250 below 10000

[Say Again Over]

Yes understood, most of us want to immediately comply with ATC, especially a go faster request.

 

[big_al]

So my question is... saying "do not exceed 280 knots", do you know for sure the pilots know for sure that you are not allowing them for whatever reason to exceed 250 below 10k?

And whos the guy who talks like ahrald? "radar service TERMINATED!" on so cal approach? pretty funny!

 

[Vector4fun]

So my question is... saying "do not exceed 280 knots", do you know for sure the pilots know for sure that you are not allowing them for whatever reason to exceed 250 below 10k?

Generally speaking, I assume the pilot in the left seat of a civilian aircraft capable of exceeding 250 kts knows the FARs.

 

[A Squared]

Generally speaking, I assume the pilot in the left seat of a civilian aircraft capable of exceeding 250 kts knows the FARs.

WHile it is not clear which seat (if any) of what aircraft Spongebob occupies, his "contributions" to this thread suggest that your assumption may not be warranted in all cases.

Apart from the 250/10K issue, I'm astonished how many pilots anc controllers believe that a clearence from a controller is permission to operate counter to the regulations, despite multiple statements in both the AIM and the COntroller's handbook that it is not.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

geeze, I already said I was wrong

begin effn sarcasm

I already admitted that you are right since your exact reference, as you posted, clearly includes and references 91.117(d):

Here it is again:

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correcting amendment is effective as of September 16, 1993.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Messieurs Aaron I. Boxer or Joseph C. White, Air Traffic Rules Branch (ATP-230), Airspace - Rules and Aeronautical Information Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
On October 18, 1989, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Airspace Reclassification (54 FR 42916) which proposed, among other things, that the nomenclature of various airspace areas be renamed to conform with agreements with the International Civil Aviation Organization. On December 17, 1991, the FAA published a final rule on Airspace Reclassification (56 FR 65638) which becomes effective on September 16, 1993. Section 91.117 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR 91.117) was amended as part of this process.
Section 91.117(a) requires that any aircraft operated below 10,000 feet be flown no faster than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.) unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator of the FAA. Section 91.117(b) provides that, unless authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within an airport traffic area faster than 200 knots (230 m.p.h.), except for operations within a terminal control area. The preamble to the proposed airspace reclassification rule included a discussion of several recommendations received from the National Airspace Review (NAR) task group. NAR 1-2.1.3 recommended several changes to operating requirements in Terminal Control Areas (Class B airspace). Included in NAR 1-2.1.3 was a recommendation to delegate the authority to approve deviation from the 250 knot speed restriction in Class B airspace to air traffic control. The FAA had adopted other portions of NAR 1-2.2.3 through separate actions, but had not intended to incorporate the recommended delegation of authority or include Class B airspace in the 200 knot rule. However, the rule language amending Sec. 91.117(a) inadvertently included such redelegation, and that amending Sec. 91.117(b) inadvertently included the Class B airspace area. This action establishes the Administrator as the sole approving authority for deviations from the aircraft speed restrictions contained in Sec. 91.117(a) and excludes the Class B airspace area from the speed restrictions contained in Sec. 91.117(b).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Air transportation, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety.

The Amendment
Accordingly, 14 CFR part 91 in effect as of September 16, 1993, is amended by making the following correcting amendments:


I can see 91.117(d) referenced specifically in that copy. So you were right. I already admitted that.
And I previously admitted that the FAR 91.117 (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed was clearly included by reference in that copy, and that *any* was a restrictive term which is to exclude a particular ‘other’ operation, by choice.


Additionally, I was out sick that day of the ground school which stated that the AIM is regulatory, therefore the entire entry of 4-4-1:
4-4-1. Clearance
a. A clearance issued by ATC is predicated on known traffic and known physical airport conditions. An ATC clearance means an authorization by ATC, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified conditions within controlled airspace. IT IS NOT AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE NOR TO CONDUCT UNSAFE OPERATION OF THE AIRCRAFT.
Is in itself a regulation which must be followed, since the AIM is regulatory. So I guess that means that any pilot who has ever operated an aircraft within 20 miles of a thunderstorm (Ref: AIM 7-1-30 (5) ) has violated a regulatory reference. I (mistakenly) thought that the additional “IT IS NOT AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE NOR TO CONDUCT UNSAFE OPERATION OF THE AIRCRAFT.” was intended for those who lack the common sense to realize that:
1. an ATC vector which places a VFR aircraft into IMC was unsafe, and without a clearance in controlled airspace, illegal;
2. an ATC “clearance to land” when the weather is below minimums does not mean that the aircraft may land solely on the basis and issuance of the clearance;
3. an ATC vector which places the aircraft in jeopardy either by sending it within 20 miles of a severe thunderstorm, or into cumulus granite is an authorization (to relieve the pilot legally of all 91.3(a) responsibility in court) to act in an unsafe manner, contrary to FAR 91.3(a).

that entry means that for these few limited examples (including many more too numerous to list) that an ATC clearance is an authorization to injure oneself, act stupid, or injure others due to lack of common sense.


Further, it isn’t clear that (to me anyway) that
FAR 91.123 (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,
is by regulation, and definition, the FAR which that specifically states what a pilot must do upon receiving a clearance.
I guess I am wrong when I read the FAR to say that the only time I as a pilot can operate my aircraft contrary to a clearance I have received (and I’m wrong now when I say that a clearance is “received” only when I acknowledge that clearance) is in an emergency, if I am operating in an area in which Air Traffic Control, as defined by FAR 1.1, is exercised, (Or, additionally, if the TCAS gives me an RA), or I ask for and receive an amended clearance.

and
(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,

was never submitted by me, certainly not on page 5 of this thread, when I asked if, in a hypothetical situation, would anyone else either declare an emergency to disregard a controller’s instruction, or follow the instruction during that certain operation of air traffic control and that that operation (air traffic control) is excluded by the word *any* in 91.117(d). And it is clear that I previously posted that I would follow the ATC instruction which was contrary to FAR 91.117(a) without first asking for clarification, or an amendment to that clearance. I also stated that since I had a better picture of other air traffic than the controller did on his scope, I was the best one to determine that I would rather follow 91.117(a) than the controller’s 91.123 (b) instructions and / or 91.123 (a) clearance because I know better than the controller, and because of that I knew I could maintain appropriate separation with all traffic known to the controller without following his instruction since, what the he(ck), he does not represent the Administrator, not by a long shot, no matter how you look at FAR 1.1, or determination(s) of Federal Judge(s) that a controller represents the United States Government, who is represented by the Administrator. Finally, the Administrator, and only the Administrator in Washington DC, controls air traffic and issues the actual instructions we hear on the myriad of frequencies ATC uses, because the actual day to day operations and control of air traffic is not a matter which is delegated to controllers in the actual facilities.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

Yep. 91.123(b) is as clear as it can be.

(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.

Note the difference in wording between “instruction” in (b) (An authoritative direction to be obeyed; an order.) and “clearance” in (a) (authorization under specified conditions).

(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.


And so is the AIM, which is regulatory.


So the original question brought forward was not covered by 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.

..and the crew had to slow rather than maintain present speed because the AIM is regulatory, and it is not an emergency to slow contrary to an ATC instruction which the original poster said they received.



Why do you suppose the Administrator wrote the difference between “instruction” (which does not say can be amended) in (b) and a “clearance” which can be amended in (a) ? It's quite obvious to me he made a mistake, so I as a pilot can disregard that wording. I'm sure he didn't mean "instruction".



[SIZE=+0]END EFFN SARCASM.[/SIZE]




Is “maintain XXX knots an ‘instruction’ ”, or is that a ‘clearance’?



We can debate the FAR's all we want here, there are only four words which are in the thousands of regs to provide a defense for a pilot keeping a certificate. The rest are there for the FAA to use against the pilot.

 

[Say Again Over]

and the crew had to slow rather than maintain present speed because the AIM is regulatory

Wrong!

 

[A Squared]

and the crew had to slow rather than maintain present speed because the AIM is regulatory

No, you freaking idiot. The crew had to slow because the regulations are regulatory.

You obviously don't realize this, but you are making yourself look extremely foolish and not a little bit irrational by continuing to post your nonsensical rantings.

 

[Hold West]

No, you freaking idiot. The crew had to slow because the regulations are regulatory.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm going to borrow this one to use on my trainee! Priceless!

 

[Resocha]

No, you freaking idiot. The crew had to slow because the regulations are regulatory.

You obviously don't realize this, but you are making yourself look extremely foolish and not a little bit irrational by continuing to post your nonsensical rantings.

This thread just keeps getting more funny all the time. Nothing like quality entertainment while sitting on the toilet (thanks to wireless internet)!