![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Gary Drescher wrote: I think what Anto=F1io was asking for was a regulation to support the not= ion that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because compliance would violate the FARs. That is, what regulation says that other regulations take precedence over 91.123b (which requires compliance with = ATC instructions, except if there's an emergency need to deviate)? As far as I can tell, there's no such regulation (although AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c are at least tangentially relevant). --Gary Exactly. However, AIM 3-2-1d is somewhat disquieting... "d.VFR requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR Part 91)" Antonio |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sports class tasking | [email protected] | Soaring | 12 | April 25th 05 01:32 PM |
Class III vs. Class II medical | G. Sylvester | Piloting | 11 | February 8th 05 06:41 PM |
One Design viability? | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 41 | December 10th 03 03:27 AM |
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) | Snowbird | Home Built | 78 | December 3rd 03 09:10 PM |
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) | Snowbird | Owning | 77 | December 3rd 03 09:10 PM |