When do you really have permission to enter Bravo airspace?

Ron Levy said:
Another hash from the Chief Counsel's office, hot on the heels of Mangiamele. Sounds like Lorelei Peter is saying a heading and altitude assignment from ATC in controlled airspace under the jurisdiction of the controller making the assignment is not an "ATC instruction." I'd like to see what happens when someone says "no" in that situation and a "deal" occurs.
Click to expand...
What I seem to be starting to hear a lot more of is "suggest heading..." in the Class E environment.

Steven...?
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
What I seem to be starting to hear a lot more of is "suggest heading..." in the Class E environment.

Steven...?
Click to expand...

ATC cannot assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or TRSAs. Outside of those the pilot must request vectors or ATC can suggest headings. I believe some flight schools have agreements with local ATC that allow controllers to initiate vectoring of their aircraft, but that would constitute a request from the operator.


"Traffic alert, Waco 1234A, twelve o'clock, two miles, same altitude, advise you turn right heading 240 immediately"
 
It's important to note that they can't legally give you headings or altitudes you need to comply with.

It's also worth noting that sometimes they'll phrase it the same as with IFR aircraft, as if it's an order. While you don't have to follow it, it's probably a good idea, especially if it's to avoid traffic.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's important to note that they can't legally give you headings or altitudes you need to comply with.

It's also worth noting that sometimes they'll phrase it the same as with IFR aircraft, as if it's an order. While you don't have to follow it, it's probably a good idea, especially if it's to avoid traffic.
Click to expand...
Some of that might simply be sloppy phrasing on their part. For example, on my last flight I was "cleared through" the PTK Class D, and when vectored through the FNT Class C for traffic the controller said "radar vectors for Oakland/Troy" as if I was IFR. I figured he was just so used to dealing with IFR traffic that he was being careless with his wording. (And since I was within a Class C airspace and he was the controlling authority, it was a vector and I was legally obligated to comply, even if it wasn't a vector to an airport or other clearance limit.)
 
azure said:
Some of that might simply be sloppy phrasing on their part. For example, on my last flight I was "cleared through" the PTK Class D, and when vectored through the FNT Class C for traffic the controller said "radar vectors for Oakland/Troy" as if I was IFR. I figured he was just so used to dealing with IFR traffic that he was being careless with his wording. (And since I was within a Class C airspace and he was the controlling authority, it was a vector and I was legally obligated to comply, even if it wasn't a vector to an airport or other clearance limit.)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's careless, but IFR wording is very direct and for people who are IFR it's frequently more comfortable. I enjoy getting that treatment even when VFR.

Just make sure to know the difference, but usually I find if a controller gives you a suggestion there's a reason.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I wouldn't say it's careless, but IFR wording is very direct and for people who are IFR it's frequently more comfortable. I enjoy getting that treatment even when VFR.
Click to expand...
I do too, however whenever I hear it I perk up my ears and listen for other signs that the controller may be thinking that I actually am an IFR aircraft. That does happen every once in a while, e.g. a few years ago when I checked in with Selfridge after a handoff by Cleveland Center, the Selfridge controller immediately told me to "descend and maintain 5000". I read the instruction back and started to comply, wondering if there was a reason for it, or if I needed to remind him that I was VFR.

He caught his mistake a minute later.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I wouldn't say it's careless, but IFR wording is very direct and for people who are IFR it's frequently more comfortable. I enjoy getting that treatment even when VFR.

Just make sure to know the difference, but usually I find if a controller gives you a suggestion there's a reason.
Click to expand...

"IFR wording"? What's the proper wording for a vector issued for separation or spacing to a VFR aircraft in Class B or Class C airspace or a TRSA?
 
Mr. McNicoll position is not shared by the FAA Chief Counsel or the NTSB. From Administrator v. Ellis:
We will, accordingly, limit our consideration of
respondent’s appeal to those objections that essentially purport
to excuse or justify his operation of N310MH in light of what he​
asserts demonstrates improper handling of his flight by ATC.
That review convinces us that respondent’s brief is little more
than an attempt to escape accountability for his intentional
disregard of ATC instructions, and the adverse impact on air
safety it produced, by contending that he was subjected to
improper ATC practices and procedures at the Alexandria airport
that, in some unexplained way, legitimate his actions. In our
judgment, respondent’s contentions in this respect are without
merit...​


What the respondent was not free to do was ignore or defy​
ATC’s instructions in favor of his own assessment that his
aircraft should be accorded landing priority over one he could
not find, but whose safety he should have appreciated could be
seriously compromised if he did not allow ATC, which had both
aircraft in sight, to manage the situation in accordance with its
informed appraisal of how best to ensure safe operations within​
the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating.
Click to expand...
So, the argument suggested above that pilots of VFR aircraft in controlled airspace (including D & E) can defy ATC instructions intended to separate them from other known traffic has been made and denied by the FAA and NTSB. Should ATC "suggest" something, that's one thing, but if they say "turn left/right heading xxx" or "climb/descend/maintain [an altitude]" without such qualification, you are legally obligated to obey.

No doubt Mr. McNicoll will provide his usual protestation against this case law, but it's there for all others to read.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Mr. McNicoll position is not shared by the FAA Chief Counsel or the NTSB. From Administrator v. Ellis:
Click to expand...

We will, accordingly, limit our consideration of respondent’s appeal to those objections that essentially purport to excuse or justify his operation of N310MH in light of what he asserts demonstrates improper handling of his flight by ATC. That review convinces us that respondent’s brief is little more than an attempt to escape accountability for his intentional disregard of ATC instructions, and the adverse impact on air safety it produced, by contending that he was subjected to improper ATC practices and procedures at the Alexandria airport that, in some unexplained way, legitimate his actions. In our judgment, respondent’s contentions in this respect are without merit...

What the respondent was not free to do was ignore or defy ATC’s instructions in favor of his own assessment that his aircraft should ​
be accorded landing priority over one he could not find, but whose safety he should have appreciated could be seriously compromised if he did not allow ATC, which had both aircraft in sight, to manage the situation in accordance with its informed appraisal of how best to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating.​
Click to expand...


So, the argument suggested above that pilots of VFR aircraft in controlled airspace (including D & E) can defy ATC instructions intended to separate them from other known traffic has been made and denied by the FAA and NTSB. Should ATC "suggest" something, that's one thing, but if they say "turn left/right heading xxx" or "climb/descend/maintain [an altitude]" without such qualification, you are legally obligated to obey.

No doubt Mr. McNicoll will provide his usual protestation against this case law, but it's there for all others to read.
Click to expand...

It is unlikely that Mr. Levy has the vaguest idea of the FAA Chief Counsel's or the NTSB's position on this matter. That Mr. Levy does not understand Administrator v. Ellis is a certainty. Ellis violated valid ATC instructions and was so charged. A heading assigned to a VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace, Class C airspace including the Outer Area, or a TRSA is not a valid ATC instruction.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
It is unlikely that Mr. Levy has the vaguest idea of the FAA Chief Counsel's or the NTSB's position on this matter. That Mr. Levy does not understand Administrator v. Ellis is a certainty. Ellis violated valid ATC instructions and was so charged. A heading assigned to a a VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace, Class C airspace including the Outer Area, or a TRSA is not a valid ATC instruction.
Click to expand...

So -- break it down for me -- are you arguing a VFR aircraft in Class Bravo can ignore ATC instructions at will and face no consequences?
 
dmccormack said:
So -- break it down for me -- are you arguing a VFR aircraft in Class Bravo can ignore ATC instructions at will and face no consequences?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying ATC cannot assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or TRSAs. If a VFR aircraft outside those areas ignores a vector initiated by ATC the pilot will face no consequences.
 
One more time -- read the decision which says whether or not ATC is supposed to give instructions to VFR aircraft outside B/C airspace, if they do, you are bound to follow them. You can believe what the NTSB said or you can believe what Stephen McNicoll said. Choose wisely.
 
Ron Levy said:
One more time -- read the decision which says whether or not ATC is supposed to give instructions to VFR aircraft outside B/C airspace, if they do, you are bound to follow them. You can believe what the NTSB said or you can believe what Stephen McNicoll said. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

The Administrator v. Ellis decision does not say that.
 
I see we are back to the pilot has to memorize the controllers handbook in order to know what is a valid vs invalid ATC instruction argument again.
 
dmccormack said:
So -- break it down for me -- are you arguing a VFR aircraft in Class Bravo can ignore ATC instructions at will and face no consequences?
Click to expand...

No... but he is saying if you are OUTSIDE the bravo... you can. because as a VFR aircraft in that area, ATC does not control separation of VFR's and can only recommend...
 
roncachamp said:
The Administrator v. Ellis decision does not say that.
Click to expand...
I can't help your reading comprehension skills, but the words are quoted above. Everyone else can read it and see what it says regardless of what you say.

And I'm done arguing with Mr. McNicoll on this. Y'all can read the case and decide for yourselves.
 
EdFred said:
I see we are back to the pilot has to memorize the controllers handbook in order to know what is a valid vs invalid ATC instruction argument again.
Click to expand...
No, we are not. Ellis clearly says that absent an emergency, we pilots must do as we're told and not argue with the controller over the validity of an ATC instruction. You can call the supervisor after you land hand hash it out, but in the air, we are required to assume that the controller has the bigger picture and is trying to keep it safe.
 
Ron Levy said:
Another hash from the Chief Counsel's office, hot on the heels of Mangiamele. Sounds like Lorelei Peter is saying a heading and altitude assignment from ATC in controlled airspace under the jurisdiction of the controller making the assignment is not an "ATC instruction." I'd like to see what happens when someone says "no" in that situation and a "deal" occurs.
Click to expand...

It's heartening to see that you and I agree that the FAA sometimes makes a hash of it when interpreting their own regulations, even if we don't always agree about which ones! :D

Although the FAA's logic may leave something to be desired in this case, I'm glad to see that they have finally given a definitive answer to the question of what a VFR pilot should do when vectored into class B without a clearance.
 
By the way, not to blame one person or another, but what's this yellow liguid all over the hangar floor? :D
 
Ron Levy said:
I can't help your reading comprehension skills, but the words are quoted above. Everyone else can read it and see what it says regardless of what you say.

And I'm done arguing with Mr. McNicoll on this. Y'all can read the case and decide for yourselves.
Click to expand...

My googlefu is weak tonight... would you graciously provide a link or something to get me in the general vicinity.. been looking for a while..
 
Ron Levy said:
No, we are not. Ellis clearly says that absent an emergency, we pilots must do as we're told and not argue with the controller over the validity of an ATC instruction. You can call the supervisor after you land hand hash it out, but in the air, we are required to assume that the controller has the bigger picture and is trying to keep it safe.
Click to expand...

Regardless of who's right about the legalities, one thing I'm sure of is that I have better things to do than try to figure out on the fly which ATC instructions are valid and which aren't.
 
Ron Levy said:
I can't help your reading comprehension skills, but the words are quoted above. Everyone else can read it and see what it says regardless of what you say.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the material you quoted that supports your assertion. If you could cite the specific sentences that you've misinterpreted I can explain them to you, and, with a little effort on your part, help you achieve a correct understanding of Administrator v. Ellis.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Regardless of who's right about the legalities, one thing I'm sure of is that I have better things to do than try to figure out on the fly which ATC instructions are valid and which aren't.
Click to expand...

You don't have to do it on the fly, you can do it before you fly.
 
roncachamp said:
You don't have to do it on the fly, you can do it before you fly.
Click to expand...

I don't see how, since I don't know in advance what instructions I'm going to receive. Even if I accepted your contention that pilots of VFR flights are not required to follow ATC instructions outside of certain types of airspace, I would then have to try to figure out whether it was safe to disregard the instruction, and in most cases, that's just more workload than I want to take on. Your mileage may vary.

There's also the issue that I prefer not to get into conflict with ATC if I don't have to.

Somebody, somewhere, has the responsibility of educating controllers about the limits of their authority. That person is not me.
 
ATC: "Traffic 12 o'clock, 3 miles, same altitude opposite direction. Turn 35 degrees right, I'll put you back on course when you're past him."
VFR Pilot: "Nah, that's ok, I don't see him so I should be fine."

Would you really do that? No? OK, let's just keep on flying then.
 
roncachamp said:
No. I'm saying ATC cannot assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or TRSAs. If a VFR aircraft outside those areas ignores a vector initiated by ATC the pilot will face no consequences.
Click to expand...

Right..which is why I carefully included the following phrase: "in Class bravo..."
 
Ron Levy said:
No, we are not. Ellis clearly says that absent an emergency, we pilots must do as we're told and not argue with the controller over the validity of an ATC instruction. You can call the supervisor after you land hand hash it out, but in the air, we are required to assume that the controller has the bigger picture and is trying to keep it safe.
Click to expand...


Ummm.... not exactly.

While IFR I've had a controller state, "Fly heading 120 for traffic" and replied with "Unable" as that heading would have placed me inside a thunderstorm. I was in the air, I could see the cloud and XM confirmed my call there was no way I was flying that heading.

Another voice came back and said, "Ok, maintain present heading."

So while we are required to comply we can override anyone's "instructions" (even the Chief Counsel, if he chooses to call) if such action will place the airplane in jeopardy.

I'm the one in the tin can, and I'll gladly deal with your paperwork later, on the ground.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
ATC: "Traffic 12 o'clock, 3 miles, same altitude opposite direction.
Turn 35 degrees right, I'll put you back on course when you're past him."
VFR Pilot: "Nah, that's ok, I don't see him so I should be fine."

Would you really do that? No? OK, let's just keep on flying then.
Click to expand...

No, but the course of action, assuming you're not in airspace
where ATC has any responsibility for separation of VFR traffic,
is completely up to the pilot.


Order JO 7110.65T Air Traffic Control

​
Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-6. SAFETY ALERT

Issue a safety alert to an aircraft if you are aware the
aircraft is in a position/altitude which, in your
judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain,
obstructions, or other aircraft. Once the pilot informs
you action is being taken to resolve the situation, you
may discontinue the issuance of further alerts. Do not
assume that because someone else has responsibility
for the aircraft that the unsafe situation has been
observed and the safety alert issued; inform the
appropriate controller.

NOTE-
1. The issuance of a safety alert is a first priority (see
para 2-1-2, Duty Priority) once the controller observes
and recognizes a situation of unsafe aircraft proximity to
terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. Conditions, such as
workload, traffic volume, the quality/limitations of the
radar system, and the available lead time to react are
factors in determining whether it is reasonable for the
controller to observe and recognize such situations. While
a controller cannot see immediately the development of
every situation where a safety alert must be issued, the
controller must remain vigilant for such situations and
issue a safety alert when the situation is recognized.

2. Recognition of situations of unsafe proximity may result
from MSAW/E-MSAW/LAAS, automatic altitude readouts,
Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert, observations on a PAR
scope, or pilot reports.

3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's
prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will
be taken.

a. Terrain/Obstruction Alert. Immediately issue/
initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware the
aircraft is at an altitude which, in your judgment,
places it in unsafe proximity to terrain/obstructions.
Issue the alert as follows:

PHRASEOLOGY-
LOW ALTITUDE ALERT (call sign),

CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY.

THE (as appropriate) MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA IN YOUR
AREA IS (altitude),

or if an aircraft is past the final approach fix
(nonprecision approach),

or the outer marker,

or the fix used in lieu of the outer marker (precision
approach),

and, if known, issue

THE (as appropriate) MDA/DH IS (altitude).

b. Aircraft Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert.
Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you
are aware of another aircraft at an altitude which you
believe places them in unsafe proximity. If feasible,
offer the pilot an alternate course of action.

c. When an alternate course of action is given, end
the transmission with the word “immediately.”

PHRASEOLOGY-
TRAFFIC ALERT (call sign) (position of aircraft) ADVISE
YOU TURN LEFT/RIGHT (heading),

and/or

CLIMB/DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate)
IMMEDIATELY.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-14-1, Conflict Alert (CA) and Mode C
Intruder (MCI) Alert.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-14-2, En Route Minimum Safe Altitude
Warning (E-MSAW).
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-15-6, CA/MCI.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-2-23, Altitude Filters.
 
dmccormack said:
While IFR I've had a controller state, "Fly heading 120 for traffic" and replied with "Unable" as that heading would have placed me inside a thunderstorm. I was in the air, I could see the cloud and XM confirmed my call there was no way I was flying that heading.

Another voice came back and said, "Ok, maintain present heading."

So while we are required to comply we can override anyone's "instructions" (even the Chief Counsel, if he chooses to call) if such action will place the airplane in jeopardy.

I'm the one in the tin can, and I'll gladly deal with your paperwork later, on the ground.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I've had that happen as well. If there isn't a compelling reason why you need to stay one way (weather being a good one), it's probably a good idea to take their advice.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed, and I've had that happen as well. If there isn't a compelling reason why you need to stay one way (weather being a good one), it's probably a good idea to take their advice.
Click to expand...

The problem is with advice that is issued as an instruction.
 
dmccormack said:
Right..which is why I carefully included the following phrase: "in Class bravo..."
Click to expand...

And why I carefully included the following phrase:

"ATC cannot assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or TRSAs. Outside of those the pilot must request vectors or ATC can suggest headings. I believe some flight schools have agreements with local ATC that allow controllers to initiate vectoring of their aircraft, but that would constitute a request from the operator."
 
roncachamp said:
And why I carefully included the following phrase:

"ATC cannot assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or TRSAs. Outside of those the pilot must request vectors or ATC can suggest headings. I believe some flight schools have agreements with local ATC that allow controllers to initiate vectoring of their aircraft, but that would constitute a request from the operator."
Click to expand...

Sure they can it happens all the time. There is no law of nature that prevents them from issuing instructions. Whether they are supposed to or not is the issue.
 
EdFred said:
Sure they can it happens all the time. There is no law of nature that prevents them from issuing instructions. Whether they are supposed to or not is the issue.
Click to expand...

You're confusing "cannot" with "impossible". "Cannot" means "have no alternative but to". It is certainly possible for controllers to assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or TRSAs, but they cannot.
 
Nope. No confusion.
Merriam Webster

cannot: be unable to do.

As has been demonstrated by controllers numerous times, they DO issue instructions in the outer area which means they are able and have the ability to do so. Maybe they are not supposed to, but they have the physical ablity to.

The definition of cannot you used was the idiom "cannot but" which is not the case here.

Perhaps you are confusing "can" with "may."
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Nope. No confusion.
Merriam Webster

cannot: be unable to do.

As has been demonstrated by controllers numerous times, they DO issue instructions in the outer area which means they are able and have the ability to do so. Maybe they are not supposed to, but they have the ablity to.

The definition of cannot you used was the idiom "cannot but" which is not the case here.

Perhaps you are confusing "can" with "may."
Click to expand...

You cut too many classes.
 
roncachamp said:
You cut too many classes.
Click to expand...

Not my fault you used a definition that was from an idiom we were not using. Next time you may want to look at what you are actually pulling from dictionary.com before using it.
 
Does anyone else realize how ridiculous this thread has become? I don't think anyone's going to win. :mad2:

ATC can only recommend instructions for aircraft outside of Bravo and Charlie airspace. It's in the 7110.65T, and if they don't include "recommend" or "suggest" in their instruction, then they are at fault, not the pilot who does not have to comply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top