Radio 'altercation' with ATC

Newps wrote:
Just go to chapter 7 of the .65 and you can see the rules for the
various airspaces.

There's nothing applicable there.

I still contend that a pilot must comply with instructions given to him
by any air traffic controller.

As a ridiculous example, if I'm south of Chicago and I contact SoCal
approach, and they tell me to follow a helicopter for landing at MIA, I
must comply.

91.123(b) supports this and is regulatory. Nothing else, including
7110.65 seems to specifically contradict this.

Newps wrote:
Just go to chapter 7 of the .65 and you can see the rules for the
various airspaces.

There's nothing applicable there.

I still contend that a pilot must comply with instructions given to him
by any air traffic controller.

As a ridiculous example, if I'm south of Chicago and I contact SoCal
approach, and they tell me to follow a helicopter for landing at MIA, I
must comply.

91.123(b) supports this and is regulatory. Nothing else, including
7110.65 seems to specifically contradict this.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
nk.net...

Maybe there's a reason he's an EX controller.... :-)


No doubt, and it certainly isn't because being a CFII is more lucrative.

I take it you missed the 30 minute wait for landing a/c? By the time we
could contact the "local" class "C" approach we are to talk to, it had
expired by 5 minutes.

I had flown at that airport many times before (it was where I took my
PP check ride). Even on a busy day I'd never been sitting, "ready to
depart", for more than 10 minutes.

However, on the day in question, we had gone to the run-up area w/ NO
traffic on freq and no traffic had used the airport for 10 minutes. By
the time we finished run-up and radio settings, there was a tail
dragger on short final, followed by 2 C-150s, then a mix of bi-wing,
C-152, C-172 and a Beech. Remember, landing a/c have right of way, and
they were landing as tight as you legally could.

There is no RCO at that airport. Had we been given a clearance void,
things would have sure been different. But since we could depart VFR
and activate in the air...

The CFII was a former military controller and is now retired. Maybe he
was wanting to teach me how, with a real situation, to file and
activate in the air -- VFR Conditions, not IMC. We had actually
discussed this very situation when we realized that our filing would
expire before all the traffic cleared.

Later,
Steve.T

wrote in message
oups.com...

I take it you missed the 30 minute wait for landing a/c?


Nope.

C Kingsbury wrote:

* Controllers sometimes grumble when I announce that I'm doing something
when said announcement is not required, but my policy is that so long as
they have the right to file a deviation on me, then they are going to have
to live with my precautions.

Keep in mind that others are listening to you as well. I tend to provide
"extra" information when appropriate for other pilots. For example, when I
report at a very common reporting point for my "home" airport, I'll add an
altitude. The tower doesn't care, but the 73 other aircraft over the same
small lake might.

- Andrew

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

Newps wrote:

Just go to chapter 7 of the .65 and you can see the rules for the
various airspaces.


There's nothing applicable there.

I still contend that a pilot must comply with instructions given to him
by any air traffic controller.

As a ridiculous example, if I'm south of Chicago and I contact SoCal
approach, and they tell me to follow a helicopter for landing at MIA, I
must comply.

91.123(b) supports this and is regulatory. Nothing else, including
7110.65 seems to specifically contradict this.


What Newps is tryin to tell you... is the controller doesnt have the
authority to give you instructions outside of his area/jurisdiction. The
"administrator of the FAA" is the authority behind 7110. Therefore he is
not "exercising air traffic control" in the areas outside of his
jurisdiction and authority.

In rebuttal to your ridiculous example, You would need to advise SoCal
approach that you will need to land for fuel prior to following the helo
all the way to Miami :P

Dave

Dave S wrote:
What Newps is tryin to tell you... is the controller doesnt have the
authority to give you instructions outside of his area/jurisdiction.
The
"administrator of the FAA" is the authority behind 7110. Therefore he
is
not "exercising air traffic control" in the areas outside of his
jurisdiction and authority.

Yeah, I understand what he's trying to say.

This seems to be one of those things that everybody knows, but isn't
really stated authoritatively anywhere. I can't find that rule in
7110.65, but I'm not intimately familiar with it. I'd like to
corrected if possible.

Even so, that's somebody else's problem. I'd still have to comply with
a controller's directives, even if he's acting outside his authority.
The language of 91.123 doesn't account for appropriate ATC
instructions, it's says "in an area where air traffic control is
exercised." In my silly example, I might be in Peoria's airspace,
which is an area where air traffic control is exercised, so I'm
obligated to follow instructions given by ATC, even if it is SoCal
Approach.

.... but this is a good thing. A more prudent example might be
something that happened to me on my student long solo XC. I made a
list of controllers to talk to, and accidently got out of order. I
called Flint Tower when I meant to call Saginaw Tower. Flint Tower
told me to remain clear of Class D and contact "Approach" on 118.80. I
contacted Approach, which turned out to be Flint Approach, and got
everything straightened out quickly. But, in this case, Flint told me
to stay clear of their Class D (well, every Class D, I guess), and I
was obligated to do that, even though I was outside Flint's
jurisdiction.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:


This seems to be one of those things that everybody knows, but isn't
really stated authoritatively anywhere. I can't find that rule in
7110.65, but I'm not intimately familiar with it. I'd like to
corrected if possible.

You're essentially asking me to prove a negative. Can't do it. My rule
book tells me what I can do in my airspace. There's no list of what I
can't do.



Even so, that's somebody else's problem. I'd still have to comply with
a controller's directives, even if he's acting outside his authority.

No, you don't. If a controller tries to give you something that the
rules do not allow then say unable. It's as simple as that.


The language of 91.123 doesn't account for appropriate ATC
instructions, it's says "in an area where air traffic control is
exercised."

But you're examples are in areas where ATC is not exercised.



In my silly example, I might be in Peoria's airspace,
which is an area where air traffic control is exercised, so I'm
obligated to follow instructions given by ATC, even if it is SoCal
Approach.

No.



... but this is a good thing. A more prudent example might be
something that happened to me on my student long solo XC. I made a
list of controllers to talk to, and accidently got out of order. I
called Flint Tower when I meant to call Saginaw Tower. Flint Tower
told me to remain clear of Class D and contact "Approach" on 118.80. I
contacted Approach, which turned out to be Flint Approach, and got
everything straightened out quickly. But, in this case, Flint told me
to stay clear of their Class D (well, every Class D, I guess), and I
was obligated to do that, even though I was outside Flint's
jurisdiction.

He's exercising his control within his class D, he didn't do anything in
the class E.