Class B bust my fault or the controllers ?

Gary Drescher wrote:

wrote in message ...
An emergency is not limited to the
aircraft having a mechanical or similar such problem. Violating Class B
airspace has unknown ramifactions, such as perhaps approach control seeing
the
intrustion and declaring an emergency on your flight because of loss of
separation, etc., etc.

It's true that a controller *might*, for additional reasons, deem a Class B
incursion to be an emergency. But I doubt that a slight breach of Class B,
with good visibility and no conflicting traffic, would *by itself*
constitute an emergency. So I don't think 91.3b would necessarily come into
play.

Again, I don't dispute that you should avoid the incursion, even if you have
to violate 91.123b. I just wish the FARs weren't contradictory on that
point.

--Gary

I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then that's
your judgment. You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement
hearing if you remain clear of the Class B.

wrote in message ...

I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then
that's
your judgment.

But 91.3a merely says that the PIC has final responsibility and authority.
That *doesn't* mean that the PIC is at liberty (except in emergencies) to
violate the FARs, though! And what's under discussion here is whether
rejecting an ATC instruction (except in an emergency) violates the FARs
(specifically, 91.123b, which requires compliance with ATC instructions,
except in emergencies). There's nothing in 91.3a that addresses that
question.

You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement
hearing if you remain clear of the Class B.

Sure, I've never disputed that. I'm just disputing that the FARs make that
clear.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

wrote in message ...

I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then
that's
your judgment.

But 91.3a merely says that the PIC has final responsibility and authority.
That *doesn't* mean that the PIC is at liberty (except in emergencies) to
violate the FARs, though! And what's under discussion here is whether
rejecting an ATC instruction (except in an emergency) violates the FARs
(specifically, 91.123b, which requires compliance with ATC instructions,
except in emergencies). There's nothing in 91.3a that addresses that
question.

You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement
hearing if you remain clear of the Class B.

Sure, I've never disputed that. I'm just disputing that the FARs make that
clear.


Well, this isn't the only case where FARs are not clear. In some cases, they
are downright misleading; in some cases they are quite clear, and then there
is the great middle: basic regulatory guidance that is suspended on a vast web
of "advisory" guidance and policy statements from the FAA over the years.

This one is fairly simple in that context: no Class B clearance, no enter the
Class B.

wrote in message ...
This one is fairly simple in that context: no Class B clearance, no enter
the
Class B.

Yes, that's simple and unambiguous. There's no doubt that it violates the
FARs to enter Class B without a clearance, even if so instructed by ATC.
That was never the issue.

Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed
to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
*whether you comply or not*.

You and I agree about how the FAA wants us to resolve that conflict in the
FARs. My point is just that the conflict there does exist.

--Gary

Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed
to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
*whether you comply or not*.

How is this different from "refusing" to obey an ATC instruction that
would be impossible to follow? There is no stated exception for
impossible things either, but somehow nobody gets busted for that.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're
instructed to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or
another *whether you comply or not*.

How is this different from "refusing" to obey an ATC instruction that
would be impossible to follow? There is no stated exception for
impossible things either, but somehow nobody gets busted for that.

That's because (as you acknowledge by your use of scare-quotes) there is no
actual refusal to be busted for in that case.

--Gary

That's because (as you acknowledge by your use of scare-quotes) there is no
actual refusal to be busted for in that case.

Ok, (and you're right - a pet peeve of mine is the overuse of quotes
like that, and there I go doing it myself)

How is this different from refusing to obey an ATC instruction that
would be impossible to follow, or would lead you into a cloud VFR?
Tower says "extend your downwind" but there's a cloud in the way. Tower
is issuing other instructions and you can't get a word in on the radio.
Fly into the cloud, you're busted. Disobey the instruction, I suspect
you would =not= be busted.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed
to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
*whether you comply or not*.

You really need to read this stuff with some common sense applied. For
example, 91.123(a) lists three ways in which you may legally deviate from a
clearance: get an ammended clearance, in response to an emergency, or in
response to a TCAS RA. 91.123(b) talks about instructions (as opposed to
clearances) and says you can only operate contrary to an instruction in
response to an emergency.

A strict literal reading of those two paragraphs would lead you to the
conclusion that while responding to a TCAS RA allows you to violate a
clearance, it does NOT allow you to violate an instruction. Such a
conclusion is clearly absurd, but that's what a literal reading says.

For VFR operations, if you adopt that idea that "clearances trump
instructions", you'll do fine. Don't go into CBAS without a clearance,
even if told to follow another aircraft or fly a heading which would take
you into it. Likewise for flying into a cloud. Or taking off or landing
at a towered airport.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're
instructed
to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
*whether you comply or not*.

You really need to read this stuff with some common sense applied.

Sure, that's always true. My point here, though, is that common sense
doesn't resolve the conflict. We need to rely on folklore (and AIM
passages), rather than just on the regulations plus common sense. After all,
when we're driving cars, instructions from police *do* trump traffic
regulations; so it's not just "common sense" that the opposite principle
holds when flying (even though it does).

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

My point here, though, is that common sense
doesn't resolve the conflict.

Near my office is a road that crosses a couple of railroad tracks. South of
the road's crossing of the tracks, there's a fence between the two tracks.
Where that fence ends, next to the road, is a sign:

Do not cross railroad tracks

Unfortunately, that sign gives every appearance of requiring that one not
follow the road (or the pedestrian way along the road) across the tracks.
Although I've not checked, I'm reasonably sure that it is supposed to mean
"cross tracks only at designated crossings".

It irks me when people that author signs - or rules - cannot do so clearly
and accurately. For what else are they being paid?

- Andrew