250 below 10000

[erichartmann]

Well spongebob, if you have a Fed sitting in your jumpseat, and you exceed 250IAS below 10000msl even on a controller's instruction, I think you'll get violated. Let us all know how your arguements work out, and how much money you spent going to court to make them. Remember also that time is money. Personally, regardless of the controller's instruction, I'll be doing a bit less than 250.

_____________

Veggies are not food. Veggies are what food eats.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Someone got some thoughts on this one:
Coming into the Boston area and doing 265 KIAS. Told to descend to 9000FT and maintain present speed. CA was of the opinion that ATC could not ask for this and that we needed to slow to 250, I wasn't so sure. I thought that they could. Anyone? Thanks.

How did this question ever get to 9 pages?

Simple answer is, fly 265 until 10, level and slow at 10 then descend. I prefer to slow while descending when ever possible as a matter of comfort for the pax, but in this case the speed restriction wouldn't allow it.

There are no other valid answers. End this thread.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

Well spongebob, if you have a Fed sitting in your jumpseat, and you exceed 250IAS below 10000msl even on a controller's instruction, I think you'll get violated. Let us all know how your arguements work out, and how much money you spent going to court to make them. Remember also that time is money. Personally, regardless of the controller's instruction, I'll be doing a bit less than 250.

_____________

Veggies are not food. Veggies are what food eats.

Are you sure?

Formatting may be hard to read, so here's the decision itself:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4713.PDF

(and below, but removed identifying info, summarized points in red and some underlined... the only edit(s) I've made to the PDF file, as published.)

SERVED: October 23, 1998
NTSB Order No. EA-4713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Adopted by the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
at its office in Washington, D.C.
on the 23rd day of October, 1998
__________________________________
)
JANE F. GARVEY, )
Administrator, )
Federal Aviation Administration, )
)
Complainant, )
) Docket SE-15361
v. )
)
XXXXXX. XXXXXXX, )
)
Respondent. )
)
__________________________________)
OPINION AND ORDER
The respondent has appealed from the oral initial decision
Administrative Law Judge William E. Fowler rendered in this
proceeding at the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing held on
September 25 and 26, 1998.1 By that decision, the law judge
affirmed in its entirety an emergency order of the Administrator
revoking respondent’s airline transport pilot and certified
flight instructor certificates for his alleged violations of
1An excerpt from the hearing transcript containing the
2
sections 91.111(a), 91.123(b), 91.129(i), and 91.13(a) of the
Federal Aviation Regulations, “FAR,” 14 CFR Part 91.2 For the
reasons discussed below, the appeal will be denied and the
initial decision will be affirmed.3
The Administrator’s August 5, 1998 Emergency Order of
Revocation alleged, among other things, the following facts and
circumstances concerning the respondent:
1. You hold Airman Certificate No. XXXXXXXXX with
airline transport pilot privileges, and Airman Certificate
No. XXXXXXXXCFI with certified flight instructor
(..continued)
initial decision is attached.
2FAR sections 91.111(a), 91.123(b), 91.129(i), and 91.13(a)
provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another
aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
§ 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
* * * * *
(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.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
* * * * *
(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at
any airport with an operating control tower, operate an
aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an
aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from
ATC. A clearance to “taxi to” the takeoff runway assigned
to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned
takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but
is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the
taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to
“taxi to” any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is
clearance to cross all runways that intersect the taxi route
to that point.
3The Administrator has filed a reply opposing the appeal.
3
privileges.
2. On June 3, 1998, you were pilot in command of a
Cessna model 310 airplane, Civil Aircraft N310MH, the
property of another, operating in air commerce on a flight
into Alexandria International Airport (Alexandria),
Alexandria, Louisiana.
3. During the flight described in paragraph two (2),
you entered the Class D airspace surrounding Alexandria
without establishing two-way radio communications prior to
entering that airspace.
4. During the flight described in paragraph two (2),
at the time you entered Alexandria’s Class D airspace prior
to establishing two-way radio communications with the
Alexandria tower there were private and commercial passenger
aircraft in the Alexandria traffic pattern.
5. During the flight described in paragraph two (2),
after you had entered Alexandria’s traffic pattern for
landing, you were instructed by the Alexandria tower to
continue downwind and to follow another airplane ahead of
you. Furthermore, you were told by the Alexandria tower
that that aircraft would be landing ahead of you.
6. When you could not locate[d] the aircraft ahead of
you, you were instructed by the Alexandria tower to continue
your downwind and that your turn to base leg would be called
by Alexandria tower.
7. At a time when no emergency existed, and while
operating in an area in which air traffic control (ATC) was
exercised, you operated contrary to an ATC instruction, in
that you turned base leg prior to being authorized to do so
by the Alexandria tower.
8. Despite again being instructed by the Alexandria
tower to continue downwind, you disregarded that instruction
and continued on base leg for landing.
9. Your operation of N310MH was careless or reckless
so as to endanger the life o[r] property of others, in that
your operation of N310MH contrary to . . . ATC instructions
placed your aircraft in the landing path of the aircraft
that had previously been cleared to land.
10. As a result of your operation of N310MH contrary
to an ATC instruction, Alexandria Tower was required to
issue instructions to another aircraft to make a turn to
avoid a conflict with your aircraft.
4
11. In spite of the fact that you were never issued a
clearance to land at Alexandria you landed N310MH in front
of an aircraft that had been cleared to land.
12. Finally, after landing at Alexandria without a
clearance you requested permission to execute a 360-degree
turn on the taxiway.
13. Despite the fact that your request to execute a
360-degree turn was denied by the Alexandria tower and you
were instructed to taxi straight ahead, you disregarded
those instructions and made a 360-degree turn on the
taxiway.
The law judge concluded that the Administrator’s evidence amply
supported these allegations and, therefore, established the
regulatory violations cited in the emergency order, which served
as the complaint. Although some of respondent’s numerous
objections here reveal disagreement with the law judge’s
resolution of factual conflicts in the testimony of the parties’
respective witnesses, he has not identified any valid reason for
us to disturb the credibility assessments in favor of the
Administrator’s witnesses that the law judge’s decision
reflects.4 We will, accordingly, limit our consideration of
respondent’s appeal to those objections that essentially purport
to excuse or justify his operation of N310MH in light of what he
asserts demonstrates improper handling of his flight by ATC.5
4For example, respondent and an air traffic controller
differed as to whether N310MH was within Class D airspace when it
first made radio contact with the tower and when it later turned
left base for Runway 14 at Alexandria.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

The law judge creditedthe controller’s testimony that it was at both times.
5Respondent also complains that the hearing in this matter
5
That review convinces us that respondent’s brief is little more
than an attempt to escape accountability for his intentional
disregard of ATC instructions, and the adverse impact on air
safety it produced, by contending that he was subjected to
improper ATC practices and procedures at the Alexandria airport
that, in some unexplained way, legitimate his actions.6 In our
(..continued)
was held two days beyond the 25-day deadline in Section 821.56
and that some of the Administrator’s witnesses did not comply
with the law judge’s sequestration order. Neither point merits
extended comment. The specification of a 25-day deadline for
setting the hearing date in an emergency case reflects an effort
to ensure that enough time will remain after the hearing for the
Board to dispose of any appeal from the law judge’s decision
within the 60-day statutory mandate. See Administrator v.
Player, 3 NTSB 3498 (1981). It was not intended to give the
parties to an emergency proceeding any additional substantive or
procedural rights. As to the sequestration issue, apart from the
fact that respondent’s appeal gives no indication as to which
witnesses may have been discussing the case outside the hearing
room, what they may have talked about, or whether any of them had
yet testified, a challenge such as this one, involving potential
factual disputes that were neither presented to nor resolved by
the law judge, can not be entertained on direct appeal from the
law judge’s initial decision.
Such an objection would have to be
raised pursuant to Section 821.57(d).
6For instance, respondent argues that the controller, in
denying respondent’s request to make a 360 degree turn after
landing, incorrectly used the term “negative” instead of
“unable.” Although respondent does not say so directly, he
appears to believe that this asserted error in phraseology (that
is, this departure from the terminology specified in FAA Order
7110.65L, “Air Traffic Control,” para. 2-1-18) entitled him to
disregard the denial and execute the maneuver with impunity.
Like the law judge, we see the matter differently. We think, in
the circumstances of this case, that so long as the meaning of
the controller’s instruction was clear, and there is no doubt
here that respondent understood that ATC had not approved a turn,
neither the correctness of the controller’s language, nor the
reasons for his decision are relevant to a determination as to
whether respondent operated his aircraft contrary to an air
traffic control instruction.
6
judgment, respondent’s contentions in this respect are without
merit.
As we read respondent’s brief, it is his position that ATC,
by directing him to continue his downwind leg when the respondent
could not locate the aircraft that had been cleared to land ahead
of him and by, in view of that circumstance, indicating, in
effect, that it would advise him when it was safe to turn base,7
engaged in the improper provision of separation services that
should not have been extended to a visual flight rules (VFR)
flight such as he was conducting. Although it is doubtful that
ATC’s efforts to sequence respondent’s aircraft into the flow of
traffic landing at the Alexandria airport actually constituted a
separation service, as that term is normally understood, we think
it unnecessary to a decision in this case to characterize the
nature of its contacts with N310MH.
Respondent does not argue that ATC was not authorized to
determine the order in which aircraft, VFR or otherwise,
approaching the airport would be cleared for landing, and,
notwithstanding his opinion that ATC could have done a better job
helping him locate the aircraft he was to follow, none of its
transmissions to him was, in our judgment, inconsistent with the
proper exercise of that authority in the context of his inability
to spot that aircraft. Thus, even if it were true that ATC would
7Respondent took offense at ATC’s offer to call his left
base for him, replying, when observed by ATC turning left before
being told to do so, and ahead of the aircraft respondent was to
follow: “Hey you’re not determining when I can turn base son I
7
ordinarily not issue VFR traffic specific instructions as to how
to fly the airport pattern, such instructions here, clearly
intended to reduce the collision potential that a premature turn
to base by respondent’s aircraft could (and ultimately did)
create, were, at the very least, appropriate. To the extent that
respondent found ATC’s assistance in this connection unwelcome,
he could have radioed his intent to exit the pattern, for reentry
when he had all traffic converging on the airport in sight,
or he could have sought permission to land ahead of the aircraft
that had already been cleared to land, an option that would have
possibly prompted ATC to re-evaluate the relative positions of
all aircraft within the airport environment and issue appropriate
changes, if it believed them warranted.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

What the respondent was not free to do was ignore or defy
ATC’s instructions in favor of his own assessment that his
aircraft should be accorded landing priority over one he could
not find, but whose safety he should have appreciated could be
seriously compromised if he did not allow ATC, which had both
aircraft in sight, to manage the situation in accordance with its
informed appraisal of how best to ensure safe operations within
the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating.
Respondent’s decision to land contrary to instruction and ahead
of an aircraft he did not yet see was both reckless and
demonstrative of a noncompliant attitude inimical to air safety.
(..continued)
do that, now wheres the traffic?” Adm. Exh. A-2, page 3.
8
Finally, respondent contends that he should be given a
waiver of penalty because he filed an Aviation Safety Reporting
Program report of the incident. We disagree. An ASRP waiver is
not available for deliberate, willful FAR violations, and
respondent’s conduct was anything but inadvertent. More to the
point, we share the Administrator’s view that respondent should
lose his airman privileges, for his repeated defiance of ATC’s
appropriate and lawful authority shows that he does not possess
the care, judgment and responsibility required of a certificate
holder. Respondent proved himself to be an unpredictable,
lawless element in an airspace system critically dependent for
its safety on both the reliability of its individual users and
their willingness to relinquish when necessary their operational
autonomy.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent’s appeal is denied; and
2. The initial decision and the Emergency Order of
Revocation are affirmed.
HALL, Chairman, FRANCIS, Vice Chairman, HAMMERSCHMIDT, GOGLIA,
and BLACK, Members of the Board, concurred in the above opinion
and order.

 

[A Squared]

Are you sure?

Yep, I'm pretty sure that the NTSB decision in the case of a pilot who intentionally cut in front of another airplane and landed without clearence (when specifically instructed not to) has very little relevance to the question of whether or not a controller may waive 91.117(a)

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

The 280 kt restriction is intended to be a "do not exceed" according to my union buds down there:

Answer 1, from SOCAL:
...
"As far as saying "maintain 280kts" when the aircraft is below 10,000, that would be lax phraseology. I personally issue either "maintain 280kts when able," or "do not exceed 280kts."
....

Good phraseology, on this controller's part. "When able" means just that... 'when able' in accordance with established procedures and regulations, including 91.117. Simply stating "Maintain XXX kts" is an instruction, and subjects the recepient to 91.123(b).

I'm not sure if the controller who replied meant "LAX" referencing the airport identifier, or meant it as in lax as in "Lacking in rigor, strictness, or firmness" to the terminology when "when able" or "do not exceed" would be more indicative of a non-critical time to comply with the instruction issued, and still gives the pilot the option of a slower speed, until "able" to comply with the instruction.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

oh yeah that editorial comment I made about phraseology is based on this NTSB decision:

(greatly condensed to relevancy)

SERVED: March 31, 1994 .
NTSB Order No. EA-4118
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
…..

Board precedent reveals that an airman will not be held
accountable for violations precipitated by erroneous or ambiguous
instructions from ATC.7 …

…
If further clarification is then necessary, the controller may,
at his or her discretion, utilize any language to communicate the
intended meaning to the pilot.

…..

TTFN

 

[A Squared]

oh yeah that editorial comment I made about phraseology is based on this NTSB decision:

(greatly condensed to relevancy)

Uhhh, no, you "condensed" it, because even through your dememtia, you are aware that if this excerpt is read in the context of the actual incident, it doesn't support your stance one iota. So, you removed the context in order to misrepresent the quote.

Context:

The controller gave an ambiguous, confusing, nonstandard takeoff clearence, and as a result of not understanding the controller, the pilot did something other than what the controller wanted. *That* is the context of your quote. That's the crux, the clearence was confusing at best and it was understandable that the pilot misinterpreteted it. This speaks to culpability in the situation of a misunderstood clearence.

If you think that this is applicable to a situation where ATC tells you to exceed 250 and you understand exactly what they are asking, you're sadly mistaken.


*edit* it should also be noted that in that case, the pilot was *still* found to be careleless in voiolation of 91.13 because he didn't request clarification of the confusing clearence.


Bottom line. completely irelevant to the situation of a clearly understood request of exceed 250 below 10k.