In general, I agree with you.
Agreed.......... The OFF knob on the radio is a wonderful thing...
In general, I agree with you.
Agreed.......... The OFF knob on the radio is a wonderful thing...
Can't help you with your question from a legal perspective but I can't imagine why anyone would choose to not obey ATC instructions if that pilot chose to be in communication with ATC anyway. If you don't want the help of ATC then don't call them in Class E airspace.
Can't help you with your question from a legal perspective but I can't imagine why anyone would choose to not obey ATC instructions if that pilot chose to be in communication with ATC anyway. If you don't want the help of ATC then don't call them in Class E airspace.
I'm not saying you said that. My point is that the White House ordering all civilian traffic out of the sky does not tell us one way or the other whether ATC can order an airplane to land on their own authority.
I think they'll tell you. The appearance of military aircraft in your vicinity would also be a clue.
Maybe. That's why I posed the question.
I think they'll tell you. The appearance of military aircraft in your vicinity would also be a clue.
With JBLM (that's Fort Lewis and McChord AFB to you old timers) nearby we have military aircraft in the area on a routine basis. Other than to avoid a conflict as with any other aircraft, I pay them no mind.
Well, it was Class C, not Class E, but KSJC Tower instructed me to fly into clouds to cross the field. Needless to say, the reply was "unable." They amended the instruction, but if they hadn't for whatever reason, I wasn't going to fly into the clouds.
In Class E once approaching KMRY with flight following, ATC instructed me to begin my descent. The field was officially VFR, but I had trouble sighting the field when I felt I should have seen it. When I eventually found it, I didn't believe the 2500 foot reported ceiling (with an edge just beyond the runway threshold) -- it looked more like 1000. So, I diverted to KSNS instead.
And another BS law...
By a show of hands.......... how many civilian aircraft have 243.0 receiving equipment ...
"FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE." [emhasis added]
Note the use of the word "shall." The only exception appears to be if the aircraft does not have the capability. For example, I assume that an aircraft with only one radio would not be required to monitor 121.5 if that radio were needed for another purpose.
What makes you think a notice from the Flight Data Center is inherently regulatory?
Section 2. NOTAM System
2-2-1. NOTAM CLASSIFICATION
b. FDC NOTAM. Flight information that is regulatory in nature including, but not limited to, changes to IFR charts, procedures, and airspace usage.
The AIM is not regulatory however that is good practice
Just remember that 91.3 is subject to the Monday morning quaterback rule and you can be benched if you cannot substantiate your position. Choose prudently, for my sake and yours. If you go off half-cocked, you make it tougher for the next pilot to justify.
Screw the next pilot. I ain't flying scared of every little b'crat rule so some future schmuck might have it a little easier. If future pilots want freedom they have to take it for themselves. Same as current pilots.
FDC NOTAMs are clearly defined by the FAA as regulatory in nature
JO 7930.2M:
If FDC NOTAMs are not regulatory, how can an FDC NOTAM declare an approach (which is fully described in the regulations) to be NA or modify the parameters of the approach?
What makes you think a notice from the Flight Data Center is inherently regulatory?...
Because there are more fiking morons out there who typ faster than they will ever think, than you would believe.Why did he feel that he needed to ask that question ?
A good question - you need to locate the statute(s) or CFR regulation(s) that directly or indirectly tell pilots that FDC NOTAMs are regulatory. Otherwise these references become a case of a self-referential or circular claims of being regulatory. My ASA FAR/AIM index just points back to the AIM section regarding NOTAMS.
So, we should tolerate you being a jerk because of your "freedom?"
How about freedom of the rest of us to land while your butt is in the way?
Flying is inherently cooperative, and pilots who don't understand that have no business in the air. It would be nice if flight rules weren't necessary, but you're the textbook example why they are.
can one military aircraft force another military aircraft down
Oops, I'm the jerk. I'm the guy that's going to turn the radios off and fly where I want when I want(within current airspace rules).
I'm not above correcting myself, and I found what appears to be one applicable regulation:
SFAR No. 60 to Part 91.
However, unless I am misreading it, all the regulatory NOTAMs seem to be only for rules issued pursuant to 91.139.
So, we should tolerate you being a jerk because of your "freedom?"
How about freedom of the rest of us to land while your butt is in the way?
Flying is inherently cooperative, and pilots who don't understand that have no business in the air. It would be nice if flight rules weren't necessary, but you're the textbook example why they are.
In a nutshell, that may be legal, but you're a hazard if you do that.
Aviation is inherently cooperative. Making yourself a hazard just to assert your power to do so is immature. And reasonably safe flying requires maturity.
You are not only risking your own life, but that of your victims. Midairs always require at least two aircraft.
So I shouldn't fly to the extent the rules allow me, to perhaps save a shred of freedom for some unknown future pilot? The old preserve our rights by not exercising them fallacy. Bit naive.
You misconstrue my reasons for turning off my radio. It is not an intent to make myself a hazard. It is intended to go where I want to go, when I want to go with a minimum of outside interference(including ATC). You, on the other hand appear to be one of the advocates of more rules, regulations, control, oversight, management, and authority. Sometimes simply for authority sake itself.
Not that you ever had the "right" to fly. If you did, there would be no such thing as a certificate.
Not at all. It's naive and selfish to indulge yourself at others expense. That's how you get the "right" taken away from you outright. Not that you ever had the "right" to fly. If you did, there would be no such thing as a certificate.
Wow, you misquote BOTH of us. That takes effort.
Obviously you don't INTEND to make yourself a hazard. But you make yourself one anyway.
Flying is inherently cooperative. Keep your radio on and be a responsible adult.
From the Federal Aviation Act of 1958:
PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT
Sec. 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.
From the Federal Aviation Act of 1958:
PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT
Sec. 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States.
Perhaps I should have said "military aircraft showing an intention to intercept you."
If it can be taken away, it's not a right. Since this is a public law, the so-called "right" can be taken away by changing the law. Can't take away a right through legislation.
Do White House orders trump all other orders and laws ?
"FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE...
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE." [emhasis added]
Note the use of the word "shall." The only exception appears to be if the aircraft does not have the capability. For example, I assume that an aircraft with only one radio would not be required to monitor 121.5 if that radio were needed for another purpose.
Is it whether the A/C is 'capable' or whether the pilot is 'capable?' Couldn't the aircraft be equipped but the pilot is too busy doing other things on the radios and thus, 'incapable' of monitoring 121.5?
Someone edited a post that I was quoting, and it got changed. I won't keep my radio on and I will be a responsible adult. You see, being responsible is the other face of the coin. I am responsible for myself, my actions and in that respect I'll see and avoid, prolly better than 90% of other pilots. I'll abide by the rules of the air, and direction of flight, and lighting, and ground operations. That's being responsible. Keep a radio on so that others can instruct me has nothing to do with ME being responsible.