Part 91.117 Speed Restriction

[kf4amu]

I do not believe a controller can waive the 250 restriction below 10,000 in descent. They do the above from time to time though.

Did you read ATLdc9's post?

"The Administrator or ATC may approve operations at higher airspeeds when circumstances can accommodate a deviation without compromising safety"

Is a controller not "ATC"? If they determine you can do it safely, then they can approve it.

 

[A Squared]

Did you read ATLdc9's post?

"The Administrator or ATC may approve operations at higher airspeeds when circumstances can accommodate a deviation without compromising safety"

Is a controller not "ATC"? If they determine you can do it safely, then they can approve it.

That sentence is speaking of airspeed restrictions generally, not specifically the 250 kt below 10,000 ft restriction in 91.117(a). The 200 knot below 2500 ft (91.117(b)) restriction may be waived by ATC, it is stated explicitly in the regulation. The 250 knot restriction may only be waived by the administrator, not ATC. this also is stated explicitly in the regulation.

Furthermore, the FAA has gone to great lengths to clarify that only the administrator, and not ATC, may waive the 250 knot restriction. A previous version of the regulation was ambiguous on this point that the regulation was amended for precisely that reason, to remove language that seemed to suggest that ATC could waive that restriction. This, also, was stated explicitly in the entry of the Federal register which amended the regulation.

the speed restriction in 91.117(b) may be waived by ATC, the restriction in 91.117(a) may not.

In reality, controllers may request speeds in violation of, 91.117(a), often mistakenly believing that they have the authority to do so. They do not. the FAA has been abundantly clear on this point.

If a controller requests a speed in violation of 91.117(a), and you comply, you could conceivably be subject to enforcement, although in practice, if you're doing what the controller asks, there isn't much chance of someone complaining.

ATC may not clear you to do something which otherwise would be illegal except in certain, limited, situations, and those are stated explicitly in the regulations. (91.117(b) for example) As PIC you are still obligated to know the regulations and comply with them, regardless of what ATC may have requested.

 

[kf4amu]

Gotcha, maybe Im reading it wrong, but as long as ATC cites "safety" as a reason for authorizing a faster speed, that would trump all other restrictions no?
Getting out of their airspace quicker leaves less time for an accident...so technically its safer for them.

 

[Say Again Over]

Haven't we covered this before, I guess other factors may be that if we help out a controller or he helps us out, who is going to report us? Like Sled mentioned (Life Guard flights), he could go fast below ten because the controller allowed him to, was he technically violating an FAR, the answer would be YES.

 

[A Squared]

Haven't we covered this before, I guess other factors may be that if we help out a controller or he helps us out, who is going to report us?

I dunno, a supervisor looking over his shoulder ? A fed on your jumpseat? The feds who are reviewing the radar tapes because there was a loss of seperation later?

My point is that people should be aware that having the controller ask you to exceed the speed restriction does not make it legal. If individual pilots then choose to exceed the restriction, that is thier business. I'm not particularly concerned. WHat *does* concern me is spreading the incorrect notion that if a controller asks for the speed than it's perfectly legal. That could get somone violated, if say there was a fed on the jumpseat and a controller asked for 300 kts below 10K and the pilot did it thinking he was safe.

 

[ExpWayVis31]

Perhaps stating the obvious but, keep in mind terrain and your 2nd, 3rd & 4th segment climb gradient. There are many places where you want to be 2500' agl or higher before you push the nose over, accelerate and start your clean up.

Then again there are some SIDS (ATL) that want you to "accelerate to 250 as soon as feasible". but that is a discussion for a another thread.

 

[Lead Sled]

Haven't we covered this before, I guess other factors may be that if we help out a controller or he helps us out, who is going to report us? Like Sled mentioned (Life Guard flights), he could go fast below ten because the controller allowed him to, was he technically violating an FAR, the answer would be YES.

That is correct, we were in violation of the reg, but it was only done when we had a bonified medical emergency in progress and we had to get a letter of explination from the attending physician and put it with our letter of deviation that we sent to the FSDO. We always had the proper backup and the FSDO never pursued any of the incidents.

'Sled

 

[Singlecoil]

I've got to disagree on this one. The POI of my company has been clear, and we have had 2 crews violated from other FSDOs for exceeding the 200 knot restriction below a Class B airspace. The guidance for us is that configure whatever way you need, but you must maintain the speed limit. Just because out clean speed might be 220 doesn't authorize us to use that as our speed limit so that we don't have to stay dirty.

The letter you posted doesn't address this question at all. It refers to operations in C and D airspace within and below Class B.

If you are simply operating below a Class B area, and not in a Class C or D, then you can fly at clean maneuver speed, which is 210, 220, or 230 in the 737 I fly. This is expressly pointed out in our FAA approved company docs, but I agree that different POI's have a knack for confusing this issue. In the MD-80, clean maneuver can be as high as 265 on climbout.

 

[KingAir1985]

Didn't the FAA try lifting some speed limits in some Class B's a couple of years back? I was working on the INS when they were doing that junk.

 

[A Squared]

Didn't the FAA try lifting some speed limits in some Class B's a couple of years back? I was working on the INS when they were doing that junk.

Yeah, they had a test program at houston a little while ago, I believe that the test is concluded.