JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
I am sure this is a stupid question, but when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
I am sure this is a stupid question, but when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
That's the way I've always interpreted it. Then the last time I was shooting approaches with my CFII (we were VFR), I received this instruction:I take it to mean ATC is saying that it is the pilot's responsibility to maintain VMC regardless of the fact they are talking to ATC.
Exactly. So if you're in B-space, don't wait until the cloud is 100 feet in front of your nose to say something. And yes, it's one of those things controllers are required to say regardless of actual weather.I take it to mean ATC is saying that it is the pilot's responsibility to maintain VMC regardless of the fact they are talking to ATC.
I am sure this is a stupid question, but when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
And sometimes ATC will assign you an altitude or heading outside Class B/C even though they aren't authorized to do so. In that case you should go ahead and change course and/or altitude as necessary to maintain VFR cloud clearance but you should also let ATC know about the changes ASAP because they might actually have had a good reason to restrict your flight.
It's a reminder to comply with VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in FAR 91.155.
That's the way I've always interpreted it. Then the last time I was shooting approaches with my CFII (we were VFR), I received this instruction:
"N miles from HEBUB, fly heading 240, maintain VFR until established, cleared VOR 18 approach".
I cracked to my instructor that I guess we can go IMC as soon as we're established, but I assumed that the controller had just misspoken. But no, next time around, he said the exact same thing: maintain VFR until established.
So what is this all about? Neither of us could figure it out.
Related question: I don't need to explicitly acknowledge it, right? I've never been told off by a controller for missing that piece of the readback, but if I'm secretly annoying them, I'd like to know.
Preventing airplanes from running into each other?So what might be a good reason for ATC to issue an unauthorized restriction?
Preventing airplanes from running into each other?
I guess "good reason" is in the mind of the controller. IME all too often it seems the real reason is "for the convenience of ATC" e.g. when such a restriction reduces the controllers workload. But I suspect that there are times when the alternative is no advisories at all and greater potential for undetected/unreported conflicts. In that case I think most pilots would agree that there was a "good reason".So what might be a good reason for ATC to issue an unauthorized restriction?
I suppose it would be better if the controller made it a "suggestion" rather than an "instruction" e.g. "To avoid oncoming traffic (or the wake of a 747 climbing out), I suggest you fly heading 240", but that's probably not gonna happen with a busy controller.
I guess "good reason" is in the mind of the controller. IME all too often it seems the real reason is "for the convenience of ATC" e.g. when such a restriction reduces the controllers workload.
A good controller, busy or not, does not issue unauthorized restrictions. The situation you describe calls for a Safety Alert:But I suspect that there are times when the alternative is no advisories at all and greater potential for undetected/unreported conflicts. In that case I think most pilots would agree that there was a "good reason".
I suppose it would be better if the controller made it a "suggestion" rather than an "instruction" e.g. "To avoid oncoming traffic (or the wake of a 747 climbing out), I suggest you fly heading 240", but that's probably not gonna happen with a busy controller.
What's your answer?
"N miles from HEBUB, fly heading 240, maintain VFR until established, cleared VOR 18 approach".
So what is this all about? Neither of us could figure it out.
Well, it is a good reason for every controller with whom I've ever communicated -- except you.Nope.
Well, it is a good reason for every controller with whom I've ever communicated -- except you.
Or very little experience with youIf that's true you have had very little experience with the ATC system.
If that's true you have had very little experience with the ATC system.
Part of the reason I like these boards is because of the professionalism displayed by most of the people that post here. Why do a few people have to get snotty over a simple difference of opinion? Is it because of the anonymity? If so, that is cowardice.
So what might be a good reason for ATC to issue an unauthorized restriction?
VFR over water in the winter with a ceiling. Dropping 1000 feet could make an engine failure fatal.
Random thoughts?
No, it is not 'permission', it is a command. It is to avoid any liability of the controller that any heading or altitude would cause you to violate any VFR regs.when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
Now that answer makes a mountain of sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.No, it is not 'permission', it is a command. It is to avoid any liability of the controller that any heading or altitude would cause you to violate any VFR regs.