What would you have done?

[SkyHog]

Thanks, that's an interesting take. My own is that the FAA expects controllers to issue only those instructions that it authorized them to give.

I don't disagree at all. The FAA expects controllers to operate by the rules. The FAA also expects pilots to operate by the rules.

Pilots have a rule that says we must comply with ALL ATC instructions barring an emergency. I don't see "but the controller wasn't supposed to issue an instruction" as an emergency.

 

[roncachamp]

I don't disagree at all. The FAA expects controllers to operate by the rules. The FAA also expects pilots to operate by the rules.

Pilots have a rule that says we must comply with ALL ATC instructions barring an emergency. I don't see "but the controller wasn't supposed to issue an instruction" as an emergency.

Yes, and you feel the intent of the rulemaker was that pilots adhere to instructions that same rulemaker does not want controllers to issue. I think that's just plain silly.

 

[SkyHog]

Yes, and you feel the intent of the rulemaker was that pilots adhere to instructions that same rulemaker does not want controllers to issue. I think that's just plain silly.

No - the rulemaker's intention was to have pilots adhere to ALL instructions, intentionally avoiding the "valid" limiter, primarily because pilots are not supposed to be the ones that determine whether an instruction is valid.

 

[mikea]

Yes, and you feel the intent of the rulemaker was that pilots adhere to instructions that same rulemaker does not want controllers to issue. I think that's just plain silly.

What's silly is you expecting pilots to know what instructions the controller isn't supposed to issue.

I can't imagine that other than for such things as an IR instruction to an unrated pilot or aircraft.

 

[roncachamp]

No - the rulemaker's intention was to have pilots adhere to ALL instructions, intentionally avoiding the "valid" limiter, primarily because pilots are not supposed to be the ones that determine whether an instruction is valid.

You still don't get it. There's no "valid" qualifier in the reg because invalid instructions aren't supposed to be issued to pilots.

 

[roncachamp]

What's silly is you expecting pilots to know what instructions the controller isn't supposed to issue.

Actually, I just want controllers to stop issuing unauthorized instructions to pilots. Silly me.

 

[SkyHog]

You still don't get it. There's no "valid" qualifier in the reg because invalid instructions aren't supposed to be issued to pilots.

And you don't get it - They are being issued.

 

[roncachamp]

And you don't get it - They are being issued.

Yeah, they are being issued. That's what I've been saying!

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, they are being issued. That's what I've been saying!

Ok, so as pilots we dont know which ones are valid and invalid since we dont have 7550 or whatever the heck it isissued to us. So when the INvalid ones are issued how the hell are we supposed to know that is NOT one to follow?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

This is correct. I was not expecting a halt descent from controller #2, so I was set up for a safe steady descent that would have easily had me down with no cloud or airspace issues. Had I cancelled FF with 128.4 when I started descending, nothing happens.

The math might be wrong, but at 150kts, a 30ish degree banked 180 degree turn requires about 4800 horizontal feet to execute. Any gap less than 2 miles wide gives you two options - climb or descend. And at that point I would have had to climb 3000ft to be clear above, (2000 + 1000 cloud clearance) or descend 1000 (500 + 500) to be clear below. I cant get a climb rate of 1500ft/nm.

I didn't see what kind of aircraft you were flying but, was there anything prohibiting cutting power way down and doing a steep turn course reversal with a bank angle that would have given a tight enough radius to maintain lateral cloud clearance?

 

[Richard]

Valid/invalid...p'shaw. ZLA and ZOAK have issued the same to me...so what. I figure they have a job to do as do I. If they happen to stray outside their rules to make what's about to come a bit easier, great. It's all about getting along. And, hey, ATC, thanks for the heads up; thanks for taking care of me even while I'm VFR.

What screws me tighter than a whore hanging onto a ten spot is someone who insists that there is a rule for every occasion. There aint no rule which can predict every eventuality, no matter how hard the pointy heads try to write it.

Being on an IFR plan and almost being run over by an obviously illegal VFR aircraft and without a heads up from ATC, that's a different story.

To the OP/Ed Fred, I would say continue at pilot's discretion while maintaining 2-way comm with ATC.

 

[Richard]

I cant get a climb rate of 1500ft/nm.

That settles it, you bought the wrong aircraft.

 

[roncachamp]

Ok, so as pilots we dont know which ones are valid and invalid since we dont have 7550 or whatever the heck it isissued to us. So when the INvalid ones are issued how the hell are we supposed to know that is NOT one to follow?

You guys are looking at this from the wrong end.

 

[poadeleted20]

I found an article which seems to support ronca's position and also what I remember about VFR flight following. Scroll down to the last two paragraphs.

AOPA Flight Training - VFR Traffic Advisories

AOPA Flight Training articles do not provide a valid legal reference. Neither does the personal opinion of a controller posted on the internet (nor even that of a flight instructor). OTOH, the Ellis case cited above does. End of story.

 

[roncachamp]

AOPA Flight Training articles do not provide a valid legal reference. Neither does the personal opinion of a controller posted on the internet (nor even that of a flight instructor). OTOH, the Ellis case cited above does. End of story.

You're wrong. The Ellis case is an example of what happens when a pilot disregards a valid ATC instruction. There are no enforcement actions where a pilot disregards an invalid ATC instruction.

Real end of story.

 

[drizzt76]

AOPA Flight Training articles do not provide a valid legal reference. Neither does the personal opinion of a controller posted on the internet (nor even that of a flight instructor). OTOH, the Ellis case cited above does. End of story.

Well I liked reading the article...it reinforced what I already knew. Thanks Everskyward . If I get nailed for something mundane (like a controller issuing me something he does not have the power to do)...its what I will have AOPA legal service for.

I think Ron and Steve both made their point and its getting to be a revolving door....it will only be a few more days until something else gets under their skin.

 

[Everskyward]

AOPA Flight Training articles do not provide a valid legal reference. Neither does the personal opinion of a controller posted on the internet (nor even that of a flight instructor). OTOH, the Ellis case cited above does. End of story.

I read Ellis and I agree with Ronca in that it's not relevant to the OP's situation. Ellis disregarded a number of ATC instructions while he was in Class D airspace. I think what Ronca is saying and what is supported by the AOPA article is that while ATC may, out of habit, assign an altitude during VFR Flight Following which is not something it's really within their authority to do. Being pilots and not controllers we do not know moment by moment when altitude assignments are valid so the prudent thing to do is to follow them at all times and ask for an altitude change if necessary.

Here is a list of Ellis' sins:

2. On June 3, 1998, you were pilot in command of a
Cessna model 310 airplane, Civil Aircraft N310MH, the
property of another, operating in air commerce on a flight
into Alexandria International Airport (Alexandria),
Alexandria, Louisiana.
3. During the flight described in paragraph two (2),
you entered the Class D airspace surrounding Alexandria
without establishing two-way radio communications prior to
entering that airspace.
4. During the flight described in paragraph two (2),
at the time you entered Alexandria’s Class D airspace prior
to establishing two-way radio communications with the
Alexandria tower there were private and commercial passenger
aircraft in the Alexandria traffic pattern.
5. During the flight described in paragraph two (2),
after you had entered Alexandria’s traffic pattern for
landing, you were instructed by the Alexandria tower to
continue downwind and to follow another airplane ahead of
you. Furthermore, you were told by the Alexandria tower
that that aircraft would be landing ahead of you.
6. When you could not locate[d] the aircraft ahead of
you, you were instructed by the Alexandria tower to continue
your downwind and that your turn to base leg would be called
by Alexandria tower.
7. At a time when no emergency existed, and while
operating in an area in which air traffic control (ATC) was
exercised, you operated contrary to an ATC instruction, in
that you turned base leg prior to being authorized to do so
by the Alexandria tower.
8. Despite again being instructed by the Alexandria
tower to continue downwind, you disregarded that instruction
and continued on base leg for landing.
9. Your operation of N310MH was careless or reckless
so as to endanger the life o[r] property of others, in that
your operation of N310MH contrary to . . . ATC instructions
placed your aircraft in the landing path of the aircraft
that had previously been cleared to land.
10. As a result of your operation of N310MH contrary
to an ATC instruction, Alexandria Tower was required to
issue instructions to another aircraft to make a turn to
avoid a conflict with your aircraft.
4
11. In spite of the fact that you were never issued a
clearance to land at Alexandria you landed N310MH in front
of an aircraft that had been cleared to land.
12. Finally, after landing at Alexandria without a
clearance you requested permission to execute a 360-degree
turn on the taxiway.
13. Despite the fact that your request to execute a
360-degree turn was denied by the Alexandria tower and you
were instructed to taxi straight ahead, you disregarded
those instructions and made a 360-degree turn on the
taxiway.

 

[flyersfan31]

Given the otherwise near-perfect performance by nearly every controller with whom I work in airspace regularly covering just about everywhere from New England to Georgia and west to the Mississippi...

You haven't flown much in Florida, have you?? I'm not the world's most experienced pilot (like maybe a tenth of your hours, Ron), but I've had more bungled situations in Florida than all other jurisdictions combined. I'm always nervous in FL. In the Northeast, never a problem. FL controllers seem to make a tough job (theirs) even tougher.

 

[sba55]

No - the rulemaker's intention was to have pilots adhere to ALL instructions, intentionally avoiding the "valid" limiter, primarily because pilots are not supposed to be the ones that determine whether an instruction is valid.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. PIC is the final authority as to the conduct of the flight. This is what unable is for. I have a responsibility for the flight and all souls on board, so of course I will refuse any instruction that I deem to be unsafe.

 

[SkyHog]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. PIC is the final authority as to the conduct of the flight. This is what unable is for. I have a responsibility for the flight and all souls on board, so of course I will refuse any instruction that I deem to be unsafe.

Valid != safe.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Here's my view on this. When asking for Flight Following, we are asking ATC to provide another set of eyes to help keep us safe. If they issue an altitude restriction, I figure they have a reason for that restriction that involves my safety or someone elses.

If there is some knowledge I have that they either don't know or are disregarding, there are three options available. First, I can communicate the other information and suggest an amendment. Second, I can say "Unable" and follow through with the first suggestion. Third, I can cancel Flight Following. It is totally unacceptable to ignore the restriction because of deciding it is invalid.

To be honest, I'd rather follow an invalid instruction than cause or be involved in an accident. In fact, it is quite customary around here to be given an altitude restriction when approaching HPN.

To go back to the original question, I think my best response would be to acknowledge the instruction, ask for clearance into Bravo and say "unable due to clouds." That puts your problem back into his lap to come up with another solution to what he is seeing on his scope. But you still have the responsibility to balance staying "legal" with staying safe. You and others have more experience than me, though.

 

[roncachamp]

Here's my view on this. When asking for Flight Following, we are asking ATC to provide another set of eyes to help keep us safe. If they issue an altitude restriction, I figure they have a reason for that restriction that involves my safety or someone elses.

I figure when they do things not in accordance with FAAO 7110.65 they don't know their job.

If there is some knowledge I have that they either don't know or are disregarding, there are three options available. First, I can communicate the other information and suggest an amendment. Second, I can say "Unable" and follow through with the first suggestion. Third, I can cancel Flight Following. It is totally unacceptable to ignore the restriction because of deciding it is invalid.

Unacceptable to whom?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Unacceptable to whom?

The pilot whose butt is in the seat and who has much more dire consequences for mishaps than the controller does.

Generally, controllers will give you the "why" - For example, "Stop your descent at 4500 for traffic below" or some such. Even if that instruction is not valid, it behooves me to follow it.

 

[roncachamp]

Generally, controllers will give you the "why" - For example, "Stop your descent at 4500 for traffic below" or some such. Even if that instruction is not valid, it behooves me to follow it.

Do you feel that's better than simply issuing a traffic advisory and allowing you to decide on the course of action? The controller could have followed proper procedure and said something like, "traffic, twelve o'clock, four miles, westbound, a Skylane at four thousand". Who is in a better position to make decisions on the operation of your aircraft, you or the controller?

 

[Bill]

Ok, so as pilots we dont know which ones are valid and invalid since we dont have 7550 or whatever the heck it isissued to us. So when the INvalid ones are issued how the hell are we supposed to know that is NOT one to follow?

You mean you don't fly with an aviation lawyer in the right seat? You foolish man.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Do you feel that's better than simply issuing a traffic advisory and allowing you to decide on the course of action? The controller could have followed proper procedure and said something like, "traffic, twelve o'clock, four miles, westbound, a Skylane at four thousand". Who is in a better position to make decisions on the operation of your aircraft, you or the controller?

That's great, if I can respond "Traffic in sight." If I can't see the other airplane, I'll take the controller's word for it that there's an airplane and I should stop my descent. If I don't want to stop my descent and the controller gives me a restriction without a reason, I'll be asking why and/or requesting lower.

I know that you feel these instructions aren't "valid" but as others have pointed out, there's nothing in the reg that says pilots only have to follow "valid" controller instructions. If it really does cause that big of a problem and I think it's invalid, I'll still follow it, and call the facility on the phone when I get on the ground to discuss the issue.

 

[roncachamp]

I know that you feel these instructions aren't "valid"...

It's not a feeling, it's a fact.

...but as others have pointed out, there's nothing in the reg that says pilots only have to follow "valid" controller instructions.

Not explicitly, but as pilots aren't charged with violating the reg for ignoring invalid instructions it does appear to be implicit. Think about it. would it make any sense for the FAA to require pilots to adhere to instructions it doesn't allow controllers to issue?

 

[EdFred]

It's not a feeling, it's a fact.



Not explicitly, but as pilots aren't charged with violating the reg for ignoring invalid instructions it does appear to be implicit. Think about it. would it make any sense for the FAA to require pilots to adhere to instructions it doesn't allow controllers to issue.

*cough* 91.13 *cough*

 

[roncachamp]

*cough* 91.13 *cough*

The FAA does not consider ignoring an invalid instruction to be operation of an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Dextromethorphan.

 

[SkyHog]

would it make any sense for the FAA to require pilots to adhere to instructions it doesn't allow controllers to issue.

Would it make sense to have a regulation that says its ok to fly in the clouds without a flight plan if you're not in controlled airspace?

Would it make sense to have a regulation that requires pilots to count cross country time differently if its for a rating vs. if its just for logging?

The FAA doesn't make sense, Ron, they're the most useless and bureaucratic piece of crap organization the United States ever created.

Funny thing is - the FAA was created because Airliners couldn't control themselves. GA pays the price everyday.

That said - because the FAA makes no sense, yes, the logical interpretation of the FARs would be the literal one: It may be an invalid instruction, but as a pilot, you are obligated to follow that instruction unless it creates a safety hazard or you are experiencing an in flight emergency. End of story. There is no debate, the FAR is VERY specific and clear, it even gives the condition in which you can legally break it, and "because it was not a valid instruction" is not the reason.

 

[EdFred]

The FAA can consider ignoring an instruction to be operation of an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Fixed for you.

 

[roncachamp]

Fixed for you.

Altering a quote does not "fix" anything, it merely establishes your level of integrity.

 

[EdFred]

Altering a quote does not "fix" anything, it merely establishes your level of integrity.

You really have no clue do you.

91.123
(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.

The reg does not say valid or invalid, so the point of it being valid or invalid is moot.

 

[roncachamp]

Would it make sense to have a regulation that says its ok to fly in the clouds without a flight plan if you're not in controlled airspace?

Uhh, do you believe there is a regulation that says that?

Funny thing is - the FAA was created because Airliners couldn't control themselves. GA pays the price everyday.

Actually, it wasn't.

That said - because the FAA makes no sense, yes, the logical interpretation of the FARs would be the literal one:

Say what? Logically, one would conclude the regulation was meant to apply only to valid instructions simply because only valid instructions would be issued. The idea that the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions it doesn't want controllers to issue is absurd.

It may be an invalid instruction, but as a pilot, you are obligated to follow that instruction unless it creates a safety hazard or you are experiencing an in flight emergency. End of story. There is no debate, the FAR is VERY specific and clear, it even gives the condition in which you can legally break it, and "because it was not a valid instruction" is not the reason.

If it was as you believe pilots that ignored invalid ATC instructions would be charged with violating FAR 91.123(b). The fact that they are not proves ignoring invalid ATC instructions is not a violation of the reg.

Real end of story.

 

[roncachamp]

You really have no clue do you.

Is that a question?

91.123
(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.

The reg does not say valid or invalid, so the point of it being valid or invalid is moot.

If it was as you believe pilots that ignored invalid ATC instructions would be charged with violating FAR 91.123(b). The fact that they are not proves ignoring invalid ATC instructions is not a violation of the reg.

 

[EdFred]

And since we are not given a list of valid/invalid instructions....then how do we know which ones to ignore?

Example: I am flying VFR at 5500 and want to do a practice approach from a VOR in class E airspace. Someone else is doing the same thing, and in the hold at 3500.

ATC tells me maintain VFR at or above 4500 - according to you this is an invalid instruction. I say screw 'em because that's invalid, I'm VFR bishes!!! The altitudes for the VOR say 2500 on the HPILPT, so I just descend on my merry way down to 2500, and nearly hit the plane at 3500.

I can guarandamntee you I will get nailed for 91.13 and 91.123 because I ignored an "invalid" instruction.

 

[roncachamp]

And since we are not given a list of valid/invalid instructions....then how do we know which ones to ignore?

Example: I am flying VFR at 5500 and want to do a practice approach from a VOR in class E airspace. Someone else is doing the same thing, and in the hold at 3500.

ATC tells me maintain VFR at or above 4500 - according to you this is an invalid instruction. I say screw 'em because that's invalid, I'm VFR bishes!!! The altitudes for the VOR say 2500 on the HPILPT, so I just descend on my merry way down to 2500, and nearly hit the plane at 3500.

For what purpose were you in communications with ATC?

I can guarandamntee you I will get nailed for 91.13 and 91.123 because I ignored an "invalid" instruction.

No, you can't.

 

[EdFred]

Yes, because I would turn myself in just to make a point.

 

[roncachamp]

Yes, because I would turn myself in just to make a point.

Excellent. I look forward to your full report.

 

[SkyHog]

Uhh, do you believe there is a regulation that says that?

91.173
I'd expect you to have known that as a controller.

Actually, it wasn't.

So what is the Roncachamp version of the incident that caused the FAA to form?

Say what? Logically, one would conclude the regulation was meant to apply only to valid instructions simply because only valid instructions would be issued. The idea that the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions it doesn't want controllers to issue is absurd.

Its really simple dude:
Pilots: Adhere to instructions issued
ATC: Issue valid instructions

Its not the pilot's duty to ensure ATC is performing the way they are supposed to. Our only rule says "Follow instructions"

If it was as you believe pilots that ignored invalid ATC instructions would be charged with violating FAR 91.123(b). The fact that they are not proves ignoring invalid ATC instructions is not a violation of the reg.

Real end of story.

No. Because there hasn't been a bust YET doesn't mean there can't be a bust. There is new case law all the time. The FAA exists to screw GA.