Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")

wrote in message
...

The top was 10,000. We were at 10,500 (almost due north, so VOR-VOR was
sometimes even, sometimes odd...at
that point it was slightly west). At even 10,001 feet, we wouldn't have
had to call them at all, but since we did we
got a 20 mile detour as a result.


I would have reminded them that I was operating VFR in Class E airspace and
thus they had no responsibility for separation and no authority to initiate
vectors or assign an altitude.

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
...

I may have been in their "outer area". It's funny this should come up,
because I recall that a question about the class C outer area is the only
one I missed on the private written.


The charted Class C airspace would be just a fraction of the controlled
airspace delegated to Portland approach.



Are you referring to:

Pilot participation is voluntary within the outer area and can
be discontinued, within the outer area, at the pilot's request.
Class C services will be provided in the outer area unless the
pilot requests termination of the service.

But I'm referring to FAR 91.123(b):

Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft
contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic
control is exercised.


You're assuming that the regulation was intended to include instructions
that ATC is not authorized to issue. I think that unlikely.



So the question remains: If ATC issues me an instruction when I'm
speaking to them voluntarily (so 91.123(a) does not apply becuase
I'm not operating under a clearance), am I stuck with that instruction?


No.



The closest I can find is in 708 7-8-5(b) re Altitude Assignments:
http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html

Aircraft assigned altitudes which are contrary to 14 CFR Section
91.159 shall be advised to resume altitudes appropriate for the
direction of flight when the altitude is no longer needed for
separation, when leaving the outer area, or when terminating
Class C service.

I suppose that means that I *do* have to obey ATC, but they have to drop
the altitude restriction if I cancel. So from that I infer that if you
get a vector you don't like while in the outer area, a "cancel flight
following" should result in "resume own nav".


Bingo.

wrote in message
ups.com...

I have had good luck with Flight Following but am pretty touchy on
being given vectors just to ease the controllers duties. I most always
cancel flight following, dial in 1200 and remind them there has NEVER
been a controller killed in a midair, it is always the pilots in
command. After all,, they work for us, not the other way around.


"Vectors just to ease the controllers duties"? What do you mean by that?
If you're in an area where ATC must provide separation vectoring is a valid
tool to achieve it. If you're not in an area where ATC must provide
separation then there's no reason for ATC to vector you.

: them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than the
: protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
: cooperation, they need to be nice about it

Exactly my sentiments.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in message
...

Since I didn't (nor had no intention to) enter the Charlie, all I
see that is relevant is:

d. Air Traffic Services. When two-way radio communications and radar
contact are established, all participating VFR
aircraft a

1. Sequenced to the primary airport.

2. Provided Class C services within the Class C airspace and the outer
area.

3. Provided basic radar services beyond the outer area on a workload
permitting basis. This can be terminated by the
controller if workload dictates.

Once I stated, "I would like to terminate radar services," part
d.2. is no longer relevant since I am no longer
participating.


Exactly. Reading the relevant parts of the AIM would preclude wondering
what the rules are when given altitude restrictions while talking to
approach control above the Class C airspace.

: I have had good luck with Flight Following but am pretty touchy on
: being given vectors just to ease the controllers duties. I most always
: cancel flight following, dial in 1200 and remind them there has NEVER
: been a controller killed in a midair, it is always the pilots in
: command. After all,, they work for us, not the other way around.
:

: "Vectors just to ease the controllers duties"? What do you mean by that?
: If you're in an area where ATC must provide separation vectoring is a valid
: tool to achieve it. If you're not in an area where ATC must provide
: separation then there's no reason for ATC to vector you.

... and yet they routinely do it if you happen to talk to them.


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

500 above the top of a Class B is a pretty busy place. All those jets
tend to enter and exit the CBAS through the top. Depending on the
arrival and departure routes in use at the time, you may find yourself in
the middle of a very dense line of heavy metal.

Are you within your legal rights to blow off ATC's vector, squawk 1200,
and continue on your merry way fat, dumb, and happy? Sure you are.
But legal isn't always smart.


Is the controller acting within his legal authority when he initiates
vectoring of a VFR aircraft 500' above the top of a Class B?

: "Vectors just to ease the controllers duties"? What do you mean by that?
: If you're in an area where ATC must provide separation vectoring is a valid
: tool to achieve it. If you're not in an area where ATC must provide
: separation then there's no reason for ATC to vector you.

... and yet they routinely do it if you happen to talk to them.

True, but in fairness (and in my experience) it is usually due to
traffic. Which, after all, is the only reason I am talking to them in
the first place.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
m...

You mean that they will handle IFR traffic up to that altitude not that
their controlled space goes up that high. The charted space for Madison is
up to 4900 (or something close, I'm not looking at the chart). If I pass
overhead of that or under or around, I will monitor but not bother them.
However, Madison controllers are extremely accomodating. I have never had
them vector me at all. The only time that even came close was a "...
transition approved. Cross directly over the airport to stay clear of
traffic."


I meant what I wrote. The controlled airspace delegated to Madison approach
control does not appear on any chart readily available to the flying public.
The charted Madison Class C airspace is just a fraction of their delegated
airspace. Madison will provide Class C services to all aircraft within the
Class C airspace and to all participating aircraft within the outer area.
The outer area extends up to the upper limit of the controlled airspace
delegated to them within a twenty mile radius of Truax Field. If you're
talking to Madison approach within that area you're a participating aircraft
and are subject to being vectored if need be to effect separation.



Milwaukee, on the other hand, seem very territorial. They are difficult to
deal with for practice approaches at Kenosha and they aggressively protect
their airspace around MKE by vectoring VFR traffic well clear. Many years
ago, I was passing along the lakeshore under their airspace. I called up
as a courtesy, got a squawk, then a chewing out for flying so close to
their airspace, then vectors further out into Lake Michigan. I responded,
"Lake 94P, squawking 1200, will remain clear of your airspace." I've never
called them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than
the protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
cooperation, they need to be nice about it


He was completely out of line to chew you out for flying close to the Class
C boundary. You can fly right up to the boundary without talking to them.
But what courtesy were you extending by calling them?

: Once I stated, "I would like to terminate radar services," part
: d.2. is no longer relevant since I am no longer
: participating.
:

: Exactly. Reading the relevant parts of the AIM would preclude wondering
: what the rules are when given altitude restrictions while talking to
: approach control above the Class C airspace.

My own issue was in the termination part. When I told them I wanted to terminate radar services, the request
was ignored. When I inquired again whether he'd heard my request, he "denied" it by saying he was going to "keep me
with him until west of the airport."

That's why I was trying to find some sort of rules defining this situation. I guess as the pilot outside the
Charlie, I should have simply said, "Terminating radar services, squaking 1200, will remain clear the Charlie." I
didn't quite think of that at the time however.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************