Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?

[vintage cessna]

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.

I only opt out of those places where they feel a need to give unnecessary vectors .

 

[Henning]

I only opt out of those places where they feel a need to give unnecessary vectors .

I've never gotten a vector either I didn't ask for, or was not obligated to comply with due to airspace. Many advisories, requests, or suggestions, out in E or G, but not instructions. Most of the time the controllers use very specific wording that makes it clear on tape, the decision is yours. Have some pity on the cranky people, you don't need to be the reason they go postal.

 

[N801BH]

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.

Personally I like to tune in the CTAF 10 miles or more out just to get the "feel" of the activity in the area...

Waiting until just 3 miles out is asking for trouble... IMHO...

 

[vintage cessna]

I've never gotten a vector either I didn't ask for, or was not obligated to comply with due to airspace. Many advisories, requests, or suggestions, out in E or G, but not instructions. Most of the time the controllers use very specific wording that makes it clear on tape, the decision is yours. Have some pity on the cranky people, you don't need to be the reason they go postal.

I have, and changing to 1200 and CTAF is not going "postal, it is a reasonable course of action. If the controller is overwhelmed, he now has one less pilot in his hair.

 

[Henning]

Personally I like to tune in the CTAF 10 miles or more out just to get the "feel" of the activity in the area...

Waiting until just 3 miles out is asking for trouble... IMHO...

No worries, I can do both, I typically have 2 radios. I'm still getting the AWOS or whatever on #2 and ca monitor CTAF there. It's no big ask to stay on frequency with him, so why not?

 

[Velocity173]

No worries, I can do both, I typically have 2 radios. I'm still getting the AWOS or whatever on #2 and ca monitor CTAF there. It's no big ask to stay on frequency with him, so why not?

Because the CTAF transfer is designed for the least equipped aircraft. It doesn't say in the .65 to transfer the aircraft a sufficient distance out, unless the aircraft is equipped with more than one radio. You are to switched over a sufficient distance out regardless of how many radios you have. Unless the controller has last minute traffic, there's not point keeping the aircraft on the freq, especially if it's a busy uncontrolled field.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

Those are the ones I'm talking about, and they're definitely in the book.

 

[roncachamp]

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....

Temporary towers, a good example is the tower at KFLD that's operational for about ten days every summer. There's a permanent tower at KLCQ in Class G airspace.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

That would mean the subject of this year's latest recurrent training syllabus is not consistent with Order JO 7110.65.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

Your understanding of ATC is contrary to Order JO 7110.65.

 

[Velocity173]

Safety Alert, Traffic Advisories and Basic Radar Service.:wink2:

 

[docmirror]

That would mean the subject of this year's latest recurrent training syllabus is not consistent with Order JO 7110.65.

Well, color me surprised, surprised, surprised.

I know I've gotten vectors around DFW(outside the B ) before on FF before I stopped using it. I've also gotten an altitude restriction, and I'm far from the only one. It also happened near PHX, and Austin/San Antonio.

The book means what the CC says it means, and their interpretation is the only one that counts - until you take it out of the admin procedure process, which is akin to a kangaroo court and into a real live fed court of law. $,$$$,$$$,$$$

 

[Ravioli]

Didn't see this mentioned in this round of the topic - so...

FF is offered on a workload permitting basis. If I were a controller and had a bunch of abrupt 1200 and gone types I could easily decide that my workload only permitted me to 1) cancel services to ALL VFR aircraft on initial request, and 2) refuse the handoff and let the other guy cancel them.

Point being, we're asking them to provide an additional service that has safety benefits for us. Why break out a sharp stick to poke them and say "you're not doing me a favor the way I want you to"?

 

[N801BH]

Didn't see this mentioned in this round of the topic - so...

FF is offered on a workload permitting basis. If I were a controller and had a bunch of abrupt 1200 and gone types I could easily decide that my workload only permitted me to 1) cancel services to ALL VFR aircraft on initial request, and 2) refuse the handoff and let the other guy cancel them.

Point being, we're asking them to provide an additional service that has safety benefits for us. Why break out a sharp stick to poke them and say "you're not doing me a favor the way I want you to"?

To remind them that even though it is Workload Permitting",, we still PAY their salary with aviation fuel tax dollars and general fund dollars...

They sometimes need to be reminded who actually butters their bread....

 

[roncachamp]

The book means what the CC says it means, and their interpretation is the only one that counts - until you take it out of the admin procedure process, which is akin to a kangaroo court and into a real live fed court of law. $,$$$,$$$,$$$

I was not aware that the CC had issued an interpretation of the book. Can you post a copy of that interpretation?

 

[Palmpilot]

To remind them that even though it is Workload Permitting",, we still PAY their salary with aviation fuel tax dollars and general fund dollars...

They sometimes need to be reminded who actually butters their bread....

One thing that troubles me is that that's not consistent with the view expressed in the user fee thread that "ATC exists for the benefit of the airlines, so we shouldn't have to pay more."

 

[SbestCFII]

The thing that troubles me is that this thread has continued this long already!

 

[roncachamp]

He did, in true Ron style. Quote a case that has nothing to with the situation presented and declare himself king.

I think that's right, the tower was in Class D airspace. IIRC I pointed out that the instructions issued were valid even if the tower was in Class G airspace.

 

[MarkZ]

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.

5-6-1 is the reference you are looking for.

Because my priority is a safe flight

You share the same priority as any Certified Professional Controller.

I only opt out of those places where they feel a need to give unnecessary vectors .

I wasn't aware ATC gave "unnecessary vectors."

That would mean the subject of this year's latest recurrent training syllabus is not consistent with Order JO 7110.65.

2-1-1 and 2-1-2

If you are talking to a VFR aircraft, you observe the aircraft's track will conflict or merge with an unidentified VFR aircraft, and the pilot doesn't report the other in sight, do you allow the conflict to continue or do you take action to prevent a potential collision?

To remind them that even though it is Workload Permitting",, we still PAY their salary with aviation fuel tax dollars and general fund dollars...

They sometimes need to be reminded who actually butters their bread....

I took this to be a joke. Maybe in bad taste, but a joke nonetheless.

ATC's primary duty is to prevent a collision between aircraft, and to provide safe and efficient movement of air traffic. In my sectors, we see a lot of unidentified VFR traffic. If I believe an aircraft (VFR or IFR) under my control may conflict or merge with unidentified traffic, I issue a traffic advisory. If the pilot sees the traffic, then barring a pilot request I don't take further action. If the pilot does not see the traffic, I issue a vector/altitude to resolve the conflict until the pilot reports the traffic in sight. Once the pilot sees the other aircraft, I terminate the vector/altitude assignment. Usually, I will include, "when able" to the resumption of normal operation.

 

[N801BH]

I took this to be a joke. Maybe in bad taste, but a joke nonetheless.

ATC's primary duty is to prevent a collision between aircraft, and to provide safe and efficient movement of air traffic. In my sectors, we see a lot of unidentified VFR traffic. If I believe an aircraft (VFR or IFR) under my control may conflict or merge with unidentified traffic, I issue a traffic advisory. If the pilot sees the traffic, then barring a pilot request I don't take further action. If the pilot does not see the traffic, I issue a vector/altitude to resolve the conflict until the pilot reports the traffic in sight. Once the pilot sees the other aircraft, I terminate the vector/altitude assignment. Usually, I will include, "when able" to the resumption of normal operation.

I say that because I always monitor the ACT freq for the sector I am in and I try to get FF... When it sounds like the controller is not being slammed I will ask for FF and ALOT of the time I get UNABLE, Maintain VFR.

Now I know he/she might be working other sectors but I can usually tell by the pace of their voice if they are really slammed or just do not want to deal with us" jokesters"....

 

[roncachamp]

2-1-1 and 2-1-2

If you are talking to a VFR aircraft, you observe the aircraft's track will conflict or merge with an unidentified VFR aircraft, and the pilot doesn't report the other in sight, do you allow the conflict to continue or do you take action to prevent a potential collision?

Have you ever actually read those? I mean REALLY read them? Paragraph 2−1−2. DUTY PRIORITY states:

Give first priority to separating aircraft and
issuing safety alerts as required in this order. Good
judgment must be used in prioritizing all other
provisions of this order based on the requirements of
the situation at hand.

Separation is not an issue here, so let's look at safety alerts. We find that subject addressed in paragraph 2−1−6. SAFETY ALERT:

2−1−6. SAFETY ALERT

Issue a safety alert to an aircraft if you are aware the
aircraft is in a position/altitude that, in your judgment,
places it in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions,
or other aircraft. Once the pilot informs you action is
being taken to resolve the situation, you may
discontinue the issuance of further alerts. Do not
assume that because someone else has responsibility
for the aircraft that the unsafe situation has been
observed and the safety alert issued; inform the
appropriate controller.

NOTE−
1. The issuance of a safety alert is a first priority (see
para 2−1−2, Duty Priority) once the controller observes
and recognizes a situation of unsafe aircraft proximity to
terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. Conditions, such as
workload, traffic volume, the quality/limitations of the
radar system, and the available lead time to react are
factors in determining whether it is reasonable for the
controller to observe and recognize such situations. While
a controller cannot see immediately the development of
every situation where a safety alert must be issued, the
controller must remain vigilant for such situations and
issue a safety alert when the situation is recognized.

2. Recognition of situations of unsafe proximity may result
from MSAW/E−MSAW/LAAS, automatic altitude readouts,
Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert, observations on a PAR
scope, or pilot reports.

3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot’s
prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will
be taken.

a. Terrain/Obstruction Alert. Immediately issue/
initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware the
aircraft is at an altitude that, in your judgment, places
it in unsafe proximity to terrain and/or obstructions.
Issue the alert as follows:

PHRASEOLOGY−
LOW ALTITUDE ALERT (call sign),

CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY.

and, if the aircraft is not yet on final approach,

THE (as appropriate) MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA IN YOUR
AREA IS (altitude),

REFERENCE−
P/CG Term − Final Approach − IFR

b. Aircraft Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert.
Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you
are aware of another aircraft at an altitude that you
believe places them in unsafe proximity. If feasible,
offer the pilot an alternate course of action. When an
alternate course of action is given, end the
transmission with the word “immediately.”

PHRASEOLOGY−
TRAFFIC ALERT (call sign) (position of aircraft) ADVISE
YOU TURN LEFT/RIGHT (heading),

and/or

CLIMB/DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate)
IMMEDIATELY.

EXAMPLE−
“Traffic Alert, Cessna Three Four Juliet, advise you turn
left immediately.”

or

“Traffic Alert, Cessna Three−Four Juliet, advise you turn
left and climb immediately.”

REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5−14−1, Conflict Alert (CA) and Mode C
Intruder (MCI) Alert.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5−14−2, En Route Minimum Safe Altitude
Warning (E−MSAW).
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5−15−6, CA/MCI.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5−2−23, Altitude Filters.

That's how I would handle it. That's the way competent, well-trained controllers do it. All of them.

 

[Henning]

Have you ever actually read those? I mean REALLY read them? Paragraph 2−1−2. DUTY PRIORITY states:
Separation is not an issue here, so let's look at safety alerts. We find that subject addressed in paragraph 2−1−6. SAFETY ALERT:

That's how I would handle it. That's the way competent, well-trained controllers do it. All of them.

Pretty much how it typically happens across the country. When I'm out in E or G, it's always up to me.

 

[vintage cessna]

5-6-1 is the reference you are looking for.




You share the same priority as any Certified Professional Controller.




I wasn't aware ATC gave "unnecessary vectors."




2-1-1 and 2-1-2

If you are talking to a VFR aircraft, you observe the aircraft's track will conflict or merge with an unidentified VFR aircraft, and the pilot doesn't report the other in sight, do you allow the conflict to continue or do you take action to prevent a potential collision?





I took this to be a joke. Maybe in bad taste, but a joke nonetheless.

ATC's primary duty is to prevent a collision between aircraft, and to provide safe and efficient movement of air traffic. In my sectors, we see a lot of unidentified VFR traffic. If I believe an aircraft (VFR or IFR) under my control may conflict or merge with unidentified traffic, I issue a traffic advisory. If the pilot sees the traffic, then barring a pilot request I don't take further action. If the pilot does not see the traffic, I issue a vector/altitude to resolve the conflict until the pilot reports the traffic in sight. Once the pilot sees the other aircraft, I terminate the vector/altitude assignment. Usually, I will include, "when able" to the resumption of normal operation.

Look at 5-6-1 g. What does that say about vectoring VFR aircraft?

 

[Henning]

The question isn't about whether the controller has the authority to act as he did, he did not. The real question is: "What do you do when a controller acts 'outside the box'?"

 

[vintage cessna]

The question isn't about whether the controller has the authority to act as he did, he did not. The real question is: "What do you do when a controller acts 'outside the box'?"

if you are VFR in Class E, say goodby and switch to 1200 and CTAF. I've done it a couple of times, but now I know what facilities to not even bother to call.

Based on some of the posts here, it appears some controllers don't understand that they are outside the box.

Not surprising, given the FAA has spent the past 25 years degrading the recruitment and training process of the profession .

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

The thing that troubles me is that this thread has continued this long already!

I'm troubled.....that you're troubled.

 

[roncachamp]

Look at 5-6-1 g. What does that say about vectoring VFR aircraft?

Paragraph 2-1-21.a.6. is worth a look as well.

 

[Henning]

if you are VFR in Class E, say goodby and switch to 1200 and CTAF. I've done it a couple of times, but now I know what facilities to not even bother to call.

Based on some of the posts here, it appears some controllers don't understand that they are outside the box.

Not surprising, given the FAA has spent the past 25 years degrading the recruitment and training process of the profession .

That is certainly an option. I choose to either correct them or comply.

 

[docmirror]

if you are VFR in Class E, say goodby and switch to 1200 and CTAF. I've done it a couple of times, but now I know what facilities to not even bother to call.

Based on some of the posts here, it appears some controllers don't understand that they are outside the box.

Not surprising, given the FAA has spent the past 25 years degrading the recruitment and training process of the profession .

Nine out of ten times, they're just going to forget it, and never mind - who cares, etc. Maybe 99 times out of 100. But all it takes is that one guy, on that one scope, who caught you doing something he didn't SAY you could do (change freq, good day) to ruin everything. i.e last issued instruction was to remain this freq and wait for a call back. This is why the thread has gone on this long, because it's a big gray hole in the operations and no one in their right mind wants to ask the CC for another interpretation.

The ATC rule book seems to be contradictory as well depending on what part you read, and what applies to which aircraft in what airspace(E or G). It's a freaking hassle that we can't get consensus on. I tend to agree with Steven just because it suits me better. But - he is not the arbiter of all those guys on the other scopes giving VFR traffic vectors and altitudes.

 

[roncachamp]

The ATC rule book seems to be contradictory as well depending on what part you read, and what applies to which aircraft in what airspace(E or G). It's a freaking hassle that we can't get consensus on. I tend to agree with Steven just because it suits me better. But - he is not the arbiter of all those guys on the other scopes giving VFR traffic vectors and altitudes.

What contradictions do you see in Order JO 7110.65 on this issue?

 

[vintage cessna]

Paragraph 2-1-21.a.6. is worth a look as well.

I don't know if the poster is being told this stuff or if he is just misinterpreting what he is being told.

 

[vintage cessna]

Nine out of ten times, they're just going to forget it, and never mind - who cares, etc. Maybe 99 times out of 100. But all it takes is that one guy, on that one scope, who caught you doing something he didn't SAY you could do (change freq, good day) to ruin everything. i.e last issued instruction was to remain this freq and wait for a call back. This is why the thread has gone on this long, because it's a big gray hole in the operations and no one in their right mind wants to ask the CC for another interpretation.

The ATC rule book seems to be contradictory as well depending on what part you read, and what applies to which aircraft in what airspace(E or G). It's a freaking hassle that we can't get consensus on. I tend to agree with Steven just because it suits me better. But - he is not the arbiter of all those guys on the other scopes giving VFR traffic vectors and altitudes.

Well, I would think that after all these years, if VFR in Class E were subject to ATC control, there would be at least one enforcement case to point to. At least when I was working the job, if a controller tried to write up a VFR pilot in Class E for not following an instruction he would have been made a fool of.

 

[Henning]

Nine out of ten times, they're just going to forget it, and never mind - who cares, etc. Maybe 99 times out of 100. But all it takes is that one guy, on that one scope, who caught you doing something he didn't SAY you could do (change freq, good day) to ruin everything. i.e last issued instruction was to remain this freq and wait for a call back. This is why the thread has gone on this long, because it's a big gray hole in the operations and no one in their right mind wants to ask the CC for another interpretation.

The ATC rule book seems to be contradictory as well depending on what part you read, and what applies to which aircraft in what airspace(E or G). It's a freaking hassle that we can't get consensus on. I tend to agree with Steven just because it suits me better. But - he is not the arbiter of all those guys on the other scopes giving VFR traffic vectors and altitudes.

This is a "gray hole" that truly does not exist. There is nothing in the adjudicated record on this because it stops at the controller's supervisor. IME with the FAA you're more likely to get an apology than a bust, but most likely it will just go away like it never happened. The controller was clearly in the wrong by the regulations he is bound to. This goes nowhere, at least not as far as the pilot is concerned; the controller may be in for more.

 

[bflynn]

The question isn't about whether the controller has the authority to act as he did, he did not. The real question is: "What do you do when a controller acts 'outside the box'?"

Why do you think he does not? Is the following a valid instruction?

Radar Services Terminated, Squawk VFR, Contact Washington Center 118.47.

Yes it is. Next, any time a pilot expects a frequency change, ATC has the option to issue a different instruction to remain this frequency. So, you could get a legitimate instruction of

Radar Services Terminated, Squawk VFR, Remain this frequency.

It is perfectly allowable under 7110.65.

So unless you can explain why ATC cannot issue that instruction, you're giving out bad information based on your assumption that ATC cannot give instructions to VFR traffic, an assumption that has already been disproved.

 

[bflynn]

if VFR in Class E were subject to ATC control

Do you doubt that ATC issues instructions in Class E?

 

[Henning]

Why do you think he does not? Is the following a valid instruction?

Radar Services Terminated, Squawk VFR, Contact Washington Center 118.47.

Yes it is. Next, any time a pilot expects a frequency change, ATC has the option to issue a different instruction to remain this frequency. So, you could get a legitimate instruction of

Radar Services Terminated, Squawk VFR, Remain this frequency.

It is perfectly allowable under 7110.65.

So unless you can explain why ATC cannot issue that instruction, you're giving out bad information based on your assumption that ATC cannot give instructions to VFR traffic, an assumption that has already been disproved.

FF is a VOLUNTARY advisory service, voluntary on BOTH PARTIES. "Radar Services Terminated" is an advisory statement that they are no longer volunteering to give services. Completely legitimate, same as the pilot saying "Cancel Services, Thanks, good day." which in the OP he was clear to do.

"Remain my frequency" is an operational instruction, that if the OP is VFR in E or G airspace, cannot exist. They can legally ask, they can't legally demand, it's really very simple. The big sin behind it is that with that demand, he just bought the FAA liability for your further actions in airspace where he does not legally have positive control over you; that is a huge bureaucratic no-no.

 

[roncachamp]

Why do you think he does not? Is the following a valid instruction?

Radar Services Terminated, Squawk VFR, Contact Washington Center 118.47.

Yes it is. Next, any time a pilot expects a frequency change, ATC has the option to issue a different instruction to remain this frequency. So, you could get a legitimate instruction of

Radar Services Terminated, Squawk VFR, Remain this frequency.

It is perfectly allowable under 7110.65.

So unless you can explain why ATC cannot issue that instruction, you're giving out bad information based on your assumption that ATC cannot give instructions to VFR traffic, an assumption that has already been disproved.

I don't recall anyone saying that ATC cannot give instructions to VFR aircraft. I've given several examples of valid instructions to VFR aircraft.

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. How goes that search?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

....is Rome burning yet?

 

[MarkZ]

Have you ever actually read those? I mean REALLY read them? Paragraph 2−1−2. DUTY PRIORITY states:
Separation is not an issue here, so let's look at safety alerts. We find that subject addressed in paragraph 2−1−6. SAFETY ALERT:

That's how I would handle it. That's the way competent, well-trained controllers do it. All of them.

You're glossing over what I wrote, or more likely I wasn't eloquent enough to illustrate the situation I described for you.

Just to be clear.

You are providing radar services to aircraft A. Aircraft A's track conflicts with another VFR target at the same altitude. According to your observation, the two targets will merge. You issue a traffic advisory to aircraft A. The pilot does not see the traffic.

Are you saying that you are okay letting the two aircraft merge into one target at the same altitude, without taking any actions? That's how you would handle it?

 

[vintage cessna]

You're glossing over what I wrote, or more likely I wasn't eloquent enough to illustrate the situation I described for you.

Just to be clear.

You are providing radar services to aircraft A. Aircraft A's track conflicts with another VFR target at the same altitude. According to your observation, the two targets will merge. You issue a traffic advisory to aircraft A. The pilot does not see the traffic.

Are you saying that you are okay letting the two aircraft merge into one target at the same altitude, without taking any actions? That's how you would handle it?

He already told you how he would handle it. And if you were to actually read and understand your controllers "Bible" you would know how to handle the situation also.