Class B altitude question?

[Palmpilot]

...The last three are just noise, if you are VFR and not in Class B or other ATC controlled airspace.

I received them in controlled airspace. The second one was class E, the third one was class C, and the fourth was class D.

And if you are in his airspace, then you have been granted (and accepted) a clearance. Then sure, you need to heed the instructions.

They were not clearances, because no clearance is required to operate in class C or D, only two way radio communications. Class E doesn't even require that for VFR traffic.

 

[luvflyin]

What about "remain clear of Class C?" I've heard that a couple of times when trying to transition Oakland.

If they want you to stay out, they have to say that because the only requirement to enter is establish communication. Sometimes you'll hear "aircraft calling (facility), Stand By." Communication has not been established and you gotta stay out. If they include your call sign "Cessna 12345, Stand By," then communication has been established and you can go in. Unlike a Class B which requires Clearance to enter, C only requires establishment of communication.

 

[Sundancer]

O.K, then - in C or D you're talking to someone, and met the protocol for entry. You don't have to call it a clearance, if you prefer. If you're in E, VFR, and not talking, then it's moot - you won't be hearing "unknown aircraft squawking 1200, cross Elmo at or above 1500 feet".

But I'm drifting OT a bit, I think. My point is, you aren't ceding decision making to ATC, and they aren't, ever, instructing you in the operation of your airplane. You own that, of course, and if crossing Elmo at or above 1500 feet is a bad idea for some reason, you don't get to blame the controller. He's informing you of his expectations, and if you see a reason not to fulfill that expectation, then say so, and with the mind set you are informing, not asking permission.

You're working together, and neither of you have the whole picture. I think, on rare occasion, you just have to say no. And hold the mind-set that it's your call to do so.

 

[Palmpilot]

O.K, then - in C or D you're talking to someone, and met the protocol for entry. You don't have to call it a clearance, if you prefer.

What I like is not relevant. I don't call it a clearance because the FAA doesn't call it a clearance.

If you're in E, VFR, and not talking, then it's moot - you won't be hearing "unknown aircraft squawking 1200, cross Elmo at or above 1500 feet".

True, but if you're in E and talking to them, the FAA Chief Counsel's office has said you have to follow any instructions they give, absent an emergency:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60082&highlight=valley

But I'm drifting OT a bit, I think. My point is, you aren't ceding decision making to ATC, and they aren't, ever, instructing you in the operation of your airplane. You own that, of course, and if crossing Elmo at or above 1500 feet is a bad idea for some reason, you don't get to blame the controller. He's informing you of his expectations, and if you see a reason not to fulfill that expectation, then say so, and with the mind set you are informing, not asking permission.

You're working together, and neither of you have the whole picture. I think, on rare occasion, you just have to say no. And hold the mind-set that it's your call to do so.

If it would be unsafe to comply, I agree, because 91.123(b) states an exception for emergencies. Unfortunately, it appears that the FAA Chief Counsel has nibbled a piece out of the pilot's command authority otherwise.

 

[Sundancer]

What I like is not relevant. I don't call it a clearance because the FAA doesn't call it a clearance.



True, but if you're in E and talking to them, the FAA Chief Counsel's office has said you have to follow any instructions they give, absent an emergency:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60082&highlight=valley




If it would be unsafe to comply, I agree, because 91.123(b) states an exception for emergencies. Unfortunately, it appears that the FAA Chief Counsel has nibbled a piece out of the pilot's command authority otherwise.

That's a shame - unless/until it gets to the NTSB and/or Fed judge, driven by a pilot with $$$ and time.

On another recent thread, someone mentioned FF apparently commits you to ATC control, or at least that's how it's being handled. I haven't used FF in a long, long time, when VFR. I imagine this is a good time to stop doing so altogether.

I don't think non-compliance has to reach the level of an emergency - you can just say no to a vector into a thunderstorm, for example. I mean give them the courtesy of a "why", of course. Though I have heard of a twin pilot who simply cancelled IR and descend to a VFR altitude, after a tussle over such a vector. The controller was doing his job - separation - and the pilot was doing his - survival. It was one of those rare occasions when their objectives didn't align.

Not ATC's fault - he as to keep everyone separated, based on his rules. But "Unable" wasn't cutting it, apparently, so the pilot exercised his prerogative to drop out of the system.

 

[Palmpilot]

On another recent thread, someone mentioned FF apparently commits you to ATC control, or at least that's how it's being handled. I haven't used FF in a long, long time, when VFR. I imagine this is a good time to stop doing so altogether.

Personally, in my twenty one years as a pilot, I've only received one vector while VFR that I found reason to object to, and when I concisely explained my concern, the controller immediately gave me a vector that resolved it to both our satisfaction.

I don't think non-compliance has to reach the level of an emergency - you can just say no to a vector into a thunderstorm, for example.

The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines emergency as either a distress or urgency condition. Being vectored into a thunderstorm easily meets the P/CG definition of urgency, IMO.

 

[MarkZ]

13 years in this job, and I had more IFR aircraft say unable to vectors than VFR aircraft. Every instance has to do with weather. No big deal, I have a lead aircraft act as a "pathfinder," and vector following aircraft through the hole the pilot found. I've had my handful of "cowboy" pilots, but most know that we are all trying to get through the weather together.

As for the OP, "request lower."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bobmrg]

That's a shame - unless/until it gets to the NTSB and/or Fed judge, driven by a pilot with $$$ and time.

On another recent thread, someone mentioned FF apparently commits you to ATC control, or at least that's how it's being handled. I haven't used FF in a long, long time, when VFR. I imagine this is a good time to stop doing so altogether.

I don't think non-compliance has to reach the level of an emergency - you can just say no to a vector into a thunderstorm, for example. I mean give them the courtesy of a "why", of course. Though I have heard of a twin pilot who simply cancelled IR and descend to a VFR altitude, after a tussle over such a vector. The controller was doing his job - separation - and the pilot was doing his - survival. It was one of those rare occasions when their objectives didn't align.

Not ATC's fault - he as to keep everyone separated, based on his rules. But "Unable" wasn't cutting it, apparently, so the pilot exercised his prerogative to drop out of the system.

Anyone thinking that that is the case needs to read AIM 4-1-17.

Bob Gardner