Personally, I would have said "pound sand, switching to 1200, SEEYA...
Change freqs and continue the flight...
If they want to get ugly with you later, let them pull the tapes.. The controller was out of line. PERIOD...
Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?
- Thread starter aanderson81
- Start date
Personally, I would have said "pound sand, switching to 1200, SEEYA...
Change freqs and continue the flight...
If they want to get ugly with you later, let them pull the tapes.. The controller was out of line. PERIOD...
You can do that, but why? If the guy clearly would like to keep you on frequency a bit longer (10-12 miles out is still far enough out that you don't need to be on CTAF yet, trust that he's gonna dump you off before you need to get in the pattern) why not just hang out and cooperate?
roncachamp
Final Approach
You can do that, but why? If the guy clearly would like to keep you on frequency a bit longer (10-12 miles out is still far enough out that you don't need to be on CTAF yet, trust that he's gonna dump you off before you need to get in the pattern) why not just hang out and cooperate?
Why would he like to keep you on frequency a bit longer? Does he have traffic? Then he should issue the damn traffic! A response like, "Negative and all VFR aircraft you do no call into me, I will call out to you", accomplishes nothing positive.
I don't know, that's the whole thing, and I don't particularly need to either. He's busy, I'm fine, he wants me on the radio for another few miles, no worries. I accomplish nothing negative by simply cooperating with him, I'm still doing what I need to do so I really have no reason not to cooperate. I really don't need to be on CTAF 5+ minutes out, I can give the controller another few minutes if he wants, no worries.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Well, I do know, so I can say with certainty that there's no valid reason other than traffic or a safety alert for him to want to keep you on frequency. If he's busy than cutting you loose helps you both. Scolding you is detrimental to him and other traffic he has on frequency.
Of course it's going to be traffic related, I just don't know exactly what. Dude sounds stressed out already, that's for his supervisor to deal with, I don't need to add to it though when doing so gains me nothing. I don't win anything for not cooperating.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Then his response should be something like "traffic one o'clock...", not, "negative and all VFR aircraft you do no call into me, I will call out to you".
Leaving the frequency would lighten his load. Shouldn't that reduce his stress?
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,543
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Has this been brought up?
§ 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.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.
(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)
[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991; Amdt. 91-244, 60 FR 50679, Sept. 29, 1995]
§ 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.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.
(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)
[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991; Amdt. 91-244, 60 FR 50679, Sept. 29, 1995]
Not if he apparently wants to keep me. I don't know what his scope looks like, what increases or decreases his stress is not for me to decide. Like I said, if this is indicative of an issue with the controller, that's for his supervisor to deal with, not me.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Lemme see if I got this straight. You believe the controller wants to keep you on his frequency because he sees traffic that could affect you. But he's not issuing that traffic to you, and instead of switching to CTAF, where that other traffic may be found, you're going to stay on the controller's frequency as stress relief. Is that about right?
Almost nothing is a "valid instruction" if it impacts the safety of flight (assuming you mean an instruction we may refuse by "not valid"). That's where our role as PIC comes into play when dealing with emergencies. Even the reg requiring us to comply with ATC instructions specifically says that.
He could also have traffic coming, not quite there yet, that he needs to hear "Traffic in sight" out of me to let him keep coming. I don't know, and it does not matter. I have no pressing reason to deny the request regardless how poorly worded it was. My default position is to follow the controller's instruction/request. If the request conflicts with what I want/need to do, at that point I will present the controller with my plans and options and let them choose, "What makes it easier for you?"
In the end I always get what I need done.
I would think that having the ability to call someone by squawk in busy airspace would be stress reducing, not stress incurring. I know when we got AIS on our bridge radars and nav displays, it was a huge reduction is stress and workload being able to cold call someone by name rather than position and aspect.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,543
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Let me summarize my take:
Even in situations where talking to ATC is optional...
...if you are talking to them you must comply with any and all instructions...
...unless to do so would jeopardize safety...
...in which case you may deviate to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.
So an instruction to "stay on frequency" must be complied with, unless emergency authorization is invoked.
Correct?
Even in situations where talking to ATC is optional...
...if you are talking to them you must comply with any and all instructions...
...unless to do so would jeopardize safety...
...in which case you may deviate to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.
So an instruction to "stay on frequency" must be complied with, unless emergency authorization is invoked.
Correct?
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
But, if you leave the range of that frequency, are you still required to stay on that frequency?
Pretty much, although as Henning's post about always getting hat he needs done correctly tells us, most of this stuff is subject to pilot-controller negotiation.
roncachamp
Final Approach
That might be the case if separation was an issue, but it isn't, and if it was a case where he needed you to report "traffic in sight" he needs to tell you where to look for that traffic.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Negative.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,543
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
How do you interpret...
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.
Exactly! Every relationship in life is a negotiation, the goal is to create the optimum all around situation, not 'win'. Just like in marriage, sometimes the best option is to say "Yes Dear", and step back.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I interpret it to apply only to ATC instructions that are issued in accordance with Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. Logic tells me that if the FAA wanted pilots to comply with instructions that violate the order they wouldn't have placed any limits on controller authority within the order.
How about when a tower controller, in the absence of a national emergency, orders a pilot to land instead of proceeding to her destination? Does she have to comply?
It's because the instruction from the controller was not a valid instruction that he is authorized to give. On occasion I ask ATC to give me a bit extra, in return I extend the same courtesy. "No, he cannot ask me to do that, however, it does me no harm, so if it makes his life easier, why not?"
I get mine back sometimes unbidden. When I was trying to sneak under a major storm line at Cape Canaveral that stretched across to Tampa ATC called me, "9SA, ignore all airspace restrictions and find your best path through. The airspace is all yours, you're the only person flying in the state at the moment." "roger, thanks, settled in fat dumb and happy 25' 500' offshore in good weather with sunshine in 10 miles."
His own way.
I really have difficulty understanding the concept of "legal" vs "illegal" instructions in the context of ATC-Pilot communications in controlled airspace. I understand rejection of or refusal to comply with instruction or clearance by a pilot with a reason, but not "Hah! Hah! I'm VFR in Class E so I don't have to listen to you!"
Are some people just taking the view that unless an instruction exists in the Controller Handbook it's "illegal"? Is there something in that Handbook or any FAA Order that says, in effect, "A controller shall not ever give a pilot an instruction that is not listed in this manual" or "A pilot may disregard without consequence an instruction no listed in this manual."
Last edited:
Right, but sometime the rules don't create the best result. I know that in E the controller can't vector me, and normally if they want to move me for traffic they will ask "Can I get you to come right 10° for the next 10 miles to keep you out of <whatever>? Then I'll bring you right back direct." That's in general, low volume, airspace. Sometimes though the controller is busier and they just give me "9SA, take heading XXX". Is that a legal instruction when I know I am in E? No. Do I have to comply? No. Will I? Yes, dude's stressing, I don't need to add to it.
I'll try that in response to my next ATC instruction and see how it goesExactly! Every relationship in life is a negotiation, the goal is to create the optimum all around situation, not 'win'. Just like in marriage, sometimes the best option is to say "Yes Dear", and step back.
I'll try that in response to my next ATC instruction and see how it goes
There was one gal who worked the tower at LGB I would say that to.
azure
Final Approach
That's been my rule of thumb too. I've been given altitude restrictions and vectors while VFR in the Class E below a Class B shelf, and I'm happy to comply since, even if I may legally ignore the instruction, I might not be too thrilled with the results if I do.
There it is again.
Show me one place, just one, in FAA or NTSB materials where it says (not a 2¢ jailhouse lawyer opinion) a pilot mat ignore an instruction when VFR in Class E airspace. It might exist, but I've never seen it, so I'm asking to be educated.
bflynn
Final Approach
I interpret that to say that if they instruct you to remain on the frequency and shut up then a badly worded rule requires you to remain on the frequency and shut up unless you report an inability or an emergency reason not to do so.
Unable to remain on the frequency at 5 miles out is an urgent situation - is it an emergency? That's PIC discretion. An emergency doesn't have to be declared, but a NASA form would be a good idea.
Basic American policy when dealing with orders from government representatives. You may refuse an illegal order. You may suffer for doing so in the interim, but you will prevail. You will not find anything in an adjudicated record because the ATC supervisor would not let it go that far. Controllers have rules they are supposed to work by. He's not allowed to give you vectors because when he did, he assumed liability for you without you being required to comply. The controller is limited by his boss from this, it has nothing to do with your liberty, it is about FAA liability.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Pilot discretion for an emergency?
Hell no.
1. It's an uncontrolled airport. You don't need to be on CTAF or even have a radio.
2. If you think it's essential (and in some ways it is), there is this fancy maneuver called "turning" you can do. No urgency involved unless there is another factor in play, like screwing up your fuel management.
3. Most of us have two radios and can keep one on Center and use the other on CTAF, at the same time.
No way that's an emergency, and a pilot who said it was would truly deserve a 44709 ride.
Now, the controller was out of line, but you don't get out of this with 14 CFR 91.3.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
My understanding is if I'm in G or E, I can cancel anytime I darn well feel like it, be it the nice way I normally do "Airplane 123 can cancel services now" or just squaking 1200 and flipping the comms without saying a word.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,598
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Gotta go with Steven on this. You comply with instructions that the controller is authorized to give based on their directives (7110.65, LOAs, SOP, facility memos, etc).
You could take this to an extreme. Say you departed on a long x country with FF and a 1/4 of the way into it, you decide to terminate. The controller says "negative, I decide when you terminate, you'll remain with ATC until you arrive at XYZ." No way they have the authority to do that. Just like the controller who forced the student to land. I asked a half a dozen controller friends that question and they all gave the same answer. Minus a national security issue (SCATANA), they have no authority to force someone to land where they don't want to land.
FF is an optional service that the PIC elects to do. It doesn't become a mandatory service once you start it. No way the CC letter applies in this case.
You could take this to an extreme. Say you departed on a long x country with FF and a 1/4 of the way into it, you decide to terminate. The controller says "negative, I decide when you terminate, you'll remain with ATC until you arrive at XYZ." No way they have the authority to do that. Just like the controller who forced the student to land. I asked a half a dozen controller friends that question and they all gave the same answer. Minus a national security issue (SCATANA), they have no authority to force someone to land where they don't want to land.
FF is an optional service that the PIC elects to do. It doesn't become a mandatory service once you start it. No way the CC letter applies in this case.
Exactly, it costs me nothing to comply with staying on frequency and does not hamper me from continuing what I need to do while monitoring his frequency on the side, it just adds an extra couple of button pushes on the audio panel switching mics; I can handle that, no worries. There's nothing close to an emergency here.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I'm confident nothing close to that exists. Now show me one place, just one, in FAA or NTSB materials where it says (not a 2¢ jailhouse lawyer opinion) a pilot must comply with ATC instructions that violate Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. You'll probably leap to 91.123(b), which states, "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." Before you do, ponder the intent of that regulation. Was it meant to include ATC instructions that violate the ATC order? If you believe it was, then why does the ATC order place any limits on controller authority? How does that interpretation of 91.123(b) coexist with 91.3(a); "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."?
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
Okay. So if the PIC feels not being on CTAF at 10 miles from the field constitutes an emergency he's free to leave the ATC frequency.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,543
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Yes, of course you can.
But if the controller responds..."N12345, I need you to stay with me another few miles, at or below 4,000', reference crossing traffic ahead", it's an ATC instruction and legally needs to be followed.
I guess you could. At the very least that seems rude. At most, if a prior instruction had been to squawk a certain code, violating that instruction also seems against FAR's.
I'm just kinda surprised there's even a debate on this - it seems pretty clear to me, and has kept me out of trouble for my entire career.
Per the Pilot/Controller Glossary, an urgent situation is an emergency by definition. (See definition of "emergency.")
RotorDude
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,321
- Display Name
Display name:
GliderDude
The way I interpret that rule (in class E) is that as long as I am in communication with ATC (e.g. FF), I am required to follow their instructions.
Once I switch over to another frequency (which is always at my discretion since FF is discretionary), I am no longer in "an area in which air traffic control is exercised", since they are no longer exercising control over my flight.
If their instruction while I am communicating with them is "don't leave yet", I would normally stay, even if I don't legally have to, unless I felt there was no safety issue and I had a very good reason for leaving. In decades of flying, with virtually all cross-country VFR under FF, I have never had this happen.
Also, in my experience, ATC generally do a fantastic job juggling their traffic, and I enjoy working with them, VFR or IFR.
Last edited: