Flight following along complex route

[midlifeflyer]

When I am headed south out of Denver I wont call for Flight following until south of Colorado Springs. Their airspace tops at 10,200. As I fly over at 10,500 or more I listen to CS Approach but do not talk unless called as traffic to another plane. If I ask for flight following north of Co Spgs they send me 20 miles east around their area. Once called as traffic while over their airspace I will for, safety sake, respond "Your unverified traffic is 1079V at 10,500" That way they know what is safe but know they can't vector me around.

91.123 is not as assumed above. Flight following is NOT a clearance. You can choose not to follow any instruction with impunity. You CANNOT be violated for not obeying an advisory.  Kinda stupid but legal. Read below:

 

 

 

§ 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC CLEARANCE  has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

( 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.

© Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.

(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.

(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)

An advisory is not an instruction. Text in your post I bolded in green is correct. Text I highlighted bolded in red is not. See the text I bolded in your "read below" snippet. 

 

You disobey an ATC instruction in controlled airspace at the risk of a 91.123 violation.  "an area in which air traffic control is exercised" is called "controlled airspace."

 

I agree with the start of your post. If you keep out of the Class C and don't communicate with ATC, they can't give you an instruction so there's nothing to violate. But if you did get flight following north of KCOS and they instructed you to keep east at that altitude, you would have to obey the instruction.

[RJBrown]

If you are above 18,000 in class A you are on a IFR clearance. If you are inside class B airspace you ARE on a clearance. If you are in Class C you must obey the approach or tower controller. In class D you must obey the tower. In E and G there is no need for a clearance.

 

This statement is WRONG. Re read the FAR.

 But if you did get flight following north of KCOS and they instructed you to keep east at that altitude, you would have to obey the instruction.

 

If you are not on a CLEARANCE you do not legally have to comply. Flight following is NOT a clearance. It is advisory in nature NOT compulsary.

 

What part of the first line of 91.123 "(a) When an ATC CLEARANCE has been obtained" Do you not understand.

 

 

 

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm pretty sure understand 91.123(a) quite well. But why are you disregarding 91.123(b )? 

 

Of course an ATC "instruction" is not a "clearance."  That's why there are 2 subsections.  One (a) deals with clearances; the other (b )  deal with ATC instructions in controlled airspace.

 

I'm sorry, but if you are saying that a VFR pilot does not have to obey an ATC instruction he or she receives in controlled airspace, you are incorrect.

 

Pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b ). ATC instructions include headings, turns, altitude instructions and general directions. 

 

A pilot flying VFR in Class E airspace, which is controlled airspace, is not required to communicate with ATC; however, if a pilot is communicating with ATC and ATC issues an instruction, the pilot must comply with that instruction.

 

You're welcome to disagree but that's how the FAA Chief Counsel feels about it http://goo.gl/omFVad

[Marauder]

I would like to hear an instructor's perspective on this. I was always under the belief that if I was in ATC controlled airspace and I was talking to them, I was required to follow the instruction. The clearance portion of the regulation pertains to IFR ops.

[midlifeflyer]

I would like to hear an instructor's perspective on this. I was always under the belief that if I was in ATC controlled airspace and I was talking to them, I was required to follow the instruction. The clearance portion of the regulation pertains to IFR ops.

 

You'd prefer a CFI's than the FAA Chief Counsel's formal written perspective on this?

 

Your belief is correct.

[Marauder]

You'd prefer a CFI's than the FAA Chief Counsel's formal written perspective on this?

 

Your belief is correct.

 

 Sure, please call up the FAA Chief Counsel and get his opinion. Oh wait a sec, he's on an extended vacation. I'll settled for a CFI at this point.

[midlifeflyer]

 Sure, please call up the FAA Chief Counsel and get his opinion. Oh wait a sec, he's on an extended vacation. I'll settled for a CFI at this point.

 

Did you click on the link? The FAA Chief Counsel has already expressed his opinion.

 

But if you prefer a CFI to the head FAA lawyer, I'm one.

[Shadrach]

The Key word is controlled [airspace]... Headings "suggestions" outside of of class B/C/D airspace arte just that, suggestions... The controller may not phrase them that way because they are accustomed to talking to IFR traffic, but they are suggestions nonetheless. 

 

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/students/crosscountry/articles/2931.html

[Shadrach]

Well, it looks as if the acting "Ass Chief" council has decided to reinterprit the regs in a way that differs from past interpritations.  I will email him and ask why he has decided to change said interpritation.  Many controllers still preface their instructions with "suggest" while receiving VFR advisories.  Someone needs to get everyone on the same page. 

[Marauder]

Did you click on the link? The FAA Chief Counsel has already expressed his opinion.

 

But if you prefer a CFI to the head FAA lawyer, I'm one.

 

Nope. Tapatalk doesn't always show links for me. I just opened MooneySpace on a PC and opened the link. The reason I asked for a CFI point of view is that what happens in the real world sometime is different than some bureaucrat's persepective of it.

[Marauder]

I apologize for starting things in the wrong direction. I didn't mean to imply that you can counteract ATC instructions. What I was trying to say is that with a VFR flight, your route is mostly up to your discretion. 

 

Troublemaker

[midlifeflyer]

Well, it looks as if the acting "Ass Chief" council has decided to reinterprit the regs in a way that differs from past interpritations.  I will email him and ask why he has decided to change said interpritation.  Many controllers still preface their instructions with "suggest" while receiving VFR advisories.  Someone needs to get everyone on the same page. 

 

I don't think there's a change in interpretation. If the controller uses the phrase "suggest," that's all it is.  

 

"Suggest heading 230 for traffic" is not an instruction. "Turn right heading 230 for traffic" is.

[midlifeflyer]

Nope. Tapatalk doesn't always show links for me. I just opened MooneySpace on a PC and opened the link. The reason I asked for a CFI point of view is that what happens in the real world sometime is different than some bureaucrat's persepective of it.

 

Definitely true. But in this case, the "bureaucrat's" interpretation is the one that leads to problems in the real world of FAA enforcement actions. CFI's don't bring enforcement actions. FAA lawyers do. I can pretty much guarantee, "My CFI told me I don't have to comply with an instruction in certain airspace" is not much of a defense.

 

The real world is that 90% of the time, ATC will give a VFR pilot a "suggested" heading. It's the other 10% that can lead to problems for the pilot. It's important to understand the difference between the two. Should be pretty clear based on how it's phrased.

[Shadrach]

Definitely true. But in this case, the "bureaucrat's" interpretation is the one that leads to problems in the real world of FAA enforcement actions. CFI's don't bring enforcement actions. FAA lawyers do. I can pretty much guarantee, "My CFI told me I don't have to comply with an instruction in certain airspace" is not much of a defense.

 

The real world is that 90% of the time, ATC will give a VFR pilot a "suggested" heading. It's the other 10% that can lead to problems for the pilot. It's important to understand the difference between the two. Should be pretty clear based on how it's phrased.

 

Suggestions vs instructions used to be determined by airspace  (B/C vs E). If I'm understanding you correctly, you're interpreting suggestions vs instructions as being determined by phraseology.

 

Just to be clear I'm focused on the legal interpretation.  I don't think it changes a thing operationally. It does have the potential to change the legal aspects after an incident..

[fantom]

Don't know if it's someone else's idea of 'best practice', Jim, but when I'm just monitoring and hear traffic called out that I know is me, I speak up. Never have been chastised by ATC for it.

 

Interesting that when I'm getting radar advisories coming into the Ft. Lauderdale area from the north, ATC tries to swing me out west for separation ALL the time, regardless of any other traffic being around.  Almost always, I just cancel FF, and often the controller sounds incredulous about it. Just funny.

[RJBrown]

I used the wrong word Flight following is advisory in nature and not an instruction or a clearance. I had used instruction in place of advisory.

as written is vauge. I would need to see a legal interpetation. Such as what is :"an area in which air traffic control is exercised"

I thought an area that traffic control is exercised is within class A,B,C,D

Now I am not so sure what ( means.

 I thought that Clearances were for IFR including class A and for operations in class B. I thought that Instructions are what you get from tower or approach in C and D.

I also think all communications with center while on Flight following are advisory in nature.

[RJBrown]

That looks like the opposing teams opinion in a court case. Is there any case law to support it?

Since Flight following is both advisory and voluntary in nature and radio communication is not always clear and precise subtle phraseology differences should not make an apparent suggestion a instruction.

[N201MKTurbo]

The best course of action if you want to avoid an enforcement action is: don't piss off the controller....

[PMcClure]

Poor Jamie is just trying to get to ORL. He may decide to stay on the ground now!!

 

My experience when using flight following, headings have almost always been suggestions. But I regularly get instructions such as " Maintain VFR, 4500' advise any altitude changes". 

[Robert C.]

Well, speaking up would certainly seem at least like a "good" practice, Gary. What specific phraseology do you use/suggest? The reason that I bring this up is because I have wondered in this situation, at the exact moment of potentially converging traffic, if everyone is better off getting to know each other, as it were, over the radio, or if everyone would be better off just looking out the window? I can honestly see pros and cons either way.

Thanks, my friend.

Jim

 

This happened to me a few weeks ago. I was night VFR returning to Danbury (KDXR) from Northampton and visiting Greg and his Mooney.

 

I didn't request flight following but did tune in Bradley Approach as I'd be passing by the Class C boundary within about 5 miles and wanted to have good SA.

 

Approach then started talking to a departing aircraft about traffic at my altitude and his 2 O'Çlock. Didn't take me long to figure out that had to be me as I saw traffic at my 11 and about 1000 above me a few miles ahead.

 

So I called them: "..Bradley Approach this is Cherokee XXXX, I'm the traffic you are pointing out to Cessna YYYY and have your traffic in sight..."

 

He promptly acknowledged and asked me if I wanted flight following so I just went ahead and accepted. No muzz, no fuzz and everyone happy

 

Robert

[DS1980]

Is it too old school to just file a VFR flight plan?

Not if you do it on an iPad on a wireless network using Google Glasses.

[Dave Marten]

Jamie,

Just give Huntsville your destination. If your route of flight is needed, they'll ask. Don't sweat it - don't over think it. Enjoy the flight!

[midlifeflyer]

Suggestions vs instructions used to be determined by airspace  (B/C vs E). If I'm understanding you correctly, you're interpreting suggestions vs instructions as being determined by phraseology..

I'm really not aware of any FAA rule, order, guidance or interpretation that said that whether something is an instruction or not depends on airspace. If you have a reference, I really would like to see it.

Yes I'm saying that whether something is an instruction or just a suggestion depends on the words used. Like everything else in language and communications. In this case it's the use of the word "suggested." Kind of like the word "clearance." VFR aircraft can't be certain they are cleared into Class B unless the word "cleared" is used. Or "practice approach approved" instead of "cleared for the approach" to let VFR aircraft know that they are not on a IFR approach clearance when or practicing instrument approaches under VFR.

Operationally, the ATC Handbook gives at least one example of using "suggested heading" as a means if ensuring the pilot understands that what is being said is only a suggestion and not an instruction. I"m pretty sure pilots won't have too much trouble telling the difference between "maintain at or above 3000'" and "suggested altitude at or above 3000'"

[nugs314]

What if instead of "Flight following canceled"  they say, "For now, Maintain 3,000; fly heading 230."

 

I'm not asking about what you would do practically speaking. I'm reacting to what seems to be your suggestion that you don't have to accept their instructions if you cancel flight following. If  that's what you are saying, I disagree. If you are in communication with ATC and they give you and instruction, 91.123 says you have to comply unless it's an emergency or, I guess, if you are in Class G.

If ATC is giving you specific heading and directions then you are not VFR anymore. If you are VFR with FLT Following they will give you recommended headings etc. to avoid traffic or stay clear of airspace. If you violate the space/separation than you have their complete attention. Flt following is given on a case by case basis based upon ATC workload.

[201er]

When you are talking to ATC you are obliged to comply with instructions. An area where air traffic control is exercised is obviously any controlled airspace. In other words, if you're talking to them, you have to comply with instructions. However, receiving traffic advisories (flight following for those who prefer slang) in itself is voluntary. While you are receiving the advisories, any instructions given are mandatory but you are not required to continue to remain under ATC. You may opt out of the instruction by cancelling traffic advisories and tuning off the frequency.

 

I feel that the proper way to cancel an undesirably instruction is first to comply with it and then request to cancel IFR or traffic advisories. Once they say your cancellation is received then do what you want. For example ATC says "turn heading 360 and climb to 6000" to which I would respond "turn heading 360 and climb to 6000, request cancel IFR (or VFR)" while beginning the turn/climb. If it were a life saving instruction to get me out of harms way, so be it, and if it was just because, then I can stop once cancelled. However, disobeying the instruction in anticipation of cancelling or just because you don't want to can be a violation of 91.123b even while VFR.