250 below 10000

[A Squared]

Bob, give it a rest. it is obvious that all you're doing is attempting to cover your embarrassment at being shown conclusively to be wrong by spouting a bunch of meaningless babble that doesn't even make sense. Stop, you're just embarrassing yourself even more, but I suspect you don't realize it. Trust me, you are.

If you think that ATC has been delegated the administrator’s authority to waive 91.117(a) then why does the Federal register very carefully make the distinction between "ATC" and "the Administrator" and make it very clear that ATC does *not* have the authority to waive the regulation? Hmmmmm? You’re arguing against the FAA’s own very clear words in this case, and that is a fools game.

So if the ATC Specialist (controller) needs you to exceed 91.117(a) based on his KNOWN traffic, and you refuse, based on 91.117(a), do you have to declare an emergency to not follow the instruction while the 747 behind you produces a CA on his scope?

No, this has already been covered, you don’t declare an emergency, you ask for an amended clearance AIM 4-4-1(b). You’re asking questions which have already been answered. Do you actually read the references posted?

Or does the Controller, with the authority granted to him in the matter concerned, (the Control of Air Traffic) have the authority to grant you a clearance to prevent a collision between known aircraft, and for you to proceed under the SPECIFIED conditions in that clearance?

Again, that has already been answered by with an AIM reference 4-4-1(a) Which part of "IT IS NOT AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE..." didn’t you understand?


As for the rest, you are apparently attempting to conjure up some far fetched scenario in which a controller asks you to increase speed in order to prevent an impending loss of separation. The absurdity of this only underscores how desperate you apparently are to deflect attention away from the fact that you are completely wrong. If two planes are getting ready to hit each other, a speed adjustment is the *last* thing ATC will use to prevent the loss of separation. You think that if 2 757s are about to collide that a Controller will tell one to increase speed 30 knots and sit there while the jet engines spool up and a half million pound airplane slowly accelerates? Hoping a 15% change in speed will keep them from getting too close? No, if loss of separation is imminent, the controller will either turn, climb or descend one or both of the planes. That is the quickest way to get space between 2 airplanes that are about to be too close, not asking one to speed up.

Regardless, if there was an imminent collision, I assume that the controller would be able to exercise emergency authority to meet the needs of the emergency, as a pilot is. That’s an emergency, you do what you need and you sort out the legalities later. That is all irrelevant. The original question was not "can ATC waive 91.117(a) in an emergency" the question was "may ATC waive 91.117(a) for their convenience". The answer is clearly no.

 

[SSDD]

AA, he's never going to admit how wrong, and apparently uninformed, he and his college professor are.

Chances are he's never going to be in this position, but if he ever gets busted for it, he'll remember this exchange.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

If you have a problem with the way the FARs are written and what is there in black and white (or red) then take it up with someone else.

As used in Subchapters A through K of this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:

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

(link as defined: To commit or entrust to another)

Now The FARs Define a "Person".

Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them.

So a "Person" is an individual entrusted by the Administrator to control Air Traffic on behalf of the Administrator. The item delegated (entrusted) to the individual (Person) is the Control of Air Traffic.

Air traffic control means a service operated by appropriate authority to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic.

Appropriate authority IS the Administrator.


So, The Administrator is any person who is an individual entrusted by the Administrator for the matter concerned, such as the Control of Air Traffic, or a representative of a government entity, (this section does INCLUDE a LEO if that LEO asks for a alcohol test) or The FAA itself.

A person is an individual, or government entity (The FAA) or a representative thereof. It does not exclude an Air Traffic Control Specialist, who has been specifically entrusted with the responsibility of issuing clearances on behalf of The Administrator for the Administrator’s service of Air Traffic Control.

Air traffic control is a service operated by The Administrator (appropriate authority) and that authority is any person or individual to whom he has delegated this responsibility by his authority. The authority delegated is the Control of Air Traffic or Air Traffic Control. It is operated by Appropriate Authority which is the Administrator. The Administrator, who is appropriate authority, is any person entrusted in this matter. This includes an individual who is a representative of that appropriate authority. The Administrator, by certifying or employing the Air Traffic Control Specialist, has delegated his authority on his behalf to the ATC Specialist to issue Air traffic Clearances by that ATC Specialist for the matter of Air traffic control for the service operated by the Administrator (or appropriate authority) to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic.


Now. Again. Where did I EVER say that a Controller can issue clearances which are in violation of the FARs SOLELY for convenience?

I referenced 91.117(d) which says:

(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.

We don’t and won’t know what the circumstances were behind the original question. Was the operation to prevent a LOS? Was there another aircraft involved? Was the minimum speed of the other aircraft required to be 250+? Was that other a/c behind the original poster’s plane? The original post said that the plane was to “maintain” speed. NOT ACCELERATE. So your condition and assumption that a controller will just sit there while he waits for tons of flesh, metal and fuel to accelerate is a poor deflection of the conditions that were initially stated and why a Controller may require speeds for “any particular operation”. And as I did point out, the crew shoulda’ asked for clarification.

The Controllers have a good union… wording like this in *(d) is here as a result of union lawyers leaving an “out” during the rare times that the Controller exercises his authority granted by Part 1’s definitions so that the Controller does not have to declare an emergency every time he has a fast 747 coming up behind a 250K 737 on a departure during SWAP or anytime only one or two departure corridors are open, and traffic must be moving, due to ATC flow times, or other considerations needed for the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic.

 

[HS125]

Spngbobsqrpilot,

You have got to be the dumbest SOB on the planet. You got one of the worst cyberspace b!tch slappings that I have ever seen, and yet you still wont give it up.

A squared has quite clearly shown you that YOU ARE WRONG. Give it a rest already.

 

[HS125]

I referenced 91.117(d) which says:

(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.

We don’t and won’t know what the circumstances were behind the original question. Was the operation to prevent a LOS? Was there another aircraft involved? Was the minimum speed of the other aircraft required to be 250+? Was that other a/c behind the original poster’s plane? The original post said that the plane was to “maintain” speed. NOT ACCELERATE. So your condition and assumption that a controller will just sit there while he waits for tons of flesh, metal and fuel to accelerate is a poor deflection of the conditions that were initially stated and why a Controller may require speeds for “any particular operation”. And as I did point out, the crew shoulda’ asked for clarification.

The Controllers have a good union… wording like this in *(d) is here as a result of union lawyers leaving an “out” during the rare times that the Controller exercises his authority granted by Part 1’s definitions so that the Controller does not have to declare an emergency every time he has a fast 747 coming up behind a 250K 737 on a departure during SWAP or anytime only one or two departure corridors are open, and traffic must be moving, due to ATC flow times, or other considerations needed for the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic.

NO, NO, NO

91.117(d) Is there solely for you as the pilot to allow you to exceed 250kts below 10,000'. This is what allows the pilot of a wide body to clean up his/her aircraft and fly at the minimum maneuvering airspeed for his/her current weight.

A pilot of a wide body aircraft is not expected to keep the hight lift devices out to maintain a speed at or below 250 kts. Infact on most aircraft, if the high lift devices were left out, the pilot would have to restrict speed well below 250kts. It is much more efficient for the aircraft and flow control, for the pilot to clean up the aircraft and fly at the higher minimum maneuvering airspeed. ATC knows and expects this from wide body A/C.

If a 747 is climbing out and catching a 737, ATC is not going to ask or tell the pilot of the 737 to increase speed abvoe 250 while below 10,000'. ATC will give one of the aircraft a turn or hold one of the aircraft at a lower altitude or both.

 

[A Squared]

Spnongebob,

You are truly an idiot, and I don't say that frivolously.

If you can read thes two sentences from the Federal Register:

The Airspace Reclassification Rule inadvertently assigned the authority to air traffic controllers to allow aircraft operators to deviate from the maximum airspeed restriction below 10,000 feet.

and

This action reestablishes the Administrator as the proper authority to permit waivers of aircraft speed.

yet still insist that for the purpose of 91.117(a) ATC *is* "the administrator" I can only conclude that you have a profound developmental disability.

I don't think there's much point wasting anymore bandwidth on you. I'm fairly confident that everyone else who has an interest in this thread can see what the correct answer is.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Spnongebob,

You are truly an idiot, and I don't say that frivolously.

If you can read thes two sentences from the Federal Register:



and



yet still insist that for the purpose of 91.117(a) ATC *is* "the administrator" I can only conclude that you have a profound developmental disability.

I don't think there's much point wasting anymore bandwidth on you. I'm fairly confident that everyone else who has an interest in this thread can see what the correct answer is.

AA

Where does the hostility come from. I realize what you said is 100% correct, but why the beat down? You are right, I know it, you know it, most people on here know it, so why stoop to a level of name calling and insults? If you were having this conversation with this person face to face, would you use the same language? Maybe you would, I don't know, but I just don't get why you and others, get so wound up if someone disagrees with you, even if you are correct. Why waste the energy and drag yourself down trying to change their mind? The information has been given, if they choose to ignore it, so be it. If they come back with another point of view, so be it, answer the point without the insults.....

maybe I'm just lonely, CANT WE ALL GET ALONG!

 

[Resocha]

AA

maybe I'm just lonely, CANT WE ALL GET ALONG!

I'm lonely too. I say we start with a Group Hug and let nature take its course.

 

[PAA744]

group hug!!!

I would like to give my THANKS to all involved in this thread...
Very informative - and might I say entertaining also...

A2 Thanks for your diligent "research." That my friend was outstanding.

We need more threads like this!


ps The one thing I did learn is:
"There is NO SPEED restriction (legally speaking) IN class B airspace - period."

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

Submitted to the Jury with all the facts in evidence -1

http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/crash060299/A1xcrash1015.html

Government pins blame for '99 crash on pilot error
ANDREA HARTER

The U.S. Department of Justice says it knows for sure that the crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 was caused by pilot error.
The government's lawyers, including U.S. Attorney Paula Casey, filed a motion for summary judgment Wednesday in more than a dozen cases in which passengers have sued American for damages. American, in turn, has sued the government, contending the air-traffic controller on duty when the plane crashed was negligent.
The Justice Department represents the Federal Aviation Administration, which employs the controller, Kenneth Kaylor, a veteran manning the tower and radio at Little RockNationalAirport, Adams Field, when Flight 1420 crashed June 1, 1999, during a severe thunderstorm.
From the moment of touchdown, the pilots had lost control, and the jetliner never found a steady path on the wet runway. The MD-82, carrying 139 passengers and a crew of six, slid off the runway and struck a instrument pole before crashing over a 25-foot embankment, ripping through a steel walkway and landing, broken in half and burning, about 100 yards from the Arkansas River. Eleven died, including the pilot.
"The sole cause of the accident was pilot error, including the decision of the pilots to land the airplane in known dangerous weather and their mishandling of the airplane during the landing," the Justice Department motion argues.
"In landing the airplane that night, the pilots of Flight 1420 violated American Airlines' internal rules and the Federal Aviation Regulations," the motion states. It asks U.S. District Court Judge Henry Woods to dismiss the government from the case, as testimony derived in depositions from the surviving co-pilot, Michael Origel, said the controller did a good job directing the flight that night.
The motion was signed by David W. Ogden, assistant attorney general, Casey and Kathlynn G. Fadely, assistant director of aviation in the government's trial division.
Casey's name is a matter of course, as she is Arkansas' highest-ranking Justice Department official. But on Friday, she said she had not seen the complaint and referred all questions to Fadely, who was out of the office.
Woods has not ruled on the motion or set a hearing date.
American spokesman John Hotard said Friday he was surprised to see the government make bold statements that had not been authenticated by the safety board.
"We still feel that the FAA did play a part in this accident and should remain a party in the litigation," he said.
A safety board spokesman, Ted Lopatkiewicz, said the agency has made no statement about what probably caused the crash, and won't until a hearing to discuss its final report in the spring.
"Wherever they are getting their information from, they are not quoting us," he said.
A Justice Department spokesman, Charles Miller, offered only a prepared statement:
"Based on the documents produced by American Airlines in connection with litigation, the testimony taken in depositions in connection with the litigation and the National Transportation Safety Board materials that are publicly available, this leads to our assertion that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the cause of the crash -- that being pilot error."
One area of difference between the Justice Department and the safety board involves the spoilers, the moveable panels on the wings that retard a plane's aerodynamic ability to fly. They are employed during landings to slow the plane, and sometimes are referred to as air or speed brakes, as they use the natural resistance of the wind to bring the plane down.
From the beginning, there have been questions about whether Flight 1420/s pilots deployed the spoilers.
In January, the safety board released flight data-recorder information that shows at least one of the four spoilers was working for a short period of time as the plane was touching down. The right inboard spoiler had extended to 58.9 degrees for a second or two, then closed. (A spoiler's range of extension is limited to 60 degrees.)
That information caused investigators to consider that the spoilers might have been activated; otherwise, there should be no movement. They have not released a conclusion, which will help determine the degree to which the crash can be blamed on pilot error.
Attorneys for passengers have contended that the spoilers were not activated, since the cockpit controls were in the wrong position after the crash. It is not known if the controls were in the proper position before the landing; the cockpit's voice recorder disclosed that Origel did not do a verbal checklist that night.
Still, the Justice Department has formed its own conclusion. Its motion states, unequivocally, "the spoilers on Flight 1420 were never deployed."
It cites as evidence statements made in a deposition by Capt. Cecil Ewell, who was American's second-in-command for pilots before his retirement in December. Ewell was not on the plane.
In March, Ewell was asked by Chicago attorney David Rapopport to look at the flight-data readings the safety board had gathered from Flight 1420. Rapopport then asked Ewell, "You are aware, however, that the spoilers did not deploy and stay deployed as they should have, correct?"
Ewell: "I don't know what the [safety board] has ultimately said about that. I have heard that statement, that they didn't deploy."
Ewell did say that American's policy book, which he wrote, called for them to be deployed, and that if they had failed to work automatically, the pilot should have turned them on manually. But he did not indicate any knowledge that 1420/s spoilers didn't work.
Co-pilot Origel has testified inconsistently on the subject, telling investigators he was fairly certain Capt. Richard Buschmann had armed the spoilers, and even asking the safety board to amend the cockpit voice recording to show that a clicking sound heard on the tape is the noise of the spoilers being activated. The safety board declined to alter the transcript, but did make a note of Origel's objections and concerns.
In a March deposition, Origel backpedaled, telling attorneys he felt bad about the spoiler issue and conceding that they may not have been set. It was Origel's job to set them, but the controls were closer to Buschmann.
The safety board's Lopatkiewicz said the airplane's wreckage will be released to American this week, but he did not have specific information about the spoilers or know if they were included.
While the spoiler issue may become paramount in the final understanding of what happened in the cockpit that night, it is a separate issue from the lawsuit before Judge Woods. American contends that Kaylor, the air-traffic controller, failed to tell the pilots every piece of information they needed to land safely.
Kaylor did give the pilots many wind warnings and weather updates. But when one of the final readings was misread back to him, he failed to catch the error.
American contends he should have warned the pilots that the runway was very wet -- the company has specific landing policies when a braking advisory is issued in wet conditions -- but the Justice Department countered that Kaylor told the pilots it was raining, and that alone should have led them to believe the runway was wet.
While this dispute gears up for a court challenge, another motion before Woods could shed additional light on American's safety practices.
Six weeks after the crash, the Federal Aviation Administration undertook a safety investigation of the airline. It deemed its investigation closed in November, but refused an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette request in June to release the findings. The agency said its report included too much financial information about the company to be released.
Jim Jackson, a Bryant attorney who represents a mother and two children involved in the crash, has filed a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs' steering committee asking Woods to make the report public, even if some material is redacted. No hearing date has been set.




http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/crash060299/A1_1420_23.html