Got yelled at by ATC....
- Thread starter bahama flier
- Start date
Captain
Final Approach
On this one you're hanging your hat on the wrong peg. The regs are clear that specific clearance is required to enter Class B and a vector ain't it. Pilots are expected to know where they are and where they are going and if a vector takes you into Bravo a query for the clearance is expected.
I'm sure many a Bravo has been clipped and no harm has become of it....but that doesn't supersede the regs. If a vector becomes a problem and Bravo was entered without a clearance its the pilot left flapping in the breeze, right or wrong.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
And let's ask the 300 or so dead people in Cerritos about what happens when people blindly blast in.
The Arizona crash could also have been handled by not flying toward a mountain at night. They didn't HAVE to go into the B.
Many of us who operate in mountainous terrain don't like to fly around unlit mountains at night without a lot of known clearance. Even if that means a longer flight.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,422
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
With neither pilot around to speak in their own defense, I think it's presumptuous to make assumptions as to their state of mind and/or motives.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Might be, but all the evidence presented indicates such a thought process. There is no other reasonable explanation.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,422
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
I'll stipulate they started the turn at the altitude they did because of the overlying airspace.
But once the plane was honked over into a steep bank to turn around, I find it reasonable that there was insufficient lift left to climb, and they fixated on just pulling hard in a level turn that just didn't quite work out. Had seconds to maybe do something else - maybe roll wings level and climb - but it just didn't happen. Or it happened, but too late to avoid the building.
Since we don't know, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Last edited:
Wasn't the Cerritos mid air a 737/ 727
-V- Piper warrior ?..Where did the 300 dead come from ?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
If the vector was given by the controller with jurisdiction over the class B, what would you do if the frequency was so busy that you couldn't get a word in edge-wise?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The video I saw showed them flying straight and level into the mountain.
My understanding is that the pilot flying was given that duty at the last minute when the father needed to attend to some issue with the children. My guess is that the pilot didn't take the time to put a plotter on a sectional to come up with a safe departure plan.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
And at anytime they could have straightened out the turn, or before starting the turn, busted the B.
Either way, they were trying to avoid B airspace at the beginning of the procedure.
Captain
Final Approach
I've seen some pretty busy Class B. Was based in ORD for 5 years and have flown to every Class B in the US. I have never seen it so busy you can't get a word in. May have to wait a bit...but eventually you can get in.
If it's truly so busy you can't communicate...well, there's a squawk code for that. Throw 7600 in the box and I promise you your request for Bravo clearance will be heard. Seriously....like magic they will call you.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,422
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
mtuomi
En-Route
Ignore it. More legal than busting B.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Wasn't the Cerritos mid air a 737/ 727
Where did the 300 dead come from ?
It was a DC-9, and it crashed in a densely populated area.
Looked it up. It was 82 dead. Less than 300, but a lot more than 2.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,422
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Well, in that they chose an altitude clear of Bravo, I'll grant you that.
My speculation...
"Time to turn around, let's do a 180°."
"Ummm, let's speed up this turn a bit."
"That wind is stronger than I thought, I've got it!"
(Banks 60°, pulls hard, feels buffet.)
"Oh ****"
(Goes to wings level and pulls hard try to clear the building looming ahead.)
(Out of time/space/distance, impacts apartment building.)
The above is pure speculation. It's based on the fact that no rational pilot would fly into a building, or even fail to initiate a climb, to avoid Class B.
My assumption is that in the seconds it took for the whole thing to fall apart, avoiding Class B was the farthest thing from their minds. And I can see how I might fall into the same trap - I have no reason to believe I'm a better pilot than the instructor involved.
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
The thing is, they could have turned right away from the buildings and into the Bravo where there were no obstructions. The only explanation of why you would turn with the wind towards buildings is you are either an idiot (and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that neither was) or you are so bent on avoiding Bravo airspace you didn't plan ahead.
If there were no imaginary Bravo "wall" there I can guarantee that no pilot would turn towards the buildings to make the turn. It was all about a canyon turn where 2 walls were imaginary.
Thanks for the update ....
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oops!
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
If I was sure I heard the instructions correctly, I think I would include "Understand cleared into the bravo" in my read back, and then follow the instructions if I didn't hear a correction.
My thinking is that the person most likely to report me to the FSDO is the class B controller I'm receiving vectors from. So then I have to ask myself, "Would this person be more likely to report me for following his or her instructions, or for disobeying them?"
Approach_controller
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 181
- Display Name
Display name:
Approach_controller
Inadvertent flight into IMC with a trained pilot and equipped plane is an entirely different kettle of fish. Flying in IMC without clearance is reckless at best. Saying otherwise smacks of arrogance.
I've held a pilot's certificate for 16 years and an instrument rating for 14. The only freak out (to use your words) I've heard was a North West DC9 inbound. Some GA pilot skimming the Bravo with an erratic mode C set of an RA on an arrival. After evasive maneuvers an FA ended up with a broken femur.
If the most chilling thing you've ever heard was you're IMC without a clearance, consider yourself lucky. (Seriously, that's the worst you've heard? I'd be far more concerned about inadvertent IMC than anyone's tone of voice) I've heard actual last words. I use a good telling off as a way to avoid a 709 ride, but if you're so sensitive you have to be superior, I know a sure fire way to magnify a simple mistake into a big one.
I always thought a simple hey, you know why you shouldn't be there was enough. I guess not. Here is a video of what happens when one person ignores the rules and puts 100 lives in Jeopardy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTMUdoAStA8
I'm sure you'd be calm too after seeing that.
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,399
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
Then remain clear of the bravo. You're wrong. Just because it happens the way you describe didn't mean it's correct. People speed everyday and don't get pulled over. Doesn't mean the speed limit changed. You enter bravo Vfr without specific clearance to enter you're in the wrong. If there is a loss of separation its your ass.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think there's something being overlooked by the folks who say that entering class B without hearing an explicit clearance is always the wrong thing to do: In the scenario being discussed, there are two regulations coming into conflict: 91.131, which says you must not enter class B without a clearance, and 91.123, which says you must follow ATC instructions. If it's possible to get clarification from ATC in time, then that's obviously the thing to do, but if that's not possible for some reason, then the pilot has to choose which of the conflicting regulations to follow, and that choice needs to be based on his or her assessment of what's going to be safest under the circumstances existing at the time.
FlySince9
En-Route
I'm beginning to get the idea that this continuing thread is an argument between IFR and VFR pilot mentalities... I'm not IR but I assume that if a controller gives you a vector that takes you to some point within the B, hearing the magic words may not be so important since you are "in the system" (at least to some of the IR pilots making that argument here) ... But VFR... No Question in my mind that the Magic Words are required to cross that blue line...
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
It can be mentally stimulating to argue the legal or intellectual aspects of a topic, but if you are more interested in actually flying and knowing the practical aspects of that topic, the conversation plays out quickly.
jaybee
Cleared for Takeoff
jaybee
Cleared for Takeoff
Been there done that got the T-shirt and after the conflict was resolved, the freq calmed down and a new heading/altitude was received "180 three thousand confirm bravo spamcan 123" (Naw'lins' B once and ATL B twice)
Yes its my ticket and my responsibility its also my butt which I value more than my ticket. No my eyes didn't magically fall out of my head but if its a choice between no joy and a bust, I'll take the bust.
My instructor and I played this scenario out after I went through Orlando without the magic words several years ago. Is there a reference in the eCFR that states what an authorization is ?
jaybee
Cleared for Takeoff
I don't think anyone here is saying they would stay clear of the Class B while on a vector for separation. The CC clarified that in the interpretation earlier. Complying with a vector to prevent collision overrides the Class B clearance if you can't get clarification.
and under what circumstances does ATC give you a vector/altitude ?
The only disagreement is the incorrect statement that a vector and altitude assignment is a clearance to enter a B. They most certainly are not a clearance to enter the B.
for grins and giggles can you provide a eCFR for that ?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,258
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
for grins and giggles can you provide a eCFR for that ?
Sure, Part 91.123 differentiates between a clearance and an instruction. Second, the PCG has seperate definitions of a clearance and instruction. A vector is just one of the examples listed under instruction. Of course you can have instructions embedded in a clearance but in the example, without "cleared" your instruction is not a clearance to enter. This has been made quite clear by the CC and the .65.
I still don't agree wit you and while not a controller and certainly haven't likely seen the worst of things, I've been a pilot and instrument rated longer than you. Informing a pilot that he has made a grave error is one thing, YELLING at pilots (and continued rants) is just not professional and isn't going to do anything to either mitigate the situation at hand or prevent future occurances.
Despite how boneheaded pilots can be, we should be able to expect air traffic controllers to act professionally.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm currently exercising sport pilot privileges, so I'm VFR only. My thinking is more influenced by what I wrote in post 142.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
So what's your conclusion?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
So if a VFR pilot receives an instruction that takes him into class B airspace, from the controller having jurisdiction over that airspace, and has not received a class B clearance, and if there is no opportunity to obtain clarification in time, should the pilot deviate from the instruction?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,258
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I would violate 91.123 to prevent violation of 91.131 while at the same time preventing violation of 91.111 if that instruction dealt with traffic.
The one overriding thing in all this, which Steven has brought up several times, is that there is no separation outside the B for VFRs. The correct application would be a traffic advisory followed by a safety alert if necessary. At all times, it's up to the pilot to ask for a vector if necessary. Does it work that way in the real world? Not always.
At any rate, whomever the investigating authority is for my PD of 91.123, hopefully a former controller who knows the rules, will realize I took the lesser of the evils for a violation and also complied with my PIC responsibility to see and avoid in an airspace that requires no separation.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
As you point out, ATC doesn't always follow book procedure.
From a safety point of view, I would be concerned about creating a conflict with traffic in one of my blind spots, or that I simply hadn't spotted and hadn't been informed of.
From a legal jeopardy point of view, since the controller involved is the one with jurisdiction over the class B airspace, he would be the one who would report me if there was going to be a report, and I think he would be unlikely to report me for obeying his instruction.
jaybee
Cleared for Takeoff
Also, not arguing maybe playing devils advocate but mostly showing inconsistency in FAA wording.
91.123 does not provide definitions, 1.1 does. I've reread it several times trying to see it from your point of view of it providing a definition.
the AIM is advisory not regulatory
pilots are not required to know the 65
the 1.1 provided definition for clearance says an authorization, for purpose of collision prevention, to proceed. how does ATC prevent a collision allowing an aircraft to proceed without giving heading altitude and speed
pedantic, silly, arbitrary - sure, but if we can learn something why not, hey we are here to talk about flying, right
in any event i think they could take steps to simplify it a bit for the pedantically challenged because though it may seem clear to some it obviously isn't to everyone
99% of the time ATC won't forget the magic words, 99% of the 1% of the time you will have plenty of frequency to ask.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
You never hear the "magic words" when you are IFR. The boundaries of the Class B are pretty irrelevant other than the fact that there is a 200 kt. speed limit under the shelf below the lateral boundaries.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
And it's not binding on pilots except to the extent that ATC issues an instruction or clearance based on it.
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
Exactly. But the pedants will have none of that you see.
This ties straight into the Superstition Mt accident. A lot of pilots on this forum are of the demographic that sincerely believes adherence to ATC's instruction is a guarantor of safety. They equate one with the other. They've been brought up in a flight training environment that puts the fear of God in them regarding interactions with controlled airspace, as a bona fide subordinate relationship, because they feel overwhelmed or intimidated by the commercial traffic flow exchanges they hear on that frequency. This is an element of the flight training culture that needs improving.
Wow you must be omniscient! You not only know the "demographics" of "a lot of pilots on this forum" but also apparently know how they "feel" as well?
[/sarcasm]
carry on with your straw-man bashing, though.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
If VFR, do not enter CBA til you hear a clearance to that effect.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,258
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Also, not arguing maybe playing devils advocate but mostly showing inconsistency in FAA wording.
91.123 does not provide definitions, 1.1 does. I've reread it several times trying to see it from your point of view of it providing a definition.
the AIM is advisory not regulatory
pilots are not required to know the 65
the 1.1 provided definition for clearance says an authorization, for purpose of collision prevention, to proceed. how does ATC prevent a collision allowing an aircraft to proceed without giving heading altitude and speed
pedantic, silly, arbitrary - sure, but if we can learn something why not, hey we are here to talk about flying, right
in any event i think they could take steps to simplify it a bit for the pedantically challenged because though it may seem clear to some it obviously isn't to everyone
99% of the time ATC won't forget the magic words, 99% of the 1% of the time you will have plenty of frequency to ask.
Oh I agree. The FAA needs to get its act together on clarifying a lot of regs. CC interpretations help but it would be much better to just to rewrite the regs so everyone is one the same page.
I've said before, the conversations on this side of the mic are nothing compared to the other side. We used to have debates on regs, policies, SOPs, etc all the time when I did ATC. No different than today. Just venture over to "Stuck mic" and you'll see what I mean. Reading some of that stuff is scary...and these are the guys that are suppose to help keep us separated up there!