"Extend downwind, I'll call your base."

[roncachamp]

I was once operating under a bravo clearance receiving vectors for traffic from a Minneapolis Bravo approach controller. The controller vectored me into class D airspace (I was not landing at that airport) and then proceeded to chew my ass for flying into that class D without contacting the class D tower. He demanded that I contacted the tower.

I contacted the tower and said something like "I'm over your airport, minneapolis approach vectored me here under a bravo clearance and now wants me to talk to you"...They handed me back to minneapolis approach and I had a different approach controller.

I'm pretty sure I didn't' do anything wrong -- but it was annoying to get chewed out over the air to say the least.

You didn't do anything wrong, the Minneapolis approach controller that vectored you into that Class D airspace without the required coordination was in the wrong.

 

[gismo]

I was once operating under a bravo clearance receiving vectors for traffic from a Minneapolis Bravo approach controller. The controller vectored me into class D airspace (I was not landing at that airport) and then proceeded to chew my ass for flying into that class D without contacting the class D tower. He demanded that I contacted the tower.

I contacted the tower and said something like "I'm over your airport, minneapolis approach vectored me here under a bravo clearance and now wants me to talk to you"...They handed me back to minneapolis approach and I had a different approach controller.

I'm pretty sure I didn't' do anything wrong -- but it was annoying to get chewed out over the air to say the least.

The only thing you did wrong was blunder into a controller having a bad day (and trying to blame his mistake on you). Chances are the reason you ended up talking to a different controller was because the sup pulled the guy who chewed you out off the position for a needed break.

 

[CJones]

If that's all they sai, no. But as discussed above, if you deviate from the published TPA, you are exposing yourself to a potential 91.13 violation.

So, if the published TPA isn't an ATC 'assigned' altitude:

If you are in a controlled airports traffic pattern, wouldn't the published TPA for that airport be your "assigned altitude"?

No. The traffic pattern at a towered airport is whatever the tower says it is.

And ATC doesn't assign another altitude restriction:

When flying a pattern, even when tower says "I will call your base turn", are you actually on an 'assigned' altitude?

Only if an altitude restriction has been assigned.

Then how is adjusting your altitude to maintain appropriate ground clearance a violation of 91.13?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So, if the published TPA isn't an ATC 'assigned' altitude:

And ATC doesn't assign another altitude restriction:

Then how is adjusting your altitude to maintain appropriate ground clearance a violation of 91.13?

BRSS.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm saying the D-space doesn't belong to the tower. Think about it, nonapproach control towers in Class G airspace issue the same instructions to VFR aircraft as nonapproach control towers in Class D airspace. What facility has jurisdiction over Class G airspace?

91.123(b) doesn't say "controlled airspace," it says "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." Are you suggesting that a tower doesn't "exercise control" over air traffic and thus subject the aircraft in their airspace to the requirements of 91.123(b)? If so, I don't think either the FAA or the NTSB agree with you. As a matter of law, you are indeed obligated to obey instructions from a control tower. I'll provide case law on point when the NTSB site comes back up.

 

[ScottM]

BRSS.

BRSS = Blue Ridge Soaring Society ?? http://www.brss.net/

Or does it mean something else?

 

[poadeleted20]

So, if the published TPA isn't an ATC 'assigned' altitude:

And ATC doesn't assign another altitude restriction:

Then how is adjusting your altitude to maintain appropriate ground clearance a violation of 91.13?

First, if you have to climb above TPA to maintain ground clearance, either you or the tower have already screwed up. Second, if you climb up from your TPA into the path of another aircraft in the heavy/jet pattern 500 above your TPA thus creating a collision hazard, I think the answer to your question would be obvious.

 

[Clark1961]

91.123(b) doesn't say "controlled airspace," it says "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." Are you suggesting that a tower doesn't "exercise control" over air traffic and thus subject the aircraft in their airspace to the requirements of 91.123(b)? If so, I don't think either the FAA or the NTSB agree with you. As a matter of law, you are indeed obligated to obey instructions from a control tower. I'll provide case law on point when the NTSB site comes back up.

Note that 91.123(b) doesn't address the type of instructions which ATC may issue to VFR traffic in the Delta. Now recall what the tower responsibilities are in the Delta.

More practically, have you ever been given a vector while VFR in a Delta? We routinely get them in Charlie or Bravo. Ever wonder why that is?

 

[roncachamp]

91.123(b) doesn't say "controlled airspace," it says "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

So what did you mean with this response:

In a Delta, can the tower assign altitude or heading to VFR traffic?

Absolutely. You're in controlled airspace, and they are the ATC facility with jurisdiction over that airspace. 91.123 refers.

Why was "controlled airspace" an issue when you wrote that but apparently is no longer?

Are you suggesting that a tower doesn't "exercise control" over air traffic and thus subject the aircraft in their airspace to the requirements of 91.123(b)? If so, I don't think either the FAA or the NTSB agree with you. As a matter of law, you are indeed obligated to obey instructions from a control tower. I'll provide case law on point when the NTSB site comes back up.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm trying to explain why your assumption that the tower is the ATC facility that has jurisdiction over Class D airspace is incorrect. Perhaps a hypothetical situation will help.

Suppose an intrepid aviator wants to depart Smallville Airport under VFR, but Smallville is in a Class D surface area and the surface visibility is 2 1/2 miles. PIREPs indicate the visibility a couple thousand feet up is significantly better, so IA requests a SVFR clearance from Smallville tower to climb to VFR conditions. The tower taxis IA to the departure runway and calls Metropolis approach for authorization to issue the SVFR clearance. Before IA reaches the runway he receives the clearance; "Climb to VFR within Smallville Class D surface area, maintain Special VFR conditions until reaching VFR." IA takes off, reports reaching VFR conditions to Smallville, and the tower bids him a hearty farewell.

The only interaction IA had with ATC was with Smallville tower, he doesn't know about the phone call to Metropolis approach. He assumes Smallville was the source of his SVFR clearance. But if Smallville tower was the facility with jurisdiction over the Class D surface area the call to Metropolis approach wouldn't have been necessary.

 

[gismo]

So what did you mean with this response:





Why was "controlled airspace" an issue when you wrote that but apparently is no longer?



I'm not suggesting anything, I'm trying to explain why your assumption that the tower is the ATC facility that has jurisdiction over Class D airspace is incorrect. Perhaps a hypothetical situation will help.

Suppose an intrepid aviator wants to depart Smallville Airport under VFR, but Smallville is in a Class D surface area and the surface visibility is 2 1/2 miles. PIREPs indicate the visibility a couple thousand feet up is significantly better, so IA requests a SVFR clearance from Smallville tower to climb to VFR conditions. The tower taxis IA to the departure runway and calls Metropolis approach for authorization to issue the SVFR clearance. Before IA reaches the runway he receives the clearance; "Climb to VFR within Smallville Class D surface area, maintain Special VFR conditions until reaching VFR." IA takes off, reports reaching VFR conditions to Smallville, and the tower bids him a hearty farewell.

The only interaction IA had with ATC was with Smallville tower, he doesn't know about the phone call to Metropolis approach. He assumes Smallville was the source of his SVFR clearance. But if Smallville tower was the facility with jurisdiction over the Class D surface area the call to Metropolis approach wouldn't have been necessary.

So even though a Class D tower controller doesn't have jurisdiction, they can issue "instructions" (e.g. clearances) that must be followed even though those instructions actually come from someone else who actually does have jurisdiction there.

 

[colohan]

Any thoughts on this issue?

Instead of guessing, I just called the KMYF tower and talked to and asked them what they would expect.

I was told: altitude is up to the pilot, if they believe it is safer to climb, they should climb. There is a highway east of the airport which might be usable for an emergency landing if the engine stops, but choice of emergency landing sites is up to the discretion of the pilot. If the pilot is on an extended downwind 'cause the pattern is really busy and wants to climb, the tower is not expecting someone to tell them that they are climbing -- they should just do it.

The controller also gave me his email address in case anyone had further questions. I'll refrain from posting it here to avoid spambots, but if anyone PMs me I'll forward it their way.

Chris

 

[CJones]

I have had my base called more than 4 miles from the airport and after I had left Delta airspace. This extended downwind leg is over densely populated suburbs of San Diego.

at times, that would put me within five hundred feet of some rooftops, and no way able to glide to any safe landing area.

First, if you have to climb above TPA to maintain ground clearance, either you or the tower have already screwed up.

Exactly - in my mind, tower has screwed up by extending your downwind to a point that puts you over an area where you are unable to maintain safe ground clearance. At that point, my duties as PIC say that I have every right to do what is necessary to save my own skin.

 

[CJones]

Instead of guessing, I just called the KMYF tower and talked to and asked them what they would expect.

I was told: altitude is up to the pilot, if they believe it is safer to climb, they should climb.
Chris

Thank you!!!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

BRSS = Blue Ridge Soaring Society ?? http://www.brss.net/

Or does it mean something else?

Because Ron Said So.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

91.123(b) doesn't say "controlled airspace," it says "in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." Are you suggesting that a tower doesn't "exercise control" over air traffic and thus subject the aircraft in their airspace to the requirements of 91.123(b)? If so, I don't think either the FAA or the NTSB agree with you. As a matter of law, you are indeed obligated to obey instructions from a control tower. I'll provide case law on point when the NTSB site comes back up.

Ron, this is a silly argument. You're trying to continue an argument from a long-ago thread...

Steven is not saying that you don't have to obey instructions from a tower in class D airspace - He's saying that a class D tower won't issue vectors to a VFR aircraft in class D airspace.

Can we all play nice now?

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree that a non-radar control tower can't issue radar vectors, but they can issue instructions to fly here or there in the pattern, and you can be busted for not following them. If the NTSB site wasn't still down, I'd point you to the case where a pilot was busted under 91.123(b) for turning base after being told to extend.

 

[roncachamp]

Ron, this is a silly argument. You're trying to continue an argument from a long-ago thread...

Steven is not saying that you don't have to obey instructions from a tower in class D airspace - He's saying that a class D tower won't issue vectors to a VFR aircraft in class D airspace.

Actually, I'm just saying nonapproach control towers don't "own" the Class D airspace.

This was more intuitive prior to airspace reclassification in 1993. Airport Traffic Areas were the region within a radius of five statute miles around any airport with an operating control tower, from the surface to 3000 feet MSL. Airport Traffic Areas were obviously "owned" by the tower, but were not a type of controlled airspace. Control Zones were areas of controlled airspace established at the surface to provide controlled airspace for terminal instrument operations, they were "owned" by whatever facility provided IFR services to the airport.

 

[roncachamp]

I agree that a non-radar control tower can't issue radar vectors, but they can issue instructions to fly here or there in the pattern, and you can be busted for not following them.

I don't believe anyone suggested otherwise.

 

[gismo]

I don't believe anyone suggested otherwise.

Now AFaIK tower controllers never "separate" aircraft in the air laterally beyond pointing out other traffic and/or instructing one airplane to follow another towards the landing runway (i.e. "sequencing"), but does approving a transition at a specific altitude (presumably above the published TPA) constitute vertical "separation"? This is the only form of altitude assignment/restriction I've ever heard issued from a tower controller to VFR aircraft. And since it appears that such an "instruction" (e.g. "transition approved at two thousand five hundred') might imply that other aircraft in the pattern are expected to remain at or below the TPA, does this somehow create a situation where ATC expects pilots in the pattern to act as if they have been given an "instruction" to remain so? Seems to me that if that were true there should be a FAR stating that in Class D, aircraft must remain at or below the TPA under certain conditions.

I'm having a hard time believing that there is any such expectation by tower controllers though. For one thing departing VFR aircraft routinely climb above the TPA whlle still inside the Class D and arriving aircraft normally reach TPA well inside the class D. If the expectation of remaining at or below the TPA only exists for aircraft "in the pattern", where exactly does that "pattern" end, permiting above TPA operation inside the class D?

 

[roncachamp]

Now AFaIK tower controllers never "separate" aircraft in the air laterally beyond pointing out other traffic and/or instructing one airplane to follow another towards the landing runway (i.e. "sequencing"), but does approving a transition at a specific altitude (presumably above the published TPA) constitute vertical "separation"? This is the only form of altitude assignment/restriction I've ever heard issued from a tower controller to VFR aircraft. And since it appears that such an "instruction" (e.g. "transition approved at two thousand five hundred') might imply that other aircraft in the pattern are expected to remain at or below the TPA, does this somehow create a situation where ATC expects pilots in the pattern to act as if they have been given an "instruction" to remain so? Seems to me that if that were true there should be a FAR stating that in Class D, aircraft must remain at or below the TPA under certain conditions.

I'm having a hard time believing that there is any such expectation by tower controllers though. For one thing departing VFR aircraft routinely climb above the TPA whlle still inside the Class D and arriving aircraft normally reach TPA well inside the class D. If the expectation of remaining at or below the TPA only exists for aircraft "in the pattern", where exactly does that "pattern" end, permiting above TPA operation inside the class D?

The only provisions in FAAO 7110.65 for the issuance of an altitude to VFR aircraft involve operations in Class B airspace, Class C airspace (including the Outer Area), and in TRSAs. FAAO 7110.65 does not specify the phraseology with which to approve the transition of Class D airspace. When a controller says, "transition approved at two thousand five hundred", he's rollin' his own.

 

[wsuffa]

Good question.

Last week I was coming into KPWK I was #2, right traffic for runway 34, a biz jet was left traffic and #1 for R34. The tower had told him he would call the base. The jet started to get very close to overflying O'Hare IAP and told the tower he was about to enter the SFC area around KORD. Tower cleared him into the surface area, called his turn, asked my to slow down and it all worked out perfectly. The key was that the jet let the tower know what was about to happen. I think this is one of those times when if the tower tells you they are calling your base and you aaccept, your only allowed to deviate from your clearence in an emergancy or imminent rules violation but you should still be telling ATC what it is you are about to do. The jet did not have much airspace to move about in at all.

This can be a real issue, too, in the DC SFRA. Not just with tower - but with Potomac tracon, too. You (as in the pilot) need to be very aware of your position relative to the FRZ, especially if you're headed into FME or on the Dulles east downwind transition. ATC is watching, but I've had at least one occurrance where they forgot about me on a vector straight toward the FRZ when headed into FME. I called and was given an immediate turn a mile from the FRZ boundary. Not comfortable at all.

 

[roncachamp]

Then how is adjusting your altitude to maintain appropriate ground clearance a violation of 91.13?

It ain't.