250 below 10000

[Resocha]

You do know, though, don't you, that anyone still reading this thread is just laughing thier @sses off at what a fool you're making of yourself?

...Or shaking their head in disbelief. I hate being stuck in the cockpit with a guy who can't admit when he's wrong.

Throw in the towel, spngbob. You lose. Please accept it gracefully.

 

[A Squared]

I hate being stuck in the cockpit with a guy who can't admit when he's wrong.

Fortunately, we're not stuck in the cockpit with him. It is a little fascinating in a sick sort of way. Kind of like watching a street derlict yelling at his imaginary enemies.

spongebob,

Answer this one question. It's yes or no. Did you read the docket from the federal register I posted which says in plain english that ATC does not have the authority to waive 91.117(a)?

 

[Flyerjosh]

spongebob,

Answer this one question. It's yes or no. Did you read the docket from the federal register I posted which says in plain english that ATC does not have the authority to waive 91.117(a)?

Apparently not... :laugh:

 

[rubicon789]

Remember they only see your GS so they have no idea what your IAS is... so go fast.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

You're right

I guess since 91.117(d) is clearly specified in that Docket No. 24456; Amendment No. 91-233, as you have provided, and since 91.117(d) clearly covers *any* "operation", as defined before, and ATC in itself must NOT and can NOT be considered an "operation", since, according to FAR 1.1 it is only a service "operated" by approprate authority, you are right. Clearly, the act of "operating" or causing to be "operated" the service of Air Traffic Control by persons cannot be considered in itself to result in "an operation" of that service, so 91.117(d)..*any* operation..., is unequivocally included in Docket No. 24456; Amendment No. 91-233, which prevents that operation of the service of Air Traffic Control from being considered by definition "an operation".

And 91.117(d) clearly states only the pilot may determine the "minimum safe speed" for *any* "particular operation", and allows only the pilot to define and interpret 91.117(d), "..particular operation...", according to his and only his need, for what is granted by the authority of 91.117(d).

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

If you call ground control and say, "Ready to taxi and I lost my medical." And GC says, "Taxi to runway 36." Are you legal to go? Of course not. So ATC can not authorize rule breaking, and therefore they can not authorize speeds over 250 below 10,000. You may exceed 250k below 10,000 but only if there is some kind of official waiver in the regs or some approved document somewhere for that special airspace or airplane. ATC does not have the authority to allow anyone to break the rules unless the reg says itself says they can. And then it's not rule breaking or allowing a waiver.
.

 

[501261]

Spongebob, step back for a moment and think about this, you are wrong.

 

[Resocha]

I guess since 91.117(d) is clearly specified in that Docket No. 24456; Amendment No. 91-233, as you have provided, and since 91.117(d) clearly covers *any* "operation", as defined before, and ATC in itself must NOT and can NOT be considered an "operation", since, according to FAR 1.1 it is only a service "operated" by approprate authority, you are right. Clearly, the act of "operating" or causing to be "operated" the service of Air Traffic Control by persons cannot be considered in itself to result in "an operation" of that service, so 91.117(d)..*any* operation..., is unequivocally included in Docket No. 24456; Amendment No. 91-233, which prevents that operation of the service of Air Traffic Control from being considered by definition "an operation".

And 91.117(d) clearly states only the pilot may determine the "minimum safe speed" for *any* "particular operation", and allows only the pilot to define and interpret 91.117(d), "..particular operation...", according to his and only his need, for what is granted by the authority of 91.117(d).

Your logic is sound but your understanding is inaccurate. Simply quoting regulation does not answer the question, as regulation is subject to interpretation, as provided in the numerous examples.

 

[penguin22]

If you are more than 12 miles offshore, let 'er rip baby!

Very true... there is an FAR that I read a while back that exempts the 250 blo 10k rule if you are over water. I know LAX has this waiver when taking off to the west. Once the aircraft has reached a certain point beyond the shoreline, socal dep will usually increase speed on the loop4 dep.

anybody have any details on this waiver at LAX?

 

[Donsa320]

anybody have any details on this waiver at LAX?

There is no "waiver" that I know of, only the basic regulation which does not apply over international waters, that is: past the 12 mile limit. It used to be 3 miles to international airspace/waters but got changed some years ago. We could go like the devil towards MIA or away from LAX in those days. <grin>

 

[Hold West]

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.

Nope. I'll say it again, I can't waive FARs. Any FARs. You are confusing the operational advantage clause in my rules, the 7110.65, that allows me to assign slower speeds than the recommended minima if an operational advantage can be gained. Someone quoted it up-thread.

 

[Hold West]

Which rule you going to follow?

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.

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.

The above is excerpted from the AIM, my emphasis added. I think it's pretty clear which rule takes precedence.​

 

[Hold West]

He is not my buddy, just my college professor who teaches advanced Air Traffic Control courses.

Ah, jeez, another one of those. Ask a real controller, will ya?

 

[Hold West]

Oops

Just noticed this is a month-old thread, and most of this ground has been covered already. Argh!

Sorry, I'm new here.

 

[penguin22]

Just noticed this is a month-old thread, and most of this ground has been covered already. Argh!

Sorry, I'm new here.

Yes, I've read the whole thread too, and we're all in agreement that ATC can't issue a waiver to exceed 250 below 10, but I've still got (sorry) one question.

Has the ADMINISTRATOR issued a waiver to westbound departures out of LAX, to allow >250 kts below 10, while still within the 12 mile limit? Seems to me ATC acts like they've been given a waiver for these departures over the water. (Any LAX controllers out there?)

Because I'm frequently assigned a speed >250 when I'm over the water and still below 10. For example, climbing out of 6000, I get assigned 280 knots. Not "280 when able", not "do not exceed 280", just 280 knots. This is on the LOOP 4 or the LAXX 5 departures. We are over the water the whole time we're below 10. By the time we're crossing the shoreline eastbound, we're above 10.