Class Bravo and Flight Following

jsstevens

jsstevens

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,829
Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
Last week I flew from Marathon (KMTH) to Orlando Executive (KORL). I flew up the east coast following the overseas highway, flying form Key Largo towards Miami International, to the Palm Beach VOR (PBI), the Melbourne VOR (MLB) and then home.

I called Miami approach and asked to traverse their airspace from southwest towards the Palm Beach VOR. After getting a squawk and identing, I was cleared into the Bravo at 5500. All this was expected and went smoothly.

What I didn't expect was that I was then in the system for flight following all the was home - handed off to Palm Beach Approach and then Orlando Approach. In fact you can see that portion of the flight on FlightAware here: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N739SK (the May 8th one).

I just expected Miami to tell me "resume own navigation, squawk VFR, good day."

Is this normal? I certainly didn't object to the extra eyes.

John
 
jsstevens said:
Is this normal?
Click to expand...
It happens.

For instance if I have FF with South Bend approach and am heading west I never expect to get handed off to Chi-App.

But often when I am heading east with FF South Bend will hand me off to Fort Wayne. Milwaukee will also hand me off to Green Bay and vis versa but MKE will never hand off to Chicago.

In Florida I often would get a hand off on FF between Sarasota and Tampa to Jacksonville or between Miami and Palm Beach.
 
Sometimes it happens this way, sometimes they drop you at the end of the Bravo transit with a "Departing Bravo airspace, squawk 1200, frequency change approved." My experience is that usually you get handed off, but often you don't. Consider it luck of the draw.
 
I've gotten a hand off to the next TRACON or Z-facility. (usual)
I've gotten a squawk 1200, radar services terminated. (normal, but not rare)
I've gotten a squawk 1200, radar services terminated, you can try such and such facility on nnn.n (normal, but rare)
I've also just been completely forgotten about. (rare)
 
jsstevens said:
Last week I flew from Marathon (KMTH) to Orlando Executive (KORL). I flew up the east coast following the overseas highway, flying form Key Largo towards Miami International, to the Palm Beach VOR (PBI), the Melbourne VOR (MLB) and then home.

I called Miami approach and asked to traverse their airspace from southwest towards the Palm Beach VOR. After getting a squawk and identing, I was cleared into the Bravo at 5500. All this was expected and went smoothly.

What I didn't expect was that I was then in the system for flight following all the was home - handed off to Palm Beach Approach and then Orlando Approach. In fact you can see that portion of the flight on FlightAware here: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N739SK (the May 8th one).

I just expected Miami to tell me "resume own navigation, squawk VFR, good day."

Is this normal? I certainly didn't object to the extra eyes.

John
Click to expand...


Absent a request to discontinue flight following, they did the right thing.

Bob Gardner
 
ScottM said:
It happens.

For instance if I have FF with South Bend approach and am heading west I never expect to get handed off to Chi-App.

But often when I am heading east with FF South Bend will hand me off to Fort Wayne. Milwaukee will also hand me off to Green Bay and vis versa but MKE will never hand off to Chicago.

In Florida I often would get a hand off on FF between Sarasota and Tampa to Jacksonville or between Miami and Palm Beach.
Click to expand...

Rockford handed me off to Chicago once. I was like :yikes:
 
Teller1900 said:
It must have been during that magic time between 2:00am and 2:03am when they'll actually accept a handoff.
Click to expand...

I can't remember if it was after midnight local or 11pm local. I was surprised because there was a long line of iron coming in from the north.
 
Living near Orlando (Bravo) and making a few trips to the Keys now, I do this quite often. Except for one time when they were busy, they gave me FF for the whole trip unless I diverted. I think it is common for them to try to follow you the whole way. It make their life easier if they know who is in that radar blip and how to call them.
 
roncachamp said:
You don't need to request to discontinue flight following, you just do it.
Click to expand...

But you should tell ATC you're doing it so they don't start search and rescue on you.
 
Palmpilot said:
But you should tell ATC you're doing it so they don't start search and rescue on you.
Click to expand...
Yes, you should definitely say something before changing to 1200 since you don't know the practices of the ATC facility you're talking to.

For example, NCT in northern California (a lot of airspace) has established a mandate to provide class C service in their airspace. IOW, you always get FF if you ask for it. And if you just leave without saying something, they will say INREQ and ALNOT very quickly. I've seen it happen.
 
Sac Arrow said:
ATC gives you a vector and altitude, or a handoff. You are expected to follow it or tell them why you can't. Controllers get very, very annoyed if they assign a vector to someone that doesn't answer because they are either inattentive, or have gone off FF without saying anything.
Click to expand...

If all you're receiving is flight following you are not in airspace where ATC has authority to give you a vector and altitude.
 
Sac Arrow said:
So are you saying if you are receiving FF and they do give you an altitude assignment or vector, you can tell them to pound salt? I get them all the time, particularly near B and C airspace. And it's pretty hard to be in other than E airspace otherwise.

"Arrow 87W, maintain at or above 5,500 feet until West of Highway 101."

"Naw, I don't want to."

"Oh, well, okay then."
Click to expand...

I think the reply would more likely be, "87 Whiskey, turn right heading 270 and remain clear of Class Bravo..."
 
Sac Arrow said:
So are you saying if you are receiving FF and they do give you an altitude assignment or vector, you can tell them to pound salt? I get them all the time, particularly near B and C airspace. And it's pretty hard to be in other than E airspace otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm saying ATC does not have the authority to assign headings or altitudes to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or TRSAs. They can suggest them, but they cannot assign them.

If you're near Class C airspace you're in the Outer Area and are receiving Class C services, not just flight following.
 
Sac Arrow said:
So are you saying if you are receiving FF and they do give you an altitude assignment or vector, you can tell them to pound salt?
Click to expand...
Roncachamp thinks so, and has said so repeatedly. FAA Legal and the NTSB feel otherwise, and have taken enforcement action accordingly (see Administrator v. Ellis). Roncachamp will undoubtedly quibble over this, citing his personal interpretation of this case; I will not respond. Believe whom you choose.
 
roncachamp said:
I'm saying ATC does not have the authority to assign headings or altitudes to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or TRSAs. They can suggest them, but they cannot assign them.

If you're near Class C airspace you're in the Outer Area and are receiving Class C services, not just flight following.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
Roncachamp thinks so, and has said so repeatedly. FAA Legal and the NTSB feel otherwise, and have taken enforcement action accordingly (see Administrator v. Ellis). Roncachamp will undoubtedly quibble over this, citing his personal interpretation of this case; I will not respond. Believe whom you choose.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if I'm flying in Class G airspace (and we have some around here that isn't close to the ground), but otherwise you're in controlled airspace and if you're talking to them, you have to follow instructions. That's my understanding, and I'm sticking with it.
 
As Ron alluded to, he and Ronachamp have had disagreements over this in the past. I wasn't going to mention this, but... Suffice it to say, if you follow the suggestions/directions of ATC you should be alright. If they're impracticable, you can cancel services.
 
Ghery said:
Perhaps if I'm flying in Class G airspace (and we have some around here that isn't close to the ground), but otherwise you're in controlled airspace and if you're talking to them, you have to follow instructions. That's my understanding, and I'm sticking with it.
Click to expand...
You can be as sure as you can be that sticking with your understanding will keep you from conflict with ATC and the FSDO. OTOH, deviating from that would leave you open to FAA criticism to which quoting roncachamp is unlikely to be availing as a defense.
 
I don't understand how you can misinterpret this:

§ 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
(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.

Does roncachamp actually have some FARs or even a section of the AIM to quote that makes this less clear?

Getting FF is voluntary. Complying with ATC instructions after getting FF is not.
 
91.123(a)The argument is that when you get instructions on flight following you are not issued a clearance.

91.123(b)The argument is that under flight following, you are not necessarily in an area where ATC has authority to issue instructions you must comply with.

His references are from whatever the order is that ATC has to comply with.
 
EdFred said:
91.123(a)The argument is that when you get instructions on flight following you are not issued a clearance.

91.123(b)The argument is that under flight following, you are not necessarily in an area where ATC has authority to issue instructions you must comply with.

His references are from whatever the order is that ATC has to comply with.
Click to expand...
And I think both arguments make sense. No clearance is required in most airspace, you're not asking for a clearance, and if it was a clearance, you could certainly just cancel it as if it was an IFR clearance (which it isn't). Around here, they'll always say something like "suggest heading 123" to clarify that it's not a requirement.

But I suspect Ron's argument isn't really about these technicalities. If something happens, and it turns out it's because you didn't do something ATC asked you to (even if they only suggested it), you'll be in trouble. FAR technicalities aside...
 
sba55 said:
And I think both arguments make sense. No clearance is required in most airspace, you're not asking for a clearance, and if it was a clearance, you could certainly just cancel it as if it was an IFR clearance (which it isn't). Around here, they'll always say something like "suggest heading 123" to clarify that it's not a requirement.

But I suspect Ron's argument isn't really about these technicalities. If something happens, and it turns out it's because you didn't do something ATC asked you to (even if they only suggested it), you'll be in trouble. FAR technicalities aside...
Click to expand...

Correct, and the violation may just end up being the catch-all 91.13 as opposed to 91.123.
 
Separate rules cover clearances and instructions. The mandate to adhere to a clearance is in 91.123(a). The mandate to obey an "ATC instruction" is in 91.123(b). Note that while both require you do as told, the reg involved changes depending on whether it's a clearance or an instruction. So, the fact that the fact that 91.123(a) doesn't apply because you haven't received a clearance is not an excuse to deviate from an ATC instruction to which compliance is requried by 91.123(b).
 
They are providing FF as a "courtesy" it's only if they have time to do so. If they suggest a heading of some sort that doesn't take you into clouds or turn you completely away from where you're going then why not as a courtesy simply go along with it. If you can't do it say "unable" ... They are probably suggesting that heading change for the safety of all concerned in the air -
Nit picking FARs just to have something to prove a point seems a little petty. Doesn't cooperative piloting w/ appropriate judgment imply some airmanship here?
 
Ron,
Not that being clear about regulations is picky ..... or petty but really, flying VFR w/ FF - ya'know it doesnt hurt to turn to a heading for a little bit and then turn back on course.... Maybe I'm missing the question?
 
Jeanie said:
Not that being clear about regulations is picky ..... or petty but really, flying VFR w/ FF - ya'know it doesnt hurt to turn to a heading for a little bit and then turn back on course....
Click to expand...
From a practical standpoint, I agree completely, as ATC usually has a darn good reason (of which you may be unaware) to give "instructions" (as opposed to "suggestions") to VFR aircraft, but some folks just don't like being told what to do.

Maybe I'm missing the question?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. The question I was addressing was the legality of not obeying an ATC instruction in controlled airspace, not the wisdom of that, and the FAA and NTSB have made it clear in the Ellis case that they don't take kindly to those who don't do as they're instructed. OTOH, when ATC says "Suggest heading xxx," as opposed to "Cessna 124, turn left heading xxx," you are not receiving an instruction, just a suggestion which you are free to decline. See also the definition of "ATC Instructions" in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
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...
 
I can't find Admin v Ellis using google, the ntsb.gov or the faa.gov searches on the respective websites. Link?
 
Ron Levy said:
From a practical standpoint, I agree completely, as ATC usually has a darn good reason (of which you may be unaware) to give "instructions" (as opposed to "suggestions") to VFR aircraft, but some folks just don't like being told what to do.
Click to expand...

There's also the issue of what happens when you mess up with flight following - missing a call because you weren't monitoring the frequency, or turning to the wrong heading, or whatever. On a clearance (instrument or Bravo, say), that's a pilot deviation, and that ever-present threat of consequences for not paying close attention is part of what elevates the stress levels for a pilot on one of those clearances. I think maybe some people think flight following shouldn't put the pilot in as much legal risk as an instrument clearance.
 
dmccormack said:
That doesn't seem to fit the problem posed in the OP: to wit, that ATC "instructions" provided during flight following are binding.

This event occured in Class Delta airspace.
Click to expand...
The NTSB's position did not make issue of the Class Delta, and their statement on the law was not limited to Class Delta.
What the respondent was not free to do was ignore or defy ATC’s instructions in favor of his own assessment that his aircraft should be accorded landing priority over one he could not find, but whose safety he should have appreciated could be seriously compromised if he did not allow ATC, which had both aircraft in sight, to manage the situation in accordance with its informed appraisal of how best to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating.
Click to expand...
Note the wording about "allow[ing] ATC...to manage the situation in accordance with its informed appraisal of how best to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating." Nothing there limiting the application of that doctrine to Class D airspace. Also, compare the phrase "within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating" to the wording in 91.123(b): "an area in which air traffic control is exercised," which would expand this even further to places like the area around a tower-controlled airport with only G-space.
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, this was not his first run-in with the FAA over the issue of adherence to an ATC instruction (among other things). See also http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3910.PDF.
Click to expand...

Wowza!

During the course of these communications, respondent
was twice asked to contact ATC when he landed, and both times he
replied to the effect that the FAA could get his phone number​

from his flight plan, and they could call him.


 
Ron Levy said:
The NTSB's position did not make issue of the Class Delta, and their statement on the law was not limited to Class Delta.
Note the wording
Click to expand...

I note that they make mention of landing, something I wouldn't be doing under flight following. It also says which they are in charge of regulating. If I am outside the GRR Class C, and just getting FF, are they in charge of thair airspace? Where do I find which airspace they are in charge of regulating?

According to you, I must adhere to ALL atc instructions. So if ATC ask me to sing like Ethel Merman on the air, I am bound by that instruction. After all, the ruling doesn't limit it to just flight instructions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top