Class B busted...My problem or the controller's ?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
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.

FAR 91.3 grants the final authority for the flight to the pilot. The FAA is
very clear on the point that a controller is not the one flying the
airplane, and that the pilot is expected to make correct decisions even in
the face of ATC instructions that are unreasonable or don't make sense.

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

Actually, it is analogous. For example, if you are parked on the side of
the road, and a police officer instructs you to pull out in front of an
oncoming car, you are not required to comply. It would be unsafe, and would
violate your legal requirement to yield to traffic when entering the
roadway.

Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
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.

FAR 91.3 grants the final authority for the flight to the pilot. The FAA
is very clear on the point that a controller is not the one flying the
airplane, and that the pilot is expected to make correct decisions even in
the face of ATC instructions that are unreasonable or don't make sense.

Agreed. But pilots must still comply with the FARs (except if there's an
emergency need to do otherwise). And if one FAR says to obey ATC
instructions (except if there's an emergency need to do otherwise), and
another FAR contradicts that FAR, there's nothing in the FARs themselves
that says how the pilot should resolve the contradiction. We just know,
through a combination of folklore and AIM passages, how the FAA expects us
to proceed.

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

Actually, it is analogous. For example, if you are parked on the side of
the road, and a police officer instructs you to pull out in front of an
oncoming car, you are not required to comply. It would be unsafe, and
would violate your legal requirement to yield to traffic when entering the
roadway.

Yes, and similarly the emergency exception in 91.3b and in 91.123b would
clearly entitle a pilot to refuse to cut in front of another aircraft.

Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

A police office does have the authority to require you to do something which
(although safe) would violate a traffic law in the absence of the officer's
directive. For instance, the police can order you to pull over in a
no-stopping zone; they can even direct you to go through an intersection
when there's a red light.

If we didn't happen to know otherwise via folklore and AIM passages, we'd
reasonably guess that a pilot should analogously comply with an ATC
directive to enter Class B without a clearance. The FARs don't say anything
to the contrary.

--Gary

In article , Gary Drescher wrote:
If we didn't happen to know otherwise via folklore and AIM passages, we'd
reasonably guess that a pilot should analogously comply with an ATC
directive to enter Class B without a clearance. The FARs don't say anything
to the contrary.

Yes they do - they say you must not enter class B without an explicit
clearance from the controlling agency responsible for class B. A class D
tower does not trump this. The police officer analogy is a bit weak
because typically when a police officer is directing traffic through red
lights it is due to an *abnormal* traffic situation. However, a class D
controller sequencing his traffic is not, and the class D controller
(unlike the police officer) giving an instruction without "cleared into
class B" is not clearing you into class B airspace. Similarly, if a
controller instructs you to fly a course and altitude that means you
cannot land without endangering persons or property on the ground (i.e.
over a densely populated area), and your engine swallows a valve and you
crash into the roof of a house, the FAA will find you - not the
controller - at fault for accepting an instruction or clearance that
requires you to do something that is against the FARs. I noticed in the
US not much attention is paid to this - however, here, the documentation
I've read has a couple of reminders that you as pilot in command must
refuse ATC instructions that make you do something against the regs
(such as flying VFR through a cloud, or flying less than the minimum
distances to persons or property, or being in a situation that you would
not be able to 'land clear' in the event of your engine stopping).

The pilot's requirement to not violate the regs trumps any instruction
ATC might give you. The pilot being the final authority to the operation
of the aircraft trumps any instruction ATC may give you. However, it's
always nice that you tell a controller that you're 'unable'!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Peter Duniho wrote:

Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

So would you reason that I was not required to "follow the Arrow" on
the 2 mile final because the controller was, by implication, causing me
to "waive laws"
(bust B airspace)?

Antonio

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
So would you reason that I was not required to "follow the Arrow" on
the 2 mile final because the controller was, by implication, causing me
to "waive laws"
(bust B airspace)?

I'm not really sure how many times you have to be told that the instruction
to follow the Arrow in no way required you to fly through the Class B
airspace.

Until you understand that this is the case, any further attempt to enlighten
you is likely futile.

But even if your mistaken impression that the instruction required you to
fly through Class B airspace was correct, the answer to your question would
still be "yes, you were not required to 'follow the Arrow'". It's very
simple: you say to the controller "unable", you explain why, and then you
either negotiate an alternative course of action (if there is time) or you
maneuver to avoid whatever is the problem (the Class B airspace in this
case).

You need to get over your mistaken idea that you handled the situation
perfectly, and start learning about what you could have done differently.

Pete