however.
 
roncachamp said:
Controllers are required to provide ATC services in accordance with Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. There is nothing in that weighty tome that gives controllers the authority to require a pilot to land at an airport not of the pilot's choosing. If there was it would be in direct conflict with FAR 91.3(a).
Click to expand...


I read the tome and agree with you... however there is a precident of ATC making a plane land, in fact a lot of planes. It happened on 9-11. Before you pounce on me. I agree that was a special situation, but I have to wonder if there is somewhere in the regs that allows ATC to force a plane to land if they determine it is a danger to the airspace?

I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to learn.

Doug
 
Everskyward said:
ATC told many airplanes to land on 9/11. Of course the pilot can decline or negotiate but they better have an explanation.
Click to expand...
I understand that there was one in the St. Louis area that declined to land when he was so ordered on 911 claiming that he was close to home and wanted to finish the flight. He did continue on and made it home. Never heard if he faced any sort of ramifications from that, but figure that everyone was too busy with other things to really make an issue out of it.
 
ScottM said:
I understand that there was one in the St. Louis area that declined to land when he was so ordered on 911 claiming that he was close to home and wanted to finish the flight. He did continue on and made it home. Never heard if he faced any sort of ramifications from that, but figure that everyone was too busy with other things to really make an issue out of it.
Click to expand...
Scott? Welcome back!

It would be interesting to know how many out of the thousands of airplanes questioned the order. Obviously the airliners could contact their ops to see what was going on but many GA airplanes could not or did not. The only thing we were told was that once we landed at our destination we wouldn't be able to take off again. That was puzzling enough. I had been a pilot for years before it happened and it had never entered my mind that ATC would ever be ordering airplanes to land because of a national emergency. I probably don't have much of an imagination. :dunno:

Getting back to the OP, it could be that the controller was bluffing just to get the pilot out of the sky because he thought she was a hazard. But she didn't put up any argument. I still don't think we have the whole story and probably never will.
 
roncachamp said:
Those orders to land did not originate with ATC.
Click to expand...

Indeed - they originated from the White House; specifically from Cabinet member Norman Mineta, then Secretary of Transportation, over-ruling an objection from the FAA acting administrator on pilot discretion:
Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order-there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary."

[Expletive] pilot discretion," Mineta yelled back. "Get those [expletive] planes down."
​
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta

It would be an interesting to compare and contrast that order with a hypothetical case where the White House ordered all water craft immediately off national waters, or all vehicles off national roadways in response to a terrorist attack.
 
douglas393 said:
Thus the point of my question. Certainly, I believe they can instruct me to land...
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that they can, short of a national emergency or TFR violation, but I'm no expert.

...but to tell me I need an instructor to fly if I have a valid certificate to fly the plane in the conditions of the flight there is not much they can do to stop me from leaving the airport. Though, I guess if it is a towered controlled airport ground control could not give me clearance to leave the FBO, and the tower could not give clearance to take off.
Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested that she could have waited until the tower was closed before departing.

After reflection, though, once he notified her that her actions were being treated as a pilot deviation, she may have felt that complying with his demands might show a compliant attitude and reduce the likelihood of the FAA throwing the book at her.

That was the way I approached things when I taxied into the rough grass after landing at OAK one night, in a plane whose landing/taxi light was INOP. (I had been taught to rely on the blue taxiway lights when taxiing with neither a taxi nor landing light, but the taxiways at OAK are wider than I'm used to, and there are a lot of exits from the runway, so the blue lights weren't sufficient by themselves to make it clear which was an exit and which was a space between exits.) After an airport or FBO employee helped me push the plane back onto the runway (with tower permission), I taxied to parking, and in the process figured out how to use the glow from the nav lights to watch for the yellow exit centerlines.

During the subsequent phone conversation with the tower, the controller said that due to the INOP landing light, I should wait until morning before departing. I pointed out that in noncommercial ops, a landing light is not required, but he reiterated his recommendation, given what had happened. When it came time to go home, I decided that I didn't want to get on the FAA's bad side, so I ended up getting a ride home from someone who had been at the meeting I attended, and was based at my home airport (PAO). It was relatively easy and kind of fun to use public transportation to pick up the plane the next morning.

So in summary, I can see why she might not have wanted to risk making things worse for herself by standing up for her rights.
 
Last edited:
douglas393 said:
I read the tome and agree with you... however there is a precident of ATC making a plane land, in fact a lot of planes. It happened on 9-11. Before you pounce on me. I agree that was a special situation, but I have to wonder if there is somewhere in the regs that allows ATC to force a plane to land if they determine it is a danger to the airspace?

I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to learn.

Doug
Click to expand...

As Nate and Steven said SCATANA is the only time that they have that authority. Posed this same question my brother who works at a class C and he said the same thing Steven said. No, he doesn't have the authority to make this women land her plane unless she was a national security threat and that order will come from a senior FAA employee after coordination with DOD. It's not just something a controller on position decides. ATC control instructions and clearances are intended on separating us from traffic based upon where we want to go not ATC.
 
roncachamp said:
Controllers are required to provide ATC services in accordance with Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. There is nothing in that weighty tome that gives controllers the authority to require a pilot to land at an airport not of the pilot's choosing. If there was it would be in direct conflict with FAR 91.3(a).
Click to expand...

There's a question, and I believe its one that came up before in an unrelated topic -

If a Controller Oversteps his authority and gives a command he is not authorized to give, does the pilot still have the obligation to follow the command? Speaking strictly from the letter of the regulations that pilots have to follow, I don't see something that says "unless you believe the controller has overstepped their authority."

While I feel that ATC had no authority to issue the command, once issued, I think the pilot had to follow, right?
 
SkyHog said:
There's a question, and I believe its one that came up before in an unrelated topic -

If a Controller Oversteps his authority and gives a command he is not authorized to give, does the pilot still have the obligation to follow the command? Speaking strictly from the letter of the regulations that pilots have to follow, I don't see something that says "unless you believe the controller has overstepped their authority."

While I feel that ATC had no authority to issue the command, once issued, I think the pilot had to follow, right?
Click to expand...

Here we go again! :D :popcorn:
 
N801BH said:
If she was as big of a risk some people are making her out to be I personally would have had her fly OUT OF THE AREA, but unstead the controller decided to bring her back and add her to the mix, which in my mind was questionable.

If this really happened I would like to think this was/will be reviewed by the FAA and we might hear of the outcome of that investigation.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Yes, this really happened.

No matter what happens, the controller does not demand that a pilot land nor is the controller the judge of who is a risk to aviation. IMO, the controller created more risk. You have someone not responding quickly enough, someone obviously not up to speed on the radio - fine, don't demand that they Communciate, then Aviate and then complain about their aviation.

Completely unprofessional, unhelpful and a major fail. I mean come on, your airspace is 4 miles wide. Even the slowest plane will clear that in just a few minutes. If you don't like what they're doing, turn them 180 and get them out of there.

As I said before - unable, please state operating initials.
 
Last edited:
And in case anyone is wondering why, my understanding is that it's because the time and the frequency are sufficient for ATC management to determine who the controller was.
 
Wow this guy was just unpleasant! Both of them. She appears to have an Asian accent. I would use this as an indicator that maybe I should be more helpful. Maybe more patient. I'd love to see her flying the plane though. ATC makes it seem like a non flying civilian just stole an airplane and is learning on the fly (no pun intended). I would love to see the paperwork on this.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm afraid I don't understand that statement. If taken at its face value, "landing clearance canceled" or "remain clear of class C" could both be ignored under less than emergency conditions by citing 14 CFR 91.3(a). 91.3(b) doesn't apply unless dealing with an emergency.
Click to expand...

Taken to that extreme there'd be little purpose in the rest of Part 91, and if the selection of destination was left to ATC there'd be little utility in air travel.

Why does 14 CFR 91.123(b) not apply to the example at hand, but does to the ones I mentioned? This is inside Class D, and is apparently fallout from busting that airspace. Class D is an "area in which air traffic control is exercised." It may be exceeding authority, but giving the one finger salute would seem to make this a pilot violation as well.
Click to expand...

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?
 
denverpilot said:
SCATANA procedures to close U.S. airspace used to be in the FARs when I started flying, and included published authority to require one to land anywhere deemed required by ATC.

A quick Google shows it's been superseded by ESCAT, which is regional. Similar authority, however.
Click to expand...

SCATANA was not implemented by ATC.
 
douglas393 said:
I read the tome and agree with you... however there is a precident of ATC making a plane land, in fact a lot of planes. It happened on 9-11. Before you pounce on me. I agree that was a special situation, but I have to wonder if there is somewhere in the regs that allows ATC to force a plane to land if they determine it is a danger to the airspace?

I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to learn.
Click to expand...

That order did not originate with ATC.
 
SkyHog said:
There's a question, and I believe its one that came up before in an unrelated topic -

If a Controller Oversteps his authority and gives a command he is not authorized to give, does the pilot still have the obligation to follow the command? Speaking strictly from the letter of the regulations that pilots have to follow, I don't see something that says "unless you believe the controller has overstepped their authority."

While I feel that ATC had no authority to issue the command, once issued, I think the pilot had to follow, right?
Click to expand...

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. I find that notion absurd. What's the point in limiting controller authority if pilots are required to follow any instructions that exceed that authority?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top