Class Bravo and Flight Following

Just joking, Dan, don't really wanna get into a discusion on this.....
 
OK, so I'm looking at JO 7110.65T to try and find where it says the controllers are not permitted to give instructions to VFR AC on FF. Anyone have a section reference?

To sum up it sounds like the argument against 91.123(b) is that I am not bound to comply with certain (undefined) instructions issued by ATC because they are not permitted to issue instructions in certain (undefined) cases.

I'd like to know which instructions under which conditions I am not bound by 91.123(b).
 
COFlyBoy said:
I'd like to know which instructions under which conditions I am not bound by 91.123(b).
Click to expand...
Since 7110.65 is an FAA Order to its controller employees, not a regulation for pilots to follow, and the FAR's say only what you've already found in 91.123(b) on this subject (other than, of course, 91.3(b) regarding deviation from the rules as necessary to deal with an emergency situation), nothing in 7110.65 excuses you from follown an ATC Instruction unless it is on its face not intended for safety reasons (e.g., "sing like Ethel Merman," to use Ed's excellent example). Anything else, you do now and discuss later unless it's an emergency where following the instruction would compromise safety of flight.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since 7110.65 is an FAA Order to its controller employees, not a regulation for pilots to follow, and the FAR's say only what you've already found in 91.123(b) on this subject (other than, of course, 91.3(b) regarding deviation from the rules as necessary to deal with an emergency situation), nothing in 7110.65 excuses you from follown an ATC Instruction unless it is on its face not intended for safety reasons (e.g., "sing like Ethel Merman," to use Ed's excellent example). Anything else, you do now and discuss later unless it's an emergency where following the instruction would compromise safety of flight.
Click to expand...

OK, so my request still stands to Roncachamp or Edfred. Show me where in the FARs or even the AIM, it says that there are cases where I don't have to comply with an ATC instruction. I'm not talking about absurd instructions, but a perfectly reasonable "87W, maintain at or above 5500".

I agree with Ron, the 7110.65 is not a document that governs pilots. Affects yes, governs no.
 
COFlyBoy said:
OK, so my request still stands to Roncachamp or Edfred. Show me where in the FARs or even the AIM, it says that there are cases where I don't have to comply with an ATC instruction. I'm not talking about absurd instructions, but a perfectly reasonable "87W, maintain at or above 5500".

I agree with Ron, the 7110.65 is not a document that governs pilots. Affects yes, governs no.
Click to expand...

Are you in the Class B/C/D airspace when they tell you that?
 
COFlyBoy said:
OK, so I'm looking at JO 7110.65T to try and find where it says the controllers are not permitted to give instructions to VFR AC on FF. Anyone have a section reference?).
Click to expand...

With regard to vectoring see para 5-5-1.g. Altitude assignments to VFR aircraft are mentioned in paras 7-7-5, 7-8-5, and 7-9-7.

I'd like to know which instructions under which conditions I am not bound by 91.123(b).
Click to expand...

You wont be violated for ignoring instructions controllers are not authorized to issue.
 
COFlyBoy said:
OK, so my request still stands to Roncachamp or Edfred. Show me where in the FARs or even the AIM, it says that there are cases where I don't have to comply with an ATC instruction. I'm not talking about absurd instructions, but a perfectly reasonable "87W, maintain at or above 5500".
Click to expand...

Why do you feel that's a perfectly reasonable instruction for an aircraft on flight following?

I agree with Ron, the 7110.65 is not a document that governs pilots. Affects yes, governs no.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone claiming it did govern pilots.
 
Ron Levy said:
...you tell them you'll get the folks on PoA to discuss it and get back with an answer...









...about 1000 posts later.:rofl:
Click to expand...
I don't think you will ever get that answer. :D:D

song-chart-memes-online-comments.jpg
 
roncachamp said:
Why do you feel that's a perfectly reasonable instruction for an aircraft on flight following?
quote]

I'm basing it off of my simple interpretation of 91.123(b). I was in contact with ATC, in controlled airspace and they issued an instruction. Seems to fit within 91.123(b). 91.123(b) makes no distinction about why I was talking to ATC, whether I was on FF, whether I was on a flight plan, what rules (IFR/VFR) I was operating under, where I'm from or how good I am at singing.

I'll ask again where in the FARs or the AIM does it state that ATC may not issue an instruction to a VFR aircraft on FF? Or, where in the FARs or AIM does it state that an aircraft may ignore an instruction from ATC while on FF?

Please :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:, show me I want to read it.
Click to expand...
 
COFlyBoy said:
I'm basing it off of my simple interpretation of 91.123(b). I was in contact with ATC, in controlled airspace and they issued an instruction. Seems to fit within 91.123(b). 91.123(b) makes no distinction about why I was talking to ATC, whether I was on FF, whether I was on a flight plan, what rules (IFR/VFR) I was operating under, where I'm from or how good I am at singing.
Click to expand...

But what makes it a reasonable request for ATC to issue? What purpose does it serve given that ATC is not providing any separation?

I'll ask again where in the FARs or the AIM does it state that ATC may not issue an instruction to a VFR aircraft on FF?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, that's in Order 7110.65, see message #99.

Or, where in the FARs or AIM does it state that an aircraft may ignore an instruction from ATC while on FF?

Please :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:, show me I want to read it.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the FARs, but pilots are not charged with a 91.123 violation for declining an invalid ATC instruction. You might find AIM para 5-5-10 to be of interest.
 
EdFred said:
Are you in the Class B/C/D airspace when they tell you that?
Click to expand...

Class E would work for me, too.

Typically when I'm talking to SEA center, I'm in E space. And if they want me to do something, there's usually a good reason for it. Chinook Approach even asked me to fly to the south of the center line of the victor airway (I'd give the number, but I don't have the sectional where I'm sitting) between YKM and PSC to provide more space between my path and the hot R area to the north (Yakima Firing Center, I've been there when they're shooting artillery and I'm happy to stay away). Guess they didn't have faith in the VOR receiver in the plane. Or the accuracy of the artillerists. :D Oh well... Comply and live to fly another day.

We're sure getting worked up about something that just isn't worth it. I'm getting their help, I'll follow their instructions. Cooperation works both ways.
 
OK, one more and then I'll quit.

I looked at the sections of 7110.65 that Roncachamp outlined in #99 and while there isn't anything that specifically states that ATC may assign vectors/altitudes to VFR aircraft on FF in class E, there is also nothing that prohibits it.

For my money I'll assume that any instruction I receive from ATC is valid and I will comply as required in 91.123(b) unless it represents a danger to myself or others. Besides they may not fault your for violating 91.123(b), but I'll bet there are plenty of other regulations they can get you with if necessary.
 
jsstevens said:
Last week I flew from Marathon (KMTH) to Orlando Executive (KORL). I flew up the east coast following the overseas highway, flying form Key Largo towards Miami International, to the Palm Beach VOR (PBI), the Melbourne VOR (MLB) and then home.

I called Miami approach and asked to traverse their airspace from southwest towards the Palm Beach VOR. After getting a squawk and identing, I was cleared into the Bravo at 5500. All this was expected and went smoothly.

What I didn't expect was that I was then in the system for flight following all the was home - handed off to Palm Beach Approach and then Orlando Approach. In fact you can see that portion of the flight on FlightAware here: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N739SK (the May 8th one).

I just expected Miami to tell me "resume own navigation, squawk VFR, good day."

Is this normal? I certainly didn't object to the extra eyes.

John
Click to expand...

I think it depends on their workload. I fly through, over and around the IAH Class Bravo regularly and have had all sorts of attention, from the intense, meaning vectors, to the "Hey Houston, should I switch frequencies now, or what?".

You can tell a lot about them by the tone of their voice--I have heard stress, frustration and anger. They have a tough job and since I fly for fun I always try to put their needs first--pays great dividends in the long run. Some pilots do not like ATC, but like you say, I never mind having the extra eyes on me.
 
COFlyBoy said:
I looked at the sections of 7110.65 that Roncachamp outlined in #99 and while there isn't anything that specifically states that ATC may assign vectors/altitudes to VFR aircraft on FF in class E, there is also nothing that prohibits it.
Click to expand...

For what purpose would ATC assign vectors/altitudes to VFR aircraft on FF in Class E airspace?
 
I was vectored around a Military area in Mississipi once - can't remember which one but I could look it up. Basicly it was the Base Approach and they said: Turn to a heading of 100 to remain clear of ****** (whatever it was) and so I did... don't really want to wander over Air Force turf. Once I got clear enough they said essentially, OK you can go on now and so I did. No big deal.
 
Jeanie said:
I was vectored around a Military area in Mississipi once - can't remember which one but I could look it up. Basicly it was the Base Approach and they said: Turn to a heading of 100 to remain clear of ****** (whatever it was) and so I did... don't really want to wander over Air Force turf. Once I got clear enough they said essentially, OK you can go on now and so I did. No big deal.
Click to expand...

Please do.
 
It was Columbus Air Force base which is Class C and inside of which is an Alert area - so they were just keeping me out of their neighborhood. Different kettle of fish then.
 
Although, having just looked at it again I'm sure I was higher than the altitude for the ceiling of the outer ring of the Class C. Anyway, they steered me around.
 
Jeanie said:
It was Columbus Air Force base which is Class C and inside of which is an Alert area - so they were just keeping me out of their neighborhood. Different kettle of fish then.
Click to expand...

Different kettle of fish than flight following and it still is. You were receiving Class C services.
 
Jeanie said:
Although, having just looked at it again I'm sure I was higher than the altitude for the ceiling of the outer ring of the Class C. Anyway, they steered me around.
Click to expand...

Class C services are provided within 20 miles of the core airport from the lower limits of radar and radio coverage up to the top of the airspace delegated to the approach control facility. See AIM para 3-2-4.
 
Ron Levy said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4713.PDF

BTW, this was not his first run-in with the FAA over the issue of adherence to an ATC instruction (among other things). See also http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3910.PDF.
Click to expand...

In the earlier case (second link above) the respondent was on an IFR clearance, so people who are looking for exceptions to 91.123(b) can argue that it doesn't speak to the issue of VFR flight following. It's kind of amazing though, that part of the pilot's defense was to claim that he was lying to ATC. Hey, great way to shore up one's credibility! ("Were you lying then, or are you lying now?") That pilot comes across to me as a combination of an idiot and a slimeball.

On the second case (first link), it's been argued that it's not applicable because it was a type of instruction that is authorized in the controller's manual, and that instructions that are not authorized by the manual are invalid.

If you take the reg literally, there is no exception stated for instructions that are invalid under the controller' manual - it only states an exception for emergencies. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be case law that bears directly on the invalid instruction argument, hence we have these recurring debates.

In general, I prefer to take regs literally unless there is case law to the contrary.
 
roncachamp said:
Class C services are provided within 20 miles of the core airport from the lower limits of radar and radio coverage up to the top of the airspace delegated to the approach control facility. See AIM para 3-2-4.
Click to expand...

Well, the question is, are those instructions binding on the pilot under 91.123(b)? I think the rule is pretty clear on that point. It seems to me that the crux of this disagreement is whether or not the pilot has the authority to determine, in flight, whether or not a given ATC instruction is valid or not. I don't think I am, any more than an a controller has the authority to second guess my judgement with regards to the safety of my flight. After the fact, I can call his supervisor and have them pull the tapes, and he can forward my actions on to the local FSDO. Until then, though, it seems all I can legally do is comply, or tell ATC I am unable (per 91.123(c)).
 
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...

Well, this thread has certainly taken an entertaining turn!

If that happened to me, I would take it as evidence of irrational behavior on the part of the controller, which would easily be sufficient to justify exercising my emergency authority.
 
Palmpilot said:
If you take the reg literally, there is no exception stated for instructions that are invalid under the controller' manual - it only states an exception for emergencies. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be case law that bears directly on the invalid instruction argument, hence we have these recurring debates.
Click to expand...

There's no case law because pilots are not charged with a violation when they ignore invalid ATC instructions.
 
roncachamp said:
There's no case law because pilots are not charged with a violation when they ignore invalid ATC instructions.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Do you have access to a complete database of FAA enforcement actions?
 
chucky said:
Well, the question is, are those instructions binding on the pilot under 91.123(b)? I think the rule is pretty clear on that point. It seems to me that the crux of this disagreement is whether or not the pilot has the authority to determine, in flight, whether or not a given ATC instruction is valid or not. I don't think I am, any more than an a controller has the authority to second guess my judgement with regards to the safety of my flight. After the fact, I can call his supervisor and have them pull the tapes, and he can forward my actions on to the local FSDO. Until then, though, it seems all I can legally do is comply, or tell ATC I am unable (per 91.123(c)).
Click to expand...

If that's the question it's a new question. Class C services include separation of VFR traffic, heading and altitude assignments are tools ATC uses to effect separation so those instructions are indeed binding on the pilot. The discussion has been about similar instructions where ATC has no responsibility for separation. The disagreement has been whether or not the pilot must adhere to invalid ATC instructions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top