Flying under the Charlie shelf

[crash7]

When you told him bye and he responded with a heading and an instruction to remain on this frequency you WERE STILL on Flight Following in controlled airspace. So I contend then that failure to comply with that instruction is a violation.

That's why you hear, "Squawk VFR, frequency changed approved" when you advise that you are discontinuing Flight Following. Then you're off the hook.

If you are in class E airspace and tell ATC you’re canceling Radar Services, I am not aware of ANY reg that allows ATC to force continuing services upon you. Please tell me the number if there is.

Class E is indeed controlled airspace. -IF YOU WANT YO PLAY THE GAME-
Unlike class B, C, or D where you -are- forced to play the game if you want to be in that airspace. Think of class E as “controllABLE”.

These facts have nothing to do with what’s polite, helpful, safe or smart. They’re just facts (open for correction, of course, I’m always learning).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NordicDave]

I think most of us has been in a situation like this at one point or another, flying around The edge of control airspace. Like others have suggested when told frequency change approved, tell them you are remaining clear of the air space, squawking VFR, and remaining on this frequency.

If it were me, tell departure control or ground control (whichever is the process for the given airport) you’d like to squawk VFR clear of the airspace for a local flight, and monitor the tower or approach frequency (whichever one’s appropriate for the airport).

Others may have a better idea.

 

[dbahn]

If you are in class E airspace and tell ATC you’re canceling Radar Services, I am not aware of ANY reg that allows ATC to force continuing services upon you. Please tell me the number if there is.

Class E is indeed controlled airspace. -IF YOU WANT YO PLAY THE GAME-
Unlike class B, C, or D where you -are- forced to play the game if you want to be in that airspace. Think of class E as “controllABLE”.

These facts have nothing to do with what’s polite, helpful, safe or smart. They’re just facts (open for correction, of course, I’m always learning).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree and don't know of any specific reg other than 91.123. But as with all regulations the FAA gets the advantage in interpreting them, and if their administrative law judges sides with that interpretation you’re stuck with that.

So as pilots all we can do is speculate how they will interpret a reg in a specific situation, or else find a Chief Council opinion that clarifies it. Personally then, I would never ignore an instruction to remain on the frequency, even if I was I was legally able to do so, even including within class G airspace. Why wave a red flag in front of the bull?

I think any advice to just tell ATC that you’re leaving the frequency without a response of approval back is poor advice and could result in an undesirable action that was so easily avoided. Just my opinion . . .

 

[Velocity173]

When you told him bye and he responded with a heading and an instruction to remain on this frequency you WERE STILL on Flight Following in controlled airspace. So I contend then that failure to comply with that instruction is a violation.

That's why you hear, "Squawk VFR, frequency changed approved" when you advise that you are discontinuing Flight Following. Then you're off the hook.

Negative, they would be in violation of their order by continuing to provide Class C services after the pilot terminated. They have required phraseology that must be done verbatim for that termination. You will not find ANYWHERE any policy allowing them to override a pilots request to terminate. That would be like telling a pilot that they can’t cancel IFR.

Not to mention they would be requiring the pilot to maintain two way comms in airspace where no comms are required (91.130).

 

[write-stuff]

So you decide to squawk VFR and change frequencies. What if the controller gives you a heading and instructs you to "remain on this frequency"?

What if you are already in class G airspace when that exchange takes place?

Technically, if you're still within a 20-mile radius of the Class C airport, you are in the "outer area". This is separate from the Class C, but it is still airspace that is controlled by the approach controller. You can legally cancel VFR advisory service, but it would be prudent to follow ATC instructions.

 

[N1120A]

My home airport kcmi. We maybe get a dozen regional jets a day, and have a lot of part 141 activity. We have a lot less traffic than kbmi, which is a delta about 40 miles away.

It's funny, the people I know who trained at untowered airports hate talking to controllers and avoid towered airports. I get apprehensive about flying into uncontrolled fields. I'm assuming I'll get better the more I do it, but listening and broadcasting on the ctaf with people talking in staticky voices 100 miles away.... hate it.

Yeah, I agree with you. I much prefer towered airports to untowered ones.

 

[dbahn]

Negative, they would be in violation of their order by continuing to provide Class C services after the pilot terminated. They have required phraseology that must be done verbatim for that termination. You will not find ANYWHERE any policy allowing them to override a pilots request to terminate. That would be like telling a pilot that they can’t cancel IFR.

Not to mention they would be requiring the pilot to maintain two way comms in airspace where no comms are required (91.130).

View attachment 79926

I'm talking about class E airspace where voluntary flight following is exercised, not necessarily class C or outer shelf. Comms are not required and certainly there is no requirement to be in contact with ATC, but once that contact has been established I would maintain that the regulation requires the pilot to comply with any ATC instruction.

 

[wayne]

I do in fact live nearly directly under the extended centerline of the primary runway, about 9 miles out. It was my understanding though that the Charlie was configured to contain the approach path and keep separation with vfr traffic.

That's probably the biggest part of the problem. I was going to ask if you were inline with the runway or under part of one of the approaches.

There's not a lot of room under a C shelf. Plenty for a small GA plane, but might make some controllers nervous when a 737 is coming in over you on a descent into the airport.

As someone suggested, give them a call sometime and talk to them about what you want to do. Plus let them know on the radio too. And that you can swing out of the way to let an airliner in will probably help too.

ATC is usually happy to help, they just need to know what to plan for.

 

[Velocity173]

I'm talking about class E airspace where voluntary flight following is exercised, not necessarily class C or outer shelf. Comms are not required and certainly there is no requirement to be in contact with ATC, but once that contact has been established I would maintain that the regulation requires the pilot to comply with any ATC instruction.

What? So you’re saying a pilot can terminate while in the outer area class E but once they’re outside the outer area in E, they can’t terminate unless ATC allows them to?

You just said it’s “voluntary.” How is a pilot forced to comply with an instruction when they no longer volunteer to receive that service? And again, they’re in airspace (class E) that doesn’t require two way comms.

This reminds of the thread where some female pilot was departing Chandler AZ (class D) and had a PD. The tower controller instructed her to return to the field and land. That is completely unauthorized and violates that pilot’s PIC authority. ATC can only issue instructions that are legally authorized through their order. They can’t make things up just because they’re ATC.

 

[Shuswap BC]

What? So you’re saying a pilot can terminate while in the outer area class E but once they’re outside the outer area in E, they can’t terminate unless ATC allows them to?

You just said it’s “voluntary.” How is a pilot forced to comply with an instruction when they no longer volunteer to receive that service? And again, they’re in airspace (class E) that doesn’t require two way comms.

This reminds of the thread where some female pilot was departing Chandler AZ (class D) and had a PD. The tower controller instructed her to return to the field and land. That is completely unauthorized and violates that pilot’s PIC authority. ATC can only issue instructions that are legally authorized through their order. They can’t make things up just because they’re ATC.

And just to add to what you already said, which is 100% correct. When they do "ask" a pilot to do something, you don't have comply. Instead of just reading it back to them, acknowledging that you understood what they said, and will comply, you can say no, and ask to do something else, then see if they will allow it. Unless dangerous, they usually are happy to let you. The pilot is always the one with final say in how the aircraft will be flown. I regularly disregard the tower, and ask for alternate plans. I cannot think of any time of the thousands that I asked, they said no. In fact sometimes they really appreciate it when a pilot offers a suggestion. A few months ago I was going straight into an airport, not flying any part of the pattern except a long final. Behind me was a Beech 1900 airliner, he was asked to slow down as much as possible and was number two for landing. I got on the radio and said that I would be glad to keep my speed up and not touch down before the halfway point of the runway. The controller thanked me, then asked the 1900 if they were comfortable landing before I might be clear of the active, and if they could be down in the first 500 feet. The 1900 said yes, and then thanked me. Just as i turned left onto the taxi way, I looked out the side window, as they touched down. Once on ground frequency, the 1900 pilot thanked me again. Speak up pilots of the world!

 

[dbahn]

I'm saying that if you're on Flight Following, the controller gives you a heading instruction and tells you to remain on this frequency and that if your failure to comply creates any kind of an event that resulted in a conflict you likely will be held accountable for failing to comply with an instruction issued by ATC. While I agree that there's no regulation that allows them to override a pilot's request to terminate, there IS a regulation that requires a pilot to comply with an ATC instruction, and I maintain that takes precedent over the absence of a regulation.

(Note that there's no regulation as such that you can't make right turns in the pattern (for instance) but there IS a regulation that all turns must be made to the left, and many regulations are similarly written.)

I just wouldn't take the chance of not complying with an instruction.

 

[dbahn]

Speak up pilots of the world!

No argument with the need for cooperation and courtesy in all airspace, and part of my position with respect to complying with an ATC instruction (including in class G) is based on cooperation rather than defiance, i.e. comply with the instruction first then work something else out as soon as practical.

 

[Jim K]

That's probably the biggest part of the problem. I was going to ask if you were inline with the runway or under part of one of the approaches.

There's not a lot of room under a C shelf. Plenty for a small GA plane, but might make some controllers nervous when a 737 is coming in over you on a descent into the airport.

As someone suggested, give them a call sometime and talk to them about what you want to do. Plus let them know on the radio too. And that you can swing out of the way to let an airliner in will probably help too.

ATC is usually happy to help, they just need to know what to plan for.

The biggest thing we get here is an ERJ.

How much separation is required?

 

[Velocity173]

The biggest thing we get here is an ERJ.

How much separation is required?

500 ft vertical. Lateral is target resolution (targets not touching).

 

[Shuswap BC]

I'm saying that if you're on Flight Following, the controller gives you a heading instruction and tells you to remain on this frequency and that if your failure to comply creates any kind of an event that resulted in a conflict you likely will be held accountable for failing to comply with an instruction issued by ATC. While I agree that there's no regulation that allows them to override a pilot's request to terminate, there IS a regulation that requires a pilot to comply with an ATC instruction, and I maintain that takes precedent over the absence of a regulation.

(Note that there's no regulation as such that you can't make right turns in the pattern (for instance) but there IS a regulation that all turns must be made to the left, and many regulations are similarly written.)

I just wouldn't take the chance of not complying with an instruction.

Hmmm so where the pattern is right hand, then you just stay away from those airports or .......

 

[dbahn]

I did a little more research, out of curiosity, and found a 2013 Chief Counsel letter, which typically carries a lot of weight in any enforcement action. This quote is taken from that letter, which is linked and also attached below:

A pilot flying VFR in Class E airspace, which is controlled airspace, is not required to communicate with ATC; however, if a pilot is communicating with ATC and ATC issues an instruction, the pilot must comply with that instruction.

Chief Counsel Interpretation

So it remains even clearer to me that if you get an instruction from ATC (and particularly a heading or similar action) while in class E airspace and choose not to comply you are violating the regulation and could face certificate action. And that's from the legal perspective. I think from a safety and courtesy perspective it's even more compelling to comply. Just my opinion . . .

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah, we’ve had that letter on here several times. In order to be a valid instruction, I actually have to be up the freq. Again, they can’t override a pilots authority and make them do something that’s not dictated by regulation or order. “Remain my frequency” is not listed as one of the instructions in the CC letter. That’s because it’s not an instruction that they’re authorized to give.

It even states at the bottom that a pilot
is not required to communicate with ATC. So, the heading is given, I acknowledge and immediately terminate after that instruction because there is no requirement to stay up the freq. Done.

 

[dbahn]

Yeah, we’ve had that letter on here several times. In order to be a valid instruction, I actually have to be up the freq. Again, they can’t override a pilots authority and make them do something that’s not dictated by regulation or order. “Remain my frequency” is not listed as one of the instructions in the CC letter. That’s because it’s not an instruction that they’re authorized to give.

It even states at the bottom that a pilot is not required to communicate with ATC. So, the heading is given, I acknowledge and immediately terminate after that instruction because there is no requirement to stay up the freq. Done.

Go for it! One of three things can happen:

1. They'll ignore your action
2. A reportable loss of separation will occur and initiate an inquiry (he gave the instruction for a reason)
3. You'll wave the red flag in front of the bull (the controller) and he'll take action with the FSDO.

In either #2 or #3, the FSDO has all the weapons - time, money, regulations, and a Chief Counsel opinion. Personally, I'm not going to risk my ticket to try to prove that my opinion is better than theirs, which has been my position throughout this thread.

 

[Velocity173]

Go for it! One of three things can happen:

1. They'll ignore your action
2. A reportable loss of separation will occur and initiate an inquiry (he gave the instruction for a reason)
3. You'll wave the red flag in front of the bull (the controller) and he'll take action with the FSDO.

In either #2 or #3, the FSDO has all the weapons - time, money, regulations, and a Chief Counsel opinion. Personally, I'm not going to risk my ticket to try to prove that my opinion is better than theirs, which has been my position throughout this thread.

There is no loss of separation because the class E in your example doesn’t have separation standards for VFRs. Even while receiving traffic advisories in your example, a vector to avoid is by pilot request. Thats why the whole Basic Radar Services thing is optional for the pilot. It’s not, “well you made contact with me now I’m going to force you to receive an optional service because I know what’s best.” You’re not going to find that authority in any manual anywhere. The controller can’t issue instructions that are in conflict with their order or the FARs. Period.

 

[Shuswap BC]

Go for it! One of three things can happen:

1. They'll ignore your action
2. A reportable loss of separation will occur and initiate an inquiry (he gave the instruction for a reason)
3. You'll wave the red flag in front of the bull (the controller) and he'll take action with the FSDO.

In either #2 or #3, the FSDO has all the weapons - time, money, regulations, and a Chief Counsel opinion. Personally, I'm not going to risk my ticket to try to prove that my opinion is better than theirs, which has been my position throughout this thread.

Ask to visit a tower sometime, go up for a coffee and chat. Ask them point blank if they are an advisory service there to help pilots, or the boss telling pilots what to do. Don't sugar coat it, ask them straight up. I have visited 9 towers, met some great people, had awesome chats, some mediocre coffee, and asked them straight up to best describe their role in the system. They are an advisory service to help, us pilots are burdened with the final decision on how we are going to fly. The last tower I visited was this summer, it was May or June, had an awesome visit. After my little visit, I got my Bonanza ready, and although they were using 16 as the active, I simply asked for 34 instead, and said no backtrack required, I would just take it from the intersection. A very cheerful voice cleared me for take off on 34, it was nice to be able to put a face to the voice. This same voice had months earlier asked me if I was okay to join downwind right one afternoon, and fly the pattern right handed, to land on runway 16, following the Seneca ahead of me, who was practicing right hand circuits while doing touch and goes. I said sure, sounds good and acknowledge right hand circuit, number two to land on 16. She came back on and actually thanked me by name, these are humans, not robots sent to earth for the sole purpose of beating you down as a pilot.
Be polite, but take charge of your airplane, you are the PIC after all.

 

[Bobanna]

Ask to visit a tower sometime, go up for a coffee and chat. Ask them point blank if they are an advisory service there to help pilots, or the boss telling pilots what to do. Don't sugar coat it, ask them straight up. I have visited 9 towers, met some great people, had awesome chats, some mediocre coffee, and asked them straight up to best describe their role in the system. They are an advisory service to help, us pilots are burdened with the final decision on how we are going to fly. The last tower I visited was this summer, it was May or June, had an awesome visit. After my little visit, I got my Bonanza ready, and although they were using 16 as the active, I simply asked for 34 instead, and said no backtrack required, I would just take it from the intersection. A very cheerful voice cleared me for take off on 34, it was nice to be able to put a face to the voice. This same voice had months earlier asked me if I was okay to join downwind right one afternoon, and fly the pattern right handed, to land on runway 16, following the Seneca ahead of me, who was practicing right hand circuits while doing touch and goes. I said sure, sounds good and acknowledge right hand circuit, number two to land on 16. She came back on and actually thanked me by name, these are humans, not robots sent to earth for the sole purpose of beating you down as a pilot.
Be polite, but take charge of your airplane, you are the PIC after all.

Thank you. As pilots, our first priority is safety. ATC isn't lurking to go after anyone's certificate; their product is separation and a safe system. Who would ever play legal-begal in order to countermand a controller's request for maintenance of an orderly system? Simple conversational requests and statements of intentions are adequate in virtually all situations; I look to ATC as advocates and partners striving to help their flying customers. Fly safely

 

[Lindberg]

Yeah, we’ve had that letter on here several times. In order to be a valid instruction, I actually have to be up the freq. Again, they can’t override a pilots authority and make them do something that’s not dictated by regulation or order. “Remain my frequency” is not listed as one of the instructions in the CC letter. That’s because it’s not an instruction that they’re authorized to give.

It even states at the bottom that a pilot
is not required to communicate with ATC. So, the heading is given, I acknowledge and immediately terminate after that instruction because there is no requirement to stay up the freq. Done.

The controller might not be supposed to do it, but from the pilot's perspective, if ATC gives me an instruction in controlled airspace (anything other than G), I will consider it mandatory. If he heard me and I heard him, we are "in communication" whether I want, or he is providing, services. I don't know what he is or isn't supposed to phrase as an instruction or a recommendation, and if he screws that up it's between him and the FAA. Of course, "unable" is a possibility.

 

[Velocity173]

The controller might not be supposed to do it, but from the pilot's perspective, if ATC gives me an instruction in controlled airspace (anything other than G), I will consider it mandatory. If he heard me and I heard him, we are "in communication" whether I want, or he is providing, services. I don't know what he is or isn't supposed to phrase as an instruction or a recommendation, and if he screws that up it's between him and the FAA. Of course, "unable" is a possibility.

Yeah no a argument there but after that instruction is issued, the pilot is not required to continue with FF. Therefore they are free to cancel, chance frequency and go about their way.

And I know some are thinking, well its ATC and if they issued a vector it’s got to be for a valid reason right? Not necessarily, all controllers aren’t created equal. I’ve been jerked around by controllers (ATL) in class E and the conflicting aircraft were in no conflict at all. Sounds like what the OP is experiencing. I’ve also have controllers who are good and will run an airliner right by me with 500 ft vertical and just issue a traffic call.

ATC these days is getting too heavy handed when it comes to FF. Issue the traffic and let the pilot decide. That’s what the book says to do. I did that many times on approach. Give the traffic, let the pilot decide if they want vectors or not. No vectors and the traffic is now a factor, issue “targets appear likely to merge” and suggest a vector. Still not wanting a vector, issue a safety alert. Even a safety alert with an instruction is advisory only. It’s up to the PIC to decide what to do. I guess nowadays we want ATC to lead us by the hand under FF instead of letting the pilot decide what to do.

 

[PaulS]

The last thing I care is if a controller sounds aggravated. They are in contact with many people in any snippet of time, they could be aggravated with any of them. When they give you an instruction opposite of what you want ask them why, it's a negotiation, usually they'll have a good reason, like traffic. Push comes to shove you can cancel, or tell them you'll cancel if it's easier for them. I suspect most of the time they'll want to be talking to you, rather than rerouting traffic around you. Ask, don't worry if they are grumpy.

 

[timwinters]

That's my understanding as well. I don't have to talk to them, but I have to comply if I choose to. Honestly I want to work within the 'system', and from what I read, the controllers would rather be talking to you as well. It seems like there should be a way to make it work.

you stated that very clearly in your OP...apparently many here can't read.

And when the adsb mandate kicks in, the unequipped airplanes I can't see with my stratux are going to be concentrated..... under the shelf.

Actually, I don't believe this will be true. IIRC...Once the ADSB mandate goes into effect you won't be able to fly over or under class B or C without it. Additionally, I think you have to stay out of the class B mode C veil (which I assume will be renamed "the ADSB veil).

 

[luvflyin]

That's my understanding as well. I don't have to talk to them, but I have to comply if I choose to. Honestly I want to work within the 'system', and from what I read, the controllers would rather be talking to you as well. It seems like there should be a way to make it work.

There is a way it could work. That you remain with them for Basic Radar Service in the Outer Area without Class C service. It would be that you say "Negative Class C Service." Just like you can say "Negative TRSA Service" in a TRSA. Just as a TRSA is not regulated airspace, neither is an Outer Area. There should be no 'legality' preventing this from happening. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the FAA to run with it.