Vectors while VFR with Flight Following.
BDWood
past weekend, thought I'd tell you all what happened to me.
The trip was from MTN (just north of Baltimore, MD) up to HYA (We all
know that is Hyannis by now, don't we?) on a direct VFR flight. I
generally fly VFR if the weather is at all cooperating through this
Northeast area because I do so much like going direct, and because
this route passes right through Philadelphia, New York, etc. all the
way out, VFR gets me there much quicker. I do use Flight Following,
because I like letting the good ATC folks know what I'm doing.
Well, I'm about 20 minutes out of my destination having just descended
from 11,500 down to 5,500, over the water somewhere around Block
Island I think, when the Providence approach controller mentioned when
I first checked in with her that I might need to turn right to avoid
some traffic. My reply was something like, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." To
which she didn't reply. About a minute later, she said, "Seneca 86BW,
I need you to turn right heading 180 traffic avoidance." Well, I had
been heading 070 or so, and now I am being told to make a 110 degree
turn away from my destination. I've been asked to make minor course
corrections before...10 or 20 degrees, and have always complied, but
this was a little unusual. I did make the turn, and was kept on that
heading for several minutes, before being told I could then resume my
on course heading. BTW, I was in Class E.
Well, this proceeded to burn me more and more through the rest of that
evening, and over the weekend. I'm used to getting that when IFR,
but not VFR.
Well, I called Providence Approach Control this afternoon and
mentioned to the person who answered the phone that I had a
communications issue over the weekend that I wanted to talk to
somebody about, and wasn't sure if I needed a supervisor, or
what...and after being told to hang on a second, I hear in the
background as the guy says "I've got an irate pilot here demanding to
talk to a supervisor." Well, that's a nice intro. When the
supervisor came on I laughed and told him that I was NOT an irate
pilot, just had a question. Anyway..
I described the situation to him, and he did seem somewhat surprised,
and said that it was definitely NOT their practice, nor was it
appropriate for the controller to vector me around like that. He was
very understanding of my complaint, and I was not trying to be an
a**hole about it, but just wanted to find out what the deal was. He
took down all the information I could provide as far as time,
location, N number, etc...and he asked if I would require a follow up
on the resolution of the matter, and I responded that I didn't. He
assured me that they would look at the tapes and see what happened,
and if it was as I described, the controller would be told that it was
certainly not appropriate to have given me a vector 110 degrees and
many miles out of my way. In fact, it isn't really appropriate for
VFR traffic to get 'vectored' at all.
I'm happy to leave it at that, as he did seem sincerely interested in
following up, and because God knows that I'm not looking for
controllers to make official issues out of every minor mistake that we
pilots make. Generally, they're pretty happy to talk to you about a
problem, but aren't prone to report you to any official authority. I
didn't want anything nasty to happen, just to see if we could all be
on the same page.
Next time, my response to any similar request will simply be to cancel
flight following, and to squawk 1200.
Any suggestions on what might have been a better way to handle this?
BDWood
RossPilot
>Next time, my response to any similar request will simply be to cancel
>flight following, and to squawk 1200.
>
>Any suggestions on what might have been a better way to handle this?
>
>
I think you handled it just fine. And in the unlikely event it happens again, I
would comply with ATC's direction. They are, after all, trying to keep you
from meeting someone else unexpectedly. A very minor inconvenience . . . I'd
let it go.
George R. Patterson III
>
> This was discussed a while back, but after my experience with it this
> past weekend, thought I'd tell you all what happened to me.
> Any suggestions on what might have been a better way to handle this?
Sounds like you handled it quite well to me. I think that I would make
the turn in future if requested to, though. Noise avoidance, ya know.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Paul Quade
is the key paragraph to be consulted in this case.
Were you or were you not, "in an area in which air traffic control is
exercised"?
You mentioned that you were in Class E airspace and I do believe that air
traffic control -does- get exercised in Class E. See AIM 3-2-1(a)
It doesn't seem to me that it would matter whether you were IFR or not.
Once you made contact with ATC in any controlled airspace, it seems to me
there is a tacit agreement that you -will- follow their directions.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'd like to see the FAR that would
support a differing opinion.
Paul
CFI and skydiver
**********
Jim Sokoloff
> Well, I'm about 20 minutes out of my destination having just descended
> from 11,500 down to 5,500, over the water somewhere around Block
> Island I think, when the Providence approach controller mentioned when
> I first checked in with her that I might need to turn right to avoid
> some traffic. My reply was something like, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." To
> which she didn't reply. About a minute later, she said, "Seneca 86BW,
> I need you to turn right heading 180 traffic avoidance." Well, I had
> been heading 070 or so, and now I am being told to make a 110 degree
> turn away from my destination. I've been asked to make minor course
> corrections before...10 or 20 degrees, and have always complied, but
> this was a little unusual. I did make the turn, and was kept on that
> heading for several minutes, before being told I could then resume my
> on course heading. BTW, I was in Class E.
For me, the determining factor is: what were the flight conditions. MVFR
and I think I'd take the vector. Clear and a million and I'd decline the
vector in favor of looking for the traffic. It might have been a new
controller with IFR traffic around and moving you was easier than moving
them. (I believe that once you indicate that you can maintain visual
separation that ATC no longer needs the same separation standards for
IFR.)
I've flown that area a lot (based at ASH) and visibilities are often
such that seeing traffic is amazingly difficult and I'll take the
vectors everytime I can't see the traffic. As a result, PVC controllers
might be more used than most to VFR traffic taking these "courtesy and
noise abatement" vectors even when VFR. It's certainly within your
domain to decline the vector, but you may be told to go 1200 if you do.
> Well, this proceeded to burn me more and more through the rest of that
> evening, and over the weekend. I'm used to getting that when IFR,
> but not VFR.
Once the wheels are down at my destination, any perceived bad service
(that didn't involve safety issues) from ATC is long forgotten in my
book.
> Next time, my response to any similar request will simply be to cancel
> flight following, and to squawk 1200.
>
> Any suggestions on what might have been a better way to handle this?
If you believed that you could acquire and maintain a visual on the
traffic, "86BW looking" followed by "86BW has the traffic, will maintain
visual separation" should do it with no delay vectoring (other than what
you needed for separation).
No need to give up flight following just because a controller asked you
to do something you didn't like. (But cancelling is certainly better
than doing something unsafe, or something that will get you so riled up
that you'll be unsafe. :-) )
---Jim
BDWood
wrote:
>For me, the determining factor is: what were the flight conditions. MVFR
>and I think I'd take the vector. Clear and a million and I'd decline the
>vector in favor of looking for the traffic. It might have been a new
>controller with IFR traffic around and moving you was easier than moving
>them. (I believe that once you indicate that you can maintain visual
>separation that ATC no longer needs the same separation standards for
>IFR.)
Conditions were clear. Lighter than normal haze, and had previously
had no problem spotting traffic. She didn't give me the option to
look for traffic, nor tell me what it was, or where it was coming
from. I'm sure the reason she moved me WAS because it was easier than
having to move somebody else out of my way, but that, as far as I'm
concerned, is part of the deal when flying IFR. I don't care (within
reason here) whether you are a 152 or a 747, if you are IFR, you are
subject to being vectored for separation. As a VFR pilot, I am not.
That doesn't mean I won't generally alter my course to accommodate
controllers...there is give and take all around here, but when moved
to a direction opposite to where I'm going, that falls into another
category.
>Once the wheels are down at my destination, any perceived bad service
>(that didn't involve safety issues) from ATC is long forgotten in my
>book.
Well, I didn't really think about it too much at the time, as my habit
is to fly where I'm going and evaluate the flight after. If there is
something at that time that deserves some kind of follow-up, that is
the time to do it. I can't effectively follow up in the air, can I?
If things were busy enough that she had to push me well out of the
way, I can't imagine she'd want to get into a discussion of the
appropriateness of vectoring a VFR plane out of her way.
>If you believed that you could acquire and maintain a visual on the
>traffic, "86BW looking" followed by "86BW has the traffic, will maintain
>visual separation" should do it with no delay vectoring (other than what
>you needed for separation).
That would have been great...was never given that option. I don't
know what it was I was being moved out of the way of. Maybe my
response should have been, "86BW would prefer to look for and separate
myself from traffic rather than take that vector," and see how that
went over.
>No need to give up flight following just because a controller asked you
>to do something you didn't like. (But cancelling is certainly better
>than doing something unsafe, or something that will get you so riled up
>that you'll be unsafe. :-) )
Well, declining the vector would have pretty certainly caused her to
cancel my flight following...which would have been no great loss in
retrospect as they couldn't hand me off to Cape Approach anyway, so I
was terminated right after she put me back on course. I really wasn't
riled up at the time, nor was I hostile. My wife had no idea that
anything was wrong, because there really wasn't anything wrong...I was
just flying the plane.
However, as I replayed it later that evening to myself, I was somewhat
irritated and really called just to get clarification as to whether
that is normal, or not. If that is just par for the course, so be it.
If it isn't, maybe it would be good for that controller to be informed
that it was not a reasonable request to make of a VFR pilot, so that
the next time she is in a similar circumstance, she will move the IFR
traffic, not the VFR. Given the response of the supervisor, it was
inappropriate and unreasonable of her to vector me as she did.
BDWood
Bob Gardner
What did you gain by being obdurate?
Bob Gardner
BDWood wrote:
> This was discussed a while back, but after my experience with it this
> past weekend, thought I'd tell you all what happened to me.
>
> The trip was from MTN (just north of Baltimore, MD) up to HYA (We all
> know that is Hyannis by now, don't we?) on a direct VFR flight. I
> generally fly VFR if the weather is at all cooperating through this
> Northeast area because I do so much like going direct, and because
> this route passes right through Philadelphia, New York, etc. all the
> way out, VFR gets me there much quicker. I do use Flight Following,
> because I like letting the good ATC folks know what I'm doing.
>
> Well, I'm about 20 minutes out of my destination having just descended
> from 11,500 down to 5,500, over the water somewhere around Block
> Island I think, when the Providence approach controller mentioned when
> I first checked in with her that I might need to turn right to avoid
> some traffic. My reply was something like, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." To
> which she didn't reply. About a minute later, she said, "Seneca 86BW,
> I need you to turn right heading 180 traffic avoidance." Well, I had
> been heading 070 or so, and now I am being told to make a 110 degree
> turn away from my destination. I've been asked to make minor course
> corrections before...10 or 20 degrees, and have always complied, but
> this was a little unusual. I did make the turn, and was kept on that
> heading for several minutes, before being told I could then resume my
> on course heading. BTW, I was in Class E.
>
> Well, this proceeded to burn me more and more through the rest of that
> evening, and over the weekend. I'm used to getting that when IFR,
> but not VFR.
>
> Next time, my response to any similar request will simply be to cancel
> flight following, and to squawk 1200.
>
> Any suggestions on what might have been a better way to handle this?
>
> BDWood
David Scott
wrote:
In my experience, ATC has always issued instructions such as, "N20870,
*suggest* you turn to 150 for traffic" when I was on flight following
[emphasis added].
I know there are some ATC guys in this ng -- maybe they'll fill us in.
However, maybe they're being silent because they don't want to expose
their Achilles' Heel -- we have found a way to ignore them!
Bwah-hah-hah! :-)
- David Scott
PP-ASEL-IA
N20870
Roger Halstead
asked...Bearing in mind that the pilot is still the one responsible.
ATC doesn't normally have the time to give VFR pilots vectors "just for
fun". If they tell me to turn right, left, climb, or descend, I will oblige
within the limitations of the airplane and my self... I will also keep a
wary eye out for traffic.
Note: If they use the word "Expedite", I will comply immediately and as
close to those limits as I can comfortably go. (while still trying to look
for traffic)
If I don't want vectors I won't be flying with flight following. Usually
vectors are not optional for me
--
Roger (K8RI)
N833R CD-2 (World's Oldest Debonair?)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
Jim Sokoloff <soko...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:37A6F376...@tiac.net...
> BDWood wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm about 20 minutes out of my destination having just descended
> > from 11,500 down to 5,500, over the water somewhere around Block
> > Island I think, when the Providence approach controller mentioned when
> > I first checked in with her that I might need to turn right to avoid
> > some traffic. My reply was something like, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." To
> > which she didn't reply. About a minute later, she said, "Seneca 86BW,
> > I need you to turn right heading 180 traffic avoidance." Well, I had
> > been heading 070 or so, and now I am being told to make a 110 degree
> > turn away from my destination. I've been asked to make minor course
> > corrections before...10 or 20 degrees, and have always complied, but
> > this was a little unusual. I did make the turn, and was kept on that
> > heading for several minutes, before being told I could then resume my
> > on course heading. BTW, I was in Class E.
>
> For me, the determining factor is: what were the flight conditions. MVFR
> and I think I'd take the vector. Clear and a million and I'd decline the
> vector in favor of looking for the traffic. It might have been a new
> controller with IFR traffic around and moving you was easier than moving
> them. (I believe that once you indicate that you can maintain visual
> separation that ATC no longer needs the same separation standards for
> IFR.)
>
> I've flown that area a lot (based at ASH) and visibilities are often
> such that seeing traffic is amazingly difficult and I'll take the
> vectors everytime I can't see the traffic. As a result, PVC controllers
> might be more used than most to VFR traffic taking these "courtesy and
> noise abatement" vectors even when VFR. It's certainly within your
> domain to decline the vector, but you may be told to go 1200 if you do.
>
> > Well, this proceeded to burn me more and more through the rest of that
> > evening, and over the weekend. I'm used to getting that when IFR,
> > but not VFR.
>
> Once the wheels are down at my destination, any perceived bad service
> (that didn't involve safety issues) from ATC is long forgotten in my
> book.
>
> > Next time, my response to any similar request will simply be to cancel
> > flight following, and to squawk 1200.
> >
> > Any suggestions on what might have been a better way to handle this?
>
> If you believed that you could acquire and maintain a visual on the
> traffic, "86BW looking" followed by "86BW has the traffic, will maintain
> visual separation" should do it with no delay vectoring (other than what
> you needed for separation).
>
> No need to give up flight following just because a controller asked you
> to do something you didn't like. (But cancelling is certainly better
> than doing something unsafe, or something that will get you so riled up
> that you'll be unsafe. :-) )
>
> ---Jim
Steven P. McNicoll
BDWood <wo...@home.com> wrote in message news:37a71069.11752363@news...
>
> Well, I'm about 20 minutes out of my destination having just
> descended from 11,500 down to 5,500, over the water
> somewhere around Block Island I think, when the Providence
> approach controller mentioned when I first checked in with her
> that I might need to turn right to avoid some traffic. My reply
> was something like, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." To which she
> didn't reply. About a minute later, she said, "Seneca 86BW,
> I need you to turn right heading 180 traffic avoidance." Well,
> I had been heading 070 or so, and now I am being told to
> make a 110 degree turn away from my destination. I've been
> asked to make minor course corrections before...10 or 20
> degrees, and have always complied, but this was a little
> unusual. I did make the turn, and was kept on that heading for
> several minutes, before being told I could then resume my
> on course heading. BTW, I was in Class E.
>
The controller was wrong to do that. ATC can vector aircraft operating VFR
at those locations where a special program is established, or when a pilot
requests, or when ATC suggests a heading and the pilot concurs. If you had
been within twenty miles of Providence, you would have been in an area where
ATC separates IFR traffic from participating VFR traffic, and the controller
would have been correct to vector for separation. But a 110 degree turn
sounds like pretty poor technique to me anywhere.
>
> Next time, my response to any similar request will simply
> be to cancel flight following, and to squawk 1200.
>
That'll work, I guess. I think I'd just hold my heading and ask for the
location of the traffic.
>
> Any suggestions on what might have been a better way to
> handle this?
>
I'd just respond, "Seneca 86BW is VFR, where's the traffic?"
Steven P. McNicoll
RossPilot <ross...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990802182227...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
>
> I think you handled it just fine. And in the unlikely event it
> happens again, I would comply with ATC's direction. They
> are, after all, trying to keep you from meeting someone else
> unexpectedly.
>
I see no advantage in blindly following the directions of an improperly
trained controller.
Steven P. McNicoll
George R. Patterson III <grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37A6295F...@earthlink.net...
>
> Sounds like you handled it quite well to me. I think that I would
> make the turn in future if requested to, though. Noise avoidance,
> ya know.
>
I see no advantage in blindly following the directions of an improperly
trained controller.
BDWood
<ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
> If you had
>been within twenty miles of Providence, you would have been in an area where
>ATC separates IFR traffic from participating VFR traffic, and the controller
>would have been correct to vector for separation.
My route of flight was about 25 miles from Providence at its closest.
>I'd just respond, "Seneca 86BW is VFR, where's the traffic?"
That sounds reasonable...I'll give that a try.
>ATC can vector aircraft operating VFR
>at those locations where a special program is established, or when a pilot
>requests, or when ATC suggests a heading and the pilot concurs.
Others have mentioned that since Class E is controlled airspace, that
if given a vector I really have no choice in the matter (safety issues
aside...i.e. vectoring me into a thunderstorm), and have to comply.
You mention the above situations where ATC can vector VFR aircraft,
but what rules or regs are being followed or not followed?
I'm not being very clear here...but how do we know if there is a
special program established? What is the consequence as far as the
regs are concerned if a VFR pilot does not comply with instructions
under the special program situation? Is the pilot breaking any regs
such as the ones quoted by others in this thread? Is that appliable
here?
BDWood
Andrew Sarangan
There is no way for you to assess whether the controller is competent,
just as much as the controller has no way of making that assessment
about the pilot. Unless you have an emergency, or have good reasons not
to, you must comply with ATC instructions. If there is any doubt, ask
the controller why he is giving you those instructions. We seem to have
an awful lot of hesitation about talking to a controller. True, don't
blindly follow an ATC instruction, but don't blindly assume that every
ATC instruction is erroneous either.
--
Andrew Sarangan
CP-ASEL-IA
http://lights.chtm.unm.edu/~sarangan/aviation
Steven P. McNicoll
Paul Quade <qu...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:37A65C55...@earthlink.com...
>
> Unless I missed something in your story it seems to me like
> FAR 91.123(b) is the key paragraph to be consulted in this case.
>
> Were you or were you not, "in an area in which air traffic control is
> exercised"?
>
"Exercised"?, yes; "Exercised over VFR traffic?", no.
>
> You mentioned that you were in Class E airspace and I do
> believe that air traffic control -does- get exercised in Class E.
> See AIM 3-2-1(a)
>
But ATC cannot vector VFR aircraft in Class E airspace at will. ATC can
vector aircraft operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
established, or when a pilot requests, or when ATC suggests a heading and
the pilot concurs. None of those apply in this case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me that it would matter whether you were
> IFR or not. Once you made contact with ATC in any controlled
> airspace, it seems to me there is a tacit agreement that you
> -will- follow their directions.
>
> Then again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'd like to see the FAR that
> would support a differing opinion.
>
It's not an FAR, it's in FAA Order 7110.65.
FAA Order 7110.65L, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Chapter 5. RADAR
Section 6. VECTORING
Paragraph 5-6-1. APPLICATION
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.
c. At or above the MVA or the minimum IFR altitude except as authorized
for radar approaches, special VFR, VFR operations, or by para 5-6-3, VECTORS
BELOW MINIMUM ALTITUDE.
NOTE-
VFR aircraft not at an altitude assigned by ATC may be vectored at any
altitude. It is the responsibility of the pilot to comply with the
applicable parts of CFR Title 14.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, MINIMUM EN ROUTE ALTITUDES, Para 4-5-6.
FAAO 7110.65, PRIORITY,Para 7-5-2.
FAAO 7110.65, ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENT, Para 7-5-4.
FAAO 7110.65, ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENTS, Para 7-7-5.
CFR PART 91.119, MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES: GENERAL.
d. In airspace for which you have control jurisdiction, unless
otherwise coordinated.
e. So as to permit it to resume its own navigation within radar
coverage.
f. Operating special VFR only within Class B, C, D, or E surface areas.
g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot concurs.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, ROUTE USE, Para 4-4-1.
FAAO 7110.65, VISUAL SEPARATION, Para 7-2-1.
FAAO 7110.65, SEPARATION, Para 7-5-3.
FAAO 7110.65, APPLICATION, Para 7-6-1.
FAAO 7110.65, SEPARATION MINIMA, 9-5-4.
FAAO 7210.3, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 1, TERMINAL VFR RADAR SERVICES.
Steven P. McNicoll
> MVFR and I think I'd take the vector. Clear and a million and I'd
> decline the vector in favor of looking for the traffic. It might have
> been a new controller with IFR traffic around and moving you was
> easier than moving them. (I believe that once you indicate that
> you can maintain visual separation that ATC no longer needs the
> same separation standards for IFR.)
>
There are no separation standards between VFR and IFR aircraft in Class E
airspace.
Steven P. McNicoll
BDWood <wo...@home.com> wrote in message news:37a8f9bd.71493651@news...
>
> Conditions were clear. Lighter than normal haze, and had
> previously had no problem spotting traffic. She didn't give
> me the option to look for traffic, nor tell me what it was, or
> where it was coming from. I'm sure the reason she moved
> me WAS because it was easier than having to move
> somebody else out of my way, but that, as far as I'm
> concerned, is part of the deal when flying IFR.
>
Easier for what? ATC does not separate VFR aircraft in Class E airspace
unless that airspace is also a TRSA or the Outer Area associated with Class
C airspace. And the area you described is neither of those.
>
> However, as I replayed it later that evening to myself, I was
> somewhat irritated and really called just to get clarification as
> to whether that is normal, or not. If that is just par for the course,
> so be it. If it isn't, maybe it would be good for that controller to
> be informed that it was not a reasonable request to make of a
> VFR pilot, so that the next time she is in a similar circumstance,
> she will move the IFR traffic, not the VFR. Given the response
> of the supervisor, it was inappropriate and unreasonable of her
> to vector me as she did.
>
The supervisor is correct. The controller should have given you and the
other aircraft a traffic advisory. She could also have suggested a heading
for traffic avoidance to one or both of you. But it was improper for her to
initiate vectoring in this case.
Steven P. McNicoll
Bob Gardner <bob...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:37A725F6...@halcyon.com...
>
> I would have complied with the controller's request in the first place.
> What did you gain by being obdurate?
>
Obdurate? The controller was in the wrong, FAA Order 7110.65 does not allow
her to initiate vectoring under the conditions described in this thread.
Steven P. McNicoll
Steven P. McNicoll
BDWood <wo...@home.com> wrote in message news:37aa75e0.103277068@news...
>
> Others have mentioned that since Class E is controlled airspace,
> that if given a vector I really have no choice in the matter (safety
> issues aside...i.e. vectoring me into a thunderstorm), and have to
> comply.
>
They're referring to FAR 91.123(b), which says; "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 does that regulation require
you to adhere to improperly given ATC instructions? If it does, then you'd
have to comply with the vector even if it DID put you into a thunderstorm.
I do not believe FAR 91.123 requires a pilot to comply with an improper ATC
instruction. FAA Order 7110.65 does not permit ATC to initiate vectoring of
VFR aircraft unless the aircraft is in an area where a special program is
established for it; where ATC provides separation for VFR aircraft.
>
> You mention the above situations where ATC can vector
> VFR aircraft, but what rules or regs are being followed or
> not followed?
>
Here's the applicable paragraph:
Chapter 5. RADAR
Section 6. VECTORING
Paragraph 5-6-1. APPLICATION
Vector aircraft:
>
> I'm not being very clear here...but how do we know if there is a
> special program established?
>
Based on the context and the referenced documents from the above quoted
paragraph, I have concluded that "those locations where a special program is
established" refers to areas where ATC provides separation for VFR aircraft.
That would be Class B airspace, Class C airspace and the Outer Area
associated with Class C, and TRSAs.
>
> What is the consequence as far as the regs are concerned if a
> VFR pilot does not comply with instructions under the special
> program situation? Is the pilot breaking any regs such as the
> ones quoted by others in this thread? Is that appliable
> here?
>
No consequences at all, as long as the pilot has reason not to comply.
Assignment of headings, routes or altitudes is based on the provision that a
pilot operating VFR is expected to advise ATC if compliance will cause
violation of any FAR. ATC cannot require you to violate a regulation. If a
vector would put you in a cloud, you must decline the vector, and declining
the vector is not a violation of FAR 91.123(b).
Providence has Class C airspace. Class C services are provided in the Class
C airspace to everyone and to participating aircraft in the Outer Area. But
the Outer Area ends 20 miles from the core airport, and you say you were 25
miles from PVD at your closest point. The controller violated FAAO 7110.65
by issuing you that vector.
Paul Quade
the other -- ever?)
I'm only going by what I read in the original story. From -that-, it appears
to me that the instructions were legal AND BINDING according to FAR 91.123(b).
The -original story- didn't say anything about a "suggested heading," so I'm
assuming there was a legitimate reason and not simply "at will." (Not that I
really think that make a whole lot of difference anyway.)
As for 7110.65, I see nothing that would -preclude- a vector being given to an
aircraft operation under VFR with flight following. (The guy ASKED for flight
following! What the hell did he do that for except to get some assistance?)
Out here in SoCal, if pilots simply refused "suggested heading"s because they
had some ego driven need to not obey ATC -- it would be raining aluminum.
Paul
**********
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> Paul Quade <qu...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
> news:37A65C55...@earthlink.com...
> >
> > Unless I missed something in your story it seems to me like
> > FAR 91.123(b) is the key paragraph to be consulted in this case.
> >
> > Were you or were you not, "in an area in which air traffic control is
> > exercised"?
> >
>
> "Exercised"?, yes; "Exercised over VFR traffic?", no.
>
> >
> > You mentioned that you were in Class E airspace and I do
> > believe that air traffic control -does- get exercised in Class E.
> > See AIM 3-2-1(a)
> >
>
> But ATC cannot vector VFR aircraft in Class E airspace at will. ATC can
> vector aircraft operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
> established, or when a pilot requests, or when ATC suggests a heading and
> the pilot concurs. None of those apply in this case.
>
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me that it would matter whether you were
> > IFR or not. Once you made contact with ATC in any controlled
> > airspace, it seems to me there is a tacit agreement that you
> > -will- follow their directions.
> >
> > Then again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'd like to see the FAR that
> > would support a differing opinion.
> >
>
> It's not an FAR, it's in FAA Order 7110.65.
>
Roy Smith
> VFR aircraft unless the aircraft is in an area where a special program is
> established for it; where ATC provides separation for VFR aircraft.
This is the third time I've seen you mention the phrase "special program"
today. Care to fill us in on what sort of programs these might be? And
how a pilot would know they're in effect? Are you talking about something
like the OSH or Fun-and-Sun special arrival procedures, or something else?
Steven P. McNicoll
Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in message
news:37A77B68...@unm.edu...
>
> There is no way for you to assess whether the
> controller is competent,
>
Yes there is. If what BDWood has written here is accurate, and I have no
reason to believe that it isn't, then the controller has a poor knowledge of
fundamental ATC procedures.
>
> Unless you have an emergency, or have good reasons not to,
> you must comply with ATC instructions.
>
What would be good reason not to?
>
> If there is any doubt, ask the controller why he is giving you
> those instructions.
>
But there is no doubt in this case, the instruction in question was an
instruction that the controller is not permitted to give. I'd say that's
reason enough not to comply.
>
> We seem to have an awful lot of hesitation about talking to
> a controller.
>
Not me. I don't mind talking to controllers at all. I like controllers.
>
> True, don't blindly follow an ATC instruction, but don't blindly
> assume that every ATC instruction is erroneous either.
>
I don't blindly follow any instructions, and I know which ATC instructions
are erroneous, and which are valid. I haven't "assumed" anything.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> (Is this going to be another situation where neither one of us
> will agree with the other -- ever?)
>
As I recall, we've agreed every time you were right.
>
> I'm only going by what I read in the original story. From -that-,
> it appears to me that the instructions were legal AND BINDING
> according to FAR 91.123(b).
>
The instruction was not legal, on that there is no question. Do you truly
feel bound to comply with improperly given ATC instructions?
>
> The -original story- didn't say anything about a "suggested
> heading," so I'm assuming there was a legitimate reason and
> not simply "at will." (Not that I really think that make a whole lot
> of difference anyway.)
>
Correct, there was no "suggested heading". That's why the instruction was
illegal. A "suggested heading" is all she is allowed to provide in this
case, she cannot assign a heading.
>
> As for 7110.65, I see nothing that would -preclude- a vector
> being given to an aircraft operation under VFR with flight
> following.
>
Look again, it's in subparagraph g.
>
> (The guy ASKED for flight following! What the hell did he do
> that for except to get some assistance?)
>
He did it to get traffic advisories, that's what flight following is. He
can also ask for radar vectors, or the controller can suggest a vector. But
the controller cannot INITIATE vectoring in this case.
>
> Out here in SoCal, if pilots simply refused "suggested heading"s
> because they had some ego driven need to not obey ATC -- it
> would be raining aluminum.
>
Nonsense.
Steven P. McNicoll
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:roy-030899...@mcsv45-p13.med.nyu.edu...
>
> This is the third time I've seen you mention the phrase
> "special program" today. Care to fill us in on what sort of
> programs these might be? And how a pilot would know
> they're in effect?
>
That's the term used in the Order. It never actually defines it, but based
on the context and what is written in the referenced passages, I've
concluded it's referring to those areas where ATC provides separation for
VFR aircraft. That would be Class B airspace, Class C airspace and the
associated outer area, and TRSAs. I think it's a leftover phrase from when
these types of airspace were new and evolving; the various "Stage" services,
TCAs, TRSAs, ARSAs, etc. A pilot would then know they were in effect
wherever there was Class B or C airspace, or a TRSA.
>
> Are you talking about something like the OSH or Fun-and-Sun
> special arrival procedures, or something else?
>
Nope. Certainly not Oshkosh, Chicago Center won't work VFR traffic during
that blessed event.
BDWood
wrote:
>There is no way for you to assess whether the controller is competent,
>just as much as the controller has no way of making that assessment
>about the pilot.
Why would the supervisor have then told me that the vector I was given
was most certainly inappropriate, and if the review of the tapes shows
that I described the situation accurately, she would be told that she
should not be giving instructions like that? If she was on solid
ground, I would think that the supervisor would have backed her up.
BDWood
Jim Sokoloff
> They're referring to FAR 91.123(b), which says; "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 does that regulation require
> you to adhere to improperly given ATC instructions? If it does, then you'd
> have to comply with the vector even if it DID put you into a thunderstorm.
No, because 91.3 would certainly apply, getting you "off the hook" for
your violation of 91.123(b)
OTOH, ATC can give me an instruction that we might all be able to agree
was improper, but not unsafe. Do I have to follow it if I'm VFR in class
E airspace? I think "clearly not", because I can cancel FF and squawk
1200.
Will ATC ever care to followup in that case even if my cancellation
causes them slight temporary grief? Probably not, and if they do, I
probably did something else to piss them off, which I only do in UseNet,
not airborne. :-)
---Jim
Dave Mould
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:rqf7sa1...@corp.supernews.com...
> The supervisor is correct. The controller should have given you and the
> other aircraft a traffic advisory. She could also have suggested a
heading
> for traffic avoidance to one or both of you. But it was improper for her
to
> initiate vectoring in this case.
Yes, I suppose that you can become an airborne lawyer and legally refuse any
ATC instruction that is incorrectly worded. I doubt that this would assist
with the safety of the flight though, which is what it's all about. "I'm
not going to follow your instructions, because here in para 5, subpara 3
clause (c) it states that ...." BANG!
In the situation described, I would have had little doubt that there *was*
conflicting traffic that I could not see but which ATC could. When ATC gave
a "turn right" instruction, I would start to turn right immediately, as it's
safer than waiting till (if) I spot the conflicting traffic myself. If the
heading given sounds a bit screwy (a 110 degree turn is improbable for
traffic avoidance), I'd continue the right turn (it's likely that that part
was correct), and question ATC about the heading, thinking it's likely that
the controller did the arithmetic wrong, or got the heading wrong for
another reason, or maybe I mis-heard the numbers, but I'd still assume in
the absence on anything to the contrary that the basic "turn right" was
still the thing to do in order to avoid the traffic.
Here in the UK, we often ask for "radar information" service, which is more
or less the same as flight following. Most of the time, radar simply tells
us about any traffic that may affect us which they can see. Very
occasionally, I've received an instruction to turn, sometimes with a heading
assignment. This is usually worded as a suggestion, though to be quite
honest, I would not get heated and refuse simply because the controller
worded it as an instruction rather than a suggestion, nor would I believe
that just because the wording was wrong, that the controller is incompetent
and I should disregard everything s/he said. There have also been a couple
of times when I have been under radar control (as opposed to information),
when the controller has given a "turn right heading XXX" instruction, and
later corrected the heading with an apology. The direction to turn has so
far always been correct, but I assume that the heading needs a bit of mental
arithmetic on the part of the controller, which s/he sometimes gets wrong.
During instrument training, I was taught that the pilot should commence the
turn immediately on hearing the word "right" or "left", and then set the bug
(or whatever) as the heading is received.
Dave Mould
Dave Mould
>
> There are no separation standards between VFR and IFR aircraft in Class E
> airspace.
>
legal responsibility to do so, that is a good reason to ignore their advice?
Dave Mould
Dave Mould
>
> Bob Gardner <bob...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
> news:37A725F6...@halcyon.com...
> >
> > I would have complied with the controller's request in the first place.
> > What did you gain by being obdurate?
> >
>
allow
> her to initiate vectoring under the conditions described in this thread.
>
instruction? If someone sees that you are about to walk into a propellor
and yells "Stop!" I suppose that would also be incorrect, as he has no power
to tell *you* what to do. You can go a bit OTT with an anti-authority
attitude.
Dave Mould
BDWood
wrote:
>I would have complied with the controller's request in the first place.
>What did you gain by being obdurate?
I wasn't being obdurate. Maybe I wasn't clear.
When she initially mentioned that I might be making a right turn, it
was in the context of sometime in the future...as in sometime in the
next few minutes I may ask you to make a turn. It was not a
suggestion or request to turn at that time. I am certain of that.
When I replied that I was VFR at that time, it was to try to
potentially head off what eventually happened anyway...reminding her
that I was VFR, hoping that she would realize that meant that I
shouldn't be told to move. Asked? Sure... Told? No.
BDWood
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> No, because 91.3 would certainly apply, getting you "off the hook" for
> your violation of 91.123(b)
>
Why would that regulation apply? FAR 91.3(b) states; "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." But I
don't have an in-flight emergency when I receive the heading assignment, so
I can't invoke FAR 91.3(b). Now, you might say that I am interpreting FAR
91.3(b) far too literally, that I can use it to avoid an almost certain
in-flight emergency as well. But I'm not interpreting this rule any more
literally than those who interpret FAR 91.123(b) to mean that a pilot must
comply with all ATC instructions, even those that are known to be improper
ATC instructions.
>
> OTOH, ATC can give me an instruction that we might all be
> able to agree was improper, but not unsafe. Do I have to follow
> it if I'm VFR in class E airspace? I think "clearly not", because I
> can cancel FF and squawk 1200.
>
Agreed.
>
> Will ATC ever care to followup in that case even if my
> cancellation causes them slight temporary grief?
> Probably not, and if they do, I probably did something
> else to piss them off, which I only do in UseNet, not
> airborne. :-)
>
And if there was any follow-up, it would likely end when it was discovered
that the controller erred.
Steven P. McNicoll
Dave Mould <da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:933754526.7052.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Yes, I suppose that you can become an airborne lawyer and
> legally refuse any ATC instruction that is incorrectly worded.
> I doubt that this would assist with the safety of the flight though,
> which is what it's all about. "I'm not going to follow your
> instructions, because here in para 5, subpara 3 clause (c) it
> states that ...." BANG!
>
I don't see how safety of flight is enhanced by blindly following the
instructions of a controller who clearly doesn't know her stuff.
Recall what BDWood said in the initial message in this thread:
"Well, I'm about 20 minutes out of my destination having just descended from
11,500 down to 5,500, over the water
somewhere around Block Island I think, when the Providence
approach controller mentioned when I first checked in with her
that I might need to turn right to avoid some traffic. My reply
was something like, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." To which she
didn't reply."
The controller was obviously concerned about the proximity of some other
traffic to BD's Seneca, she should have issued a traffic advisory at that
point, as FAAO 711.65 requires. Something like, "Seneca 86BW, traffic ten
o'clock, three miles, southeastbound, altitude indicates five thousand five
hundred." Instead, she makes a vague comment that BD may have to turn right
to avoid some traffic.
"About a minute later, she said, 'Seneca 86BW, I need you to turn right
heading 180 traffic avoidance'."
This was in direct violation of FAAO 7110.65, she cannot initiate a vector
in this situation. Even if it had been proper to initiate a vector in this
case, she used poor phraseology. It should have been something like;
"Seneca 86BW, turn right heading 180, vector for traffic". She made three
mistakes in two transmissions.
>
> In the situation described, I would have had little doubt that
> there *was* conflicting traffic that I could not see but which
> ATC could.
>
Had she done her job properly, and issued a traffic advisory at the proper
time, you just might have seen the traffic.
>
> When ATC gave a "turn right" instruction, I would start to turn
> right immediately, as it's safer than waiting till (if) I spot the
> conflicting traffic myself. If the heading given sounds a bit
> screwy (a 110 degree turn is improbable for traffic avoidance),
> I'd continue the right turn (it's likely that that part was correct),
>
Why was that likely? She hadn't been correct about anything else.
>
> and question ATC about the heading, thinking it's likely
> that the controller did the arithmetic wrong, or got the
> heading wrong for another reason, or maybe I mis-heard
> the numbers, but I'd still assume in the absence on anything
> to the contrary that the basic "turn right" was still the thing to
> do in order to avoid the traffic.
>
Suppose the other traffic spotted the Seneca crossing his path from right to
left and altered course to the right to pass behind, in accordance with FAR
91.113(d). At about the same time he begins his turn, you begin your ATC
mandated turn. He loses sight of you while in the turn, and you never had
him in sight at all. Now there are two aircraft at the same altitude, in
close proximity, in turns, and neither knows where the other one is. Not
what I'd call a safe situation.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> So if ATC is good enough to provide separation even though
> they have no legal responsibility to do so, that is a good reason
> to ignore their advice?
>
You misunderstand. The controller didn't provide any advice, she issued a
command. It would have been perfectly alright for her to suggest a heading,
it was wrong for her to order the turn. There are good reasons ATC is not
permitted to assign vectors in situations like this. They don't know what
the other airplane is going to do, the vector could just as easily put the
airplanes together.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> So you'd rather risk a mid-air than comply with an
> improperly worded instruction?
>
It wasn't just improperly worded, it was an improper instruction. You may
choose to trust a controller who clearly does not know her job, I choose not
to. I'm not going to make any sudden, drastic turns if there may be another
airplane nearby. I would have asked where the traffic was on initial
contact, when she said she might need to turn me right to avoid some
traffic. A good controller would have issued a traffic advisory, why did
she withhold that information?
>
> If someone sees that you are about to walk into a propellor
> and yells "Stop!" I suppose that would also be incorrect, as
> he has no power to tell *you* what to do. You can go a bit
> OTT with an anti-authority attitude.
>
Now you're being silly. If you can't discuss these things rationally,
perhaps you shouldn't discuss them at all.
I don't see any adverse outcome of yelling "Stop!" if I see someone about to
walk into a propeller. I do see a possible adverse outcome of beginning a
large turn when another aircraft is close by at the same altitude.
Roy Smith
> I would have asked where the traffic was on initial contact, when she
> said she might need to turn me right to avoid some traffic.
There's another issue here too.
There can only be one person responsible for making decisions. That's the
PIC. As PIC, I can (and do) relinquish some of that authority to other
people all the time, but under carefully controlled conditions.
When I'm teaching, it's the student who has their hands on the controls.
When I'm flying practice approaches, my safety pilot takes over some of my
duties (i.e. looking out the window). Certainly, while IFR, I put a lot
of faith in ATC to assign appropriate routes, headings, and altitudes.
While being vectored in IMC, I literally put my life in their hands.
In all of those cases, it's clear from the outset how much of my authority
I'm handing over, and what each party expects from the other. Going in, I
know in advance what the game is going to be, and decide if I want to play
by those rules or not. If not, the choice is not to make up new rules as
I go along, but to simply not play the game. For example, there are times
when I'll go VFR instead of IFR because I know if I go IFR, the route
and/or altitude ATC will assign me is not what I want/need.
When one side or the other starts making up rules as they go along, you
can no longer make rational judgements about what course of action is best
to take, because you no longer know how the other player will react.
If a controller assigns me a heading while VFR outside of, as Steve says
the phrase is, any "special programs", he's changed the rules. If I
blindly accept the vector just becasue he said to, I'm now playing a game
that I no longer know the rules of. That's dangerous.
Tell me "suggest heading of XXX to keep you clear of departing IFR
traffic", and I'll almost certainly comply. Try to assign me heading XXX
while VFR, and a red flag will go up in my mind that something's not right
here.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Tina Marie
In article <37A7A08C...@earthlink.com>,
Paul Quade <qu...@usa.RemoveThisAntiSpam.net> wrote:
>Out here in SoCal, if pilots simply refused "suggested heading"s because they
>had some ego driven need to not obey ATC -- it would be raining aluminum.
As an aside - a few times, when I was coming back from somewhere and
wasn't quite sure of my position, I asked Houston Approach for
a "vector" back to my home field. I quite often got turned down.
Then I was flying with someone, and he showed me the trick -
"Houston Approach, could you suggest a heading?". It always got
me what I wanted.
Apparently, "vector" implies a level of seperation services that
"suggested heading" does not.
Tina Marie
--
skydiver - PP-ASEL - N860SG \*\ An apostrophe does not mean, "Yikes!
http://www.neosoft.com/~tina \*\ Here comes an 's'!" - Dave Barry
Brett Rabe
> Out here in SoCal, if pilots simply refused "suggested heading"s because they
> had some ego driven need to not obey ATC -- it would be raining aluminum.
If that's truly the case, then SoCal should be all
Class A airspace outside of terminal areas.
Brett
--
Brett Rabe br...@uswest.net / 612.664.3078
Undistinguishable Fellow U S WEST - Internet Services
Gargle twice daily - see if your neck leaks.
Steven P. McNicoll
Tina Marie <ti...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6B0FFF9315BF555.E2D754E0...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> As an aside - a few times, when I was coming back from
> somewhere and wasn't quite sure of my position, I asked
> Houston Approach for a "vector" back to my home field.
> I quite often got turned down. Then I was flying with
> someone, and he showed me the trick - "Houston
> Approach, could you suggest a heading?". It always got
> me what I wanted.
>
> Apparently, "vector" implies a level of seperation services
> that "suggested heading" does not.
>
It shouldn't make any difference. FAA Order 7110.65 tells controllers they
can vector aircraft operating VFR when a pilot requests.
Dave Mould
> I don't see any adverse outcome of yelling "Stop!"> if I see someone about
to
> walk into a propeller.
Well, to give an example that is about as likely as your example in a
previous post, what about if there is an aircraft taxying behind you, and by
stopping you get chewed up?
> I do see a possible adverse outcome of beginning a
> large turn when another aircraft is close by at the same altitude.
All things considered, I would think that following ATC (however improperly
worded) would be safer than not - improbable situations excepted.
Dave Mould
Roy Smith
> can vector aircraft operating VFR when a pilot requests.
I like the use of "can" instead of "shall".
Not long ago, I was out with a student on an IFR training flight on a hot
hazy afternoon. We got caught out by reports of T-storms. We landed at
BLM (near the north end of the Jersey shore) and made a plan.
I suggested continuing VFR in a direct line up the shore and through the
Hudson corridor. Student preferred to file IFR. I warned that would
limit our options, and probably result in a round-about routing. He still
felt safer IFR, so that's what we did. We were in the air less than 5
minutes when I spotted lightning in our path. Turned around, landed
again, and made a new plan :-)
This time I convinced him the straight-line VFR route made more sense. No
reported convective activity along that route, with visibilities reported
at 3-5 miles. If we remained VFR, we would be able to see anything that
might develop, and we would get on the radio to Flight Watch as soon as we
were off to re-confirm the route was clear. Discussed possible diversion
destinations, along with the idea that, if need be, we'd go for JFK, EWR,
or LGA, regardless of the landing fee (student was paying).
So, to get back to the point of the thread, we were cleared through the
New York Class B, and made it back to White Plains without serious event.
The HPN ATIS was reporting 3 miles. Pilotage was almost a lost cause, but
GPS made us cocky. As we descended out of the floor of the Class B (with
its protective cocoon of positive separation), we were turned over to HPN
Tower (Class D).
Traffic was called out to us by the tower, two aircraft departing HPN in
our direction. I knew the chances of spotting the traffic were pretty
small, and I knew the tower has radar, so I non-chalantly said, "negative
contact, request vectors around the traffic". Well, damn if the
controller didn't put me back in my place with his response: "maintain
VFR".
Julio
discretion. He can deny or terminate it at any time for any
reason or for no reason at all. If he assigns you a heading
or altitude or ask you to do something you don't like, just
terminate flight following and go on your own (VFR).No one
is forcing you to use it.
Julio
PP-ASEL
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dave Mould
> When I replied that I was VFR at that time, it was to try to
> potentially head off what eventually happened anyway...reminding her
> that I was VFR, hoping that she would realize that meant that I
> shouldn't be told to move. Asked? Sure... Told? No.
Gosh. Maybe she simply forgot to use the correct phraseology when
controlling a mixture of IFR and VFR traffic. If someone sees you about to
step out in front of a speeding truck, I hope that he will carefully
consider how to phrase his request before yelling a warning.
If you are concerned about an ATC communication, why not ask a direct
question rather than giving hints? How about "I'm VFR, not visual with
traffic - request its position and height"? This could have been done
before you were given the instruction to which you took exception.
OTOH, you behaved as I would - complied with the instruction and then
queried it afterwards on the ground. I think that this is the correct
action. Had you had a close encounter, it would not look very good if you
said, "Sure, ATC told me about the traffic and told me what to do, but she
did not ask politely enough, so I ignored her."
There are times that I have and would refuse an ATC instruction if I knew
that I had a better picture of the situation, but from what you describe of
your situation, it would not have been one of those times.
Dave Mould
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Well, to give an example that is about as likely as your
> example in a previous post, what about if there is an
> aircraft taxying behind you, and by stopping you get
> chewed up?
>
So you've got me walking into one spinning propeller and another one
approaching me from behind. It appears you don't want to be taken seriously
at all.
>
> All things considered, I would think that following ATC
> (however improperly worded) would be safer than not -
> improbable situations excepted.
>
So you believe it's safer to follow improper ATC instructions than it is to
ignore them. You're entitled to your opinion. I just ask that you advise
me if you plan to do any flying in the US. For my own safety, I prefer not
to share the sky with pilots who think as you do.
Dave Mould
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:rqh5lg...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> So you believe it's safer to follow improper ATC instructions than it is
to
> ignore them. You're entitled to your opinion. I just ask that you advise
> me if you plan to do any flying in the US. For my own safety, I prefer
not
> to share the sky with pilots who think as you do.
I'll refrain from the obvious retort.
Dave Mould
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I like the use of "can" instead of "shall".
>
Neither is actually used. The paragraph simply says "Vector aircraft:", and
then gets into the particulars.
Chapter 5. RADAR
Section 6. VECTORING
Paragraph 5-6-1. APPLICATION
Vector aircraft:
>
> As we descended out of the floor of the Class B (with its
> protective cocoon of positive separation), we were turned
> over to HPN Tower (Class D).
>
> Traffic was called out to us by the tower, two aircraft departing
> HPN in our direction. I knew the chances of spotting the traffic
> were pretty small, and I knew the tower has radar, so I
> non-chalantly said, "negative contact, request vectors around
> the traffic". Well, damn if the controller didn't put me back in
> my place with his response: "maintain VFR".
>
It may just be that the tower is not permitted to provide vectors. Radar
displays in non-approach control towers are used primarily to provide data
on arriving IFR aircraft. They may also be used for determining the spatial
relationship between aircraft, to provide radar traffic advisories, to
provide a direction or suggested heading to VFR aircraft as a method for
radar identification or as an advisory aid to navigation, and to provide
information and instructions to aircraft operating within the surface area
for which the tower has responsibility. To perform additional functions
requires authorization from higher management.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Gosh. Maybe she simply forgot to use the correct phraseology
> when controlling a mixture of IFR and VFR traffic.
>
Just what is the correct phraseology for an illegal instruction?
Why do you assume that the traffic was IFR? BDWood was level at 5,500 MSL,
that's a VFR altitude. For a conflict to occur aircraft have to be at the
same altitude.
>
> If you are concerned about an ATC communication, why not
> ask a direct question rather than giving hints? How about "I'm
> VFR, not visual with traffic - request its position and height"?
> This could have been done before you were given the
> instruction to which you took exception.
>
Yes, but the controller should have issued a traffic advisory without being
specifically asked. After all, he was receiving flight following. That's
why a VFR pilot requests flight following, to receive traffic advisories.
>
> OTOH, you behaved as I would - complied with the instruction
> and then queried it afterwards on the ground. I think that this
> is the correct action. Had you had a close encounter, it would
> not look very good if you said, "Sure, ATC told me about the
> traffic and told me what to do, but she did not ask politely
> enough, so I ignored her."
>
You just don't get it. It's not that the controller used improper
phraseology or was impolite, she was WRONG. She issued a vector in a
situation where she is not permitted issue a vector. She also failed to
issue a traffic advisory in a situation where she is required to do so.
Good controllers don't make mistakes like that.
>
> There are times that I have and would refuse an ATC instruction
> if I knew that I had a better picture of the situation, but from what
> you describe of your situation, it would not have been one of
> those times.
>
It's pretty clear the controller didn't have a clear picture of the
situation, but you advocate trusting her anyway in the name of safety. Your
position is illogical.
Ed Toivanen
BDWood wrote:
I think that he means at the time of the instruction, not after the fact.
Ed
Steven P. McNicoll
Ed Toivanen <e...@bctel.ca> wrote in message
news:37A8B8E2...@bctel.ca...
>
> I think that he means at the time of the instruction, not after the fact.
>
But he did recognize the instruction as improper at the time it was issued.
jack
> When one side or the other starts making up rules
> as they go along, you can no longer make rational
> judgements about what course of action is best to
> take, because you no longer know how the other
> player will react...That's dangerous.
> Try to assign me (a heading) while VFR, and a red
> flag will go up in my mind that something's not right....
Roy's response is the most constructive and clearest yet on the subject here.
It should not be forgotten that there are occasional instances of purposeful
attempts by troublemakers with transmitters to give "instructions" to air
traffic which might lead to very dangerous situations. The "red flag" _must_
go up any time questionable instructions are broadcast, and they should not
be complied with if doing so might create a greater danger, no matter the
source.
_That_ is always the obligation of the PIC.
Jack
--
___________|___________
\ [ ] /
\(o)/
0/^\0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/>
<mailto:j...@nAsgrp.com>
Dave Mould
>
> Dave Mould <da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:933795485.21743.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Gosh. Maybe she simply forgot to use the correct phraseology
> > when controlling a mixture of IFR and VFR traffic.
> >
>
> Just what is the correct phraseology for an illegal instruction?
ISTM from what has been written before that you would probably have been
happy had she said, "Conflicting traffic 1 mile ahead in your 1 o'clock
passing left to right, for avoidance suggest you turn right heading XXX".
The pilot may then have replied "Traffic in sight, will maintain separation"
or "Roger, turning right heading XXX". She instead only said the last 4
words, and you've got bent out of shape because it was an *instruction*
rather than a *suggestion*.
> Why do you assume that the traffic was IFR? BDWood was level at 5,500
MSL,
> that's a VFR altitude. For a conflict to occur aircraft have to be at the
> same altitude.
I assumed nothing of the sort. I said that maybe the controller was working
a mix of IFR and VFR traffic at the time. She was maybe erroneously in "IFR
mode" when she made the call. Incorrectly issuing an IFR vector to VFR
traffic is a mistake, sure, but in itself it's not going to cause a
dangerous situation, nor does it mean that the controller has lost the
picture.
> Yes, but the controller should have issued a traffic advisory without
being
> specifically asked. After all, he was receiving flight following. That's
> why a VFR pilot requests flight following, to receive traffic advisories.
Sure that's what should have happened. I'm not arguing whether she was
right or wrong. I'm arguing that *despite the fact she was wrong* the most
appropriate thing to do is to follow the instruction none the less. (Which
is what the original poster actually did). If the shoe was on the other
foot, and ATC ignored every pilot who made errors in their radio
communication, I think we would all be shouting loudly.
> You just don't get it. It's not that the controller used improper
> phraseology or was impolite, she was WRONG. She issued a vector in a
> situation where she is not permitted issue a vector. She also failed to
> issue a traffic advisory in a situation where she is required to do so.
> Good controllers don't make mistakes like that.
I did not say that she was being a *good* controller at that time. There
was clearly an error. OTOH, I believe had I been PIC that I would assume
that a potential conflict most likely existed, and on balance doing a turn
rather than not doing the turn would be the safest course of action. Yes, I
too can think of a situation where doing the turn would be less safe, but,
as I say, my actions would be based on balance of probability.
Let's examine our differing philosophy a bit more. A while back there was a
thread where a pilot at an uncontrolled airport issued a direct instruction
to another pilot. I think we were all agreed that this was an improper
action, and no pilot has a right to tell another pilot how to fly his
aeroplane. Instead of issuing an instruction, the pilot should advise of a
situation that he believes the other pilot is unaware, and let a decision be
made by the PIC as to how to behave to resolve it. This I agree with. e.g.
instead of saying "Go around", the call should be "Be advised aircraft is
about to backtrack the active," or, "Be advised that your nosewheel appears
to be retracted" etc., and leave it up to the PIC to ignore, go-around,
land, panic, crash or whatever he sees fit to do with the information.
Now, in a situation where I was on short final to an uncontrolled airport,
and another pilot improperly called, "Landing traffic, go around!" I have a
choice. I can either go around, or, seeing nothing obviously amiss, I can
ignore the instruction. As I have no clue as to why a person would want to
tell me what to do, and it is not even from ATC, I am justified to ignore
the instruction completely.
Personally though, I *would* do the go-around unless I saw a good reason not
to. My reasoning is that even though I cannot be sure that the other pilot
has called the most appropriate action to me, he is almost certainly aware
of something that I am not. Sure, I can think of scenarios where the
go-around is less safe than a landing, but on balance I would think that the
worst likely outcome of doing a go-around is that I have done a completely
unnecessary circuit and lost 5 minutes. Continuing with landing would
expose me to whatever unknown danger the other pilot thinks he has seen. If
later I find out that the reason for his call was that he thought my
nosewheel was retracted, then the go-around call to me in my taildragger
would have been stupid, but I would have lost little. Better safe than
sorry!
I would follow such "iffy" instructions only if I could not see any obvious
danger in following them. Turning right in VMC is not an inherently
dangerous manoevour, and so I would follow the instruction first, and ask
questions later, whatever I thought about the quality of the person giving
the instruction. If the instruction was wrong, I've lost a bit of time. If
it was correct, I've avoided a traffic conflict. On balance, I'd rather do
the turn.
Dave Mould
Larry Dighera
<ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>Obdurate?
ob•du•rate \"ab-de-ret, -dye-; ab-"dur-et, eb-, -"dyur-\ adjective
[ME, fr. L obduratus, pp. of obdurare to harden, fr. ob- against +
durus hard — more at during] (15c)
1 a : stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing
b : hardened in feelings
2 : resistant to persuasion or softening influences syn see
inflexible
ob•du•rate•ly adverb
ob•du•rate•ness noun
(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All
rights reserved.
Steven P. McNicoll
Larry Dighera <LDig...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37d6b02c....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:09:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> >Obdurate?
> >
>
> [ME, fr. L obduratus, pp. of obdurare to harden, fr. ob- against +
> 1 a : stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing
> b : hardened in feelings
> 2 : resistant to persuasion or softening influences syn see
> inflexible
> ob.du.rate.ness noun
>
> (C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. > All
rights reserved.
>
Thank you, but I'm familiar with the word. The question mark was directed
at the usage.
David Scott
<da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I assumed nothing of the sort. I said that maybe the controller was working
>a mix of IFR and VFR traffic at the time. She was maybe erroneously in "IFR
>mode" when she made the call. Incorrectly issuing an IFR vector to VFR
>traffic is a mistake, sure, but in itself it's not going to cause a
>dangerous situation, nor does it mean that the controller has lost the
>picture.
>
Only "about a minute" before, BDWood had responded to her initial
incomplete traffic advisory with, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." The fact that
she apparently completely ignored his response would give me cause for
concern, if only because her short-term memory is so deficient. If
she can't remember 1 minute in the past, how is she going to hold her
plan together?
- David Scott
PP-ASEL-IA
N20870
Andrew Sarangan
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:09:20 +0100, "Dave Mould"
> <da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >a mix of IFR and VFR traffic at the time. She was maybe erroneously in "IFR
> >mode" when she made the call. Incorrectly issuing an IFR vector to VFR
> >traffic is a mistake, sure, but in itself it's not going to cause a
> >dangerous situation, nor does it mean that the controller has lost the
> >picture.
> >
> incomplete traffic advisory with, "Ma'am, 86BW is VFR." The fact that
> she apparently completely ignored his response would give me cause for
> concern, if only because her short-term memory is so deficient. If
> she can't remember 1 minute in the past, how is she going to hold her
> plan together?
This is a pointless argument. Mistakes happen. Pilots make mistakes,
controllers make mistakes and sometimes it is not clear if a mistake was
even made. Unless an airplane was put in danger none of this matters.
This is like blaming the FSS for giving you the wrong weather in Iowa
for a local flight in Alaska.
In this case, a controller gave you a vector that was not appropriate.
But no one was put in danger. The worst that could happen is a little
extra fuel spent. We are jumping to conclusion that this controller is a
threat to all pilots. If, on the other hand, a controller gives you a
vector for a collision course with something else, you have reasons to
complain. Even then, it is the pilot and not the ATC who is responsible
for collision avoidance under VFR.
When you voluntarily ask for VFR flight following, you have to accept
the baggage that might come with it. VFR flight following is a
low-priority ATC service. As such, mistakes are bound to be made. It is
quite possible that ATC trainees are given VFR flight following as
training assignments before moving up to IFR. If we whine and complain
about trivial mistakes, and threaten to take disciplinary actions we
will stop getting that service.
--
Andrew Sarangan
CP-ASEL-IA
http://lights.chtm.unm.edu/~sarangan/aviation
Greg Goodknight
a VFR pilot. You have the right to not take it. As long as they don't
threaten you they could call it a suggestion.
I'd just fly the vector, and have. I hate the sound of midair collisions.
Give the poor guy a break and let'm have the space they need for the IFR
aircraft to be on its merry way.
-Greg
> g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
>established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot
concurs.
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>
>Paul Quade <qu...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
>news:37A65C55...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> Unless I missed something in your story it seems to me like
>> FAR 91.123(b) is the key paragraph to be consulted in this case.
>>
>> Were you or were you not, "in an area in which air traffic control is
>> exercised"?
>>
>
>"Exercised"?, yes; "Exercised over VFR traffic?", no.
>
>
>>
>> You mentioned that you were in Class E airspace and I do
>> believe that air traffic control -does- get exercised in Class E.
>> See AIM 3-2-1(a)
>>
>
>But ATC cannot vector VFR aircraft in Class E airspace at will. ATC can
>vector aircraft operating VFR at those locations where a special program is
>established, or when a pilot requests, or when ATC suggests a heading and
>the pilot concurs. None of those apply in this case.
>
>
>>
>> It doesn't seem to me that it would matter whether you were
>> IFR or not. Once you made contact with ATC in any controlled
>> airspace, it seems to me there is a tacit agreement that you
>> -will- follow their directions.
>>
>> Then again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'd like to see the FAR that
>> would support a differing opinion.
>>
>
>It's not an FAR, it's in FAA Order 7110.65.
BDWood
wrote:
>I'd just fly the vector, and have. I hate the sound of midair collisions.
>Give the poor guy a break and let'm have the space they need for the IFR
>aircraft to be on its merry way.
Why not give the IFR aircraft the vector, and let the VFR pilot go on
HIS merry way? Part of the deal with IFR is getting vectors for
separation. Why should he have priority in that aspect?
I'm not trying to be petty, although I'm sure by now it seems like it.
It is just that VFR is non-controlled flight, and IFR by its very
nature, is. Why not move the plane that should be controlled, and let
me go where I am going? If I wanted vectors, I would have filed IFR.
BDWood
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> ISTM from what has been written before that you would
> probably have been happy had she said, "Conflicting traffic
> 1 mile ahead in your 1 o'clock passing left to right, for
> avoidance suggest you turn right heading XXX". The pilot
> may then have replied "Traffic in sight, will maintain
> separation" or "Roger, turning right heading XXX".
>
That would have been the correct thing to do, although there are a few
phraseology errors there.
>
> She instead only said the last 4 words, and you've got
> bent out of shape because it was an *instruction* rather
> than a *suggestion*.
>
Wrong again. Recall that the controller told BDWood on initial contact that
he "might need to turn right to avoid some traffic". That shows that she
was aware there was traffic in the area that warranted issuing a traffic
advisory. She is required to issue such an advisory; not issuing it is a
procedural error, not a phraseology error.
Approximately one minute later she said, "Seneca 86BW, I need you to turn
right heading 180 traffic avoidance". She vectored an aircraft in a
situation that she was not permitted to do so. Again, that is a procedural
error, not a phraseology error.
I don't get on controllers for phraseology errors; frankly, I think some of
the prescribed phraseology is pretty poor. But errors in procedure are
another matter entirely. The controller in this situation demonstrated she
has a poor understanding of ATC procedures. She needs remedial training,
and until she gets that training, she shouldn't be working traffic.
>
> I assumed nothing of the sort. I said that maybe the controller
> was working a mix of IFR and VFR traffic at the time. She was
> maybe erroneously in "IFR mode" when she made the call.
>
"IFR" mode? If she can't work a mix of IFR and VFR traffic, then she can't
work traffic.
>
> Incorrectly issuing an IFR vector to VFR traffic is a mistake,
> sure, but in itself it's not going to cause a dangerous situation,
> nor does it mean that the controller has lost the picture.
>
What if the aircraft had collided after BDWood began his turn to the
assigned heading? That could have easily happened, and I'd call that a
dangerous situation. If the controller doesn't understand that she cannot
initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft outside of the Class C airspace/Outer
Area, then she never had the picture to begin with.
>
> Sure that's what should have happened. I'm not arguing
> whether she was right or wrong. I'm arguing that *despite
> the fact she was wrong* the most appropriate thing to do
> is to follow the instruction none the less.
>
I think you're wrong. I think the most appropriate thing to do is to hold
your heading, ask for the position of the other traffic, and locate it.
It's quite possible that the other traffic has seen you and has already
taken action to avert collision. Entering a large turn at that point is
just as likely to put the two aircraft together as it is to spread them
apart.
>
> (Which is what the original poster actually did). If the shoe was
> on the other foot, and ATC ignored every pilot who made errors
> in their radio communication, I think we would all be shouting
> loudly.
>
Nobody has criticized the controller for any communications error, the
criticism is solely for errors in procedure.
>
> I did not say that she was being a *good* controller at that
> time. There was clearly an error.
>
Several errors, actually.
>
> OTOH, I believe had I been PIC that I would assume
> that a potential conflict most likely existed, and on balance
> doing a turn rather than not doing the turn would be the
> safest course of action.
>
So you've said. All I ask is that if you fly like that, you confine your
flying to areas outside the US.
David Scott
wrote:
>This is a pointless argument. Mistakes happen. Pilots make mistakes,
>controllers make mistakes and sometimes it is not clear if a mistake was
>even made. Unless an airplane was put in danger none of this matters.
>This is like blaming the FSS for giving you the wrong weather in Iowa
>for a local flight in Alaska.
>
>In this case, a controller gave you a vector that was not appropriate.
>But no one was put in danger.
How do you know?
>The worst that could happen is a little
>extra fuel spent. We are jumping to conclusion that this controller is a
>threat to all pilots. If, on the other hand, a controller gives you a
>vector for a collision course with something else, you have reasons to
>complain.
How do you know you're *not* on a collision course? ATC refused to
point out the traffic.
>Even then, it is the pilot and not the ATC who is responsible
>for collision avoidance under VFR.
Then it's perfectly logical to refuse the vector.
>
>When you voluntarily ask for VFR flight following, you have to accept
>the baggage that might come with it.
Since when are vectors part of that baggage?
>VFR flight following is a
>low-priority ATC service. As such, mistakes are bound to be made.
If they are not able to provide the service, they are quite within
their rights to refuse to provide it (which happens quite often). I
don't think providing low-quality service is an option.
>It is
>quite possible that ATC trainees are given VFR flight following as
>training assignments before moving up to IFR.
That's a scary thought...
>If we whine and complain
>about trivial mistakes, and threaten to take disciplinary actions we
>will stop getting that service.
If BDWood's level of service is representative of the service we
should expect, I'll happily do without, thank you.
Steven P. McNicoll
Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in message
news:37A9F8C6...@unm.edu...
>
> This is a pointless argument. Mistakes happen. Pilots
> make mistakes, controllers make mistakes and sometimes
> it is not clear if a mistake was even made. Unless an airplane
> was put in danger none of this matters.
>
But in this case, it is clear that mistakes were made, and an aircraft was
put in potential danger.
>
> In this case, a controller gave you a vector that was not appropriate.
> But no one was put in danger. The worst that could happen is a little
> extra fuel spent.
>
Actually, the aircraft could have collided. I'd say that's considerably
worse than burning a little bit more fuel.
>
> We are jumping to conclusion that this controller is a
> threat to all pilots.
>
This controller is not familiar enough with ATC procedures to be working
traffic. That is not a conclusion jumped to, that is a conclusion based on
the facts presented by BDWood.
>
> If, on the other hand, a controller gives you a vector for a
> collision course with something else, you have reasons to
> complain.
>
If you don't know where the other traffic is and what it is doing, you
cannot know if you're on a collision course or not. The vector could easily
have resulted in a collision course.
>
> Even then, it is the pilot and not the ATC who is responsible
> for collision avoidance under VFR.
>
Exactly. Why then, was the controller vectoring the aircraft?
>
> When you voluntarily ask for VFR flight following, you have
> to accept the baggage that might come with it.
>
When you request flight following you're requesting traffic advisories.
There is no "baggage" that comes with it.
>
> VFR flight following is a low-priority ATC service.
> As such, mistakes are bound to be made.
>
Flight following is an additional service, it is provided to the extent
possible depending on higher priority duties or other limitations. Things
like radar limitations, volume of traffic, frequency congestion, or
controller workload. None of these limitations applied in this case. The
controller told BDWood on initial contact that a right turn might be needed
to avoid some traffic. If she had time to do that, she certainly had time
to issue a proper traffic advisory.
>
> It is quite possible that ATC trainees are given VFR flight
> following as training assignments before moving up to IFR.
>
No, it isn't. There is no split responsibility for any piece of airspace.
>
> If we whine and complain about trivial mistakes, and threaten
> to take disciplinary actions we will stop getting that service.
>
To my knowledge, nobody has threatened and disciplinary action in this case.
But these were certainly not trivial mistakes.
Steven P. McNicoll
Greg Goodknight <go...@nccn.net> wrote in message
news:93393870...@sj-nntpcache-1.cisco.com...
>
> section g) seems to give the controller every right to "suggest"
> a vector to a VFR pilot. You have the right to not take it. As long
> as they don't threaten you they could call it a suggestion.
>
But she didn't "suggest" a vector, she assigned a heading.
>
> I'd just fly the vector, and have. I hate the sound of midair collisions.
>
You're assuming that flying the vector will lessen the chance of a midair.
It's just as likely to increase it.
>
> Give the poor guy a break and let'm have the space they need
> for the IFR aircraft to be on its merry way.
>
It hasn't been established that the other aircraft was IFR, and there is no
separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft in the airspace concerned.
Steven P. McNicoll
BDWood <wo...@home.com> wrote in message news:37add981.325424043@news...
>
> Why not give the IFR aircraft the vector, and let the VFR pilot
> go on HIS merry way? Part of the deal with IFR is getting
> vectors for separation. Why should he have priority in that
> aspect?
>
Do you know that the other aircraft was operating IFR?
Neither aircraft should have been issued a vector for separation, as ATC
does not separate IFR from VFR aircraft in the airspace concerned. If the
controller was communicating with each aircraft, then each aircraft should
have been issued a traffic advisory.
As you were level at 5,500 MSL, for an IFR aircraft to be a factor it would
likely be climbing or descending through your altitude. If that was the
case here, then the simplest way for the controller to resolve any conflict
would be to level the IFR aircraft briefly and let him know when targets
have passed.
"King Air 9801W, converging traffic, two o'clock, two miles, northeast
bound, a Piper Seneca at five thousand five hundred. If you'd like to stop
your climb at five thousand I'll let you know when you're clear."
Andrew Sarangan
>
> Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in message
> news:37A9F8C6...@unm.edu...
> >
> > This is a pointless argument. Mistakes happen. Pilots
> > make mistakes, controllers make mistakes and sometimes
> > it is not clear if a mistake was even made. Unless an airplane
> > was put in danger none of this matters.
> >
>
> But in this case, it is clear that mistakes were made, and an aircraft was
> put in potential danger.
BDWood did not say that the assigned vector put him on a collision
course with another airplane. To the contrary, he said that the
controller gave him the vector and said it was for "avoiding traffic".
What is the danger in that ?
The only valid point in this argument is whether or not the controller
should have given him a vector. Danger was never an issue. That is
something that someone made up on this thread.
>
> >
> > In this case, a controller gave you a vector that was not appropriate.
> > But no one was put in danger. The worst that could happen is a little
> > extra fuel spent.
> >
>
> Actually, the aircraft could have collided. I'd say that's considerably
> worse than burning a little bit more fuel.
Again, there is no evidence of any collision hazard. The pilot did not
see any traffic before or after the vector. If anything, it could be
agrues that the pilot might have had to take a last minute evasive
action had he not been given that vector.
Andrew Sarangan
>
> On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 14:49:10 -0600, Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >threat to all pilots. If, on the other hand, a controller gives you a
> >vector for a collision course with something else, you have reasons to
> >complain.
>
> point out the traffic.
The controller said, "Seneca 86BW, I need you to turn right heading 180
traffic avoidance." Based on the above, how do you conclude that that
vector will put him on a collision course ? This is what I call jumping
to conclusion.
Had the controller said ""Seneca 86BW, traffic 9 o'clock 1 mile, suggest
you turn right heading 180 for traffic avoidance" we will not be arguing
about any of this.
However, how is the second phrase different from the first ? They are
different in the sense that one is an instruction while the other is a
suggestion. Except for that, the intent of both are the same.
You are making a big leap in saying that just because the controller did
not use the right words she must be an incompetent idiot and every thing
she says puts you on a collision course.
m w grossmann
>
> RossPilot <ross...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990802182227...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> >
> > I think you handled it just fine. And in the unlikely event it
> > happens again, I would comply with ATC's direction. They
> > are, after all, trying to keep you from meeting someone else
> > unexpectedly.
> >
>
> I see no advantage in blindly following the directions of an improperly
> trained controller.
Who's more blind: you with your 10 mi. visibility and ability to pick up
a 600kt threat at maybe half that distance or the controller with a
bunch of radars?
The controller is not your enemy -- you both have the same goal: keeping
you alive.
I might piss and moan and point out that I'm being vectored away from my
destination and say so on the radio, but I'll keep the flight following
and deal with the minor annoyances.
Cheers-
m w grossmann
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> BDWood did not say that the assigned vector put him on a
> collision course with another airplane. To the contrary, he said
> that the controller gave him the vector and said it was for
> "avoiding traffic". What is the danger in that ?
>
The danger is a possible midair collision. The location and actions of the
other aircraft were unknown to BDWood. If the other aircraft had spotted
Wood's Seneca, it may have already taken action to remedy the situation.
Ordering Wood to start a large turn could have put those aircraft together
again.
>
> The only valid point in this argument is whether or not the controller
> should have given him a vector. Danger was never an issue. That is
> something that someone made up on this thread.
>
The controller was wrong to issue the vector, there is no argument about
that. What is being argued is whether it's a good idea to start a large
turn when you learn there is another aircraft in your vicinity at your
altitude.
>
> Again, there is no evidence of any collision hazard.
>
The controller must have believed there was, why else would she issue the
vector?
>
> The pilot did not see any traffic before or after the vector.
>
So we can't know how close they actually were, and can't know what effect
the vector had.
>
> If anything, it could be agrues that the pilot might have had
> to take a last minute evasive action had he not been given
> that vector.
>
The vector was just as likely to have brought them closer together than they
would have been without it. There's no reason to believe the vector
improved the situation at all. All that is known for certain is that she
was wrong to issue the vector, and wrong in not issuing a traffic advisory a
minute earlier.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> The controller said, "Seneca 86BW, I need you to turn right
> heading 180 traffic avoidance." Based on the above, how
> course ? This is what I call jumping to conclusion.
>
Nobody concluded the vector put the aircraft on collision courses. It was
simply pointed out that issuing a vector in a situation like this is just as
likely to put the concerned aircraft on collision courses as it is to help
them to avoid a collision.
>
> Had the controller said ""Seneca 86BW, traffic 9 o'clock 1 mile,
> suggest you turn right heading 180 for traffic avoidance" we will
> not be arguing about any of this.
>
Exactly. Had she done her job properly BDWood would not have started this
thread.
>
> However, how is the second phrase different from the first ?
>
In the first phrase she does not say where the traffic is and improperly
issues a vector.
>
> They are different in the sense that one is an instruction
> while the other is a suggestion. Except for that, the intent
> of both are the same.
>
One is proper, the other is wrong. I'd say that's a significant difference.
>
> You are making a big leap in saying that just because the
> controller did not use the right words she must be an
> incompetent idiot and every thing she says puts you on a
> collision course.
>
This was not a simple phraseology error, the controller made serious
fundamental, procedural errors. It is fortunate that no harm was done, but
her actions could have easily contributed to a midair collision.
Steven P. McNicoll
m w grossmann <m...@dere.com> wrote in message news:37AB56...@dere.com...
>
> Who's more blind: you with your 10 mi. visibility and ability to
> pick up a 600kt threat at maybe half that distance or the
> controller with a bunch of radars?
>
The controller didn't have a bunch of radars, she had one. This incident
occurred at 5500 MSL, where the speed limit is 250 KIAS. If you want to
discuss aviation matters it would be a good idea to first learn something
about aviation.
>
> The controller is not your enemy -- you both have the same
> goal: keeping you alive.
>
She sure did a poor job in this case.
>
> I might piss and moan and point out that I'm being vectored
> away from my destination and say so on the radio, but I'll
> keep the flight following nd deal with the minor annoyances.
>
And if you collide with another aircraft while on that vector, would that be
just a minor annoyance?
Flight following means traffic advisories, it doesn't include unrequested
vectors for traffic avoidance.
Jim Hiatt
observe traffic over a much larger area than can be seen from the cockpit,
especially if viz is limited by haze, darkness, or a low sun. I agree that
vectors to VFR traffic are not called for unless something extreme is about
to happen. Remember - just because YOU don't see them doesn't mean they
aren't there. And yes, I have had bad vectors from m ATC that caused me to
come closer than was comfortable to traffic - errors occur, and since our
butts are in the seats we have the final word.
AN example happened to a friend flying a Mooney ahead of me one night about
20 years ago. We were returning to BFI in Seattle from Sun River, a lodge
in Central Oregon. We were a flight of three cruising at 10,000 along the
Cascade mountain range. We all were using flight following. We got a late
start home, so darkness overtook us. The conversation went something like
this:
ATC - Mooney 201DV, immediate turn to 300.
201DV - Sir, I am VFR.
ATC - Mooney 201DV, immediate left turn 30 degrees.
201DV - Sir, I say again, I AM VFR AND DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT VECTORS!
ATC - Roger 201DV. You have Mount Rainier in site?
201DV - Negative
ATC - OK....... Mt. Rainier 12 o'clock, 3 miles & closing.
Nuff said about this.
Remove "nospam" for correct address.
Jim Hiatt
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:rqn5d3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in message
Dave Mould
> So you've said. All I ask is that if you fly like that, you confine your
> flying to areas outside the US.
So you've said, though I cannot think why my viewpoint would cause you to
make such a personal attack. Whilst I reserve the right to follow ATC
instructions, however improper, if I feel they are not placing me in any
danger, I have no similar urge to follow any suggestion whatsoever from
yourself, so I'll fly in the US any time I darn well please, with or without
your permission.
I also extend an invitation to you to fly in the UK anytime you wish. I'm
quite used to the occasional pilot being unable or unwilling to follow ATC
instructions, and I've so far managed to avoid them quite successfully.
Dave Mould
Andrew Sarangan
> >
>
> The vector was just as likely to have brought them closer together than they
> would have been without it. There's no reason to believe the vector
> improved the situation at all. All that is known for certain is that she
> was wrong to issue the vector, and wrong in not issuing a traffic advisory a
> minute earlier.
Yes, there is no reason to believe that the vector improved the
situation. But there is no reason to believe that the vector did not
help the situation either. Why do you think she issued an instruction
and not a suggestion ? She probably got confused and thought this was an
IFR aircraft. That is the most likely explanation. Her vector was
intended to steer Wood from another aircraft. It was not intended to
steer him towards a collision course. If the controller intentionally
steered him towards a collision (which is what you seem to imply) then
we have a much serious problem. She must be some kind of psycho and
should be removed from duty immediately. However, that is a big leap in
argument. You can't accuse someone of malicious intent just because they
made a harmless mistake. I don't understand why making a large turn in
an attempt to steer away from another aircraft poses a collision hazard.
That is why you are turning - to avoid an aircraft. Happens all the time
under VFR.
Wood never saw any aircraft, before or after the vector. Had he not been
on Flight Following, he would have merrily flown without knowing if an
aircraft was in the vicinity or not. It is quite possible that he would
have flown within a mile or two of the conflicting traffic and never
realized it. Your argument is implying that it is better to fly like
that than to get a vector.
The problem here is that she issued an instruction when she should have
called out the traffic. She has to be made aware of that mistake. But
let's not jump to all kinds of fantastic speculations about the possible
dangers in this.
RossPilot
called out the traffic. She has to be made aware of that mistake.>>
That pretty much wraps this thread, I'd say.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this.
Steven P. McNicoll
Jim Hiatt <compu...@nospam.ibm.net> wrote in message
news:37ab...@news1.us.ibm.net...
>
> AN example happened to a friend flying a Mooney ahead of
> me one night about 20 years ago. We were returning to BFI
> in Seattle from Sun River, a lodge in Central Oregon. We were
> a flight of three cruising at 10,000 along the Cascade mountain
> range. We all were using flight following. We got a late start
> home, so darkness overtook us. The conversation went
> something like this:
>
> ATC - Mooney 201DV, immediate turn to 300.
> 201DV - Sir, I am VFR.
> ATC - Mooney 201DV, immediate left turn 30 degrees.
> 201DV - Sir, I say again, I AM VFR AND DO NOT HAVE TO
> ACCEPT VECTORS!
> ATC - Roger 201DV. You have Mount Rainier in site?
> 201DV - Negative
> ATC - OK....... Mt. Rainier 12 o'clock, 3 miles & closing.
>
The controller should have issued a safety alert and suggested a heading, he
should not have initiated vectoring of a VFR aircraft. It should have gone
something like this:
ATC - Mooney 201DV, low altitude alert, Mount Rainier is twelve o'clock,
three miles, advise you turn left, heading 300.
201DV - Roger, turning to 300.
Steven P. McNicoll
Julio <jj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:933795...@www.remarq.com...
>
> Flight Following for VFR aircraft is at the controllers
> discretion. He can deny or terminate it at any time for
> any reason or for no reason at all.
>
That's not correct. Controllers must provide additional services, such as
flight following, to the extent permitted by higher priority duties. The
provision of additional services is NOT optional on the part of the
controller, it is REQUIRED when the work situation permits.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Yes, there is no reason to believe that the vector improved
> the situation. But there is no reason to believe that the vector
> did not help the situation either. Why do you think she issued
> an instruction and not a suggestion ?
>
I think she issued the vector because she was inadequately trained, she
didn't know she was not permitted to do so. I believe I said that very
early in this thread.
>
> She probably got confused and thought this was an IFR aircraft.
> That is the most likely explanation.
>
Unlikely. BDWood was level at 5,500, a VFR cruising altitude, and he
reminded her on initial contact that he was VFR.
>
> Her vector was intended to steer Wood from another aircraft.
> It was not intended to steer him towards a collision course.
>
Of course it wasn't intended to steer him towards a collision course, nobody
suggested that it was. It was simply pointed out that initiating a large
turn when another aircraft is known to be in close proximity, that may very
well already be maneuvering to avoid you, is not a particularly good idea.
>
> If the controller intentionally steered him towards a collision
> (which is what you seem to imply) then we have a much
> serious problem.
>
I didn't imply anything like that. If you inferred that, then you're an
idiot.
>
> She must be some kind of psycho and should be removed
> from duty immediately. However, that is a big leap in argument.
>
I agree, but you're the only one who has even remotely suggested anything
like that.
>
> You can't accuse someone of malicious intent just because
> they made a harmless mistake.
>
Nobody has accused the controller of malicious intent.
>
> I don't understand why making a large turn in an attempt to
> steer away from another aircraft poses a collision hazard.
>
I'm sorry, I don't see how it can be explained any simpler than it already
has.
>
> That is why you are turning - to avoid an aircraft. Happens
> all the time under VFR.
>
How do you turn to avoid an aircraft when you don't know where it is or what
it is doing?
>
> Wood never saw any aircraft, before or after the vector. Had he
> not been on Flight Following, he would have merrily flown without
> knowing if an aircraft was in the vicinity or not. It is quite possible
> that he would have flown within a mile or two of the conflicting
> traffic and never realized it. Your argument is implying that it is
> better to fly like that than to get a vector.
>
I implied nothing. I simply pointed out that the controller erred by not
issuing a traffic advisory when she saw a conflict, and by issuing a vector
to a VFR aircraft. It is not my opinion that she was wrong, it is a fact.
You probably don't understand why that is so, and you probably never will,
but your lack of understanding doesn't alter that fact.
>
> The problem here is that she issued an instruction when
> she should have called out the traffic.
>
Actually, she should have called the traffic earlier, instead of saying,
"you might need to turn right to avoid some traffic".
>
> She has to be made aware of that mistake. But
> let's not jump to all kinds of fantastic speculations
> about the possible dangers in this.
>
Fantastic speculations? If you don't see how this vector could have brought
these aircraft together, it's only because you lack sufficient basic
knowledge of aviation.
wood...@my-deja.com
Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote:
> The problem here is that she issued an
instruction when she should have
> called out the traffic. She has to be made aware
of that mistake.
So, earlier in the thread you tell me not to whine
and complain and threaten disciplinary actions in
a case like this. Then you come back here later
and say that she has to be made aware of her
mistake. How exactly is that supposed to happen?
I can only conclude from your comments that you
believed that my informational call to the
supervisor was the whining complaining and
threatening you were referring to, as that is the
only action I took in this matter, other than
posting the experience for feedback on this forum.
I purposely kept it a non-official conversation,
and did not require a callback or follow-up of any
kind. What exactly is the procedure to use so
that she can be made aware of her mistake, if what
I did was whining complaining and threatening and
is what we shouldn't do?
BDWood
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Pat Yearick
>
> m w grossmann <m...@dere.com> wrote in message news:37AB56...@dere.com...
> >
> > Who's more blind: you with your 10 mi. visibility and ability to
> > pick up a 600kt threat at maybe half that distance or the
> > controller with a bunch of radars?
> >
>
> The controller didn't have a bunch of radars, she had one. This incident
> occurred at 5500 MSL, where the speed limit is 250 KIAS. If you want to
> discuss aviation matters it would be a good idea to first learn something
> about aviation.
>
You too.
250 KIAS below 10K' is not an absolute. Military aircraft, as an example
the T-38, were waivered on this speed below 10K'. We flew initial
(traffic pattern) at 300 KIAS. Same with the F-15 but at least we had a
radar there.
The T-38 is one of those that you really have to worry about...dot in
the canopy to *right there* in less than 30 seconds. And he *can* easily
run you down. How often do you check six? Can you check six? Or do you
fly any number of GA aircraft that don't have windows back there?
This is what is odd about your responses in this thread. Me, I'd just
take the vector. She said "traffic avoidance" and that's all I need, VFR
or not. I used to fly fast, now I fly a -150. But, I mostly worry about
getting run over from behind in the -150. I'd buy a TCAD if I could just
afford it. If you haven't almost run over something or almost been run
over by something in restricted airspace, moa's or just flying around
NYC, Philly or Dulles or any other number of places -- you just haven't
lived.
BTW, we used to do low altitude training in the F-15 (yes even air to
air guys) in MOAs and out over the water. 600 KCAS on the deck. Do you
ever go through hot MOAs?
Me, I'll talk all the help I can get including flight following
suggestions (even if improperly worded) while I'm flying. Sort it out on
the ground later like BD did but don't make a federal case out of it.
It's a fast moving ball game out there.
This is a long thread to say "right idea, wrong wording".
Pat
--
---
Pat Yearick, p...@sgi.com
Systems Engineering Manager, North-Atlantic Region
SGI
8 Neshaminy Interplex, Suite 400
Trevose PA 19053
(215)658-7050 fax (215)638-9285
http://reality.sgi.com/pay_trevose
RossPilot
>BTW, we used to do low altitude training in the F-15 (yes even air to
>air guys) in MOAs and out over the water. 600 KCAS on the deck.
That sounds pretty thrilling . . . we used to do about 90 knots often lower
than surrounding obstacles and terrain . . . particularly in river beds--in
Hueys--called "nap-of-the-earth" flight. As fast and as low as the terrain
will permit. But you had to watch for cropdusters who would pop up almost
vertically out of nowhere sometimes. Rural Alabama.
Pat Yearick
It was thrilling! In fact it's thrilling just remembering it ;^). Low
and fast is where the F-15 could really suck the gas and shove air out
of the way.
One of the training tasks was to clock it up, get it going good and pull
them both to idle -- and not hit the ground. You were really pushing a
lot of air.
BTW, our lower limit for this *familiarization* training was 300' AGL.
Other people that did this for a living regularly went lower. You can
imagine that F-111's could do this for hundreds of miles, much lower,
too and maintain near those speeds.
RE: Hueys. Now I don't have any real helo time, but I worked on the
Apache sim at Link for several years. Although I must have had ~100
hours in the sim, the "real" Army pilots drug skids, on purpose, at
least part of the time. I don't think they (or you) would consider 300'
AGL real low <grin>. 0' AGL or thereabouts seemed to work for them.
I don't mention this tho' for any other reason than I don't know how
anyone else would even know that this stuff goes on all the time all
over the country (world, probably) unless it gets posted here or their
CFI mentions it.
If you don't know about it you don't even consider it a threat.
--
Steven P. McNicoll
Pat Yearick <p...@sgi.com> wrote in message news:37AF30AC...@sgi.com...
>
> 250 KIAS below 10K' is not an absolute. Military aircraft,
> as an example the T-38, were waivered on this speed below
> 10K'. We flew initial (traffic pattern) at 300 KIAS. Same with
> the F-15 but at least we had a radar there.
>
This incident occurred near Block Island at 5500 MSL. It wasn't in a MOA,
it wasn't in an Alert Area, it wasn't on or crossing an MTR, and it wasn't
in any traffic pattern. Are you saying that the Administrator has
authorized the military to operate aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an
indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots anywhere in the US?
>
> The T-38 is one of those that you really have to worry about...dot in
> the canopy to *right there* in less than 30 seconds. And he *can*
> easily run you down. How often do you check six?
>
How often does the T-38 check twelve? If he's running me down it's because
I'm in front of him, his responsibility to see and avoid me is no less than
my responsibility to see and avoid him. If he can't do that at 600 knots
and 5500 MSL then he better slow down or climb above 10,000 MSL.
>
> Can you check six? Or do you fly any number of GA aircraft
> that don't have windows back there?
>
I can check six as well as the T-38 can. If the T-38 promises not to run me
down from behind, I promise to do the same for the T-38.
>
> This is what is odd about your responses in this thread. Me,
> I'd just take the vector. She said "traffic avoidance" and that's
> all I need, VFR or not.
>
Then you are a danger to yourself and to the other aircraft. As has been
thoroughly explained in this thread, taking that vector could just as easily
have caused a collision as prevent one.
>
> BTW, we used to do low altitude training in the F-15 (yes even
> air to air guys) in MOAs and out over the water. 600 KCAS on
> the deck. Do you ever go through hot MOAs?
>
Nope.
>
> Me, I'll talk all the help I can get including flight following
> suggestions (even if improperly worded) while I'm flying.
> Sort it out on the ground later like BD did but don't make
> a federal case out of it. It's a fast moving ball game out there.
>
> This is a long thread to say "right idea, wrong wording".
>
If you had taken the time to actually read the thread, you would know that
this wasn't a phraseology error. The controller made fundamental errors in
procedure.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> So you've said, though I cannot think why my viewpoint would
> cause you to make such a personal attack.
>
That's not a personal attack, I have attacked only your ideas.
>
> Whilst I reserve the right to follow ATC instructions, however
> improper, if I feel they are not placing me in any danger, I have
> no similar urge to follow any suggestion whatsoever from
> yourself, so I'll fly in the US any time I darn well please, with or
> without your permission.
>
Placing yourself in a dangerous situation is one thing, it is quite another
thing to place someone else in danger. You have consistently advocated a
course of action that potentially endangers the other aircraft. I might be
in that other aircraft, for my own safety I prefer not to share the sky with
pilots who think as you do. Yes, you're free to fly in the US any time you
darn well please, you don't need my permission. I just ask that you advise
me if and when you plan to do any flying in the US. I'll stand down and be
safe, you can be as reckless as you want to be.
>
> I also extend an invitation to you to fly in the UK anytime you wish.
>
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. I did a tour at RAF Lakenheath
in the seventies.
>
> I'm quite used to the occasional pilot being unable or unwilling
> to follow ATC instructions, and I've so far managed to avoid
> them quite successfully.
>
I'm perfectly willing to follow proper ATC instructions, but I can recognize
far better than most pilots those instances when ATC issues improper
instructions and they should not be followed.
St Stephen Ames
> I'm perfectly willing to follow proper ATC instructions, but I can recognize
> far better than most pilots those instances when ATC issues improper
> instructions and they should not be followed.
Would you give me some of those situations?...I am new and may not
recognize an improper instruction...
--
Blue skies,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASEL
N16402
My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
No smoking inside the cabin, smoking outside the cabin should be
brought to my attention immediately!
- pt of my pre-flight pax briefing -
Rod Farlee
>That's not a personal attack, I have attacked only your ideas.
>pilots who think as you do.
Hmm! A distinction drawn so fine, even he cannot observe it.
This follows the pattern of innumerable previous threads:
1) He often opens with a fact or two, and that is where his positive
contribution ends.
2) He then continues with some amazing leaps of "logic", opinion,
and diatribe.
3) Failing to convince, he resorts to incivility and ad hominem attacks.
4) He repeats himself endlessly until he has the last word.
Whether the small ratio 1/(2+3)*4 is worthwhile is up to each reader.
I long ago concluded he is best ignored.
- Rod Farlee
Dave Mould
> I'm perfectly willing to follow proper ATC instructions, but I can
recognize
> far better than most pilots those instances when ATC issues improper
> instructions and they should not be followed.
And what guarantee can you give to us mere mortals that the next time you
refuse to carry out an instruction from ATC it may be *you* that are in
error?
Dave Mould
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> And what guarantee can you give to us mere mortals that the
> next time you refuse to carry out an instruction from ATC it
> may be *you* that are in error?
>
What kind of guarantee would satisfy you?
Steven P. McNicoll
St Stephen Ames <ste...@stephenames.com> wrote in message
news:37B4E2...@stephenames.com...
>
> Would you give me some of those situations?...I am new
> and may not recognize an improper instruction...
>
If you're operating under VFR in Class E or G airspace, virtually all ATC
instructions are improper. In fact, the only proper instructions I can
think of in that situation are "remain outside Delta/Charlie/Bravo
airspace".
Wdtabor
<ronca...@writeme.com> writes:
>
>If you're operating under VFR in Class E or G airspace, virtually all ATC
>instructions are improper. In fact, the only proper instructions I can
>think of in that situation are "remain outside Delta/Charlie/Bravo
>airspace".
>
>
While returning to PVG from FVX this weekend, I was using flight following and
was very grateful to have the extra radar eyes due to the limited visibility in
thick Virginia haze. Washington Center was kind enough to "remind" me that the
Restricted area at Fort Pickett was active that weekend.
As I distrusted the squirrelly LORAN in the 172 I was flying VFR and visibility
was very bad, I was using I Follow Roads (IFR) navigation, keeping Highway 460
in sight, so I knew I was near, but not in, the restricted area. None the less,
I am grateful for their attention and desire to help and if I were in doubt
about my course relative to special use airspace, I would not hesitate to ask
ATC if my course would keep me clear of the boundaries.
There are other situations as well where I would welcome their "advice" whether
I asked for it or not. For example, just north of the James River here, Langley
AFB, PHF and another military field I can't recall at the moment are clustered
with IFR approaches reaching out into class G airspace. The jets going into
those fields move fast, visibility is often bad here, and yet it is completely
legal to fly through those approaches VFR at altitudes that conflict with the
approaches. If ATC wants to ask me to change my altitude or course to simplify
their job of keeping an IFR flight from running over me, I am happy to oblige
them.
Flight following is a great service and I don't see any reason it should be a
one way proposition. I will happily accept any reasonable routing they offer if
doing so makes thier job easier and my flying safer.
Don
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK
Jim Sokoloff
> Flight following is a great service and I don't see any reason it should be a
> one way proposition. I will happily accept any reasonable routing they offer if
> doing so makes thier job easier and my flying safer.
Precisely; I assumed that was the majority opinion, but I gather that
it's quite a bit less than universal.
---Jim
Michael
> instructions are improper. In fact, the only proper instructions I can
> think of in that situation are "remain outside Delta/Charlie/Bravo
> airspace".
Maybe we need a better definition of improper. Bear with us, we're
not all controllers.
For example: "Turn left heading 060, vectors for traffic." I understand
that I am not required to comply with this instruction, but it would be
pretty damn silly of me not to if I still haven't seen the traffic. Is
that
an example of an improper instruction? Does it make a difference if
it reads "Suggest a left turn, heading 060, vectors for traffic?"
Michael
Roy Smith
> For example: "Turn left heading 060, vectors for traffic." I understand
> that I am not required to comply with this instruction, but it would be
> pretty damn silly of me not to if I still haven't seen the traffic. Is
> that
> an example of an improper instruction? Does it make a difference if
> it reads "Suggest a left turn, heading 060, vectors for traffic?"
The only difference in my mind is with the former, I start to wonder if
perhaps the controller is confused about whether I'm IFR or VFR. It
happens.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
BDWood
>For example: "Turn left heading 060, vectors for traffic." I understand
>that I am not required to comply with this instruction, but it would be
>pretty damn silly of me not to if I still haven't seen the traffic. Is
>that
>an example of an improper instruction?
Yes, it is an example of an improper instruction.
It depends on why/when you are being asked to deviate from your chosen
course...if you have had traffic pointed out, are unable to see it, he
continues to call it, you continue to not see it, and he gives you a
vector for traffic, that is in context, but it should be clear that it
is a suggestion...
If out of the blue, he just tells you to change course, you might just
respond that you are VFR, and that you would like to have the traffic
pointed out to you so you CAN avoid it visually if possible.
We had quite the thread about this a few months ago, after someone (me
actually) was given about a 110 degree vector for traffic with no
traffic call before, which I complied with, but kinda wondered about.
Check Deja for some of those thoughts...
BDWood
Steven P. McNicoll
Wdtabor <wdt...@aol.combackatyu> wrote in message
news:19991116115845...@ngol01.aol.com...
> In article <s31cjs...@corp.supernews.com>, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@writeme.com> writes:
> >
> >instructions are improper. In fact, the only proper instructions I can
> >think of in that situation are "remain outside Delta/Charlie/Bravo
> >airspace".
> >
>
> following and was very grateful to have the extra radar eyes due to
> the limited visibility in thick Virginia haze. Washington Center was
> kind enough to "remind" me that the Restricted area at Fort Pickett
> was active that weekend.
>
> As I distrusted the squirrelly LORAN in the 172 I was flying VFR and
> visibility was very bad, I was using I Follow Roads (IFR) navigation,
> keeping Highway 460 in sight, so I knew I was near, but not in, the
> restricted area. None the less, I am grateful for their attention and
> desire to help and if I were in doubt about my course relative to
> special use airspace, I would not hesitate to ask ATC if my course
> would keep me clear of the boundaries.
>
> There are other situations as well where I would welcome their
> "advice" whether I asked for it or not. For example, just north of the
> James River here, Langley AFB, PHF and another military field I
> can't recall at the moment are clustered with IFR approaches
> reaching out into class G airspace. The jets going into those fields
> move fast, visibility is often bad here, and yet it is completely
> legal to fly through those approaches VFR at altitudes that conflict
> with the approaches. If ATC wants to ask me to change my altitude
> or course to simplify their job of keeping an IFR flight from running
> over me, I am happy to oblige them.
>
You may be thinking of NAS Norfolk.
As it is not ATC's job to keep IFR flights from running over you, asking you
to change your altitude or course cannot simplify their job.
>
> Flight following is a great service and I don't see any reason it should
> be a one way proposition. I will happily accept any reasonable routing
> they offer if doing so makes thier job easier and my flying safer.
>
That's all swell, but what does any of it have to do with what I posted?
Steven P. McNicoll
Michael <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:01bf311f$88416ec0$0b9cbdd0@mike-s-desktop...
>
> Maybe we need a better definition of improper. Bear with us, we're
> not all controllers.
>
An improper instruction would be one that the controller is not permitted to
issue.
>
> For example: "Turn left heading 060, vectors for traffic." I understand
> that I am not required to comply with this instruction, but it would be
> pretty damn silly of me not to if I still haven't seen the traffic. Is
> that an example of an improper instruction?
>
If you're operating under VFR and outside of Class B or C airspace, or a
TRSA, then that is an example of an improper instruction.
>
> Does it make a difference if it reads "Suggest a left turn,
> heading 060, vectors for traffic?"
>
Yes it does.
Michael
to
> issue.
That's all well and good, but we don't really know what rules the
controllers operate under.
> If you're operating under VFR and outside of Class B or C airspace, or a
> TRSA, then that is an example of an improper instruction.
> > Does it make a difference if it reads "Suggest a left turn,
> > heading 060, vectors for traffic?"
> Yes it does.
So what it seems to come down to is that an instruction that
a pilot is not required to comply with is improper and a controller
is not permitted to issue it, but he can issue a suggestion to
the same effect. Do I have that right?
If so, it seem just a bit silly - it's improper because he
didn't say the magic word (in this case suggest).
Michael
Roy Smith
> If so, it seem just a bit silly - it's improper because he
> didn't say the magic word (in this case suggest).
It's more than just saying the magic word. Just like it's important to
know who's flying the plane when there's two pilots in the cockpit, it's
important to know exactly what the division is between controller and
pilot. I decide whether I'm going to operate under VFR or IFR. Each has
a different set of responsibilities, obligations, and authority vested in
the pilot and the controller. As long as both parties know which set of
rules they're playing with, it works. When you start making stuff up on
the fly, it gets more complicated.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> That's all well and good, but we don't really know what
> rules the controllers operate under.
>
Who are "we"? Who are you speaking for? Many users of this forum have a
pretty good working knowledge of the rules the controllers operate under.
It's not a state secret, anybody can obtain a copy of FAA Order 7110.65, and
I believe an online version exists.
>
> So what it seems to come down to is that an instruction that
> a pilot is not required to comply with is improper and a controller
> is not permitted to issue it, but he can issue a suggestion to
> the same effect. Do I have that right?
>
Pretty much.
>
> If so, it seem just a bit silly - it's improper because he
> didn't say the magic word (in this case suggest).
>
That "magic word" is a pretty significant difference. Not using it (when
it's required) implies the controller has some authority over the operation
of VFR aircraft in Class E airspace. How much authority do you want ATC to
have over your VFR flying?
A.J.
through the FAR's if I must but I believe it is stated that all instructions
must be followed unless the PIC knows that they are unsafe. This includes
any directions from ATC while VFR under flight following. If anyone has a
serious problem with complying with ATC while VFR politely cancel flight
following, squak VFR, and stay out of airspace that requires 2 way comms.
Newps
>
> "Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote:
> > For example: "Turn left heading 060, vectors for traffic." I understand
> > that I am not required to comply with this instruction,
You either want service or you don't. If you are in B or C airspace
then you have to take the vector.
Newps
> > Does it make a difference if it reads "Suggest a left turn,
> > heading 060, vectors for traffic?"
This is an example of a traffic call you might get, prefaced with
"Safety alert". If you receive this and still hit somebody, well, it
just wasn't your day.
BDWood
>If so, it seem just a bit silly - it's improper because he
>didn't say the magic word (in this case suggest).
Under VFR, you have responsibility for and full authority regarding
your route of flight if you are in Class E or G airspace. If a
controller starts taking that responsibility and authority away from
you...i.e. he starts changing the rules of the game on you, it can
lead to confusion or worse. You both need to know what the rules are
that you are playing under, and follow them. It isn't silly, and it
isn't just a matter of semantics. A controller should not be putting
a pilot in a position of trying to figure out who is really in charge
of the routing of the flight when he is flying VFR.
BDWood