Class Bravo and Flight Following

[Palmpilot]

The FAA tells controllers via Order JO 7110.65 "Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken." What the FAA is telling you per the AIM is incorrect.

Let's see, we have three FAA sources on this, the controller's manual, the regulation, and the AIM. Two of them agree, and one of them doesn't, and you're assuming that the one that doesn't agree with the others is the correct one. Seems kind of arbitrary.

If I flew an airplane like that in the face of conflicting instrument indications, I'd be dead by now.

 

[Palmpilot]

I've submitted about half a dozen corrections to various FAA publications including the AIM. I received a response once, but no change was made.

Sounds like they didn't agree with your suggestions.

 

[roncachamp]

Let's see, we have three FAA sources on this, the controller's manual, the regulation, and the AIM. Two of them agree, and one of them doesn't, and you're assuming that the one that doesn't agree with the others is the correct one. Seems kind of arbitrary.

Let's see, the AIM tells pilots vectors may be initiated by ATC when in the controller's judgment the vector is necessary for air safety.

Order 7110.65 tells controllers once a safety alert is issued it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine the course of action. Since it's the order and not the AIM that controllers must adhere to it follows that the AIM is undeniably incorrect.

Your assumption that FAR 91.123 was intended to include instructions controllers are not permitted to issue is patently absurd.

If I flew an airplane like that in the face of conflicting instrument indications, I'd be dead by now.

If you allowed logic into your flying you'd be dead?

 

[roncachamp]

Sounds like they didn't agree with your suggestions.

I didn't submit any suggestions.

 

[roncachamp]

No, I'm just telling you what happens. You guys are duking out the legality of whether they can or not, and whether or not I am compelled to act on what they tell me. So far, it is unclear to me who is right.

We're not duking out the legality of the issuance, the only disagreement is whether or not the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions it does not allow controllers to issue.

 

[Palmpilot]

We're not duking out the legality of the issuance, the only disagreement is whether or not the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions it does not allow controllers to issue.

If that's the only disagreement, I don't see how it can be true that whether the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual can be irrelevant, as you asserted in post #147. Can you explain this?

 

[roncachamp]

If that's the only disagreement, I don't see how it can be true that whether the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual can be irrelevant, as you asserted in post #147. Can you explain this?

Of course. It's irrelevant because it's unrelated to the matter being considered.

 

[Palmpilot]

Of course. It's irrelevant because it's unrelated to the matter being considered.

Why? Just because you say so?

I don't understand why you don't see the relationship between them.

If the FAA believes that pilots are not qualified to determine which ATC instructions are valid and which or not, it seems pretty obvious that they would not want pilots to make and act on that determination, and therefore would want pilots to follow the instructions whether they were valid or not, absent an emergency.

Why would the FAA allow pilots to make and act on a determination that they are not qualified to make? Do you not see the potential for accidents arising out of such a practice?

That is the relevance. Merely declaring it irrelevant is no substitute for a reasoned argument.

If you disagree with that line of reasoning, which part or parts do you disagree with, and why?