Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?

vintage cessna said:
In my entire career I never saw or heard a controller assign an unsolicited heading or altitude to a VFR in Class E airspace.

But that was then. Now, since controllers have almost assured immunity from errors, perhaps they don't feel duty bound by the 7110.65.
Click to expand...

Other way around, more controllers than ever are contractors. The FAA is very liability aware and averse. 7110.65 is the instruction manual written by lawyers to manage liability exposure gained through the controllers. Unless a controller has positive control over you (A,B,C,D), he cannot issue you an order because he then assumes liability where he has no expectation of positively controlling you.

It's really rare that I hear it go afoul and I almost always fly w/FF.
 
Henning said:
Other way around, more controllers than ever are contractors. The FAA is very liability aware and averse. 7110.65 is the instruction manual written by lawyers to manage liability exposure gained through the controllers. Unless a controller has positive control over you (A,B,C,D), he cannot issue you an order because he then assumes liability where he has no expectation of positively controlling you.
Click to expand...

Most of the controllers working nonapproach control towers are contractors. I'm not aware of any radar facilities that have been turned over to contractors.
 
Is this thread going in circles yet? If so, maybe it's time for a frequency change. :D
 
vintage cessna said:
In my entire career I never saw or heard a controller assign an unsolicited heading or altitude to a VFR in Class E airspace.

But that was then. Now, since controllers have almost assured immunity from errors, perhaps they don't feel duty bound by the 7110.65.
Click to expand...

It got a lot more noticeable about a year or two after 9/11/2001.
 
Henning said:
Other way around, more controllers than ever are contractors. The FAA is very liability aware and averse. 7110.65 is the instruction manual written by lawyers to manage liability exposure gained through the controllers. Unless a controller has positive control over you (A,B,C,D), he cannot issue you an order because he then assumes liability where he has no expectation of positively controlling you.

It's really rare that I hear it go afoul and I almost always fly w/FF.
Click to expand...

No one I've encountered in the FAA is overly concerned about liability. No government employee has any personal assets at stake and you can't sue them as indivuals. The 7110.65 has evolved over time and is the result of many "lessons learned" . But there are always people who think they know better than the book. I don't think it is too much to ask of public servants that they know what their job is and to perform it within established rules .

I for one am grateful that we have a system that allows flying without any positive control from ATC.
 
MarkZ said:
Pretty much. Like Henning said, there is a liability concern. Pilots need to understand that if they are VFR and a controller issues (suggests) a heading, they are responsible for abiding by the parts of CFR Title 14.

Years ago, I had a supervisor in my old facility who held firm to the belief that if someone gave any type of vector to a VFR aircraft, that automatically turned that aircraft into an IFR aircraft.
Click to expand...

For the sake of assumed liability, he's not altogether incorrect, but I think as long as the words "Suggest or Advise" are used, they provide enough of a liability shield that barring some aggravating circumstance will protect you; that's why the 7110.65 was worded quite clearly that the final decision must be left to the pilot.

I have often been given suggested vectors before, I also know when I'm getting a hint to ask for one.:lol:
 
Henning said:
It's not a big deal, it's just a technical point that he cannot punish you for not staying on frequency with him. He can only request it, he can't demand it. By wording it as a demand, he bought the FAA liability that is un-calculated, that is the only "deal" to this all. The controller has opened up a potential can of worms for himself. The pilot is fine regardless because the controller did not have the legal right to issue the demand, so ignoring it is well within his rights.
Click to expand...

Well, ATC can't really punish you for anything. But they can report a violation and someone else might do it. There is a question of what is proper for ATC to request. A blanket statement that they cannot give instruction to VFR aircraft contradicts both practice and CC interpretations.

The common "Squawk 1234" is an instruction. If you did not follow it and it caused a safety issue, could you be held liable for not following the instruction? I'd bet there's a really good chance of it.

We're talking about a pretty minor point in the overall scheme of things.
 
bflynn said:
Well, ATC can't really punish you for anything. But they can report a violation and someone else might do it. There is a question of what is proper for ATC to request. A blanket statement that they cannot give instruction to VFR aircraft contradicts both practice and CC interpretations.

The common "Squawk 1234" is an instruction. If you did not follow it and it caused a safety issue, could you be held liable for not following the instruction? I'd bet there's a really good chance of it.

We're talking about a pretty minor point in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...

And therein we find the issue; what is the violation he's reporting? Now you see why there is nothing in the adjudicated record on this? There is nothing to adjudicate. There was no rule violated.

I would not be issued a squawk unless I requested it. If I refused to plug it in I would get "services terminated". At no point has the controller accepted liability for me. Unless I am on a vector that he initiated, I have full liability for my spacing. That is why he is not allowed to issue me a vector, only to suggest one.

It is a very small point indeed.
 
docmirror said:
It got a lot more noticeable about a year or two after 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...

I retired in 2007, 9/11 may have a connection since the government has become more authoritative since them. I've learned not to travel domestically on an airline with a large wad of cash since it may be illegally confiscated by the authorities.

However, due to FAA policies and practices there has been a steady down hill trend in the quality of the workforce.

After reading about the latest ATC hiring scandal, it may be heading for rock bottom.
 
vintage cessna said:
No one I've encountered in the FAA is overly concerned about liability. No government employee has any personal assets at stake and you can't sue them as indivuals. The 7110.65 has evolved over time and is the result of many "lessons learned" . But there are always people who think they know better than the book. I don't think it is too much to ask of public servants that they know what their job is and to perform it within established rules .

I for one am grateful that we have a system that allows flying without any positive control from ATC.
Click to expand...

ATSAP. :thumbsup:
 
Henning said:
And therein we find the issue; what is the violation he's reporting? Now you see why there is nothing in the adjudicated record on this? There is nothing to adjudicate. There was no rule violated.
Click to expand...

I don't know, it was hypothetical.

I'll make up an example that you failed to reset your transponder after the last flight, it reads 4321. That conflicts with another 4321 in the system. You're instructed to reset it but you do not. Someone get confused, someone winds up being issued invalid ATC instructions based on the transponder confusion and it causes an accident.

I'm making up a hypothetical accident chain on the fly. Question, assuming the chain is possible - would you have 91.123 liability for the accident by failing to reset your transponder as instructed even though you were only VFR in class-E airspace? Oh yeah, you do.
 
bflynn said:
I don't know, it was hypothetical.

I'll make up an example that you failed to reset your transponder after the last flight, it reads 4321. That conflicts with another 4321 in the system. You're instructed to reset it but you do not. Someone get confused, someone winds up being issued invalid ATC instructions based on the transponder confusion and it causes an accident.

I'm making up a hypothetical accident chain on the fly. Question, assuming the chain is possible - would you have 91.123 liability for the accident by failing to reset your transponder as instructed even though you were only VFR in class-E airspace? Oh yeah, you do.
Click to expand...

Are you as a non participating aircraft not required to squawk 1200? See, you have to reach so deep into hypothetical that you have to reach into other violations to make something. It really doesn't exist as a "problem".
 
vintage cessna said:
I retired in 2007, 9/11 may have a connection since the government has become more authoritative since them. I've learned not to travel domestically on an airline with a large wad of cash since it may be illegally confiscated by the authorities.

However, due to FAA policies and practices there has been a steady down hill trend in the quality of the workforce.

After reading about the latest ATC hiring scandal, it may be heading for rock bottom.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with any of that. I think the guys on the scopes felt some misplaced responsibility for 9/11. There was certainly nothing they could do, and it must have been a horrible feeling after the first tower went down to be so helpless. Wondering if in the back of their mind, without an conscious effort they felt that 'not on my watch, ever again' and ratcheted up the control. Despite the wording of the regs, despite the nature of our form of society, I'm pretty sure many of the controllers in major centers are against GA planes flying around undirected. This was also the time frame when FF gained a strong backing. I have nothing to go on, but suggest that the forces at work in the 'crat-osphere were aghast that Ga planes were out there flying on their own, without any oversight - and there wasn't a damn thing the feds could do about it but increase the screws a bit on FF, and subsequent 'instruction' process notwithstanding the way the regs read.
 
vintage cessna said:
No one I've encountered in the FAA is overly concerned about liability. No government employee has any personal assets at stake and you can't sue them as indivuals. The 7110.65 has evolved over time and is the result of many "lessons learned" . But there are always people who think they know better than the book. I don't think it is too much to ask of public servants that they know what their job is and to perform it within established rules .

I for one am grateful that we have a system that allows flying without any positive control from ATC.
Click to expand...

They may not be personally liable .. But this idiot changed the entire ( VFR climb on course / pilot provide their own terrain separation departure....

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/GeneratePDF.aspx?id=WPR11FA032&rpt=fa

Background....

guy and new wife comes out to Jackson with 4 kids, he is a relatively new pilot in a new to him Mooney. They spend a week or so doing the tourist thing.. Morning of departure snow squalls are present so he goes to the terminal and buys one way commercial tickets for the entire family.

They clear security and while waiting for the flight he looks out the windows and sees it is clearing, called the FBO and asks for the crew car to pick him and three kids up to take them to his Mooney, He was trying to race the commercial flight back home..:rolleyes: ...Wife and daughter stay to board the commercial flight... He loads up all the baggage, files a flight plan to Minn, with a final altitude of 9500MSL... While warming up the motor and calls ground to his clearance, the weather starts to go downhill.

Rick, the tower chief and great guy was working that day and told him flat out.. " There is NO way are you are getting out of here at 9500'.. Jackson Hole is a big bowl and it takes 11,500+ to safely leave the area... Tells him to return to the ramp and refile, or try and leave VFR..

By now the weather is IFR and snowing heavily.. Guy is getting mad and embarrassed...

Ties it back down, calls the FBO for the crew car, unloads all the baggage and is driven back to the terminal with the three kids, goes through security again and meets the wife and daughter..... As they sit there. the weather clears again so...

Rinse and repeat.... Back to the plane... Files a new flight plan with 11.5 as the final... Snow picks up again, even heavier now, guys is in a NA Mooney / non deice aircraft..:redface: Rick sees the new and higher flight plan, reads him his clearance, guy taxies to 19... Straight out departure to KICNE, left turn to Crazy Woman VOR, direct KRAP, Direct destination..

Off he goes, at about 3 miles out Rick calls and says" contact SLC 0n 133.25, have a safe flight"... That was the last thing Rick said to that pilot.. Into the soup /snow /sleet he goes....

ZLC gives a position check 4 NM south, climb and maintain 16 thousand. Pilot comes back with, I am at gross weight, not a turbo and will have a hard time getting to 16,000.. To Kicne it only takes 14,000 so departure says climb to 14,000...

Plane struggles to get up there... Makes a left turn and heads straight for the tallest mountain Gannett Peak (13,805 msl)... Guy passes within 1/4 mile of the peak,, wind was howling that day up high and he gets in the lee side /rotor/ washing machine chaos.... Dives straight in just past ridge peak line...

Wife and Ex wife find a couple of ambulance chasing attorneys and sues for 20 million... The tower is a contract SERCO.... Word is SERCO and the FAA / ZLC settled out of court for 6 mil each...

Rick was so disgusted, he retired early and ZLC will not NOT give any VFR, or for that matter ANY unpublished departures.. Even if it is crystal clear for 100 miles...:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad:
 
vintage cessna said:
In my entire career I never saw or heard a controller assign an unsolicited heading or altitude to a VFR in Class E airspace.

But that was then. Now, since controllers have almost assured immunity from errors, perhaps they don't feel duty bound by the 7110.65.
Click to expand...

I got one 2 years ago in California ... Tiger xxx descend IMMEDIATELY to 10,000 or lower. I did, and opposite direction traffic I think was a King Air. I had a tailwind and was doing at least 175 mph, I don't know what his speed was, but it was so fast my PCAS only blinked once while I was already descending. That closure rate was a real eye opener.

N801BH said:
Wife and Ex wife find a couple of ambulance chasing attorneys and sues for 20 million... The tower is a contract SERCO.... Word is SERCO and the FAA / ZLC settled out of court for 6 mil each...
Click to expand...

That might be "the word", but I doubt that settlement will ever be made public if it was paid. ATC shouldn't have to be responsible for "stupid".
 
danhagan said:
That might be "the word", but I doubt that settlement will ever be made public if it was paid. ATC shouldn't have to be responsible for "stupid".
Click to expand...

Nobody should have to be responsible for the stupidity of another, but that is common under American rule.
 
Henning said:
I haven't really noticed a difference.:dunno: It was rare before, it's still rare, and most likely a slip of the tongue.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessarily a slip of the tongue, and in some cases might even be a matter of facility policy. I flew VFR in Detroit airspace quite frequently for about 10 years after getting my PPL. I didn't often get clearly worded instructions while in Class E until around 2010, then it started to happen quite a bit. Most commonly, I would be given an altitude restriction and a heading to fly while below the Detroit Class B shelf and enroute to the Lake Erie islands. At least sometimes it was along with a Bravo clearance, even though the altitude restriction would have prevented me from entering the Class B. I suspect, but really have no solid evidence, that Detroit Approach considered an aircraft that had been cleared into the Class B under positive control even when outside the Class B.

I don't know whether the 7110.65 authorizes this, and again I'm not certain that I was given a Bravo clearance every time Detroit Approach gave me instructions while in the Class E. But there were at least two times I can recall when it happened that way. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has experience working at Detroit Approach on this.
 
Last edited:
danhagan;1835568...... That might be "the word" said:
if it was paid[/B]. ATC shouldn't have to be responsible for "stupid".
Click to expand...


It WAS paid..... Both plaintiffs bragged about the settlement on social media in the Minn area...
 
azure said:
I don't think it's necessarily a slip of the tongue, and in some cases might even be a matter of facility policy. I flew VFR in Detroit airspace quite frequently for about 10 years after getting my PPL. I didn't often get clearly worded instructions while in Class E until around 2010, then it started to happen quite a bit. Most commonly, I would be given an altitude restriction and a heading to fly while below the Detroit Class B shelf and enroute to the Lake Erie islands. At least sometimes it was along with a Bravo clearance, even though the altitude restriction would have prevented me from entering the Class B. I suspect, but really have no solid evidence, that Detroit Approach considered an aircraft that had been cleared into the Class B under positive control even when outside the Class B.

I don't know whether the 7110.65 authorizes this, and again I'm not certain that I was given a Bravo clearance every time Detroit Approach gave me instructions while in the Class E. But there were at least two times I can recall when it happened that way. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has experience working at Detroit Approach on this.
Click to expand...

Time out; if you call for, receive, and agree to a clearance, you are under positive control and no longer a VFR aircraft regardless the airspace. The issue is not what you can initiate but rather what they can initiate and require.
 
Henning said:
Time out; if you call for, receive, and agree to a clearance, you are under positive control and no longer a VFR aircraft regardless the airspace. The issue is not what you can initiate but rather what they can initiate and require.
Click to expand...

If you're VFR and call for a clearance into Class B airspace, and you are so cleared but are assigned headings and altitudes that will never result in entry into Class B airspace, then you are a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
 
roncachamp said:
If you're VFR and call for a clearance into Class B airspace, and you are so cleared but are assigned headings and altitudes that will never result in entry into Class B airspace, then you are a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm..

What a slap in the face of a VFR pilot...

.. Just dial in 7600 and claim lost coms...;);););););)
 
Henning said:
Time out; if you call for, receive, and agree to a clearance, you are under positive control and no longer a VFR aircraft regardless the airspace. The issue is not what you can initiate but rather what they can initiate and require.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that I asked for a clearance? Hint: I did not say it, and I did not request it. That is another thing Detroit Approach sometimes does, they give out Bravo clearances without their being requested by the pilot.
 
N801BH said:
Rick was so disgusted, he retired early and ZLC will not NOT give any VFR, or for that matter ANY unpublished departures.. Even if it is crystal clear for 100 miles...:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad:
Click to expand...

How would ZLC get involved in a VFR departure from JAC?
 
After glancing through the NTSB report, it is apparent why the government may have paid out.

The flight was at 14,000, and when the min IFR alt changed to 16,000 the pilot reported difficulty in reaching 16,000. The controller then, knowing it was against the rules, told the pilot to maintain his own terrain and obstacle clearance.
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
Out of curiosity, what should the controller do in such a situation?
Click to expand...

Have him reverse course to return back to a safe area.

But reading the report a little further it gets worse. The pilot had filed two flight plans. Both plans were on defined airways with MEA's of 14000. ATC , for whatever reason, issued a reroute which placed a portion of the flight off airway with an ORACA of 16,000. The reroute also put a portion of the flight in Class G airspace which is a no no unless the pilot had requested it. So more than one ATC rule was violated.
 
The report states that the pilot was issued revised routing prior to departure with a revised altitude of 16,000 and the controller asks the pilot ( this is still prior to departure) if he can do 16,000. The pilot states that he would prefer 14,000 and the clnc was amended to 14,000. So the altitude was no good prior to departure and the revised altitude of 14,000 would put the flight into Class G for a portion.

In flight, when the pilot can't reach the ORACA of 16,000 the controller asks the pilot if he can maintain his own terrain and obstacle clnc for the next 10 minutes and the pilot says yes.

So there were some ATC issues prior to departure and in flight. Sounds like there was ample opportunity for both sides to avert tragedy. There were so many ATC issues I guess the govt decided to settle.
 
vintage cessna said:
The report states that the pilot was issued revised routing prior to departure with a revised altitude of 16,000 and the controller asks the pilot ( this is still prior to departure) if he can do 16,000. The pilot states that he would prefer 14,000 and the clnc was amended to 14,000. So the altitude was no good prior to departure and the revised altitude of 14,000 would put the flight into Class G for a portion.

In flight, when the pilot can't reach the ORACA of 16,000 the controller asks the pilot if he can maintain his own terrain and obstacle clnc for the next 10 minutes and the pilot says yes.

So there were some ATC issues prior to departure and in flight. Sounds like there was ample opportunity for both sides to avert tragedy. There were so many ATC issues I guess the govt decided to settle.
Click to expand...
But pilots don't need to file, nor does ATC need to assign, the highest of the altitudes they eventually need to reach. For example, flying from Kansas to Utah you can start out at 10,000', which won't be enough to get over the Rockies. I have heard ATC tell pilots that they will be entering an area where the minimum IFR altitude is X, what are their intentions?

ATC might have had a clue that the reason the pilot wanted 14,000 was that the airplane couldn't climb higher, but maybe they didn't. When the pilot said he could maintain terrain and obstacle clearance he was taking responsibility for it himself.
 
Everskyward said:
But pilots don't need to file, nor does ATC need to assign, the highest of the altitudes they eventually need to reach. For example, flying from Kansas to Utah you can start out at 10,000', which won't be enough to get over the Rockies. I have heard ATC tell pilots that they will be entering an area where the minimum IFR altitude is X, what are their intentions?

ATC might have had a clue that the reason the pilot wanted 14,000 was that the airplane couldn't climb higher, but maybe they didn't. When the pilot said he could maintain terrain and obstacle clearance he was taking responsibility for it himself.
Click to expand...

In the end, that's the long and short of it. PIC inadequately assessed their ability to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance.

The FAA settled it because they did have proportional liability in the matter and this is how the liability system 'spreads the risk' internally, through the use of proportional liability. Rarely is the 1-100% liable party found in these things. Things could have been handled differently on both ends, but ultimately, the majority of the liability, and ultimate cost, falls on the PIC.
 
I can't believe how sketchy some of the details of the NTSB report are. The report implies, but doesn't state that the enroute controller was unaware that the assigned altitude had been changed to 14,000 from 16,000.

The controller sees that the aircraft is at flat and level at 14,000, advises the pilot that the MSA is 15,800 and ask the pilot if he is climbing.

The controller wouldn't have asked had he had known the assigned altitude was 14,000.

The pilot replied "Wilco" and attempted to climb. Seems 16,000 may have never been actually assigned.

Too many issues with this one to take a chance with a jury.
 
vintage cessna said:
I can't believe how sketchy some of the details of the NTSB report are. The report implies, but doesn't state that the enroute controller was unaware that the assigned altitude had been changed to 14,000 from 16,000.

The controller sees that the aircraft is at flat and level at 14,000, advises the pilot that the MSA is 15,800 and ask the pilot if he is climbing.

The controller wouldn't have asked had he had known the assigned altitude was 14,000.

The pilot replied "Wilco" and attempted to climb. Seems 16,000 may have never been actually assigned.

Too many issues with this one to take a chance with a jury.
Click to expand...

As long as an event falls within the actuarial model and predictions, the system will settle it out internally. It's all already calculated into the premiums/risk even when self insuring. Going to a jury just increases cost.
 
N801BH said:
Did ya read the part about the LOCAL DELTA tower...:rolleyes::confused::confused::confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

Does that answer his question?

"Jackson tower, spamcan 12345, ready for takeoff southbound VFR."
"Spamcan 12345, negative. No VFR departures southbound - or, north, east, or west either. Return to ramp."

???? We're confused too.
 
docmirror said:
Does that answer his question?

"Jackson tower, spamcan 12345, ready for takeoff southbound VFR."
"Spamcan 12345, negative. No VFR departures southbound - or, north, east, or west either. Return to ramp."

???? We're confused too.
Click to expand...

Obviously he was referring to them declining VFR services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top