Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Question for ATC
- Thread starter Stifler's Mom
- Start date
- Watchers 15
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
regionalcap
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Posts
- 903
Lrjtcaptain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Posts
- 927
in the FAR's it says The administrator or those who have been delegated authority. You think that is written in there just in case Blakey just happens to be in my tower someday and feels like she wants to issue a control instruction. I don't think so. We end up being the administrator in this case. The authority has been given to us to issue these instructions.
cheater1239
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 56
Lrjtcaptain
Do you work in a radar facility? Contract facility? It would be interesting if you asked 10 terminal radar guys if they can approve 250 below 10 and see what they say. It's common knowledge that ATC can't approve that. You say your "hub manager" backs you up? I spent a year at LAX TRACON and I never heard that term....that was a long time ago, however. I think you need to look further up your chain of command with this question. How about the FSDO?
Doc said the "Administrator" is not ATC, and ATC has no authority to either approve or request speeds in excess of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet MSL." If you're not familiar with Doc's site, he asks the Fed attorneys when he's not sure. Doc is the man....
Do you work in a radar facility? Contract facility? It would be interesting if you asked 10 terminal radar guys if they can approve 250 below 10 and see what they say. It's common knowledge that ATC can't approve that. You say your "hub manager" backs you up? I spent a year at LAX TRACON and I never heard that term....that was a long time ago, however. I think you need to look further up your chain of command with this question. How about the FSDO?
Doc said the "Administrator" is not ATC, and ATC has no authority to either approve or request speeds in excess of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet MSL." If you're not familiar with Doc's site, he asks the Fed attorneys when he's not sure. Doc is the man....
A Squared
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,006
LRJTcaptain.
You are just plain old flat out unequivocally wrong. In just about everything you have said in this thread to this point.
You are *NOT* the administrator, nor have you been delegated the administrator's authority to grant speed deviations.
See reference below from the federal docket. the short version of that document is that when the airspace was reclassified in 1993, the regulations were written *inadvertantly* giving ATC personnel the authority to grant deviations to the 250 knot restriction. This mistake was noticed and it was corrected by the quoted rulemaking. Your hub manager is wrong. Read the docket below, it's pretty clear.
>>>>>"Number 2...if a controller gives a control instruction that is against FAR's then your off the hook if you comply."
Jesus, where do you come up with this stuff??
Take a look at the AIM. Specifically take a look at 4-4-1. (a)
it says: " IT (a clearence) IS NOT AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY RULE, REGULATION OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE NOR TO CONDUCT UNSAFE OPERATION OF THE AIRCRAFT. "
It should be noted that these words are capitalized in the AIM, just like I have shown them. That's a clue that the FAA thinks it is important and want's to EMPHASIZE them. Are you somhow confused about what those words mean?
As an ATC'r you have some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of what your role is and the limit of your authority regarding the regulations. You are not god, you are not the administrator, nor are you the administrator's delegate. You cannot grant deviations from the regulations.
Volume 58, No. 157; Tuesday, August 17, 1993; Page 43553
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. 24456; Amendment No. 91-233]
Airspace Reclassification
AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION:
Final rule; correcting amendment.
SUMMARY:
This action corrects the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule effective September 16, 1993. 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. The authority to approve deviation from the speed limits contained in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) rests with the Administrator, and the FAA did not intend to amend the approving authority. This action reestablishes the Administrator as the proper authority to permit waivers of aircraft speed. This action also corrects the inadvertent inclusion of Class B airspace in the maximum airspeed restriction effected by the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This correcting amendment is effective as of September 16, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Messieurs Aaron I. Boxer or Joseph C. White, Air Traffic Rules Branch (ATP-230), Airspace - Rules and Aeronautical Information Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 18, 1989, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Airspace Reclassification (54 FR 42916) which proposed, among other things,
that the nomenclature of various airspace areas be renamed to conform with agreements with the International Civil Aviation Organization. On December 17, 1991, the FAA published a final rule on Airspace Reclassification (56 FR 65638) which becomes effective on September 16, 1993. Section 91.117 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR 91.117) was amended as part of this process. Section 91.117(a) requires that any aircraft operated below 10,000 feet be flown no faster than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.) unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator of the FAA. Section 91.117(b) provides that, unless authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within an airport traffic area faster than 200 knots (230 m.p.h.), except for operations within a terminal control area. The preamble to the proposed airspace reclassification rule included a discussion of several recommendations received from the National Airspace Review (NAR) task group. NAR 1-2.1.3 recommended several changes to operating requirements in Terminal Control Areas (Class B airspace). Included in NAR 1-2.1.3 was a recommendation to delegate the authority to approve deviation from the 250 knot speed restriction in Class B airspace to air traffic control. The FAA had adopted other portions of NAR 1-2.2.3 through separate actions, but had not intended to incorporate the recommended delegation of authority or include Class B airspace in the 200 knot rule. However, the rule language amending Sec. 91.117(a) inadvertently included such redelegation, and that amending Sec. 91.117(b) inadvertently included the Class B airspace area. This action establishes the
Administrator as the sole approving authority for deviations from the aircraft speed restrictions contained in Sec. 91.117(a) and excludes the Class B airspace area from the speed restrictions contained in Sec. 91.117(b).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Air transportation, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety.
The Amendment
Accordingly, 14 CFR part 91 in effect as of September 16, 1993, is amended by making the following correcting amendments:
You are just plain old flat out unequivocally wrong. In just about everything you have said in this thread to this point.
You are *NOT* the administrator, nor have you been delegated the administrator's authority to grant speed deviations.
See reference below from the federal docket. the short version of that document is that when the airspace was reclassified in 1993, the regulations were written *inadvertantly* giving ATC personnel the authority to grant deviations to the 250 knot restriction. This mistake was noticed and it was corrected by the quoted rulemaking. Your hub manager is wrong. Read the docket below, it's pretty clear.
>>>>>"Number 2...if a controller gives a control instruction that is against FAR's then your off the hook if you comply."
Jesus, where do you come up with this stuff??
Take a look at the AIM. Specifically take a look at 4-4-1. (a)
it says: " IT (a clearence) IS NOT AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY RULE, REGULATION OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE NOR TO CONDUCT UNSAFE OPERATION OF THE AIRCRAFT. "
It should be noted that these words are capitalized in the AIM, just like I have shown them. That's a clue that the FAA thinks it is important and want's to EMPHASIZE them. Are you somhow confused about what those words mean?
As an ATC'r you have some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of what your role is and the limit of your authority regarding the regulations. You are not god, you are not the administrator, nor are you the administrator's delegate. You cannot grant deviations from the regulations.
Volume 58, No. 157; Tuesday, August 17, 1993; Page 43553
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. 24456; Amendment No. 91-233]
Airspace Reclassification
AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION:
Final rule; correcting amendment.
SUMMARY:
This action corrects the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule effective September 16, 1993. 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. The authority to approve deviation from the speed limits contained in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) rests with the Administrator, and the FAA did not intend to amend the approving authority. This action reestablishes the Administrator as the proper authority to permit waivers of aircraft speed. This action also corrects the inadvertent inclusion of Class B airspace in the maximum airspeed restriction effected by the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This correcting amendment is effective as of September 16, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Messieurs Aaron I. Boxer or Joseph C. White, Air Traffic Rules Branch (ATP-230), Airspace - Rules and Aeronautical Information Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 18, 1989, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Airspace Reclassification (54 FR 42916) which proposed, among other things,
that the nomenclature of various airspace areas be renamed to conform with agreements with the International Civil Aviation Organization. On December 17, 1991, the FAA published a final rule on Airspace Reclassification (56 FR 65638) which becomes effective on September 16, 1993. Section 91.117 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR 91.117) was amended as part of this process. Section 91.117(a) requires that any aircraft operated below 10,000 feet be flown no faster than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.) unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator of the FAA. Section 91.117(b) provides that, unless authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within an airport traffic area faster than 200 knots (230 m.p.h.), except for operations within a terminal control area. The preamble to the proposed airspace reclassification rule included a discussion of several recommendations received from the National Airspace Review (NAR) task group. NAR 1-2.1.3 recommended several changes to operating requirements in Terminal Control Areas (Class B airspace). Included in NAR 1-2.1.3 was a recommendation to delegate the authority to approve deviation from the 250 knot speed restriction in Class B airspace to air traffic control. The FAA had adopted other portions of NAR 1-2.2.3 through separate actions, but had not intended to incorporate the recommended delegation of authority or include Class B airspace in the 200 knot rule. However, the rule language amending Sec. 91.117(a) inadvertently included such redelegation, and that amending Sec. 91.117(b) inadvertently included the Class B airspace area. This action establishes the
Administrator as the sole approving authority for deviations from the aircraft speed restrictions contained in Sec. 91.117(a) and excludes the Class B airspace area from the speed restrictions contained in Sec. 91.117(b).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Air transportation, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety.
The Amendment
Accordingly, 14 CFR part 91 in effect as of September 16, 1993, is amended by making the following correcting amendments:
Last edited:
Flibmeister
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Posts
- 47
>> It would be interesting if you asked 10 terminal radar guys if they can approve 250 below 10 and see what they say. <<
You can count me as one vote against.
Unless there's been a change since I pulled the plug (at ORD, in '99), controllers don't have such authority. If you look at 91.117, paragraph (a) says, "unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator". However, paragraph (b) says, "unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC".
If the controller had the authority to waive (a), they'd have worded it the same way they did in (b). They didn't, so they don't. (except, of course, for the administrator sanctioned test program in Houston).
-----------------------------------------
91.117 Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 mph).
(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
You can count me as one vote against.
Unless there's been a change since I pulled the plug (at ORD, in '99), controllers don't have such authority. If you look at 91.117, paragraph (a) says, "unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator". However, paragraph (b) says, "unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC".
If the controller had the authority to waive (a), they'd have worded it the same way they did in (b). They didn't, so they don't. (except, of course, for the administrator sanctioned test program in Houston).
-----------------------------------------
91.117 Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 mph).
(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
i am a TRACON controller and am glad as &*@# to have seen this thread. i admit i didnt know (or 'assumed' we could do it) the correct rules concerning 250 below 10, and dug into FAA Order 7110.65, the ATC handbook, similar to the FARs for pilots. before i add my 2 cents on what is said in it, i will reiterate that i would not hesitate to use a speed above 250 below 10 for safety or for expeditious flow of traffic (if absoultely required). again, at JFK we use the 12NM offshore rule all the time and it works well. here's what i found on the ATC side:
7110.65 Chapter 2, Section 1, Par 1
Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and minima in this order except when:
7110.65 Chapter 2, Section 1, Par 1
Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and minima in this order except when:
a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:
b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement, FAA directive, or a military document, or:
c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency has been declared.
7110.65, Chapter 5 (Radar), Section 7:
5-7-1. APPLICATION
Keep speed adjustments to the minimum necessary to achieve or maintain required or desired spacing. Avoid adjustments requiring alternate decreases and increases. Permit pilots to resume normal speed when previously specified adjustments are no longer needed. NOTE-
It is the pilot's responsibility and prerogative to refuse speed adjustment that he/she considers excessive or contrary to the aircraft's operating specifications.
It is the pilot's responsibility and prerogative to refuse speed adjustment that he/she considers excessive or contrary to the aircraft's operating specifications.
5-7-2 METHODS:
NOTE-
1. A pilot operating at or above 10,000 feet MSL on an assigned speed adjustment greater than 250 knots is expected to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117(a) when cleared below 10,000 feet MSL, within domestic airspace, without notifying ATC. Pilots are expected to comply with the other provisions of 14 CFR
Section 91.117 without notification.
2. Speed restrictions of 250 knots do not apply to aircraft operating beyond 12 NM from the coastline within the U.S. Flight Information Region, in offshore Class E airspace below 10,000 feet MSL. However, in airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport, or in a VFR corridor designated through such as a Class B airspace area, pilots are expected to comply with the 200 knot speed limit specified in 14 CFR Section 91.117(c). (See 14 CFR Sections 91.117(c) and 91.703.)
3. The phrases "maintain maximum forward speed" and "maintain slowest practical speed" are primarily intended for use when sequencing a group of aircraft. As the sequencing plan develops, it may be necessary to determine the specific speed and/or make specific speed assignments.
1. A pilot operating at or above 10,000 feet MSL on an assigned speed adjustment greater than 250 knots is expected to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117(a) when cleared below 10,000 feet MSL, within domestic airspace, without notifying ATC. Pilots are expected to comply with the other provisions of 14 CFR
Section 91.117 without notification.
2. Speed restrictions of 250 knots do not apply to aircraft operating beyond 12 NM from the coastline within the U.S. Flight Information Region, in offshore Class E airspace below 10,000 feet MSL. However, in airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport, or in a VFR corridor designated through such as a Class B airspace area, pilots are expected to comply with the 200 knot speed limit specified in 14 CFR Section 91.117(c). (See 14 CFR Sections 91.117(c) and 91.703.)
3. The phrases "maintain maximum forward speed" and "maintain slowest practical speed" are primarily intended for use when sequencing a group of aircraft. As the sequencing plan develops, it may be necessary to determine the specific speed and/or make specific speed assignments.
5-7-4. TERMINATION
Advise aircraft when speed adjustment is no longer needed.
PHRASEOLOGY-
RESUME NORMAL SPEED.
RESUME NORMAL SPEED.
NOTE-
An instruction to "resume normal speed" does not delete speed restrictions that are applicable to published procedures of upcoming segments of flight, unless specifically stated by ATC. This does not relieve the pilot of those speed restrictions which are applicable to
14 CFR Section 91.117.
An instruction to "resume normal speed" does not delete speed restrictions that are applicable to published procedures of upcoming segments of flight, unless specifically stated by ATC. This does not relieve the pilot of those speed restrictions which are applicable to
14 CFR Section 91.117.
ATCER
I have revised routing...
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Posts
- 173
Boy... this has become one HOT Thread... LOL ...
I have been following it and wasn't sure how much I should post on a public board (lots of eyes watching)... BUT... here goes.
One of the sectors I work is the sector that ATCloser feeds JFK departures to over SHIPP and WAVEY... and we feed traffic to JFK via CAMRN. Now, offshore we have the 12nm rule (via our SOP) where it is legal for A/C to break 250 below 10K... and it is regualry done... both inbound and outbound. Do A/C break this rule inside the 12nm ... Yea, it happens... When we clear the JFK's in direct we often clear em down to 9000' from about 50 out (or whatever JFK requests, say down to 4000') and tell them speed your discretion... I know, you're all probably rolling your eyes because it sounds phrased to absolve us in case you exceed 250 more less then 12nm ... and you know what ... it sort of is...
Will you get turned in for this... NO, not by us. If a congressmen or someone similar was living under this particular flight path then maybe... if there is a complaint and the Feds look into it we'll see an SOP change or a word from the region to knock it off, similar things have happend for other procedures we were doing.
Now... Chperplt handled it very well... (hats off to ya man) he covered his own A$$ by stating "we're at 250 knots" so... he is on the tapes stating his airspeed so technically the controller cleared him above 250 (at least the way I view it).
ATCLoser says it best... if I had to decide between running 2 together or breaking the speed limit... I'm seperating the planes any way I can... and that my be what happend in Chperplt's case. I'm just theorizing here...
Each facility has waivers to do different things etc, I know at mine we have waivers for things such as RVSM in oceanic tranisition airspace, on the AR and VS routes also... could other places have waivers for 250 below 10K in certain situations, maybe... nothing would surprise me in the FAA. The only place I know of that can exceed 250 below 10K is IAH... (are they still doing that ???)
This thread was started by Stiflers Mom (a MILF) and has a comment by a FLIBmeister... FLIB ... LOL.
This thread is cool
I have been following it and wasn't sure how much I should post on a public board (lots of eyes watching)... BUT... here goes.
One of the sectors I work is the sector that ATCloser feeds JFK departures to over SHIPP and WAVEY... and we feed traffic to JFK via CAMRN. Now, offshore we have the 12nm rule (via our SOP) where it is legal for A/C to break 250 below 10K... and it is regualry done... both inbound and outbound. Do A/C break this rule inside the 12nm ... Yea, it happens... When we clear the JFK's in direct we often clear em down to 9000' from about 50 out (or whatever JFK requests, say down to 4000') and tell them speed your discretion... I know, you're all probably rolling your eyes because it sounds phrased to absolve us in case you exceed 250 more less then 12nm ... and you know what ... it sort of is...
Will you get turned in for this... NO, not by us. If a congressmen or someone similar was living under this particular flight path then maybe... if there is a complaint and the Feds look into it we'll see an SOP change or a word from the region to knock it off, similar things have happend for other procedures we were doing. Now... Chperplt handled it very well... (hats off to ya man) he covered his own A$$ by stating "we're at 250 knots" so... he is on the tapes stating his airspeed so technically the controller cleared him above 250 (at least the way I view it).
ATCLoser says it best... if I had to decide between running 2 together or breaking the speed limit... I'm seperating the planes any way I can... and that my be what happend in Chperplt's case. I'm just theorizing here...
Each facility has waivers to do different things etc, I know at mine we have waivers for things such as RVSM in oceanic tranisition airspace, on the AR and VS routes also... could other places have waivers for 250 below 10K in certain situations, maybe... nothing would surprise me in the FAA. The only place I know of that can exceed 250 below 10K is IAH... (are they still doing that ???)
This thread was started by Stiflers Mom (a MILF) and has a comment by a FLIBmeister... FLIB ... LOL.
This thread is cool
regionalcap
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Posts
- 903
FAA legal opinion
http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/messages/3925.html
This is a link from Doc's FAR page. If ATC in the USA ever asks me to exceed 250K below 10, I'll ask them if they are declaring an emergency or if they would like me too....
http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/messages/3925.html
This is a link from Doc's FAR page. If ATC in the USA ever asks me to exceed 250K below 10, I'll ask them if they are declaring an emergency or if they would like me too....
ATCER,
Great information you are providing for flight crews! It's good to hear the perspective from the other side of the mic.
Question: What is an ATC's guidlines on violating a crew for a FAR deviation? Is it totally the controllers discretion for altitude deviations? Wrong routing or headings? How often does it happen per week in your facility?
This is great info for both flight crews and ATC.
SCT
Great information you are providing for flight crews! It's good to hear the perspective from the other side of the mic.
Question: What is an ATC's guidlines on violating a crew for a FAR deviation? Is it totally the controllers discretion for altitude deviations? Wrong routing or headings? How often does it happen per week in your facility?
This is great info for both flight crews and ATC.
SCT
ATCER
I have revised routing...
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Posts
- 173
Or say unable... What happenend to Chperplt is the exception, not the norm, of how ops are done. Like I said earlier... I think that was a circumstance where the controller had a situation brewing and wanted to get out of trouble ASAP. Just a theory... but we've all been therede727ups said:
Here is your typical situation... I take a handoff from N90, A/C heading for WAVEY... pilot checks on, NY ... XXX123 climbing through 6.5 for 13K ... XXX123 NY roger, climb maintian FL230... XXX123... climbing for FL230... can we pick up the speed NY ? XXX123... roger, speed your discretion. I never solicit a higher speed ... Offshore (12nm) that is legal... I would say that 6 out of 10 departures ask for it. Now the reverse... our LOA states that we feed JFK arrivlas over CAMRN @ 9000' and 250 knots. The standard clearence would be this ~> XXX123, cross 10 SE CAMRN @ 9000' 250 knots. (the 10SE is to miss an adjoining sector who owns 10K and above @ CAMRN and we say 250 to make sure they don't slow further) At various times the room calls and will say something like clear the inbounds direct, down to 4000' with speeds... meaning direct JFK, similar speeds, descending. Now, XXX123 checks on out of 16K for 12K instead of clearing him CAMRN I give cleared direct JFK, descend maintain 4000', altimeter 29.92, speed your discretion... 99 of 100 will cross abeam CAMRN @ 300-310 knots... I have also had guys pin the speed at 250 as soon as he hit 10K. It's your choice... I never tell pilots how to fly a plane... because we can let em' run out over the ocean I offer the crew the choice... you are never punished for your choice.
ATCER
I have revised routing...
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Posts
- 173
Per week... ??? I dunno... very rare. I think my area only had one so far this year. With the daily bag of $hit we deal with, skeleton crew staffing, inept management, and the list continues, some poor Capt. who turns to the wrong heading is low on the list... he won't get turned in unless it leads to an operational error. Situations I have seen have been A/C that were deviating for weather and turned to an unaproved heading and lost seperation with another A/C, programmed the FMS wrong and made a turn into an active military warning area. That sort of stuff, out of our control... if something happens but nothing operational occurs you might get the phone # for the wood shedSCT said:
but that's just to chat... it ends there. Listen, we want the stupidvisors involved even less then you... As for discretion it is up to us to report it... then it goes to QA (Quality Assurance) and the region for review. It could very well come back and bite us, they look at time on position, # of breaks, staffing, all kinds of factors. Then the unions get involved (ALPA, NATCA)... not worth it unless it is serious.
I have only violated one person... I will share that story. Leading up to Xmas the Oceanic Ops get VERY BUSY (all non-radar). Last year was out of hand, on the oceanic routes we were out of altitudes (RVSM i might add) A/C were stacked from FL260 up to FL470... we were humping... each sector had 40-45 A/C. TNCM (St. Marten) was out of room on the airport... San Juan Cerap was holding for TNCM, and we were faced with holding over the ocean (not something pilots seem to like). There was a ground delay of 3+ hours for flights departing the Carribean due to massive volume. Some Citaiton pilot facing a EDCT of 3+ hours decided to depart VFR and pick up his clearence in the air. The tower advised him NY Oceanic WILL NOT ISSUE IFR'S IN THE AIR !!! and neither would SJU. He flies @ 17,500 VFR from St Marten to my boundry (about 23N)... all the while SJU is advising him to turn around. He WAS legal VFR @ 17,500 while in SJU's airspace BUT in that area of NY Ocean he entered Class A is from 2500 MSL and up. He enters my airspace (ilegally) and calls ArInc via HF with a request for an immediate IFR to TEB and a climb to FL430 for fuel. In the process he nearly hits a Navy P3 on OPS (they were none too happy). I phone patched to him and cleared to TXKF (Bermuda) @ FL270 and advised I was turing him in (SJU already had)... I admit I was really annoyed but later when I sat and thought about it I thought that this pilot probably was threatned by some billionaire who "had" to get back home ASAP and probably told the guy either depart any way you can or I'll find someone that will.
ATCER
I have revised routing...
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Posts
- 173
The Concorde used to go out over SHIPP... there were ALWAYS noise complaints and yes... they would exceed 250 below 10Kvschip said:
. It had it's own NAT (North Atlantic Track) that was used by BAW and AFR Concordes only. They would fly in a block atltitude enroute, generally FL450BFL600. Coming to the US they would generally transition to Radar way up North then first hit ZNY radar at JOBOC or SLATN or something. They were handled a bit different, they kept the speed up and would often get a heading or direct JFK... we would usually ask what the room wanted... they would range out and say ok... I see him, give a 300 heading and ship him to me (something to that effect). Their flight plan took them a good deal offshore for noise in the climb out.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
