I do not give legal opinions on Internet forums. Just another SGOTI.Mark's opinions are real lawyer opinions.
Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?
- Thread starter aanderson81
- Start date
bflynn
Final Approach
I'm still waiting for you to tell us all why it violates the ATC order. You've suggested it's only valid in limited situations, but I don't read that.
Additionally, termination of radar services allows for 3 outcomes on the frequency -
1) CHANGE TO ADVISORY FREQUENCY APPROVED
2) CONTACT (frequency identification)
3) FREQUENCY CHANGE APPROVED
We rarely hear #2, but are you suggesting that if you get Squawk VFR, Contact Washington Center 118.47 that you'd be free to disregard the instruction to contact center because you're no longer under radar advisories?
How do you think that would play out when the judge asked you "91.123(b) required you to follow the instruction and you disregarded it. Why?"
The theory is that ATC only exercises control of IFR aircraft in class E. Apparently the FAA Chief Counsel's office disagrees with that theory.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,598
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
So basically you're saying once you start FF in controlled airspace, even if you ask to cease that service and leave the freq, in airspace that doesn't even require you to talk to them in the first place, if they say negative, you are forced to use their service?
Depending on how much traffic there is in the pattern, that might not be safe.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,598
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Speaking of separating VFR/IFR. Clear as mud.
http://www.stuckmic.com/faa-rules-regulations/274-vfr-target-separation.html
http://www.stuckmic.com/faa-rules-regulations/274-vfr-target-separation.html
An SGOTI who has passed the bar exam. I do recognize the difference between general legal discussions and legal advice, however.
I also realize that in every controversy before the courts, there are at least two lawyers arguing opposite sides of the issue!
bflynn
Final Approach
No, you're not forced to use their services. But as I read it, you could be instructed to remain on their frequency/contact a new frequency. It practically never happens, but it can.
You still have an out - if staying causes a problem, tell the controller you need to leave. If they still insist, tie up more of their bandwidth and declare an emergency. They have instruction to cut you loose in sufficient time to allow you to join a CTAF, so if they want you to stay, they're going against their rules. But that doesn't change the reality you're looking at.
I think I said early on that if I was 5-10 miles out, I'd probably response with Unable. If I was further, I'd stick with them, they probably have a good reason. Then when I hit the 8-10 mile mark, I'd request frequency change.
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
Are you referring to REMAIN THIS FREQUENCY? It's proper phraseology where it's valid, I thought I made that clear enough. Are you seriously suggesting it's valid phraseology everywhere, even where there is no requirement to be in radio communications with ATC?
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite the paragraph in Order JO 7110.65 that gives controllers authority to vector VFR aircraft around parachute jump areas in Class E airspace.
I'm saying the pilot is free to disregard an instruction to contact any ATC facility where there is no requirement to be in radio communications with ATC.
I would provide the same explanations I've presented here, but I'm confident the issue would never come before a judge.
azure
Final Approach
Depends on whether "remain this frequency" counts as an ATC instruction. If yes, the Karas opinion explicitly says exactly that.
The counter argument would be that the above is not an instruction because ATC is not authorized to give it -- and if that counter argument is valid, then pilots are not required to obey ANY instructions issued by ATC in Class E airspace while they are flying under VFR.Mark Bury said:
roncachamp
Final Approach
What about instructions ATC is authorized to issue to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace? Such as, "remain outside Delta airspace and standby"? What about a control tower that is not in a Class B, C, or D surface area? Are instructions issued to effect spacing authorized?
azure
Final Approach
Okay, you got me on the first one. There are SOME instructions that are definitely authorized. The Class D example could also be a Class C, another case where normally only communication with the controlling ATC is required to enter. I would think a control tower outside of controlled airspace has no authority over aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace, other than to give instructions to facilitate landing or deny landing clearances. I don't know the answer to the last one, assuming we're not talking about spacing for sequencing to land, where I suspect they are authorized.
Last edited:
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
It would be interesting to know what the acting assistant chief counsel based that opinion on, since there are currently no rules or regulations to support that opinion.
I find myself wondering if this controversy is really worth six pages, but I do have to admit, it's fun to argue about.
My practice is to follow instructions unless I have a really good reason not to. My workload is high enough without trying to figure out which instructions are valid in a manual that I have never been trained or tested on. And there is also the problem that the outer areas of class C airspace are not charted, and can deviate from the standard shape. More workload trying to figure that out: No, thanks. I also know that I am not infallible about this stuff.
And then of course, there is the problem of the Chief Counsel letter. Even if I was somehow sure that I could overcome the deference that the courts have given to agency interpretations, who the heck has the money or the time to get that done? Sorry, I have better things to do with my time and money.
Besides, if it ever got to the point where these instructions were being routinely abused, there is a no-cost solution that is easy, and available right now. "Click."
By that I mean that the 91.183 requirement to "ensure that a continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency" explicitly only applies to IFR, so there is nothing stopping VFR pilots from just leaving the frequency without notice or permission if ATC practice somehow became routinely egregious.
My practice is to follow instructions unless I have a really good reason not to. My workload is high enough without trying to figure out which instructions are valid in a manual that I have never been trained or tested on. And there is also the problem that the outer areas of class C airspace are not charted, and can deviate from the standard shape. More workload trying to figure that out: No, thanks. I also know that I am not infallible about this stuff.
And then of course, there is the problem of the Chief Counsel letter. Even if I was somehow sure that I could overcome the deference that the courts have given to agency interpretations, who the heck has the money or the time to get that done? Sorry, I have better things to do with my time and money.
Besides, if it ever got to the point where these instructions were being routinely abused, there is a no-cost solution that is easy, and available right now. "Click."
By that I mean that the 91.183 requirement to "ensure that a continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency" explicitly only applies to IFR, so there is nothing stopping VFR pilots from just leaving the frequency without notice or permission if ATC practice somehow became routinely egregious.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
That part is easy enough, since the letter cites the regulation (91.123 (a) and (b)) that he based his opinion on.
I find myself wondering if this controversy is really worth six pages, but I do have to admit, it's fun to argue about.
My practice is to follow instructions unless I have a really good reason not to. My workload is high enough without trying to figure out which instructions are valid in a manual that I have never been trained or tested on. And there is also the problem that the outer areas of class C airspace are not charted, and can deviate from the standard shape. More workload trying to figure that out: No, thanks. I also know that I am not infallible about this stuff.
And then of course, there is the problem of the Chief Counsel letter. Even if I was somehow sure that I could overcome the deference that the courts have given to agency interpretations, who the heck has the money or the time to get that done? Sorry, I have better things to do with my time and money.
Besides, if it ever got to the point where these instructions were being routinely abused, there is a no-cost solution that is easy, and available right now. "Click."
By that I mean that the 91.183 requirement to "ensure that a continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency" explicitly only applies to IFR, so there is nothing stopping VFR pilots from just leaving the frequency without notice or permission if ATC practice somehow became routinely egregious.
It's pretty much what everyone does, why wouldn't I? It's not worth arguing about. It does happen that controllers mis-word a request as an instruction, not a lot, but in 25+ years it's happened a few times. I really don't care, I would likely oblige the request, if not, I deal with it from there and advise them of what I am willing do to achieve the result. If it sounds like someone is having a bad day, I'll just comply if it's not a big ask.
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
If your general experience is to call up and say Cessna 1234 airport in sight, and get reply advisory services terminated, squawk VFR, frequency change approved.
But instead get (anything else)
What's your first plan of action? For me, I'm gonna comply with the (anything else) until I know what's going on. Sure, if you're on fumes and have to get down, or something that would cause you to declare, THEY NEED to know that too.
But to throw the "you're not the boss of me" card doesn't seem like the safest way to continue.
But instead get (anything else)
What's your first plan of action? For me, I'm gonna comply with the (anything else) until I know what's going on. Sure, if you're on fumes and have to get down, or something that would cause you to declare, THEY NEED to know that too.
But to throw the "you're not the boss of me" card doesn't seem like the safest way to continue.
Hmmmm..
I am an old person now and my memory " might" be failing.. But... Other then military bases.. What airport with a tower is not at least a Delta
....
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Let me see if I have this correct. A VFR in Class E does not have to communicate with ATC. But if in communication with ATC, a VFR in class E must comply with ATC instructions. However, since the VFR pilot is not required to maintain a continuous frequency watch, an instruction may have been given by ATC but not received by the pilot. In which case, the pilot is in trouble?
Every controller that knows their job knows that you do not issue mandatory instructions to VFR pilots in Class E airspace, that would be assuming authority and responsibility that does not belong to them. Telling a pilot to remain clear of B,C or D airspace is not instructing a pilot to do something in E airspace. It is just informing the pilot that permission or clnc has not be granted to enter the airspace.
That is not to say that some ATC facilities don't develop a culture where authority is routinely abused.
Hmmmm..
I am an old person now and my memory " might" be failing.. But... Other then military bases.. What airport with a tower is not at least a Delta
That's not the point, the point is the plane is in E or G Airspace when being called. It's actually simple because the instruction/prohibition does not begin until crossing the airspace boundary. He is calling you with an advisory that if you cross the airspace boundary you will be in violation. Until you hit that boundary you can do whatever to remain clear.
I agree with both sides.....
I just want to know which towered airports are NOT at least a Delta??
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
The ones that are charted with a blue airport symbol but without the dashed blue line around the airport symbol. The ones I have seen are new contract towers that started operation before they got their Class D designation, or reserve/National Gurard airports that use a Tower infrequently.
There will be a few, I'm not particularly familiar though. There's always some oddball situation out there.
MarkZ
En-Route
That is not true, and was the subject of this year's latest recurrent training syllabus. Pilots are expected to comply with any instructions ATC issues, however the PIC needs to advise ATC if compliance will result in the aircraft entering IMC or an unsafe situation. The PIC is always the final authority when it comes to the operation of the aircraft.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Did your training tell you what instructions you should issue to VFR aircraft in Class E? Or does the airspace the aircraft is in does not matter? Do you sometimes assume responsibility for VFR aircraft separation in Class E and sometimes not?
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Interesting recurrent topic...
I don't even know why it is a topic. If I had been in the OP situation, as soon as the controller said don't call me I'll call you, I would have reset the transponder to 1200 and changed to CTAF.
MarkZ
En-Route
The only difference between different classifications of controlled airspace is the VFR radar separation minima.
Class E, D, C, or B...it doesn't matter...
...ATC is authorized to issue vectors in controlled airspace at any altitude, and in uncontrolled airspace only on pilot request. If ATC issues an altitude and a vector to a VFR, the altitude must be AOA the sector's MVA.
If I think a VFR I'm working will merge at the same altitude with a 1200 code aircraft, and the aircraft I'm talking to doesn't see the other, I will vector and/or issue an altitude the the aircraft I'm working.
MarkZ
En-Route
If that is your attitude, why bother getting radar services?
The OP also said the controller was busy, and very soon after that transmission, the controller acknowledged the OP's request and terminated radar services.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
You can go to your .65 and find references to cite about vectoring IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft in B and C, but you won't find any references telling you to assign headings or altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class E.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
I don't much bother any more with some facilities. In the same amount time the controller took to say all that he could have said sqwawk (sp) 1200 frequency changed approved.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Why?
Because my priority is a safe flight, not focusing on a cranky controller.
Right, so if he felt it worthwhile to do something abnormal that was extra effort, wouldn't you consider and question the reason behind the act? Do you think he would do this just to annoy and inconvenience you?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,598
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Lol! Steven will be here shortly.
You think you need to be on CTAF 10-12 miles out?
I call 3-5 out from an uncontrolled field. That means I have a couple of minutes to spare at 180 and I'll slow down in the mean time. The system is a too great a resource to opt out of over ego issues IMO. They aren't my competition or nemesis.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Right, so if he felt it worthwhile to do something abnormal that was extra effort, wouldn't you consider and question the reason behind the act? Do you think he would do this just to annoy and inconvenience you?
The controller didn't say something like "stay with me, you have traffic" or something of that nature. You don't play I've got a secret.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
You think you need to be on CTAF 10-12 miles out?
It doesn't matter whether you think it is 3 or 5 miles or I think it is 15. You are just getting traffic advisories, and when the pilot decides it is time to switch, it is time to switch, that is not the controllers call.