ATC Authority Over VFR in Controlled Airspace

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Palmpilot, Jun 4, 2013.

  1. TriGear28

    TriGear28 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Messages:
    232
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    TriGear28
    interesting notion. I have read the aim cover to cover over a decade ago. I don't remember that section in particular. Does that mean I haven't 'reviewed' it? I guess this falls under 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.' But by the wording of the NOTAM, it appears that technically, a cert holder who has not 'reviewed' it is in violation, even if they haven't flown in 20 years. lol
     
  2. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    As I've said here for years, this issue was covered by the NTSB a very long time ago when they said.
    Administrator v. Ellis
    Now we have a specific Chief Counsel written interpretation to satisfy those who tried to deny what the NTSB had said by their own distortions of the language.
     
  3. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    ...and that's been a regulation via FDC NOTAM since 2004.
     
  4. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    It's not. See the FDC NOTAM above, and remember that FDC NOTAMs are regulatory, not advisory.
     
  5. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    FDC NOTAMs are in fact regulatory, and the FAA has the authority to issue such directives without creating actual regulations. The underlying authority for them is in various regulations.
     
  6. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,475
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    Unfortunately my aircraft's not capable...crappy Narcos.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2013
  7. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    If you are not listening to whatever others may need you to do, you are not being responsible.

    There just might possibly --- maybe -- be a reason you're being instructed to do something. Unless you know beyond a doubt this is not true, the time to take up any dispute is on the ground. If the instruction creates a hazard for you, "unable" is always available, and is trivial to use.

    As for that silly "right of transit," it means absolutely nothing. I challenge you to bust Class B and get away with it using that defense. Won't get you very far, especially if you send airliners scrambling out of your way. Better yet, go take a flight over Groom Lake or the White House at 1000 AGL.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2013
  8. roncachamp

    roncachamp Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    7,246
    Location:
    De Pere, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Steven P McNicoll
    You've been wrong all of those years.

    This is an opinion, void of logic, not a ruling.
     
  9. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    So you think that what the Chief Counsel says is true wasn't true until he said it? :lol:

    You really think it lacks legal force? :rofl:
     
  10. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,475
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    Oh brother, Steve gone and did it.:nonod:
     
  11. N801BH

    N801BH Touchdown! Greaser! Gone West

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,188
    Location:
    Jackson Hole Wy
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FBH
  12. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,475
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    I think we've established two important things. One, you must comply with ATC instructions in airspace they have responsibility for. The example (Administrator v Ellis) is a class D so that's a no brainier. We've also established that IF CAPABLE we are required to monitor 121.5. Are we really saying that if I'm flying around minding my own business in class E ATC has the authority to call me up on Guard so that they can issue instructions to me? Have we forgotten FF or "basic radar services" is an option in class E? That's the whole reason why you dont even need a radio in class E. There's no requirement to talk to anyone. ATC can yap all day long on Guard to try and get a hold of me but if I don't have the capability or I don't have a radio they'll be talking to themselves.

    FF is my option as I choose, not something ATC can enforce on me. If I so choose the option and they give me instructions, then yes, I'll comply with them. If I don't like the instructions I can terminate FF. In class D, C or B I don't have that option.
     
  13. Jim Logajan

    Jim Logajan En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,014
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    .
    I've been asking for specific cites to those regulations - I'm not interested in yet another person's recollection.

    I posted the only regulation I could find, and it looks to me that SFAR No. 60 to Part 91 makes NOTAMs regulatory only when it is done pursuant to 91.139. And 91.139 applies only when an emergency condition exists.

    So unless the FAA is claiming a continuous state of emergency, I do not know of any regulatory or statutory language that makes monitoring of 121.5 a regulatory requirement.
     
  14. RotorAndWing

    RotorAndWing Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,496
    Location:
    Other side of the world
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rotor&Wing
    And you would be "guessing" wrong. There is no requirement for aircraft in the CRAF to be equipped with UHF radios.
     
  15. Jim Logajan

    Jim Logajan En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,014
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    .
    The Ellis case doesn't address the issue under dispute; whether ATC is being "exercised". The ATC for Class D has authority for that airspace because there is a specific regulatory requirement for radio contact in Class D. Not so for most of Class E.

    Where the FAA publishes specific regulations and frequencies and to contact ATC it is reasonable to say that the identity of the controlling authority has been established for IFR or VFR, as indicated by regulatory requirements.

    Where the FAA has not published specific regulations or frequencies to contact ATC (the case for VFR for most of Class E and G, excepting as indicated in 91.126 and 91.127) then ipso facto they have chosen to not exercise ATC. It simply does not get any more plain than that.
     
  16. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    16,750
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    By the way, it would probably be better if no one asks the FAA this question; there's no point in inviting them to make a power grab! :hairraise:
     
  17. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,475
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    Well I don't consider controllers as asking the FAA, but all my friends are controllers and they said the same thing. Unless it's a national security issue they don't have the authority. As I said earlier that will also be outlined in the SCATANA procedures and not an individual controller choice.
     
  18. N801BH

    N801BH Touchdown! Greaser! Gone West

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,188
    Location:
    Jackson Hole Wy
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FBH
    There are 10's among 10's of thousands of FAA workers... Do you think none are reading this forum while sipping coffee all day and drawing a 6 figure paycheck .:dunno::yes:
     
  19. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    16,750
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    Makes sense to me.
     
  20. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    16,750
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    I guess I should have been more specific; I was just imagining the undesireable results that could ensue if someone posed the question to the Chief Counsel's office.
     
  21. NineThreeKilo

    NineThreeKilo Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,196
    Location:
    Hard to keep up
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    NineThreeKilo
    So if the Feds want to order me to fly whatever vector, etc does that mean they are also taking the responsibility for the expenses or damages from said orders?

    If I'm in E, monitoring 21.5, I am called out and told to fly to a VOR, then vectored to XYZ, then allowed to go on my way, IMHO I should be able to send a bill for my time, aircraft time and fuel to the responsible party.

    The sword should cut both ways.

    These asshats are going to turn our great airsystem into some eurowannabe chit show, if the citizens don't do something
     
  22. Jim Logajan

    Jim Logajan En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,014
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    .
    Since it has happened that the FAA has provided an interpretation at trial, and the courts have often accepted those after-the-fact interpretations, in theory it should not matter whether someone asks before any case comes to trial. (The most famous case I'm aware of where the FAA's pre-trial interpretation of its own regulation was rejected by the court is the Alaska Hunter's one. The problem is that the FAA was providing two different interpretations, and the Chief Counsel's opinion was not even considered a factor by the court.)

    What is more telling are the cases where the FAA has managed to provide no interpretation or precise definition (such as what constitutes a congested area) beyond the very specifics of the case at hand.
     
  23. NineThreeKilo

    NineThreeKilo Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,196
    Location:
    Hard to keep up
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    NineThreeKilo
    Seems like the airspace system got along just fine before all this "terrorist" hype and regulatory F' fest, ADSB, useage fees attempts and the rest of the BS that has befallen our country.

    I always have my radios on, I listen on the nearby airports CTAF or TWR, I will talk when I DEEM IT NESSCARY, i.e. I'll make a shout out on CTAF if I'm inbound or deal with ATC if I'm IFR, aside from that I just don't feel the need, I use my eyeballs to look for traffic and really don't need to be all chatty Kathy with every controller, or make radio calls for every leg in the pattern when Im the only one out.

    Like I said, seems like everything did just fine in the 90s, 80s etc etc
     
  24. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    Basically, yes. According to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Federal Government is liable for injury or damage due to employee misconduct.

    If a controller orders you to do something for safety reasons, the expense of the extra time you spend in the air is not injury or damage as the law defines it, and it never was even before this interpretation.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2013
  25. docmirror

    docmirror Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    12,008
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cowboy - yeehah!
    This reminds me of a wry sense of humor I heard about some directions long ago. ATC told a comm jet to make two circuits of some holding pattern, and the reply was 'do you know it costs $1000 to make that circuit?' And ATC came right back and said 'gimme two thousand dollars worth'.

    Good one.
     
  26. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,536
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    and probably of the many more straightforward non-conflicting ones like this one.

    i guess that's their problem. The language of the reg was pretty clear but a bunch of pilots began reading them in a way roughly equivalent to, "no, you are not required to stop at red traffic lights at night," and began convincing others of it.

    I doubt if too many pilots would, blissfully ignorant and completely on their own, respond to an ATC instruction with, "no, I don't feel like it" and violate away. They get that nonsense from boards like this where the Chief Counsel opinions do get discussed. I don't think it could be planned better as a way to get information to an appropriate target audience.
     
  27. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,536
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    I'll respond in the spirit of the comment

    I think that would be fair. They can even give you the option. You can do wtf you please and pay for the expenses or damages for the delay and damage you cause by not complying and to another aircraft that is spending 100X more than you on fuel or carry blood or body parts for transplant or on a medical charity mission.

    You're welcome to base your comment on the assumption that ATC will do this to you to get some jollies and your personal expense. I'll base mine on ATC being generally reasonable people doing a job and finding a reasonable need for prioritization and separation.
     
  28. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Sure. And the CTAS guys I used to work with would be interested in the delays involved and what sorts of instructions are being given, and wouldn't give a rat's posterior about enforcement or the chief counsel's office. You don't really think the FAA spends all of its resources trying to screw you, do you?
     
  29. N801BH

    N801BH Touchdown! Greaser! Gone West

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,188
    Location:
    Jackson Hole Wy
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FBH

    Nope..... I fly legally........ They can go through the motions though...;)
     
  30. vintage cessna

    vintage cessna Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,076
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    retro
    Boy, that letter is a doozy. Wonder if ATC is scrambling to make changes to FAA Order 7110.65 and mandatory briefings of all controllers so they can properly exercise their new found authority?
     
  31. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,475
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    I really don't understand the big deal with the letter. It specifically states that you're not required to communicate with them but if you do then you have to comply with what they say. Who cares? This has been in effect for quite some time now. As I said I've had ATL App assign me vectors in E and when I got tired of her I terminated. Pretty simple. Just like on many occasions when ATC won't work me through a MOA and want me to go around to continue to use FF. If it takes me significantly out of my way, well I terminate. Don't get me wrong I enjoy having basic radar services but it is still my right to refuse it and the letter doesn't change that.

    This letter has nothing to do with politics or infringing upon our rights as pilots. Having flown around the world and actually done ATC in parts of the world, I can say that our ATC and NAS is the best there is. No other country in the world allows for an average dude to own and operate a plane. I'll gladly put up with a few minor inconveniences to continue to do it.
     
  32. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,536
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    I don't think there's one word that needs to be revised. ATC has always given instructions to pilots using Flight Following in Class E airspace when operational considerations made it a good idea. I can't count the number of times I've gotten a Class E instruction to turn or climb or descent for traffic when near some routing being used for and approach or departure to or from a busy airport. It's only VFR pilots who came up with the idea that those instructions don't apply to them.
     
  33. redtail

    redtail En-Route

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,337
    Location:
    93 million miles from the sun
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Redtail
    Experienced it recently while on flight following departing KCDW and NY Appr vectoring me around a bit, to accommodate jets landing at KTEB. Teterboro is a very busy airport.

    To me, it wasn't a big deal at all.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2013
  34. sacbluesman

    sacbluesman Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    Sacramento
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    sacbluesman
    I'm not really understanding the argument here. Last I checked class E is controlled airspace - Isn't it the expectation to comply with vectors or altitude assignments when on FF? If i contact the approach controller to utilize his services, I'm putting myself in the system and I'm going to listen what papa has to say. I'm not seeing why this is an issue to even debate.
     
  35. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    16,750
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    Cap'n Ron, do you have an opinion on whether the controller in the Gateway incident had the authority to order the pilot to land at his airport?
     
  36. vintage cessna

    vintage cessna Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,076
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    retro
    The problem is, FAA Order does not permit controllers to issue "instructions" to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
     
  37. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    No, I do not, mainly because I don't have all the facts, some of which are probably classified.
     
  38. Jaybird180

    Jaybird180 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,866
    Location:
    Near DC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jaybird180
    But one can fill out a request to get it. Use standard form I-D-Ten (t).
     
  39. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Classified? I really, really doubt it.

    PII or SBU? Probably. That's not a classification. BIG difference. You don't need a clearance.
     
  40. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    That's your interpretation. The FAA and the NTSB seem to think otherwise. I think the first paragraph of that manual says it all:
    If in the controller's best judgment safety requires the issuance of an instruction to a VFR aircraft in the controlled airspace over which that controller has jurisdiction, the controller can (and in my experience, will) issue appropriate instructions even if the situation is not addressed by 7110.65. As is made clear in that very short and direct Chief Counsel letter, you disobey those instructions at your own legal risk unless an emergency situation dictates otherwise.