- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,260
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
And the old VFR cruising altitudes outside of B, C or TRSA has reared its ugly head again. 
Flight Following Conditioned on Unreasonable Descent
- Thread starter eetrojan
- Start date
Unit74
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
How do you explain § 91.123 subpart B then?
(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.
If bebopping along at 5500 on FF, I get a call to descend and maintain 4000, do you think I'm well within my rights and the CFR to tell them no? If I just said, " Cancel services, Ill squawk VRF " this is in effect, refusing to comply with an instruction and I think you are in hot water, or at least very warm water.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I could recite Steven's answer (or question, actually) from memory, but I won't. :wink2:
Unit74
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oh please do.....
It goes something like "Do you believe the FAA wants pilots to follow instructions it does not want controllers to give?"
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,260
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
There's a butt load of flow in that area between 8k' and 10k'. He was trying to manage his flow and you were going to be an inconvenience. Looking at a scope and sequencing traffic into and out of San Bernardino and Ontario must be a bit of a challenge at times. Besides, theres a published VFR flyway for that area that would take you right over the Paradise VORTAC. Given the jet traffic in that area, that's how I woulda done it. Just go direct from Big Bear to lake Arrow Head, then fly the flyway. That gets you away from those taller peaks and gives you room to descend down below arrival/departure routes. Short of that, you could go "bush" and just follow the powerlines down from Angelus.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
So Ricardo Cabeza was working that day
So regardless, the controller still has a bogey moving through his targets and now he can't talk to him. Doesn't compute ever.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
So, I called the TRACON and talked to one of the controllers that works this sector on 135.4. I don’t think it was the same controller I had yesterday.
At any rate, he was able to look me up on the computer based on my tail number and time of flight. He could definitely see the flight path and, while I'm not certain, imagine he could hear the audio.
I told him what happened, that I’m a low-time pilot, and that I was hoping of learning if there was something I did wrong or should have done.
He didn’t know why 4,000 was chosen, but said that the controller “probably” wanted me lower because “everything" has to go over Paradise (PDZ VOR), so he was probably trying to protect traffic that is coming off of Ontario and climbs to 9000 feet at PDZ, and aircraft going to John Wayne that would be at 8,000 feet when crossing PDZ, i.e. 500 feet above and 500 feet below me.
The Paradise PDZ VOR is about 5 miles to the northwest of my flight path when crossing over Lake Mathews.
He said from their perspective, the preferred path for VFR aircraft going from Big Bear to John Wayne would be to overfly KSBD and then stay west of KRAL. I said that sounds like the “VFR Flyway” chart (mentioned above by KennyW in post 47), and he confirmed that’s what he’s talking about.
No big takeaways for me other than I need to chew on the so-called VFR Flyway Planning Chart. Honestly, I haven’t given it much thought, until now, as they were never presented to me during training.
Nice guy, and he sure wished he was watching the game too!
Edit - I'm still not super excited about being in that busy corridor over the Corona airport, but I take it they prefer that I fly from L35 to SNA on the blue path shown on this VFR Flyway chart:
Diagram (click for larger version):
Bigger Version
At any rate, he was able to look me up on the computer based on my tail number and time of flight. He could definitely see the flight path and, while I'm not certain, imagine he could hear the audio.
I told him what happened, that I’m a low-time pilot, and that I was hoping of learning if there was something I did wrong or should have done.
He didn’t know why 4,000 was chosen, but said that the controller “probably” wanted me lower because “everything" has to go over Paradise (PDZ VOR), so he was probably trying to protect traffic that is coming off of Ontario and climbs to 9000 feet at PDZ, and aircraft going to John Wayne that would be at 8,000 feet when crossing PDZ, i.e. 500 feet above and 500 feet below me.
The Paradise PDZ VOR is about 5 miles to the northwest of my flight path when crossing over Lake Mathews.
He said from their perspective, the preferred path for VFR aircraft going from Big Bear to John Wayne would be to overfly KSBD and then stay west of KRAL. I said that sounds like the “VFR Flyway” chart (mentioned above by KennyW in post 47), and he confirmed that’s what he’s talking about.
No big takeaways for me other than I need to chew on the so-called VFR Flyway Planning Chart. Honestly, I haven’t given it much thought, until now, as they were never presented to me during training.
Nice guy, and he sure wished he was watching the game too!
Edit - I'm still not super excited about being in that busy corridor over the Corona airport, but I take it they prefer that I fly from L35 to SNA on the blue path shown on this VFR Flyway chart:
Diagram (click for larger version):
Bigger Version
Last edited:
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
Can't manage everything, all you can do is focus on what YOU are responsible for. controllers are responsible for separating IFR and PARTICIPATING VFR traffic. Anything else is "SEE & AVOID".
That may not be the most altruistic approach to air traffic control. But, its reality.
Vf6cruiser
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Messages
- 181
- Display Name
Display name:
Vf6cruiser
I've been based at SNA, POC, and CCB at one time or another. My take is you were up messing with the heavy metal going into SNA at 8.5. Almost everybody just goes thru the pass at the 91 into SNA which may indeed be a reason to avoid it, but you may have been in more danger or a big pain for ATC up that high......just my .02.
roncachamp
Final Approach
If you're bebopping along VFR at 5500 and not receiving Class B, Class C, or TRSA service and you get a call to descend and maintain 4000 the controller has issued an instruction he is not authorized to issue. If you feel the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions it does not want controllers to issue you'll probably sleep better if you comply.
Unit74
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
I don't agree with you at all on that. You're in controlled airspace and receiving ATC services. You're obligated to comply with what you perceive as an "unauthorized instruction."
The fact is, if you opt in to the ATC services, e.g. , flight following, you must comply with their instructions. You would have to positively opt out prior to any ATC instruction if you didn't want to get what you believe is a non-regulatory instruction.
The fact is, if you opt in to the ATC services, e.g. , flight following, you must comply with their instructions. You would have to positively opt out prior to any ATC instruction if you didn't want to get what you believe is a non-regulatory instruction.
roncachamp
Final Approach
What is it, exactly, that you disagree with? I've said ATC is authorized to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft only when providing Class B, Class C, or TRSA services. That's not a a matter of opinion, that's a fact.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Yup, those flyway charts are specifically to keep you out of the way of IFR traffic, especially Class B. Everyone uses them for a reason.
I once caused a headache for NorCal practicing high altitude maneuvers just north of Santa Cruz at 10500, thinking it's a low traffic area (it is at lower altitudes). It turns out there are multiple SFO arrival procedures that go through there. NorCal let me do it, but I sure got a lot of traffic calls.
I once caused a headache for NorCal practicing high altitude maneuvers just north of Santa Cruz at 10500, thinking it's a low traffic area (it is at lower altitudes). It turns out there are multiple SFO arrival procedures that go through there. NorCal let me do it, but I sure got a lot of traffic calls.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
I disagree. You have learned how easy and useful it is to pick up the phone and call ATC with a question or to understand a situation like you described in your original post. You will do it again some day, and again after that ...
I probably call a facility once or twice a year with a question. As you found, "nice guy" is the norm.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The FAA Chief Counsel apparently does want that:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60082
However, there are exceptions, such as when a pilot is vectored into class B airspace without a clearance:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...10/doremire - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
They wiggled out of that one by deciding that the vector wasn't an instruction.
roncachamp
Final Approach
The FAA Chief Counsel apparently does want that:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60082
However, there are exceptions, such as when a pilot is vectored into class B airspace without a clearance:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...10/doremire - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
They wiggled out of that one by deciding that the vector wasn't an instruction.
Is there any evidence that the FAA Chief Counsel is aware that the FAA has established limitations on ATC authority?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't know, but I think I have seen Chief Counsel opinions that show an unawareness of reality.
Luvrv8
Line Up and Wait
Me st of my flight time is in the L.A. Basin. I always get flight following, I know it's not 100% they call out everything to you but any help is great in this area. Who cares if they want to vector you with a turn or altitude, to me the help out weighs the minute e inconvienance. I will take all of the help and eyes I can get out there.
Tampico Trauma
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2015
- Messages
- 621
- Location
- Southeast of Disorder
- Display Name
Display name:
Mauled Formerly known as Tampico Trauma
I sometimes take the banning pass route on the way back from NYL. Last time, I did a fuel stop in TRM and planned on climbing out direct APLES and going around to the north on V386. Upon stating my route to SoCal, they advised me of mod/sev turbulence and asked if I'd rather go the LA route... I told them I'd go V388 to PDZ direct POM and pick up V186.
Upon handoff (to that same sector) I was just east of the March C and they vectored me directly over ONT then "follow the 210, remain at or north of it"
It was quiet on frequency, so I asked (as a low time pilot). The controller was nice and brief and explained to me the exact thing about PDZ VOR and arriving/departing traffic and said with an early turn he can keep me away from it, but more importantly, the descent profile for LAX/RIIVR.2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Upon handoff (to that same sector) I was just east of the March C and they vectored me directly over ONT then "follow the 210, remain at or north of it"
It was quiet on frequency, so I asked (as a low time pilot). The controller was nice and brief and explained to me the exact thing about PDZ VOR and arriving/departing traffic and said with an early turn he can keep me away from it, but more importantly, the descent profile for LAX/RIIVR.2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
I actually enjoy being on flight following, and I appreciate the extra eyes given the crowded nature of this area. And, I’m happy to be lead around a little bit if it helps them or helps me. Normally, though, the leads are quite small in magnitude. I’m used to “Cessna 123, turn heading 060” and then, a couple minutes later, “Cessna 123, resume own navigation.” Or,” Cessna 123, maintain 5,500 until your north of Palomar.”
This time, however, it was an abrupt and unexpected instruction (to me) to descend 4,500 feet lower, below the altitude I needed to fly my plan. That completely surprised me.
I get my ignorance now, but I planned and successfully flew this exact route during training, with CFI input on the plan and with my CFI onboard. We never discussed the VFR Flyway Planning Chart. But, now I know.
roncachamp
Final Approach
This is one of them. If it was intended that pilots adhere to ATC instructions that controllers are not authorized to issue there would be no purpose in limiting the authority of controllers.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Alternatively, one could argue that if the FAA intended pilots to choose which instructions to obey based on the controllers' manual, then they would require pilot candidates to be trained and tested on it.
I'm not convinced that there is one single answer that applies to all situations.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Why would one make that argument?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Most likely because of boredom.
Jeff Oslick
Final Approach
Late to the party here, but I seem to be one of the few locals adding a few pennies to the discussion.
Yes, ATC really expects you to go around Santiago Peak, over Chino/Corona. At 4,000', you're way above the crowds plowing through the canyon there. The crazy activity is 3,000' and below. Two or three extra minutes of flying (if that), and well worth it.
And yes, ATC will assign you "IFR" altitudes when VFR in LA. Since you are in the process of crossing through or entering various Class C airspace, there really isn't any question as to whether they are "supposed" to do that or not. If you want FF, you accept it.
Jeff
Yes, ATC really expects you to go around Santiago Peak, over Chino/Corona. At 4,000', you're way above the crowds plowing through the canyon there. The crazy activity is 3,000' and below. Two or three extra minutes of flying (if that), and well worth it.
And yes, ATC will assign you "IFR" altitudes when VFR in LA. Since you are in the process of crossing through or entering various Class C airspace, there really isn't any question as to whether they are "supposed" to do that or not. If you want FF, you accept it.
Jeff
I'm in the DC area; VFR, clear of the SFRA, I gradually stopped using flight following - they aren't set-up for "meandering", and if you aren't x-ctry, A-to-B, they don't know what to do with you. One guy asked me my intentions, and I said to "wander about the Eastern Shore looking, at property locations". He said he need to "know where I was going", so I dropped the service. He wasn't a being a jerk, just befuddled.
Later, once I understood accepting FF required compliance with vectors and altitudes, that ended it for me. I'm mostly IFR now, but otherwise, I quit talking once clear of the SFRA or other ATC controlled airspace .
Later, once I understood accepting FF required compliance with vectors and altitudes, that ended it for me. I'm mostly IFR now, but otherwise, I quit talking once clear of the SFRA or other ATC controlled airspace .
denverpilot
Tied Down
Wait wait... ADS-B will allow freeflight in that area!!!
(ROFLMAO...)
(ROFLMAO...)
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I did it once. But that was because I was nervous that the controller had made a mistake that could be repeated and I wanted to make sure that a) I wasn't going to be deviated, and b) that their supervisor understood what happened in case more training was needed.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29547
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
I use flight following for non-direct flights all the time.
Including searches and photo patterns. Not hard at all.
If you get an instruction (which you really shouldn't in Class E), you can bet there is a reason for it, and ignoring it is foolish.
Honestly, if you want someone to watch your six, you really need to explain what you're doing better than "Oh somewhere out there." I find it incredibly hard to believe that you winged that entire flight. Tell them the NEXT one you're going after. "Maneuvering near Ocean City," for instance will help them anticipate the traffic you're heading into, and it really doesn't have to be that specific (ATC doesn't care exactly what you're doing -- they just want to know where your 120 knot ass is going to be in a few minutes).
And example of a flight following request I've made is "maneuvering near SANTY intersection, then returning to Palo Alto." Worked fine.
Last edited:
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
Yeah, that is my bottom line. Sanity check the instruction of course, like all instructions, but my bias is to comply.
I truly enjoy these POA batttles with Chief Counsel and other citations and I learn a lot from them and especially from Steven. It's good to know the theory. But the difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, they are the same.
Mostly I'm just not interested in fooling with 'em VFR - the value added isn't there from my point of view. I used them occasionally in busier or tighter airspace on search missions when I was still with CAP. Bottom line, just not that concerned with having ATC watch my six when tooling about for fun.
Xctry I'm IFR; I imagine if I went VFR for some reason, I might use FF. But probably not. . .
Wow, I just realized I missed that! Not to be contrary, but I find it, well, incredible, that you'd not/not consider ever going NORDO. . .but that's cool, each to his own. . .
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
How can you possibly take a flight "to look at some property" without navigating purposefully to where that property is? Context is rather important.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
How can you possibly take a flight "to look at some property locations" without navigating purposefully to where that property is, at least in general terms? Context is rather important.
It ha NEVER been required. The ATC tapes have always been time stamped even when they were on open reel magnetic tape. All you needed to know was the facility/frequency, date and time to find the communications to review. Telling the controller to mark the tapes or requesting their initials was always an idiotic power play from pilots and are contrary to the safe continuation of the trip.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,260
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
So is asking for controllers initials. If any ever asked for mine, I think I'd just laugh and then give them the sup's #.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I'd give 'em intials; FQ.