Altitude Directives in VFR Flight Following

J

JTFlyer

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 26, 2022
Messages
17
Display Name
Display name:
JTFlyer
I use flight following for nearly any long VFR flight, but lately I've been annoyed by controllers giving altitude directives ("Maintain VFR at or below 3000") which would put me at altitudes that are undesirable in terms of aircraft performance or engine-out safety. I think these are sometimes issued to make it easier for ATC to clear the way for arrivals to busy airports.

One pilot friend has suggested I simply cancel flight following instead of complying with the instruction, put IMO this may be at odds with 14 CFR § 91.123 (b): "...no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised", since the instruction has already been given. Any thoughts about this?
 
JTFlyer said:
I use flight following for nearly any long VFR flight, but lately I've been annoyed by controllers giving altitude directives ("Maintain VFR at or below 3000") which would put me at altitudes that are undesirable in terms of aircraft performance or engine-out safety. I think these are sometimes issued to make it easier for ATC to clear the way for arrivals to busy airports.

One pilot friend has suggested I simply cancel flight following instead of complying with the instruction, put IMO this may be at odds with 14 CFR § 91.123 (b): "...no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised", since the instruction has already been given. Any thoughts about this?
Click to expand...
You just described my afternoon flight today.

Good question.
 
The altitude restrictions I've gotten are usually for a good reason. For instance, I frequently have to fly at 2500 on flight following to skirt around the bottom of MDW airspace due to arrivals. Not the most comfortable cruising 1800' above dense Chicago neighborhoods in a plane that glides like a greased brick - but it'd probably also be bad to put me in close proximity to altitudes loaded with fast moving 737s on approach.

On the rare occasions they've kept me there for too long I just ask for higher. Once I request it they've pretty much always been able to get me up there within a few mins - or gave me a good reason why not.
 
You could tell the controller you'd prefer vectors over altitude restrictions.
 
If your radar services have been terminated, then you are no longer receiving FF. If you’re no longer receiving FF then you can’t comply with any instructions. It’s like if you were on a vector to a non towered airport and you report it in sight. Once you’re terminated, that vector no longer applies. If it still did, well then how long do you follow it? Til you run out of gas?
 
Velocity173 said:
If your radar services have been terminated, then you are no longer receiving FF. If you’re no longer receiving FF then you can’t comply with any instructions. It’s like if you were on a vector to a non towered airport and you report it in sight. Once you’re terminated, that vector no longer applies. If it still did, well then how long do you follow it? Til you run out of gas?
Click to expand...
That raises a related question: If I request to cancel FF (and change freq), can ATC deny that request?
 
It is a two way street...they are gonna keep you outta the way of IFR traffic in return they are gonna provide traffic advisories.

You also need to communicate what YOU want..."NorCal, Skylane 345 request higher when able"...often times they will give you an altitude restriction but fail to rescind once traffic is no longer a factor and you the pilot will sit there stewing thinking the controller even remembered.
 
JTFlyer said:
That raises a related question: If I request to cancel FF (and change freq), can ATC deny that request?
Click to expand...
Well if they tell you to stay up the frequency that’s a whole seperate issue. Since you’ve been specifically instructed to stay up the freq, you have to comply with instructions until they modify them (radar services terminated). Then question arises, can they make you take part in a voluntary service? That would be argument I’d bring up to the facility manager at a later date.
 
JTFlyer said:
I use flight following for nearly any long VFR flight, but lately I've been annoyed by controllers giving altitude directives ("Maintain VFR at or below 3000") which would put me at altitudes that are undesirable in terms of aircraft performance or engine-out safety. I think these are sometimes issued to make it easier for ATC to clear the way for arrivals to busy airports.

One pilot friend has suggested I simply cancel flight following instead of complying with the instruction, put IMO this may be at odds with 14 CFR § 91.123 (b): "...no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised", since the instruction has already been given. Any thoughts about this?
Click to expand...
Ask your friend to point to where 91.123 mentions flight following. It doesn't. You're in controlled airspace, you've received an instruction from ATC, you just follow it.
 
If you ask for a vector instead of a lower altitude most controllers will probably just give you a vector and call it good. When you're clear of whatever traffic or airspace that prompted the altitude, they'll clear you to resume own navigation.
 
JTFlyer said:
That raises a related question: If I request to cancel FF (and change freq), can ATC deny that request?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Bottom line is that 91.123(b) says that, “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”

That means in controlled airspace,ie, Class A, B, C, D, and E.

What happens if you do it anyway? Depends on how big a problem you cause. Most controllers will let it go with a mental, “what a jerk!” Create a problem and you might get a friendly call from the local FSDO.

Don’t like ATC keeping you out of the way of traffic? Don’t use Flight Following.

Specific reason for not wanting that altitude or that vector? Negotiate.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
The altitude restrictions I've gotten are usually for a good reason. For instance, I frequently have to fly at 2500 on flight following to skirt around the bottom of MDW airspace due to arrivals. Not the most comfortable cruising 1800' above dense Chicago neighborhoods in a plane that glides like a greased brick - but it'd probably also be bad to put me in close proximity to altitudes loaded with fast moving 737s on approach.

On the rare occasions they've kept me there for too long I just ask for higher. Once I request it they've pretty much always been able to get me up there within a few mins - or gave me a good reason why not.
Click to expand...
I had assumed this but then why are the Bravo and Charlie shelves wrong? I had assumed the airspace carve outs are based on aircraft performance, airspeed restrictions and distance to the field. But C90 seems to have a much more expansive view of their airspace needs. I’m a little salty as yesterday I was over the lake and got an altitude limit of 2000 for a King Air landing at MDW. That plane should have no problem chopping and dropping.
 
masloki said:
I had assumed this but then why are the Bravo and Charlie shelves wrong? I had assumed the airspace carve outs are based on aircraft performance, airspeed restrictions and distance to the field. But C90 seems to have a much more expansive view of their airspace needs. I’m a little salty as yesterday I was over the lake and got an altitude limit of 2000 for a King Air landing at MDW. That plane should have no problem chopping and dropping.
Click to expand...
They are not "wrong." The cutouts we see on the sectional are regulatory areas where we must have certain equipment and certain levels of communication. But they are pretty irrelevant and almost invisible to ATC. What ATC sees is the airspace in which they control instrument approaches, arrivals and departures. And the the arrival and departure corridors that may not be published anywhere. It's a compromise. If they really created Class B and C airspace based on where they traffic might be, we'd have very few we could get near without requirements.

You mention MDW. Leaving aside ORD, take a moment to picture what's happening. Do you think that ATC sequencing for an aircraft approaching into MDW ends 10 miles from the center of the airport? Just for jollies, I grabbed the MDW RNAV Z 13C and superimposed the approach on a sectional. The highest altitude in that sequence is 2500. Do you think approach sequencing starts there or even earlier?
1719146794761.png
 
Last edited:
JTFlyer said:
That raises a related question: If I request to cancel FF (and change freq), can ATC deny that request?
Click to expand...
I had one time where I asked to cancel FF and they told me they wanted to keep me until landing. I switched freqs but kept the code.
 
My complaints about VFR altitude assignments here in the SF Bay area have related to instructions to fly higher than I wanted to, which in one case made it difficult to avoid a bravo bust.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes.

Bottom line is that 91.123(b) says that, “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”

That means in controlled airspace,ie, Class A, B, C, D, and E.

What happens if you do it anyway? Depends on how big a problem you cause. Most controllers will let it go with a mental, “what a jerk!” Create a problem and you might get a friendly call from the local FSDO.

Don’t like ATC keeping you out of the way of traffic? Don’t use Flight Following.

Specific reason for not wanting that altitude or that vector? Negotiate.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything you posted, add plan your damn flight. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to visualize the ATC approach corridors into active runways. Plan a distance and altitude you are not a pain in the ass.
 
Clip4 said:
Agree with everything you posted, add plan your damn flight. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to visualize the ATC approach corridors into active runways. Plan a distance and altitude you are not a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with this, but there were times when I had such a plan in mind but was told to do something else.
 
Clip4 said:
Agree with everything you posted, add plan your damn flight. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to visualize the ATC approach corridors into active runways. Plan a distance and altitude you are not a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Sooo……. You’re an Air Traffic Controller? Just curious.
 
noahfong said:
So why do you use flight following? So your flight might be safer? But you don't want instructions that will keep you clear of busy traffic corridors?
Click to expand...
One good reason to use FF is to be in quick radio contact in case of an emergency.

Depends on the corridor, but in this case IMO it would be safer to remain high at cruising altitude than to go down lower than a safe altitude.

Lesson learned, I'll cancel FF a bit earlier.
 
noahfong said:
So why do you use flight following? So your flight might be safer? But you don't want instructions that will keep you clear of busy traffic corridors?
Click to expand...
If I've got a transponder and an adsb, they can see me and they can keep the people they're talking to out of my way. Every time I toured ATC or spoken to them, they always say they want us to use flight following, because it helps them if to know who we are and what we're doing. And yet I've had many stories like the one that started this thread. Now I use flight following when I think it will be a benefit to me and I'm not going to be bothered if they vector me and. It's also why I don't call up class D towers anymore if I'm going to transition above or just outside of their air space.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Sooo……. You’re an Air Traffic Controller? Just curious.
Click to expand...
No, I am not a controller. But I have flown XC using VFR flight following all over the eastern US. If your attitude is you are the only plane in the system, VFR or IFR, and just wing your flight planning, you are going to be annoyed quite often.
 
Lindberg said:
If I've got a transponder and an adsb, they can see me and they can keep the people they're talking to out of my way. Every time I toured ATC or spoken to them, they always say they want us to use flight following, because it helps them if to know who we are and what we're doing. And yet I've had many stories like the one that started this thread. Now I use flight following when I think it will be a benefit to me and I'm not going to be bothered if they vector me and. It's also why I don't call up class D towers anymore if I'm going to transition above or just outside of their air space.
Click to expand...
Fly the wrong altitude at the wrong location around Class B or C and you will see the heavy iron up close and personal as they pass over you.
 
Last edited:
We had a parachute jump operation NW of ATL right under the STAR. The jump plane often wanted to climb to 145 to release the jumpers. The problem was the arrivals were descending to either 130 or 140 (depending on the direction of the operation at ATL). We would restrict the jump aircraft during an arrival push because it was a safety issue. The operator was not happy when this was done. He said he had just as much right to the airspace as the airliners. I understand that, but we had several instances that were REALLY close prior to restricting his altitude (think a Caravan and a B757 .75NM/200'). TCAS events were frequent. It boils down to safety, and when ATC determines that an IFR & VFR aircraft are going to come in unsafe proximity to one another, it is a primary duty to try and pry them apart. At some point, it is just more orderly (and safe) to prevent the situation from developing in the first place.
 
PastZTL said:
We had a parachute jump operation NW of ATL right under the STAR. The jump plane often wanted to climb to 145 to release the jumpers. The problem was the arrivals were descending to either 130 or 140 (depending on the direction of the operation at ATL). We would restrict the jump aircraft during an arrival push because it was a safety issue. The operator was not happy when this was done. He said he had just as much right to the airspace as the airliners. I understand that, but we had several instances that were REALLY close prior to restricting his altitude (think a Caravan and a B757 .75NM/200'). TCAS events were frequent. It boils down to safety, and when ATC determines that an IFR & VFR aircraft are going to come in unsafe proximity to one another, it is a primary duty to try and pry them apart. At some point, it is just more orderly (and safe) to prevent the situation from developing in the first place.
Click to expand...
That brings to mind a question that hopefully some of the more experienced pilots here can answer:

How do you deal with routings that effectively put you into another airport's pattern while in transit? In my area, we have a LOT of traffic and a number of various airports of different sizes. A couple of the Echos tend to be very busy, with a lot of school and GA traffic; mine is under a Bravo shelf, and relatively close to a couple of Deltas and a number of smaller and private strips. The other day I was flying a cross-country that routed me directly over two nearby Echos, with ceilings that forced me into very low altitudes. ATC kept giving me re-routes to avoid traffic in and out of those airports, and it felt like a constant challenge to make sure I knew where everyone else was. Conversely, I've seen guys fly through or right above our pattern without talking to anyone, assumably because they are on FF and not monitoring our CTAF.

In that sort of environment, does it make more sense to use FF and put the workload on ATC, or does it make more sense to drop FF and use the CTAF to talk with the local pilots you're flying past? Anyone who bases at a non-towered airport should be used to direct communications and managing traffic for themselves, so is that perhaps a better option?
 
PastZTL said:
We had a parachute jump operation NW of ATL right under the STAR. The jump plane often wanted to climb to 145 to release the jumpers. The problem was the arrivals were descending to either 130 or 140 (depending on the direction of the operation at ATL). We would restrict the jump aircraft during an arrival push because it was a safety issue. The operator was not happy when this was done. He said he had just as much right to the airspace as the airliners. I understand that, but we had several instances that were REALLY close prior to restricting his altitude (think a Caravan and a B757 .75NM/200'). TCAS events were frequent. It boils down to safety, and when ATC determines that an IFR & VFR aircraft are going to come in unsafe proximity to one another, it is a primary duty to try and pry them apart. At some point, it is just more orderly (and safe) to prevent the situation from developing in the first place.
Click to expand...
How often did you change what the airliners were doing in order to keep them out of the jump plane's way?
 
I had flight following one time where the controller kept changing my altitude for other traffic that he was not talking to. It was a hazy day so I followed his lead. That traffic kept turning and changing altitude, so it must have been a training flight. Drove us both crazy until I got past it.

Another more recent flight, I was cruising along at about 2500MSL and ATC asked for me to maintain 4500MSL or above. He had a C5 in the radar pattern for a local airport I was transitioning past. That C5 crossed my path, I'd guess he was about 4000MSL. Sort of high for a VFR Radar pattern, but looking at the ILS and RNAV approaches, the IAF was 3000 with holding between 3000 and 4600.
 
Lindberg said:
How often did you change what the airliners were doing in order to keep them out of the jump plane's way?
Click to expand...
It is easier to hold a jump plane down, then vector a string of aircraft being sequenced for an approach.
 
BillTIZ said:
It is easier to hold a jump plane down, then vector a string of aircraft being sequenced for an approach.
Click to expand...
The poster I responded to said, "He said he had just as much right to the airspace as the airliners. I understand that, but we had several instances that were REALLY close prior to restricting his altitude (think a Caravan and a B757 .75NM/200')."

So I guess I have just as much right to the airspace as them unless it's just easier to move me. Fair enough, but then don't complain when I fly right below or outside of your shelf without talking to you.
 
StraightnLevel said:
That brings to mind a question that hopefully some of the more experienced pilots here can answer:

How do you deal with routings that effectively put you into another airport's pattern while in transit? In my area, we have a LOT of traffic and a number of various airports of different sizes. A couple of the Echos tend to be very busy, with a lot of school and GA traffic; mine is under a Bravo shelf, and relatively close to a couple of Deltas and a number of smaller and private strips. The other day I was flying a cross-country that routed me directly over two nearby Echos, with ceilings that forced me into very low altitudes. ATC kept giving me re-routes to avoid traffic in and out of those airports, and it felt like a constant challenge to make sure I knew where everyone else was. Conversely, I've seen guys fly through or right above our pattern without talking to anyone, assumably because they are on FF and not monitoring our CTAF.

In that sort of environment, does it make more sense to use FF and put the workload on ATC, or does it make more sense to drop FF and use the CTAF to talk with the local pilots you're flying past? Anyone who bases at a non-towered airport should be used to direct communications and managing traffic for themselves, so is that perhaps a better option?
Click to expand...
Flying well above pattern altitude is an option.
 
Perhaps there's a good chance these posts do NOT mean this, but I get frustrated by what I call "bad neighbors" in the aviation community. Pilots who feel doing something to help someone else (being a GOOD neighbor) is for the other guy, not them. I see examples of this almost every time I fly: someone hogs the entire run-up area, someone leaves their plane at the self-serve spot and goes to lunch, stops in front of an open hanger with people inside with engine running when there is plenty of room to taxi past, etc.

And, I do hear pilots complain about ATC instructions a lot. Other planes should get vectored - not them. ATC leaves them too high; too low. Always something.

But I'm always happy to help out... I'm sure others, too.

JTFlyer said:
One good reason to use FF is to be in quick radio contact in case of an emergency.

Depends on the corridor, but in this case IMO it would be safer to remain high at cruising altitude than to go down lower than a safe altitude.

Lesson learned, I'll cancel FF a bit earlier.
Click to expand...

Lindberg said:
If I've got a transponder and an adsb, they can see me and they can keep the people they're talking to out of my way. Every time I toured ATC or spoken to them, they always say they want us to use flight following, because it helps them if to know who we are and what we're doing. And yet I've had many stories like the one that started this thread. Now I use flight following when I think it will be a benefit to me and I'm not going to be bothered if they vector me and. It's also why I don't call up class D towers anymore if I'm going to transition above or just outside of their air space.
Click to expand...
 
StraightnLevel said:
Not when you're VFR only and the ceiling is low.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to give up Flight Following if I am low with low ceilings, so,long as I am high enough for radar contact.The resulting vertical traffic concentration makes it even more essential and with my low altitude I really want to be in contact in case of a problem.

I don’t want to be plowing through anyone’s traffic pattern without talking to them. Towered, I’m happy with relying on ATC’s obligation to coordinate transit through Class D most of the time, but if I have to be so low as to plow through the pattern of a towered airport, I’m going to tell the controller that I need to do that and ask if I need to contact the tower for transit. It sounds like ATC’s solution was to route you around the problem.

Nontowered, I am not expecting any more help from ATC than perhaps saying there is traffic there. I will be monitoring the CTAF and perhaps even inform ATC, I need to temporarily change frequencies. Again, it sounds like ATC’s solution was to route you around the problem.

Perhaps flight planning to route you around the problem and avoid overflying airports when ceilings mean interfering with their traffic patterns would have been a good idea, so ATC didn’t have to do that part of the job?
 
noahfong said:
Perhaps there's a good chance these posts do NOT mean this, but I get frustrated by what I call "bad neighbors" in the aviation community.
Click to expand...
This is a great point, and I'm glad you mentioned it.
In this particular case, I believe ATC is employing an overly-restrictive altitude assignment technique rather than separating actual traffic. I didn't want to imply that "I" should have some kind of priority, or not be on equal footing with other traffic in the system. It all needs to work together in a system of mutual cooperation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top