Class B bust my fault or the controllers ?

"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.

"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

"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

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
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)

Actually, I thought that was an entirely proper use of scare-quotes. (But I
agree that there's overuse when people put quotes around every metaphor or
cliche they deploy--or worse, when they think quotes connote emphasis.)

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.

VFR into clouds qualifies as an emergency, so the emergency-exception
provision kicks in there.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

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.

Yep, no doubt you have some issue with 91.123b, but the FAA will almost
certainly buy into it being a legitimate use of pilot's emergency authority.

How about radar vectors that often violate the off-regulatory routes or
segments part of 91.177? The FAA admits that MVA charts, especially in DMAs,
often cause pilots to violate 91.177, but they (the feds) consider that to be a
"technical" violation.

Brad,

I just noticed that this thread has been cross posted to r.a.ifr. I
have been responding in r.a.piloting and not really reading the posts
here.

My final post on the matter ( I do hope ) is on r.a.piloting and goes
like this:

Rob,

I am not sure of exactly where to put this post so I will just stick it
here and repeat it elsewhere in hopes that everyone will read it.

Due to the gallant efforts of Peter, Bob, Steve, Gary, you and a few
others I must humbly eat crow. You guys have made me see the light.

I have come to the conclusions that:

1. I flew too wide a pattern without regard to VFR references but only
paying attention to the aircraft that I had to follow. Looking back, I
suspect that I did not actually enter class B but was very close to it.
The controller warned me of that fact and I turned sufficiently early
because of that warning to avoid penetrating B airspace. This is why I
never got the infamous, "Call the tower..." message.

2. Though I am quite capable of flying a tight pattern with 14 years of
mountain flying under my belt, I got a bit lazy. I possibly turned my
downwind too wide, I think, causing me to be headed for the closest
part of B airspace from the get-go. B airspace is about 3/4 mile or so
from the end of the runway if one is too wide as I understand it.

2.5 It is quite possible to fly safely in this area and avoiding B
airspace if one is aware of the VFR landmarks. Pete is correct... So is
the unnamed famous author that wrote me privately. ;-)

3. I became stubborn and positioned myself as if a lawyer defending a
position for a client and lost the big picture. It was fun though and
I learned alot! :-)

4. As has been pointed out, I sort of expected ATC to bail me out of my
lazy piloting by blaming them for not sequencing me properly. Had I
been on the ball I would have slowed or s-turned ( but no 360 ! ) and
turned a tighter pattern.

5. I may have insulted some here. I apologize for that. Especially to
Pete for my crack about seeing a psychologist. I hope you know that I
don't think you are crazy all the time. ;-)

6. Though I am still a bit hazy on the tiny details of the legal
responsibilities of ATC in this, I am sure that they acted
appropriately within the boundaries of what was traditionally expected.

In conclusion, ( I hope!) let me say that you all have made me see
things more clearly and have helped this pilot to be a little safer. I
thank you all.

Sincerly,

Antonio

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.


If you are in IFR clearance you only got to distinguinsh two classes of
airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. You don't need to worry about the
classes of controlled airspace.

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

Guillermo wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.


If you are in IFR clearance you only got to distinguinsh two classes of
airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. You don't need to worry about the
classes of controlled airspace.

Well, you do have to worry about equipage to go above FL 240 (DME) and above
290 (RVSM).