IFR and Restricted Areas
Newps
ga...@tyrellnet.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if a clearance through a restricted area relieves the
> pilot of maintaining seperation from said airspace?
Yes.
To clarify, I
> flew IFR weeks back and the flight took me across the Chesapeke
> Bay. The filed plan was ...ENO V268... but 5 west of ENO I got direct
> BAL which cuts through Aberdeen's R-4001B. According to the Low Alt
> Enroute chart it was active at the time and altitude.
>
> Do controllers forget sometimes
Yes
or do they coordinate the passage?
Yes
> Any pointers or regs would be appreciated.
Whatever happens, you're clean.
ga...@tyrellnet.com
flew IFR weeks back and the flight took me across the Chesapeke
Bay. The filed plan was ...ENO V268... but 5 west of ENO I got direct
BAL which cuts through Aberdeen's R-4001B. According to the Low Alt
Enroute chart it was active at the time and altitude.
Do controllers forget sometimes or do they coordinate the passage?
Marc Rodstein
controller will coordinate it for you. You will not be cleared through it
unless there is no conflict. (Unless the controller makes a BIG mistake).
Marc Rodstein
<ga...@tyrellnet.com> wrote in message
news:3733a0a1...@news.supernews.com...
Patrick
airspaces - if youre cleared, youre legal!
Herb Carmen
On the enroute charts, the controlling agency for each restricted area is
listed. Typically, it is the ARTCC in that area. If you're IFR, your IFR
controller talks to the controlling agency. If you're VFR, then you can
request permission from the controlling agency. Not to say you'll be
cleared, but that's who you ask.
TMetzinger
>According to the Low Alt
>Enroute chart it was active at the time and altitude.
>
>Do controllers forget sometimes or do they coordinate the passage?
>Any pointers or regs would be appreciated.
The times posted on the chart are the times the area CAN be hot. The
controllers are supposed to coordinate the passage.
That said, it's never a bad idea to ask. "Baltimore, spam can 05D, confirm the
restricted area is cold?"
When I come back to Frederick from the east coast I always file ENO V268 EMI,
but everytime I've been given direct FDK when I hit ENO, taking me right
through the restricted area and just south of MTN.
Cloudy skies!
Timothy Metzinger
Private Pilot - ASEL - IA!!!! AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
DOD # 1854 '82 Virago 750 - "Siobhan"
TB-9s, TB-10s, C172Rs at FDK (No Names)
PGP Public Key Available on Keyservers
Roy Smith
> According to the Low Alt Enroute chart it was active at the time
> and altitude.
I think it works the other way around. The times listed on the chart are
when it *may* be in use, but that doesn't mean they're using it every
minute (or even every day) of the schedule.
> Do controllers forget sometimes or do they coordinate the passage?
The concept is that civil ATC coordinates with the military for use of
restricted areas. If your clearance takes you through a charted hot
restricted area, you *should* be able to rely on the fact that ATC has
taken care of things for you.
On the other hand, ATC is human and makes mistakes like everybody else.
There was a case that made the TV news a few years back of McGuire (AFB)
RAPCON and New York Center fumbling a handoff of one of the Warning areas
off the coast of NJ (operationally, Warning and Restricted area are
essentially the same thing). Both controllers believed they owned the
area and both put aircraft under their control in it at the same time.
The fighters came over to check out the airliner, the TCAS lit up, and
during the violent maneuvers the pilots put the airliner through in
response to the TCAS warnings, several people in the cabin were injured.
It happens.
Like all things, when in doubt, it never hurts to ask, "New York Approach,
confirm R-5206 is cold today; my charts show it hot". Most likely, the
controller will just confirm it's OK, but it's possible the question will
keep you out of an active artillery practice range.
Steven P. McNicoll
<ga...@tyrellnet.com> wrote in message
news:3733a0a1...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Does anyone know if a clearance through a restricted area relieves the
> pilot of maintaining seperation from said airspace?
>
If you're operating IFR and your clearance takes you through a restricted
area, then you are authorized to proceed through that restricted area.
>
> To clarify, I flew IFR weeks back and the flight took me across the
> Chesapeke Bay. The filed plan was ...ENO V268... but 5 west of
> ENO I got direct BAL which cuts through Aberdeen's R-4001B.
> According to the Low Alt Enroute chart it was active at the time
> and altitude.
>
Just because it was within the posted times of use does not mean the
restricted area was actually in use at that time.
>
> Do controllers forget sometimes or do they coordinate the passage?
>
Yes, to both questions.
>
> Any pointers or regs would be appreciated.
>
Sec. 91.133 Restricted and prohibited areas.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area
(designated in part 73) contrary to the restrictions imposed, or within a
prohibited area, unless that person has the permission of the using or
controlling agency, as appropriate.
(b) Each person conducting, within a restricted area, an aircraft
operation (approved by the using agency) that creates the same hazards as
the operations for which the restricted area was designated may deviate from
the rules of this subpart that are not compatible with the operation of the
aircraft.
Sec. 73.13 Restrictions.
No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area between the
designated altitudes and during the time of designation, unless he has the
advance permission of
(a) The using agency described in Sec. 73.15; or
(b) The controlling agency described in Sec. 73.17.
Sec. 73.15 Using agency.
(a) For the purposes of this subpart, the following are using agencies;
(1) The agency, organization, or military command whose activity
within a restricted area necessitated the area being so designated.
(b) Upon the request of the FAA, the using agency shall execute a letter
establishing procedures for joint use of a restricted area by the using
agency and the controlling agency, under which the using agency would notify
the controlling agency whenever the controlling agency may grant permission
for transit through the restricted area in accordance with the terms of the
letter.
(c) The using agency shall--
(1) Schedule activities within the restricted area;
(2) Authorize transit through, or flight within, the restricted area as
feasible; and
(3) Contain within the restricted area all activities conducted therein
in accordance with the purpose for which it was designated.
Sec. 73.17 Controlling agency.
For the purposes of this part, the controlling agency is the FAA
facility that may authorize transit through or flight within a restricted
area in accordance with a joint-use letter issued under Sec. 73.15.
Jack Cullen
>
> If you are on an IFR clearance you can ignore restricted airspace. The
> controller will coordinate it for you.
> <ga...@tyrellnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3733a0a1...@news.supernews.com...
> > Does anyone know if a clearance through a restricted area relieves the
> > pilot of maintaining seperation from said airspace?
I wouldn't bet my life on it -- or even a clean flying record!
An IFR clearance doesn't relieve the pilot of *anything*! ...it just
spreads the responsibility out a little (and *very* little, at that!)
Any system designed by, operated by or involving humans in any way has
plenty of room for error.
Anytime I'm IFR and I see that the routing clearance will send me
through any sort of special use airspace I always ask the controller if
I am cleared through that airspace. Once in a very great while I'll get
a nasty response, but overwhelmingly the response is professional and
routine -- but there is always a response.
I got caught in that very same airspace while enroute to BWI once after
I called the FSS (listed as the controlling authority), and was told it
was cold, but a few minutes later the controller giving my VFR
advisories called me and in a very rapid few words told me to do an
immediate 180 and get out of there because it was hot with missle test
ops!
It never hurts to ask and confirm.
--
Jack Cullen
West Chatham, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
-------------
Please send all replies to: JJoeJack1 "at" aol "dot" com
Steven P. McNicoll
Mark Tanner <cel...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:3734d6ca...@news.ufl.edu...
>
> And to muddy the waters just a bit:
>
> If you're on VFR Flight following and you're vectored through a
> restrcited airspace, are you still legal?
>
If ATC initiates a vector that takes you through a restricted area, it would
not be unreasonable to assume that you have the permission of the
controlling agency to enter the restricted area. But why would ATC initiate
a vector while you're on VFR flight following?
Steven P. McNicoll
Jack Cullen <JJoe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3734DB...@aol.com...
>
> I got caught in that very same airspace while enroute to BWI once after
> I called the FSS (listed as the controlling authority), and was told it
> was cold, but a few minutes later the controller giving my VFR
> advisories called me and in a very rapid few words told me to do an
> immediate 180 and get out of there because it was hot with missle test
> ops!
>
A FSS was listed as the controlling agency? I find that hard to believe.
Jack Cullen
This was over ten years ago (when I was much dumber and more trusting),
and that's what was printed on the information panel of the sectional I
was using.
Mark Tanner
>Thats the nice thing about IFR...you dont have to worry about any
>airspaces - if youre cleared, youre legal!
And to muddy the waters just a bit:
If you're on VFR Flight following and you're vectored through a
restrcited airspace, are you still legal?
-mark
Mark Tanner (cel...@ibm.net)
http://cellist.music.ufl.edu
Paul Baechler
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >
> > Jack Cullen <JJoe...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3734DB...@aol.com...
> > >
> > > I got caught in that very same airspace while enroute to BWI once after
> > > I called the FSS (listed as the controlling authority), and was told it
> > > was cold, but a few minutes later the controller giving my VFR
> > > advisories called me and in a very rapid few words told me to do an
> > > immediate 180 and get out of there because it was hot with missle test
> > > ops!
> > >
> >
> > A FSS was listed as the controlling agency? I find that hard to believe.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> This was over ten years ago (when I was much dumber and more trusting),
> and that's what was printed on the information panel of the sectional I
> was using.
Before the great FSS consolidation/automation/elimination, the
"appropriate authority" for access to restricted areas was typically
listed as the "owner" of the restricted area, the center having
jurisdiction over the area, "or area FSS". The term "controlling agency"
was not used on VFR charts, and the clearance procedure as described in
the AIM was different.
John Stephens
>I wouldn't bet my life on it -- or even a clean flying record!
>An IFR clearance doesn't relieve the pilot of *anything*! ...it just
>spreads the responsibility out a little (and *very* little, at that!)
>Any system designed by, operated by or involving humans in any way has
>plenty of room for error.
Wrong! An IFR clearance relieves the pilot from having to be EXPLICITLY
cleared into Restricted and Class B/C/D airspaces. It also relieve the
pilot from having to ascertain whether an MOA is "hot" or not.
>Anytime I'm IFR and I see that the routing clearance will send me
>through any sort of special use airspace I always ask the controller if
>I am cleared through that airspace. Once in a very great while I'll get
>a nasty response, but overwhelmingly the response is professional and
>routine -- but there is always a response.
>I got caught in that very same airspace while enroute to BWI once after
>I called the FSS (listed as the controlling authority), and was told it
>was cold, but a few minutes later the controller giving my VFR
>advisories called me and in a very rapid few words told me to do an
>immediate 180 and get out of there because it was hot with missle test
>ops!
Sounds very much as though were NOT on an IFR clearance here. Also, FSS is
NOT listed as the controlling agency here -- it is "ZDC CENTER." The actual
clearance for R40001a/b will be given by Baltimore, which is responsible for
the airspace here, at least at lower altitudes -- not sure where ZDC takes
over.
And another thing, R-space clearances can be short-lived and altitude
dependent. You can be cleared through at one altitude, and after leaving
the airspace, you must be re-cleared to enter, even if you just did a 180
and came back within a few minutes.
>It never hurts to ask and confirm.
Well, you got that right.
--
John Stephens (remove spaces for legal email address)
s t e p h e n s @ p o b o x . c o m
John Stephens
<ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>Mark Tanner <cel...@ibm.net> wrote in message
>news:3734d6ca...@news.ufl.edu...
>>
>> And to muddy the waters just a bit:
>>
>> If you're on VFR Flight following and you're vectored through a
>> restrcited airspace, are you still legal?
>>
>
>If ATC initiates a vector that takes you through a restricted area, it would
>not be unreasonable to assume that you have the permission of the
>controlling agency to enter the restricted area.
NO NO NO! A vector, while on anything other than an IFR clearance does NOT
give you clearance to do anything.
>But why would ATC initiate
>a vector while you're on VFR flight following?
Usually, vectors while on flight following are only given AFTER you have
been cleared into Class B or similar airspace. Although I have been given
very explicit vectors around and away from Marine One while actually outside
the Washington Class B. Here, however, I had been in the Class B and the
vectoring started while inside. In this particular case, once outside it
would have been a direct violation to ignore the continued vectoring.
Steven P. McNicoll
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >
> > A FSS was listed as the controlling agency? I find that hard to
believe.
> >
>
> and that's what was printed on the information panel of the sectional I
> was using.
>
I have a Washington sectional dated March 12, 1987. It shows the
controlling agency for R-4001B as "ZDC CNTR".
Tarver Engineering
John Stephens wrote in message <3738799d...@usenet.ex-pressnet.com>...
>On Sat, 8 May 1999 20:42:53 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
><ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mark Tanner <cel...@ibm.net> wrote in message
>>news:3734d6ca...@news.ufl.edu...
>>>
>>> And to muddy the waters just a bit:
>>>
>>> If you're on VFR Flight following and you're vectored through a
>>> restrcited airspace, are you still legal?
>>>
>>
>>If ATC initiates a vector that takes you through a restricted area, it
would
>>not be unreasonable to assume that you have the permission of the
>>controlling agency to enter the restricted area.
>
>NO NO NO! A vector, while on anything other than an IFR clearance does NOT
>give you clearance to do anything.
Does this mean our resident Air Traffic Controller does not know his stuff?
John
Tarver Engineering
John Stephens wrote in message <37382637...@usenet.ex-pressnet.com>...
>On Sun, 9 May 1999 13:03:20 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
<jta...@tminet.com>
>wrote:
NOT
>>>give you clearance to do anything.
>>
>>Does this mean our resident Air Traffic Controller does not know his
stuff?
>
an
>instruction, and does NOT automatically provide a clearance to enter an
area
>that normally needs a clearance to enter. If you know an AT Controller who
>thinks otherwise, then I (not so) humbly submit that a little refresher
>training might be advisable.
Nichols is an Air Traffic controller.
>What a controller might (or might not) intend is absolutely irrelevant in
>the face of an FAA incident investigation of an airspace bust based on an
>assigned vector when not on an IFR clearance.
If he were making mistakes the lurkers would straighten him out.
John
John Stephens
wrote:
>
>John Stephens wrote in message <3738799d...@usenet.ex-pressnet.com>...
>>NO NO NO! A vector, while on anything other than an IFR clearance does NOT
>>give you clearance to do anything.
>
>Does this mean our resident Air Traffic Controller does not know his stuff?
Not sure who you are referring to, but a vector is not a clearance; it is an
instruction, and does NOT automatically provide a clearance to enter an area
that normally needs a clearance to enter. If you know an AT Controller who
thinks otherwise, then I (not so) humbly submit that a little refresher
training might be advisable.
What a controller might (or might not) intend is absolutely irrelevant in
the face of an FAA incident investigation of an airspace bust based on an
assigned vector when not on an IFR clearance.
Marc Rodstein
Marc Rodstein
John Stephens <step...@no-fixed-abode.com> wrote in message
news:37382637...@usenet.ex-pressnet.com...
> On Sun, 9 May 1999 13:03:20 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
<jta...@tminet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Stephens wrote in message
<3738799d...@usenet.ex-pressnet.com>...
>
> Not sure who you are referring to, but a vector is not a clearance; it is
Steven P. McNicoll
> On Sat, 8 May 1999 20:42:53 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> >If ATC initiates a vector that takes you through a restricted area, it
> >would not be unreasonable to assume that you have the permission
> >of the controlling agency to enter the restricted area.
> >
>
> does NOT give you clearance to do anything.
>
On what basis do you make that statement? Why would a vector, properly
initiated by the controlling agency, that takes an aircraft into a
restricted area NOT be considered permission to enter?
An ATC clearance is not required to enter a restricted area, there's not
even any requirement to contact ATC in order to gain permission to enter a
restricted area. FAR 91.133(a) states; "No person may operate an aircraft
within a restricted area (designated in part 73) contrary to the
restrictions imposed, or within a prohibited area, unless that person has
the permission of the using or controlling agency, as appropriate." FAR
Part 1 defines an air traffic clearance as "an authorization by air traffic
control, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for
an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled
airspace".
> >
> >But why would ATC initiate a vector while you're on
> >VFR flight following?
> >
>
> Usually, vectors while on flight following are only given AFTER
> you have been cleared into Class B or similar airspace.
>
ATC may vector aircraft in controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise
abatement, operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. ATC may vector
aircraft in Class G airspace only upon pilot request. For VFR aircraft,
separation would apply only in Class B and Class C airspace, the Outer Area
associated with Class C airspace, and in a TRSA; and if you're in one of
those types of airspace, you're getting a bit more than just VFR flight
following. I don't believe any of the other reasons for vectoring would
apply to a VFR aircraft receiving radar traffic advisories.
>
> Although I have been given very explicit vectors around and away
> from Marine One while actually outside the Washington Class B.
> Here, however, I had been in the Class B and the vectoring started
> while inside. In this particular case, once outside it would have been
> a direct violation to ignore the continued vectoring.
>
A direct violation of what?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Not sure who you are referring to, but a vector is not a clearance;
> it is an instruction, and does NOT automatically provide a clearance
> to enter an area that normally needs a clearance to enter.
>
True enough, but a restricted area is not "an area that normally needs a
clearance to enter".
Sec. 91.133 Restricted and prohibited areas.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area
(designated in part 73) contrary to the restrictions imposed, or within a
prohibited area, unless that person has the permission of the using or
controlling agency, as appropriate.
(b) Each person conducting, within a restricted area, an aircraft
operation (approved by the using agency) that creates the same hazards as
the operations for which the restricted area was designated may deviate from
the rules of this subpart that are not compatible with the operation of the
aircraft.
>
> What a controller might (or might not) intend is absolutely irrelevant in
> the face of an FAA incident investigation of an airspace bust based on
> an assigned vector when not on an IFR clearance.
>
Why does it matter if the aircraft is on an IFR clearance?
James M. Knox
>On what basis do you make that statement? Why would a vector, properly
>initiated by the controlling agency, that takes an aircraft into a
>restricted area NOT be considered permission to enter?
This has been an issue of interpretation by NTSB and, like so many issues,
that interpretation has changed over the years.
10 years ago it was VERY clear that a pilot was responsible for verifying that
any necessary permissions, clearances, etc. were obtained prior to entering
any area requiring such. Vectors, specifically, were not considered adequate
and a number of pilots were violated for entering Class-B (TCA) areas based on
a controllers vector. A few cases also involved restricted and/or prohibited
areas (doesn't seem to happen very often, and so there were very few cases).
Over the years the NTSB has been more and more prone to place the burden on
the controller. Some of this is now codified -- I believe a controller vector
by a TRACON always covers entry into a Class-D even without the pilot
contacting that controlling agency. Several pilots have had cases overturned
where they entered Class-B airspace without specifically hearing the magic
words, but while operating on vectors from approach control.
The two areas where violations appear to be upheld against the pilots are:
o "Long" vectors -- i.e., "Okay, barnburner 12345, now leaving LAX airspace,
heading 090, direct TTT (DFW - Dallas, TX) when able." Six hundred miles
later the pilot crosses an area without permission. The violation sticks.
o Prohibited areas -- for some reason, perhaps because ATC can not clear an
aircraft into a prohibited area (whereas they can coordinate into a restricted
area) the pilot is still on the hook for prohibited areas.
>> In this particular case, once outside it would have been
>> a direct violation to ignore the continued vectoring.
>>
>A direct violation of what?
Accept in an emergency, when in contact with ATC a pilot may not deviate from
instructions received..
BTW (thread creep), Steve, have you gotten the new 7110.65 with our
"Compassion" call sign yet? Supposed to show up as CMF. ?
jmk
Alexander Perry
> On Sat, 8 May 1999 20:42:53 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >If ATC initiates a vector that takes you through a restricted area, it would
> >not be unreasonable to assume that you have the permission of the
> >controlling agency to enter the restricted area.
step...@no-fixed-abode.com (John Stephens) wrote:
> NO NO NO! A vector, while on anything other than an IFR clearance does NOT
> give you clearance to do anything.
Read his fingers. He said "not unreasonable" ... not "correct".
He also never said that this vector would be a clearance.
Therefore, his statement is correct.
Of course, so is yours (after the first three words, anyway).
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\ Alexander Perry alex.perry.at.destroy.ieee.org /
/ omit the "destroy" when replying \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Ron Natalie
>
>
> Sounds very much as though were NOT on an IFR clearance here. Also, FSS is
> NOT listed as the controlling agency here -- it is "ZDC CENTER." The actual
> clearance for R40001a/b will be given by Baltimore, which is responsible for
> the airspace here, at least at lower altitudes -- not sure where ZDC takes
> over.
Yeah, I've always wondered about that. There are lots of
restricted areas that are smack dab in the middle of the
airspace that's owned for IFR purposes by one of the approach
controls, but the charts always refer you to center. I assume
everybody just works it out among themselves same as carving
up other airspace.
By the way, I used to work in and fly out of the middle of the
restricted airspace in question. Unlikely you'll get hit by
a missle, but it pisses the guys on the range off when they
have to stop because some plane is noodling around.
> And another thing, R-space clearances can be short-lived and altitude
> dependent. You can be cleared through at one altitude, and after leaving
> the airspace, you must be re-cleared to enter, even if you just did a 180
> and came back within a few minutes
Yep, you can frequently get a clearance through to Tangier Island
while those PXT area restrictive areas are active. Approach just
coordinates with the guys flying the missions there to keep you
separated.
Ron Natalie
> If you're on VFR Flight following and you're vectored through a
> restrcited airspace, are you still legal?
>
Theoretically, the pilot is liable. However, the controller
screwed up as well as their rules say not to do that as well.
Steven P. McNicoll
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3736F6DC...@sensor.com...
>
> Yeah, I've always wondered about that. There are lots of
> restricted areas that are smack dab in the middle of the
> airspace that's owned for IFR purposes by one of the approach
> controls, but the charts always refer you to center. I assume
> everybody just works it out among themselves same as carving
> up other airspace.
>
I believe all controlled airspace is "owned" by ARTCCs initially, some of it
is then reassigned to approach control facilities. Every letter of
agreement that I've seen between ARTCCs and approach control facilities
contains a statement much like this:
"Metropolis ARTCC delegates to Smallville ATCT the authority and
responsibility for control of IFR traffic at and below 8,000 feet within the
designated controlled airspace depicted in Attachment 'A'."
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Wrong! An IFR clearance relieves the pilot from having to be EXPLICITLY
> cleared into Restricted and Class B/C/D airspaces.
>
No explicit clearance is required for entry into Class C or D airspace or a
Restricted Area.
>
> It also relieve the pilot from having to ascertain whether an MOA is "hot"
or not.
>
A pilot never has to ascertain whether a MOA is "hot" or not, although it is
a good idea to do so. A VFR aircraft does not need permission to enter a
MOA, an IFR aircraft will be kept out by ATC.
Steven P. McNicoll
Marc Rodstein <rods...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:XxyZ2.1582$5g5....@server1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> Aren't we required to comply with ATC "instructions"?
>
Yup, FAR 91.123(b) states, "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". But what is meant by "an area in which air traffic
control is exercised"? What "control" is exercised by ATC over VFR aircraft
in Class E airspace?
Todd
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> What "control" is exercised by ATC over VFR aircraft in Class E airspace?
One situation I can think of is a special VFR clearance. Technically your are
VFR operating with a specific clearance from ATC to exit controlled airspace to
uncontrolled airspace [i.e. transition from Class E to the surface (the old
"Control Zone") into Class G.]
Steven P. McNicoll
William J. Levenson
>
> Marc Rodstein <rods...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:XxyZ2.1582$5g5....@server1.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > Aren't we required to comply with ATC "instructions"?
> >
>
> Yup, FAR 91.123(b) states, "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". But what is meant by "an area in which air traffic
> in Class E airspace?
This regulation doesn't seem to differentiate by what type of aircraft
or flight rules the aircraft is operating under. It simply says that if
*any* control is exercized over any type of flight or aircraft in a
given area, then once you receive an instruction from ATC, you must obey
it unless you have an emergency to deal with or avoid, regardless what
flight rules you are operating under.
IMHO
Bill Levenson
PP-ASEL-IA
Steven P. McNicoll
William J. Levenson <ss8...@ast.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:373C4058...@ast.lmco.com...
>
> This regulation doesn't seem to differentiate by what type of aircraft
> or flight rules the aircraft is operating under. It simply says that if
> *any* control is exercized over any type of flight or aircraft in a
> given area, then once you receive an instruction from ATC, you must obey
> it unless you have an emergency to deal with or avoid, regardless what
> flight rules you are operating under.
>
> IMHO
>
Okay. Let's say you're on short final when the tower instructs you to "roll
inverted and pull". Must you adhere to that instruction? Are you required
by regulation to bury yourself and
your aircraft in the dirt? Of course not. Clearly, then, there are limits
to the "control" exercised by ATC.
FAA Order 7110.65 places substantial limits on the authority of ATC in
various situations. Paragraph 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE states, in part:
"Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and
minima in this order except when:
a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the United States provides air
traffic control service in airspace outside the United States and it's
possessions or:
NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFR's or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order."
In short, ATC cannot require you to do something which would be a violation
of an FAR.
From FAA Order 7110.65; Chapter 5. RADAR; Section 6. VECTORING:
"Paragraph 5-6-1. VECTORING
Vector aircraft:
a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement,
operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating
on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.
b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an additional
service."
[snip]
"g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot
concurs."
So in what situations, outside of Class B airspace, or Class C airspace, or
the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA, may ATC properly
initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft? What control authority does ATC have
William J. Levenson
>
> William J. Levenson <ss8...@ast.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:373C4058...@ast.lmco.com...
> >
> > This regulation doesn't seem to differentiate by what type of aircraft
> > or flight rules the aircraft is operating under. It simply says that if
> > *any* control is exercized over any type of flight or aircraft in a
> > given area, then once you receive an instruction from ATC, you must obey
> > it unless you have an emergency to deal with or avoid, regardless what
> > flight rules you are operating under.
> >
> > IMHO
> >
>
> Okay. Let's say you're on short final when the tower instructs you to "roll
> inverted and pull". Must you adhere to that instruction? Are you required
> by regulation to bury yourself and
> your aircraft in the dirt? Of course not. Clearly, then, there are limits
> to the "control" exercised by ATC.
Of course, there are limits. The PIC has final authority as to the
operation
of his/her aircraft. However, if ATC tells you to "roll inverted and
pull"
(IMHO, a silly example, but...) and you do not do it, you are within
your PIC rights to refuse the order by telling the controller "unable".
But, you could also be required to submit in writing the conditions
under which you exercised you PIC authority to ignore an ATC
instruction.
[snipped FAA Order 7110.65]
> So in what situations, outside of Class B airspace, or Class C airspace, or
> the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA, may ATC properly
> initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft? What control authority does ATC have
> over VFR aircraft in Class E airspace?
You seem to have answered your own question:
"Paragraph 5-6-1. VECTORING
>
> Vector aircraft:
>
> a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement,
> operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating
> on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.
That says they can vector anyone they want for the above reasons, right?
Your quotes from FAA Order 7110.65 seem to apply to ATC personnel.
I thought we were talking about the responsibility of the PIC.
The FAR's, which address pilot responsibilities, state that the PIC
must adhere to ATC instructions whenever in an area where control
is exercised. Of course, the PIC authority can be invoked to allow
you to disregard any instruction. But, you'd better be able to
justify it later. Here's a more realistic scenario than your example
above:
You have just exited Class B airspace and the controller says, " N12345,
turn right to 090, descend and maintain 5000, no delay".
You say, "N12345 refuses to comply because we don't want to and you
can't make us! You have no authority over me in Class E airspace
since I'm VFR".
Later you find out that people died because the controller had to divert
a military aircraft on an emergency approach because you were in the
way.
During the diversion, the F-14 smashed into an apartment building.
You weren't aware of the emergency because the F-14 was on a different
frequency. Now, you have to write the "Administrator" a letter
explaining why you refused to adhere to an ATC instruction.
IMHO, listen to ATC, follow their instructions, let them know if
you'd prefer something other than what they give you. They're there
to help all of us. If you'd rather not listen to them, ask for
a frequency change and go away. But once you've received an instruction,
you should follow it unless you have a good reason not to.
Bill Levenson
PP-ASEL-IA
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Of course, there are limits. The PIC has final authority as to the
> operation of his/her aircraft. However, if ATC tells you to "roll
> inverted and pull" (IMHO, a silly example, but...) and you do not
> do it, you are within your PIC rights to refuse the order by telling
> the controller "unable".
>
It sounds like you're contradicting your previous statement. You wrote; "if
*any* control is exercized over any type of flight or aircraft in a given
area, then once you receive an instruction from ATC, you must obey it unless
you have an emergency to deal with or avoid, regardless what flight rules
you are operating under." What are the limits you now refer to?
>
> But, you could also be required to submit in writing the
> conditions under which you exercised you PIC
> authority to ignore an ATC instruction.
>
How could I be required to do that?
>
> You seem to have answered your own question:
>
I already knew the answer. I was curious to see if you could answer it if
given sufficient background information.
>
> That says they can vector anyone they want for the above reasons, right?
>
Yes, but which of those reasons do you believe would apply to a VFR aircraft
in Class E airspace?
>
> Your quotes from FAA Order 7110.65 seem to apply to ATC personnel.
>
Yes, FAA Order 7110.65 is titled "Air Traffic Control". It prescribes air
traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing
air traffic control services.
>
> I thought we were talking about the responsibility of the PIC.
>
I thought we were discussing what is meant by "an area in which air traffic
control is exercised".
>
> The FAR's, which address pilot responsibilities, state that the PIC
> must adhere to ATC instructions whenever in an area where control
> is exercised.
>
Any ATC instruction? Even if that instruction is one which ATC is
specifically prohibited from issuing by FAA Order 7110.65?
>
> Of course, the PIC authority can be invoked to allow
> you to disregard any instruction. But, you'd better be
> able to justify it later.
>
What do you base that on?
>
> Here's a more realistic scenario than your example
> above:
>
> You have just exited Class B airspace and the controller says, " N12345,
> turn right to 090, descend and maintain 5000, no delay".
>
> You say, "N12345 refuses to comply because we don't want to and you
> can't make us! You have no authority over me in Class E airspace
> since I'm VFR".
>
> Later you find out that people died because the controller had to divert
> a military aircraft on an emergency approach because you were in the
> way.
>
You consider this a realistic scenario? Why would the controller need to
divert a military aircraft due to my presence? How could I have been "in
the way"?
>
> During the diversion, the F-14 smashed into an apartment building.
> You weren't aware of the emergency because the F-14 was on a
> different frequency.
>
But I would know about it. I can hear everything that ATC says to the
military aircraft, I just can't hear the military aircraft's responses.
>
> Now, you have to write the "Administrator" a letter
> explaining why you refused to adhere to an ATC instruction.
>
Why do I have to do that?
Let's suppose that I did follow ATC's instruction. I turned and descended
immediately, and that caused me to collide with a lovely Aeronca 7AC that
ATC had no knowledge of. Now I and my family are dead, as well as two
people in the Champ', two aircraft are destroyed, and the wreckage falls on
to an apartment building, killing seven tenants in the post-crash fire. All
because the controller vectored a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace, contrary
to FAA Order 7110.65. Now he has to explain to the Administrator, and
probably a jury as well, why he did that.
>
> IMHO, listen to ATC, follow their instructions, let them know if
> you'd prefer something other than what they give you. They're
> there to help all of us.
>
I want to make sure I understand your position. It seems to me that you're
saying that a VFR pilot must adhere to any ATC instruction, while in any
type of controlled airspace, even if the pilot knows that the instruction is
one that ATC is prohibited from issuing. Is that correct?
>
> If you'd rather not listen to them, ask for a frequency
> change and go away.
>
I don't have to ASK for a frequency change, once I leave the Class B
airspace I can TELL them I'm changing frequencies.
>
> But once you've received an instruction, you should
> follow it unless you have a good reason not to.
>
I'd say once you've received a valid instruction, you must follow it unless
compliance would force you to violate an FAR or you have an emergency.
William J. Levenson
>
> William J. Levenson <ss8...@ast.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:3740758C...@ast.lmco.com...
> >
>
> >
> > But, you could also be required to submit in writing the
> > conditions under which you exercised you PIC
> > authority to ignore an ATC instruction.
> >
>
> How could I be required to do that?
>
I hate quoting FAR's, but it seems the easiest way to describe my
opinion on this matter. I am only reading and interpreting the
following FAR requirements.
[Begin FAR quote]
Sec. 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for,
and is
the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot
in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required
to meet
that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph
(b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a
written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.
[end FAR quote]
I interpret this to mean that the PIC makes the final decision regarding
the
safe operation of his/her aircraft. Although the PIC can deviate from
any
rule of Part 91 based on his/her PIC authority, the FAA can request a
written
explaination which must be submitted by the PIC. That is how I believe
you could "be required to do that".
As for applicability...
[Begin FAR quote]
Subpart B--Flight Rules
General
Sec. 91.101 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of
aircraft
within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast
of the
United States.
[and ...]
Sec. 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
[...]
(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.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a
traffic
alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates
from an
ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as
soon as
possible.
[end FAR quote]
It doesn't say "no person except in VFR aircraft in Class E airspace",
it
says "no person". It also does not allude to whether the person is
required to participate in the air traffic control in the area. A VFR
pilot
in Class E airspace is not required to be in contact with ATC. But, if
ATC is able to convey an instruction said pilot, regulations require
adherance to the instruction once received, unless emergency PIC
authority
is invoked, and ATC must be notified of the refusal. And the
administrator
can then ask for the written statement.
[...]
> >
> > That says they can vector anyone they want for the above reasons, right?
> >
>
> Yes, but which of those reasons do you believe would apply to a VFR aircraft
> in Class E airspace?
>
I will repeat what you originally posted from FAA Order 7110.65:
" Vector aircraft:
a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement,
operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft
operating
on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent
possible. "
I'd say all of the reasons apply to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
Class E is controlled airspace, isn't it? Paragraph (a) above doesn't
distinguish between the aircraft type or flight rules (e.g., VFR)
that the aircraft is operating under. Therefore, I read the above
paragraph (a) to say to the controller that he/she can issue vectors
to any aircraft in controlled airspace. Of course, if a VFR aircraft
is not on frequency with ATC, then the vector cannot be communicated
to the pilot. But, if the VFR pilot receives a vector, IMHO, he/she
must comply unless compliance would cause an "emergency requiring
immediate action".
[...]
>
> >
> > The FAR's, which address pilot responsibilities, state that the PIC
> > must adhere to ATC instructions whenever in an area where control
> > is exercised.
> >
>
> Any ATC instruction? Even if that instruction is one which ATC is
> specifically prohibited from issuing by FAA Order 7110.65?
>
I'm not familiar enough with the prohibitions imparted to ATC to
judge each instruction I receive on that basis. I have enough
trouble keeping my side of the regulations straight. I suppose
you could try and make a case at your hearing that you refused an
instruction because ATC wasn't permitted to make it. But, I
don't see any support for this in the FAR's (barring an emergency
situation). Based on other cases against PIC's, I wouldn't want
to have FAA Order 7110.65 as my only defense.
Besides, I can't think of any reasonable ATC instructions that
are prohibited by FAA Order 7110.65. As I stated, it seems to
allow vectoring within controlled airspace, regardless of
aircraft or IFR/VFR operation.
> >
> > Of course, the PIC authority can be invoked to allow
> > you to disregard any instruction. But, you'd better be
> > able to justify it later.
> >
>
> What do you base that on?
>
See above.
[my example deleted for brevity]
>
> You consider this a realistic scenario? Why would the controller need to
> divert a military aircraft due to my presence? How could I have been "in
> the way"?
>
Well, it's more realistic than an ATC instruction to "roll inverted
and pull"! You could be in the way of an emergency approach to an
uncontrolled field, or even unpopulated area, for example.
> >
> > During the diversion, the F-14 smashed into an apartment building.
> > You weren't aware of the emergency because the F-14 was on a
> > different frequency.
> >
>
> But I would know about it. I can hear everything that ATC says to the
> military aircraft, I just can't hear the military aircraft's responses.
Not if he was being handled by a different controller. It seems
reasonable to me that, in an emergency, one controller would be
assigned to the emergency flight, while another controller gets
everyone out of the way. I don't know if that is actually done,
though. Another case could be a military controller handling the
F-14 requesting help from ATC. But why quibble about hypothetical
cases?
>
> >
> > Now, you have to write the "Administrator" a letter
> > explaining why you refused to adhere to an ATC instruction.
> >
>
> Why do I have to do that?
see above
>
> Let's suppose that I did follow ATC's instruction. I turned and descended
> immediately, and that caused me to collide with a lovely Aeronca 7AC that
> ATC had no knowledge of.
IMHO, that would be your failure to see and avoid. Remember, you
have the final authority and can deviate from an instruction if
necessary for an "emergency requiring immediate action". Besides,
You have the same risk of running into the Aeronca with or
without an ATC vector.
>
> >
> > IMHO, listen to ATC, follow their instructions, let them know if
> > you'd prefer something other than what they give you. They're
> > there to help all of us.
> >
>
> I want to make sure I understand your position. It seems to me that you're
> saying that a VFR pilot must adhere to any ATC instruction, while in any
> type of controlled airspace, even if the pilot knows that the instruction is
> one that ATC is prohibited from issuing. Is that correct?
IMHO, Yes.
>
> >
> > If you'd rather not listen to them, ask for a frequency
> > change and go away.
> >
>
> I don't have to ASK for a frequency change, once I leave the Class B
> airspace I can TELL them I'm changing frequencies.
I suppose...but I, personally would never take such an uncooperative
stance.
>
> >
> > But once you've received an instruction, you should
> > follow it unless you have a good reason not to.
> >
>
> I'd say once you've received a valid instruction, you must follow it unless
> compliance would force you to violate an FAR or you have an emergency.
Whatever!
Bill Levenson
PP-ASEL-IA
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I hate quoting FAR's, but it seems the easiest way to describe my
> opinion on this matter. I am only reading and interpreting the
> following FAR requirements.
>
> [Begin FAR quote]
>
> Sec. 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
>
> (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible
> for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
> (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the
> pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the
> extent required to meet that emergency.
> (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under
> paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the
> Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the
> Administrator.
>
> [end FAR quote]
>
> I interpret this to mean that the PIC makes the final decision regarding
> the safe operation of his/her aircraft. Although the PIC can deviate from
> any rule of Part 91 based on his/her PIC authority, the FAA can request
> a written explaination which must be submitted by the PIC. That is how
> I believe you could "be required to do that".
>
That applies when a pilot deviates from a rule of Part 91 in order to take
care of an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action. What in-flight
emergency are you alluding to? What rule of Part 91 was deviated from?
You said, "The PIC has final authority as to the operation of his/her
aircraft. However, if ATC tells you to "roll inverted and pull" (IMHO, a
silly example, but...) and you do not do it, you are within your PIC rights
to refuse the order by telling the controller "unable." Is it your position
that the PIC has final authority as to the operation of his/her aircraft
only during an in-flight emergency, and ATC has final authority at all other
times?
>
> Sec. 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
>
> [...]
> (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.
> (c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response
> to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory,
> deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of
> that deviation as soon as possible.
>
> [end FAR quote]
>
> It doesn't say "no person except in VFR aircraft in Class E airspace",
> it says "no person". It also does not allude to whether the person is
> required to participate in the air traffic control in the area. A VFR
> pilot in Class E airspace is not required to be in contact with ATC.
> But, if ATC is able to convey an instruction to said pilot, regulations
> require adherance to the instruction once received, unless emergency
> PIC authority is invoked, and ATC must be notified of the refusal. And
> the administrator can then ask for the written statement.
>
So what was the nature of the in-flight emergency you were experiencing when
the controller told you to "roll inverted and pull", and you responded,
"unable"?
I think your position is ridiculous and unsupported. Based on your last
paragraph, any pilot operating VFR in Class E airspace surrenders his PIC
authority to ATC if he requests flight following. That's simply not the
case.
>
> I will repeat what you originally posted from FAA Order 7110.65:
>
> " Vector aircraft:
>
> a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement,
> operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft
> operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the
> extent possible. "
>
If you're going to repeat it, you should repeat all of it. You left out two
subparagraphs, here they are:
"b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an additional
service."
"g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot
concurs."
>
> I'd say all of the reasons apply to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
>
I'd say "or when a pilot requests" applies to VFR aircraft in Class E
airspace, but I don't see how the others could. How could "separation"
apply? There is no separation for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace (unless
that Class E airspace is also the Outer Area associated with Class C
airspace, or a TRSA). What "operational advantage" could be gained for the
controller by vectoring a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace? "Noise
abatement"? "Safety"? Please explain.
>
> Class E is controlled airspace, isn't it?
>
Yes, it is. FAR Part 1 defines controlled airspace as "an airspace of
defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to
IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace
classification". ATC services do vary between airspace classes and
operating rules.
>
> Paragraph (a) above doesn't distinguish between the aircraft type
> or flight rules (e.g., VFR) that the aircraft is operating under.
> Therefore, I read the above paragraph (a) to say to the controller
> that he/she can issue vectors to any aircraft in controlled airspace.
>
If you had also read subparagraph (g), you would have known that the
controller can issue vectors to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace only when
the pilot requests them.
>
> Of course, if a VFR aircraft is not on frequency with ATC, then the vector
> cannot be communicated to the pilot. But, if the VFR pilot receives a
> vector, IMHO, he/she must comply unless compliance would cause an
> "emergency requiring immediate action".
>
What if the vector puts me into IMC? That wouldn't constitute an "emergency
requiring immediate action", but I would then be in violation of FAR 91.155.
Is it your position that ATC can require me to violate an FAR?
>
> I'm not familiar enough with the prohibitions imparted to ATC to
> judge each instruction I receive on that basis.
>
I am.
>
> Besides, I can't think of any reasonable ATC instructions that
> are prohibited by FAA Order 7110.65. As I stated, it seems to
> allow vectoring within controlled airspace, regardless of
> aircraft or IFR/VFR operation.
>
How can you say that? Four days ago I posted a verbatim quote from FAAO
7110.65 which very clearly says that ATC can initiate vectoring of aircraft
operating VFR only at those locations where a special program is established
or when a pilot requests it.
>
> Well, it's more realistic than an ATC instruction to "roll inverted
> and pull"! You could be in the way of an emergency approach to an
> uncontrolled field, or even unpopulated area, for example.
>
As ATC instructions go, they are equally valid.
>
> Not if he was being handled by a different controller. It seems
> reasonable to me that, in an emergency, one controller would be
> assigned to the emergency flight, while another controller gets
> everyone out of the way. I don't know if that is actually done,
> though.
Generally, it isn't.
>
> Another case could be a military controller handling the
> F-14 requesting help from ATC. But why quibble about
> hypothetical cases?
>
A military controller is ATC.
>
> IMHO, that would be your failure to see and avoid.
>
The instruction was, "N12345, turn right to 090, descend and maintain 5000,
no delay". According to what you've posted in this thread, if I had taken
time to scan the airspace he was directing me in to, I would have been in
violation of FAR 91.123(b). Actually, according to what you've posted in
this thread, even if I saw the traffic beforehand I'd be in violation of FAR
91.123(b) if I did anything other than immediately turn and descend.
>
> Remember, you have the final authority and can deviate from an
> instruction if necessary for an "emergency requiring immediate
> action".
>
But I didn't have an "emergency requiring immediate action" when ATC issued
the instruction. Therefore, according to what you've posted in this thread,
I must adhere to the instruction.
>
> Besides, you have the same risk of running into the Aeronca with or
> without an ATC vector.
>
How so?
>
> IMHO, Yes.
>
So I must adhere to the rules, but ATC does not? Is that your position?
>
> I suppose...but I, personally would never take such an uncooperative
> stance.
>
You'll never find a more cooperative pilot than me.
>
> Whatever!
>
I take it you're still of the opinion that you must follow an ATC
instruction even if it forces you to violate an FAR. Is that correct?
William J. Levenson
>
> William J. Levenson <ss8...@ast.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:37442295...@ast.lmco.com...
[...]
>
> You said, "The PIC has final authority as to the operation of his/her
> aircraft. However, if ATC tells you to "roll inverted and pull" (IMHO, a
> silly example, but...) and you do not do it, you are within your PIC rights
> to refuse the order by telling the controller "unable." Is it your position
> that the PIC has final authority as to the operation of his/her aircraft
> only during an in-flight emergency, and ATC has final authority at all other
> times?
>
Hey, I'm just reading the regulations. The regs say PIC has final
authority. They also say the PIC must not operate contrary to an
ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control
is exercised.
If you interpret that to mean that a PIC is only final authority
during an emergency, that's your business. It seems pretty clear
to me.
>
> So what was the nature of the in-flight emergency you were experiencing when
> the controller told you to "roll inverted and pull", and you responded,
> "unable"?
Continuing the silly scenario, following the ATC instruction would
cause death and destruction. Immediate action (or inaction) is required
to avoid death and destruction. I call that an emergency. An I would
feel confident and justified if I had to defend that to the
administrator, should that be required.
If I was in class E airspace and ATC gave me an instruction which
I chose to ignore for no other reason than I didn't want to comply,
I wouldn't be nearly as certain that I could justify that.
>
> I think your position is ridiculous and unsupported. Based on your last
> paragraph, any pilot operating VFR in Class E airspace surrenders his PIC
> authority to ATC if he requests flight following. That's simply not the
> case.
Your entitled to your opinion. I feel that my approach implies
cooperation between ATC and pilots. Your positions seems to imply
that you'll play along and take their service until they want you
to do something that you may not like; even though it may be for
your own good, or the good of other pilots out there.
[...paragraph (a) deleted]
>
> If you're going to repeat it, you should repeat all of it. You left out two
> subparagraphs, here they are:
>
> "b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an additional
> service."
>
> "g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
> established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot
> concurs."
>
> >
> > I'd say all of the reasons apply to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
> >
>
> I'd say "or when a pilot requests" applies to VFR aircraft in Class E
> airspace, but I don't see how the others could.
I don't see anything in what you quoted refering to VFR aircraft in
Class E airspace...I see Class G, which is uncontrolled, but not
Class E??? Beside, as I said previously, the regulations you quote
apply to what aircraft ATC is permitted to provide vectors to. It
does not address whether the pilot must follow them or not.
> How could "separation"
> apply? There is no separation for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace (unless
> that Class E airspace is also the Outer Area associated with Class C
> airspace, or a TRSA).
Just because ATC isn't required to separate VFR aircraft doesn't mean
the
can't or shouldn't if a risk of collision exists. What are you going to
say if you request flight following and crash into another VFR aircraft?
He isn't required to separate you, right. But I sure hope, if he has
the time, he will separate me. I appreciate the help.
> What "operational advantage" could be gained for the
> controller by vectoring a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace?
Maybe ATC notices that you are heading away from your intended
airport. You appear lost, are trying to track an NDB but are
failing miserably due to heavy winds. He could give you a
vector toward the airport. He's improving your operational
efficiency, and maybe his by keeping you from unintentionally
conflicting with some of the traffic he must provide separation
for.
>"Noise
> abatement"? "Safety"? Please explain.
All I'll say is it could happen. You asked which I thought applied.
I still say all of them could at some time or another.
[...]
> >
> > Paragraph (a) above doesn't distinguish between the aircraft type
> > or flight rules (e.g., VFR) that the aircraft is operating under.
> > Therefore, I read the above paragraph (a) to say to the controller
> > that he/she can issue vectors to any aircraft in controlled airspace.
> >
>
> If you had also read subparagraph (g), you would have known that the
> controller can issue vectors to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace only when
> the pilot requests them.
Hmmm. It appears that you feel free to add words to subparagraph (g)...
the word "only" does not appear in subparagraph (g). It does appear
in subparagraph (b), but that is specifically refering to Class G
airspace.
And, once again, the FAA Order 7110.65 applies to ATC. The FAR's still
govern pilot actions. I have already stated what I think the
FAR's tell the pilot to do.
>
> What if the vector puts me into IMC? That wouldn't constitute an "emergency
> requiring immediate action", but I would then be in violation of FAR 91.155.
> Is it your position that ATC can require me to violate an FAR?
>
I guess I could construe that to be an emergency requiring immediate
action (I admit it's a stretch). But, again, I am just interpreting the
words I see in the FAR's. You can do the same and perhaps you'll be
successful if you ever have to justify them to the FAA.
You seem to think that ATC is out to either kill VFR pilots in Class
E airspace or cause them to violate FAR's. If faced with an ATC
instruction that would cause my death or an unsafe or illegal condition,
I will tell them so. I can't imagine them insisting that I do it
anyway! It's not "us vs. them" up there...you seem to view ATC as
a threat to your flying...I see them as a valuable resource. Oh well.
> >
> > I'm not familiar enough with the prohibitions imparted to ATC to
> > judge each instruction I receive on that basis.
> >
>
> I am.
Good for you, but you don't seem to read very accurately. Powerful
words like "only" in regulations are important and shouldn't be
misplaced.
>
> >
> > Besides, I can't think of any reasonable ATC instructions that
> > are prohibited by FAA Order 7110.65. As I stated, it seems to
> > allow vectoring within controlled airspace, regardless of
> > aircraft or IFR/VFR operation.
> >
>
> How can you say that? Four days ago I posted a verbatim quote from FAAO
> 7110.65 which very clearly says that ATC can initiate vectoring of aircraft
> operating VFR only at those locations where a special program is established
> or when a pilot requests it.
I can say that because there is no "only" in the regulation you posted.
It seems to me that any one of the subparagraphs provide justification
for vectoring.
>
> >
> > Well, it's more realistic than an ATC instruction to "roll inverted
> > and pull"! You could be in the way of an emergency approach to an
> > uncontrolled field, or even unpopulated area, for example.
> >
>
> As ATC instructions go, they are equally valid.
Actually, I disagree. I don't recall any authority of ATC to
control the attitude and control deflections of an aircraft.
After all, the pilot is flying. If they want you to climb,
you are free to pull back on the yoke and climb normally,
or roll inverted and push on the yoke. ATC doesn't care.
Once again, this is silliness.
[...]
>
> I take it you're still of the opinion that you must follow an ATC
> instruction even if it forces you to violate an FAR. Is that correct?
I guess in this case, you're technically screwed either way. If
you follow the instruction and violate the FAR, you could try
and blame the controller. But the FAA would likely hit you
with the PIC having final authority, so you may get busted for
it.
On the other hand, if you refuse to comply with the instruction,
you could claim an emergency. As PIC, it's up to you what
constitutes an emergency. I think this would be more defendable
on the ground.
I would first state to ATC that I was unable. If they
didn't accept that, I would have a decision to make.
I just can't imagine having a sparring match like you envision
with ATC. I've always been able to reach amicable agreements
with ATC, whether VFR or IFR. YMMV.
Bill Levenson
PP-ASEL-IA
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Hey, I'm just reading the regulations. The regs say PIC has final
> authority. They also say the PIC must not operate contrary to an
> ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control
> is exercised.
>
Actually, you're misinterpreting the regulations.
>
> If you interpret that to mean that a PIC is only final authority
> during an emergency, that's your business. It seems pretty clear
> to me.
>
It is you that has made that interpretation, not I. It's been my position
that a VFR pilot is free to refuse a vector in Class E airspace, you've said
that he may only do so in an emergency.
>
> Continuing the silly scenario, following the ATC instruction would
> cause death and destruction. Immediate action (or inaction) is required
> to avoid death and destruction. I call that an emergency. An I would
> feel confident and justified if I had to defend that to the
> administrator, should that be required.
>
The exception applies "in an emergency", not sometime before an emergency.
>
> Your entitled to your opinion. I feel that my approach implies
> cooperation between ATC and pilots.
>
Your approach implies surrendering your authority as PIC to an inadequately
trained controller. I won't do that.
>
> Your positions seems to imply that you'll play along
> and take their service until they want you to do
> something that you may not like; even though it may
> be for your own good, or the good of other pilots out there.
>
Nonsense. I am in a better position to know what is in my best interest
than the controller is.
>
> I don't see anything in what you quoted refering to VFR aircraft in
> Class E airspace...I see Class G, which is uncontrolled, but not
> Class E???
>
Well, allow me to help you see.
"5-6-1. VECTORING
Vector aircraft:
a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement,
operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating
on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible."
Subparagraph (a) tells the controller what he may vector aircraft for.
"b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an additional
service."
Subparagraph (b) tells the controller that he may vector aircraft in
uncontrolled airspace if a pilot requests it.
c. [skipped]
d. [skipped]
e. [skipped]
f. [skipped]
"g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot
concurs."
Subparagraph (g) tells the controller under what conditions he may vector
VFR aircraft. He may do so where "a special program is established"; I have
interpreted that to include Class B and Class C airspace, the Outer Area
associated with Class C airspace, and a TRSA. (The Outer Area associated
with Class C airspace and a TRSA would apply only to participating
aircraft.) The controller can't initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft in Class
E airspace because it isn't a "location where a special program is
established" for it. A controller may vector VFR aircraft in Class E
airspace if the vector is requested by the pilot, a controller may suggest a
vector and issue it with the pilot's concurrence, but a controller cannot
initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
>
> Beside, as I said previously, the regulations you quote
> apply to what aircraft ATC is permitted to provide vectors to. It
> does not address whether the pilot must follow them or not.
>
Well, if they're not allowed to initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft in Class
E airspace, the pilot certainly cannot be required to follow those vectors.
>
> Just because ATC isn't required to separate VFR aircraft doesn't mean
> the can't or shouldn't if a risk of collision exists. What are you going
to
> say if you request flight following and crash into another VFR aircraft?
> He isn't required to separate you, right. But I sure hope, if he has
> the time, he will separate me. I appreciate the help.
>
You're confusing separation with traffic advisories and safety alerts.
>
> Maybe ATC notices that you are heading away from your intended
> airport. You appear lost, are trying to track an NDB but are
> failing miserably due to heavy winds. He could give you a
> vector toward the airport. He's improving your operational
> efficiency, and maybe his by keeping you from unintentionally
> conflicting with some of the traffic he must provide separation
> for.
>
The "operational advantage" in subparagraph (a) refers to the controller's
operation, not the pilot's. Remember that the controller can say, "N12345,
I suggest a heading of 310 for your destination"; but he cannot say,
"N12345, fly heading 310, vector to your destination".
>
> All I'll say is it could happen. You asked which I thought applied.
> I still say all of them could at some time or another.
>
I see. You believe it, you just can't articulate why you believe it. I try
to avoid arguing matters of faith.
>
> Hmmm. It appears that you feel free to add words to subparagraph (g)...
> the word "only" does not appear in subparagraph (g). It does appear
> in subparagraph (b), but that is specifically refering to Class G
> airspace.
>
Subparagraph (g) tells controllers what locations they CAN initiate vectors
for VFR aircraft, and Class E airspace ain't one of 'em.
>
> And, once again, the FAA Order 7110.65 applies to ATC.
> The FAR's still govern pilot actions. I have already stated
> what I think the FAR's tell the pilot to do.
>
You stated it, but you didn't offer a cogent argument in support of your
position.
>
> I guess I could construe that to be an emergency requiring immediate
> action (I admit it's a stretch).
>
Why would that be construed as as emergency requiring immediate action? I
hold an instrument rating, I'm current, the airplane is properly equipped.
There's certainly no emergency, but I have busted FAR 91.155. According to
your stated position, I had no choice; if I didn't bust 91.155, I'd be
charged with busting 91.123(b).
>
> You seem to think that ATC is out to either kill VFR pilots in Class
> E airspace or cause them to violate FAR's.
>
Quite the contrary, recall that I also posted the following four days ago:
FAA Order 7110.65 places substantial limits on the authority of ATC in
various situations. Paragraph 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE states, in part:
"Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and
minima in this order except when:
a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the United States provides air
traffic control service in airspace outside the United States and it's
possessions or:
NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFR's or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order."
I understand that ATC cannot require you to do something which would be a
violation
of an FAR; I've been struggling, and apparently failing, to convey that fact
to you.
>
> If faced with an ATC instruction that would cause my death or an
> unsafe or illegal condition, I will tell them so. I can't imagine them
> insisting that I do it anyway! It's not "us vs. them" up there...you
> seem to view ATC as a threat to your flying...I see them as a
> valuable resource. Oh well.
>
Thank you, I appreciate that. I've been a controller for over fifteen
years, nine years at Chicago ARTCC and six and a half years at Green Bay
tower/TRACON. Green Bay has Class C airspace, one of "those locations where
a special program is established" for VFR aircraft we talked about earlier.
>
> Good for you, but you don't seem to read very accurately. Powerful
> words like "only" in regulations are important and shouldn't be
> misplaced.
>
Actually, I read quite accurately. Read the paragraph again. It tells
controllers where they may initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft. As Class E
airspace is not one of them, my statement is entirely correct.
>
> I can say that because there is no "only" in the regulation you posted.
> It seems to me that any one of the subparagraphs provide justification
> for vectoring.
>
I didn't say it was a verbatim quote. My statement was accurate, the fact
that you don't understand the paragraph does not change that.
>
> Actually, I disagree.
>
I assure you, as ATC instructions go, they are equally valid. ATC does not
have the authority to issue either one.
>
> I don't recall any authority of ATC to
> control the attitude and control deflections of an aircraft.
> After all, the pilot is flying.
>
But you believe ATC has the authority to require VFR aircraft to fly
specific headings in Class E airspace. I see very little difference.
>
> If they want you to climb,
> you are free to pull back on the yoke and climb normally,
> or roll inverted and push on the yoke. ATC doesn't care.
>
If they want you to climb? Do you also believe ATC has the authority to
require you to fly at specific altitudes in Class E airspace?
>
> Once again, this is silliness.
>
I agree. I was using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.
>
> I guess in this case, you're technically screwed either way. If
> you follow the instruction and violate the FAR, you could try
> and blame the controller. But the FAA would likely hit you
> with the PIC having final authority, so you may get busted for
> it.
>
No, you're not screwed either way. ATC cannot require you to do anything
that would force you to violate an FAR, that's right out of the book. Nor
can they require VFR aircraft to fly at specific altitudes or on specific
headings in Class E airspace. I don't know where you ever got the idea they
could.
>
> On the other hand, if you refuse to comply with the instruction,
> you could claim an emergency. As PIC, it's up to you what
> constitutes an emergency. I think this would be more defendable
> on the ground.
>
You don't have to have an emergency to refuse an instruction that ATC hasn't
the authority to issue.
>
> I would first state to ATC that I was unable. If they
> didn't accept that, I would have a decision to make.
>
> I just can't imagine having a sparring match like you envision
> with ATC. I've always been able to reach amicable agreements
> with ATC, whether VFR or IFR.
>
I hope you understand that this is all hypothetical. As no competent
controller is going to initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft in Class E
airspace, there is nothing here to spar over.
James M. Knox
>I'd say "or when a pilot requests" applies to VFR aircraft in Class E
>airspace, but I don't see how the others could. How could "separation"
>apply? There is no separation for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace (unless
>that Class E airspace is also the Outer Area associated with Class C
>airspace, or a TRSA). What "operational advantage" could be gained for the
>controller by vectoring a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace? "Noise
>abatement"? "Safety"? Please explain.
I assume by "outer area" you are referring to the area beyond the 10 nm ring
out to 30 or so miles? If so, then yes, our AUS approach control vectors
VFR aircraft out there all the time. Frequently annoying, as when you call 20
nm out because you really wanted to transit the Class-C airspace. They anwer
(with your call sign) and, once radar contact is verified, start giving you
vectors in 10 degree increments --- all the way around the outer ring of the
Class-C.
It would be much nicer if they would simply TELL you that they are not going
to allow you into the Class-C. Then you could go under or over. But usually
by the time you figure out that they have no intention of letting you in, you
are already so far around that it no longer matters.
[Good bunch of controllers we have at AUS (for another 24 hours). Just a
little "quirk" they have.]
jmk
Steven P. McNicoll
James M. Knox <tri...@realtime.net> wrote in message
news:3736e...@feed1.realtime.net...
>
> This has been an issue of interpretation by NTSB and, like so many issues,
> that interpretation has changed over the years.
>
> 10 years ago it was VERY clear that a pilot was responsible for verifying
> that any necessary permissions, clearances, etc. were obtained prior to
> entering any area requiring such. Vectors, specifically, were not
> considered adequate and a number of pilots were violated for entering
> Class-B (TCA) areas based on a controllers vector. A few cases also
> involved restricted and/or prohibited areas (doesn't seem to happen
> very often, and so there were very few cases).
>
Let's say I'm on an IFR clearance and my route takes me close to Class B
airspace. Approach issues a vector for traffic that takes me into Class B
airspace. Have I violated FAR 91.133(a) upon crossing the Class B boundary?
Should I have refused the vector? Would refusing the vector be a violation
of FAR 91.123(b)?
Let's say I'm on an IFR clearance and my route takes me close to a
Restricted Area. Center, which is the controlling agency of this Restricted
Area, issues a vector for traffic that takes me into the Restricted Area.
Have I violated FAR 91.131(a)(1) upon crossing the peripheral boundary of
the Restricted Area? Should I have refused the vector? Would refusing the
vector be a violation of FAR 91.123(b)?
>
> Over the years the NTSB has been more and more prone to place the
> burden on the controller. Some of this is now codified -- I believe a
> controller vector by a TRACON always covers entry into a Class-D
> even without the pilot contacting that controlling agency.
>
Not just by a TRACON, by ARTCCs as well. Controllers are required to
coordinate with nonapproach control towers before issuing a clearance
which would require flight within a surface area for which the tower has
responsibility, and for transit authorization for VFR aircraft if providing
radar traffic advisory service.
>
> Several pilots have had cases overturned where they entered
> Class-B airspace without specifically hearing the magic words,
> but while operating on vectors from approach control.
>
I've heard stories like this regarding VFR operations, but never for IFR
operations.
>
> The two areas where violations appear to be upheld against the pilots are:
>
> o "Long" vectors -- i.e., "Okay, barnburner 12345, now leaving LAX
> airspace, heading 090, direct TTT (DFW - Dallas, TX) when able." Six
> hundred miles later the pilot crosses an area without permission. The
> violation sticks.
>
Why would a long range vector make a difference? The vector must be
passed from controller to controller, and modified along the way if need
be. ATC is still required to clear aircraft via routes that do not overlap
the peripheral boundary of the special use airspace.
>
> o Prohibited areas -- for some reason, perhaps because ATC can not
> clear an aircraft into a prohibited area (whereas they can coordinate into
> a restricted area) the pilot is still on the hook for prohibited areas.
>
Prohibited Areas are treated the same as Restricted/Warning Areas,
MOAs, and ATCAAs; except there is a provision for clearing
nonparticipating aircraft through all but Prohibited Areas if provided
for in a letter of agreement.
>
> Accept in an emergency, when in contact with ATC a pilot may not deviate
> from instructions received..
>
I believe you're referring to FAR 91.123(b), which states; "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." What air traffic
control is exercised over VFR aircraft in Class E airspace? FAA Order
7110.65 tells controllers they can vector aircraft operating VFR at those
locations where a special program is established, or when a pilot requests,
or when the controller suggests and the pilot concurs. Mr. Stephens said
that once outside the Class B airspace it would have been "a direct
violation to ignore the continued vectoring". How can that be? Once the
VFR aircraft is outside the Class B airspace, it is in an area where ATC may
vector it only when a pilot requests, or when the controller suggests and
the pilot concurs.
>
> BTW (thread creep), Steve, have you gotten the new 7110.65 with our
> "Compassion" call sign yet? Supposed to show up as CMF. ?
>
Call signs aren't in FAAO 7110.65, they're in FAA Handbook 7340.1,
"Contractions". I look up unknown call signs as I encounter them, I've not
seen "CMF" yet.
William J. Levenson
>
[...]
>
> I hope you understand that this is all hypothetical. As no competent
> controller is going to initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft in Class E
> airspace, there is nothing here to spar over.
Yes! That's the crux of the matter. As a controller, you say no
competent controller would do that. I say as a pilot, that if
I receive an unsolicited vector in Class E airspace, I'll comply
unless I have good reason not to. If it is an inconvenient
vector, I will ask the purpose of the vector and when I can
proceed with my own navigation. If it were an unsafe vector,
I'd explain why it is unsafe and request a change or cancellation
of the vector. Of course, I would never follow an unsafe ATC
instruction as pilot in command. Does that place me in violation
of the FAR's? In the highly theoretical case, I think it could!
I know this is just theoretical and hypothetical, but it's kinda
fun, so I'll continue...Here's my logic:
As a pilot, I need to know and comply with the FAR's. FAR Part 91
says...
"Sec. 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a} [omitted]
(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.
(c)[...]"
I can't find anywhere in the FAR's governing pilot responsibility
that provides an exception to 91.123(b). Strict interpretation
of 91.123 does not delineate, in any way, the type of aircraft
or flight rules. It simply applies "in an area in which air
traffic control is exercised." Class A, B, C, D, or E qualify
as "an area in which air traffic control is exercised." It may
be that some other rule or practice prevents ATC from giving an
unsolicited vector to a VFR pilot in Class E airspace. But,
if a pilot receives such an "ATC instruction", I'd say that
FAR 91.123(b) says he must not operate contrary to ATC instructions.
Perhaps the "out" for the VFR pilot is that he is not required to
maintain radio contact with ATC within Class E airspace. If a
vector or other instruction were given to him, he could simply
not acknowledge it and claim that he was in Class E airspace
and no longer needed to maintain radio contact. That might
be flimsy, though, if he was just talking to ATC moments before.
Another "out" for the pilot is in 91.3. Subparagraph (b) restates
the emergency priveledge to deviate from any rule. But subparagraph
(a) says, "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation
of that aircraft." That could be construed to give the pilot
authority to do just about anything he wants. But if the FAA
doesn't like what he does, they have the equally ambiguous
"reckless and dangerous" card up their sleeve.
As for FAA Order 7110.65, I'm certainly no expert, but as I read
what Stephen P. McNicoll posted, I see that Section 5-6-1 begins,
"Vector aircraft:
"a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement,
operational advantage, or
when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to
remain on their own
navigation to the extent possible."
It seems to me that this paragraph alone allows for vectoring of
aircraft in controlled airspace. Again, no reference is made to
aircraft type or flight rules. I don't see any restrictions placed
on this paragraph by any other paragraph in this section that would
prohibit vectoring VFR aircraft in Class E airspace. However,
continuing, paragraph 5-6-1(b) says,
"Vector aircraft:
[...]
b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an
additional service."
I would think that, were it intended to exclude unsolicited vectors
to VFR pilots in Class E airspace, that exclusion would appear
along with the Class G exclusion of 5-6-1(b).
5-6-1(g) sorta sounds like an attempt to specify what ATC can and
can't do to vector VFR aircraft:
""Vector aircraft:
[...]
"g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
established, or when a
pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot concurs."
But 5-6-1(a) may also be applicable and 5-6-1(g) doesn't exclude
VFR aircraft from 5-6-1(a). In fact, if it were intended to exclude
VFR aircraft, why wouldn't 5-6-1(a) specify only IFR aircraft?
Well, sorry for the rambling. I hope I'm not the only one who
finds this intellectual puzzle somewhat interesting. I believe
the controllers know what to do...Stephen McNicoll knows what to
do...and I know what to do. The only question is does the FAA
know what it wants us all to do? Sometimes, it doesn't seem like
it.
Bill Levenson
PP-ASEL-I
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I assume by "outer area" you are referring to the area beyond
> the 10 nm ring out to 30 or so miles?
>
The Outer Area extends 20 miles from the core Class C airport, an additional
10 miles from the lateral limits of Class C airspace.
>
> If so, then yes, our AUS approach control vectors VFR aircraft
> out there all the time. Frequently annoying, as when you call
> 20 nm out because you really wanted to transit the Class-C
> airspace. They anwer (with your call sign) and, once radar
> contact is verified, start giving you vectors in 10 degree
> increments --- all the way around the outer ring of the Class-C.
>
> It would be much nicer if they would simply TELL you that they
> are not going to allow you into the Class-C. Then you could
> go under or over. But usually by the time you figure out that
> they have no intention of letting you in, you are already so far
> around that it no longer matters.
>
Why don't you ask them if you can expect transition through the Class C
airspace when they begin vectoring you? If they respond in the negative,
tell them you wish to terminate Class C services. You can then proceed over
or just outside the lateral limits of Class C airspace, or under the 10 mile
ring. You just can't enter the actual Class C airspace.
Roy Smith
> airspace when they begin vectoring you? If they respond in the negative,
> tell them you wish to terminate Class C services.
I'm often frustrated by the same problem, around the New York Class B.
I'll call up New York way on the fringe of their coverage, get flight
following, and then ask, "Will I be able to get 3500 direct Teterboro
direct Carmel tonight?", and usually what I get back is, "You'll have to
make your request with the next controller". The problem is, by that
time, it's too late. If I knew 30 miles out that I wouldn't get it, I
could have gone around or over, but by the time I get close in and the
controller's trying to descend me down to 1500 or whatever, it's kind of
late for that without a major detour.
Matt Dossey
things controllers say." Although the focus was on TRSAs, not class C outer
areas, the controller who wrote the article suggested that the pilot respond
to such vectors by saying not advise approach that you are "not requesting
full separation services, just traffic advisories."
Word of caution, though. Don't argue on the radio, and you better make damn
sure you know where you are. I fly VFR cross country all the time at 1000
feet, which fits nicely under the outer shelf of most class C airspaces.
Matt
James M. Knox <tri...@realtime.net> wrote in message
news:37456...@feed1.realtime.net...
> In article <92723490...@news.remarQ.com>, "Steven P. McNicoll"
<ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd say "or when a pilot requests" applies to VFR aircraft in Class E
> >airspace, but I don't see how the others could. How could "separation"
> >apply? There is no separation for VFR aircraft in Class E airspace
(unless
> >that Class E airspace is also the Outer Area associated with Class C
> >airspace, or a TRSA). What "operational advantage" could be gained for
the
> >controller by vectoring a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace? "Noise
> >abatement"? "Safety"? Please explain.
>
> I assume by "outer area" you are referring to the area beyond the 10 nm
ring
> out to 30 or so miles? If so, then yes, our AUS approach control vectors
> VFR aircraft out there all the time. Frequently annoying, as when you
call 20
> nm out because you really wanted to transit the Class-C airspace. They
anwer
> (with your call sign) and, once radar contact is verified, start giving
you
> vectors in 10 degree increments --- all the way around the outer ring of
the
> Class-C.
>
> It would be much nicer if they would simply TELL you that they are not
going
> to allow you into the Class-C. Then you could go under or over. But
usually
> by the time you figure out that they have no intention of letting you in,
you
> are already so far around that it no longer matters.
>
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I know this is just theoretical and hypothetical, but it's kinda
> fun, so I'll continue...Here's my logic:
>
> As a pilot, I need to know and comply with the FAR's. FAR Part 91
> says...
>
> (b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an
> air traffic control is exercised.
>
> I can't find anywhere in the FAR's governing pilot responsibility
> that provides an exception to 91.123(b). Strict interpretation
> of 91.123 does not delineate, in any way, the type of aircraft
> or flight rules. It simply applies "in an area in which air
> traffic control is exercised." Class A, B, C, D, or E qualify
> as "an area in which air traffic control is exercised." It may
> be that some other rule or practice prevents ATC from giving an
> unsolicited vector to a VFR pilot in Class E airspace. But,
> if a pilot receives such an "ATC instruction", I'd say that
>
Well, this takes us right back to where we started; what is meant by "an
area in which air traffic control is exercised"? Here's what FAAO 7110.65
says about it:
2-1 -1. ATC SERVICE
The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between
aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of
traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the
capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as
the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller
workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized
that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of
services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the
aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service
procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the
part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation
permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures and minima in this order except when:
a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the United States provides air
traffic control service in airspace outside the United States and its
possessions or:
NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFR's or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.
b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement, FAA
directive, or a military document, or:
NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling, fighter
interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, PROCEDURAL LETTERS OFAGREEMENT, Para 1-1 -8.
c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency has
been declared.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, SAFETY ALERT, Para 2-1-6
FAAO 7110.65, EMERGENCIES, Chapter 10.
FAAO 7110.65, MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES, Para 5-1-8.
So a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace that is receiving flight following is
not participating at all in the primary purpose of the ATC system, it is
receiving an additional service that may be discontinued anytime conditions
make it necessary to do so. The "tools" the controller uses aren't
applicable to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace; you can't assign routes,
altitudes, headings, etc. And that is as it should be, as there would be no
purpose for ATC to assign any of them in Class E airspace anyway. From the
viewpoint of ATC, as far as VFR operations go, the difference between Class
E and Class G airspace is insignificant. I think it logical to conclude
that , as far as VFR operations are concerned, Class E airspace is NOT an
area in which air traffic control is exercised. You may hold a different
opinion, but let me ask you this; what properly-issued ATC instruction could
a VFR pilot in Class E airspace be given to operate contrary to?
>
> Another "out" for the pilot is in 91.3. Subparagraph (b) restates
> the emergency priveledge to deviate from any rule. But subparagraph
> (a) says, "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
> responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation
> of that aircraft." That could be construed to give the pilot
> authority to do just about anything he wants.
>
FAR 91.3 permits the PIC to deviate from any rule of Part 91 only in an
in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, and only to the extent
required to meet that emergency. If you don't have such an emergency,
you've got to adhere to all of the rules.
>
> But if the FAA doesn't like what he does, they have the equally
> ambiguous "reckless and dangerous" card up their sleeve.
>
In my opinion, violations of FAR 91.13 are charged far too often. Even if I
do something which most folks would consider careless or reckless, as long
as I haven't endangered the life or property of another, there's no
violation of FAR 91.13.
>
> As for FAA Order 7110.65, I'm certainly no expert, but as I read
> what Stephen P. McNicoll posted, I see that Section 5-6-1 begins,
> "Vector aircraft:
>
> "a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement,
> operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft
> operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to
> the extent possible."
>
> It seems to me that this paragraph alone allows for vectoring of
> aircraft in controlled airspace.
>
Yes it does, for the purposes stated.
>
> Again, no reference is made to aircraft type or flight rules. I
> don't see any restrictions placed on this paragraph by any
> other paragraph in this section that would prohibit vectoring
> VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
>
Subparagraph (g) permits vectoring of VFR aircraft in Class E airspace only
when a pilot requests it, or when a controller suggests it and the pilot
concurs.
>
> However, continuing, paragraph 5-6-1(b) says,
>
> "Vector aircraft:
> [...]
> b. In Class G airspace only upon pilot request and as an
> additional service."
>
> I would think that, were it intended to exclude unsolicited vectors
> to VFR pilots in Class E airspace, that exclusion would appear
> along with the Class G exclusion of 5-6-1(b).
>
If it was written that way, then ATC could not vector participating aircraft
in a TRSA or in the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace.
>
> 5-6-1(g) sorta sounds like an attempt to specify what ATC can
> and can't do to vector VFR aircraft:
>
Not "sorta", that's exactly what it is.
>
> "Vector aircraft:
> [...]
> g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program
> is established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the
> pilot concurs."
>
> But 5-6-1(a) may also be applicable
>
5-6-1(a) IS also applicable, it states what aircraft can be vectored for in
controlled airspace. Aircraft can be vectored for separation in controlled
airspace, for example. In Class E airspace, separation applies only to IFR
and SVFR aircraft, as VFR aircraft are not provided separation in Class E
airspace.
>
> and 5-6-1(g) doesn't exclude
> VFR aircraft from 5-6-1(a).
>
Of course not, 5-6-1(g) permits vectoring of aircraft operating VFR at those
locations where a special program is established. VFR aircraft are provided
separation in Class B and Class C airspace, in the Outer Area associated
with Class C airspace, and in a TRSA; so VFR aircraft can be vectored for
separation in that airspace. Some locations have noise abatement procedures
established, and VFR aircraft can be vectored at those locations for noise
abatement. But those locations are pretty much all in Class B and C
airspace, I don't think you'll find any noise abatement procedures at
locations in Class E airspace. The reasons that ATC can vector aircraft for
don't apply to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace, because "those locations
where a special program is established" don't exist in Class E airspace,
(save for the already mentioned exceptions). So that leaves "when a pilot
requests, or you suggest and the pilot concurs".
>
> In fact, if it were intended to exclude VFR aircraft,
> why wouldn't 5-6-1(a) specify only IFR aircraft?
>
Because that would prevent vectoring of VFR aircraft anywhere. There are
locations where vectoring of VFR aircraft is necessary to properly provide
required ATC services, such as for separation in Class B and Class C
airspace, etc.
William W. Plummer
safe conduct of the flight.
--Bill
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message <92738305...@news.remarQ.com>...
Gregory Travis
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>The "tools" the controller uses aren't
>applicable to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace; you can't assign routes,
>altitudes, headings, etc. And that is as it should be, as there would be no
>purpose for ATC to assign any of them in Class E airspace anyway. From the
>viewpoint of ATC, as far as VFR operations go, the difference between Class
>E and Class G airspace is insignificant. I think it logical to conclude
>that , as far as VFR operations are concerned, Class E airspace is NOT an
>area in which air traffic control is exercised. You may hold a different
>opinion, but let me ask you this; what properly-issued ATC instruction could
>a VFR pilot in Class E airspace be given to operate contrary to?
...
>Subparagraph (g) permits vectoring of VFR aircraft in Class E airspace only
>when a pilot requests it, or when a controller suggests it and the pilot
>concurs.
Steven,
What's your take on the following situation: 99 times out of 100, I have
the following conversation with IND approach when landing at IND and
they're landing on 23L and 23R:
"Indianapolis Approach, Cessna 5457E"
"Cessna 5457E go ahead"
"5457E is a C-172, 25 miles southwest, 2000', landing Indianapolis,
India"
"5457E, remain VFR, climb and maintain 3000', fly heading 050"
Note that 25 miles southwest at 2000' puts me right smack in class E
airspace.
The 3000' and 050 are automatic. They always want you at 3000 and
paralleling the runway on a very wide downwind.
As a pilot I've never requested these vectors, unless calling a
class C approach facility constitutes a implicit request for vectors.
So is this improper form on the part of IND, did I implicitly request
those vectors, and/or do I have to comply with them? If I don't comply,
what is the likely outcome?
greg
--
gregory travis | [MS Vice President] Brian Valentine characterized Linux as
gr...@littlebear.com| "momentum without a lot of design wins" - www.idg.net
Matt Dossey
like that, the controller gives me a squawk and says "say request," with
which I may or may not request vectors, and the controller usually comes
back with "report xyz in sight" so they can cancel my radar services.
In the situation you described, if you did not want that vector and
altitude, just tell them you would like to remain at 2000 and proceed VFR
until you were a bit closer to the field. Now, keep in mind that the
controller is not trying to make your life hard intentionally; he's just
vectoring aircraft for sequencing, and because you're landing at a primary
airport, you may not get your request when you need to get inside the class
C. The controller has every right to issue you a VFR holding restriction.
So, take your pick, I suppose.
Matt
Woody
<ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>So a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace that is receiving flight following is
>not participating at all in the primary purpose of the ATC system, it is
>receiving an additional service that may be discontinued anytime conditions
>make it necessary to do so. The "tools" the controller uses aren't
>applicable to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace; you can't assign routes,
>altitudes, headings, etc. And that is as it should be, as there would be no
>purpose for ATC to assign any of them in Class E airspace anyway. From the
>viewpoint of ATC, as far as VFR operations go, the difference between Class
>E and Class G airspace is insignificant. I think it logical to conclude
>that , as far as VFR operations are concerned, Class E airspace is NOT an
>area in which air traffic control is exercised. You may hold a different
>opinion, but let me ask you this; what properly-issued ATC instruction could
>a VFR pilot in Class E airspace be given to operate contrary to?
I have been given a vector, by an approach controller to a Class C
area while I was in Class E airspace while on Flight Following.
I posted the question a while back to this group, as to what my
options might have been. When I was handed off to him, he gave me a
vector which sent me around the lateral border of the Class C, even
though I was well above the ceiling of the Class C. He said it was to
get me out of the way of incoming traffic. I would say it added at
least 20 miles to my route. I figured I could have just said cancel
Flight Following, changed to 1200 and effectively told him to screw
himself, but I went ahead and followed his request. Maybe he was one
of the incompetent ones..
BDWood
Rich Hare
from a controller, but once you DO accept it you have to comply with it.
Now, if you don't accept a particular clearance, the controller may have
limited choices to offer you of alternative clearances. But keep in
mind, he/she is NOT a mind reader, has very little idea of your
capability, and even what your present weather conditions are. I've
always found that I could negotiate clearances which gave ME what I
wanted while simultaneously giving the controller what HE/SHE needs to
sequence traffic safely.
Matt Dossey
talking about unsolicited VFR radar vectors in class E airspace and ways to
avoid complying with them (as terrible as that sounds). Steven brings up a
good point, however ambiguous in the 7110.65, about the fact that
controllers can't issue vectors in class E airspace without pilot
concurrence.
For IFR clearances, you are absolutely correct.
Matt
Rich Hare <rh...@mich.com> wrote in message news:374850...@mich.com...
rosco
>
>
>Let's say I'm on an IFR clearance and my route takes me close to Class B
>airspace. Approach issues a vector for traffic that takes me into Class B
>airspace. Have I violated FAR 91.133(a) upon crossing the Class B boundary?
>Should I have refused the vector? Would refusing the vector be a violation
>of FAR 91.123(b)?
>
>Let's say I'm on an IFR clearance and my route takes me close to a
>Restricted Area. Center, which is the controlling agency of this Restricted
>Area, issues a vector for traffic that takes me into the Restricted Area.
>Have I violated FAR 91.131(a)(1) upon crossing the peripheral boundary of
>the Restricted Area? Should I have refused the vector? Would refusing the
>vector be a violation of FAR 91.123(b)?
>
If you are on an IFR clearance, the controller is totally responsible for any
and all airspace separation. This includes ALL airspace, military, class
whatever, parachute jumping, etc. If I allow you to fly through R6714,
irregardless if you filed thorough it, it's my deal not yours. Of course, if
the airspace is not in use, we can vector you through it with no fear. Some
centers treat airspace hot regardless if it's in use or not. Others only
release the space to users on a real time basis. Just because it's NOTAMed in
use doesn't mean it's currently in use. We take airspace back for use whenever
possible.
Dan Rollins Seattle ARTCC
(Anti-spam address -- remove the word nospam from the return address)
Attention spammers: this e-mail address resides in the
State of Washington. Unsolicited E-Mail is subject to fines
of $500 per message to me and $1000 per message to my ISP.
You've been warned!
Standard Disclaimer Applies---Personal thoughts that may not
apply to the Federal Aviation Administration!!!
Ronald van Riet
a bit different).
I was flying an IFR flightplan from Rotterdam (Netherlands) to Shoreham
(UK). Normally GA traffic is kept clear of the London TMA which has its
floor at 2500 ft at the lowest parts so they put me at 2400 ft.
I had filed to a beacon just inside the Gatwick TMA (GND - 2500 ft) and had
been "cleaared as filed".
As we were about to enter the Gatwick TMA, I was discussing this situation
with my co-pilot and concluded that since we were on an IF plan (albeit in
VMC) it was the controller's responsibility.
After landing at Shoreham I was called to the tower because some London
controller wanted to speak to me.
He was very angry that I had violated the TMA and wanted to know why I had
done so.
My explanation calmed him down some and then it turned out it was all a big
mistake: I had been in contact with London Information which is *not* a true
controller although they normally handle IF traffic but only outside of
controlled airspace. He shouldn't have let me fly into the controlled
airspace but he probably felt that I knew he couldn't clear me to enter the
TMA and that it was my responsibility to stay clear.
Anyway, I agreed to always positively confirm any clearance into any
controlled airspace to keep controllers from sending me into potential
problems without fully realizing what they are doing.
This is fully in line with my standing habit of always explicitly confirming
anything that seems out of the ordinary just to make sure I have understood
correctly.
ga...@tyrellnet.com wrote in message <3733a0a1...@news.supernews.com>...
>Does anyone know if a clearance through a restricted area relieves the
>pilot of maintaining seperation from said airspace? To clarify, I
>flew IFR weeks back and the flight took me across the Chesapeke
>Bay. The filed plan was ...ENO V268... but 5 west of ENO I got direct
>BAL which cuts through Aberdeen's R-4001B. According to the Low Alt
>Enroute chart it was active at the time and altitude.
>
>Do controllers forget sometimes or do they coordinate the passage?
>Any pointers or regs would be appreciated.
Steven P. McNicoll
Gregory Travis <gr...@sherrill.kiva.net> wrote in message
news:7i6l8l$r35$1...@sherrill.kiva.net...
> In article <92738305...@news.remarQ.com>,
>
> Steven,
>
> What's your take on the following situation: 99 times out of 100, I have
> the following conversation with IND approach when landing at IND and
> they're landing on 23L and 23R:
>
> "Indianapolis Approach, Cessna 5457E"
>
> "Cessna 5457E go ahead"
>
> India"
>
> "5457E, remain VFR, climb and maintain 3000', fly heading 050"
>
> Note that 25 miles southwest at 2000' puts me right smack in class E
> airspace.
>
> The 3000' and 050 are automatic. They always want you at 3000 and
> paralleling the runway on a very wide downwind.
>
> As a pilot I've never requested these vectors, unless calling a
> class C approach facility constitutes a implicit request for vectors.
>
Basically, it does. Calling a facility that has Class C airspace implies
you want Class C services, Class C services include sequencing of all
aircraft to the primary airport and separation between IFR and VFR aircraft.
Vectoring is one of the tools used to achieve these things.
>
> So is this improper form on the part of IND, did I implicitly request
> those vectors, and/or do I have to comply with them? If I don't comply,
> what is the likely outcome?
>
It's hard to give a definitive answer here, I'm not at all familiar with
operations at IND.
Did you implicitly request the vectors? The short answer is yes, IND must
sequence all aircraft to the primary airport and vectors are a good way to
do that. But Class C services are to be provided in the Class C airspace
and in the Outer Area, when you're 25 miles out I don't believe you're in
either one. Also, I don't see what can be accomplished by climbing you from
2000' to 3000'.
Do you have to comply with the vectors? No, you're free to decline Class C
services when you're outside Class C airspace. But if you do that approach
will probably respond with "remain outside Charlie airspace, squawk VFR,
have a good day", or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Steven P. McNicoll
Woody <wo...@home.com> wrote in message news:37476649.21684644@news...
>
> I have been given a vector, by an approach controller to a Class C
> area while I was in Class E airspace while on Flight Following.
>
> I posted the question a while back to this group, as to what my
> options might have been. When I was handed off to him, he gave me a
> vector which sent me around the lateral border of the Class C, even
> though I was well above the ceiling of the Class C. He said it was to
> get me out of the way of incoming traffic. I would say it added at
> least 20 miles to my route. I figured I could have just said cancel
> Flight Following, changed to 1200 and effectively told him to screw
> himself, but I went ahead and followed his request.
>
As long as you were not in Class C airspace, you were free to do exactly
that.
Roger Halstead
the exception of pattern instructions...one particular example from abut 7
or 8 years back comes to mind.
The weather just barely VFR (IE they were still calling it VFR and not MVFR)
with about a 2500 foot celing. I was approaching Fort Wayne from the north
at roughly 2000 AGL. About five miles out I received a *request* from
approach to make a left turn to take me around their traffic pattern. It
was phrased specifficly as a request and not a directive although I'd think
they could have given me a directive in that location<G>
Typically about the only directives I've ever received using flight
following were to keep me out of a particular airspace such as "Avoid the
class C airspace", or something similar that left the routing to me. They
didn't care if I went around, or over, just so long as I stayed out of their
busy airspace.
IFR, I request and they tell<G>. I can ask for a better/prefered/different
route and hope they give it to me.
Roger
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
William J. Levenson <ss8...@ast.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3745FD8E...@ast.lmco.com...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
<Whole bunch snipped for brevity>
> Bill Levenson
> PP-ASEL-I
Stan Gosnell
>When it comes to vectoring VFR aircraft through a particular airspace (with
>the exception of pattern instructions...one particular example from abut 7
>or 8 years back comes to mind.
>
>The weather just barely VFR (IE they were still calling it VFR and not MVFR)
MVFR is a term used only by NWS. It has no regulatory meaning at all.
Airspace is either VFR or IFR, never MVFR.
--
Regards,
Stan
William J. Levenson
>
> Well, this takes us right back to where we started; what is meant by "an
> area in which air traffic control is exercised"? Here's what FAAO 7110.65
> says about it:
>
Thanks for bringing this back to the basic question, because this
is exactly where I'm still stuck. The sentence you quoted is from
the FAR describing an "area" in which a pilot must follow ATC
instructions unless an emergency exists. It is directed at pilot
responsibilities.
It is a straight forward statement. It describes an area. A
characteristic of that area is that air traffic control is
exercised within it. Period. As a pilot, I read that and
determine that air traffic control is exercised in some form
in all areas except Class G airspace. Therefore, as a pilot,
I must not operate contrary to an ATC instruction I receive
within airspace that is not Class G.
The FAR statement does not provide an exception based on the
rules under which the flight is conducted (e.g., IFR, VFR).
Nor, is any reference made to the authority of ATC to
issue instructions.
Even if FAAO 7110.65 states that controllers can't issue
instructions to certain aircraft in certain areas except
under certain conditions, the FAR 91.123 still compels the
pilot to adhere to instructions from ATC when in an area
that air traffic control is exercised. I assume that the
writers of the regulation determined that it is better for
a pilot to follow an ATC instruction without regard to
ATC's right to issue that instruction (assuming no
emergency precludes it), rather than having pilots
disobey valid ATC instructions because the pilot believes
that ATC has overstepped it's authority.
A pilot is required to know the FAR's. Is a pilot required
or expected to know all the rules and authorities that
ATC operates under? I say no. Therefore, it is prudent
that a pilot obey ATC instructions in areas where air
traffic control is exercized, since disobeying an instruction
based on ATC's authority to issue it implies that the pilot
knows ATC authority better than ATC.
The above does not preclude the pilot from questioning ATC.
But I say, if ATC insists, the pilot must comply (short of
an emergency). The pilot can sort it out on the ground later.
I guess one message that ATC should get from this discussion
is, "Don't issue aircraft instructions frivolously, because
we pilot are compelled by regulation to follow them, absent
an emergency." (e.g. don't say "roll inverted an pull" :-)
Bill Levenson
PP-ASEL-IA
Stan March
Are we talking about C space or B space? The articles here referenced C space
in which no clearance is required, only contact with ATC.
As far as getting a clearance into Bravo space in the NY area, it's been my
experience that you will get it or not get it within 2-5 miles from entering
the 20 mile limit.
You know the saying, if you want to play, you got to pay. Payback in the NY
TRACON is being good enough to be cleared into Bravo space within a few miles
or be denied and YOU have the alternate plan in hand. That's about it.
Not getting clearance to TEB from HPN in Bravo airspace is only a right turn
and decend to 2950' for you. Shouldn't be a problem for you, especially as
you grew up aviation wise in the area!
So have you moved into your new home?
Stan
Rich Ahrens
> I have been given a vector, by an approach controller to a Class C
> area while I was in Class E airspace while on Flight Following.
Similar instance happened to me Monday. I was using VFR flight following
and center handed me off to Des Moines approach for part of my route. I
was going nowhere near the DSM Class C. I was at least 30 miles out and
headed away when the approach controller started getting on my case
about altitude. There was an AIRMET out for moderate turbulence and it
was accurate - I was getting thoroughly bounced all over the place and
could barely hold +/- 300 feet of my 4500 cruise altitude. Approach
questioned me several times about my altitude and finally instructed me
to maintain 4500. As far as I could tell, he had zero authority to do
so, but I wanted to continue flight following so I played along as well
as I could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Smith
> Approach questioned me several times about my altitude and finally
> instructed me to maintain 4500. As far as I could tell, he had zero
> authority to do so, but I wanted to continue flight following so
> I played along as well as I could.
If the guy's going to play pretend-IFR with you by trying to assign you an
altitude in Class E, play pretend-IFR back. "Request block altitude 4500
to 5500 due to turbulence". That request is pretty meaningless, but no
more so than his instruction :-)
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Tarver Engineering
William J. Levenson wrote in message <374C5173...@ast.lmco.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> Well, this takes us right back to where we started; what is meant by "an
>> area in which air traffic control is exercised"? Here's what FAAO
7110.65
>> says about it:
>Even if FAAO 7110.65 states that controllers can't issue
>instructions to certain aircraft in certain areas except
>under certain conditions, the FAR 91.123 still compels the
>pilot to adhere to instructions from ATC when in an area
>that air traffic control is exercised.
The FAA Order is FAA written policy that applies to Air Traffic Controllers
and it is not regulatory. The Order does define the regulatory authority of
controllers, but FAR Part 91 is regulatory and the law for any person under
the Administrative control of FAA. (ie pilot)
John
Rich Ahrens
> If the guy's going to play pretend-IFR with you by trying to assign you an
> altitude in Class E, play pretend-IFR back. "Request block altitude 4500
> to 5500 due to turbulence". That request is pretty meaningless, but no
> more so than his instruction :-)
That would have been amusing, sure enough...
Brad Burtner
> Gregory Travis <gr...@sherrill.kiva.net> wrote in message
> news:7i6l8l$r35$1...@sherrill.kiva.net...
> > In article <92738305...@news.remarQ.com>,
> >
> > Steven,
> >
> > What's your take on the following situation: 99 times out of 100, I have
> > the following conversation with IND approach when landing at IND and
> > they're landing on 23L and 23R:
> >
> > "Indianapolis Approach, Cessna 5457E"
> >
> > "Cessna 5457E go ahead"
> >
> > "5457E is a C-172, 25 miles southwest, 2000', landing Indianapolis,
> > India"
> >
> > "5457E, remain VFR, climb and maintain 3000', fly heading 050"
> >
> > Note that 25 miles southwest at 2000' puts me right smack in class E
> > airspace.
> Also, I don't see what can be accomplished by climbing you from
> 2000' to 3000'.
I am not familiar with IND airspace, but my guess would be for radar coverage in
the particular quadrant you were in, or the minimum vectoring altitude for that
particular area, since you were issued a vector.
Brad
Steven P. McNicoll
Rich Ahrens <r...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:374D4EA9...@visi.com...
>
> Similar instance happened to me Monday. I was using VFR flight following
> and center handed me off to Des Moines approach for part of my route. I
> was going nowhere near the DSM Class C. I was at least 30 miles out and
> headed away when the approach controller started getting on my case
> about altitude. There was an AIRMET out for moderate turbulence and it
> was accurate - I was getting thoroughly bounced all over the place and
> questioned me several times about my altitude and finally instructed me
> to maintain 4500. As far as I could tell, he had zero authority to do
> so, but I wanted to continue flight following so I played along as well
> as I could.
>
ATC may assign altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B airspace, Class C
airspace (and the Outer Area), and in a TRSA. I seem to recall from earlier
versions of FAA Order 7110.65 that controllers were to remind VFR pilots of
proper cruise altitudes if need be when providing flight following, but I
cannot find it in the current order.
Rich Ahrens
> ATC may assign altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B airspace, Class C
> airspace (and the Outer Area), and in a TRSA. I seem to recall from earlier
> versions of FAA Order 7110.65 that controllers were to remind VFR pilots of
> proper cruise altitudes if need be when providing flight following, but I
> cannot find it in the current order.
Well, I was in none of the airspaces listed. And while he may remind me
of the hemispheric rule, I don't see any way he had the authority to
tell me to maintain a specific altitude.
Steven P. McNicoll
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > ATC may assign altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B airspace, Class C
> > airspace (and the Outer Area), and in a TRSA. I seem to recall from
earlier
> > versions of FAA Order 7110.65 that controllers were to remind VFR pilots
of
> > proper cruise altitudes if need be when providing flight following, but
I
> > cannot find it in the current order.
> >
>
> Well, I was in none of the airspaces listed.
>
So you said.
>
> And while he may remind me of the hemispheric rule,
> I don't see any way he had the authority to tell me to
> maintain a specific altitude.
>
He didn't.
Roger Halstead
(for VFR). Actually I was flying the airway on a Lake crossing flight plan
and the entire conversation sounded like an IFR flight.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
Rich Ahrens <r...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:374DB929...@visi.com...
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > If the guy's going to play pretend-IFR with you by trying to assign you
an
> > altitude in Class E, play pretend-IFR back. "Request block altitude
4500
> > to 5500 due to turbulence". That request is pretty meaningless, but no
> > more so than his instruction :-)
>
> That would have been amusing, sure enough...
>
Steven P. McNicoll
Brad Burtner <bradb...@nospam.fuse.net> wrote in message
news:374F4BDB...@nospam.fuse.net...
>
> I am not familiar with IND airspace, but my guess would be
> for radar coverage in the particular quadrant you were in,
> or the minimum vectoring altitude for that particular area,
> since you were issued a vector.
>
A climb for radar coverage? I don't think so, the fact that he was issued a
heading to fly implies that he was already in radar contact. The MVA does
not matter with VFR aircraft, VFR aircraft not at an altitude assigned by
ATC can be vectored at any altitude.
Gregory Travis
It's not for radar coverage. They can see you quite easily below 2,000'
in that area (this IS Indiana after all). 3,000' just seems to be what
they prefer. Possibly to lessen noise pollution over downtown IND,
possibly because that's close to the glideslope intercept alt for
23R/L. I have no idea.
Roger Halstead
> In article <92833182...@news.remarQ.com>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> >Brad Burtner <bradb...@nospam.fuse.net> wrote in message
> >news:374F4BDB...@nospam.fuse.net...
> >>
Around here it's quite common for VFR aircraft to be give a climb to 3,000
/3500 to keep them out of the control zone. Otherwise they will issue a
series of vectors to get the aircraft around their area.
Roger
Steven P. McNicoll
Roger Halstead <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:BmJ53.1398$T24.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> Around here it's quite common for VFR aircraft to be give a
> Otherwise they will issue a series of vectors to get the
> aircraft around their area.
>
Where's "around here"?