Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?

[roncachamp]

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.

We're talking about VFR operations in Class E airspace. You don't need to be on ATC frequency or even have a radio.

 

[Palmpilot]

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...

Mark's opinions are real lawyer opinions.

 

[MarkZ]

I was relieving a guy working satellite. He was busy, and had quite a few strips (we use one strip per aircraft we are working) in front of him, all of them VFR aircraft. As I assumed the position, one of the VFR aircraft wanted to cancel but I didn't catch his call sign. Another aircraft jumped on after that requesting a practice ILS approach. I couldn't catch the call sign of that guy because PWK local called on the shout line requesting an IFR release.

So what did I do? I asked everyone to hold on a second. It bought me time to get the IFR departure release coordinated, and figure out who needed what. I can't remember what I said, but it was something to the effect of, "everyone just stand by, and I'll get to you."

The VFR aircraft requesting to cancel had to wait a couple of seconds from when I asked everyone to hang on. He didn't seem upset by it. I thanked him for being patient when I let him go.

The point of this: when a controller says something that isn't a "by the book" instruction, there's a good chance something is going on. Or it's busy. Or we flat out missed something and need to start from scratch to "get the flick." So work with the controller. He's human too.

Much like a pilot appreciates when we don't violate every altitude or heading bust, we appreciate when pilots work with us.

OP, good job cutting the controller some slack and working with him.

 

[Henning]

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.

That's not how that is interpreted, that would mean that communications ability is Germaine to control authority, it is not. Keep it simple and direct, area is = to airspace, control in an airspace is dictated by what rule set you are operating under, VFR or IFR. For VFR aircraft in Class E or G, there is no control being exercised in that area.

Very occasionally I get asked to "remain on my frequency a few more miles." no biggie.

 

[James331]

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.

My understanding is in G and E VFR FF I'm not required to do jack, after all he has zero responsibility for my saftey with flight following, he is only helping me "workload permitting" thus I'm only dealing with him "work load permitting".

If I'm single comm and I'm approaching a busy little CTAF field, I'm GOING to can him 10+ miles out...unless he's going to take responsibility for my traffic and terrian avoidance

The point of this: when a controller says something that isn't a "by the book" instruction, there's a good chance something is going on. Or it's busy. Or we flat out missed something and need to start from scratch to "get the flick." So work with the controller. He's human too.

Much like a pilot appreciates when we don't violate every altitude or heading bust, we appreciate when pilots work with us.

OP, good job cutting the controller some slack and working with him.

I'm 100% with you on this! just as long as I'm not going to be switching freqs RIGHT on top of my destination or something.

It's a team effort, totally, but I'm not going to put myself in a crap situation for you anymore than you are going to cover up a blatant TFR bust for me.

 

[MAKG1]

Per the Pilot/Controller Glossary, an urgent situation is an emergency by definition. (See definition of "emergency.")

Yes, but the situation at hand is not an urgent situation unless there is another screw up going on as well.

 

[MAKG1]

We're talking about VFR operations in Class E airspace. You don't need to be on ATC frequency or even have a radio.

The point was he can stay with Center all the way to a safe landing if he really thinks it's that important.

Lots of folks don't agree with you that pilots have the practical discretion to determine what an "illegal" instruction is. Very much like the response to a cut-off in the pattern. The reg says the airplane on final has the right of way. That doesn't mean you crash into someone turning in front of you and say it was their fault.

 

[FastEddieB]

My understanding is in G and E VFR FF I'm not required to do jack...

I'm still mystified that one can somehow look at the following words and the parse that sentiment:

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.

Again, it seems so clear to me.

 

[Everskyward]

Over the weekend I was coming back from Maine and was utilizing flight following. I got handed off to Boston Center and was approaching my destination. At about 10-12 miles out I had not been contacted about terminating radar services and frequency changed approved. so I waited for a break and called in canceling radar services and got a reply back that was more or less "Negative and all VFR aircraft you do no call into me, i will call out to you" At this point I was going to be descending in a moment and was a bit fluxored as what to do? Do i call back again canceling radar services or do I say screw it and switch to CTAF and get on the ground. Thankfully a moment or 2 later I got a reply back handing me off to Bradley Approach and instead responded canceling services. But had it been another moment or 2 it quite likely could have been I was too low to cancel services.



I understand this is a bit of a unique circumstance, but what would have been the correct response had I continued my decent and was approaching a point where I would have no longer been able to communicate with Boston Center? Should I have reiterated my cancellation request or just switched to CTAF and landed normally as I had already made my cancellation request?

Do you have only one radio? I think I would have left the one on Center and switched to transmitting on CTAF.

 

[roncachamp]

Lots of folks don't agree with you that pilots have the practical discretion to determine what an "illegal" instruction is. Very much like the response to a cut-off in the pattern. The reg says the airplane on final has the right of way. That doesn't mean you crash into someone turning in front of you and say it was their fault.

Few pilots possess the knowledge needed to do that, but that's not the issue. From post #21:

I guess what I would say in reply is; 'Boston center, Spamcan 123, unable remain on frequency, changing to XXX CTAF, good day'. But - here's the rub, you've signed up for the service, and agreed to the terms and conditions. One of those conditions being that if given an instruction, you better carry it out, or face the wrath(queue Ron L here). Right or wrong, this has been tested and the pilot came out the loser. So what to your respond when instructed to remain on freq and wait for a call FROM them?

There's no wrath to be faced, the FAA doesn't bust pilots for ignoring ATC instructions that violate the ATC order.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm still mystified that one can somehow look at the following words and the parse that sentiment:

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.

Again, it seems so clear to me.

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

 

[danhagan]

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?

Not exactly, I guess he could say "multiple targets" for the situation to follow ... I heard a similar situation 2 weeks ago approaching my field (was only monitoring I wasn't on FF). VFR AC on FF tried to cancel and was told to remain on FF, VFR split anyway to go to CTAF. Had he remained he would've gotten a clearer picture of what was occurring ...

Field had a disabled AC on the runway, the jump planes were up and unloading, there were 4-5 in the pattern with 3-4 more approaching and it appeared they were working out which taxiway was going to be the new runway. I was monitoring both ATC and CTAF, and CTAF was just a "stepped on festival" there was no way he was getting any info. off of CTAF as the accident just occurred.

The planes were "holding" as it was unknown if there were injuries and since there aren't emergency services they were trying to keep the taxiway clear initially. Then it turned into half the AC inquiring if it was legal to land on the taxiway once "no injuries" was determined.

 

[FastEddieB]

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Thanks for that.

Condescension will get you everywhere!

 

[RotorDude]

I'm still mystified that one can somehow look at the following words and the parse that sentiment:

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.

Again, it seems so clear to me.

See my understanding of that rule in my post above.
I am not under ATC control if I am VFR and not talking to them in class E.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I think you're missing the point. The FF services are voluntary for "each" party....either party can cancel and quit the game and take their ball and go home, at anytime....squawk 1200 & good day. VFR FF ATC instructions are advisory....and not compulsory.

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.

 

[Henning]

I'm still mystified that one can somehow look at the following words and the parse that sentiment:

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.

Again, it seems so clear to me.

There is no control over VFR traffic exercised in E or G airspace by definition, ergo the above statement does not apply to VFR traffic operating in E or G airspace.

Again, it seems so clear to me. All they can do is issue VFR advisories, not instructions.

 

[FastEddieB]

See my understanding of that rule in my post above.
I am not under ATC control if I am VFR...

No, but you are in an "area in which air traffic control is exercised" whether you are under ATC control or not.

...and not talking to them in class E.

You lost me there. If you're not talking to them, none of this is an issue, since there can be no instruction to either follow or disregard, right?

In any case I've made my case for my interpretation of the FAR's as clearly and concisely as I can. I'll leave it to others now to hash this out as best they can.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, but the situation at hand is not an urgent situation unless there is another screw up going on as well.

I don't know if there has to be a screw up, but I think there has to be some reason for considering a situation to be urgent. However, the definition of urgency is very broadly written.

URGENCY− A condition of being concerned about
safety and of requiring timely but not immediate
assistance; a potential distress condition.​

In the OP's situation, the assistance needed was allowing the pilot to make a frequency change (which the pilot was not obligated to ask for in the first place). Whether that assistance was provided in a timely enough manner to allow the safety concern to be addressed is probably best left up to the pilot in command.

 

[roncachamp]

Not exactly, I guess he could say "multiple targets" for the situation to follow ... I heard a similar situation 2 weeks ago approaching my field (was only monitoring I wasn't on FF). VFR AC on FF tried to cancel and was told to remain on FF, VFR split anyway to go to CTAF. Had he remained he would've gotten a clearer picture of what was occurring ....

Then he should say "multiple targets", describe the traffic as best he can and bid the pilot good day. Telling him, "negative and all VFR aircraft you do no call into me, I will call out to you" provides no useful information, wastes time, and clutters the frequency.

 

[aanderson81]

I was relieving a guy working satellite. He was busy, and had quite a few strips (we use one strip per aircraft we are working) in front of him, all of them VFR aircraft. As I assumed the position, one of the VFR aircraft wanted to cancel but I didn't catch his call sign. Another aircraft jumped on after that requesting a practice ILS approach. I couldn't catch the call sign of that guy because PWK local called on the shout line requesting an IFR release.

So what did I do? I asked everyone to hold on a second. It bought me time to get the IFR departure release coordinated, and figure out who needed what. I can't remember what I said, but it was something to the effect of, "everyone just stand by, and I'll get to you."

The VFR aircraft requesting to cancel had to wait a couple of seconds from when I asked everyone to hang on. He didn't seem upset by it. I thanked him for being patient when I let him go.

The point of this: when a controller says something that isn't a "by the book" instruction, there's a good chance something is going on. Or it's busy. Or we flat out missed something and need to start from scratch to "get the flick." So work with the controller. He's human too.

Much like a pilot appreciates when we don't violate every altitude or heading bust, we appreciate when pilots work with us.

OP, good job cutting the controller some slack and working with him.

Thanks, I totally understand that the controller was busy and that is likely why they told me to hold. And in all honestly I am still fairly new with using flight following.

I just figured that my canceling was doing everyone involved a favor as I was exiting their airspace anyways and I was expecting them to terminate services for me as I was approaching my destination. When I didn't get that about 12 - 15 miles out I decided to request the cancellation myself. I was actually a bit surprised when they came back with the hand off to Bradley.

I am a bit surprised and amused that what I thought was going to be a straight forward question had lead to such a debate. I just wanted to make sure that if it ever happened again I didnt cause more work load, or have center start looking for me because I just vanished from the channel.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not exactly, I guess he could say "multiple targets" for the situation to follow ... I heard a similar situation 2 weeks ago approaching my field (was only monitoring I wasn't on FF). VFR AC on FF tried to cancel and was told to remain on FF, VFR split anyway to go to CTAF. Had he remained he would've gotten a clearer picture of what was occurring ...

Field had a disabled AC on the runway, the jump planes were up and unloading, there were 4-5 in the pattern with 3-4 more approaching and it appeared they were working out which taxiway was going to be the new runway. I was monitoring both ATC and CTAF, and CTAF was just a "stepped on festival" there was no way he was getting any info. off of CTAF as the accident just occurred.

The planes were "holding" as it was unknown if there were injuries and since there aren't emergency services they were trying to keep the taxiway clear initially. Then it turned into half the AC inquiring if it was legal to land on the taxiway once "no injuries" was determined.

Well, that certainly puts the subject in perspective!

 

[Henning]

No, but you are in an "area in which air traffic control is exercised" whether you are under ATC control or not.



You lost me there. If you're not talking to them, none of this is an issue, since there can be no instruction to either follow or disregard, right?

In any case I've made my case for my interpretation of the FAR's as clearly and concisely as I can. I'll leave it to others now to hash this out as best they can.

This is where you are reading in more than is written. Control is not exercised on VFR traffic in E & G. If you are IFR, you have to comply and can't just cancel if in VMC. If you were VFR, you were never under control, just receiving advisories, so they cannot instruct you to do anything, they lack the authority. They can advise or request, that is the limit of their authority by their own working orders.

 

[Velocity173]

Thanks, I totally understand that the controller was busy and that is likely why they told me to hold. And in all honestly I am still fairly new with using flight following.

I just figured that my canceling was doing everyone involved a favor as I was exiting their airspace anyways and I was expecting them to terminate services for me as I was approaching my destination. When I didn't get that about 12 - 15 miles out I decided to request the cancellation myself. I was actually a bit surprised when they came back with the hand off to Bradley.

I am a bit surprised and amused that what I thought was going to be a straight forward question had lead to such a debate. I just wanted to make sure that if it ever happened again I didnt cause more work load, or have center start looking for me because I just vanished from the channel.

If they were that busy, then there would have been no need for the useless transmission the controller gave you. Like Steven said above, what benefit does that provide the controller or you? None whatsoever. In the amount of time it took him to say that, he could've said "squawk VFR, change to advisory frequency approved."

Transmissions should be efficient and have purpose with very little words. As I said earlier, the controller is required to get you on the frequency early enough so you can make your traffic calls (10 miles). Unless requested by you, they have no reason to hold on to you in this situation.

 

[Palmpilot]

This is where you are reading in more than is written. Control is not exercised on VFR traffic in E & G. If you are IFR, you have to comply and can't just cancel if in VMC. If you were VFR, you were never under control, just receiving advisories, so they cannot instruct you to do anything, they lack the authority. They can advise or request, that is the limit of their authority by their own working orders.

I think there's a difference of opinion on who is reading more into the reg than is written.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's difficult to come up with a hard and fast rule that applies to all situations. Some folks say that VFR aircraft have to follow ATC instructions, but most agree that ATC can't order you to land absent some type of security emergency. Even the Chief Counsel's Office contradicts themselves, because while they said that VFR aircraft must obey ATC instructions, they also said that an ATC instruction is not a clearance to enter class B airspace, and that could require disobeying an instruction in some circumstances.

 

[Hobobiker]

You're flight following, you can decend, climb, etc at your own discretion. Just do your thing.

Change freq as required, if the controller isn't on his game, or is too busy, if I only have one comm I'm not going to get closer and closer to the field jammed up on his frequency when I should be monitoring the field I'm landing at.


I spose, if it were me, I would have just came back and said "Cessna 123 field in sight, changing freq, good day".

This is what I was thinking as well. If I'm VFR using flight following and want to switch to the local CTAF to monitor local traffic and call my landing, I'll politely let FF know what I'm doing, thank them, and bring my standby frequency into the active slot...

 

[roncachamp]

This is where you are reading in more than is written. Control is not exercised on VFR traffic in E & G. If you are IFR, you have to comply and can't just cancel if in VMC. If you were VFR, you were never under control, just receiving advisories, so they cannot instruct you to do anything, they lack the authority. They can advise or request, that is the limit of their authority by their own working orders.

Of course you can. This one doesn't even have to rely on logic alone, AIM paragraph 5-1-15.b. states:

"An IFR flight plan may be canceled at any time the flight is operating in VFR conditions outside Class A airspace by pilots stating 'CANCEL MY IFR FLIGHT PLAN' to the controller or air/ground station with which they are communicating. Immediately after canceling an IFR flight plan, a pilot should take the necessary action to change to the appropriate air/ground frequency, VFR radar beacon code and VFR altitude or flight level."

 

[narchee]

It's never occurred to me to request cancelling of flight following. When I'm ready to leave I just key up and let the controller know I'm switching to the advisory frequency and squawking VFR If they acknowledge great if not I'm going anyway. Only in Class E airspace of course. I've never had any issue from any controller with that. So have I been doing something wrong? Are you supposed to explicitly request cancelling of FF?

 

[roncachamp]

It's never occurred to me to request cancelling of flight following. When I'm ready to leave I just key up and let the controller know I'm switching to the advisory frequency and squawking VFR If they acknowledge great if not I'm going anyway. Only in Class E airspace of course. I've never had any issue from any controller with that. So have I been doing something wrong?

No.

Are you supposed to explicitly request cancelling of FF?

No.

As I pointed out in a previous message, the AIM tells pilots they can cancel IFR at any time the flight is operating in VFR conditions outside of Class A airspace. Just say you're canceling IFR, change to the appropriate frequency, and squawk VFR. That's okay for IFR operations but not for VFR ops in Class E airspace?

 

[bflynn]

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.

What part of the instruction do you believe violates the ATC manual? We know that ATC can vector VFR aircraft getting radar advisories, even in Class E airspace. 7110.65 section 2-1-7 3) g) gives them the phraseology to Remain This Frequency, so that's a valid thing to do.

I'm confused by what you believe is illegal about an instruction to remain this frequency. That he used bad phraseology?

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."

That is exactly where I go. This regulation...regardless of intent...is worded in such a way that the non-2¢ lawyers in the Chief Counsel's office have stated "Pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b)." There is no wiggle room there. The lawyer, judge and jury has warned you as directly as they can.

As to the rest of your questions, it boils down to nothing more than the normal authority of the PIC to disregard instructions - it requires an emergency. Nothing less will do and that out has been provided for in the regulations

The AIM is not regulatory. I'm sure you knew that.

 

[bflynn]

If you were VFR, you were never under control, just receiving advisories, so they cannot instruct you to do anything, they lack the authority.

You are incorrect there. They most certainly can issue you instructions. For example, they can vector you around...say parachute jumping in the area and you ARE required to follow their instructions...see above.

 

[RotorDude]

No, but you are in an "area in which air traffic control is exercised" whether you are under ATC control or not.
...
You lost me there. If you're not talking to them, none of this is an issue, since there can be no instruction to either follow or disregard, right?

When you are not talking to them, you are not under their control, since there is no way for them to issue instructions. If you are (and are VFR), you can terminate FF any time (since it's completely discretionary) and stop being under their control. In that area no ATC is exercised, from your perspective, so I don't see any conflict with that reg.

 

[Henning]

I think there's a difference of opinion on who is reading more into the reg than is written.

Understand our legal principles toward inclusionary and exclusionary language in law and it becomes very clear. By law, the instruction or control of a VFR pilot in Class E or G airspace cannot exist. It is an illegal contract, therefore not something the controller is allowed to exercise.

You can't violate an instruction that does not legally exist.

 

[MAKG1]

In the OP's situation, the assistance needed was allowing the pilot to make a frequency change (which the pilot was not obligated to ask for in the first place). Whether that assistance was provided in a timely enough manner to allow the safety concern to be addressed is probably best left up to the pilot in command.

Given that the OP could have just landed while still talking to Center, I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly characterize a frequency change as "urgent." It doesn't have to happen at all, let alone in a timely fashion.

14 CFR 91.3(b) gives the pilot in command authority to deviate from any rule in Part 91. However, it's not immunity. The very next sentence makes him responsible for it.

 

[roncachamp]

What part of the instruction do you believe violates the ATC manual? We know that ATC can vector VFR aircraft getting radar advisories, even in Class E airspace. 7110.65 section 2-1-7 3) g) gives them the phraseology to Remain This Frequency, so that's a valid thing to do.

ATC can vector VFR aircraft in Class E airspace upon pilot request and they can suggest vectors but they cannot initiate vectoring outside of the Outer Area of Class C airspace or a TRSA.

REMAIN THIS FREQUENCY is proper phraseology when used properly. Things like, "leaving Smallville TRSA, remain this frequency for traffic advisories", or "taxi to the ramp via bravo, remain this frequency."

I'm confused by what you believe is illegal about an instruction to remain this frequency. That he used bad phraseology?

The controller does not have the authority to require the pilot to remain on his frequency.

That is exactly where I go. This regulation...regardless of intent...is worded in such a way that the non-2¢ lawyers in the Chief Counsel's office have stated "Pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b)." There is no wiggle room there. The lawyer, judge and jury has warned you as directly as they can.

I'm not aware of any judge or jury involvement in this, just the conflicting opinions of at least two lawyers, neither of whom may have considered ATC instructions that violate the ATC order in forming their opinions.

The AIM is not regulatory. I'm sure you knew that.

I know that, but there are those that have taken the position that not only is the AIM regulatory it trumps the FARs.

 

[roncachamp]

You are incorrect there. They most certainly can issue you instructions. For example, they can vector you around...say parachute jumping in the area and you ARE required to follow their instructions...see above.

Please cite the specific paragraph of Order 7110.65 that gives ATC that authority.

 

[bflynn]

Hey, if the Chief Counsel says X and you want to convince yourself they really mean NOT X, I'm not going to argue with you. But you ARE contradicting a published opinion of the counsel's office. If you know of a more recent published opinion, please post it.

As to your canard about cancelling IFR but not cancelling radar services - of course you can cancel IFR and radar services. Then you become VFR in an area under which ATC exercises control and they may give you instructions. The fact of cancelling either doesn't remove you from the obligation to follow ATC instructions when you are talking with them. Until you get "frequency change approved", you're not released and you are liable for not following any instructions they give you even if you are not on the frequency.

 

[roncachamp]

Hey, if the Chief Counsel says X and you want to convince yourself they really mean NOT X, I'm not going to argue with you. But you ARE contradicting a published opinion of the counsel's office. If you know of a more recent published opinion, please post it.

As to your canard about cancelling IFR but not cancelling radar services - of course you can cancel IFR and radar services. Then you become VFR in an area under which ATC exercises control and they may give you instructions. The fact of cancelling either doesn't remove you from the obligation to follow ATC instructions when you are talking with them. Until you get "frequency change approved", you're not released and you are liable for not following any instructions they give you even if you are not on the frequency.

Again, you're assuming the chief counsel considered ATC instructions that violate the ATC order. There's no evidence that he did and it would be absurd to do so.

 

[MarkZ]

It's a team effort, totally, but I'm not going to put myself in a crap situation for you anymore than you are going to cover up a blatant TFR bust for me.

There is no covering up a TFR bust. Heck, if an altitude bust causes an RA or other evasive maneuver, there is no covering that up either.

Thanks, I totally understand that the controller was busy and that is likely why they told me to hold. And in all honestly I am still fairly new with using flight following.

It's no sweat. It happens. I wasn't there, and I don't have audio or radar playback, so I can't begin to speculate what the controller was or was not doing. I'm not perfect either, so I won't play "Mr. Perfect" by saying the controller should or should not have done something. From your recount, it sounded like an unusual situation that you handled perfectly well. It also sounded like the controller realized what you were asking for, and got to you quickly (as you said in your OP).

I think you have a good mentality for navigating the NAS. Remember, we are here for you; you keep us in business. Not the other way around.

In my facility, there was a national training refresher item about VFR flight following, and the services we provide. That's why this is all fresh in my mind

Inside controlled airspace, I can AND DO vector VFR aircraft if I feel either the aircraft's safety may be in jeopardy otherwise, or if I feel an operational advantage may be gained. I have also issued, and will continue to issue altitudes to VFR aircraft as well. Such as, "fly heading 170 and maintain VFR at or below 2,000. Traffic will be opposite direction over the shore VFR at 2,500."

Though the VFR/VFR or VFR/IFR separation requirements are negligible in controlled airspace, we still have a responsibility of aircraft separation and of providing a service. That does include vectors and altitude assignments if necessary for safety, or if we can obtain an operational advantage from it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

If your G you are outside of controlled airspace and ATC simply has no jurisdiction. That I'd in the reg. for E, read the Perry opinion that has already been linked.