Advise prior to altitude change:

[spinfire]

Of course not. Did anyone suggest it was like joining the Mafia?

 

[vintage cessna]

Of course not. Did anyone suggest it was like joining the Mafia?

Well, you stated that if you are in an outer class C shelf area and in communication with ATC, you must obey instructions. Not true, just terminate your participation.

 

[Jaybird180]

Do you mean safety alert? Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control makes it very clear that safety alerts are issued as advisories only and that once the alert is issued it is completely up to the pilot to determine what course of action is to be taken. See paragraph 2−1−6. SAFETY ALERT.

I don't see that in the reading Steven.

 

[poadeleted20]

"Request you advise prior to any altitude change" changes things though.

Never heard them say that, but if they did, I suppose it would.

 

[poadeleted20]

99% of the time the best result will come from simple compliance. You gotta remember though, ATC will let you fly into the side of a mountain if you really want to lol. They aren't in the plane, they aren't looking out the windows and errors in the system do happen.

In the end though, it's your command.

Hence, the emergency exception in 91.123(b).

 

[poadeleted20]

Odd, isn't it, that after decades of VFR pilots interacting with ATC in class E airspace, not a single record of an enforcement action against a VFR pilot in class E for failing to comply with an ATC instruction.

We don't know that. We only know that none reached the NTSB -- unless, of course, you've researched all the FAA's enforcement actions over those "decades," which would take access to the FAA's non-public files.

 

[roncachamp]

Just because you didn't know there was traffic there does not excuse the action. You couldn't see it, but the guy staring at a radar screen saw it and informed you. If you chose to ignore it, then it's on your head.

What about the traffic the guy staring at a radar screen didn't see? Whose head is it on if I collide with it while complying with the controller's command?

 

[roncachamp]

However, as noted above, when providing "Class C Services" the controller can issue binding instructions. And as also noted above the area of "Class C Services" extends beyond the charted Class C airspace. So there is an area of airspace where the controller can issue you instructions which you must obey IF you are talking to them, and talking to them is not mandatory. So if you elect to participate in flight following near Class C airspace areas there is an uncharted area where the controller can give you an instruction ("turn right heading 320") versus a "suggest you turn right 20 degrees for traffic" that Center controllers sometimes give me.

Yes, Class C services in the Outer Area are strictly voluntary on the part of the VFR pilot. If you choose to contact approach you're assumed to want them because you wouldn't have called if you didn't. Yes, ATC can issue binding instructions to VFR pilots in the Outer Area to separate them from IFR traffic, but only from IFR traffic. Separation is not provided between VFR aircraft, just advisories and safety alerts.

 

[vintage cessna]

We don't know that. We only know that none reached the NTSB -- unless, of course, you've researched all the FAA's enforcement actions over those "decades," which would take access to the FAA's non-public files.

You are the one claiming legal research to back your position. Yet, the only case you can produce is an event that took place at a towered airport.

You are really doing a disservice by misleading people on this issue.

 

[roncachamp]

I don't see that in the reading Steven.

Third note, immediately preceding subparagraph a.:

"Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot’s prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken."​

 

[poadeleted20]

You are the one claiming legal research to back your position. Yet, the only case you can produce is an event that took place at a towered airport.

Where it took place is not the issue -- what the NTSB wrote about the matter is. Read what I quoted above again, please.

You are really doing a disservice by misleading people on this issue.

No, you and Steven are doing a disservice by telling pilots it's OK to ignore what controllers tell them to do.

 

[crash7]

If you elect to participate, you can also, at a time of your choosing, elect to stop your participation. Simply advise the controller of such. It's not like joining the Mafia, you know.

In Class B C and D, and have no choice (the whole 2-way radio comm thing). In E, however, "cancel FF (or VFR advisories)" releases you from ATC 'control'. I probably wouldn't enjoy the level of service I'd get once I call them back up again (vectors for controller amusement).

I teach my students that for VFR pilots, Class E airspace isn't so much "controlled" as it is "controllable". It depends on if you want to play the game or not as to the rules you must play by.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[vintage cessna]

Where it took place is not the issue -- what the NTSB wrote about the matter is. Read what I quoted above again, please.

No, you and Steven are doing a disservice by telling pilots it's OK to ignore what controllers tell them to do.

I have read the case carefully, and your warpped logic does not apply.

I am not advocating pilots to ignore ATC instructions, but rather to know when those instructions are mandatory in nature and when they are not.

If you are not subject to mandatory instructions then it is a PIC call whether to comply or not.

 

[Palmpilot]

You are really doing a disservice by misleading people on this issue.

Why? Even if pilots follow ATC instructions they're not required to follow, what's the harm?

 

[poadeleted20]

If you are not subject to mandatory instructions then it is a PIC call whether to comply or not.

Then please show me the regulation which says when ATC instructions aren't "mandatory," other than, as it says in 91.123(b), when not "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised" (which, as even Steven has pointed out, includes even some G-space).

 

[vintage cessna]

Why? Even if pilots follow ATC instructions they're not required to follow, what's the harm?

One example would be an over zealous controller issuing vectors causing you to burn fuel unnecessarily.

 

[Jaybird180]

What about the traffic the guy staring at a radar screen didn't see? Whose head is it on if I collide with it while complying with the controller's command?

If in VMC it is the Pilot's responsibility. If in IMC...

 

[Palmpilot]

One example would be an over zealous controller issuing vectors causing you to burn fuel unnecessarily.

I haven't had that problem, although I hear that it happens in some areas. However I don't think that considering instructions to be mandatory prevents a pilot from solving it, since we're all agreed that there is no requirement for VFR traffic to be in contact with ATC in class E (when VFR conditions prevail).

I can see how the issuance of fuel-wasting vectors could be regarded as a disservice to pilots, since it discourages utilization of a safety-related service as well as wasting fuel, but that's the fault of ATC management, not Cap'n Ron or myself.

 

[dell30rb]

One example would be an over zealous controller issuing vectors causing you to burn fuel unnecessarily.

That's rare... if they are vectoring you a lot there is probably a lot of traffic around or you are 5th in line or whatever.

 

[vintage cessna]

Then please show me the regulation which says when ATC instructions aren't "mandatory," other than, as it says in 91.123(b), when not "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised" (which, as even Steven has pointed out, includes even some G-space).

You are taking 91.123 out of context. VFR aircraft in pure class E is not an "area" subject to Air Traffic Control. FF is voluntary and advisory in nature.

If the instructions were mandatory then the 7110.65 would not be prohibiting controllers from assigning headings, altitudes etc. to VFR pilots in class E.

If you want FF, of course the controller is going to have to tell you to squawk a code, change frequency and so on. If a pilot were to screw up one of these instructions, there is no violation of anything.

Since you hang you hat on "Administrator v Ellis", I don't think it's possible for you to see the flaw in your logic.

 

[vintage cessna]

I haven't had that problem, although I hear that it happens in some areas. However I don't think that considering instructions to be mandatory prevents a pilot from solving it, since we're all agreed that there is no requirement for VFR traffic to be in contact with ATC in class E (when VFR conditions prevail).

I can see how the issuance of fuel-wasting vectors could be regarded as a disservice to pilots, since it discourages utilization of a safety-related service as well as wasting fuel, but that's the fault of ATC management, not Cap'n Ron or myself.

I didn't say it was anyone's fault. You asked what could be the harm, and that is just one example. The big problem is your taking instructions from an incompetent air traffic controller.

 

[poadeleted20]

You are taking 91.123 out of context. VFR aircraft in pure class E is not an "area" subject to Air Traffic Control. FF is voluntary and advisory in nature.

No, you are reading your own interpretation into the plain language of the regulation. The term "area" in this context is a physical space, not a subject of discussion. You are, like Steven, effectively inserting additional language into the regulation with your interpretation, and that language simply isn't there.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's rare... if they are vectoring you a lot there is probably a lot of traffic around or you are 5th in line or whatever.

I've heard that it's quite common in the Chicago area for ATC to vector VFR traffic many miles out of their way.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Then please show me the regulation which says when ATC instructions aren't "mandatory," other than, as it says in 91.123(b), when not "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised" (which, as even Steven has pointed out, includes even some G-space).

How about court cases where the feds are pressed to make an assertion one way or the other? Because the feds in at least one past case (1973) have tried to argue that their communications to an airplane well within an "Airport Traffic Area" (Control Zone) - as that airspace was known then - was advisory; specifically the following:

"SIX NINE GOLF IF THAT'S YOU OUT THERE ABOUT TO TURN FINAL PULL OUT TO YOUR AH WELL JUST PROCEED STRAIGHT ON ACROSS THE FINAL AND ENTER ON A LEFT BASE LEG FOR RUNWAY ONE SEVEN. YOU'LL BE FOLLOWING AN OZARK DC-9 TURNING FINAL ABOUT TWO OUT, MAYBE TO YOUR LEFT AND ABOVE YOU, YOU HAVE HIM?"
​

But of the above "instruction" the court document states the following was argued by the government:

"[...] the Government asserts that the instruction issued by the local controller to proceed straight across final was merely advisory."
​

 

[vintage cessna]

No, you are reading your own interpretation into the plain language of the regulation. The term "area" in this context is a physical space, not a subject of discussion. You are, like Steven, effectively inserting additional language into the regulation with your interpretation, and that language simply isn't there.

What does "subject to Air Traffic Control" mean to you? How can VFR aircraft in class E, that aren't even required to be equipped with radios, be "subject to Air Traffic Control". Try to get straight in your mind what "Air Traffic Control" means.

 

[Palmpilot]

I didn't say it was anyone's fault. You asked what could be the harm, and that is just one example.

When you accuse Ron of doing a disservice to pilots, that implies fault.

The big problem is your taking instructions from an incompetent air traffic controller.

So now my taking instructions is the cause of the problem?

Sorry, I refuse to believe that it's my responsibility to refuse instructions in order to show controllers the error of their ways! And I think that would be contrary to safety, for a number of reasons.

 

[Palmpilot]

How about court cases where the feds are pressed to make an assertion one way or the other? Because the feds in at least one past case (1973) have tried to argue that their communications to an airplane well within an "Airport Traffic Area" (Control Zone) - as that airspace was known then - was advisory; specifically the following:

"SIX NINE GOLF IF THAT'S YOU OUT THERE ABOUT TO TURN FINAL PULL OUT TO YOUR AH WELL JUST PROCEED STRAIGHT ON ACROSS THE FINAL AND ENTER ON A LEFT BASE LEG FOR RUNWAY ONE SEVEN. YOU'LL BE FOLLOWING AN OZARK DC-9 TURNING FINAL ABOUT TWO OUT, MAYBE TO YOUR LEFT AND ABOVE YOU, YOU HAVE HIM?"
​

But of the above "instruction" the court document states the following was argued by the government:

"[...] the Government asserts that the instruction issued by the local controller to proceed straight across final was merely advisory."
​

Interesting. Both that and Ellis deal with an incident in which a control tower had jurisdiction over the airspace, and the two cases appear to contradict each other.

 

[roncachamp]

In Class B C and D, and have no choice (the whole 2-way radio comm thing). In E, however, "cancel FF (or VFR advisories)" releases you from ATC 'control'. I probably wouldn't enjoy the level of service I'd get once I call them back up again (vectors for controller amusement).

But you were already dissatisfied with the level of service, that's why you chose to become nonparticipating traffic.

 

[vintage cessna]

When you accuse Ron of doing a disservice to pilots, that implies fault.



So now my taking instructions is the cause of the problem?

Sorry, I refuse to believe that it's my responsibility to refuse instructions in order to show controllers the error of their ways! And I think that would be contrary to safety, for a number of reasons.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said. Yes, Ron is doing a disservice to pilots, at least to the ones that buy his argument.

If you are aware that an Air Traffic Controller is doing things he/she shouldn't be doing, then as PIC you have to evaluate whether to follow those instructions or not.

For me it would be an easy decision, I would opt out of the service, because the controller doesn't know their job.

 

[Palmpilot]

What does "subject to Air Traffic Control" mean to you? How can VFR aircraft in class E, that aren't even required to be equipped with radios, be "subject to Air Traffic Control". Try to get straight in your mind what "Air Traffic Control" means.

For the sake of accuracy, the language in 91.123(b) is "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

 

[vintage cessna]

For the sake of accuracy, the language in 91.123(b) is "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

Class E is an area where "Air Traffic Control" is exercised. It is exercised over pilots on IFR clearances.

In areas where "Air Traffic Control" is exercised over VFR pilots, the VFR pilot, must, under regulation be in communication with ATC.

There is a difference between an "Advisory service" and "Air Traffic Control".

 

[roncachamp]

If in VMC it is the Pilot's responsibility. If in IMC...

Ahh, flight following in IMC, now that's entertainment!

 

[Captain]

I've heard that it's quite common in the Chicago area for ATC to vector VFR traffic many miles out of their way.

I recently (last summer) had a flight to KPWK. We were arriving from the SouthEast. Chicago Approach's plan was to drop me WAY down WAY out. Like 5,000 feet over a hundred nm away. So I canceled and made my way over the Class B to drop down closer to KPWK.

I kept FF and that became a hassle with alt and course restrictions so I canceled that too and just squaked 1200. With a quiet cockpit we flew over the edge of the Class B and then dropped like a sack of hammers until we were under the shelf and proceeded to KPWK.

Got on the ground and PWK tower gave me a number to call Chicago Approach. Great, what could that be about? I don't think I hit the bravo...i was using a GPS enabled ForeFlight with the sectional depicted...

So I call the number and talked to the guy who was giving me FF. He assured me several times that I didn't do anything wrong but wanted to just make me aware that the arrival corridor for ORD was right were we did our 'shuttle descent'. It was a pleasant conversation and my FO was relieved he didn't have to fill out a NASA form.

 

[poadeleted20]

What does "subject to Air Traffic Control" mean to you?

That's not what the reg says. Let's stick to the regulation as written if we're going to discuss legalities.

 

[roncachamp]

No, you and Steven are doing a disservice by telling pilots it's OK to ignore what controllers tell them to do.

Haven't you done that? As in an approach clearance that included "straight in" where the aircraft was not vectored or on a NoPT segment?

 

[Palmpilot]

Maybe I misunderstood what you said. Yes, Ron is doing a disservice to pilots, at least to the ones that buy his argument.

The likely consequence of a VFR aircraft refusing ATC instructions in class E airspace is "Radar services terminated, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." So I don't see where anything of significance is being given up by pilots who take Ron's advice.

If you are aware that an Air Traffic Controller is doing things he/she shouldn't be doing, then as PIC you have to evaluate whether to follow those instructions or not.

It's not my responsibility to make in-flight evaluations of whether ATC instructions comply with the controllers' manual, which the FAA does not require me to be trained or tested on. It is my responsibility to evaluate ATC instructions based on how they affect the safety of my flight, which the FAA does require me to be trained and tested on.

For me it would be an easy decision, I would opt out of the service, because the controller doesn't know their job.

And neither Ron nor I has said that you can't do that.

The bottom line for me is that if you and Steven don't like the way some of your colleagues are doing their jobs, I'm not gonna fight your battles for you.

 

[poadeleted20]

Class E is an area where "Air Traffic Control" is exercised.

Correct. Now you see why I take the position I do.

It is exercised over pilots on IFR clearances.

True, but irrelevant, as it goes beyond the language of the regulation. If the regulation said " Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft subject to ATC control [or, 'an aircraft over which ATC exercises control'] contrary to an ATC instruction," you'd be right, but that's not what it says. Your logic is similar to Steven's, when he assumes it means, "Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to a valid ATC instruction [or, 'an instruction ATC is authorized to give'] in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." Either way, you're assuming language not in the regulation.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ahh, flight following in IMC, now that's entertainment!

I've seen it happen, and it's scary, not entertaining. Like climbing through a deck IFR passing 7000 feet still solid in the goo and they tell me I'm overtaking "VFR traffic 12 o'clock, three miles, same direction, level 7500 with me." Then I pop out the tops at 7300, and there he is, skimming along the tops, just in front of me.

 

[roncachamp]

True, but irrelevant, as it goes beyond the language of the regulation. If the regulation said " Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft subject to ATC control contrary to an ATC instruction," you'd be right, but that's not what it says. Your logic is similar to Steven's, when he assumes it says, "Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to a valid ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." Either way, you're assuming language not in the regulation.

If logic ever entered your thought process we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[vintage cessna]

The likely consequence of a VFR aircraft refusing ATC instructions in class E airspace is "Radar services terminated, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." So I don't see where anything of significance is being given up by pilots who take Ron's advice.



It's not my responsibility to make in-flight evaluations of whether ATC instructions comply with the controllers' manual, which the FAA does not require me to be trained or tested on. It is my responsibility to evaluate ATC instructions based on how they affect the safety of my flight, which the FAA does require me to be trained and tested on.



And neither Ron nor I has said that you can't do that.

The bottom line for me is that if you and Steven don't like the way some of your colleagues are doing their jobs, I'm not gonna fight your battles for you.

Who said you need to know the contents of the controllers manual? What battles? There are various levels of competence in any profession. I would think pilots would want to know the boundaries of ATC authority, so that they can make rational decisions.