250 below 10000

[PAA744]

go Dude

I agree with TheDude !!!

Way to go Dude !!!

 

[Flyerjosh]

Speaking of Canada...What exactly is the rule for speed below 10. Someone told me that you can do more than 250 when departing and below 10, but on arrival below 10, you are limited to 250 or less.

For practical purposes, this is all in Canadian airspace.

Under normal ops, the 10000/250 rule still applies in Canadian airspace. However up there the CONTROLLER (as opposed to the administrator) has the authority to authorize deviations from this rule.

IE you must fly 250 knots below 10000' unless a controller specifically assigns a greater airspeed. "Keep your speed up" is not an authorization to break the 10000/250 rule. You get it a lot departing Montreal... "Climb and maintain 8000', indicate 280 knots".

 

[rballty]

ATC has the authority to waive the 250kt. restriction below 10,000 feet if there is an operational need. The "administrator" will never see a pilot's request to waive this, therefore it is handled by one of her designee's. Air Traffic Controllers are designee's of the administrator with the authority to act on her behalf in this matter if there is an operational need.

 

[A Squared]

ATC has the authority to waive the 250kt. restriction below 10,000 feet if there is an operational need. The "administrator" will never see a pilot's request to waive this, therefore it is handled by one of her designee's. Air Traffic Controllers are designee's of the administrator with the authority to act on her behalf in this matter if there is an operational need.

No, they do not.


Take a look at 91.117. read 91.117 (a). Now read 91.117 (b). Notice that (a) says: "Unless authorized by the Adminstrator...." and (b) says: "Unless authorized or required by ATC.........."

Just by that alone, it is obvious that the regulations make a distinction between "the administrator" and "ATC". It "ATC" and "the administrator" were one and the same, there would be no need to differetiate between them in the regulations.

If that doesn't convince you (although it should be pretty conclusive) take a look at an an Operations inspector's handbook. One of the first sections is a very detailed accounting of how exactly the adminiustrator's authority can be traced through the organization to individual inspectors. Inspectors and examiners *Do* act with the adminstrator's authority (with some limits) Even a designee, carries some of the authority of the administrator. (issuing airman's certificates)

ATC does *not*.

If you look in the ATC handbook, you do *not* find this specific outlining of how the individual controller acts with the authority of the Administrator, because they do not. An ATC controller is merely an employee of the FAA and is no more "the administrator" than the receptionist in the FSDO or a radio technician who maintains communications equipment.

An inspector has been designated a representative of the Admnstrator and acts on her behalf, issuing certificates, waivers, operating specificatons. inspecting airmen, aircraft, etc.


Don't *ever* make the mistake of beleiving that ATC can waive compliance with a regulation, except in cases like 91.117(b) (but *NOT* 91.117(a)) where ATC, specifically, by name, has been authorized to do so.

 

[Resocha]

ATC has the authority to waive the 250kt. restriction below 10,000 feet if there is an operational need. The "administrator" will never see a pilot's request to waive this, therefore it is handled by one of her designee's. Air Traffic Controllers are designee's of the administrator with the authority to act on her behalf in this matter if there is an operational need.

Wrong. In the language of the regulation, if it states, "Unless otherwise authorized by ATC," (or similar language) then the Air Traffic Control can provide the relief. If it states, "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator," (or similar language) then the only way to obtain relief is to petition for an exemption through Part 11 (which is a four-month process).

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

ATC has the authority to waive the 250kt. restriction below 10,000 feet if there is an operational need. The "administrator" will never see a pilot's request to waive this, therefore it is handled by one of her designee's. Air Traffic Controllers are designee's of the administrator with the authority to act on her behalf in this matter if there is an operational need.

No, they do not.


Take a look at 91.117. read 91.117 (a). Now read 91.117 (b). Notice that (a) says: "Unless authorized by the Adminstrator...." and (b) says: "Unless authorized or required by ATC.........."

Just by that alone, it is obvious that the regulations make a distinction between "the administrator" and "ATC". It "ATC" and "the administrator" were one and the same, there would be no need to differetiate between them in the regulations.

If that doesn't convince you (although it should be pretty conclusive) take a look at an an Operations inspector's handbook. One of the first sections is a very detailed accounting of how exactly the adminiustrator's authority can be traced through the organization to individual inspectors. Inspectors and examiners *Do* act with the adminstrator's authority (with some limits) Even a designee, carries some of the authority of the administrator. (issuing airman's certificates)

ATC does *not*.

If you look in the ATC handbook, you do *not* find this specific outlining of how the individual controller acts with the authority of the Administrator, because they do not. An ATC controller is merely an employee of the FAA and is no more "the administrator" than the receptionist in the FSDO or a radio technician who maintains communications equipment.

An inspector has been designated a representative of the Admnstrator and acts on her behalf, issuing certificates, waivers, operating specificatons. inspecting airmen, aircraft, etc.


Don't *ever* make the mistake of beleiving that ATC can waive compliance with a regulation, except in cases like 91.117(b) (but *NOT* 91.117(a)) where ATC, specifically, by name, has been authorized to do so.

Just make sure while trying to follow both of those at the same time you don't violate this one:

Section 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.
(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.
(c) 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.


Avoiding "cumulous granite" would constitute an emergency, (so as to disregard the instruction) question is, would not following a speed assignment of >250KIAS in response to traffic flow or operational needs of ATC (let's say you have that 747 at 280KIAS behind you coming up and ATC needs you to get outta da way) constitues that same "emergency" deviation allowed under 91.23b.

Which rule you going to follow?

Give the controller an aluminum shower or follow ATC clearance?

 

[rballty]

I just spoke to a controller about this issue who is obviously much more informed than you people are. You need to get some firsthand knowledge on the subject versus your limited ability to quote the regs and the ATC handbook. ATC is a designee of the administrator wether you like the idea or not, they waive this restriction daily for operational needs.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

I just spoke to a controller about this issue who is obviously much more informed than you people are. You need to get some firsthand knowledge on the subject versus your limited ability to quote the regs and the ATC handbook. ATC is a designee of the administrator wether you like the idea or not, they waive this restriction daily for operational needs.

Yep. Right there in FAR 1.1


Administrator means the Federal Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority in the matter concerned.

 

[Donsa320]

I would say this to those that think "fibbing" about your indicated speed is a sport; just have a near miss, or worse, clip another airplane, or worse still, cause a fatal accident but you survive and then have your tapes pulled. A bad day in court will follow.

DC

 

[A Squared]

I just spoke to a controller about this issue who is obviously much more informed than you people are. You need to get some firsthand knowledge on the subject versus your limited ability to quote the regs and the ATC handbook. ATC is a designee of the administrator wether you like the idea or not, they waive this restriction daily for operational needs.

If he thinks he is "the adminstrator" then he is not more informed that me. he is misinformed. He not the first controller to be laboring under this misunderstanding.

A couple of things:

1) If the COntroller is "the adminstratior" then why the language in 91.117? why do the specifically say what "the adminstrator" may authorize and what ATC may authorize if ATC and "the adminstrator" are one and the same?

Answer they are not the same.

If ATC can waive the 250 knot restriction anytimg they feel like why was there a special, limited time test program in Houston to allow ATC to waive the 250 knot restriction? (that program has expired and IAH ATC authorization to waive the 250 knot restriction has been revoked) It they can waive it, why the special test program to allow them to waive it?

Answer, they are not allowed to waive it, except in the limited test program which is no longer in effect.

Your buddy is most likely confused by 91.117(d) which allows the restriction to be lifted for *safety* not operational conveninece. This is in accoradance with the regulations and does not make ATC "the administrator"

Yep. Right there in FAR 1.1


Administrator means the Federal Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority in the matter concerned.

Right. Now, you're missing one step there. Find where the adminstrator's authority is designated to an individual Air Traffic controller. I can show you exactly where it is written that the adminstrator's authority is designated to an individual inspector. Show me where its the same delegation is made for a controller. Bet you can't

Just make sure while trying to follow both of those at the same time you don't violate this one:

Section 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.
(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.
(c) 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.


Avoiding "cumulous granite" would constitute an emergency, (so as to disregard the instruction) question is, would not following a speed assignment of >250KIAS in response to traffic flow or operational needs of ATC (let's say you have that 747 at 280KIAS behind you coming up and ATC needs you to get outta da way) constitues that same "emergency" deviation allowed under 91.23b.

Which rule you going to follow?

Uhhh, you're kidding me, right? I mean this is basic, private pilot, who's in charge, what are my responsibilities type stuff. A controller can't clear you to deviate from regulations.

AIM 4-4-1a. 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.

the CAPS are supplied by the FAA, That means they are trying to emphasize that information. Maybe you missed this in private pilot ground school.



There's also instructions on what to do if a controller *tries* to clear you to deviate from the regulations:

AIM4-4-1 b. 14 CFR Section 91.3(a) states: "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, IT IS THE PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE.

Are you admitting that you didn't know this stuff? I certainly wouldn't, not on an open forum.