VFR - cleared into Bravo at or below

[alfadog]

How much thought did you put into forming that opinion? Do you believe it was intended to apply to all ATC instructions, even those the FAA does not allow controllers to issue?

You do know, of course, that when you try to add little zingers like "How much thought did you put into forming that opinion?", you lower what should/could be a friendly collegial discussion to an unfriendly argument. You are not countering my point, you are attacking my thought process. That is called an ad hominem and is a logical fallacy. But more importantly, it is disrespectful and unfriendly. Perhaps you like to argue and make enemies; I like to discuss and make friends. What in the world do you think that question adds? Why would you expend the effort to type that? And yes, I am sometimes guilty of responding in kind.

Just sayin'. Similar to telling a friend they need to use mouthwash. Someone has to tell you. Oh, and you ain't the only one.

 

[roncachamp]

You are kinda contradicting yourself here. One the one hand you say that under the FF scenario I put forth, I have to comply "Depends on the instruction" and on the other you say that " If a controller does try to require you to do something, such as assign a heading or altitude, it should immediately tell you that you're not working with the sharpest spoon in the drawer."

So which is it?

Not at all, you wrote:

So in Class E controlled airspace, I am free to say simply "No, I don't want to" in response to an ATC direction and when they say "Why not?", I can just say "Because I don't feel like it?"

No mention of FF there. There are completely valid instructions that can be issued to VFR aircraft in Class E airspace; "remain outside delta airspace and standby", "enter right base", etc.

Then came the FF scenario:

In other words, let us say I have FF. The above exchange takes place. They say "FF terminated" and that is the end of it?

 

[alfadog]

Not many safety seminars out there showing people what an illegal instruction sounds like or how to determine one. Same phraseology, over a different spot in the map. And you need to be VFR in that spot but have willingly asked for advisories.

Makes them pretty hard to spot.

Conversely, tons of repetition of the "ZOMG!... follow all ATC instructions to the letter or you will die!!!" throughout most training syllabi.

Okay I'm obviously exaggerating that last part, but the training emphasis is so far over into the "comply" end of the spectrum of possible responses, it's like pushing a rock uphill to say, "maybe you should ignore that controller, he doesn't have the authority to tell you to do anything".

Definitely not a strongly taught concept in flight training beyond the obvious, "unless the controller asks you to do something dangerous."

The implication in-flight is always that something more dangerous than usual will happen if a controller gives an instruction.

A gaping hole in flight training or an appropriate emphasis on the regulation worded strongly toward complying -- which doesn't contain any loopholes at face-value.

Convincing people to ignore commands when they're VFR in airspace where they don't have to participate, or even decide to just stop participating, after decades of initiatives to get pilots to participate -- is not going to be easy.

Thank you.

So here is a question, and Steve, please chime in. I am now going to explain why I think the way I do, right or wrong. And I hope to learn something in the process.

1. Look at the Miami sectional. Assume I am returning from Sun 'n Fun (click here). Assuming I am in something low and slow but, unlike the Luscombe, it has a transponder. I am VFR on a beautiful day and cruising back as the nosebleed altitude of 3500'. The bottom part of the linked course shows my actual normal VFR pilotage approach to my home airport(s).
2. Notice the 30-mile Mode C veil.
3. Notice the little white box to the NE of the veil that says to contact Miami approach on 119.7/119.3 (there is actually a better freq, 124.85, for NW on the TAC but I do not carry a TAC, will in the future; that freq is also on the legend for the sectional.).

First question for discussion. Do I have to? If not, how in the world would I know that? It is on the sectional. It looks like an instruction? Can you show me something in the FAR or AIM that would indicate that I do not need to contact Miami??? (Note that I often do not and these days do not think it is a requirement put how can I know that for sure? Goes to the training point raised above.)

4. So, I call Miami approach and do the squawk.
5. They always, always, always tell you "Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet. Remain clear of Class Bravo."

Second question. So, Steve, you say I can ignore that. That they are stupid (something about spoons?) and out-of-line to say that. (Third question) Do you still feel that way? That the whole Miami TRACON is a bunch of idiots? 'Cause they all do it.

So how do you suggest I handle it if I want to remain at 3000', the base of the shelf? I am not getting FF, I just followed what I thought was an instruction on the sectional.

Do I ignore them when they call me up again?
Do I tell them "No, I won't follow your instruction?"

How do I handle this?

 

[roncachamp]

You do know, of course, that when you try to add little zingers like "How much thought did you put into forming that opinion?", you lower what should/could be a friendly collegial discussion to an unfriendly argument. You are not countering my point, you are attacking my thought process. That is called an ad hominem and is a logical fallacy. But more importantly, it is disrespectful and unfriendly. Perhaps you like to argue and make enemies; I like to discuss and make friends. What in the world do you think that question adds? Why would you expend the effort to type that? And yes, I am sometimes guilty of responding in kind.

Just sayin'. Similar to telling a friend they need to use mouthwash. Someone has to tell you. Oh, and you ain't the only one.

I think if you were truly interested in a meaningful discussion that question would have helped you conclude you hadn't put enough thought into forming your opinion.

 

[roncachamp]

Thank you.

So here is a question, and Steve, please chime in. I am now going to explain why I think the way I do, right or wrong. And I hope to learn something in the process.

1. Look at the Miami sectional. Assume I am returning from Sun 'n Fun (click here). Assuming I am in something low and slow but, unlike the Luscombe, it has a transponder. I am VFR on a beautiful day and cruising back as the nosebleed altitude of 3500'. The bottom part of the linked course shows my actual normal VFR pilotage approach to my home airport(s).
2. Notice the 30-mile Mode C veil.
3. Notice the little white box to the NE of the veil that says to contact Miami approach on 119.7/119.3 (there is actually a better freq, 124.85, for NW on the TAC but I do not carry a TAC, will in the future; that freq is also on the legend for the sectional.).

First question for discussion. Do I have to? If not, how in the world would I know that? It is on the sectional. It looks like an instruction? Can you show me something in the FAR or AIM that would indicate that I do not need to contact Miami??? (Note that I often do not and these days do not think it is a requirement put how can I know that for sure? Goes to the training point raised above.)

No, you do not have to call Miami approach if you do not intend to enter Class B airspace. You know that because you're familiar with applicable FARs and understand there is no requirement for VFR aircraft to contact ATC in order to fly under Class B airspace. I can't show you anything in the FARs or AIM that says you don't have to, but laws, rules, regulations, etc., are generally not made to identify things that may be done, they're made to identify thing that may not be done.

4. So, I call Miami approach and do the squawk.
5. They always, always, always tell you "Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet. Remain clear of Class Bravo."

Second question. So, Steve, you say I can ignore that. That they are stupid (something about spoons?) and out-of-line to say that.

I say you can ignore "Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet.", you can't ignore "Remain clear of Class Bravo."

I didn't say they were stupid, I said they aren't the sharpest spoons in the drawer. What do you think? Would you say that providing services in a manner that is inconsistent with Order JO 7110.65 is the mark of a sharp troop?

(Third question) Do you still feel that way? That the whole Miami TRACON is a bunch of idiots? 'Cause they all do it.

How do you know they all do it?

Individual controller or entire facility, makes no difference, services should be provided in accordance with applicable orders.

How do you feel about it? Do you feel it's okay for controllers to act contrary to Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control while pilots are held to the FARs?

So how do you suggest I handle it if I want to remain at 3000', the base of the shelf? I am not getting FF, I just followed what I thought was an instruction on the sectional.

Do I ignore them when they call me up again?
Do I tell them "No, I won't follow your instruction?"

How do I handle this?

If the base of the shelf is 3000' I suggest you descend below 3000' before reaching the lateral boundary of Class B airspace, but you don't have to descend to 2000'. If they question your altitude remind them you're operating VFR in Class E airspace.

 

[alfadog]

No, you do not have to call Miami approach if you do not intend to enter Class B airspace. You know that because you're familiar with applicable FARs and understand there is no requirement for VFR aircraft to contact ATC in order to fly under Class B airspace. I can't show you anything in the FARs or AIM that says you don't have to, but laws, rules, regulations, etc., are generally not made to identify things that may be done, they're made to identify thing that may not be done.



I say you can ignore "Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet.", you can't ignore "Remain clear of Class Bravo."

I didn't say they were stupid, I said they aren't the sharpest spoons in the drawer. What do you think? Would you say that providing services in a manner that is inconsistent with Order JO 7110.65 is the mark of a sharp troop?



How do you know they all do it?

Individual controller or entire facility, makes no difference, services should be provided in accordance with applicable orders.

How do you feel about it? Do you feel it's okay for controllers to act contrary to Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control while pilots are held to the FARs?



If the base of the shelf is 3000' you I suggest you descend below 3000' before reaching the lateral boundary of Class B airspace, but you don't have to descend to 2000'. If they question your altitude remind them you're operating VFR in Class E airspace.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. So here are my thoughts.

Yes, I know now I do not have to call them. The issue of training was brought up earlier. I think we are generally trained to call within 20 miles if we are going to be landing within the general area of Bravo even if we are competent in our navigation and can remain outside Bravo.

I, of course, am talking about ignoring the 2000 feet, not the remain clear.

I think little "spoon" remarks are calling someone stupid, yes.

I know they all do it because that is what I was briefed on my call to the TRACON and that is what I encounter every time, prolly 20 times, at least.

Do you think it inappropriate for Miami TRACON to try to keep folks from intersecting the glide path of big jets at GRITT? Isn't it just good sense for them to do that, given wake turbulence?

OK, for the suggested response/reminder.

So perhaps the "500' or more below the shelf" thing is local due to the glide path thing? Wonder if there are other Bravo areas that do the same.

And yes, questioning a person's thought processes or belittling what they think is not conducive to a collegial discussion between, hopefully, peers. It is an adversarial position. Discuss the issue, not the person.

 

[roncachamp]

Do you think it inappropriate for Miami TRACON to try to keep folks from intersecting the glide path of big jets at GRITT? Isn't it just good sense for them to do that, given wake turbulence?

I think it inappropriate for ATC to use procedures or phraseology that conflict with Order JO 7110.65. Do you disagree?

And yes, questioning a person's thought processes or belittling what they think is not conducive to a collegial discussion between, hopefully, peers. It is an adversarial position. Discuss the issue, not the person.

You're reading things into statements that are not there.

 

[alfadog]

I think it inappropriate for ATC to use procedures or phraseology that conflict with Order JO 7110.65. Do you disagree?



You're reading things into statements that are not there.

1. I think that safety trumps phraseology and have no problem with their instruction. And when I fly through there without contacting them, I remain at or below 2500.

2. OK, if you say so.

 

[Henning]

I think little "spoon" remarks are calling someone stupid, yes.

80% of the human race is stupid and there is no delineation of mankind that doesn't apply to including ATC. Most people don't do their job right, they do it 'good enough'...most of the time, then accidents happen.

 

[alfadog]

80% of the human race is stupid and there is no delineation of mankind that doesn't apply to including ATC.

Everyone but me and thee and I am not so sure about thee.

Actually 100% of us are stupid to one degree or another or in one area or another. Similarly, 100% of us are brilliant to one degree or another or in one area or another. The trick, when we deal with one another, is to discover which areas are which.

edit: then ignore the stupidities and cherish the brilliance. Easier said than done.

 

[Henning]

Here's something to think about. You say he's sending you to 2000' for safety, I say he's sending you to 2000' because he's lazy and doesn't want to have to do his job. Think about it, if I never called, I'd be perfectly legal to be a 2980' and he's actually going to have to take me into consideration.

 

[alfadog]

Here's something to think about. You say he's sending you to 2000' for safety, I say he's sending you to 2000' because he's lazy and doesn't want to have to do his job. Think about it, if I never called, I'd be perfectly legal to be a 2980' and he's actually going to have to take me into consideration.

You call it lazy, I call it responsible.

 

[Henning]

You call it lazy, I call it responsible.

Really? Deferring away your job that you have a duty to and get a taxpayer paycheck for onto other people who have no duty and no compensation for it is responsible? Hey, if he asks me, "request you stay at or below 2000' for arriving traffic over you", no worries, I'm there. Issue me an order that you're not allowed to issue and things will go 'on tape' they may prefer to not have reviewed.

 

[Jaybird180]

No, you do not have to call Miami approach if you do not intend to enter Class B airspace. You know that because you're familiar with applicable FARs and understand there is no requirement for VFR aircraft to contact ATC in order to fly under Class B airspace. I can't show you anything in the FARs or AIM that says you don't have to, but laws, rules, regulations, etc., are generally not made to identify things that may be done, they're made to identify thing that may not be done.

Grab a Washington Sectional, apply that same logic (wherein in tells pilots to contact Potomac on certain Freqs) and see how that works out for you to choose NOT to communicate. Good luck.

 

[roncachamp]

1. I think that safety trumps phraseology and have no problem with their instruction. And when I fly through there without contacting them, I remain at or below 2500.

You feel phrasing it as an advisory and allowing the pilot to decide on the course of action is less safe than phrasing it as an instruction?

 

[alfadog]

You feel phrasing it as an advisory and allowing the pilot to decide on the course of action is less safe than phrasing it as an instruction?

No. How would you phrase it? "Maintain VFR and remain clear of Bravo. Suggest at or below 2000' for arriving traffic." Like that?

 

[roncachamp]

Grab a Washington Sectional, apply that same logic (wherein in tells pilots to contact Potomac on certain Freqs) and see how that works out for you to choose NOT to communicate. Good luck.

Does operating in the Washington area involve any procedure that operating in the Miami area does not?

 

[Henning]

Grab a Washington Sectional, apply that same logic (wherein in tells pilots to contact Potomac on certain Freqs) and see how that works out for you to choose NOT to communicate. Good luck.

???? How are you comparing that? Is there a way to avoid making that call written into the rules? There is with the Bravo example, it's made clear, if you don't intend to enter the B there is no need to talk to anyone. I can operate NORDO outside the B. That line and freqs on the chart are courtesy info "When you get here, you CAN call these guys on..." if you aren't planning on entering the B. Can you operate in the area that is informed about in your example NORDO?

 

[alfadog]

Does operating in the Washington area involve any procedure that operating in the Miami area does not?

Not if you are outside the SFRA, I think. OK, let us say we are landing at Bay Bridge (click here). Looks to me that I can fly over there from Sussex at 3000' no problem without talking to anyone. Jaybird, do you disagree?

 

[Henning]

No. How would you phrase it? "Maintain VFR and remain clear of Bravo. Suggest at or below 2000' for arriving traffic." Like that?

Suggest or even request, basically anything that gives a non compulsory connotation. I can remember even getting a drawled out, "If I could bother you to go up to 6000 for a bit it would help me get my traffic in under you", "you want 6000 or 7500?""Just give me 6, that'll be good I own it and I'll get you back to 55 in about 50 miles."

See, I recall hearing phraseology like that quite a bit which is why I buy Steven's argument.

 

[alfadog]

Suggest or even request, basically anything that gives a non compulsory connotation. I can remember even getting a drawled out, "If I could bother you to go up to 6000 for a bit it would help me get my traffic in under you", "you want 6000 or 7500?""Just give me 6, that'll be good I own it and I'll get you back to 55 in about 50 miles."

See, I recall hearing phraseology like that quite a bit which is why I buy Steven's argument.

How about "Suggest at or below 2000' because I do not want to be bothered keeping an eye on you." That one is for you both.

 

[roncachamp]

No. How would you phrase it? "Maintain VFR and remain clear of Bravo. Suggest at or below 2000' for arriving traffic." Like that?

On your initial call I'd say, "remain outside bravo airspace." As you approached the runway 9 localizer I'd say, "advize you remain at or below 2500' for traffic on the ILS runway 9 approach to Miami, caution wake turbulence."

 

[roncachamp]

How about "Suggest at or below 2000' because I do not want to be bothered keeping an eye on you." That one is for you both.

You wont hear that from me, I don't find it a bother to do my job while leaving the final authority for the operation of aircraft in the cockpit.

 

[Henning]

On your initial call I'd say, "remain outside bravo airspace." As you approached the runway 9 localizer I'd say, "advize you remain at or below 2500' for traffic on the ILS runway 9 approach to Miami, caution wake turbulence."

See, that's pretty much what I hear although I'd get an altimeter with the first call.

 

[alfadog]

See, that's pretty much what I hear although I'd get an altimeter with the first call.

You hear all that where? West of MIA? I don't think so.

 

[Jaybird180]

Not if you are outside the SFRA, I think. OK, let us say we are landing at Bay Bridge (click here). Looks to me that I can fly over there from Sussex at 3000' no problem without talking to anyone. Jaybird, do you disagree?

That's legal.

 

[dell30rb]

Here's something to think about. You say he's sending you to 2000' for safety, I say he's sending you to 2000' because he's lazy and doesn't want to have to do his job. Think about it, if I never called, I'd be perfectly legal to be a 2980' and he's actually going to have to take me into consideration.

I don't mind doing that one bit if it helps the controller out. They help me out quite a bit.

 

[Henning]

You hear all that where? West of MIA? I don't think so.

True, if I'm West of MIA, I'm not talking to anybody unless I'm landing. I don't use ATC services for local flights down here, to many idiots to listen to fumbling through trying to learn English and IFR flying at the same time, it's more noise than I need to subject myself to. Most of the time If I'm coming down that way I'm either landing TMB or on my way to EYW, either way I'm in no mood to listen to it.

There is also that some controllers down here are ESL and don't understand the finer points of connotation in the language.

 

[alfadog]

True, if I'm West of MIA, I'm not talking to anybody unless I'm landing. I don't use ATC services for local flights down here, to many idiots to listen to fumbling through trying to learn English and IFR flying at the same time, it'smore noise than I need to subject myself to. Most of the time If I'm coming down that way I'm either landing TMB or on my way to EYW, either way I'm in no mood to listen to it.

I think next time I transit that bit, I will call them up on the way back and record the instruction. I am out of Tamiami, so if I am heading anywhere other than the Keys, I am going through that bit, especially if I am going to KPMP for a seminar. Again, these days I do not call approach.

 

[Palmpilot]

Personally, I really don't care all that much if a controller deviates from JO 7110.65 unless the specific instruction given compromises safety.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not many safety seminars out there showing people what an illegal instruction sounds like or how to determine one.

Boy, you really know how to hit the nail on the head!

 

[Palmpilot]

If they question your altitude remind them you're operating VFR in Class E airspace.

That's the kind of conversation that I feel is an unnecessary distraction from duties related to safety of filght.

And waiting for them to notice your altitude before saying anything doesn't seem like the safest idea either.

 

[alfadog]

That's the kind of conversation that I feel is an unnecessary distraction from duties related to safety of filght.

And waiting for them to notice your altitude before saying anything doesn't seem like the safest idea either.

I agree with you. They have worked out something that might well serve their workload needs but it serves safety also. I do not have a problem with it.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Depends on the instruction.



If you're receiving only flight following, there is essentially nothing that ATC can require you to do. If a controller does try to require you to do something, such as assign a heading or altitude, it should immediately tell you that you're not working with the sharpest spoon in the drawer. Declining those instructions and then having services terminated is not much of a loss. After all, if the controller was competent he wouldn't have issued the heading or altitude! You don't have to fear a violation of any FAR, the FAA does not violate pilots that decline instructions it does not want controllers to issue to them.

Thank you for posting this. I didn't finish reading this thread yet, but wanted to reply to you.

I fought ATC tooth and nail I tell ya since I planned my entire long XC to AVOID the Charlie / Bravo / whatever, figuring they'd tell me to stay clear. I was not in a good mood when they started asking me about routes and telling me to stay to one side or the other of certain freeways. After much back and forth I told them, in plain english, that I had a printed knee board flight plan on my lap. They asked me what it said. I told them, one altitude, direct to Livermore, then direct to Petaluma. They mumbled "change approved as requested," did NOT terminate flight following, and continued to warn me of all the jets my entire flight home. I learned that day to just tell them what I want.

 

[Palmpilot]

Thank you for posting this. I didn't finish reading this thread yet, but wanted to reply to you.

I fought ATC tooth and nail I tell ya since I planned my entire long XC to AVOID the Charlie / Bravo / whatever, figuring they'd tell me to stay clear. I was not in a good mood when they started asking me about routes and telling me to stay to one side or the other of certain freeways. After much back and forth I told them, in plain english, that I had a printed knee board flight plan on my lap. They asked me what it said. I told them, one altitude, direct to Livermore, then direct to Petaluma. They mumbled "change approved as requested," did NOT terminate flight following, and continued to warn me of all the jets my entire flight home. I learned that day to just tell them what I want.

You're always allowed to negotiate (assuming you can get a word in edgewise).

 

[Jaybird180]

Thank you for posting this. I didn't finish reading this thread yet, but wanted to reply to you.

I fought ATC tooth and nail I tell ya since I planned my entire long XC to AVOID the Charlie / Bravo / whatever, figuring they'd tell me to stay clear. I was not in a good mood when they started asking me about routes and telling me to stay to one side or the other of certain freeways. After much back and forth I told them, in plain english, that I had a printed knee board flight plan on my lap. They asked me what it said. I told them, one altitude, direct to Livermore, then direct to Petaluma. They mumbled "change approved as requested," did NOT terminate flight following, and continued to warn me of all the jets my entire flight home. I learned that day to just tell them what I want.

I think the subject of this thread is they didn't have authority to change your flight plan in the first place. Provided you remain clear of B airspace, you can pretty much do what you want. I think that's the consensus???

 

[kimberlyanne546]

You're always allowed to negotiate (assuming you can get a word in edgewise).

Once again, proof of how much I learn by going on XC's. They are a great experience.

 

[Palmpilot]

Once again, proof of how much I learn by going on XC's. They are a great experience.

I can relate to your story because I'm not intimately familiar with Southern California air space, and when I fly there, I'm afraid that if I deviate from my planned route, that will increase my chances of violating someone's air space. That why I like the special flight rules area, which allows you to transition overhead LAX without talking to ATC when the weather is good enough.

 

[Palmpilot]

Speaking of Southern California, when you look at the LAX Terminal Area Chart with all its class B, C, and D areas, and the class C outer areas which are UNCHARTED, you can see what a nightmare it would be to keep track of whether or not I was in airspace in which ATC is allowed to give heading and altitude instructions to VFR aircraft.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.9424955,-118.408068389&chart=114&zoom=7

 

[Henning]

You're always allowed to negotiate (assuming you can get a word in edgewise).

Well that's just it, No, you're not. If they have authority you HAVE to comply unless it's a safety call. If they don't have the authority there is no negotiating because you are in COMMAND.