What would you have done?

[poadeleted20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Levy
Ever see anything in writing which says 91.123(b) only applies to "valid" instructions?
​

Nope.

Thank you. That should close this discussion.

 

[roncachamp]

We've been through this before -- you think that, but the FAA thinks otherwise and (as often as I hear it happen) apparently trains controllers accordingly.

The quality of training has fallen significantly in the last twenty years or so. The FAA requires controllers to provide ATC services IAW FAAO 7110.65, controllers that do that will not issue an altitude to a VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA.

If necessary to ensure separation from known traffic, controllers do issue altitude restrictions to VFR aircraft, and failure to obey that instruction is a violation of 91.123(b). Anyone who doubts that may feel free to bet their ticket on it.

Well, since ATC provides separation to VFR aircraft only in Class B and Class C airspace, the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, and TRSAs, it follows that it's never necessary to issue altitude restrictions to VFR aircraft outside of those areas.

 

[roncachamp]

In this case, I agree -- if it were happening, the pilot would have heard about it by now. But in another case, where something bad happened as a result of a pilot's failure/refusal to comply with an "invalid" instruction, that might not be the case.

There won't be one in this case or in any similar case. Pilot Deviation reports in cases like this don't reach FSDO because they never leave the ATC facility. They're squelched in the earliest stage, the controller describes the event and he's told he erred when he issued an altitude to a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace.

And despite your repeated insistance that an altitude restriction for a VFR aircraft outside B-space is "invalid," I hear controllers all over the US issue them regularly.

I don't doubt that, the quality of training has fallen significantly in the last couple of decades.

Given the otherwise near-perfect performance by nearly every controller with whom I work in airspace regularly covering just about everywhere from New England to Georgia and west to the Mississippi, I find it hard to believe that it is as you say a fundamental violation of 7110.65, since so many controllers are doing it so often.

As you have no experience in ATC you don't have a sufficient knowledge base with which to judge controller performance.

 

[roncachamp]

Thank you. That should close this discussion.

Do you feel that because FAR 91.123(b) does not contain the word "valid" it indicates the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions that it did not authorize controllers to issue?

 

[poadeleted20]

As a CFI, I feel it would be highly irresponsible for me to suggest that pilots attempt to determine before obeying an instruction from ATC whether or not the controller is authorized by a publication which pilots are not required to study, know, or understand to give that particular instruction. If the instruction is given IAW with Part 91 of the FAR's and the AIM, and the pilot has no reason to believe the instruction will place the aircraft in a hazardous situation, I most strongly suggest that the pilot obey it promptly, and if there is a question, to take it up later, or at least, while executing the instruction. Any other action would be likely to create or worsen rather than prevent or defuse a potentially hazardous, perhaps lethal, situation.

If after considering my recommendation, an individual pilot decides on his own to choose otherwise, it's his ticket and his life on the line, not mine. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

BTW, for an example of what happens when a pilot thinks ATC isn't authorized to give a particular instruction aand argues with ATC rather than doing what they said, read Administrator v. Ellis. Ellis got an Emergency Revocation which the NTSB upheld regardless of whether or not ATC was authorized to give that instruction (a question they said did not make a difference if a potential collision was involved).

 

[gismo]

The clouds were in the Bravo. It was clear below the Bravo. Had I proceeded at my altitude I would have been IMC and in the Bravo. Had the intial controller on 128.4 kept me at 7500 above all the clouds until the lower IFR traffic was passed and given me clearance into the Bravo I would have remained clear of clouds and could have descended after I was past the last line of clouds. But since no one gave me Bravo clearance early on, I had no real options. Even if they had, I would have had had an overhead spiral down to my destination.

The report has been dropped in the mail.

Also - to clear up the whole accepting an IFR into KLOM - I said I and the plane was IFR certified. If he wanted to give me vectors I could have accepted, but I couldn't hear him for crap, and was pretty sure that I wasn't going to be able to understand the clearance after about the second transmission. He asked if I wanted the IFR clearance, and I said no, I'm cancelling radar, and descending.

Was there any reason you couldn't have made a 180 to avoid the Class B and clouds? If not you were between the proverbial rock and hard place, but a retreat might have eliminated the urgency.

 

[poadeleted20]

Was there any reason you couldn't have made a 180 to avoid the Class B and clouds? If not you were between the proverbial rock and hard place, but a retreat might have eliminated the urgency.

I understood him to say that the gap between the clouds was wide enough to maintain 2000 horizontal straight through, but that the radius of a turn would take him too close.

 

[EdFred]

Was there any reason you couldn't have made a 180 to avoid the Class B and clouds? If not you were between the proverbial rock and hard place, but a retreat might have eliminated the urgency.

I understood him to say that the gap between the clouds was wide enough to maintain 2000 horizontal straight through, but that the radius of a turn would take him too close.

This is correct. I was not expecting a halt descent from controller #2, so I was set up for a safe steady descent that would have easily had me down with no cloud or airspace issues. Had I cancelled FF with 128.4 when I started descending, nothing happens.

The math might be wrong, but at 150kts, a 30ish degree banked 180 degree turn requires about 4800 horizontal feet to execute. Any gap less than 2 miles wide gives you two options - climb or descend. And at that point I would have had to climb 3000ft to be clear above, (2000 + 1000 cloud clearance) or descend 1000 (500 + 500) to be clear below. I cant get a climb rate of 1500ft/nm.

 

[Teller1900]

It's to bad you were not in a flying brick, or a brick with wings, if you will. I bet a brick with wings could have gotten down fast enough!

Tony - the discussion about this all happened Friday afternoon/night while you were resting comfortably in the KC and Atlanta airports.

 

[colohan]

If in the future you want to share the information without creating a way for the FAA to use it against you, file the report, and then when it shows up on the ASRS site, post a link saying, "Gee, look at this" without saying it's your report.

Interesting. I never realized the database is online. Having filed an ASRS report in the past (a couple of years ago), I can point out that the online database is incomplete. I can find no sign of my report in that online database, no matter how I slice and dice my search. (I have a receipt to prove they got my report 'tho.)

 

[roncachamp]

BTW, for an example of what happens when a pilot thinks ATC isn't authorized to give a particular instruction aand argues with ATC rather than doing what they said, read Administrator v. Ellis. Ellis got an Emergency Revocation which the NTSB upheld regardless of whether or not ATC was authorized to give that instruction (a question they said did not make a difference if a potential collision was involved).

That's an example of what happens when a pilot disregards a valid ATC instruction. Are you providing it because you were unable to find an enforcement action where a pilot disregarded an invalid ATC instruction?

 

[poadeleted20]

That's an example of what happens when a pilot disregards a valid ATC instruction. Are you providing it because you were unable to find an enforcement action where a pilot disregarded an invalid ATC instruction?

I am providing it because the NTSB said that the "validity" of the instruction didn't matter if it was issued to reduce collision potential.

As we read respondent’s brief, it is his position that ATC, by directing him to continue his downwind leg when the respondent could not locate the aircraft that had been cleared to land ahead of him and by, in view of that circumstance, indicating, in effect, that it would advise him when it was safe to turn base, engaged in the improper provision of separation services that should not have been extended to a visual flight rules (VFR) flight such as he was conducting. Although it is doubtful that ATC’s efforts to sequence respondent’s aircraft into the flow of traffic landing at the Alexandria airport actually constituted a separation service, as that term is normally understood, we think it unnecessary to a decision in this case to characterize the nature of its contacts with N310MH.

...​

Thus, even if it were true that ATC would ordinarily not issue VFR traffic specific instructions as to how to fly the airport pattern, such instructions here, clearly intended to reduce the collision potential that a premature turn to base by respondent’s aircraft could (and ultimately did) create, were, at the very least, appropriate.​

 

[roncachamp]

I am providing it because the NTSB said that the "validity" of the instruction didn't matter if it was issued to reduce collision potential.

There should be no question as to the validity of the instruction as it was issued to insure runway separation.

 

[PittsDriver]

Watching ron and ronca duke it out is interesting enough. But, what's the real practical take away from this episode? If you're flying VFR in controlled airspace, you may be asked ATC to do things you can't safely or legally do. If I'm asked to fly an altitude or heading that would cause me to enter the clouds, and I respond "Unable," and there's a loss of separation with IFR traffic because of my refusal - have I been careless and reckless to operate in Class B with so many clouds nearby?

Similarly, if I'm VFR in uncontrolled airspace (of which there is very little around Philadelphia) and I'm issued an ATC instruction which I reply "Unable," and there's a loss of separation - have I similarly been careless and reckless?

In the first case, is it the pilot's responsibility to know that they shouldn't be flying in, for example, busy class B/C airspace assuming they can weave and bob around the clouds? But outside of controlled airspace, how could the assumption be anything other than I can fly my aircraft on any heading or altitude I want to maintain cloud clearance?

Telling them unable when receiving an instruction all seems straightforward enough. But what happens when I'm VFR in uncontrolled airspace, I've accepted an altitude/heading to fly, and now I need to deviate for weather. In uncontrolled airspace, I'd be deviating and announcing my actions - not asking. But it gets more complicated in controlled airspace. If I'm VFR in B/C airspace and accepted a heading/altitude and 5 minutes later it's going to put me in the clouds. I ask for and are denied a deviation, have I carelessly and recklessly put myself in that situation?

 

[poadeleted20]

There should be no question as to the validity of the instruction as it was issued to insure runway separation.

The NTSB said that is irrelevant to the legal issue at hand, and that's the point one needs to understand in such a situation -- unless following the instruction will create an emergency situation, the pilot must follow it regardless of whether the pilot thinks it's "valid" or not.

 

[roncachamp]

Watching ron and ronca duke it out is interesting enough. But, what's the real practical take away from this episode? If you're flying VFR in controlled airspace, you may be asked ATC to do things you can't safely or legally do. If I'm asked to fly an altitude or heading that would cause me to enter the clouds, and I respond "Unable," and there's a loss of separation with IFR traffic because of my refusal - have I been careless and reckless to operate in Class B with so many clouds nearby?

Similarly, if I'm VFR in uncontrolled airspace (of which there is very little around Philadelphia) and I'm issued an ATC instruction which I reply "Unable," and there's a loss of separation - have I similarly been careless and reckless?

In the first case, is it the pilot's responsibility to know that they shouldn't be flying in, for example, busy class B/C airspace assuming they can weave and bob around the clouds? But outside of controlled airspace, how could the assumption be anything other than I can fly my aircraft on any heading or altitude I want to maintain cloud clearance?

Telling them unable when receiving an instruction all seems straightforward enough. But what happens when I'm VFR in uncontrolled airspace, I've accepted an altitude/heading to fly, and now I need to deviate for weather. In uncontrolled airspace, I'd be deviating and announcing my actions - not asking. But it gets more complicated in controlled airspace. If I'm VFR in B/C airspace and accepted a heading/altitude and 5 minutes later it's going to put me in the clouds. I ask for and are denied a deviation, have I carelessly and recklessly put myself in that situation?

ATC does not provide separation to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA. FAAO 7110.65 does not authorize controllers to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft outside of those areas, as ATC does not provide separation there's no reason to assign them.

ATC does not provide separation to any aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. As ATC provides no separation there's no reason to assign altitudes or anything else to any aircraft. That's why it's called "uncontrolled airspace".


From FAAO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control:

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
​

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic, and to provide support for National Security and Homeland Defense. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement, FAA directive, or a military document, or:

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling, fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.

[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 1-1-9, Procedural Letters of Agreement.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE] ​

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency has been declared.

[SIZE=-2]
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-6, Safety Alert.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Chapter 10, Emergencies.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-1-8, Merging Target Procedures.[/SIZE]



From the AIM:


3-2-3. Class B Airspace

e. ATC Clearances and Separation. An ATC clearance is required to enter and operate within Class B airspace. VFR pilots are provided sequencing and separation from other aircraft while operating within Class B airspace.

[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-
AIM, Terminal Radar Services for VFR Aircraft, Paragraph 4-1-17.[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE]
NOTE-
1. Separation and sequencing of VFR aircraft will be suspended in the event of a radar outage as this service is dependent on radar. The pilot will be advised that the service is not available and issued wind, runway information and the time or place to contact the tower.

2. Separation of VFR aircraft will be suspended during CENRAP operations. Traffic advisories and sequencing to the primary airport will be provided on a workload permitting basis. The pilot will be advised when center radar presentation (CENRAP) is in use.

1. VFR aircraft are separated from all VFR/IFR aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less by a minimum of:

(a) Target resolution, or

(b) 500 feet vertical separation, or

(c) Visual separation.

2. VFR aircraft are separated from all VFR/IFR aircraft which weigh more than 19,000 and turbojets by no less than:

(a) 1 1/2 miles lateral separation, or

(b) 500 feet vertical separation, or

(c) Visual separation.

3. This program is not to be interpreted as relieving pilots of their responsibilities to see and avoid other traffic operating in basic VFR weather conditions, to adjust their operations and flight path as necessary to preclude serious wake encounters, to maintain appropriate terrain and obstruction clearance or to remain in weather conditions equal to or better than the minimums required by 14 CFR Section 91.155. Approach control should be advised and a revised clearance or instruction obtained when compliance with an assigned route, heading and/or altitude is likely to compromise pilot responsibility with respect to terrain and obstruction clearance, vortex exposure, and weather minimums.

4. ATC may assign altitudes to VFR aircraft that do not conform to 14 CFR Section 91.159. "RESUME APPROPRIATE VFR ALTITUDES" will be broadcast when the altitude assignment is no longer needed for separation or when leaving Class B airspace. Pilots must return to an altitude that conforms to 14 CFR Section 91.159.



3-2-4. Class C Airspace

e. Aircraft Separation. Separation is provided within the Class C airspace and the outer area after two-way radio communications and radar contact are established. VFR aircraft are separated from IFR aircraft within the Class C airspace by any of the following:

1. Visual separation.

2. 500 feet vertical; except when operating beneath a heavy jet.

3. Target resolution.

NOTE-
1. Separation and sequencing of VFR aircraft will be suspended in the event of a radar outage as this service is dependent on radar. The pilot will be advised that the service is not available and issued wind, runway information and the time or place to contact the tower.

2. Separation of VFR aircraft will be suspended during CENRAP operations. Traffic advisories and sequencing to the primary airport will be provided on a workload permitting basis. The pilot will be advised when CENRAP is in use.

3. Pilot participation is voluntary within the outer area and can be discontinued, within the outer area, at the pilot's request. Class C services will be provided in the outer area unless the pilot requests termination of the service.

4. Some facilities provide Class C services only during published hours. At other times, terminal IFR radar service will be provided. It is important to note that the communications and transponder requirements are dependent of the class of airspace established outside of the published hours.



3-2-5. Class D Airspace

e. Separation for VFR Aircraft. No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft.

3-2-6. Class E Airspace

​

f. Separation for VFR Aircraft. No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft.


4-1-18. Terminal Radar Services for VFR Aircraft

b. TRSA Service (Radar Sequencing and Separation Service for VFR Aircraft in a TRSA).

1. This service has been implemented at certain terminal locations. The service is advertised in the Airport/Facility Directory. The purpose of this service is to provide separation between all participating VFR aircraft and all IFR aircraft operating within the airspace defined as the Terminal Radar Service Area (TRSA). Pilot participation is urged but is not mandatory.



2. If any aircraft does not want the service, the pilot should state "NEGATIVE TRSA SERVICE" or make a similar comment, on initial contact with approach control or ground control, as appropriate.



3. TRSAs are depicted on sectional aeronautical charts and listed in the Airport/Facility Directory.



4. While operating within a TRSA, pilots are provided TRSA service and separation as prescribed in this paragraph. In the event of a radar outage, separation and sequencing of VFR aircraft will be suspended as this service is dependent on radar. The pilot will be advised that the service is not available and issued wind, runway information, and the time or place to contact the tower. Traffic information will be provided on a workload permitting basis.



5. Visual separation is used when prevailing conditions permit and it will be applied as follows:



(a) When a VFR flight is positioned behind a preceding aircraft and the pilot reports having that aircraft in sight, the pilot will be instructed by ATC to follow the preceding aircraft. Radar service will be continued to the runway. THE ATC INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDING AIRCRAFT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE PILOT TO COMPLY WITH ANY ATC CLEARANCE OR INSTRUCTION ISSUED TO THE PRECEDING AIRCRAFT.



(b) If other "nonparticipating" or "local" aircraft are in the traffic pattern, the tower will issue a landing sequence.



(c) Departing VFR aircraft may be asked if they can visually follow a preceding departure out of the TRSA. The pilot will be instructed to follow the other aircraft provided that the pilot can maintain visual contact with that aircraft.



6. VFR aircraft will be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft by one of the following:



(a) 500 feet vertical separation.



(b) Visual separation.



(c) Target resolution (a process to ensure that correlated radar targets do not touch) when using broadband radar systems.



7. Participating pilots operating VFR in a TRSA:



(a) Must maintain an altitude when assigned by ATC unless the altitude assignment is to maintain at or below a specified altitude. ATC may assign altitudes for separation that do not conform to 14 CFR Section 91.159. When the altitude assignment is no longer needed for separation or when leaving the TRSA, the instruction will be broadcast, "RESUME APPROPRIATE VFR ALTITUDES." Pilots must then return to an altitude that conforms to 14 CFR Section 91.159 as soon as practicable.



(b) When not assigned an altitude, the pilot should coordinate with ATC prior to any altitude change.



8. Within the TRSA, traffic information on observed but unidentified targets will, to the extent possible, be provided to all IFR and participating VFR aircraft. The pilot will be vectored upon request to avoid the observed traffic, provided the aircraft to be vectored is within the airspace under the jurisdiction of the controller.



9. Departing aircraft should inform ATC of their intended destination and/or route of flight and proposed cruising altitude.



10. ATC will normally advise participating VFR aircraft when leaving the geographical limits of the TRSA. Radar service is not automatically terminated with this advisory unless specifically stated by the controller.
​

 

[roncachamp]

The NTSB said that is irrelevant to the legal issue at hand, and that's the point one needs to understand in such a situation -- unless following the instruction will create an emergency situation, the pilot must follow it regardless of whether the pilot thinks it's "valid" or not.

Please quote the NTSB language that you believe has that meaning.

 

[tonycondon]

Also, I will not engage in another debate with roncacham on this matter.

that was nice while it lasted.

 

[Everskyward]

I found an article which seems to support ronca's position and also what I remember about VFR flight following. Scroll down to the last two paragraphs.

AOPA Flight Training - VFR Traffic Advisories

VFR flight following is truly a beneficial service of which all pilots should take advantage. Some may not, however, because of hangar tales telling of increased exposure to enforcement actions. It's true that an altitude deviation or failure to adhere to any other ATC clearance can have serious repercussions for pilots on instrument flight plans. But there are no separation standards for VFR pilots getting flight following.

Unless you blunder into Class B or C airspace, or a restricted or prohibited area, it's difficult to think of any circumstance that can land you in trouble. In 12 years as a Center controller, I cannot remember my facility ever filing anything against a VFR pilot. So don't be shy about using the system. It's there for you, and it can make your flying a lot more enjoyable -- and safer.

 

[PittsDriver]

ATC does not provide separation to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA. FAAO 7110.65 does not authorize controllers to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft outside of those areas, as ATC does not provide separation there's no reason to assign them.

ATC does not provide separation to any aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. As ATC provides no separation there's no reason to assign altitudes or anything else to any aircraft. That's why it's called "uncontrolled airspace".

I guess I misspoke my question. I understand no separation services are being offered in those cases to my VFR flight. My reference to loss of separation was with respect my refusal to accept or stay on an instruction and causing a problem with another aircraft you are providing separation services for.

Let me try again: If I'm a VFR flight in class B airspace and I've accepted a heading and altitude to fly. Now I'm looking out the window at some weather that will cause me to be in IMC if I stay my course. I ask for a deviation and can't get it (it's denied or ignored by the controller). As PIC, I'm required to deviate stay VFR but my maneuvering causes a conflict with other traffic, say on an instrument approach to the same airport. Have I broken any FARs and which ones? Have I been careless and reckless to have put myself in that situation?

My inclusion of "causing a conflict" isn't at issue as to whether I've violated some FAR. I've included it to ferret out if what I've done will stir "the man" into action against me.

 

[roncachamp]

I guess I misspoke my question. I understand no separation services are being offered in those cases to my VFR flight. My reference to loss of separation was with respect my refusal to accept or stay on an instruction and causing a problem with another aircraft you are providing separation services for.

Let me try again: If I'm a VFR flight in class B airspace and I've accepted a heading and altitude to fly. Now I'm looking out the window at some weather that will cause me to be in IMC if I stay my course. I ask for a deviation and can't get it (it's denied or ignored by the controller). As PIC, I'm required to deviate stay VFR but my maneuvering causes a conflict with other traffic, say on an instrument approach to the same airport. Have I broken any FARs and which ones? Have I been careless and reckless to have put myself in that situation?

My inclusion of "causing a conflict" isn't at issue as to whether I've violated some FAR. I've included it to ferret out if what I've done will stir "the man" into action against me.

You say you understand no separation services are being offered in those cases to your VFR flight, but your followup question is a case where separation services are provided to VFR aircraft. It does not appear that you truly understand.

The note from FAAO 7110.65 should be sufficient to answer your question:

"Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order."

 

[SkyHog]

Just to be clear Ronca, are you telling me that I am free to disregard an ATC instruction that I receive if I feel that it is not a valid instruction?

 

[roncachamp]

Just to be clear Ronca, are you telling me that I am free to disregard an ATC instruction that I receive if I feel that it is not a valid instruction?

Nope. I'm telling you that you're free to disregard invalid ATC instructions. If you disregard a valid instruction that you felt was invalid you may get nailed.

 

[colohan]

Telling them unable when receiving an instruction all seems straightforward enough. But what happens when I'm VFR in uncontrolled airspace, I've accepted an altitude/heading to fly, and now I need to deviate for weather. In uncontrolled airspace, I'd be deviating and announcing my actions - not asking. But it gets more complicated in controlled airspace. If I'm VFR in B/C airspace and accepted a heading/altitude and 5 minutes later it's going to put me in the clouds. I ask for and are denied a deviation, have I carelessly and recklessly put myself in that situation?

My very first time flying in bravo I got into exactly that situation. I was given a vector and told to maintain 2000' or lower. On that vector I was heading directly towards some clouds -- but the clouds were a few miles away, and I figured I'd get a new vector before I reached them.

Well, there was not a moment of radio silence between that point and when I reached that cloud. I never had a chance to question the controller -- instead, I descended as I approached the cloud (hoping to go under), and once I realized that wouldn't work (the bases were too low and the ground too high) I did a 180 degree turn -- and simultaneously announced on the (finally silent!) radio what I was doing for cloud avoidance. The controller happily gave me another vector away from the clouds at that point.

 

[PittsDriver]

You say you understand no separation services are being offered in those cases to your VFR flight, but your followup question is a case where separation services are provided to VFR aircraft. It does not appear that you truly understand.

The note from FAAO 7110.65 should be sufficient to answer your question:

"Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order."

Man, you must be so used to splitting hairs with Ron that you can't read a post any other way. Let's just take a wild leap of faith here that maybe I understand (I did say "those cases") or that my understanding doesn't matter to my question. Can you or anyone else on here answer it or would you prefer just measure peckers with each other on your knowledge of NTSB law? How did my case question show some lack of ATC understanding?

The OP asked "What you you have done?" I'm just thinking that maybe those that read this thread might like to see some practical advice instead of bickering.

 

[SkyHog]

Nope. I'm telling you that you're free to disregard invalid ATC instructions. If you disregard a valid instruction that you felt was invalid you may get nailed.

How does one determine whether or not a controller has made a valid instruction?

Sorry, but I'm gonna side conservatively here...

If a controller gives you a command, follow it, unless it busts a FAR. There's no need for a pilot to know/understand whether it busts some obscure ATC rule. As pilots, we follow FAR/AIM, which says we must comply with all instructions.

FWIW, I see no mention of the word "valid" in the following FAR:

Sec. 91.123

Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
(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.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.
(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.

 

[PittsDriver]

The controller happily gave me another vector away from the clouds at that point.

My question is meant to ferret out if that controller might not have been so "happy" if you'd messed up his plan for separation with other traffic. And, if he/she was unhappy about it, is there anything bad that can happen to you other than swapping paint on with Southwest flight.

 

[Everskyward]

The OP asked "What you you have done?" I'm just thinking that maybe those that read this thread might like to see some practical advice instead of bickering.

I think the confusion is that the OP was not in Class B and was only receiving flight following where there are no separation standards. At least that's the way I read it. Your question was about flying in Class B where there are separation standards.

 

[Ted]

It's to bad you were not in a flying brick, or a brick with wings, if you will. I bet a brick with wings could have gotten down fast enough!

Indeed! A brick with wings would allow very rapid descent rates. This is one of the advantages of flying a brick with wings, as opposed to something that's actually aerodynamic.

Tony - the discussion about this all happened Friday afternoon/night while you were resting comfortably in the KC and Atlanta airports.

It must've been before I arrived, too, as I don't recall hearing anything about this.

Anyway, back to the original question as to what I would have done - I arrived a few hours later in the Mooney from roughly the same direction. It was pretty darn clear then. I was at 5500 instead of 7500, but it sounds like otherwise we were pretty much doing the same sort of approach with similar timing. Cleared all Bravo shelves, didn't need clearance, and canceled flight following when I was about 10 miles out.

Back in... I think December, I had a similar problem where I was on an IFR flight plan. There was a broken cloud layer that I was above for the route of my trip (Youngstown, Ohio back to Williamsport). ATC wanted to let a Cessna 414 in ahead of me, so they instructed me to descend and hold in what was potentially icing conditions while I was in the Mooney. I would have descended through the layer, but I wasn't going to do the hold. This resulted in me arguing with ATC, and an ASRS report filed upon landing. Really, in that particular case the mistake I made was being on an IFR flight plan. I didn't want to be in IMC then, I should have done VFR with flight following, and just been ready to do a pop-up IFR and go down through the clouds if needed, since I knew that might have been necessary. The point was similar, though, in terms of getting instructions from ATC that for whatever reason (legality/safety) I did not feel was a good idea.

The lesson I learned is that if you're in VFR conditions and don't need ATC but they're giving you a hard time, just inform them that you're canceling radar services, squawk 1200, and have a nice day. I personally like flight following (or IFR flight) to have someone there on the radio, and use it on most of my flights that involve going to another airport. Virtually all the time, the experiences are positive. If they're making your life difficult and you don't need to be talking to them, then I see no reason to keep them around. Then file an ASRS report when you land, first off just to cover yourself, but also so that it gets put in the system.

So, I would have canceled Flight Following, and filed an ASRS report if I thought there was an issue. Also, if a Class B approach tries to vector me into the Bravo (or I have any questions as to whether or not I'm cleared through Class B airspace), I always ask for confirmation. PHL approach (at least going into LOM) has always been good about that, sometimes volunteering clearance without my asking.

 

[PittsDriver]

I think the confusion is that the OP was not in Class B and was only receiving flight following where there are no separation standards. At least that's the way I read it. Your question was about flying in Class B where there are separation standards.

Indeed. But I think when you answer the question for the case in controlled airspace, it makes the case for uncontrolled airspace, however unlikely to happen, even more obvious. Separation services have nothing to do with whether any FAR is violated or not and I was using that to ferret out whether or not one of these experts could tell us if that might stimulate some action to enforce any FAR they thought was being violated.

This all comes down to whether or not you have to declare an emergency to deviate from an ATC instruction you accepted without getting ATC to authorize your maneuvering. Does it matter if you're in controlled or uncontrolled airspace while VFR having accepted an instruction? Maybe one of our "experts" here can enlighten us.

 

[Everskyward]

Does it matter if you're in controlled or uncontrolled airspace while VFR having accepted an instruction? Maybe one of our "experts" here can enlighten us.

Look at post #59 where I linked to an article from AOPA Flight Training. From what it is saying I would say that the standards are different in Class E airspace vs Class B, C, D airspace at least as far as VFR airplanes are concerned.

 

[roncachamp]

Indeed. But I think when you answer the question for the case in controlled airspace, it makes the case for uncontrolled airspace, however unlikely to happen, even more obvious. Separation services have nothing to do with whether any FAR is violated or not and I was using that to ferret out whether or not one of these experts could tell us if that might stimulate some action to enforce any FAR they thought was being violated.

This all comes down to whether or not you have to declare an emergency to deviate from an ATC instruction you accepted without getting ATC to authorize your maneuvering. Does it matter if you're in controlled or uncontrolled airspace while VFR having accepted an instruction? Maybe one of our "experts" here can enlighten us.

It appears you're using nonstandard definitions of "controlled airspace" and "uncontrolled airspace". "Controlled airspace" covers Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace. "Uncontrolled airspace" is Class G airspace.

 

[roncachamp]

Man, you must be so used to splitting hairs with Ron that you can't read a post any other way. Let's just take a wild leap of faith here that maybe I understand (I did say "those cases") or that my understanding doesn't matter to my question. Can you or anyone else on here answer it or would you prefer just measure peckers with each other on your knowledge of NTSB law? How did my case question show some lack of ATC understanding?

I did answer your question. Go back to post #65, you'll find it in the quoted material above your rant.

I'll pass on that wild leap of faith.

 

[roncachamp]

How does one determine whether or not a controller has made a valid instruction?

By being knowledgeable about the limits of a controller's authority.

Sorry, but I'm gonna side conservatively here...

If a controller gives you a command, follow it, unless it busts a FAR. There's no need for a pilot to know/understand whether it busts some obscure ATC rule. As pilots, we follow FAR/AIM, which says we must comply with all instructions.

FWIW, I see no mention of the word "valid" in the following FAR:

Do you feel that because FAR 91.123 does not contain the word "valid" it indicates the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions that it did not authorize controllers to issue?

 

[tonycondon]

By being knowledgeable about the limits of a controller's authority.

Do you feel that because FAR 91.123 does not contain the word "valid" it indicates the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions that it did not authorize controllers to issue?

if pilots are supposed to know how to do the controllers job, why do we need controllers?

 

[roncachamp]

if pilots are supposed to know how to do the controllers job, why do we need controllers?

Do you believe it's necessary to know how to do the controllers job in order to be knowledgeable about the limits of a controller's authority?

 

[tonycondon]

Do you believe it's necessary to know how to do the controllers job in order to be knowledgeable about the limits of a controller's authority?

i think that pilots should be knowledgable about pilots authority, and controllers should be knowledgable about controllers authority.

 

[roncachamp]

i think that pilots should be knowledgable about pilots authority, and controllers should be knowledgable about controllers authority.

I agree. But some are not as knowledgeable as they should be.

 

[SkyHog]

Do you feel that because FAR 91.123 does not contain the word "valid" it indicates the FAA wants pilots to adhere to instructions that it did not authorize controllers to issue?

The FARs are very specific....so yes.

I see nothing that specifies that the instruction must be valid, so that means that the FAA expects pilots to adhere to EVERY instruction, not just the ones ATC was authorized to give.

 

[roncachamp]

The FARs are very specific....so yes.

I see nothing that specifies that the instruction must be valid, so that means that the FAA expects pilots to adhere to EVERY instruction, not just the ones ATC was authorized to give.

Thanks, that's an interesting take. My own is that the FAA expects controllers to issue only those instructions that it authorized them to give.