Advise prior to altitude change:

[JOhnH]

When flying VFR using flight following and the controller tells you to advise prior to altitude change, then later that controller hands you off to another controller, does the order to advise survive? Do you need to advise the next controller prior to altitude change?

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't know if it's required, but I just make it a habit unless the controller tells me "altitude your discretion".

Generally, if you're in C or B space they'll care more about your altitude changes because there are more airplanes in that space.

Don't feel bad if you advise of an altitude change and the controller comes back with "altitude your discretion" and you get the impression you made a mistake. Erring on the side of caution is better than the alternative.

 

[poadeleted20]

From a legal standpoint, I know of nothing which says that an ATC instruction is voided upon handoff to another controller, so I don't think it's worth risking your ticket to "press to test," and like Tim, I'd err on the side of caution. I can't imagine any controller worth a hoot getting upset with you for making a short call you weren't required to make.

 

[roncachamp]

When flying VFR using flight following and the controller tells you to advise prior to altitude change, then later that controller hands you off to another controller, does the order to advise survive? Do you need to advise the next controller prior to altitude change?

You don't even need to advise the first controller, it's just a courtesy.

 

[Jeanie]

I would imagine that controllers appreciate courteous pilots.

 

[roncachamp]

Generally, if you're in C or B space they'll care more about your altitude changes because there are more airplanes in that space.

In Class B or Class C airspace you're getting more than flight following. In that airspace ATC is providing separation and can assign altitudes or altitude restrictions.

 

[poadeleted20]

You don't even need to advise the first controller, it's just a courtesy.

Steven is under the impression that VFR pilots can ignore ATC instructions. He is wrong. If ATC instructs you to advise prior to any altitude change, that is an ATC instruction with which you are required by 91.123 to comply. No doubt he will argue with me on this, but he is wrong -- the regulation is clear, and the case law is clear to pretty much everyone except him.

And I will not be responding to his no-doubt-forthcoming arguments.

 

[Gubbins]

I ALWAYS advise on altitude changes when using FF as a courtesy, UNLESS the controller replies "Altitude your discretion", which I take as a heavy hint to stop bothering him any further... But resume advising when passed off to the next controller.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Steven is under the impression that VFR pilots can ignore ATC instructions. He is wrong. If ATC instructs you to advise prior to any altitude change, that is an ATC instruction with which you are required by 91.123 to comply. No doubt he will argue with me on this, but he is wrong -- the regulation is clear, and the case law is clear to pretty much everyone except him.

And I will not be responding to his no-doubt-forthcoming arguments.

The way I see it, regulations aside, the system is there for our benefit and it works best with clear concise communication from all who are cluttering up the sky. I frequently fly to the coast from Central Oregon. My flight path puts me crossing the paths of flights from the south into PDX. If I'm flying VFR and I randomly change altitude I could mess up the vertical planning for the approach controllers. I always inform on altitude change, whether asked or not,and always get a thank you.

 

[roncachamp]

Steven is under the impression that VFR pilots can ignore ATC instructions. He is wrong. If ATC instructs you to advise prior to any altitude change, that is an ATC instruction with which you are required by 91.123 to comply. No doubt he will argue with me on this, but he is wrong -- the regulation is clear, and the case law is clear to pretty much everyone except him.

Ron is under the impression that pilots are required to adhere to instructions that ATC is not authorized to issue. He believes this very passionately, even though that position has no basis in logic or case law.

 

[murphey]

I ALWAYS advise on altitude changes when using FF as a courtesy, UNLESS the controller replies "Altitude your discretion", which I take as a heavy hint to stop bothering him any further... But resume advising when passed off to the next controller.

I regularly fly in areas with heavy military traffic (F16s, C17, helicopters, etc), some of which are rank beginners (USAF Academy & the IPT at Pueblo)
Always on FF, and always letting ATC when I'm changing altitudes.

 

[Jaybird180]

I've had a controller snap at me once. I'd advised of altitude changes about 4x in less than 5 mins. I began to feel the clouds were beating me down to SFC. When I got to 2k and was about to turn around the heavens opened up and I climbed up and didn't notify this time. He didn't care.

 

[Henning]

I would imagine that controllers appreciate courteous pilots.

Yes, and they typically respond in kind.

I've had a controller snap at me once. I'd advised of altitude changes about 4x in less than 5 mins. I began to feel the clouds were beating me down to SFC. When I got to 2k and was about to turn around the heavens opened up and I climbed up and didn't notify this time. He didn't care.

I run into this a lot; when I'm getting pressed down I just tell em on first call, "9SA is gonna have to start down to maintain VFR, can't tell how far till I get there." "9SA copy, advise when you reach your altitude."

 

[JOhnH]

I've had a controller snap at me once.

The reason for my question was that yesterday while enroute from Ormond Beach (omn) to Vero Beach (VRB) we passed throuh a stretch where the Orlando Controller was snapping at everybody. But in his defense that was because it seemed like everyone was doing everything wrong. He had to repeat his instructions just about every other time. One guy was parallel to us then suddenly turned in front of us, at the same altitude as us and probably less than a mile in front. ATC reamed him. He would snap at people that changed altitudes without advising him, then when he snapped they would go back where they were supposed to be WITHOUT TELLING HIM. People were not answering his calls until about the 3rd try. My wife and I really thought the guy was going to lose it and we were sympathizing with him.

Then he snapped at us for descending below some clouds. We were at 3,000 and descended to about 2,600 because Patrick AFBs air space went to 2,500. I guess we deserved it even though he never told us to advise prior, but the previous controller did. We were properly chastised, but wanted to get a little more clarification on what is not only required, but expected or tolerated.

 

[Palmpilot]

I run into this a lot; when I'm getting pressed down I just tell em on first call, "9SA is gonna have to start down to maintain VFR, can't tell how far till I get there." "9SA copy, advise when you reach your altitude."

I sometimes say that I'm beginning a descent and leave it at that. When I'm coming into the SF Bay area, I usually don't bother, because they know I need to descend to avoid the class B.

 

[Jaybird180]

The reason for my question was that yesterday while enroute from Ormond Beach (omn) to Vero Beach (VRB) we passed throuh a stretch where the Orlando Controller was snapping at everybody. But in his defense that was because it seemed like everyone was doing everything wrong. He had to repeat his instructions just about every other time. One guy was parallel to us then suddenly turned in front of us, at the same altitude as us and probably less than a mile in front. ATC reamed him. He would snap at people that changed altitudes without advising him, then when he snapped they would go back where they were supposed to be WITHOUT TELLING HIM. People were not answering his calls until about the 3rd try. My wife and I really thought the guy was going to lose it and we were sympathizing with him.

Then he snapped at us for descending below some clouds. We were at 3,000 and descended to about 2,600 because Patrick AFBs air space went to 2,500. I guess we deserved it even though he never told us to advise prior, but the previous controller did. We were properly chastised, but wanted to get a little more clarification on what is not only required, but expected or tolerated.

If all pilots are having a hearing problem with 1 controller, maybe the problem isn't pilots

 

[JOhnH]

If all pilots are having a hearing problem with 1 controller, maybe the problem isn't pilots

That is what I would think too, but not in this case. The fact is that I am the one with the hearing problem. That is why I no longer hold my ticket. I fly right seat with my wife who does have her ticket. But even with my hearing problem I could make out everything he said. There were just a lot of clowns out yesterday.

In fact, I just read about this: I'm not saying this guy was a clown, but he did crash right around where we were right around the time we were there.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20...s-Pilot-After-Plane-Crash-Near-Port-Canaveral

 

[DouglasBader]

Steven is under the impression that VFR pilots can ignore ATC instructions. He is wrong. If ATC instructs you to advise prior to any altitude change, that is an ATC instruction with which you are required by 91.123 to comply. No doubt he will argue with me on this, but he is wrong -- the regulation is clear, and the case law is clear to pretty much everyone except him.

"Can" and "may" are two different subjects which should not be confused.

There are times when a VFR pilot requires a clearance, such as a Class B clearance, or a towered clearance. At such times, one may not act contrary to an ATC clearance unless it's for safety of flight, such as an emergency.

One is generally well-advised to adhere to ATC instructions, whether or not one is subject to those instructions. Certainly where asked to report an altitude change, this is no great imposition, and one should make every effort to do so.

Does a VFR pilot need to report an altitude change, if the altitude assignments are not part of another clearance to which the pilot is beholden? No. The altitude adherence isn't required, nor is reporting vacating or occupying that altitude. One is not beholden by 14 CFR 91.123 if not operating in accordance with an ATC clearance.

ATC may provide instruction to IFR traffic in certain airspace where ATC has no authority over VFR traffic, and VFR traffic has no responsibility to participate. If ATC issues the VFR traffic an instruction in that airspace, although certainlky the VFR traffic would be best following that instruction, the VFR traffic is not required to do so, and this isn't changed by 91.123.

 

[poadeleted20]

One is generally well-advised to adhere to ATC instructions, whether or not one is subject to those instructions. Certainly where asked to report an altitude change, this is no great imposition, and one should make every effort to do so.

Agreed.

Does a VFR pilot need to report an altitude change, if the altitude assignments are not part of another clearance to which the pilot is beholden? No. The altitude adherence isn't required, nor is reporting vacating or occupying that altitude. One is not beholden by 14 CFR 91.123 if not operating in accordance with an ATC clearance.

I think you should re-read 91.123 again, especially paragraph (b).

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

91.123(a) addresses clearances, but (b) applies any time an ATC instruction is given, and that's a different thing than a clearance. If you are instructed to "advise prior to any altitude change," then you are obliged to do so if you are "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised," which includes all controlled airspace plus the G-space around towers with no E- or D-space, and there is no exception for aircraft not operating IFR.

ATC may provide instruction to IFR traffic in certain airspace where ATC has no authority over VFR traffic, and VFR traffic has no responsibility to participate. If ATC issues the VFR traffic an instruction in that airspace, although certainlky the VFR traffic would be best following that instruction, the VFR traffic is not required to do so, and this isn't changed by 91.123.

Read 91.123(b) again -- if you are talking to ATC "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised," absent an emergency situation, you are legally obligated to comply with any ATC instructions received, and there is no exception based on VFR vs IFR.

It's black-letter law, folks.

 

[raider]

figured mode c would take care of that reporting burden but guess its so atc can stave it if necessary

 

[roncachamp]

Agreed.

I think you should re-read 91.123 again, especially paragraph (b).
91.123(a) addresses clearances, but (b) applies any time an ATC instruction is given, and that's a different thing than a clearance. If you are instructed to "advise prior to any altitude change," then you are obliged to do so if you are "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised," which includes all controlled airspace plus the G-space around towers with no E- or D-space, and there is no exception for aircraft not operating IFR.

Read 91.123(b) again -- if you are talking to ATC "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised," absent an emergency situation, you are legally obligated to comply with any ATC instructions received, and there is no exception based on VFR vs IFR.

It's black-letter law, folks.

Nonsense.

 

[DouglasBader]

I think you should re-read 91.123 again, especially paragraph (b).

I need not.

Given that many places where air traffic control is exercised in which VFR traffic is not subject to that control (and in fact need not report), you know full well that one is not in violation of 14 CFR 91.123(b) simply because one is not participating or following an ATC instruction. How, pray tell, is one obligated to follow that instruction when one isn't even obligated to talk?

 

[denverpilot]

There is always the exception out there too...

Altitude changes are required reports when operating VFR-on-top on an IFR clearance.

See AIM 4-4-8

It's a favorite pet peeve question of one of the CFIs around here.

He likes to phrase it, "When are you required to report an altitude change when operating VFR?" and wait for all possible answers.

Few get the VFR-on-top one unless they're quite familiar with their AIM.

 

[roncachamp]

There is always the exception out there too...

Altitude changes are required reports when operating VFR-on-top on an IFR clearance.

See AIM 4-4-8

It says, ""Pilots should advise ATC prior to any altitude change to ensure the exchange of accurate traffic information."

It's a favorite pet peeve question of one of the CFIs around here.

He likes to phrase it, "When are you required to report an altitude change when operating VFR?" and wait for all possible answers.

Few get the VFR-on-top one unless they're quite familiar with their AIM.

You're not operating VFR when you're VFR-on-top.

 

[poadeleted20]

I need not.

Given that many places where air traffic control is exercised in which VFR traffic is not subject to that control (and in fact need not report), you know full well that one is not in violation of 14 CFR 91.123(b) simply because one is not participating or following an ATC instruction. How, pray tell, is one obligated to follow that instruction when one isn't even obligated to talk?

Because the regulation says you are. There is simply no exception in it other than in an area in which ATC control is not exercised, which basically means G-space other than where there's a tower with no E/D-space (see 91.126(d)). If you can get the Chief Counsel to say otherwise, mighty fine, but until then, the plain reading of the reg is that you must comply with any ATC instruction you receive, period.

 

[roncachamp]

Because the regulation says you are. There is simply no exception in it other than in an area in which ATC control is not exercised, which basically means G-space other than where there's a tower with no E/D-space (see 91.126(d)). If you can get the Chief Counsel to say otherwise, mighty fine, but until then, the plain reading of the reg is that you must comply with any ATC instruction you receive, period.

Nonsense.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I need not.

Given that many places where air traffic control is exercised in which VFR traffic is not subject to that control (and in fact need not report), you know full well that one is not in violation of 14 CFR 91.123(b) simply because one is not participating or following an ATC instruction. How, pray tell, is one obligated to follow that instruction when one isn't even obligated to talk?

The premise is that you are using flight following. That is an ATC service. If you request the service you are required to follow instructions. If you don't want to, don't use FF. Kinda simple.

 

[poadeleted20]

The premise is that you are using flight following. That is an ATC service. If you request the service you are required to follow instructions. If you don't want to, don't use FF. Kinda simple.

Concur.

Many people seem to read into 91.123(b) some sort of conditions that aren't printed there, such as "only if the instruction is specifically authorized in 7110.65," or "only for IFR," or "only in Class B/C/D airspace." The regulation as written has no such caveats and is based solely on whether or not ATC exercises control in that area, not whether you are required to be under ATC control. Obviously, if you're not in communication with ATC, they can't issue you an instruction, but if you are, and in such an area, they can, and then (absent an emergency), the reg clearly says you are required to comply with it.

Of course, if someone gets a Chief Counsel opinion saying the regulation is interpreted to mean something other than its plain language, I can accept that. But until then, I assume it means exactly what it says -- no more, and no less.

 

[roncachamp]

The premise is that you are using flight following. That is an ATC service. If you request the service you are required to follow instructions. If you don't want to, don't use FF. Kinda simple.

The only valid instruction with flight following is "Squawk NNNN".

 

[Aztec Driver]

The only valid instruction with flight following is "Squawk NNNN".

That may well be true, but if I request flight following through controlled airspace and the controller issues an instruction to "advise prior to any altitude changes," I am obligated to report such changes. He is stating it for a reason, so I am certainly not going to disobey, as I may meet metal. Perhaps the controller is not authorized to issue said instruction, but I am not authorized to disregard that instruction when given it. I have been given that instruction many times outside of Class C and B, and, when not followed, those controllers get very testy with the pilots.

The pilot certainly has the option of not asking for flight following, but if they choose those services, they are submitting themselves to the authority of the controller for any necessary deviations the controller needs to assure separation. And since it is for everyone's benefit, why would anyone argue about this?

 

[Henning]

The premise is that you are using flight following. That is an ATC service. If you request the service you are required to follow instructions. If you don't want to, don't use FF. Kinda simple.

Roncachamp's point as I get it is that ATC is not giving you instructions (unless in D airspace or more controlled) when VFR, they only issue advisories which is all they are AUTHORIZED to issue. IOW you don't have to obey ATC's words in those circumstances because they are NOT instructions since instructions are not authorized to exist under the circumstances. If an instruction cannot exist, there can be no mandate to follow it. If a controller complains, he will be admitting to screwing the pooch.

 

[Henning]

That may well be true, but if I request flight following through controlled airspace and the controller issues an instruction to "advise prior to any altitude changes," I am obligated to report such changes.

Depends on what airspace you're in at the moment. If you were issued such an instruction you were likely not in E or G airspace. If you were issued that as an instruction outside where he's allowed to issue an instruction, his violation is worse than you not following that invalid instruction. Remember, they have rules they have to follow as well.

 

[Mike I]

Depends on what airspace you're in at the moment. If you were issued such an instruction you were likely not in E or G airspace. If you were issued that as an instruction outside where he's allowed to issue an instruction, his violation is worse than you not following that invalid instruction. Remember, they have rules they have to follow as well.

This sounds a lot like police arresting people on the charge of "Disobeying a lawful order", even when the order the officer gives may not in fact be a lawful order.

 

[spinfire]

Is there a certain radius outside of the outer Class C ring where ATC does have the Class C control authority? I seem to recall a controller mentioning this at a seminar I attended but I can't seem to find any reference for it right now. Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[poadeleted20]

Roncachamp's point as I get it is that ATC is not giving you instructions (unless in D airspace or more controlled) when VFR, they only issue advisories which is all they are AUTHORIZED to issue. IOW you don't have to obey ATC's words in those circumstances because they are NOT instructions since instructions are not authorized to exist under the circumstances. If an instruction cannot exist, there can be no mandate to follow it. If a controller complains, he will be admitting to screwing the pooch.

Unfortunately, there is no regulatory support to that argument, nor anything in any FAA Order to that effect. It's all something sprung from his own mind fully formed, like Athena from Zeus. Given the lack of anything in writing along with the number of times I have received such instructions under such circumstances, either every other controller in the country is routinely breaking the rules, or roncachamp is wrong. Occam's Razor, anyone?

In any event, the issue here is the rules applicable to pilots, not controllers, and there is nothing limiting 91.123(b ) to "valid" instructions, nor, short of an emergency, authorizing pilots to make such determinations before deciding whether or not to comply.

 

[roncachamp]

Is there a certain radius outside of the outer Class C ring where ATC does have the Class C control authority? I seem to recall a controller mentioning this at a seminar I attended but I can't seem to find any reference for it right now. Maybe I misunderstood.

Yes, it's called the Outer Area, from the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

OUTER AREA (associated with Class C airspace)−
Nonregulatory airspace surrounding designated
Class C airspace airports wherein ATC provides radar
vectoring and sequencing on a full-time basis for all
IFR and participating VFR aircraft. The service
provided in the outer area is called Class C service
which includes: IFR/IFR−standard IFR separation;
IFR/VFR−traffic advisories and conflict resolution;
and VFR/VFR−traffic advisories and, as appropriate,
safety alerts. The normal radius will be 20 nautical
miles with some variations based on site-specific
requirements. The outer area extends outward from
the primary Class C airspace airport and extends from
the lower limits of radar/radio coverage up to the
ceiling of the approach control’s delegated airspace
excluding the Class C charted area and other airspace​

as appropriate.

See also AIM paragraph 3-2-4.

 

[roncachamp]

Unfortunately, there is no regulatory support to that argument, nor anything in any FAA Order to that effect. It's all something sprung from his own mind fully formed, like Athena from Zeus. Given the lack of anything in writing along with the number of times I have received such instructions under such circumstances, either every other controller in the country is routinely breaking the rules, or roncachamp is wrong. Occam's Razor, anyone?

Actually, there's just as much regulatory support for that argument, and just as many FAA Orders to that effect, as there is to your position that the FAA wants pilots to adhere to ATC instructions that it does not want controllers to issue. The difference is your position is illogical to the absurd.

 

[Palmpilot]

Actually, there's just as much regulatory support for that argument, and just as many FAA Orders to that effect, as there is to your position that the FAA wants pilots to adhere to ATC instructions that it does not want controllers to issue. The difference is your position is illogical to the absurd.

I think it's illogical to assume that the FAA wants pilots to decide which instructions to obey based on the controllers' manual.

 

[denverpilot]

So here's a scenario... Controller issues an inappropriate instruction to you as a VFR aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.

You then a) comply first, ask questions later ...

Or b) wait for a break in the busy frequency to play 20-questions with the controller and don't comply...

c) cancel Radar advisories and hope you don't hit the aircraft (s)he's trying to deconflict you from.

Seriously... It doesn't matter on our end of the radio, Ron. It does for you since you have rules on your side, but...

If some controller says "Immediate decent" in a high squeaky voice with or without the word "recommend" attached to that phrase, I'm pushing the yoke before (s)he's even un-keyed. I don't care if I'm in uncontrolled airspace and VFR.

We can debate whether or not the controller had the authority to direct me as a VFR pilot to do anything later, on the ground, over a beer I'd be happy to buy him/her.

I've definitely heard controllers head wheels grinding trying to say "ahhh... RECOMMEND you do X" because they're trying to meet the letter of the law for VFR Advisories, but I take that as "If you don't enjoy the sound of tearing aluminum and a long fall to your untimely demise..."

Example would be once headed for PHX. Center Controller was stumbling over the "recommend" phraseology to basically tell two of us VFR aircraft that we were essentially almost matching speeds and course into the PHX Bravo and were separated by only 1000' (for the record the other pilot wasn't following the hemispheric rule and we were high enough that he should have been).

It was a C-210 above me and he was slowly overtaking and passing overhead. The controller knew either one of us could start our VFR descents at any time headed into PHX and that'd put the 210 on top of me.

I very much appreciated his warning and I'm sure the 210 pilot did too, whether his "recommendation" to the 210 driver not to change altitude without coordinating with him first was allowed by the controller book or not. (He conversely recommended to me right after that, that I not plan on climbing until the 210 was out front.)

The whole time you could tell he didn't like saying "recommend" and wished he could just issue it as a directive.

Later he let us know our courses were diverging (away from the Victor Airway) because we weren't landing at the same PHX area airport. (210 was headed for DVT, I was headed for GEU.) And of course the magic phrase "traffic no longer a factor".

 

[Henning]

This sounds a lot like police arresting people on the charge of "Disobeying a lawful order", even when the order the officer gives may not in fact be a lawful order.

Only you aren't going to kangaroo court. BTW, I got an apology from the Mayor of St Louis for having a cop ask me for my ID (everyone driving through, lots of us) for being passenger driving through a public park during open afternoon hours. I was told I had to comply. He did not know the ADA's daughter was driving...