Got yelled at by ATC....

mtuomi said:
When was the last time you navigated VFR?
In VFR, direct XYZ at 4000 is not something you hear outside B/C airspace. I also don't think that is a "clearance" in VFR, it is an ATC instruction. FAA seems to think this way too in that letter above.
Click to expand...

It has been nearly 20 years, but I used to get clearances like that often. XYZ was not always a vor mind you. Coming out of LGA VFR we would get "direct the tower cab", or "proceed to Central Park", or "South Stansion of the Throgs".
 
EVERY instructor I have flown with here in the LA area has told me that I NEED to hear the magic words - "Cleared into Class Bravo" before entering the airspace.

WITHOUT HEARING THOSE WORDS, STAY CLEAR.
 
Yeah, but that opinion was Macpherson's and she still thinks that getting reimbursed for expenses in relation to work requires a commercial certificate and is considered operating for hire, so I'm about as likely to listen to her as I am my dog when it comes to FAA rules.
 
FlySince9 said:
Sounds pretty cut and dry to me... (page 2 first paragraph!)

Signed by Assistant Chief for Regulations,
Click to expand...

Not clear to me.. Vectors for traffic puts a different spin on it IMO. Plus, although the question apparently said altitude assignment, that was prior to the vector. Therefore, it appears the "vector for traffic" did not include an altitude. Splitting hairs? Probably. But that's what everyone seems to do here.

Let me ask you this:
If you are northbound skirting the east side edge of the B, and ATC comes on and gives you a left turn for traffic, and the freq is congested, would you turn into the Bravo?
 
Kritchlow said:
Not clear to me.. Vectors for traffic puts a different spin on it IMO. Plus, although the question apparently said altitude assignment, that was prior to the vector. Therefore, it appears the "vector for traffic" did not include an altitude. Splitting hairs? Probably. But that's what everyone seems to do here.

Let me ask you this:
If you are northbound skirting the east side edge of the B, and ATC comes on and gives you a left turn for traffic, and the freq is congested, would you turn into the Bravo?
Click to expand...

IFR sure.

VFR yes as I'm asking for the magic words.
 
Kritchlow said:
Please show me the regulation, and I will admit I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

ATC manual 7710.65, section 7-9-2 tells controllers how to issue clearances for VFR traffic into class B. There are only two choices for them. If you didn't hear one of the two, then the controller was NOT issuing a clearance according to the rules THEY play by.

Also, in the Doremire letter, the Chief Counsel disagrees with you. The first lines of page 2 read:
First, you question whether the vector providing the heading and altitude assignment is a clearance under 91.131(a) to enter the Los Angeles Class B airspace. The answer is no.
Click to expand...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...10/doremire - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

Do you require more?
 
Kritchlow said:
Please show me the regulation, and I will admit I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, FAR § 91.131(a)(1) says that to operate in Class B airspace, "the operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating in that area."

And, this Chief Counsel opinion re 91.131 says that a vector is navigation info and not a clearance:

First, you question whether the vector providing the heading and altitude assignment is a clearance under § 91.131(a)(1) to enter the Los Angeles Class B airspace. The answer is no. A pilot must specifically receive an ATC clearance to enter the class B airspace. The issuance of a vector provides navigation information but does not provide clearance from ATC to enter the subject airspace.
Click to expand...

2010 Dormire Opinion

Edit: Oops. What he said!
 
bflynn said:
ATC manual 7710.65, section 7-9-2 tells controllers how to issue clearances for VFR traffic into class B. There are only two choices for them. If you didn't hear one of the two, then the controller was NOT issuing a clearance according to the rules THEY play by.

Also, in the Doremire letter, the Chief Counsel disagrees with you. The first lines of page 2 read:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...10/doremire - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

Do you require more?
Click to expand...
Sure... You got more?

One interpretation from someone who, well....

Yes, I'll take more. Seeing as though there's no requirement for us to read the controllers manual or council interpretations, I'll take the reg if you have it...
 
Kritchlow said:
But... The frequency is too congested.
Click to expand...

Here is where judgement come in. If the traffic is reported danger close I might and risk the Bravo bust but if it is a ways away I would do something else. I've actually done this while near the Seattle Bravo and when challenged said that I wasn't cleared. The controller said "Sorry" and we went about our business.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
For what it's worth, FAR § 91.131(a)(1) says that to operate in Class B airspace, "the operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating in that area."

And, this Chief Counsel opinion re 91.131 says that a vector is navigation info and not a clearance:



2010 Dormire Opinion

Edit: Oops. What he said!
Click to expand...
Now that's interesting... So does that mean when I get a radar vector I'm flying without a clearance?
 
Kritchlow said:
Sure... You got more?

One interpretation from someone who, well....

Yes, I'll take more. Seeing as though there's no requirement for us to read the controllers manual or council interpretations, I'll take the reg if you have it...
Click to expand...

FAR § 91.131(a)(1) is a reg that says that to operate in Class B airspace, "the operator must receive an ATC clearance..."
 
Kritchlow said:
Sure... You got more?

One interpretation from someone who, well....

Yes, I'll take more. Seeing as though there's no requirement for us to read the controllers manual or council interpretations, I'll take the reg if you have it...
Click to expand...

Like I said, your certificate.

You've been shown the regulations and the decisions that have been made before hand. How do you think that goes down in some hypothetical future where you have to make a phone call for potential pilot deviation? You say "but a heading and altitude is a clearance" and they say "No, we don't issue it that way and one of the lawyers for the FAA has stated it is not".

What do you do next? Beg for them not to pull your ticket for 30-90 days?
 
Last edited:
red4golf said:
Here is where judgement come in. If the traffic is reported danger close I might and risk the Bravo bust but if it is a ways away I would do something else. I've actually done this while near the Seattle Bravo and when challenged said that I wasn't cleared. The controller said "Sorry" and we went about our business.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I am a firm believer in good judgement. Does it hurt to ask specifically for them to say it? No, certainly not if the frequency isn't congested. That said, I still maintain "Cessna 123 fly heading 080 maintain 4,000" is plenty adequate.
 
Again, it's MacPherson. I'll listen to my dog.
 
Kritchlow said:
Point me to that again? I read the council interpretation but may have missed that. Wouldn't be the first time I admit.
Click to expand...

Sure. I think that this paragraphs means that a vector ("go that way") is not equal to a clearance to enter any particular airspace that you may encounter when you do go that way:

First, you question whether the vector providing the heading and altitude assignment is a clearance under § 91.131(a)(1) to enter the Los Angeles Class B airspace. The answer is no. A pilot must specifically receive an ATC clearance to enter the class B airspace. The issuance of a vector provides navigation information but does not provide clearance from ATC to enter the subject airspace.
Click to expand...

Seems kind of odd, but makes sense when you consider that the vector may be given by a controller that is one or more steps removed from the airspace.
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
Sure. I think that this paragraphs means that a vector ("go that way") is not equal to a clearance to enter any particular airspace that you may encounter when you do go that way:



Seems kind of odd, but makes sense when you consider that the vector may be given by a controller that is one or more steps removed from the airspace.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense IMO seeing as though it doesn't differentiate VFR from IFR. Obviously IFR it's a clearance...
 
If VFR you must hear a transmission with your call sign and the words "Cleared into the Bravo". The only exception is if your on a runway of the primary airport and tower clears you to takeoff.
 
Kritchlow said:
That makes no sense IMO seeing as though it doesn't differentiate VFR from IFR. Obviously IFR it's a clearance...
Click to expand...

It's only talking about a VFR situtation. In the prior paragraph, the opinion says:

In your letter, you describe a scenario where a pilot is "departing KVNY 16L for eastbound departure along V-I 08 with VFR Flight Following. ***
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but that opinion was Macpherson's and she still thinks that getting reimbursed for expenses in relation to work requires a commercial certificate and is considered operating for hire, so I'm about as likely to listen to her as I am my dog when it comes to FAA rules.
Click to expand...

Which is ironic -- isn't she now legal counsel for one of those companies looking to share flights over the internet?
 
One more piece

170.3 — Definitions provides the answer
Air traffic clearance means an authorization by air traffic control for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft.

The important part of this is that the clearance is given by ATC, meaning that the only real clearance is one that will come from them by their rulebook (7750.65). In that document there is a section for issuing a VFR clearance to operate in Class B and it only names two methods. There is no other method by which a controller can grant a clearance.

Now - have you maybe been working with controllers that aren't working in the system or that take the attitude that they told you, so it's OK? Sounds like it. I wouldn't expect that everywhere.

Turn it around - by what regulation do you believe that a VFR instruction is a clearance?
 
Kritchlow said:
Indeed. I am a firm believer in good judgement. Does it hurt to ask specifically for them to say it? No, certainly not if the frequency isn't congested. That said, I still maintain "Cessna 123 fly heading 080 maintain 4,000" is plenty adequate.
Click to expand...

Aiight

Let is know how that works for you.
 
Sam D said:
Which is ironic -- isn't she now legal counsel for one of those companies looking to share flights over the internet?
Click to expand...

Yep, she writes "law" to **** a bunch of people over, and then bails to say "well, I didn't mean **** my new company over, just the peons who can't afford in-house counsel"
 
Sam D said:
Which is ironic -- isn't she now legal counsel for one of those companies looking to share flights over the internet?
Click to expand...

Found it. She's Airpooler's attorney.

From this article:

Rebecca MacPherson, Airpooler’s attorney and the FAA’s former assistant chief counsel for regulations, said “the FAA is just flat wrong” in its interpretation of rules regarding the flight-sharing services. She said federal rules explicitly allow limited cost-sharing between passengers and private pilots.
Click to expand...
 
May I suggest the only way to clear this up would be if you would call MCO approach on the phone? Tell them you want to discuss the specific incident (give date, time, location, N#, have your cert # handy) and how you are upset with how the controller was rude to you (despite you having every legal right to operate the airplane where you were).
Ask for the supervisor and tell him/her you want to see that this controller is appropriately reprimanded for the unjust way you were treated, and that your only wish is to ensure no further pilots are disrespected by this errant controller again.

Just an idea.
 
My experience is that in busy airspace, esp. during rush hour, controllers forget the magic words at least 10% of the time (just a guesstimate).
If I am VFR, and the harried controller blurts out, "Bugsmasher 567, proceed direct XYZ, descend and maintain 3000" and that penetrates the Bravo, I acknowledge and follow the "instruction" like a good boy, and don't try to force myself into the wall-to-wall ATC has with 20 business jets and airliners to say, "verify class B clearance".
If there is any doubt about anything, sure, I'll ask.
And per my percentage above, the vast majority of the time they do tack on "cleared into the B".
 
McPherson actually works for Jones Day, an international high power law firm. AirPooler hired Jones Day (and McPherson) to argue their case.

Apparently she was correct when she was at the FAA.
 
Like everything in life, there's always rotten apples. It'd be a great day if these snarky controllers could do their job and just cut the attitude inherent to these "ive got a secret" reindeer games. The whole thing is petty, unnecessary and avoidable.
 
Kritchlow said:
Now that's interesting... So does that mean when I get a radar vector I'm flying without a clearance?
Click to expand...

Not unless you canceled IFR.

The requirement in 91.131 is to receive a clearance before operating in class B airspace. That requirement was fulfilled when you received your IFR clearance. Subsequently receiving a vector does not go back in time and alter the fact that you received a clearance before entering the class B.
 
EdFred said:
Again, it's MacPherson. I'll listen to my dog.
Click to expand...

I would never claim that the Chief Counsel's employees are infallible. I just posted it because it appears to be relevant to the question. Whether any individual wants to go with their own interpretation instead of the FAA's is, of course, a personal decision involving one's risk tolerance regarding the probability and outcome of enforcement actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top