"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
I think what Antoņio was asking for was a regulation to support the
notion that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because
compliance would violate the FARs.
Maybe that's what he meant. If so, I'm not convinced that's a reasonable
question. That is, it should go without saying that there are exceptions
to the "must comply with ATC" rule.
Perhaps, but the question is whether the violation of other FARs in general
constitutes a blanket exception to the rule. It's actually quite odd, given
that apparent intent by the FAA, that 91.123b mentions an exception for
emergencies, but not an exception for compliance with the FARs (in contrast
with AIM 4-4-1a,b which, while not regulatory, does specify that exception).
I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a pilot
conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying with the
other FARs. That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car,
for example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
laws that would otherwise hold (even though there are other, implicit
exceptions of the sort you mentioned; e.g. if you're instructed to stop your
car ten feet above the pavement, you presumably can't be penalized for
failing to comply).
--Gary
|