Non-Direct Flight Following

[Gilbert Buettner]

BTW - I do not believe I am obligated to accept any vectors/altitudes given to me by a Controller while on Flight Following assuming of course that I am not in B/C/D/SFRA airspace. If I am given vectors or altitude restrictions and I do accept them then I do think I have to follow them. Realistically, if a controller gives me a vector, I will accept it and follow it unless I have a valid safety concern.

Take a look at 91.123 "Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions." It says, "Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." Seems clear to me that in Class E, you have to follow vectors unless you have an emergency.

 

[Half Fast]

Seems clear to me that in Class E, you have to follow vectors unless you have an emergency.

“Unable. Cloud.”

But arbitrarily refusing a vector from a controller who is looking at a radar screen and trying to prevent two aircraft from co-occupying space might not be the wisest decision.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

“Unable. Cloud.”

In which case, you may just get a new vector to follow.

 

[Half Fast]

In which case, you may just get a new vector to follow.

And if there isn’t a cloud there, too, the pilot may just accept it.

But the point was that an emergency isn’t the only circumstance in which a VFR pilot can refuse an ATC vector.

 

[Palmpilot]

Chief Counsel came out with an interpretation years ago that while receiving FF in controlled airspace, you must comply with all instructions including vectors. While that’s in conflict with the controllers manual for Basic Radar Services, it’s not for the pilot to overrule.

Obviously in case of an emergency or the instruction would violate a FAR (cloud distance criteria), the pilot has final authority.

This thread starts with a link to that interpretation (which I have just now edited to fix the broken link):

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...hority-over-vfr-in-controlled-airspace.60082/

 

[flyingron]

Years ago I was departing RIC (a class C airport) with the kids (we'd flown down to see the Richmond Air Museum). The kids wanted to know if we could fly over Kings Dominion on the way back. It was the dead of winter and the park wasn't open so why not?

I told ground that I'd be heading to IAD, but we didn't need flight following because we were going to go to Kings Dominion. They said no problem.

Upon, takeoff and handoff for departure:

RIC Approach: Navion 27K radar contact. Report King's Dominion in sight.

a few minutes later I reported it in sight and they said to let them know when I was ready to proceed on to Dulles.

 

[dtuuri]

Chief Counsel came out with an interpretation years ago that while receiving FF in controlled airspace, you must comply with all instructions including vectors.

I've cancelled participation in a TRSA after I didn't like the assigned heading and ATC can't stop an IFR aircraft from canceling their IFR flight plan, so I'd think somebody on flight following could also, likewise, undo the arrangement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

BTW - I do not believe I am obligated to accept any vectors/altitudes given to me by a Controller while on Flight Following assuming of course that I am not in B/C/D/SFRA airspace. I

It's al about 91.123(b): "Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." That pretty much tracks the definition of "controlled airspace" in FAR 1.1:

Controlled airspace means an airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification.

Note - Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace.​

Here's the Chief Counsel letter others referred to. (Edit: multiple times)

 

[Velocity173]

I've cancelled participation in a TRSA after I didn't like the assigned heading and ATC can't stop an IFR aircraft from canceling their IFR flight plan, so I'd think somebody on flight following could also, likewise, undo the arrangement.

Well we’ve beaten the subject of ATC not allowing termination to death on POA, so I won’t go there. But yes, I’ve cancelled FF as well when ATC was giving vectors that I considered excessive. I was never told to “resume own navigation” either. I’m still on a perpetual 290 from ATL Center waiting for my fuel to run out.

 

[Half Fast]

But yes, I’ve cancelled FF as well when ATC was giving vectors that I considered excessive. I was never told to “resume own navigation” either.

Squawk 7600.....

 

[Palmpilot]

Well we’ve beaten the subject of ATC not allowing termination to death on POA, so I won’t go there. But yes, I’ve cancelled FF as well when ATC was giving vectors that I considered excessive. I was never told to “resume own navigation” either. I’m still on a perpetual 290 from ATL Center waiting for my fuel to run out.

I'm not a lawyer, but for what it's worth, there are specific regulations that require two-way communications, for example, the one that requires that "a continuous watch" be maintained on the appropriate frequency when flying IFR in controlled airspace. If you're in a situation where no such regulation applies, there wouldn't seem to be anything to prevent just changing frequency without announcing it. However, I wouldn't do that unless ATC instructions to remain on frequency became habitually abusive (which is a situation that I've never experienced).

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not a lawyer, but for what it's worth, there are specific regulations that require two-way communications, for example, the one that requires that "a continuous watch" be maintained on the appropriate frequency when flying IFR in controlled airspace. If you're in a situation where no such regulation applies, there wouldn't seem to be anything to prevent just changing frequency without announcing it. However, I wouldn't do that unless ATC instructions to remain on frequency became habitually abusive (which is a situation that I've never experienced).

There are several things going on (aside from the Chief Counsel saying, "this is how the FAA treats it"). Some regulatory, some guidance, some practical.

One, of course, is the language if 91.123. I'm not sure how switching frequencies while saying nothing is following an instruction,

A second is that an unexplained loss of ATC communications can generate an ALNOT. That's discussed in both the AIM and the controller manual. I was once in a situation where I lost contact with ATC due to terrain, I called a FSS frequency to ask them to let ATC know I had no problem.

Based on some discussions with AG and RH from Opposing Bases, it seems many controllers are not aware that "turn left xxx heading for traffic" in Class E responded to with crickets and a changed transponder code, is a pilot deviation. And I suspect that unless it takes place in busy airspace where it causes a real problem, most won't bother with the paperwork.

But that's about "getting away with it." Not about what might happen if you don't.

None of that is about being a lawyer. Mostly it's about understanding it's a system in which a number of different rules and policies join together and that focusing on only one paints a less-than-complete picture.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm not sure how switching frequencies while saying nothing is following an instruction,

I assume that once an instruction has been received, you're stuck with following it unless you can negotiate something else.

My theory was that unless the controller tells the pilot to remain on frequency, then changing frequency without saying anything does not by itself violate an instruction. I'm not saying that I know what I'm talking about, however.

 

[bflynn]

I do not believe I am obligated to accept any vectors/altitudes given to me by a Controller while on Flight Following assuming of course that I am not in B/C/D/SFRA airspace.

E is also controlled airspace. Therefore, if you're talking to controllers and they give you a vector, you must comply.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I assume that once an instruction has been received, you're stuck with following it unless you can negotiate something else.

My theory was that unless the controller tells the pilot to remain on frequency, then changing frequency without saying anything does not by itself violate an instruction. I'm not saying that I know what I'm talking about, however.

That's why I mentioned the ALNOT issue. I don't think your question has an easy regulatory answer. I can see your point but also wonder about that earlier instruction to "squawk 4556"?

 

[Palmpilot]

That's why I mentioned the ALNOT issue. I don't think your question has an easy regulatory answer. I can see your point but also wonder about that earlier instruction to "squawk 4556"?

Maybe the pilot could just not change the squawk. Would that violate any regulation?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Maybe the pilot could just not change the squawk. Would that violate any regulation?

Beats me.

 

[Palmpilot]

Theoretical loopholes aside, personally, if two-way communications are not required, I just don't request services in the first place if the service in a particular area habitually gets to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[write-stuff]

If there are multiple legs without a bunch of meandering, I'd say "Flight following to XYZ, via ABC, DEF, and GHI."

 

[Sundancer]

My alternative in the DC/Baltimore area was not bothering with flight following after clearing the Class B and SFRA.

Theoretical loopholes aside, personally, if two-way communications are not required, I just don't request services in the first place if the service in a particular area habitually gets to be more trouble than it's worth.

That was my course - - just not bothering with it when VFR after clearing the Class B and SFRA in the DC/Baltimore area. It wasn't always a hassle, but it was hit or miss depending on the controller.

 

[woodchucker]

ATC is helpful to utilize. If you are not going direct tell them your route plan. It’s not a complicated issue. Usually they will offer best routing if possible. At least here. Once wanted to duck lower for a bit of sight seeing and it was a non issue. Controller advised of potential Comm drops and it was a non-issue.

Utilizing ATC I get relative shortcuts through Bravo space. Being in contact while in Bravo can get quicker options. Recently was asked to remain clear of Bravo while with ATC and approaching traffic at my altitude prompted me to request Bravo clearance a few minutes later. No problem. Wanted to climb into the shelf if necessary for traffic avoidance.

After the fact the controller told me I never entered the Bravo but I told him that I wanted the safety factor. He thanked me and it was all good. Controllers … I believe .. generally are there to help.

I’ve never had an issue. Follow instructions, let them know your intentions and it’s a non-issue.

 

[Lindberg]

Well we’ve beaten the subject of ATC not allowing termination to death on POA, so I won’t go there. But yes, I’ve cancelled FF as well when ATC was giving vectors that I considered excessive. I was never told to “resume own navigation” either. I’m still on a perpetual 290 from ATL Center waiting for my fuel to run out.

Until you left controlled airspace, which you did, at the latest, when you landed. So you're now excused from flying the signed heading.