Can ATC issue instructions via ATIS?

[gismo]

A controller can issue instructions in "controlled" airspace, including Class E.

I may be wrong but I remember reading that the rules ATC must follow don't allow controllers to "control" VFR traffic outside Class A-D.

I would, however, bet that if you were ordered out of the lateral limits of the Class C (including the airspace above) and you came right back in, that you'd be looking at a potential violation of 91.123: ("(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."). I see no limitation on Class A, B, C, or D airspace in that rule.

Like I posted, the way the FAR is written, you would be obliged to comply but exactly what that means is unclear. What if you came back over (or under) the Class C 30 minutes later? Not long enough? How about a couple hours later? Do you have to land once first? Fly to another state? What if your home base was underneath the Class C outer tier, does such an instruction mean you can't go home?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I may be wrong but I remember reading that the rules ATC must follow don't allow controllers to "control" VFR traffic outside Class A-D.

Not true, ATC (Harrisburg approach) will regularly assign headings in Class E airspace in my neighborhood. For example, exiting CXY (Harrisburg, PA - Capital City) VFR headed to Smoketown I will usually be told to fly various assigned headings in a southerly direction until well south of MDT (Harrisburg - Middletown).

 

[poadeleted20]

I may be wrong but I remember reading that the rules ATC must follow don't allow controllers to "control" VFR traffic outside Class A-D.

14 CFR 91.123(b) says that absent an emergency, you have to obey all ATC instructions in all controlled airspace, which includes classes A through E.

 

[gismo]

14 CFR 91.123(b) says that absent an emergency, you have to obey all ATC instructions in all controlled airspace, which includes classes A through E.

I agree. What I'm saying is that AFaiK, technically you shouldn't be put in the position of having to follow an unwanted route for the convenience of ATC. Not because you aren't obligated to follow such an instruction but rather because you shouldn't be given one in a perfect ATC world.

 

[gismo]

Not true, ATC (Harrisburg approach) will regularly assign headings in Class E airspace in my neighborhood. For example, exiting CXY (Harrisburg, PA - Capital City) VFR headed to Smoketown I will usually be told to fly various assigned headings in a southerly direction until well south of MDT (Harrisburg - Middletown).

I never said ATC wouldn't do this, just that they shouldn't do it. In an earlier post I made approximiately the same statement as yours WRT the MSP TRACON. IOW I think they are exceeding their authority when this happens, but you are still obligated to follow the "unauthorized" instructions because the FARs give no exceptions. Technically you'd be violating 91.123b if you ever flew again after receiving an instruction to land and stay on the ground.

 

[poadeleted2]

IOW I think they are exceeding their authority when this happens, but you are still obligated to follow the "unauthorized" instructions

where is your proof ????????????

og/atcs
c90

 

[bbchien]

IOW I think they are exceeding their authority when this happens, but you are still obligated to follow the "unauthorized" instructions

where is your proof ????????????

og/atcs
c90

You guys did it to me about three months ago. I was in the right seat of a Saratoga, and the pilot was transitioning over the top of ORD B. He regrets getting FF, C90 vectored him over the water. He won't be calling C90 again for a long time.

You guys are Sooo BAD. Even when you do 7 VFRs per shift, you're negative.

 

[gismo]

IOW I think they are exceeding their authority when this happens, but you are still obligated to follow the "unauthorized" instructions

where is your proof ????????????

og/atcs
c90

Proof of what?

 

[bbchien]

Proof of what?

He wants proof that when I was vectored into B in 2004 without clearance, that I am obligated to follow his instruction, for he has posted in the past that I was in violation, having not followed a controller instruction, same incident in which my C90 cert. mail to discuss it was ignored. 91.123b is being abused by C90.

I don't need that proof.

He needs correction.

 

[poadeleted2]

Proof of what?

you made a statement that atc is exceeding their authority and giving unauthorized instructions, where is this written i would like to read it?

og/atcs
c90

 

[gismo]

you made a statement that atc is exceeding their authority and giving unauthorized instructions, where is this written i would like to read it?

og/atcs
c90

I said that I believe that this is true. In an earlier post on this thread I mentioned that I think I read this before from a credible source. Unfortunately I can't resurect that source so we're stuck with the "I believe" part for now. Of course, logic (possibly not compatible with the FAA) dictates that there must be some limitations on what ATC can instruct pilots to do (assuming that 91.123 actually requires compliance to any instruction unless the pilot has an emergency) else they might just tell all us pilots to stay out of their hair. And it just makes sense that instructions given to VFR pilots in Class E are the most limited. So, the bottom line here is that this is just my opinion at this time.

Edit: additional info...

I got this response from Don Brown, a senior controller at Atlanta center.

Section 6. Vectoring

5-6-1. APPLICATION

Vector aircraft:

g. Operating VFR at those locations where a special program is established, or when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot concurs.
===================

As you'll notice, that is "g" so it's down the list. In general, we don't vector VFR aircraft in Class E airspace without a pilot request. It's a complicated subject and it gets a little fuzzy in real life.

Appraoch controllers will often call us and say "Put N123 on a 130 heading." In the Center, we don't have a rule to do that with VFRs. We can suggest it -- and most pilots readily comply with it, but it's still just a suggestion that they are free to ignore. Of course, if they want to get into the Class B it's a real strong suggestion. <G>

 

[poadeleted2]

[SIZE=+2]Chapter 2. General Control[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Section 1. General[/SIZE]

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic.


if i give a vfr a/c a heading or an alt restrction it is because of this above.by the way ive been an atcs for 26 years, i guess this would make me a senior controller too.​

og/atcs
c90
X zau

 

[wsuffa]

[SIZE=+2]Chapter 2. General Control[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Section 1. General[/SIZE]

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic.


if i give a vfr a/c a heading or an alt restrction it is because of this above.by the way ive been an atcs for 26 years, i guess this would make me a senior controller too.​

So here's my question: expedite WHAT traffic? If TRACON management sets a policy of "no clearances through and no overflights for VFR", even in the absence of traffic in the corridor requested, then the circuitous routing issued to a VFR aircraft is not expediting traffic, it's delaying it. And yes, this has happened, it's happend to me.

 

[poadeleted2]

are you talking class E or B. class B is a diffrent animal

og/atcs
c90

 

[Witmo]

So here's my question: expedite WHAT traffic? If TRACON management sets a policy of "no clearances through and no overflights for VFR", even in the absence of traffic in the corridor requested, then the circuitous routing issued to a VFR aircraft is not expediting traffic, it's delaying it. And yes, this has happened, it's happend to me.

To me too, in Class E airspace.

 

[bbchien]

are you talking class E or B. class B is a diffrent animal

og/atcs
c90

Read the string, we're talking on TOP of a B, that would be E now, would it not....

 

[wsuffa]

are you talking class E or B. class B is a diffrent animal

og/atcs
c90

Above the Class B, which is Class E space. At least one TRACON has banned overflight VFR or IFR if you're talking to them. If you're VFR and not talking, you just motor on ahead.

But since you asked, if the portion of the Class B is not in use for arrivals at the main airport, why wouldn't VFR or IFR traffic to a satellite be permitted through flight? In one case I can think of traffic is NOT permitted entry even though it's on the non-arrival side of the airport. A 25 minute reroute for us lousy FLIBs. Expedite? Hardly....

 

[poadeleted20]

He wants proof that when I was vectored into B in 2004 without clearance, that I am obligated to follow his instruction, for he has posted in the past that I was in violation, having not followed a controller instruction, same incident in which my C90 cert. mail to discuss it was ignored. 91.123b is being abused by C90.

We ran this scenario past the FAA legal eagles (i.e., AGC, not AFS) last year, and they said that if a controller's "instruction" sends you into B-space without a clearance (e.g., tower controller extending you downwind near the surface area of the B-space of another airport) you are in an "emergency" situation where two regs conflict, and you are obliged to stay out of the B-space while informing the controller to whom you're talking what you're doing. The assumption, I guess, is that only a controller error would result in an "instruction" sending you into B-space without an IFR or VFR B-space clearance, and to enter the B-space without the required clearance might compromise separation in the B-space.

 

[gismo]

if i give a vfr a/c a heading or an alt restrction it is because of this above.by the way ive been an atcs for 26 years, i guess this would make me a senior controller too.

​

og/atcs
c90
X zau

Yes, I would say your opinion on ATC authority is likely as valid as Don Brown's and given the number of times that I've observed controllers directing VFR's in class E for the apparent convenience of ATC I'd have to say your position on this is widespread. OTOH, Don did provide some regulatory support for his position which adds to it's creedance IMO.

So being the well experienced controller that you are, can you describe the limits of ATC's ability to issue instructions to VFR traffic in Class E?

 

[bbchien]

We ran this scenario past the FAA legal eagles (i.e., AGC, not AFS) last year, and they said that if a controller's "instruction" sends you into B-space without a clearance (e.g., tower controller extending you downwind near the surface area of the B-space of another airport) you are in an "emergency" situation where two regs conflict, and you are obliged to stay out of the B-space while informing the controller to whom you're talking what you're doing. The assumption, I guess, is that only a controller error would result in an "instruction" sending you into B-space without an IFR or VFR B-space clearance, and to enter the B-space without the required clearance might compromise separation in the B-space.

And then when C90 is so saturated that you can't get back in for 120 seconds of patient listening and trying, and then you get chewed out and flipped off by C90, I would say, like the supe, that the C90 guy was outta line. But never mind, I was the "beneficiary" of a one in a milion FF service from C90, and "we are not worthy" so abuse me. Sigh, "oh mighty senior controller". I guess I was one of the lucky 7 per that shift.

91.123b is being misued when the Saratoga, VFR on top of B calls, amazingly gets FF and then is vectored over the lake.

 

[ScottM]

We ran this scenario past the FAA legal eagles (i.e., AGC, not AFS) last year, and they said that if a controller's "instruction" sends you into B-space without a clearance (e.g., tower controller extending you downwind near the surface area of the B-space of another airport) you are in an "emergency" situation where two regs conflict, and you are obliged to stay out of the B-space while informing the controller to whom you're talking what you're doing. The assumption, I guess, is that only a controller error would result in an "instruction" sending you into B-space without an IFR or VFR B-space clearance, and to enter the B-space without the required clearance might compromise separation in the B-space.

Earlier this year I was on a VFR flight around O'Hare's Class B. Not expecting to even get FF as we have pretty low expectation of the services they will offer I did request it. To my surprise I got it, not unheard of but rare.

Several minutes later the controller asks what my direct heading would be and what altitude I would evently be at. He goes ahead and tells me to turn on course and climb. But that would bring me into the Class B. This is really strange as VFR 'NEVER' gets into O'Hare class B. So I state "Confirm cleared in class bravo'. This guy had been preety nice but when I did that I get a several minute diatribe on as long as he gave me the heading into the bravo it was all ok. I was just going to keep my mouth shut and take it, saying anything would not have been good for me. His rebuke goes and and then he says "but it is always a good idea to make sure you got the clearence.

So it would seem that in this case the controller did make and error vectoring me into the bravo but had a tape review been warrented I did ask the magic words and got the clearence.

 

[bbchien]

Earlier this year I was on a VFR flight around O'Hare's Class B. Not expecting to even get FF as we have pretty low expectation of the services they will offer I did request it. To my surprise I got it, not unheard of but rare.

Several minutes later the controller asks what my direct heading would be and what altitude I would evently be at. He goes ahead and tells me to turn on course and climb. But that would bring me into the Class B. This is really strange as VFR 'NEVER' gets into O'Hare class B. So I state "Confirm cleared in class bravo'. This guy had been preety nice but when I did that I get a several minute diatribe on as long as he gave me the heading into the bravo it was all ok. I was just going to keep my mouth shut and take it, saying anything would not have been good for me. His rebuke goes and and then he says "but it is always a good idea to make sure you got the clearence.

So it would seem that in this case the controller did make and error vectoring me into the bravo but had a tape review been warrented I did ask the magic words and got the clearence.

Thank you Scott. See, ogogog and the mighty Skylord think they make the rules. They don't even bother to comply with 7110.65. "It's OK because I said so!". They just don't get it.

 

[mikea]

Thank you Scott. See, ogogog and the mighty Skylord think they make the rules. They don't even bother to comply with 7110.65. "It's OK because I said so!". They just don't get it.

Unbelievable. It's like we're flying in a whole separate country.

Welcome to Daleyland.

They're gonna really have fun if/when those new runways at O'Hare open up.

 

[poadeleted2]

Yes, I would say your opinion on ATC authority is likely as valid as Don Brown's and given the number of times that I've observed controllers directing VFR's in class E for the apparent convenience of ATC I'd have to say your position on this is widespread. OTOH, Don did provide some regulatory support for his position which adds to it's creedance IMO.

So being the well experienced controller that you are, can you describe the limits of ATC's ability to issue instructions to VFR traffic in Class E?

sorry had to go to buffalo for a few days.thats a good question and i dont know if i even know that answer.all i know is that when you are getting vfr FF you are now in the system and i must provide some form of seperstion form ivf/vfr but their is no standard seperation for class E (unlike A,B,C)i may give a alt rest or heading . i dont know why a fac would deny FF over top of class B , i can see maybe limited vectoring or alt rest to clear a arr or dept corr but you got me on that one?all I can say is that ill only do this for known traffic (ifr/vfr-ff)

og/atcs
c90

 

[gismo]

i dont know if i even know that answer.all i know is that when you are getting vfr FF you are now in the system and i must provide some form of seperstion form ivf/vfr but their is no standard seperation for class E (unlike A,B,C)i may give a alt rest or heading.

I think that's the real problem/issue. The FAA seems to have provided insufficient guidance for both pilots and controllers WRT this issue and as a result some controllers assume far more authority over VFR class E traffic than others. IME, controllers who are also pilots (like yourself) tend to restrict themselves quite well in this regard and only "control" such traffic when it's to everyone's benefit rather than just ATC's. Others I've encountered are less cooperative and more willing to re-route the heck out of VFR FLIBs with little regard for those pilot's preferences.

 

[poadeleted2]

lance

you make some very good points, the problem is that most of what we control is IFR and this is where most of our training is on. i dont think most controllers are aware that 7110.65 2-1-1 dose not state ivf or vfr it just says a/c operating in the system which would include vfr/ff.ive known controllers who would dump an ifr througt a vfr/ff and just give a traffic advsry, and just say "well he's vfr"and ive try to explane that you have known traffic you must provide some sort of seperation beyond the old "traffic 12 oclock 1 mile decending in to you".but what goes on is done well above my pay grade.iam just a worker bee and my employer really doent care what i think,all i can control is what i do when iam working and try the best i can for ALL user of the system.as for some controllers trying to control too much i just cant answer that with out mor info. happy flying.

og/atcs
c90