Atc & mea

[PGT]

Um..... I have a simple question. If you where in uncontrolled (Class G airspace) why where you talking to ATC and taking clearances anyways?



I know I know, I'm a "wiseguy"

Remember class E is controlled airspace, which mean unless the controller has a brain dump, pilots shall comply with ATC clearances unless in the pilot's best judgment doing so will endanger his/herself or his/her passengers [the formally mentioned brain dump] (I.E. emergence deviation).

I never said I was in Glass G

and sorry but I have every right to question a controllers clearance...

 

[tgrayson]

pilots shall comply with ATC clearances unless in the pilot's best judgment doing so will endanger his/herself or his/her passengers [the formally mentioned brain dump] (I.E. emergence deviation).

or unless that instruction would cause the pilot to violate another regulation.

 

[jtrain609]

or unless that instruction would cause the pilot to violate another regulation.

So with that, could a controller delete the 200 knot speed restriction if you're under the bravo? I've been told no, but at the same time I know I've been bumming around New York's airspace under the bravo before while doing 245 knots knowing that if I slow down a knot I'm going to get chewed out by approach. My understanding is the only reason a pilot can deviate from this (or I should say is supposed to) is because of operational necessity. Doug has said that a heavy MD-90, depending on the configuration, can't slow much below 290 at some points so that's cool, but a controller couldn't assign that under 10,000 eh?

Clear as mud?

 

[tgrayson]

So with that, could a controller delete the 200 knot speed restriction if you're under the bravo?

There's no provision for it in the regulations, although they can waive the restrictions around C and D airports. I'd consider calling the facility manager to discuss the issue or the NTSB if I couldn't get action through ATC.

 

[tgrayson]

There's no provision for it in the regulations, although they can waive the restrictions around C and D airports. I'd consider calling the facility manager to discuss the issue or the NTSB if I couldn't get action through ATC.

From the 7110.65:


NOTE−
1. A pilot operating at or above 10,000 feet MSL on an
assigned speed adjustment greater than 250 knots is
expected to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117(a) when
cleared below 10,000 feet MSL, within domestic airspace,
without notifying ATC. Pilots are expected to comply with
the other provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.117 without
notification.
2. Speed restrictions of 250 knots do not apply to aircraft
operating beyond 12 NM from the coastline within the
U.S. Flight Information Region, in offshore Class E
airspace below 10,000 feet MSL. However, in airspace
underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an
airport, or in a VFR corridor designated through such as
a Class B airspace area, pilots are expected to comply with
the 200 knot speed limit specified in 14 CFR
Section 91.117(c). (See 14 CFR Sections 91.117(c) and
91.703.)

 

[jtrain609]

Word. With the airspace I operated in most of the time I went as fast as they wanted me to go, no questions asked; but I always did wonder about the legality of it.

I'm not curious enough to call them up and ask, but I think it's pretty common depending on the airspace for things like that to be ignored for the sake of sequencing. Or I should say, I believe it's common in New York.

But then again, get a controller to admit to that

 

[tgrayson]

Word. With the airspace I operated in most of the time I went as fast as they wanted me to go, no questions asked;

As long as people aren't getting violated for it. I'll usually only chase people down if there's a potential safety of flight issue.

What would you do with the FAA on board?

 

[jtrain609]

As long as people aren't getting violated for it. I'll usually only chase people down if there's a potential safety of flight issue.

What would you do with the FAA on board?

That's a good question, and it's a tough one. I'd probably keep my speed up to tell you the truth, because in the end I don't think that it'd be safe for me to drop 50 knots out of the middle of no where in that airspace. I've had all my RA's happen in New York approach's airspace, so I'm a pretty big advocate of doing whatever they want within the limitations of my airframe. As far as I'm concerned if I'm not going to jeopardize safety and I'm not going to break a limitation then I want to do what they ask me to do.

But that's just me, and that answer might land me with a 709 ride by breaking the rules so blatantly. I would hope at the same time that any FAA guy in the jumpseat would understand the real world constraints that we work within.

 

[Sunburn]

I never said I was in Glass G

and sorry but I have every right to question a controllers clearance...

I was being a wiseguy, in the US, the only uncontrolled airspace is Class G, granted class E may be minimally controlled, well, the less restrictive at times, it still belongs to some ATC facility, normally a center, but not always.

And yes, you have every right to question a controller's clearance. And tgrayson brought up a great point, in the "unless it breaks a regulation" (CFR or Company I'd probably add) that is why "Unable" is in the phraseology, granted you make get something like, "Roger SAC(Some Aviation Company)XXXX, turn left/right XXX, number 99 for landing" not always, from what I have see, most controllers seem to be understanding when you tell them unable, granted I'm a FSSEPP with a little under 70 hours, so I haven't dealt with a lot of controllers outside of my ZLA bubble, and as a VFR guy, I don't deal with them much.

Back to the "legality" thingy-ma-bobber, the reason I say a CFR, clearily if it is going to give you a trip to the local FSDO, don't do it, "Unable to turn left heading to approach heading 360 from heading 330" (because of have to over bank the aircraft) I know I know, that is what a PT is there for, but you get my example, I hope. If the controller goes to the chief's office because of it, TDB. It isn't your responsiblity to comply to the 7110.65, last time I check, it is the controllers job.

But I will say this, and I think this was the result of a prior fight/argument on this forum. We, the NAS/Pilots and Controllers/etc., are a co-dependant bunch of aviation lovers, but as individuals, some of us have a long memory when we get burned, regardless of who's fault it is.

 

[ghogue]

or unless that instruction would cause the pilot to violate another regulation.

Yep, I agree, and this as well.

Part 91
91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

and

7110.65
2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
.............
NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

and this

AIM

5-5-1. General​

a. The roles and responsibilities of the pilot and controller for effective participation in the ATC system are contained in several documents. Pilot responsibilities are in the CFRs and the air traffic controllers' are in the FAA Order JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, and supplemental FAA directives.

I'm not advocating that pilots go around challenging everything the controller says, and you better be right if you do not follow their instructions, but pilots and controllers alike need to remember that the pilot is held to the regulations. Controllers can't excuse you from complying with the regs, unless it is specifically allowed in each specific regulation.

The other issue for me is if a controller gives me an instruction in order to avoid some catastrophic outcome, I'm not going to argue with him about the regs at that point. There is plenty of time to discuss the details later when everyone is safe.