Got yelled at by ATC....

Henning said:
Right, nearly always I get a "cleared" or "remain clear" it's rare that I get pointed at a B by someone without hearing those words. If I don't hear, I assume the controller is confusing me with IFR traffic and I query. It's really not that difficult or an imposition to take responsibility for attaining the words. To not is just being lazy, and that's not a particularly good habit in aviation.
Click to expand...

In the post I linked, the pilot did take responsibility for getting the correct words, but the controller refused to give them, instead just repeating the climb instruction.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep, my bad. I thought the old thread link said "proceed as requested." "Cleared as requested works.":yes:
Click to expand...

What about the portion of that post that I was asking about:

"That sounds familiar to what I heard on NY approach one day. Controller gave him simple, climb maintain 2000. Pilot responded am I cleared into the bravo, controller said again snarky, climb maintain 2000. Pilot asked again am I cleared into the bravo airspace, controller, disregard remain clear of the class bravo airspace at or below 500."
 
Palmpilot said:
What about this situation, where the pilot was given an altitude assignment, but the controller for some reason wouldn't make the class B clearance explicit? (I'm asking about the last paragraph, not the quote, which was unnecessarily nit-picky.)

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1926123&postcount=25
Click to expand...
What about that situation?

I took that situation to be what it was, nothing more than a humorous story to tack onto Alex's humorous story. Big deal.

Read post 16 in the thread. He gets it.
 
Velocity173 said:
.65 phraseology specifically says "Bravo" in it and not "requested."
Click to expand...

Two phrases in .65. Either "Cleared into Bravo" or "Cleared as Requested". I was surprised too, I've always been told the first one.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep, my bad. I thought the old thread link said "proceed as requested." "Cleared as requested" works. :yes:
Click to expand...

If they are not forthcoming with the words, then I take action to assure I stay clear of the B regardless the instructions. If it comes to a ****ing contest, he will lose and be violated, not me.
 
Palmpilot said:
What about the portion of that post that I was asking about:

"That sounds familiar to what I heard on NY approach one day. Controller gave him simple, climb maintain 2000. Pilot responded am I cleared into the bravo, controller said again snarky, climb maintain 2000. Pilot asked again am I cleared into the bravo airspace, controller, disregard remain clear of the class bravo airspace at or below 500."
Click to expand...

Well, sounds like a controller in a bad mood. If I don't hear a specific clearance into the "Bravo" or a specific clearance "as requested," I'm not going in. An instruction isn't going to cut it.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well, sounds like a controller in a bad mood. If I don't hear a specific clearance into the "Bravo" or a specific clearance "as requested," I'm not going in. An instruction isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

We don't know what happened, that's why you can't use this example. At least not in any serious discussion about the matter.

What was the exchange prior to the altitude instruction? Did the pilot ask for 2,000 feet or was this an unsolicited climb?

Where exactly did this take place? Was it heading away from or toward lower shelves of airspace? What about the primary and secondary airports?

What time did this happen? Was it during a traffic push, the noon balloon, or late in the evening when things were toning down?

Guys, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. IMHO the pilot probably asked for a bravo clearance and 2,000 feet (seems an awfully specific altitude for an unsolicited climb IMO). The controller, seeing it wasn't busy, said "climb and maintain 2,000." In other words, he is approving the request. When the pilot kept pestering about the "magic words," the controller said fughedaboudit.
 
MarkZ said:
What about that situation?

I took that situation to be what it was, nothing more than a humorous story to tack onto Alex's humorous story. Big deal.

Read post 16 in the thread. He gets it.
Click to expand...

Post 16 appears to endorse implied clearances. Are you sure that's what you mean?
 
Velocity173 said:
Well, sounds like a controller in a bad mood. If I don't hear a specific clearance into the "Bravo" or a specific clearance "as requested," I'm not going in. An instruction isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bravo isn't really the critical word because any clearance is sufficient. As long as the word "cleared" is in the instruction string I'm ok with it.
 
What I find funny is we're not even close to what the original OP was asking. Par for the course on POA.
 
linuxjim said:
Was flying into KLUK a week ago and got the same. STL app says "cleared for Bravo at 4500. Same frequency, another controller comes on and tells me to descend and remain clear of the Bravo only a minute or so after the clearance. No biggie as I was headed that way anyway...
Click to expand...

Sounds like the good controller got relieved by the scared one. Or the bad controller got relieved by the one who knows where LUK is. Either way.
 
MarkZ said:
What is pilot concurrence? According to many, pilot concurrence is the read back of any instruction to the VFR aircraft. If you, as the PIC, receive a vector or altitude instruction and you read it back, you are concurring with the controller's suggested instruction. That suggestion then becomes a clearance, which as we've seen from CC responses, must be followed.
Click to expand...

Interesting choice of words.

I believe that's what I've been saying.... :dunno:

Would you please be so kind as to provide a reference for that, thank you.
 
This is a grey area.

The reality is if Denver Approach (or any other Class B approach) (don't they ALL have Approach?) Anyway, if the Approach control vectors you into Class B without an explicit clearance, I cant imagine any enforcement. But to be absolutely technically correct, and how we teach to new students, you need a "Cleared into Class Bravo" (hooray!)
 
jaybee said:
Interesting choice of words.

I believe that's what I've been saying.... :dunno:

Would you please be so kind as to provide a reference for that, thank you.
Click to expand...

It's not right. Agreement to follow instructions given by ATC does not constitute a clearance.

Best answer I've liked so far - "120 for Bugsmasher, Cleared for Bravo?"
 
coloradobluesky said:
This is a grey area.

The reality is if Denver Approach (or any other Class B approach) (don't they ALL have Approach?) Anyway, if the Approach control vectors you into Class B without an explicit clearance, I cant imagine any enforcement. But to be absolutely technically correct, and how we teach to new students, you need a "Cleared into Class Bravo" (hooray!)
Click to expand...

If there is no problem caused, there likely wouldn't be any enforcement. If there is a problem that develops, you both get busted. Remember, accident prevention theory revolves around the "accident chain" concept so accident prevention programs are built to provide as many points to break that chain across as many people as possible so that one mistake by one person doesn't go on to the conclusion of the chain. In the described scenario there are two errors which means each error will be dealt with, not one or the other.
 
bflynn said:
Best answer I've liked so far - "120 for Bugsmasher, Cleared for Bravo?"
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's difficult to imagine a circumstance in which you couldn't append a request for clarification to the end of your readback. About the only circumstance I can think of would be if the pilot didn't notice the problem with the heading and altitude assignment until after reading it back.
 
Palmpilot said:
Yeah, it's difficult to imagine a circumstance in which you couldn't append a request for clarification to the end of your readback. About the only circumstance I can think of would be if the pilot didn't notice the problem with the heading and altitude assignment until after reading it back.
Click to expand...

I'm actually a bit surprised that there is any question to this in any pilots mind. I and pretty much everyone I know was taught from square one, "If you don't hear the word clearance, ask for it.":dunno:
 
Henning said:
I'm actually a bit surprised that there is any question to this in any pilots mind. I and pretty much everyone I know was taught from square one, "If you don't hear the word clearance, ask for it.":dunno:
Click to expand...

I think nearly everyone in this thread recognizes the need to request clarification.
 
Henning said:
It's the 'nearly' part I find surprising from some of the arguments here.
Click to expand...

Most of the arguments have been about what to do if it's not possible to obtain clarification for some reason.
 
11 pages because someone messed up and got their feewings hurt. Par for the course.
 
bflynn said:
It's not right. Agreement to follow instructions given by ATC does not constitute a clearance.
Click to expand...

I was talking to Mark who just stated in the quote I quoted that it did. By referencing his colleagues it seems as though he is some kind of controller ?

Provide a 1.1 definition for instruction.
You haven't because you can't.

For the umpteenth time this is a mental gymnastics exercise, provide a reference or an alternate point of view; repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is unproductive at best.

Thank you.
 
Palmpilot said:
Most of the arguments have been about what to do if it's not possible to obtain clarification for some reason.
Click to expand...

Simple answer don't enter. All VFR instructions outside positive control airspace end at positive control airspace and a clearance is required to enter. It's no different from the "illegal order" in the military, not only do you not have to follow it, you are obligated not to follow it. A VFR instruction to enter the B without a clearance is an illegal instruction that the FAA does not allow the controller to give. This is the same thing Roncachamp used to consistently point out, you don't need to follow an instruction that is not allowed to be given. In the instance of Bravo entry, that failure stands to cause you some problem if you go ahead with it. The question is not which one of you is in the wrong, the issue is you are both in the wrong because it is incumbent on both of you to know the rules and follow them. In the end you are PIC, not the controller, and part of your job is to evaluate the instructions given for both safety and compliance with the FARs. The controller is not your boss, the controller is a contract service provider to you, and Respondeate Superior means it's incumbent on you to check their work, because you are responsible for the result.
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
Argument for arguments sake, guess I'd rather mental gymnastics this to death then talk about cole slaw or spin zone ;)
Click to expand...

No doubt there, it just surprises me that it's necessary or a point of contention since it's on of those things taught as inviolable at even the student level.
 
jaybee said:
...repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is unproductive at best.
Click to expand...

I and a few others here are the poster children for that! :D
 
By now, everyone reading should have decided what they might do in this situation...
 
Henning said:
I would hope that everyone would now know what they will do, there should be zero doubt left.
Click to expand...
It seems from your posts as if you're hoping they will do what you suggest, but I don't really care what they do either way. It's their decision.
 
Everskyward said:
It seems from your posts as if you're hoping they will do what you suggest, but I don't really care what they do either way. It's their decision.
Click to expand...

I don't care what they do either really, but there should be no doubt about what they will do. It's not like you'll get in any major trouble, most of this stuff ends with a phone call and some education if there's no accident.
 
jaybee;1933363Provide a 1.1 definition for [I said:
instruction[/I].
You haven't because you can't.
Click to expand...

Well. I havent been asked so I never went to look. But if you need a definition of what constitutes an ATC instruction, please...turn in your certificate.

BTW, instruction is not defined in 1.1. It is defined in tha AIM as "dectives issued by air traffic control for the purpose of requiring a pilot to take specific actions". The AIM is not regulatory, but arguing against the FAA's published definition of an English word is an impossible task, so I recommend that it just be accepted as true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top