ATC Authority Over VFR in Controlled Airspace

Ron Levy said:
I realize that since I'm not an attorney-at-law, this is not legal advice, and you can choose not to believe me.
Click to expand...

I don't. Your "legal expertise" is amateurish at best. :nonod:


Ron Levy said:
a fact which any real attorney will confirm.
Click to expand...

Again, just an assumption based upon your neophyte understanding of the law.
 
Ron Levy said:
The Chief Counsel makes no such distinction, and the case law on point is clear -- absent an emergency, you do as told and talk about it later.
Click to expand...

I find that statement amazing, especially coming from someone who represents the FAA FAAst Team.

Threat and Error Management would say if a pilot using situational awareness realizes a threat to safety he should act upon it accordingly using ADM skills. If the controller continues to issue an instruction contrary to safety the PIC certainly has the right to dispute him. And the PIC can dispute him without declaring an emergency.

I really hope you are not teaching your students this nonsense "do as your told and don't question them". :nonod:
 
I've read through all ten pages of this thread and I have one question. I was taught that as a pilot in VFR conditions, I always have the option of replying "Unable" to any ATC command that I'm uncertain that I can comply with safely. Is this correct?
 
Old Geek said:
I've read through all ten pages of this thread and I have one question. I was taught that as a pilot in VFR conditions, I always have the option of replying "Unable" to any ATC command that I'm uncertain that I can comply with safely. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

That question ought to be good for another ten pages! :popcorn:
 
Old Geek said:
I've read through all ten pages of this thread and I have one question. I was taught that as a pilot in VFR conditions, I always have the option of replying "Unable" to any ATC command that I'm uncertain that I can comply with safely. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone disputes your right (and obligation) as PIC to do that.
 
Jaybird180 said:
For illustration purposes, I'm going to take this out to ridiculous level:

I'm a ATC controller and I'm having a bad day. I know I'm getting fired by the end of the week, so I decide to go out with a little fun. You are flying your Tiger and are unaware of my mischevious intentions.

I issue you an instruction to fly vector that take you right over Joe Biden's house, squawk 7500, and do a few victory rolls. Are you going to obey?
Click to expand...

Jaybird180 said:
I guess if you give "emergency" wide latitude of interpretation.
Click to expand...

If you don't consider the controller giving you instructions like that to be an emergency, then how about this:

Your scenario puts the pilot in a position where he or she either has to violate 91.123(b), or some other regulation. In a situation where regulations conflict, the pilot has to decide which one to follow.

Personally, I'm going to pick the one that does the following, in order of priority:

1. Maximizes my chances of survival; and

2. Minimizes my chances of looking stupid at the hearing.

As for the legalities, my take on it, as a non-attorney, is that the existence of a relatively recent Chief Counsel interpretation that an ATC instruction is not a class B clearance strongly supports the idea that the interpretation that is the subject of this thread should not be taken to mean that ATC instructions automatically override other regulations.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I find that statement amazing, especially coming from someone who represents the FAA FAAst Team.

Threat and Error Management would say if a pilot using situational awareness realizes a threat to safety he should act upon it accordingly using ADM skills. If the controller continues to issue an instruction contrary to safety the PIC certainly has the right to dispute him. And the PIC can dispute him without declaring an emergency.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about declaring an emergency before declining to obey an ATC instruction? Certainly neither me, nor the regulation, nor the Chief Counsel. For example, if the controller says "turn left heading 300" and that will take you into a thunderstorm, there is no need to declare an emergency -- just don't turn and inform the controller why. Obviously turning into the thunderstorm would create an emergency, thus giving you the legal "out" to disobey that instruction, but there's no need to declare it unless you enter the storm or the controller gets insistent (and I have heard of that happening).
 
Old Geek said:
I've read through all ten pages of this thread and I have one question. I was taught that as a pilot in VFR conditions, I always have the option of replying "Unable" to any ATC command that I'm uncertain that I can comply with safely. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
That is absolutely correct. The issue under discussion is the refusal to obey an ATC instruction when safety would not be compromised by following it, but the pilot chooses for reasons of convenience not to obey. For example, the case of Chris Eden, who chose not to obey ATC and instead declared "minimum fuel" in order to avoid making a fuel stop short of his destination. Yes, that case involved an IFR operation, but the fundamental issue is the same.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
That is absolutely correct. The issue under discussion is the refusal to obey an ATC instruction when safety would not be compromised by following it, but the pilot chooses for reasons of convenience not to obey.
Click to expand...

Actually, the issue under discussion is the refusal to obey an ATC instruction that is in violation of Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
 
Palmpilot said:
Your scenario puts the pilot in a position where he or she either has to violate 91.123(b), or some other regulation. In a situation where regulations conflict, the pilot has to decide which one to follow.
Click to expand...
That question was asked and answered by the Chief Counsel some time back, and when that happens, the pilot is obligated to immediately obtain clarification of the instruction, but not to violate the regulation.

As for the legalities, my take on it, as a non-attorney, is that the existence of a relatively recent Chief Counsel interpretation that an ATC instruction is not a class B clearance strongly supports the idea that the interpretation that is the subject of this thread should not be taken to mean that ATC instructions automatically override other regulations.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
roncachamp said:
Actually, the issue under discussion is the refusal to obey an ATC instruction that is in violation of Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
Click to expand...
That order is not a regulation governing pilots or flight operations, only controllers and their actions. Since there is no exception in either 91.123(b) or any FAA Chief Counsel interpretation of that regulation for "an ATC instruction that is in violation of Order JO 7110.65," it is thus irrelevant to the question of the pilot's obligations once an ATC instruction is received. The one and only exception in the regulation and the interpretation, is the emergency exception, which allows a pilot to disobey an ATC instruction if following that instruction will compromise that aircraft's safety.
 
So the only reasonable answer for VFR flight is to keep the radios off. Remember IFR fans in VMC separation is not guaranteed by ATC. Haha, as much as it pains you, you have to look out the window.
 
Ron Levy said:
That is absolutely correct. The issue under discussion is the refusal to obey an ATC instruction when safety would not be compromised by following it, but the pilot chooses for reasons of convenience not to obey. For example, the case of Chris Eden, who chose not to obey ATC and instead declared "minimum fuel" in order to avoid making a fuel stop short of his destination. Yes, that case involved an IFR operation, but the fundamental issue is the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Then what's to stop a VFR pilot from simply saying "Unable" if he doesn't want to obey any ATC instruction? Does the controller question his call? If ATC instructs the pilot to descend, how does the controller know whether there's a powered parachute below the pilot or that the pilot is simply being churlish?
 
Old Geek said:
Exactly. Then what's to stop a VFR pilot from simply saying "Unable" if he doesn't want to obey any ATC instruction?
Click to expand...
You mean if there's no safety reason not to obey? I'm thinking a positive attitude towards safety and regulatory compliance, because I've never heard of a controller giving such an instruction given without a good safety reason like keeping planes from banging into each other.

Does the controller question his call?
Click to expand...
Usually not, but I've heard it happen.

If ATC instructs the pilot to descend, how does the controller know whether there's a powered parachute below the pilot or that the pilot is simply being churlish?
Click to expand...
Because the pilot says "Unable, traffic/clouds below me"?

Look folks, it's a team effort here. You want to play "I've got a secret" with the controller by just saying "unable" without explanation, you need to expect the controller to get cranky with you since you're now making him/her work harder, and if multiple exchanges become necessary, you're hammering the bandwidth available. Likewise, pilots must realize that controllers don't do things just for fun -- their primary concern is safety, and they aren't going to give VFR aircraft instructions in Class E airspace unless they have a good safety reason for doing it. The Chief Counsel seems to understand that concept even if some pilots here don't.

Personally, I trust controllers (within Ronald Reagan's dictum to "trust but verify") to keep me safe, and they trust me to do what they tell me so they can keep everyone safe. What is so bloody hard about working together to accomplish that?
 
Ron Levy said:
You mean if there's no safety reason not to obey? I'm thinking a positive attitude towards safety and regulatory compliance, because I've never heard of a controller giving such an instruction given without a good safety reason like keeping planes from banging into each other.

Look folks, it's a team effort here. You want to play "I've got a secret" with the controller by just saying "unable" without explanation, you need to expect the controller to get cranky with you since you're now making him/her work harder, and if multiple exchanges become necessary, you're hammering the bandwidth available. Likewise, pilots must realize that controllers don't do things just for fun -- their primary concern is safety, and they aren't going to give VFR aircraft instructions in Class E airspace unless they have a good safety reason for doing it. The Chief Counsel seems to understand that concept even if some pilots here don't.

Personally, I trust controllers (within Ronald Reagan's dictum to "trust but verify") to keep me safe, and they trust me to do what they tell me so they can keep everyone safe. What is so bloody hard about working together to accomplish that?
Click to expand...

Just because you've never heard it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Come one down to San Antonio on a busy Sat in summer, and you'll hear it plenty. Pretty much every time I was enroute from the north to Stinson field I'd be courteous and contact app when within 20 miles. Invariably, they would ask my destination and when I said Stinson I'd get a 'turn right heading 200'. After I would turn, and go about 10 miles out of my way around Lackland, they would either turn me east or I'd get 'resume own navigation'. WTF? They just didn't want me skirting inside under the shelf of class C between Lackland and the inner KSAT surface. Finally, after the third time of that BS, I just didn't call, went direct Stinson from the west side of the cake at 1800' and landed like nothing was amiss.

Maybe they weren't doing it for fun, I'm sure it was much easier for app/twr to just keep me out of their hair, but that's the kind of thing that goes on in some areas. This has also happened at Abilene, and I've had it around COS too when they turned me south to go around an R space heading east to west. It must be me -- sure... Eff that. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You mean if there's no safety reason not to obey? I'm thinking a positive attitude towards safety and regulatory compliance, because I've never heard of a controller giving such an instruction given without a good safety reason like keeping planes from banging into each other.

Usually not, but I've heard it happen.

Because the pilot says "Unable, traffic/clouds below me"?

Look folks, it's a team effort here. You want to play "I've got a secret" with the controller by just saying "unable" without explanation, you need to expect the controller to get cranky with you since you're now making him/her work harder, and if multiple exchanges become necessary, you're hammering the bandwidth available. Likewise, pilots must realize that controllers don't do things just for fun -- their primary concern is safety, and they aren't going to give VFR aircraft instructions in Class E airspace unless they have a good safety reason for doing it. The Chief Counsel seems to understand that concept even if some pilots here don't.

Personally, I trust controllers (within Ronald Reagan's dictum to "trust but verify") to keep me safe, and they trust me to do what they tell me so they can keep everyone safe. What is so bloody hard about working together to accomplish that?
Click to expand...

What's so bloody hard about you just saying this at the beginning of the thread? You go out of your way to make yourself the authoritative source for all FAA enforcement questions. I set you up with the "Unable" scenario, not because I'd ever even consider doing it, but to show that there seems to be a way for VFR pilots to decline ATC commands without apparent enforcement entanglements. If you want to refute my argument on a legal basis, take your best shot. That's the discussion, not working together.
 
Ron Levy said:
That question was asked and answered by the Chief Counsel some time back, and when that happens, the pilot is obligated to immediately obtain clarification of the instruction, but not to violate the regulation.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a question. When regulations conflict, it's a fact that the pilot has to decide which one to follow. If asking for clarification resolves the conflicting regulations, then fine, but if it doesn't, then the pilot still has a decision to make.
 
I think we have two basic disputes in this case. From what I understand:

Ron- The Chief Counsel's letter of a VFR aircraft to obey instructions from ATC while in Class E must be adhered to by all pilots.

Steven- The issuance of instructions to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace is a violation of the 7110.65.

Perhaps prior to issuing blanket statements, the Chief Counsel should either contact an ATC representative or review the .65?
 
Velocity173 said:
I think we have two basic disputes in this case. From what I understand:

Ron- The Chief Counsel's letter of a VFR aircraft to obey instructions from ATC while in Class E must be adhered to by all pilots.

Steven- The issuance of instructions to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace is a violation of the 7110.65.

Perhaps prior to issuing blanket statements, the Chief Counsel should either contact an ATC representative or review the .65?
Click to expand...
Perhaps they did, and chose not to discuss it.

In any event, it seems some folks think that some controllers are living in a Gary Larson cartoon where they treat their scopes like an Etch-a-Sketch and use instructions to VFR aircraft solely to create pretty pictures. I certainly can't say it isn't true, but to use that possibility as an excuse for disobeying ATC instructions in a non-emergency situation is merely exhibiting an anti-authority attitude for which there is no place in aviation if we're all to operate safely.

-30-
 
Thread drift is not a crime!
 
JeffDG said:
Good God!

Can't we just agree to disagree and move on?
Click to expand...

The objective is to disagree until all agree.
"But do not let us quarrel any more,
...
My works are nearer heaven, but I sit here.
The sudden blood of these men! at a word—
Praise them, it boils, or blame them, it boils too.
I, painting posting from myself and to myself,
Know what I do, am unmoved by men's blame
Or their praise either. Somebody remarks
Morello's 14 CFR there is wrongly traced quoted,
His hue interpretation mistaken; what of that? or else,
Rightly traced noted and well ordered; what of that?
Speak as they please, what does the mountain care?
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven an internet forum for?
..."
​
(Apologies to Robert Browning.)
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
That order is not a regulation governing pilots or flight operations, only controllers and their actions.
Click to expand...

Correct, and to my knowledge nobody has said or implied anything to the contrary.

Since there is no exception in either 91.123(b) or any FAA Chief Counsel interpretation of that regulation for "an ATC instruction that is in violation of Order JO 7110.65," it is thus irrelevant to the question of the pilot's obligations once an ATC instruction is received. The one and only exception in the regulation and the interpretation, is the emergency exception, which allows a pilot to disobey an ATC instruction if following that instruction will compromise that aircraft's safety.
Click to expand...

You're assuming the Chief Counsel, and the Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, considered the situation where the the ATC instruction is issued in violation of Order 7110.65. There's no reason to believe they even considered that scenario.
 
Velocity173 said:
Perhaps prior to issuing blanket statements, the Chief Counsel should either contact an ATC representative or review the .65?
Click to expand...

What? He should obtain some knowledge of the subject before issuing an opinion? Are you insane?
 
roncachamp said:
Correct, and to my knowledge nobody has said or implied anything to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Fine.

You're assuming the Chief Counsel, and the Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, considered the situation where the the ATC instruction is issued in violation of Order 7110.65. There's no reason to believe they even considered that scenario.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not assuming anything, just reading what the reg says and the Chief Counsel wrote, which includes one and only one exception -- an emergency. You're the one who seems to think there is or might be an exception never mentioned in either the reg or the interpretation.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, I'm not assuming anything, just reading what the reg says and the Chief Counsel wrote, which includes one and only one exception -- an emergency. You're the one who seems to think there is or might be an exception never mentioned in either the reg or the interpretation.
Click to expand...

You're definitely assuming. That you may not recognize that you are does not alter the fact that you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top