Class Bravo and Flight Following

Ron Levy said:
The NTSB's position did not make issue of the Class Delta, and their statement on the law was not limited to Class Delta.
Note the wording about "allow[ing] ATC...to manage the situation in accordance with its informed appraisal of how best to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating." Nothing there limiting the application of that doctrine to Class D airspace. Also, compare the phrase "within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating" to the wording in 91.123(b): "an area in which air traffic control is exercised," which would expand this even further to places like the area around a tower-controlled airport with only G-space.
Click to expand...

Ellis was clearly a loose cannon.

The question is: does this reasoning apply to the VFR pilot in Class G who requests Traffic Advisiories?

If there is such a case that references Ellis as precedent, then the answer is "Yes."

If not, then the answer is "We'll see."
 
OK. here's some thoughts - I have not studied these regs - I'm sure you all will correct my thinking or tell me the salient points:

You have accepted FF by ATC - you are in the system - you comply w/ their directions because you are in the system and class E airspace is controlled - If you don't wanna do that you say: "cancel flight following" and then rattlebang along on your own beholding to no one, so to speak....
 
Sac Arrow said:
My understanding is that of Cap'n Ron and a couple others. I get both suggestions ("suggest heading of 220 to avoid..") and directives ("fly heading of and maintain altitude at or above..") while on flight following.
Click to expand...

I've never, ever been told "fly heading X and maintain altitude Y" while on Traffic Advisories out in Echo -- ever.

Class Delta, Charlie, Bravo and TRSA -- yes, I have heard that.

Different situation.
 
Ron Levy said:
Roncachamp thinks so, and has said so repeatedly. FAA Legal and the NTSB feel otherwise, and have taken enforcement action accordingly (see Administrator v. Ellis). Roncachamp will undoubtedly quibble over this, citing his personal interpretation of this case; I will not respond. Believe whom you choose.
Click to expand...

A bit easier for them to see Administrator v. Ellis if you provide a link to it, don'cha think?

For those that take the time to examine Administrator v. Ellis, note that Ellis didn't refuse a heading or altitude assignment while operating VFR outside of Class B or Class C airspace, or the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA. He refused instructions issued to effect runway separation at a towered airport. That's a distinction Cap'n Ron has been unable to grasp.

So there's nothing in Administrator v. Ellis that suggests how FAA Legal and the NTSB feel about the issue of pilots refusing invalid ATC instructions. Cap'n Ron believes differently, I have challenged him several times to cite the specific language in Ellis that he feels supports his position, but he will not respond. Either he is unable to perform a simple copy and paste, or he can find no such language. Believe what you choose.
 
Ghery said:
Perhaps if I'm flying in Class G airspace (and we have some around here that isn't close to the ground), but otherwise you're in controlled airspace and if you're talking to them, you have to follow instructions. That's my understanding, and I'm sticking with it.
Click to expand...

So you believe the FAA wants pilots to follow instructions it doesn't want controllers to issue, is that correct?
 
gprellwitz said:
As Ron alluded to, he and Ronachamp have had disagreements over this in the past. I wasn't going to mention this, but... Suffice it to say, if you follow the suggestions/directions of ATC you should be alright. If they're impracticable, you can cancel services.
Click to expand...

Without following the direction which you found to be impracticable?
 
COFlyBoy said:
I don't understand how you can misinterpret this:

§ 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

Does roncachamp actually have some FARs or even a section of the AIM to quote that makes this less clear?

Getting FF is voluntary. Complying with ATC instructions after getting FF is not.
Click to expand...

Is it your position that pilots are required to adhere to instructions that controllers are not permitted to issue?
 
EdFred said:
According to you, I must adhere to ALL atc instructions. So if ATC ask me to sing like Ethel Merman on the air, I am bound by that instruction. After all, the ruling doesn't limit it to just flight instructions.
Click to expand...
Did you read the definition of "ATC Instruction" quoted above? Or do you somehow believe that telling you to "sing like Ethel Merman" could somehow be considered a means "to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace [ATC] is charged with regulating"?:rolleyes:
 
dmccormack said:
I've never, ever been told "fly heading X and maintain altitude Y" while on Traffic Advisories out in Echo -- ever.
Click to expand...
I have, more than once, been instructed to fly a heading or maintain an altitude in E-space while receiving flight following. And I did as told every time.
 
Jeanie said:
They are providing FF as a "courtesy" it's only if they have time to do so. If they suggest a heading of some sort that doesn't take you into clouds or turn you completely away from where you're going then why not as a courtesy simply go along with it. If you can't do it say "unable" ... They are probably suggesting that heading change for the safety of all concerned in the air -
Nit picking FARs just to have something to prove a point seems a little petty. Doesn't cooperative piloting w/ appropriate judgment imply some airmanship here?
Click to expand...

Suggestions are not the issue.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Did you read the definition of "ATC Instruction" quoted above? Or do you somehow believe that telling you to "sing like Ethel Merman" could somehow be considered a means "to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace [ATC] is charged with regulating"?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You said it wasn't limited to Delta, and implied they have carte blanche to issue instructions wherever, however, and for whatever they want...so what IS it limited to?
 
EdFred said:
You said it wasn't limited to Delta, and implied they have carte blanche to issue instructions wherever, however, and for whatever they want...so what IS it limited to?
Click to expand...
Just what the reg says -- "an area in which air traffic control is exercised."
 
Ron Levy said:
From a practical standpoint, I agree completely, as ATC usually has a darn good reason (of which you may be unaware) to give "instructions" (as opposed to "suggestions") to VFR aircraft, but some folks just don't like being told what to do.
Click to expand...

So what would be a darn good reason for ATC to issue an "instruction" (as opposed to a "suggestion") to a VFR aircraft receiving nothing more than flight following?

Perhaps. The question I was addressing was the legality of not obeying an ATC instruction in controlled airspace, not the wisdom of that, and the FAA and NTSB have made it clear in the Ellis case that they don't take kindly to those who don't do as they're instructed. OTOH, when ATC says "Suggest heading xxx," as opposed to "Cessna 124, turn left heading xxx," you are not receiving an instruction, just a suggestion which you are free to decline.
Click to expand...

What did the FAA and NTSB say in the Ellis case about pilot adherence to invalid ATC instructions?
 
dmccormack said:
That doesn't seem to fit the problem posed in the OP: to wit, that ATC "instructions" provided during flight following are binding.

This event occured in Class Delta airspace.
Click to expand...

The Class of airspace is irrelevant in the Ellis case. The instructions issued to him were to effect runway separation at a towered field. They'd have been just as valid if the airport had been in Class G airspace.
 
Jeanie said:
OK. here's some thoughts - I have not studied these regs - I'm sure you all will correct my thinking or tell me the salient points:

You have accepted FF by ATC - you are in the system - you comply w/ their directions because you are in the system and class E airspace is controlled - If you don't wanna do that you say: "cancel flight following" and then rattlebang along on your own beholding to no one, so to speak....
Click to expand...

So if you accept flight following you're under the direction of ATC? Can you provide anything in support of that thought?
 
roncachamp said:
The Class of airspace is irrelevant in the Ellis case. The instructions issued to him were to effect runway separation at a towered field. They'd have been just as valid if the airport had been in Class G airspace.
Click to expand...

I agree -- however, the FAA's argument for control is stronger given the event happened in Class D with an active tower, yada , yada.
 
EdFred said:
So, they can tell me to do anything they want in any non-G airspace?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. However...

First, based on the NTSB's writing, the question of whether you are bound to comply is based on the question of whether or not ATC's instruction is intended to "ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating." Using your example, telling you to "sing like Ethel Merman" clearly does fall in that category. Examples given in the FAA's definition of an "ATC Instruction" ("Turn left heading two five zero," "Go around," "Clear the runway.") clearly do, and you would be obliged to comply with them.

Second, the regulation does not limit that authority to non-G airspace. On its face, the regulation's phrase "an area in which air traffic control is exercised" would also include, for example, the G-space 4nm around and up to 2500 feet above an airport with a control tower but no D/E-space (see 14 CFR 91.126(d)).
 
Ron Levy said:
Absolutely. However...

First, based on the NTSB's writing, the question of whether you are bound to comply is based on the question of whether or not ATC's instruction is intended to "ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating." Using your example, telling you to "sing like Ethel Merman" clearly does fall in that category. Examples given in the FAA's definition of an "ATC Instruction" ("Turn left heading two five zero," "Go around," "Clear the runway.") clearly do, and you would be obliged to comply with them.

Second, the regulation does not limit that authority to non-G airspace. On its face, the regulation's phrase "an area in which air traffic control is exercised" would also include, for example, the G-space 4nm around and up to 2500 feet above an airport with a control tower but no D/E-space (see 14 CFR 91.126(d)).
Click to expand...

And how do I know the instructions are for "ensuring safe operations" and not just some controller who is bored, or thinks he has the authority to tell me what to do?
 
Sac Arrow said:
My understanding is that of Cap'n Ron and a couple others. I get both suggestions ("suggest heading of 220 to avoid..") and directives ("fly heading of and maintain altitude at or above..") while on flight following. Of course I could simply cancel FF if I didn't like it.

I will normally cancel IFR once I'm in VMC conditions on a long flight just to AVOID messy IFR routings, particularly over the LA and San Diego basins. I normally remain on FF in case I need to re-file or I need a Bravo clearance. I don't think I've ever received a directive while on FF that is so restrictive that I wanted to terminate FF over it.

Case in point: You want to transit Class C airspace, so you obtain FF prior to entering it. Since you are now in two way communication with ATC, you are automatically cleared through C and D airspace without specifically requesting transit. But, ATC tells you to remain clear of Class C airspace. By Roncachamp's reasoning, since you are not yet in Class C airspace, you could ignore the directive and continue in to Class C airspace.

I think we all know where THAT would get us.
Click to expand...

Roncachamp never presented any "reasoning" like that.
 
EdFred said:
And how do I know the instructions are for "ensuring safe operations" and not just some controller who is bored, or thinks he has the authority to tell me what to do?
Click to expand...
I've given you what I think should be enough examples for most anyone smart and trained enough to be a licensed pilot to figure that out -- just think about Mr. Justice Stewart and the definition of pornography.
 
Sac Arrow said:
It doesn't happen often, but it does happen where I fly, usually near class B airspace and over MOA's. And I've heard some pretty heated exchanges between ATC and pilots on FF that didn't exactly do as they were told.
Click to expand...

We can only hope those controllers received remedial training.
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you read the definition of "ATC Instruction" quoted above? Or do you somehow believe that telling you to "sing like Ethel Merman" could somehow be considered a means "to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace [ATC] is charged with regulating"?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The definition of "ATC Instruction" you quoted is, "Directives issued by air traffic control for the purpose of requiring a pilot to take specific actions; e.g., 'Turn left heading two five zero,' 'Go around,' 'Clear the runway'." "Sing like Ethel Merman on the air" is a specific action.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just what the reg says -- "an area in which air traffic control is exercised."
Click to expand...

So if you were in any airspace other than Class G and ATC instructed you to "sing like Ethel Merman on the air" you'd have to belt out a tune or you'd be in violation of 91.123, would you not?
 
roncachamp said:
So if you accept flight following you're under the direction of ATC? Can you provide anything in support of that thought?
Click to expand...

~~~~~~~~ Nope, not a thing - just seems to be common sense to me. But, I'm not particularly worried about getting in a snit w/ ATC, I'm more inclined to cooperate for mutual benefit like I said early on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if you were in any airspace other than Class G and ATC instructed you to "sing like Ethel Merman on the air" you'd have to belt out a tune or you'd be in violation of 91.123, would you not?

~~~~~ Really, Ron, aren't you being a little snide? No one I know would interpret singing like Ethel Merman as a safety issue.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've given you what I think should be enough examples for most anyone smart and trained enough to be a licensed pilot to figure that out -- just think about Mr. Justice Stewart and the definition of pornography.
Click to expand...

None of the examples you gave apply to flight following.
 
Jeanie said:
Nope, not a thing - just seems to be common sense to me. But, I'm not particularly worried about getting in a snit w/ ATC, I'm more inclined to cooperate for mutual benefit like I said early on.
Click to expand...

I find no sense in it at all.

Really, Ron, aren't you being a little snide? No one I know would interpret singing like Ethel Merman as a safety issue.
Click to expand...

What limits this to safety issues?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top