"Antoņio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gary Drescher wrote:
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
Well said and exactly my dilema which, as yet, is unresolved.
Hm, I'm not sure why it's still unresolved.
Even though the AIM does not set forth regulations as such, it is
nonetheless an official document that the FAA expects pilots to be familiar
with as an advisory about best practices. AIM 4-4-1a says:
"An ATC clearance... IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY
RULE, REGULATION, OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE." (capitalization in the original)
And AIM 4-4-1b says:
"If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule
or regulation... IT IS THE PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REQUEST AN AMENDED
CLEARANCE." (capitalization in the original)
Admittedly, these passages only talk about clearances, not instructions more
generally. But it would make no sense for other instructions to override the
FARs if a clearance--which is an especially formal kind of instruction--does
not. (I'm not addressing emergency instructions here, since it goes without
saying that emergencies take precedence over everything.)
Although I'd be happier if the statement that the FARs override clearances
were in the FARs rather than just the AIM, it still strikes me that these
passages in the AIM resolve the question without ambiguity. Can you explain
why you think otherwise?
Thanks,
Gary
|