Altitude Directives in VFR Flight Following

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...
If you're receiving only flight following, if you're not in airspace where ATC has separation responsibility for VFR aircraft (Class B, Class C/Outer Area, TRSA), you should not be given any altitude directive. There's no reason for it and no authority to issue it. Some people will now point out that FAR 91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight level includes "...unless otherwise authorized by ATC". That was added when TCAs were created so that ATC could assign altitudes inconsistent with the regulation.
 
JTFlyer said:
That raises a related question: If I request to cancel FF (and change freq), can ATC deny that request?
Click to expand...
If you're not in airspace where communications with ATC is required you don't have to request termination of ATC services, just say bye-bye.
 
Lindberg said:
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.
Click to expand...
How do you reconcile FAR 91.123(b) with FAR 91.3(a)?
 
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.
Click to expand...
You can always request a higher altitude. I don't think controllers are in the habit of issuing arbitrary altitudes. If you were told to stay below 3,000, there was probably a reason for it.
 
roncachamp said:
If you can't see it, you damn sure can't reconcile it.
Click to expand...
Must admit, I'm not following you either. Are you thinking that, since 91.3(a) says "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft", they're not subject to ANY following regulations? That seems to be the case, since you're pointing out a "conflict". To me, it means I'm directly responsible for flying the plane in a way that complies with the regs and 91.123(b) sensibly says "Except in an emergency...", which allows me to make the best decision for the circumstances in an emergency. I appreciate a clarification of what you're trying to say.

roncachamp said:
in airspace where ATC has separation responsibility for VFR aircraft (Class B, Class C/Outer Area, TRSA)
Click to expand...
As noted by midlife, this also includes Class E, which is much broader than the few you mentioned. ATC has responsibility for separating IFR traffic from everyone else there, too.

This thread is great discussion - and it kinda illustrates something that came up in a completely unrelated thread (the Chevron deference case): I think most regs come into existence in response to people doing things others thought they didn't think people needed telling not to do. I could easily imagine the FAA says enough is enough and starts expanding controlled airspace boundaries and restrictions because too many people took the "I can do what I want" approach to the point of risking others.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Must admit, I'm not following you either. Are you thinking that, since 91.3(a) says "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft", they're not subject to ANY following regulations? That seems to be the case, since you're pointing out a "conflict". To me, it means I'm directly responsible for flying the plane in a way that complies with the regs and 91.123(b) sensibly says "Except in an emergency...", which allows me to make the best decision for the circumstances in an emergency. I appreciate a clarification of what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
There are those who insist pilots must adhere to all ATC instructions while in controlled airspace, even instructions ATC is not authorized to issue.
Llewtrah381 said:
As noted by midlife, this also includes Class E, which is much broader than the few you mentioned. ATC has responsibility for separating IFR traffic from everyone else there, too.
Click to expand...
It includes only that Class E airspace that is also a TRSA or the Outer Area of Class C airspace.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
I could easily imagine the FAA says enough is enough and starts expanding controlled airspace boundaries and restrictions because too many people took the "I can do what I want" approach to the point of risking others.
Click to expand...
The FAA has really been good about that. The regulatory bounds of Class C airspace, for example, are much smaller than the actual arrival and departure routes being used; they don't even encompass all arrival fixes. The same can probably be said of Class B and most definitely about Class D.

And they typically give advance notice and sometimes meet with pilot groups when Class C or B boundaries are modified or established.

There is absolutely nothing regulatory saying a VFR pilot should keep out of the approach corridor protected above 700 AGL by the magenta vignette. But yeah, get enough pilots believing that being reasonably courteous is a violation of their fundamental rights, and things could change.


1720378610715.png
 
Last edited:
This weekend I flew north to south across the departure corridor for charlotte. I did not get flight following as I knew they would make me go way out of my way. I was at 10.5k and I’m totally convinced they held a flight down just to try to teach me a lesson. It climbed like a rocket to 12k and then leveled off until it passed me and then started back up like a rocket again. If they’d kept it climbing it would have passed over me by 5-10k feet.
 
Salty said:
This weekend I flew north to south across the departure corridor for charlotte. I did not get flight following as I knew they would make me go way out of my way. I was at 10.5k and I’m totally convinced they held a flight down just to try to teach me a lesson. It climbed like a rocket to 12k and then leveled off until it passed me and then started back up like a rocket again. If they’d kept it climbing it would have passed over me by 5-10k feet.
Click to expand...
You feel they held a flight down to teach you a lesson but climbed it through your altitude?
 
roncachamp said:
You feel they held a flight down to teach you a lesson but climbed it through your altitude?
Click to expand...
Just to give me a bit of wake turbulence. Every other flight went higher sooner. I was watching too see if I would really be in the way and I wasn’t.
 
roncachamp said:
There are those who insist pilots must adhere to all ATC instructions while in controlled airspace, even instructions ATC is not authorized to issue.
Click to expand...
What's an example of an ATC instruction I don't have to follow in controlled airspace? And what's the authority saying I don't have to follow it?
 
Say there is clouds and he gives you a heading straight into it. And you try to negotiate a different course of action and he won't budge. What are you gonna do?
 
Lindberg said:
What's an example of an ATC instruction I don't have to follow in controlled airspace? And what's the authority saying I don't have to follow it?
Click to expand...
ATC is not authorized to assign altitudes or issue altitude restrictions to VFR aircraft outside of Class B, Class C, or TRSA services. The authority for that is FAA Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
 
Mikey52 said:
Say there is clouds and he gives you a heading straight into it. And you try to negotiate a different course of action and he won't budge. What are you gonna do?
Click to expand...
Say “unable”. They probably also said “maintain VFR” somewhere in the conversation too. Even if they didn’t you’re VFR and unable.
 
The Finer Points had a podcast on this a few years ago. He did as the OP suggested, cancelled and when they didn’t cancel him he got mad and switched frequencies. He followed up and had a whole discussion why that was against the FAR’s.

I hate it coming back on FF into my airport under the bravo shelf from the north. They always drop me way down low in the bumps. I’ve learned to cancel with center before even getting to approach to avoid it
 
cowtowner said:
...I hate it coming back on FF into my airport under the bravo shelf from the north. They always drop me way down low in the bumps. I’ve learned to cancel with center before even getting to approach to avoid it
Click to expand...
My only complaint in a similar situation was that they held me high for so long that it was a challenge to avoid busting the bravo.
 
Mikey52 said:
Say there is clouds and he gives you a heading straight into it. And you try to negotiate a different course of action and he won't budge. What are you gonna do?
Click to expand...
Change altitude. Under most circumstance, when VFR, they won't give you both a heading and attitude. Regardless, it's your responsibility to maintain VFR, so say, "unable," and tell them what you're going to do. Imminent inadvertent IFR is an emergency.
 
roncachamp said:
ATC is not authorized to assign altitudes or issue altitude restrictions to VFR aircraft outside of Class B, Class C, or TRSA services. The authority for that is FAA Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the second question, which was not the authority you're relying on for what ATC is instructed to do by the FAA, but rather, the authority that says I only have to follow certain instructions.

Approach control for the Class B nearest to me will absolutely give altitude restrictions to VFRs on FF outside the B.
 
Lindberg said:
You didn't answer the second question, which was not the authority you're relying on for what ATC is instructed to do by the FAA, but rather, the authority that says I only have to follow certain instructions.
Click to expand...
FAR 91.3(a).
Lindberg said:
Approach control for the Class B nearest to me will absolutely give altitude restrictions to VFRs on FF outside the B.
Click to expand...
They are violating FAA Order 7110.65 when they do.
 
NTSB Interviewer: So controller Bob, you were talking to the King Air and watched as he flew into the path of 6 passenger jets? And refused his multiple requests to help him remain clear?

Controller Bob: Yes sir! Really bad outcome, but I followed the rules! Are you here to give me an award?
 
roncachamp said:
FAR 91.3(a).
Click to expand...
That says that as PIC I'm responsible for my decisions. It doesn't say I can do whatever I want. If that's what it meant, then every other regulation would be meaningless, and 91.3(b) would be superfluous.
FAA: Why did you fly through the FRZ?
PIC: Because I'm PIC, you can't tell me what to do!
roncachamp said:
They are violating FAA Order 7110.65 when they do.
Click to expand...
Is there a specific section you're referring to?
 
I guess I'm just of the mindset that believes Flight Following has advantages that far outweigh the disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is ATC will sometimes give me instructions that are inconvenient. I generally comply but sometimes there's a potential safety issue involved. As an example, when I approach Miami from the west, Approach will almost always ask me to be at or below 2000 over the Everglades, which is too low for me in terms of finding dry places to land in an emergency. So I ask for higher and they generally give it. My assumption that they don't have to think about me at 2000 whereas they now have to think about me but they are generally willing to do it.
 
My flight this weekend was vfr for 800 miles or so. I had to change my plan every 5 or 10 minutes for several hours of the flight to stay safe and out of the clouds. It would have made things much more complex for me to try to do that under flight following. I was on 121.5 the whole time.

I had to adjust altitude and direction almost constantly for a couple hundred miles. I think it would have been less safe for those miles if I were trying to coordinate with atc also.

The one time in the past that I had an issue that atc could have helped me with, I was on flight following and they did nothing but give me frequency changes while I’m working the problem making it worse. They refused to help with any of my requests to help find an appropriate airport or get frequencies or weather info for the airport that I found on my own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top