Class Bravo and Flight Following

roncachamp said:
The discussion has been about similar instructions where ATC has no responsibility for separation. The disagreement has been whether or not the pilot must adhere to invalid ATC instructions.
Click to expand...

I agree that ATC is not responsible for separating VFR aircraft in class E.

I sort of agree that a pilot need not adhere to an invalid ATC instruction.

I disagree that an ATC instruction to a VFR aircraft in Class E = an invalid instruction.

ATC may not have the responsibility to issues instructions of VFR aircraft in Class E, but that does not mean that ATC does not have the authority to issue instructions to VFR aircraft in Class E.
 
roncachamp said:
So you believe the FAA wants pilots to follow instructions it doesn't want controllers to issue, is that correct?
Click to expand...

I believe that.

Do you believe the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual and which are not?
 
Palmpilot said:
Do you believe the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual and which are not?
Click to expand...

This is truly angels on a pin but.... :rolleyes:

Are Pilots bound by the controllers manual?

If "no," then it doesn't follow that a pilot has to parse each instruction for validity against the controller's manual.

So the Ethel Mermon example still holds -- invalid, and "unable."

But -- I would still like to hear of actual examples of vectors and altitude assignments in Class E while VFR Traffic Advisories. I have never received them and I've never heard them.
 
COFlyBoy said:
ATC may not have the responsibility to issues instructions of VFR aircraft in Class E, but that does not mean that ATC does not have the authority to issue instructions to VFR aircraft in Class E.
Click to expand...

ATC does not have the authority to initiate vectoring or assign headings to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace outside of TRSAs or the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace because JO 7110.65 does not give it to them. I don't believe anyone is disputing that.
 
roncachamp said:
ATC does not have the authority to initiate vectoring or assign headings to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace outside of TRSAs or the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace because JO 7110.65 does not give it to them. I don't believe anyone is disputing that.
Click to expand...

Is the FAA definition of an ATC "instruction" limited to initiating vectors or assigning headings?
 
roncachamp said:
Do you have any other irrational beliefs?
Click to expand...

So it's irrational to think that the FAA meant what it wrote in 91.123(b) in the absence of case law to the contrary, and it's irrational to believe that the FAA does not consider pilots in general qualified to determine which instructions are valid according to a manual that they have neither been trained nor tested on, using airspace boundaries that the FAA does not make available to them?

OK, captain, whatever you say!
 
roncachamp said:
Affirmative.
Click to expand...

OK then, if we assume you are right that no such enforcement actions have been initiated, there remains the possibility that this is because most pilots obey ATC instructions. It doesn't give me enough confidence to say with certainty that if *I* disobeyed an instruction absent an emergency, I would not become the precedent-setting case.

It also doesn't give me the confidence to be sure that my assessment of which instructions comply with the controller's manual and which don't is correct. Obviously you are well-acquanted with that document, but most of us are not.
 
Palmpilot said:
So it's irrational to think that the FAA meant what it wrote in 91.123(b) in the absence of case law to the contrary, and it's irrational to believe that the FAA does not consider pilots in general qualified to determine which instructions are valid according to a manual that they have neither been trained nor tested on, using airspace boundaries that the FAA does not make available to them?
Click to expand...

No, it's irrational to believe the FAA wants pilots to follow instructions it does not want controllers to issue.
 
Palmpilot said:
OK then, if we assume you are right that no such enforcement actions have been initiated, there remains the possibility that this is because most pilots obey ATC instructions. It doesn't give me enough confidence to say with certainty that if *I* disobeyed an instruction absent an emergency, I would not become the precedent-setting case.

It also doesn't give me the confidence to be sure that my assessment of which instructions comply with the controller's manual and which don't is correct. Obviously you are well-acquanted with that document, but most of us are not.
Click to expand...

So proceed without confidence.
 
roncachamp said:
Lucky for you, you'd be fired.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. If it WERE my job, I would have been trained for it!

I just don't have any interest in taking on responsibilities that I have no training for and am therefore not qualified for.

You, on the other hand, have the necessary training, so I have no objection whatever if you want to take on the task of educating your colleagues. :smile:
 
feedtroll.gif

Could we please stop it here?

I do not have the right to tell your kid where to go or what to do. If I do, he has the right to ignore me. So, if I tell him to stay on the sidewalk and he goes into the road anyway, you have every right to haul my rear into court for grabbing his collar and jerking him away from the bus coming at him -- instead of thanking me.

When I was a young mother of a very impressionable youth, I anticipated with relish the day that Evel Kneivel would break every bone in his body instead of continuing to inspire my child to emulate him. However, I cannot anticipate the same for SPM when he flies heedless into whatever is waiting for him because he will take out more than himself.

Since this question of following the instructions of ATC while using the service of Flight Following is his particular bridge from which he exacts the toll of continually espousing foolish action, all I can request is that we agree to disagree by taking away the soapbox.

He will not change his mind. He might influence someone you care about.
handbag.gif
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
feedtroll.gif

Could we please stop it here?

I do not have the right to tell your kid where to go or what to do. If I do, he has the right to ignore me. So, if I tell him to stay on the sidewalk and he goes into the road anyway, you have every right to haul my rear into court for grabbing his collar and jerking him away from the bus coming at him -- instead of thanking me.

When I was a young mother of a very impressionable youth, I anticipated with relish the day that Evel Kneivel would break every bone in his body instead of continuing to inspire my child to emulate him. However, I cannot anticipate the same for SPM when he flies heedless into whatever is waiting for him because he will take out more than himself.

Since this question of following the instructions of ATC while using the service of Flight Following is his particular bridge from which he exacts the toll of continually espousing foolish action, all I can request is that we agree to disagree by taking away the soapbox.

He will not change his mind. He might influence someone else.
Click to expand...

You say that like it was a matter of opinion. It isn't.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Is the FAA definition of an ATC "instruction" limited to initiating vectors or assigning headings?
Click to expand...
No. Those are examples of instruction, but not exhaustive.
ATC INSTRUCTIONS- Directives issued by air traffic control for the purpose of requiring a pilot to take specific actions; e.g., "Turn left heading two five zero," "Go around," "Clear the runway."
Click to expand...
 
By the way, Steven, you still haven't answered this question:

"Do you believe the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual and which are not?"
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, Steven, you still haven't answered this question:

"Do you believe the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual and which are not?"
Click to expand...


Richard -- I responded to your question above.... (I'm not Steven, but have the same question back).
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, Steven, you still haven't answered this question:

"Do you believe the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual and which are not?"
Click to expand...

No, but irrelevant.
 
roncachamp said:
No, but irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's relevant because in order to believe that the intent of 91.123(b) was to allow a pilot to ignore instructions that he/she believed were invalid per the controller's manual, I would have to believe that the authors of that regulation considered pilots qualified to make that determination.
 
dmccormack said:
Richard -- I responded to your question above....
Click to expand...

I didn't really grasp what you were getting at in that response, but now that I've read it more carefully I'll write a response in my next post.

(I'm not Steven, but have the same question back).
Click to expand...

My answer is no, as I implied in post #135.
 
dmccormack said:
Originally Posted by Palmpilot
Do you believe the FAA considers pilots to be qualified to determine which instructions are valid under the controller's manual and which are not?
Click to expand...
This is truly angels on a pin but.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I disagree, for the reason I stated in post #148.

Are Pilots bound by the controllers manual?
Click to expand...

Not as far as I know, except to the extent that a controller gives him instructions pursuant to it.

If "no," then it doesn't follow that a pilot has to parse each instruction for validity against the controller's manual.
Click to expand...

If a pilot is going to disobey ATC instructions because he believes they are invalid per the controller's manual, then he would need to be able to "parse each instruction for validity against the controller's manual."

If a pilot is not going to do that, then I would agree that he doesn't need to do the parsing.

So the Ethel Mermon example still holds -- invalid, and "unable."
Click to expand...

Did you find my response in post #118 insufficent to address the Ethel Merman example, and if so, why?

But -- I would still like to hear of actual examples of vectors and altitude assignments in Class E while VFR Traffic Advisories. I have never received them and I've never heard them.
Click to expand...

I first became aware of this debate in a thread which was started by someone who had been given a heading and/or vector while in class E airspace while departing VFR from the SF Bay Area, east of the Oakland hills IIRC. (This may have been on the red board.) I don't know whether the pilot in question was outside the outer area or not (no TRSAs around here).

A couple of other people may have cited examples in various threads, and a SoCal controller said that he didn't hesitate to give such instructions when he felt they were needed. (I understand traffic can be pretty intense down there.)
 
Palmpilot said:
A couple of other people may have cited examples in various threads, and a SoCal controller said that he didn't hesitate to give such instructions when he felt they were needed. (I understand traffic can be pretty intense down there.)
Click to expand...


I'm sure it can -- but the point is: Does a pilot on flight following have to comply with heaidng and altitude instructions when VFR in Class E? And ignore those instructions at his/her certificate's peril?

For me, it's a moot point. I'm a go along and get along type who will happily comply first, then ask questions later.

That said -- I haven't been given heading/altitude instruction while in Class E and on TA/FF. Ever. And I haven't heard it given to others, either, ever. That includes flights in the NY/NJ area, VA, MD, and all the other Really Busy places.
 
Ron Levy said:
I have. Not often, but it's happened, and always involving a potential conflict with other traffic the controller was working.
Click to expand...


Right -- and something like "Fly heading 230 for traffic.." is perfectly acceptable and makes all the sense in the world.

But "Climb and maintain 5500" or some such -- with no explanation?
 
Palmpilot said:
It's relevant because in order to believe that the intent of 91.123(b) was to allow a pilot to ignore instructions that he/she believed were invalid per the controller's manual, I would have to believe that the authors of that regulation considered pilots qualified to make that determination.
Click to expand...

I'm confident the intent is and has always been that invalid instructions not be issued.
 
dmccormack said:
Right -- and something like "Fly heading 230 for traffic.." is perfectly acceptable and makes all the sense in the world.
Click to expand...

It makes sense where ATC has responsibility for separation, elsewhere it indicates a poor controller.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I will tell you that in the case I quoted in an earlier post "Arrow 86W maintain at or above 5,500 feet East of Highway 101" was an actual instruction I got from NORCAL while on flight following on a flight from the Sacramento area to Santa Cruz, South of San Jose. (And no, that isn't actually my tail number.)

I know why they wanted me high - the valley South of San Jose is a major traffic corridor for KSJC and other Bay Area airports.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you may have been in the Outer Area of the SJC Class C. If you were, then even Steven (if you'll pardon the expression) would agree the instruction was valid.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I would agree that may have been the case here. But I've been vectored in other places not near Class C, and routinely get altitude restrictions flying over active MOA's on FF.
Click to expand...

And since you get them controllers obviously have the authority to issue them because controllers don't err. Is that how you see it?
 
roncachamp said:
And since you get them controllers obviously have the authority to issue them because controllers don't err. Is that how you see it?
Click to expand...

When we get them, we have to assume that they are issued for "air safety" since that is what the F.A.A. is telling us (as per A.I.M. as noted above).

But, personally, I have no interest in talking on the radio. Hakuna Matatta.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
When we get them, we have to assume that they are issued for "air safety" since that is what the F.A.A. is telling us (as per A.I.M. as noted above).
Click to expand...

The FAA tells controllers via Order JO 7110.65 "Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken." What the FAA is telling you per the AIM is incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top