Controller responding Negative to canceling radar services?

[bflynn]

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?

I had no idea that you wanted to see it, I must have missed it. I think they probably were working under 7-6-7 b) which instructs controllers to "direct a VFR aircraft to a point near the airport to hold when a position is not available in the approach sequence for the runway in use." There was parachute jumping over Simmons airfield. I was flying on a route that was roughly KGSO-KFAY, so I was vectored to the NE out near Dunn before being directed to fly direct KFAY.

Are you getting hung up on the word vector because it has IFR implications? I'm not using it that way, I'm using it in place of "to direct aircraft". Tell me this wasn't all just a big semantics hump on your part?!

 

[vintage cessna]

You tell me.

I'm not getting paid to spoon feed you or provide remedial training. If you can't understand what the .65 tells you, it is beyond me to correct that deficiency.

 

[roncachamp]

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?

I would handle it as a safety alert, I thought I made that pretty clear.

"Traffic alert, Waco zero one victor, twelve o'clock, one mile, advise you turn right heading zero six zero immediately."

 

[bflynn]

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.

Yes, radar advisories are voluntary. Compliance with ATC instructions are not, it is in the FARs. The two have nothing to do with each other. You can optionally be talking to ATC and not be under radar advisories. If you are talking with them, then you must comply with their instructions. They shouldn't be giving them without a good reason, although you might not always be told why.

Here's one example - Bugsmasher 12345, Radar advisories terminated, squawk vfr, remain this frequency. Remain greater than 5 miles away from KABC.

If you drop off the frequency because you believe it's "optional" and proceed to land, do you think you're not going to also be hit with a 91.123 violation because you stumbled into a pop up TFR?

I don't understand why you're insisting on giving out information that contradicts what has been published by the FAA lawyer, judge and jury group.

 

[roncachamp]

I had no idea that you wanted to see it, I must have missed it. I think they probably were working under 7-6-7 b) which instructs controllers to "direct a VFR aircraft to a point near the airport to hold when a position is not available in the approach sequence for the runway in use." There was parachute jumping over Simmons airfield. I was flying on a route that was roughly KGSO-KFAY, so I was vectored to the NE out near Dunn before being directed to fly direct KFAY.

That's sequencing of arrivals. That section covers TRSA services, "parachute" does not appear in it anywhere. The applicable paragraph is 9-7-4.

Are you getting hung up on the word vector because it has IFR implications?

No.

I'm not using it that way, I'm using it in place of "to direct aircraft". Tell me this wasn't all just a big semantics hump on your part?!

It wasn't all just a big semantics hump on my part.

 

[roncachamp]

I don't understand why you're insisting on giving out information that contradicts what has been published by the FAA lawyer, judge and jury group.

Note that "what has been published by the FAA lawyer, judge and jury group" is self-contradictory and contradicts the ATC order.

 

[Velocity173]

I had no idea that you wanted to see it, I must have missed it. I think they probably were working under 7-6-7 b) which instructs controllers to "direct a VFR aircraft to a point near the airport to hold when a position is not available in the approach sequence for the runway in use." There was parachute jumping over Simmons airfield. I was flying on a route that was roughly KGSO-KFAY, so I was vectored to the NE out near Dunn before being directed to fly direct KFAY.

Are you getting hung up on the word vector because it has IFR implications? I'm not using it that way, I'm using it in place of "to direct aircraft". Tell me this wasn't all just a big semantics hump on your part?!

Since it appears Steven isn't going to give you the reference, I'll save you the leg work. It's in 9-7-4 of the .65. "When requested by the pilot...."

If you notice it makes distinguishing between IFR or VFR either. "Fearless" encountered this situation months ago out in AZ. It's up to the PIC to decide if they want assistance around parachute activity. Now, are there controllers out there who initiate a vector? Yep.

Edit: ok he did provide the reference...a bit late.

 

[bflynn]

That's sequencing of arrivals. That section covers TRSA services, "parachute" does not appear in it anywhere. The applicable paragraph is 9-7-4.

It wasn't all just a big semantics hump on my part.

Ok...and your point is that being directed around parachute jumping is different from being directed around parachute jumping before being directed to a runway?

 

[Henning]

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?

Here is what I would expect to hear: "9SA, showing VFR traffic 5 miles at your 2 o'clock, your altitude" with that I would look and respond, "Traffic in sight" at which point everything is over WRT that exchange; or I report "Negative contact" at which point I would expect to hear: "Suggest come right to 045 to pass behind" "Coming right for 045, still looking." A few moments later if I have not spotted it in the interim and reported "traffic in sight" I will get a call, "Traffic no longer a factor, resume own nav."

It's happened to me far far far more times than I can count, and it goes that way nearly verbatim every time, because that is how the exchange is scripted. In the end, they always leave all operational decisions on the PIC when in E or G. I have to request a vector, or I have to choose to follow an advisory. They aren't allowed to "issue me a vector" even if it was to save my life.

If you don't understand the logic, follow the liability trail; that makes it clear.

 

[bflynn]

Note that "what has been published by the FAA lawyer, judge and jury group" is self-contradictory and contradicts the ATC order.

One is a regulation for pilots. One is instruction to controllers. I see no contradiction.

 

[Henning]

Yes, radar advisories are voluntary. Compliance with ATC instructions are not, it is in the FARs. The two have nothing to do with each other. You can optionally be talking to ATC and not be under radar advisories. If you are talking with them, then you must comply with their instructions. They shouldn't be giving them without a good reason, although you might not always be told why.

Here's one example - Bugsmasher 12345, Radar advisories terminated, squawk vfr, remain this frequency. Remain greater than 5 miles away from KABC.

If you drop off the frequency because you believe it's "optional" and proceed to land, do you think you're not going to also be hit with a 91.123 violation because you stumbled into a pop up TFR?

I don't understand why you're insisting on giving out information that contradicts what has been published by the FAA lawyer, judge and jury group.

Exactly correct, and when ATC issues you an instruction, they assume a level of liability for you. Now, here's the part you really need to pay attention to...:The controller is not allowed to do that by their own operating rules. "Approach, we have a problem". You have a controller that has exposed the FAA to liability exposure that is not accounted for actuarially.

 

[bflynn]

They aren't allowed to "issue me a vector" even if it was to save my life.

If you don't understand the logic, follow the liability trail; that makes it clear.

I think what you mean to say is that they don't want liability therefore they phrase a lot of things as a request or suggestion. Those things, you can take their advice or not.

Some things they do not phrase as requests, they are instructions. They don't recommend that you extend your base for aircraft on long final, they require it. You don't get off the hook if you ignore them.

 

[bflynn]

]The controller is not allowed to do that by their own operating rules.

Quote the rule? The only time liability is mentioned in .65 regards aircraft jettisoning material.

ATC has liability for certain aspects of control. They are directing traffic, they have liability.

 

[roncachamp]

Since it appears Steven isn't going to give you the reference, I'll save you the leg work. It's in 9-7-4 of the .65. "When requested by the pilot...."

He used avoidance of parachute jump areas as a specific example of controller authority to initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft. I wanted to see what he was misconstruing to have that meaning. Telling him of 9-7-4 would have been counterproductive.

 

[Henning]

I think what you mean to say is that they don't want liability therefore they phrase a lot of things as a request or suggestion. Those things, you can take their advice or not.

Some things they do not phrase as requests, they are instructions. They don't recommend that you extend your base for aircraft on long final, they require it. You don't get off the hook if you ignore them.

Right, when they have the legal authority to exercise positive control where you must comply, then the wording is such that it is an operational instruction. However with exceedingly rare exceptions, that does not occur in E or G airspace. There it is typically worded in the form of an advisory or request leaving PIC with full ultimate liability.

There have been a very few times this issue of mis-wording has come up in my flying, and usually when it has happened, it's a controller who has been machine gunning instructions to IFR traffic for the last 3 minutes straight.

 

[roncachamp]

Ok...and your point is that being directed around parachute jumping is different from being directed around parachute jumping before being directed to a runway?

No, it's to show that your assertion in post #111 is incorrect:

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.

 

[roncachamp]

One is a regulation for pilots. One is instruction to controllers. I see no contradiction.

I was referring to the contradictory opinions issued by the office of the chief counsel.

 

[aanderson81]

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.

So are you saying that one of us should ask for a CC interpretation to clear up this grey area?

 

[bflynn]

I was referring to the contradictory opinions issued by the office of the chief counsel.

But you're still not quoting them?

 

[Henning]

Quote the rule? The only time liability is mentioned in .65 regards aircraft jettisoning material.

ATC has liability for certain aspects of control. They are directing traffic, they have liability.

Ron has already cited the regs.

As for the other, exactly, that is why they do not direct VFR traffic in E or G, they advise it. Advisory ops carry much less liability. Everything government does revolves around liability. It is the reason the FAA exists, to assure base assumptions for actuaries to develop accurate and profitable premiums to assure the insurability of the industry. It's all about protecting the money, the entire government.

 

[eetrojan]

First, thank you past and present controllers for contributing to this forum. I really appreciate it.

That said, here’s my Dumb Observer Summary:

In Post #26 retired controller Roncachamp says Order JO 7110.65 only permits controllers who are providing flight following services to a VFR aircraft in Class E to issue “traffic advisories and safety alerts.”

In post #150, current controller MarkZ says:
“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 aircraft I'm working.”

In Post #181, Roncachamp says that “separation is not an issue” and it is only OK for a controller to say this (citing AIM 2-1-6 re “safety alerts”):

“TRAFFIC ALERT, Cessna Three Four Juliet, advise you turn left immediately.”

So…

Roncachamp believes a controller can only recommend vectors to a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace, not require them.

Roncachamp further believes, therefore, that vector-related communication to a VFR aircraft must clearly indicate that the communication is a suggestion, not a command.


Is this pretty much it?

 

[roncachamp]

But you're still not quoting them?

Seems like a waste of time. You haven't understood anything that's been quoted so far.

 

[Palmpilot]

And those two interpretations are only three years apart!

 

[Henning]

First, thank you past and present controllers for contributing to this forum. I really appreciate it.

That said, here’s my Dumb Observer Summary:

In Post #26 retired controller Roncachamp says Order JO 7110.65 only permits controllers who are providing flight following services to a VFR aircraft in Class E to issue “traffic advisories and safety alerts.”

In post #150, current controller MarkZ says:
“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 aircraft I'm working.”

In Post #181, Roncachamp says that “separation is not an issue” and it is only OK for a controller to say this (citing AIM 2-1-6 re “safety alerts”):

“TRAFFIC ALERT, Cessna Three Four Juliet, advise you turn left immediately.”

So…

Roncachamp believes a controller can only recommend vectors to a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace, not require them.

Roncachamp further believes, therefore, that vector-related communication to a VFR aircraft must clearly indicate that the communication is a suggestion, not a command.


Is this pretty much it?

It is all airspace and operating rule dependent. Ask yourself this, "Am I in airspace I have to be talking to someone?" If the answer is "No" then the controller has no ability, or authorization to make demands of you, therefore everything must be of advisory or request nature.

 

[bflynn]

Seems like a waste of time. You haven't understood anything that's been quoted so far.

I'm sorry, but where do you think the contradiction is? One letter states that pilots must follow instructions, the other states that a vector suggestion for traffic is not an instruction.

The Doremire letter in particular qualified that IF the vector was for traffic avoidance, then it was not an instruction, but it does not state what would happen if it was a situation where it was an instruction. Logically one would never state a conditional unless there were in fact more than one condition.

But neither are relevant to the topic which started this thread, which was - can a controller give an instruction to VFR aircraft not to contact him. And can he instruct a VFR aircraft to remain on his frequency. Neither one of these are suggestions, they are instructions and they have to be followed.

Furthermore, neither of the letters support an assertion that ATC cannot give instructions to VFR aircraft in class E airspace as some have suggested and in fact one directly states that they can.

 

[Velocity173]

First, thank you past and present controllers for contributing to this forum. I really appreciate it.

That said, here’s my Dumb Observer Summary:

In Post #26 retired controller Roncachamp says Order JO 7110.65 only permits controllers who are providing flight following services to a VFR aircraft in Class E to issue “traffic advisories and safety alerts.”

In post #150, current controller MarkZ says:
“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 aircraft I'm working.”

In Post #181, Roncachamp says that “separation is not an issue” and it is only OK for a controller to say this (citing AIM 2-1-6 re “safety alerts”):

“TRAFFIC ALERT, Cessna Three Four Juliet, advise you turn left immediately.”

So…

Roncachamp believes a controller can only recommend vectors to a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace, not require them.

Roncachamp further believes, therefore, that vector-related communication to a VFR aircraft must clearly indicate that the communication is a suggestion, not a command.


Is this pretty much it?

Did you look at the link to Stuckmic that I provided? Those are all controllers and all had differing opinions on how to apply separation in airspace where approved separation doesn't exist.

One thing that I learned in 8 years of ATC is that you'll rarely get a group of controllers that are all in agreement upon the rules of the .65. I ask controller friends questions all the time these days. I'll rarely get a concerted agreement upon any question. Just browse the topics on Stucmic sometime and you'll see what I mean.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm sorry, but where do you think the contradiction is? One letter states that pilots must follow instructions, the other states that a vector suggestion for traffic is not an instruction.

The Doremire letter in particular qualified that IF the vector was for traffic avoidance, then it was not an instruction, but it does not state what would happen if it was a situation where it was an instruction. Logically one would never state a conditional unless there were in fact more than one condition.

But neither are relevant to the topic which started this thread, which was - can a controller give an instruction to VFR aircraft not to contact him. And can he instruct a VFR aircraft to remain on his frequency. Neither one of these are suggestions, they are instructions and they have to be followed.

Furthermore, neither of the letters support an assertion that ATC cannot give instructions to VFR aircraft in class E airspace as some have suggested and in fact one directly states that they can.

There is no hope for you.

 

[Henning]

I'm sorry, but where do you think the contradiction is? One letter states that pilots must follow instructions, the other states that a vector suggestion for traffic is not an instruction.

But neither are relevant to the topic which started this thread, which was - can a controller give an instruction to VFR aircraft not to contact him. And can he instruct a VFR aircraft to remain on his frequency.

Furthermore, neither of the letters support an assertion that ATC cannot give instructions to VFR aircraft in class E airspace as some have suggested and in fact one directly states that they can.

Not to contact? Most definitely, VFR services are voluntary on both sides. "Radar services declined, remain clear of..." Is certainly a valid controller order to a VFR aircraft in E or G.

The question in the OP was rather one of "Can the Controller not release me in E or G? That is a bird of a different feather; the answer "no, he cannot refuse to release you." The choice is yours to cooperate with his ill stated request, or to drop services anyway. You could even clarify "on tape" "Sorry unable, going to CTAF for local traffic." You will not be punished regardless how you decide to proceed, the supervisor will not let it leave the office unless it's with the controller.

 

[eetrojan]

Did you look at the link to Stuckmic that I provided? Those are all controllers and all had differing opinions on how to apply separation in airspace where approved separation doesn't exist.

One thing that I learned in 8 years of ATC is that you'll rarely get a group of controllers that are all in agreement upon the rules of the .65. I ask controller friends questions all the time these days. I'll rarely get a concerted agreement upon any question. Just browse the topics on Stucmic sometime and you'll see what I mean.

No, but I will read it. Thanks.

Here's the link again for others:
http://www.stuckmic.com/faa-rules-regulations/274-vfr-target-separation.html

I take it that you're a controller too?

 

[Henning]

Did you look at the link to Stuckmic that I provided? Those are all controllers and all had differing opinions on how to apply separation in airspace where approved separation doesn't exist.

One thing that I learned in 8 years of ATC is that you'll rarely get a group of controllers that are all in agreement upon the rules of the .65. I ask controller friends questions all the time these days. I'll rarely get a concerted agreement upon any question. Just browse the topics on Stucmic sometime and you'll see what I mean.

But one theme ran solid through the thread, they only had control over the IFR aircraft. If you are operating under IFR, you are positive control wherever you are.

The scary thing is some of them were suggesting they don't have to provide separation advisory for the IFR aircraft since they were VMC if they were coming across a VFR plane.

 

[MarkZ]

One thing that I learned in 8 years of ATC is that you'll rarely get a group of controllers that are all in agreement upon the rules of the .65. I ask controller friends questions all the time these days. I'll rarely get a concerted agreement upon any question. Just browse the topics on Stucmic sometime and you'll see what I mean.

This!

 

[Velocity173]

No, but I will read it. Thanks.

Here's the link again for others:
http://www.stuckmic.com/faa-rules-regulations/274-vfr-target-separation.html

I take it that you're a controller too?

Was. ATC runs in the family. No, I won't get in on this particular conversation about instructions to VFR aircraft. I provided three references out of the ch2 & ch7 of the .65 earlier. Mark also provided valid references. Read them, decide for yourself. As I said, trying to get controllers to agree the myriad of ATC rules and procedures is no small task.

 

[MarkZ]

I would handle it as a safety alert, I thought I made that pretty clear.

"Traffic alert, Waco zero one victor, twelve o'clock, one mile, advise you turn right heading zero six zero immediately."

I'd handle it by avoiding having to issue the safety alert, in much the same way Henning described in post 209. If I issue a simple vector to follow the traffic, no one has to panic.

 

[Henning]

This!

Well, what do they teach you for the decision making tree? Do they have you follow the standardized wording of the orders to assure that in E & G airspace that the decision rests with the pilot? That is all about controlling liability. Remember that one rule, do not incur liability outside your orders. If you follow the script the lawyers developed, you're doing fine. Just remember to use the words "suggest" or "advise" if you have to go off script, and you're still good. It's really as simple as that, and really, it's rare that I notice that protocol get violated.

 

[roncachamp]

I'd handle it by avoiding having to issue the safety alert, in much the same way Henning described in post 209. If I issue a simple vector to follow the traffic, no one has to panic.

You would take actions that violate the ATC order. I believe you've already made that clear

 

[bflynn]

Not to contact? Most definitely, VFR services are voluntary on both sides. "Radar services declined, remain clear of..." Is certainly a valid controller order to a VFR aircraft in E or G.

The question in the OP was rather one of "Can the Controller not release me in E or G? That is a bird of a different feather; the answer "no, he cannot refuse to release you." The choice is yours to cooperate with his ill stated request, or to drop services anyway. You could even clarify "on tape" "Sorry unable, going to CTAF for local traffic." You will not be punished regardless how you decide to proceed, the supervisor will not let it leave the office unless it's with the controller.

Can he not release you? Sure he can - all he has to do is nothing. If he doesn't state that services are terminated then they're not.

If you call him up and notify him that you're changing to the advisory frequency then you go. That's great too, unless he responds with a specific instruction to stay with him...which is rare, but does happen and usually for beneficial reasons to you.

The only catch is that if you're given an instruction from ATC then you're legally required to follow it, even in Class-E airspace, even if you'd rather do something else. You can unable or declare an emergency if those are appropriate.

Not sure what the big deal is.

 

[eetrojan]

I'd handle it by avoiding having to issue the safety alert, in much the same way Henning described in post 209. If I issue a simple vector to follow the traffic, no one has to panic.

Mark, Henning's post 209 has the hypothetical controller saying "Suggest come right to 045 to pass behind" after the pilot reports negative contact.

That sounds pretty similar to Ronchamp's "advise you turn ... immediately" language. Heck, without the immediately, it's less imperative. So, I'm confused what the disagreement is about.

It is because some controllers believe that they can't even suggest a vector unless the pilot specifically request one?

 

[bflynn]

There is no hope for you.

That's funny, I feel the same way. You haven't explained where you think the contradiction is. I've read both letters multiple times before and again over the past two days. If you know of a contradiction, then you ought to state it. If you cannot coherently state the contradiction then perhaps it's not really there. Thus far you haven't even tried.

 

[vintage cessna]

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.

 

[Henning]

Can he not release you? Sure he can - all he has to do is nothing. If he doesn't state that services are terminated then they're not.

If you call him up and notify him that you're changing to the advisory frequency then you go. That's great too, unless he responds with a specific instruction to stay with him...which is rare, but does happen and usually for beneficial reasons to you.

The only catch is that if you're given an instruction from ATC then you're legally required to follow it, even in Class-E airspace, even if you'd rather do something else. You can unable or declare an emergency if those are appropriate.

Not sure what the big deal is.

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.