If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
"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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
: 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 * ************************************************** *********************** |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
: 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 * ************************************************** *********************** |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
"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? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
: "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" |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
"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? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")
: 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 * ************************************************** *********************** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
Real World Specs for FS 2004 | Paul H. | Simulators | 16 | August 18th 03 09:25 AM |