When do you really have permission to enter Bravo airspace?

[poadeleted20]

My googlefu is weak tonight... would you graciously provide a link or something to get me in the general vicinity.. been looking for a while..

The relevant portion is quoted above. The full order is found at http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4713.PDF. And when you read it, note carefully that the order says "controlled airspace," not just any particular class.

 

[roncachamp]

The relevant portion is quoted above. The full order is found at http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4713.PDF. And when you read it, note carefully that the order says "controlled airspace," not just any particular class.

Note also that all of the ATC instructions issued to Ellis were valid instructions as they were issued to effect runway separation at a towered airport. They'd have been valid even at a towered airport in uncontrolled airspace.

 

[Palmpilot]

Does anyone else realize how ridiculous this thread has become? I don't think anyone's going to win.

I think we all win, because even though the issues of contention won't be settled, we learn new things in the process or, at minimum, we understand the issues better.

ATC can only recommend instructions for aircraft outside of Bravo and Charlie airspace. It's in the 7110.65T, and if they don't include "recommend" or "suggest" in their instruction, then they are at fault, not the pilot who does not have to comply.

The problem with that argument is that pilots are not held responsible for complying with 7110.65, they're held responsible for complying with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. I have never heard of a pilot being charged with violating FAA Order 7110.65, but I have heard of plenty of cases of their being charged with violating the Code of Federal Regulations.

I accept that failing to comply while VFR with a vector outside class B or C airspace will not result in the pilot's being charged with violating 7110.65, but that's meaningless, because pilots are NEVER charged with violating 7110.65.

 

[poadeleted20]

The problem with that argument is that pilots are not held responsible for complying with 7110.65, they're held responsible for complying with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. I have never heard of a pilot being charged with violating FAA Order 7110.65, but I have heard of plenty of cases of their being charged with violating the Code of Federal Regulations.

I accept that failing to comply while VFR with a vector outside class B or C airspace will not result in the pilot's being charged with violating 7110.65, but that's meaningless, because pilots are NEVER charged with violating 7110.65.

Exactly. I'm glad someone gets it.

 

[roncachamp]

The problem with that argument is that pilots are not held responsible for complying with 7110.65, they're held responsible for complying with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. I have never heard of a pilot being charged with violating FAA Order 7110.65, but I have heard of plenty of cases of their being charged with violating the Code of Federal Regulations.

I accept that failing to comply while VFR with a vector outside class B or C airspace will not result in the pilot's being charged with violating 7110.65, but that's meaningless, because pilots are NEVER charged with violating 7110.65.

And pilots are NEVER charged with violating Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations for failing to comply while VFR with a vector outside of Class B or Class C airspace.

 

[Doggtyred]

Ron,
Thank you for the link. After reading the entire text, and taking in the context in which the order was phrased, I feel that Steven's assessment is completely correct.

Ellis (who clearly had issues with authority) was charged in part with violating 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.

Within the class D airspace that Ellis was accused of operating, he was clearly noncompliant, yet bound to follow those instructions.

The pertinent text you are quoting from the document, particularly the words "controlled airspace" are being taken out of context in my opinion. I don't feel that this text is making reference to the term "controlled airspace" as defined in the good book of all things flying...

A more appropriate parsing of those words would be "THE controlled airspace IT IS CHARGED WITH REGULATING" or.. in other words, airspace in which atc is exercised.

Which pretty much affirms that you are only obligated to obey instructions in areas where they are properly permitted to be given. Which does NOT include the entire volume of what is defined as "controlled airspace".

Realistically, Tower was right. Ellis was wrong. He got what he deserved. If I was on a freq and ATC gave me a heading, wether I was bound to or not, I'd likely follow it. They usually see more and know more about whats out there than I do with my mark 1 mod a Human Eyeball. But as long as I'm outside the Alpha/Bravo/charlie/delta or being handled by a tower for landing/takeoff sequencing, its nonbinding. Might be VERY advisable... but nonbinding.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I think we all win, because even though the issues of contention won't be settled, we learn new things in the process or, at minimum, we understand the issues better.

The problem with that argument is that pilots are not held responsible for complying with 7110.65, they're held responsible for complying with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. I have never heard of a pilot being charged with violating FAA Order 7110.65, but I have heard of plenty of cases of their being charged with violating the Code of Federal Regulations.

I accept that failing to comply while VFR with a vector outside class B or C airspace will not result in the pilot's being charged with violating 7110.65, but that's meaningless, because pilots are NEVER charged with violating 7110.65.

14 CFR says you must comply, I agree. However, 7110.65T says a controller cannot issue a vector or altitude assignment to an aircraft unless it is recommended or suggested. Therefore, if they do it is an invalid clearance and more of an issue for the controller, but you still have to comply with it.

 

[Palmpilot]

And pilots are NEVER charged with violating Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations for failing to comply while VFR with a vector outside of Class B or Class C airspace.

Since not all cases get appealed, I'm not sure how we would know that. Even if we accept it as true, is it because the FAA lets pilots off the hook if the instruction is not authorized by 7110.65, is it because controllers seldom give such instructios, or is it because pilots seldom disobey such instructions?

On this one, I'm inclined to assume 91.123(b) means what it says. I have no desire to be a test case!

On the other hand, if the instructions had me going in the wrong direction for an excessive period of time, it's possible that I might develop radio trouble. It's possible that the cause could be something as simple as accidentally brushing the volume control.

 

[roncachamp]

Since not all cases get appealed, I'm not sure how we would know that.

There are no cases to appeal because pilots are not charged with violating Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations for failing to comply with an ATC assigned vector in airspace where ATC has no responsibility for separation of VFR traffic.

Even if we accept it as true, is it because the FAA lets pilots off the hook if the instruction is not authorized by 7110.65, is it because controllers seldom give such instructios, or is it because pilots seldom disobey such instructions?

It's because the FAA doesn't expect pilots to adhere to invalid ATC instructions.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's because the FAA doesn't expect pilots to adhere to invalid ATC instructions.

Unfortunately, I don't have that in writing from the FAA. I do have 91.123(b) in writing.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Note also that all of the ATC instructions issued to Ellis were valid instructions as they were issued to effect runway separation at a towered airport. They'd have been valid even at a towered airport in uncontrolled airspace.

Now you just put some confusion into the mix for me. Was Ellis's "towered airport class D? If so, doesn't that lie "outside class B or class C?"

While I agree that controllers aren't supposed to give instructions outside to VFR aircraft, they sometimes do, and in their haste to avoid metal to metal noise, they sometimes omit the "suggestion" part. Right or wrong, they are usually trying to help, and it isn't a bad idea to listen to them. Absent a really good reason not to, it is probably for the best. If you choose to ignore them and collision or near miss occurs, I can believe that refusal will factor into what you are charged with.

You are both right,one technically, and one realistically, why do you insist on pushing each other's buttons?

 

[roncachamp]

Now you just put some confusion into the mix for me. Was Ellis's "towered airport class D? If so, doesn't that lie "outside class B or class C?"

It was at Alexandria International Airport, AEX has a Class D surface area.

While I agree that controllers aren't supposed to give instructions outside to VFR aircraft, they sometimes do, and in their haste to avoid metal to metal noise, they sometimes omit the "suggestion" part. Right or wrong, they are usually trying to help, and it isn't a bad idea to listen to them. Absent a really good reason not to, it is probably for the best. If you choose to ignore them and collision or near miss occurs, I can believe that refusal will factor into what you are charged with.?

The instruction in this case was to extend downwind. That's a completely valid instruction at any towered field, even in uncontrolled airspace, used to effect runway separation, which is the towers reason for being. It's standard phraseology, described in the AIM and in FAAO 7110.65.

You are both right,one technically, and one realistically, why do you insist on pushing each other's buttons?

Perhaps you'd like to reevaluate that in light of this additional information.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Ummm.... not exactly.

While IFR I've had a controller state, "Fly heading 120 for traffic" and replied with "Unable" as that heading would have placed me inside a thunderstorm. I was in the air, I could see the cloud and XM confirmed my call there was no way I was flying that heading.

Another voice came back and said, "Ok, maintain present heading."

So while we are required to comply we can override anyone's "instructions" (even the Chief Counsel, if he chooses to call) if such action will place the airplane in jeopardy.

I'm the one in the tin can, and I'll gladly deal with your paperwork later, on the ground.

We as pilots deal in a 3 dimensional world while controllers deal in a 2 dimensional world. If you get a vector or clearance in any airspace and cannot comply just say "unable" and work it out from there.

 

[RotorAndWing]

After reading the entire text, and taking in the context in which the order was phrased, I feel that Steven's assessment is completely correct.

Ellis (who clearly had issues with authority) was charged in part with violating 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.

Within the class D airspace that Ellis was accused of operating, he was clearly noncompliant, yet bound to follow those instructions.

The pertinent text you are quoting from the document, particularly the words "controlled airspace" are being taken out of context in my opinion. I don't feel that this text is making reference to the term "controlled airspace" as defined in the good book of all things flying...

A more appropriate parsing of those words would be "THE controlled airspace IT IS CHARGED WITH REGULATING" or.. in other words, airspace in which atc is exercised.

Which pretty much affirms that you are only obligated to obey instructions in areas where they are properly permitted to be given. Which does NOT include the entire volume of what is defined as "controlled airspace".

Realistically, Tower was right. Ellis was wrong. He got what he deserved. If I was on a freq and ATC gave me a heading, wether I was bound to or not, I'd likely follow it. They usually see more and know more about whats out there than I do with my mark 1 mod a Human Eyeball. But as long as I'm outside the Alpha/Bravo/charlie/delta or being handled by a tower for landing/takeoff sequencing, its nonbinding. Might be VERY advisable... but nonbinding.

Pretty well sums it up.

 

[Aztec Driver]

It was at Alexandria International Airport, AEX has a Class D surface area.

The instruction in this case was to extend downwind. That's a completely valid instruction at any towered field, even in uncontrolled airspace, used to effect runway separation, which is the towers reason for being. It's standard phraseology, described in the AIM and in FAAO 7110.65.

Perhaps you'd like to reevaluate that in light of this additional information.

Thank you for "enlightening" me. None of that information is any different than has been given before. While I agree with your statement that the instructions given to Ellis were, indeed, valid, and for the purpose of runway separation, the fact remains that previously you stated that no instructions given to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace were valid. That, apparently, was a misleading statement. That is the only point I was trying to make.

You are, technically, correct. I did not argue that point. However, I believe that Ron is also correct in stating that you could very well find yourself in a bit of trouble if you do not follow ATC's instruction, be it valid or not. My previous example would do just fine. You did not add anymore inciteful information. I did not choose sides, yet your arrogance suggests that I sided with an opponent.

 

[roncachamp]

We as pilots deal in a 3 dimensional world while controllers deal in a 2 dimensional world. If you get a vector or clearance in any airspace and cannot comply just say "unable" and work it out from there.

Controllers deal in a 3 dimensional world as well.

 

[roncachamp]

Thank you for "enlightening" me.

You're welcome.

None of that information is any different than has been given before. While I agree with your statement that the instructions given to Ellis were, indeed, valid, and for the purpose of runway separation, the fact remains that previously you stated that no instructions given to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace were valid. That, apparently, was a misleading statement. That is the only point I was trying to make.

It's a fact that I said that? No instructions given to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace are valid? I don't think so. I believe I said ATC cannot assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace, including the Outer Area, or TRSAs.

You are, technically, correct. I did not argue that point. However, I believe that Ron is also correct in stating that you could very well find yourself in a bit of trouble if you do not follow ATC's instruction, be it valid or not. My previous example would do just fine. You did not add anymore inciteful information. I did not choose sides, yet your arrogance suggests that I sided with an opponent.

You can believe whatever you choose, but Mr. Levy is wrong. He cites Administrator v. Ellis as proof that the FAA will violate pilots for not adhering to invalid ATC instructions. He does not understand that there were no invalid instructions issued by ATC in the Ellis case.

 

[Doggtyred]

Therefore, if they do it is an invalid clearance and more of an issue for the controller, but you still have to comply with it.

You only have to comply with instructions given in areas where atc control is exercised. If they cannot legally exercise control over you, you are not bound to follow it.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

You only have to comply with instructions given in areas where atc control is exercised. If they cannot legally exercise control over you, you are not bound to follow it.

In practicality, I agree with you, but the regulation (14 CFR 91.123) is somewhat unclear. It doesn't mention any class of airspace and technically speaking, ATC control is exercised in class D and E airspace.

Personally if I was given an instruction outside B or C I would only follow it for good reason (traffic separation, etc.), otherwise I wouldn't bother. If the controller has a problem with it, I don't mind calling the facility to straighten out his/her mistake on the ground.

 

[roncachamp]

In practicality, I agree with you, but the regulation (14 CFR 91.123) is somewhat unclear. It doesn't mention any class of airspace and technically speaking, ATC control is exercised in class D and E airspace.

Technically speaking, what ATC control is exercised in Class D and Class E airspace?

Personally if I was given an instruction outside B or C I would only follow it for good reason (traffic separation, etc.), otherwise I wouldn't bother.

What are the traffic separation requirements of ATC outside of Class B or Class C airspace?

If the controller has a problem with it, I don't mind calling the facility to straighten out his/her mistake on the ground.

Why follow it at all if you know it to be a mistake?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Technically speaking, what ATC control is exercised in Class D and Class E airspace?

Traffic separation between IFR aircraft which satisfies the phrase, "ATC control is exercised."

What are the traffic separation requirements of ATC outside of Class B or Class C airspace?

See above.

Why follow it at all if you know it to be a mistake?

I wouldn't, reread my post. I said I would only follow it if it was for good reason such as traffic separation with another aircraft. If it was a vector to take me around something then I have no obligation to follow it and I wouldn't. From a regulatory standpoint, I could see how it can be confusing based off of 91.123.

 

[roncachamp]

Traffic separation between IFR aircraft which satisfies the phrase, "ATC control is exercised."

Okay. I believe we've been talking about VFR operations. But, my bad, I should have specified anyway. So let me rephrase; technically speaking, what ATC control is exercised over VFR aircraft in Class D and Class E airspace?

See above.

Again, let me rephrase; what are the traffic separation requirements of ATC for VFR aircraft outside of Class B or Class C airspace?

I wouldn't, reread my post. I said I would only follow it if it was for good reason such as traffic separation with another aircraft. If it was a vector to take me around something then I have no obligation to follow it and I wouldn't. From a regulatory standpoint, I could see how it can be confusing based off of 91.123.

What is this "something" ATC would be taking you around if not another aircraft?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Okay. I believe we've been talking about VFR operations. But, my bad, I should have specified anyway. So let me rephrase; technically speaking, what ATC control is exercised over VFR aircraft in Class D and Class E airspace?

Technically within Class D, separating traffic on the runway. Within Class E, none.

What is this "something" ATC would be taking you around if not another aircraft?

A MOA, parachute activity, alert area, etc.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron,
Thank you for the link. After reading the entire text, and taking in the context in which the order was phrased, I feel that Steven's assessment is completely correct.

Ellis (who clearly had issues with authority) was charged in part with violating 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.

Within the class D airspace that Ellis was accused of operating, he was clearly noncompliant, yet bound to follow those instructions.

The pertinent text you are quoting from the document, particularly the words "controlled airspace" are being taken out of context in my opinion. I don't feel that this text is making reference to the term "controlled airspace" as defined in the good book of all things flying...

I disagree. They could have easily worded it to limit it to situations where ATC normally exercises control over all aircraft, such as B/C airspace (as Stephen would have you believe), or tower-controlled airspace, but they did not, and chose to say use the term "controlled airspace" without qualification or limitation. The discussion which follows regarding safety issues and the controller's "bigger picture" position reinforces my thinking. Obviously, if a controller uses the words "suggested" or "recommended," that's an advisory, not an "instruction." But if the controller gives an unambiguous instruction to a VFR aircraft in E-space, given what it says in Ellis, I don't see any defense for the pilot if something bad happens as a result of the pilot's failure/refusal to obey that instruction.

If someone wants to obtain a clarification from the Chief Counsel, mighty fine, but otherwise, you will not convince me that VFR pilots in E-space are free to ignore unambiguous "instructions" from ATC. If necessary, consider it a gray area in which going by my thinking guarantees no trouble even if I'm wrong, but going by Stephen's leaves the door open to trouble if he's wrong.

 

[poadeleted20]

Now you just put some confusion into the mix for me. Was Ellis's "towered airport class D? If so, doesn't that lie "outside class B or class C?"

Yes, and yes. And it would undoubtedly apply equally for E/G airspace where there's a control tower.

While I agree that controllers aren't supposed to give instructions outside to VFR aircraft, they sometimes do, and in their haste to avoid metal to metal noise, they sometimes omit the "suggestion" part. Right or wrong, they are usually trying to help, and it isn't a bad idea to listen to them. Absent a really good reason not to, it is probably for the best. If you choose to ignore them and collision or near miss occurs, I can believe that refusal will factor into what you are charged with.

That's how I read the part of Ellis I quoted above.

And if nothing else, it seems rather unwise to refuse to obey a controller's instruction in such a case unless you're 100% certain that you won't run into whatever scared the controller into issuing that instruction.

 

[roncachamp]

Technically within Class D, separating traffic on the runway. Within Class E, none.

Actually, that level of ATC is provided by tower controllers in Class B, C, D, E, and Class G airspace.

A MOA,

There is no provision in FAAO 7110.65 for moving VFR aircraft around a MOA. Why would there be? VFR aircraft are permitted to enter MOAs, see AIM para 3-4-5.c.

parachute activity,

In Class A, B, and C airspace, yes. In Class D and E airspace advisories are issued between the jump aircraft and any other traffic, nothing more.

alert area, etc.

Nope, ATC doesn't move aircraft around Alert Areas. They are depicted on charts just to alert nonparticipating aircraft to high volume pilot training activities.

 

[roncachamp]

I disagree. They could have easily worded it to limit it to situations where ATC normally exercises control over all aircraft, such as B/C airspace (as Stephen would have you believe), or tower-controlled airspace, but they did not, and chose to say use the term "controlled airspace" without qualification or limitation. The discussion which follows regarding safety issues and the controller's "bigger picture" position reinforces my thinking. Obviously, if a controller uses the words "suggested" or "recommended," that's an advisory, not an "instruction." But if the controller gives an unambiguous instruction to a VFR aircraft in E-space, given what it says in Ellis, I don't see any defense for the pilot if something bad happens as a result of the pilot's failure/refusal to obey that instruction.

If someone wants to obtain a clarification from the Chief Counsel, mighty fine, but otherwise, you will not convince me that VFR pilots in E-space are free to ignore unambiguous "instructions" from ATC. If necessary, consider it a gray area in which going by my thinking guarantees no trouble even if I'm wrong, but going by Stephen's leaves the door open to trouble if he's wrong.

Of course not, you did not arrive at your position through reason so no amount of reason will sway you from it. This is purely a matter of faith with you.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Actually, that level of ATC is provided by tower controllers in Class B, C, D, E, and Class G airspace.

There is no provision in FAAO 7110.65 for moving VFR aircraft around a MOA. Why would there be? VFR aircraft are permitted to enter MOAs, see AIM para 3-4-5.c.


In Class A, B, and C airspace, yes. In Class D and E airspace advisories are issued between the jump aircraft and any other traffic, nothing more.


Nope, ATC doesn't move aircraft around Alert Areas. They are depicted on charts just to alert nonparticipating aircraft to high volume pilot training activities.

We're talking about an improper clearance. Therefore I mentioned improper (illegal) instructions ATC could assign to an aircraft.

 

[Palmpilot]

We're talking about an improper clearance. Therefore I mentioned improper (illegal) instructions ATC could assign to an aircraft.

If ATC issues an instruction that is improper (i.e., one not authorized by 7110.65), how is that illegal? What law or regulation is being violated?

 

[Palmpilot]

Actually, that level of ATC is provided by tower controllers in Class B, C, D, E, and Class G airspace.

Hmm...Sounds like "air traffic control is exercised" in all those classes of airspace.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

If ATC issues an instruction that is improper (i.e., one not authorized by 7110.65), how is that illegal? What law or regulation is being violated?

It violates an DOT/FAA order (7110.65T).

 

[Palmpilot]

What law or regulation says it's illegal to violate an FAA order?

 

[roncachamp]

We're talking about an improper clearance. Therefore I mentioned improper (illegal) instructions ATC could assign to an aircraft.

Oh. That wasn't the question.

 

[roncachamp]

Hmm...Sounds like "air traffic control is exercised" in all those classes of airspace.

At that level, yes, in all of them.

 

[RotorAndWing]

What law or regulation says it's illegal to violate an FAA order?

49 USC 44711 - Sec. 44711

​

 

[BillTIZ]

I'm 5 minutes from penetration:

"7DS, just want to verify I am cleared through the Bravo"
"Are you IFR?"
"Yes"
"You don't need clearance if IFR."
"I'm not used to that, I fly near Chicago"

The only thing CVG had said to me prior to that was an altimeter setting upon handoff.

Asked and answered.. if you are on an IFR clearance.. and you are approaching ClassB, you are already cleared.

 

[EdFred]

Asked and answered.. if you are on an IFR clearance.. and you are approaching ClassB, you are already cleared.

Yes, but not according to 91.131 I'm not - which is what started the whole thing. The ATC that told me I was cleared was not CVG.

 

[Palmpilot]

49 USC 44711 - Sec. 44711

It's a little hard to parse, but I guess that covers it. Thanks.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, but not according to 91.131 I'm not - which is what started the whole thing. The ATC that told me I was cleared was not CVG.

Since when operating IFR you can't be in a position to enter that CVG B-space without clearance from Cincinnati TRACON (either directly or by point-out), you do indeed have the clearance required by 91.131(a)(1).

 

[Palmpilot]

Over on the red board, a SoCal Approach controller provides insight into why trying to parse which ATC instructions are valid and which aren't might not be the wisest choice.

http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=1146797&postcount=32

Excerpt:

Not to stir up a hornest's nest, but on many occassions I issued vectors to VFR aircraft while in the Class C outer area; not suggested headings but actual vectors. I also issued altitudes on occassion. That's not compliant with FAAH 7110.65 (the controller's handbook) but based on a developing situation it was what was necessary. There were many times, and several that to this day I can still see very vividly in my mind, where there was a huge potential for an actual mid-air. Watching two aircraft at the same altitude, one eastbound and one westbound, on a perfect collision course and have one call you literally seconds before impact leaves no doubt, at least in my mind, what needs to be done. To hell with the handbook and to hell with the fact one of the involved aircraft was at an incorrect cruising altitude (they were both above 3000' AGL) and to hell with the fact I may get dinged for not complying with the handbook. Nobody got hurt and no property (planes and otherwise) was damaged. On at least three occassions I had pilots tell me they would likely have hit had I not immediately issued the vector. And, I went home with a clean conscience.

The point to all of this is that controllers sometimes do things which aren't in total compliance with 7110.65. I'm not condoning that. But, if such a vector as above is issued and it won't take you into a cloud or terrain or another aircraft, or otherwise be unsafe, are you willing to push a technical point just to prove your point? I assure you, the last thing you want to do is find yourself standing in front of an ALJ trying to explain why you didn't follow instructions. It's not a nice experience. And in this day of the post 9-11 playing field the last thing GA needs is bad publicity.

Fire away at me all you want. Thirty-four years of the business gave me a thick skin. This is based on hair-raising blood-pressure elevating experience. I know what I'm talking about.