ATC: You WILL land here...

To throw some clarification (or mud) into the scenario, can a Class D Tower tell you not to enter their airspace upon establishing required Comms?

I've heard it several times at Tucson-Ryan. 'Aircraft calling remain clear of Ryan Class D' or something like that. It can get pretty busy with flight school traffic. One inbound got impatient and came on in. The tower got students out of the way and then chastised him on the air and gave him a number to call.
 
It's not too hard to find obvious limits. Like 91.3(b) or the boundary of Class G (which is above 0 AGL in most places).

The slippery slope argument is very weak. There are much stronger ones for the issue at hand.

But is it really an emergency if a controller gives you an unwanted landing clearance? I don't think it is, so we're left with 91.3(a).

Since there are situations where the very broad mandates of 91.3(a) and 91.123(b) come into apparent conflict, it seems like we have to look elsewhere to resolve it, such as the fact that the FAA has never published anything that specifically says that ATC can dictate what your destination will be.
 
I take it you're referring to 4-4-10. In this thread a VFR pilot was given an unwanted landing clearance. I don't think an amended clearance is needed if what the pilot wants to do is not something that requires a clearance in the first place.
Say she refused to land and went to the other airport. Do you think she would have escaped an investigation? Do you think she would have made things better for herself? Both the controller's actions and the pilot's action's will have been examined. I'm sure the controller knew that even before he gave her a number to call. We don't have the whole story but I'm sure someone does by now.
 
Say she refused to land and went to the other airport. Do you think she would have escaped an investigation? Do you think she would have made things better for herself? Both the controller's actions and the pilot's action's will have been examined. I'm sure the controller knew that even before he gave her a number to call. We don't have the whole story but I'm sure someone does by now.

I don't think think she would have been investigated. If a pilot deviation required us to land at an airport of ATCs choosing then that would be outlined in the .65. That's why there's the whole facility number thing. Give them the number and let them be on their way. Other than national security deviation ATC has no authority in the manner. How long does this lady have to even stay at the airport after this deviation? She has a valid pilots license what authority does this guy have to keep her there? Clearly this guy over stepped his bounds.
 
I don't think think she would have been investigated. If a pilot deviation required us to land at an airport of ATCs choosing then that would be outlined in the .65. That's why there's the whole facility number thing. Give them the number and let them be on their way. Other than national security deviation ATC has no authority in the manner. How long does this lady have to even stay at the airport after this deviation? She has a valid pilots license what authority does this guy have to keep her there? Clearly this guy over stepped his bounds.
I didn't mean that she was asked to land because of the possible deviation. I meant that whatever happened here would have been investigated by at least the supervisor so if the controller did something wrong he would have heard about it too.
 
Say she refused to land and went to the other airport. Do you think she would have escaped an investigation?

If whatever she did prior to being ordered to land really did constitute a pilot deviation, then I assume that that deviation would still be investigated.

Do you think she would have made things better for herself?

At the very least, she would have avoided having her time wasted by landing somewhere other than her destination, going to an unfamiliar FBO, hoping that there just happened to be an instructor available at that time, engaging an instructor that she knew nothing about, HOPING that no one else had the plane scheduled after her that day, probably violating her rental agreement and voiding the insurance by engaging an instructor who was not authorized by the FBO she rented the plane from, and then arranging for the instructor to be transported home after the flight.

The controller's demands were so egregious that it's pure speculation as to whether ignoring them would have caused the FSDO to treat her differently.

Both the controller's actions and the pilot's action's will have been examined. I'm sure the controller knew that even before he gave her a number to call.

I don't see where the controller displayed any awareness whatsoever that his actions would be examined. The most apt description for his conduct would be throwing a tantrum.

We don't have the whole story but I'm sure someone does by now.

True. I think the main issue for us is what would WE do if we were faced with similar demands.
 
But is it really an emergency if a controller gives you an unwanted landing clearance? I don't think it is, so we're left with 91.3(a).

Since there are situations where the very broad mandates of 91.3(a) and 91.123(b) come into apparent conflict, it seems like we have to look elsewhere to resolve it, such as the fact that the FAA has never published anything that specifically says that ATC can dictate what your destination will be.

The FAA has taken a very broad definition of what constitutes an emergency. I'm sure you remember the example of the pilot at ...JFK was it... who declared an emergency because he considered the crosswind component on the suggested runway as too high for him.

If they start to tell pilots that things aren't an emergency, it becomes a very slippery slope that leads to a less safe environment.

Personally, I think the pilot did have an emergency going on from being overwhelmed, but she was so flustered that she couldn't recognize it. One could argue whether or not she should have, but that's talking about the idealized version of reality, not the actual one.
 
I don't see where the controller displayed any awareness whatsoever that his actions would be examined.
That's what happens when they investigate a possible pilot deviation. They pull the tapes and the radar track if there is one. Then they look at the situation to see if they can determine what happened. The controller is not immune.
 
That's what happens when they investigate a possible pilot deviation. They pull the tapes and the radar track if there is one. Then they look at the situation to see if they can determine what happened. The controller is not immune.
+1 if a controller does a pilot deviation they know everything will be reviewed including what they did.

The time a controller wrote me up for a pilot deviation the supervisor called me a few days later and said he was trashing the report and agreed on my points that the controller's actions were quite misleading from my perspective.
 
That's what happens when they investigate a possible pilot deviation. They pull the tapes and the radar track if there is one. Then they look at the situation to see if they can determine what happened. The controller is not immune.

Good to know. Thanks.
 
But is it really an emergency if a controller gives you an unwanted landing clearance?

Not by itself, but it could be if you're disoriented, confused, or overwhelmed. That's no condition to be landing in, and it does appear to have been a factor in the question at hand.
 
In 4 years of hobby flying I have been. Maybe you need to get out more?

I think you just were lucky enough to deal with a controller that used improper phraseology for class D airspace.

As for IFR operations if your initial clearance transitions through Class D airspace your "clearance" to enter the Delta was just given to you. The controlling agency, whether its approach or center, that exists above the Delta has to notify the tower controller they have IFR traffic transitioning their Delta. You were however "cleared" during your initial interaction with ATC at your point of departure.
 
I think you just were lucky enough to deal with a controller that used improper phraseology for class D airspace.

What do you think is the correct phraseology and what is the basis of your claim?
 
Not by itself, but it could be if you're disoriented, confused, or overwhelmed. That's no condition to be landing in, and it does appear to have been a factor in the question at hand.

That would be a stretch to say this was an emergency situation. If it was then the controller needs to say " based on what I see you're lost. I declaring this as an emergency situation. Do you need any assistance." Which she would reply "no I'm going onto my destination." If it's an emergency the controller is there to assist, not dictate what a rated pilot should do with their aircraft.

Deviations happen all the time. At my facility we probably had 3-4 per week offical and several more unoffical. We didn't pull tapes unless a loss of separation was involved. Now a days the computer sends a report for loss of radar sep automatically. Most facilities have a QA guy who sits down at the start of the week and reviews all the deviations on a computer from the previous week. It might be a report or a full blown investigation if it was a loss of separation or ended up being an incident. Mulitiple reasons to review tapes and it's covered in the SOP for the facility. I've personally reviewed crashes, controller error, supersonic flight in an MOA and a VFR MTR aircraft operating below 500 ft. In all the pilot deviations I witnessed I never told them what to do with their aircraft. You give them the number and send them on their way. Some I never even wrote up. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
What do you think is the correct phraseology and what is the basis of your claim?

There is no phraseology. By the controller telling you you're "cleared into the class D" is wasted transmission. 1) He already has to coordinate your transition through the D with the tower. 2) There is no clearance to enter the D unless you're operating SVFR.
 
There is no phraseology. By the controller telling you you're "cleared into the class D" is wasted transmission. 1) He already has to coordinate your transition through the D with the tower. 2) There is no clearance to enter the D unless you're operating SVFR.

So your response is a null even though it is reasonable to tell a pilot that the coordination has been completed.

In other words, wrong answer.
 
So your response is a null even though it is reasonable to tell a pilot that the coordination has been completed.

In other words, wrong answer.

Listen, I really don't know how to make this any clearer. The controllers you are dealing with are using a poor technique by clearing aircraft into the class D. It's a wasted transmission at that. I worked hundreds of class D transitions from approach. I never once cleared them in because that would create a false impression that a clearance to enter is required. The only time I replied from a VFR was in the rare case of "Umm, approach, do I have to contact tower or did you already tell them about me?" "Yes, already been done." It's a given. See 7110.65 2-1-16 for a reference.

There is another thread on here from a couple years ago where Steven painfully tried to explain this ATC requirement of a class D transition under radar advisories. I suggest you read it.
 
Last edited:
What do you think is the correct phraseology and what is the basis of your claim?

The correct phraseology for VFR ops would be for tower to respond to your initial call with sequencing and traffic advisories or instructions to remain clear. There is no clearance required, only two way comm without specific instructions to remain clear.

The only time a VFR aircraft would require a specific clearance to enter D airspace would be while operating SVFR under less than VMC conditions. Even in this situation tower would only give the clearance using the specific phraseology of being "cleared" if you were originating from the Delta airport and requested your SVFR clearance from the local controller. If transitioning through D the clearance would be provided by the approach controller with a handoff to tower before entering the Delta.

As stated prior if you're operating under IFR your clearance limit is just that....the limit of your clearance. If Class D airspace falls between your current location and the limit of your clearance then you have already been cleared through the airspace and will not receive a specific clearance through the delta. At most you may get word from your controller that your transition has been coordinated with tower. Sometimes controllers use the words "cleared through the Delta" but it is redundant and advisory in nature because you already knew you were cleared through the delta. I also find that phraseology to be used infrequently in my experience.

The basis of my claim? FAR's, AIM, pilot controller glossary and my experience.

I will also say I have been wrong before and I will be again, so if I am now please share.


EDIT-

I can only come up with one scenario that may result in a VFR aircraft getting a "clearance" through class D. If you're on a VFR cross country receiving flight following services from Center/approach. I could see the center controller calling the tower to hand you off and if the tower controller was very slow they might elect to leave you with center. Center would then pass on to you the info. It would be much easier/quicker to just tell you tower "cleared" you into the Delta rather than have a long conversation about how slow the Delta airspace was and how close the football game was resulting in the tower not wanting to talk to you.
 
Last edited:
The correct phraseology for VFR ops would be for tower to respond to your initial call with sequencing and traffic advisories or instructions to remain clear. There is no clearance required, only two way comm without specific instructions to remain clear.

The only time a VFR aircraft would require a specific clearance to enter D airspace would be while operating SVFR under less than VMC conditions. Even in this situation tower would only give the clearance using the specific phraseology of being "cleared" if you were originating from the Delta airport and requested your SVFR clearance from the local controller. If transitioning through D the clearance would be provided by the approach controller with a handoff to tower before entering the Delta.

As stated prior if you're operating under IFR your clearance limit is just that....the limit of your clearance. If Class D airspace falls between your current location and the limit of your clearance then you have already been cleared through the airspace and will not receive a specific clearance through the delta. At most you may get word from your controller that your transition has been coordinated with tower. Sometimes controllers use the words "cleared through the Delta" but it is redundant and advisory in nature because you already knew you were cleared through the delta. I also find that phraseology to be used infrequently in my experience.

The basis of my claim? FAR's, AIM, pilot controller glossary and my experience.

I will also say I have been wrong before and I will be again, so if I am now please share.


EDIT-

I can only come up with one scenario that may result in a VFR aircraft getting a "clearance" through class D. If you're on a VFR cross country receiving flight following services from Center/approach. I could see the center controller calling the tower to hand you off and if the tower controller was very slow they might elect to leave you with center. Center would then pass on to you the info. It would be much easier/quicker to just tell you tower "cleared" you into the Delta rather than have a long conversation about how slow the Delta airspace was and how close the football game was resulting in the tower not wanting to talk to you.

If you read my post then you should have noted that I was VFR on flight following from approach. Dunno why you felt the need for the longwinded post about other operations...
 
If you read my post then you should have noted that I was VFR on flight following from approach. Dunno why you felt the need for the longwinded post about other operations...

Why the long response? Because there is a big difference between the guy at center coordinating your VFR transition through Delta for you and actually getting cleared to do something. Clearances come with all kinds of cool stuff like traffic separation. What you got was not a clearance. Understanding what services you are being provided by ATC and what phraseology is used to give you those services is important.


The controller used improper phraseology telling you that you were cleared through the Delta.

Your comm with center should have been more along the lines of:

Controller: Cessna XXX I have coordinated your transition through XXX Delta airspace, you can stay with me.

You: Cessna XXX thank you.
 
Last edited:
Why the long response? Because there is a big difference between the guy at center coordinating your VFR transition through Delta for you and actually getting cleared to do something. Clearances come with all kinds of cool stuff like traffic separation. What you got was not a clearance. Understanding what services you are being provided by ATC and what phraseology is used to give you those services is important.

What long response? Two lines was too much?

If you think a clearance provides traffic separation in E space you've got a lot to learn...
 
What long response? Two lines was too much?

If you think a clearance provides traffic separation in E space you've got a lot to learn...

It does from other IFR and SVFR traffic, not from VFR traffic.

If you are operating in IMC it dang sure better provide separation from everyone.

We all have a lot to learn. Right up to the point we quit flying.
 
It does from other IFR and SVFR traffic, not from VFR traffic.

If you are operating in IMC it dang sure better provide separation from everyone.

It doesn't, been there done that...purty scary.
 
That would be a stretch to say this was an emergency situation. If it was then the controller needs to say " based on what I see you're lost. I declaring this as an emergency situation. Do you need any assistance." Which she would reply "no I'm going onto my destination." If it's an emergency the controller is there to assist, not dictate what a rated pilot should do with their aircraft.

Therefore, ATC, or the tower cannot declare an emergency, the pilot must. Therefore, even if she was lost or confused, which I am not sure would warrant declaring an emergency, she would have to say something to the effect that I have an emergency, which would get her priority help from ATC, but still would probably not lead to "you have to land here..." but instead lead to vectors to get her "unlost."

or am I just confused?

Doug
 
The only time a VFR aircraft would require a specific clearance to enter D airspace would be while operating SVFR under less than VMC conditions. Even in this situation tower would only give the clearance using the specific phraseology of being "cleared" if you were originating from the Delta airport and requested your SVFR clearance from the local controller. If transitioning through D the clearance would be provided by the approach controller with a handoff to tower before entering the Delta.

A clearance is also required to operate SVFR under better than VMC conditions.


I can only come up with one scenario that may result in a VFR aircraft getting a "clearance" through class D. If you're on a VFR cross country receiving flight following services from Center/approach. I could see the center controller calling the tower to hand you off and if the tower controller was very slow they might elect to leave you with center. Center would then pass on to you the info. It would be much easier/quicker to just tell you tower "cleared" you into the Delta rather than have a long conversation about how slow the Delta airspace was and how close the football game was resulting in the tower not wanting to talk to you.

When I coordinate the transition of Class D airspace with the tower I say nothing at all to the pilot. If the pilot asks if he's "cleared" through the Class D airspace I say "affirmative" because that's just easier than the detailed explanation.
 
Therefore, ATC, or the tower cannot declare an emergency, the pilot must. Therefore, even if she was lost or confused, which I am not sure would warrant declaring an emergency, she would have to say something to the effect that I have an emergency, which would get her priority help from ATC, but still would probably not lead to "you have to land here..." but instead lead to vectors to get her "unlost."

or am I just confused?

Doug

That's exactly what I'm saying . ATC can declare an emergency though. See 7110.65 10-2-5. Like I said this situation the controller didn't but if they did they would need to go through the procedure that I described. At which time any reasonable pilot would say "No, I'm going onto my destination. I have your number I'll call when I land."

Just because a controller believes the pilot is in an emergency doesn't mean they would dictate what the pilot does with their aircraft. It's ultimately the pilot's decision. For example, I had an Aztec while working approach who lost an engine. I immediately gave him his position reference the nearest airport. He requested a vector, and I gave it. I then proceeded to fill him in on all pertinent info for the airport (this is before handy GPS stuff). A few seconds later I declared an emergency on the situation so no confusion existed. Long story short the pilot landed with about O gals in one tank and 4 gals in the other. He wrote my facility thanking me for the help.

As stated before, the only time a controller can make you land somewhere you don't want to is a security situation such as a TFR violation or SCATANA such as 9-11. Most likely the TFR violation will be intercepting aircraft directing a landing and a 9-11 situation the order to land aircraft will come from far above that little controller working the Class D.
 
Last edited:
Therefore, ATC, or the tower cannot declare an emergency, the pilot must. Therefore, even if she was lost or confused, which I am not sure would warrant declaring an emergency, she would have to say something to the effect that I have an emergency, which would get her priority help from ATC, but still would probably not lead to "you have to land here..." but instead lead to vectors to get her "unlost."

ATC can and has at times declared emergencies, when actual emergencies have existed.
 
ATC can and has at times declared emergencies, when actual emergencies have existed.
I believe that unless the pilot or aircraft is unable to be contacted then the pilot in command still has the ultimate decision as to whether or not an emergency can be declared. So in fact, unless I am wrong, if the pilot in command is in contact with ATC, ATC cannot declare an emergency without the pilot's agreement. I am sure there are exceptions to this, as there all in everything, but I thought this falls under the heading that the pilot in command has ultimate authority and thus responsibility of what the plane is going to do.

Doug
 
I believe that unless the pilot or aircraft is unable to be contacted then the pilot in command still has the ultimate decision as to whether or not an emergency can be declared.
ATC has the authority under FAA Order 7110.65 (it's in Section 10, I believe) to treat a situation as an emergency even if the pilot doesn't make the declaration when it appears to ATC that emergency handling is necessary to resolve the situation safely. Otherwise, their hands might be tied by their own rules from which they can deviate only in an emergency.
 
ATC has the authority under FAA Order 7110.65 (it's in Section 10, I believe) to treat a situation as an emergency even if the pilot doesn't make the declaration when it appears to ATC that emergency handling is necessary to resolve the situation safely. Otherwise, their hands might be tied by their own rules from which they can deviate only in an emergency.

Correct. 10-2-5.
 
Last edited:
I can only come up with one scenario that may result in a VFR aircraft getting a "clearance" through class D. If you're on a VFR cross country receiving flight following services from Center/approach. I could see the center controller calling the tower to hand you off and if the tower controller was very slow they might elect to leave you with center. Center would then pass on to you the info. It would be much easier/quicker to just tell you tower "cleared" you into the Delta rather than have a long conversation about how slow the Delta airspace was and how close the football game was resulting in the tower not wanting to talk to you.
This happened many times to me back in the mapping days. We would have lines that went back and forth from TRACON's airspace to the airspace of a Tower. TRACON would almost always coordinate this for us so we wouldn't need to switch frequencies back and forth. Of course there was the one time the coordination got screwed up and I got to talk to them about a reported near midair...
 
If you find yourself accused of commiting a pilot deviation simply say your DPE was Edward L. Lane and you'll be waived of all responsibility. :D
 
ATC has the authority under FAA Order 7110.65 (it's in Section 10, I believe) to treat a situation as an emergency even if the pilot doesn't make the declaration when it appears to ATC that emergency handling is necessary to resolve the situation safely. Otherwise, their hands might be tied by their own rules from which they can deviate only in an emergency.

I believe Ron is correct here.. as usual.:rolleyes:.

Say the tower witnesses a plane in their airspace trailing smoke and the tower is unable to raise the aircraft on the radio.. Probably because the pilot has shut off the master switch....:dunno: They will give the plane the light gun and close the field, roll out the rescue equipment, so basically the tower has declared an emergency for that pilot.

I still can't understand how the incident we are talking about, that happened a few months back has not wound its way though the investigating channels and disclosed the details so we can digest the entire episode. :dunno::confused:
 
I believe that unless the pilot or aircraft is unable to be contacted then the pilot in command still has the ultimate decision as to whether or not an emergency can be declared. So in fact, unless I am wrong, if the pilot in command is in contact with ATC, ATC cannot declare an emergency without the pilot's agreement. I am sure there are exceptions to this, as there all in everything, but I thought this falls under the heading that the pilot in command has ultimate authority and thus responsibility of what the plane is going to do.

ATC can declare an emergency without the pilot's consent, without even advising the pilot that an emergency has been declared.
 
There is no phraseology. By the controller telling you you're "cleared into the class D" is wasted transmission. 1) He already has to coordinate your transition through the D with the tower. 2) There is no clearance to enter the D unless you're operating SVFR.

MSP can be weird about that. I was once under a Bravo clearance getting vectors from MSP Approach. They vectored me directly into the KMIC Class D airspace - they then proceeded to chew my ass for having not contacted tower on my other radio or having not warned them that they were vectoring me into the class D.
 
ATC can declare an emergency without the pilot's consent, without even advising the pilot that an emergency has been declared.

This is what happened when I had a partial mag failure. I got the fuel remaining and SOB questions so I knew what was up even if nobody told me. I would have declared after the mag failed completely but I was a little busy trying to find a power setting that the engine liked and an airport that I liked and I knew ATC had already declared.
 
What do you think is the correct phraseology and what is the basis of your claim?

14 CFR 91.129 governs class D airspace. The requirements for entry are in 91.129(c)(1):

Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.

The only mentions of clearances are clearances to take off, land, or taxi, in 91.129(d)(2)(iii) and 91.129(i).

AIM 3-2-5b3 expands on this subject. Notice that there is no mention of needing a clearance to enter the airspace:

3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry
Requirements. Two−way radio communication
must be established with the ATC facility providing
ATC services prior to entry and thereafter maintain
those communications while in the Class D airspace.
Pilots of arriving aircraft should contact the control
tower on the publicized frequency and give their
position, altitude, destination, and any request(s).
Radio contact should be initiated far enough from the
Class D airspace boundary to preclude entering the
Class D airspace before two−way radio communications
are established.
NOTE−
1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, “[aircraft
callsign] standby,” radio communications have been
established and the pilot can enter the Class D airspace.
2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate
entry into Class D airspace, the controller will inform the
pilot to remain outside the Class D airspace until
conditions permit entry.
EXAMPLE−
1. “[Aircraft callsign] remain outside the Class Delta
airspace and standby.”
It is important to understand that if the controller responds
to the initial radio call without using the aircraft callsign,
radio communications have not been established and the
pilot may not enter the Class D airspace.
2. “Aircraft calling Manassas tower standby.”
At those airports where the control tower does not operate
24 hours a day, the operating hours of the tower will be
listed on the appropriate charts and in the A/FD. During
the hours the tower is not in operation, the Class E surface
area rules or a combination of Class E rules to 700 feet
above ground level and Class G rules to the surface will
become applicable. Check the A/FD for specifics.
 
MSP can be weird about that. I was once under a Bravo clearance getting vectors from MSP Approach. They vectored me directly into the KMIC Class D airspace - they then proceeded to chew my ass for having not contacted tower on my other radio or having not warned them that they were vectoring me into the class D.
To which you probably responded, with a 'thank you' and went on your way, no doubt.
 
Sully never declared an emergency. He simply stated, "Hit birds, lost thrust in both engines, returning to LaGuardia immediately". When he later decided to go to Teterboro, the controller called Teterboro Tower and advised him "emergency inbound". Obviously he had declared an emergency for him.
 
Back
Top