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

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
**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** you guys are getting angry. I was going of what I was told.


The comment about breaking a rule after a controller tells you to do something. In reality, whos gonna violate you? Not the controller, you were doing what he asked.

But let me make this point. I was semi scetchy about this whole rule thing. Anyways, the way it was interpreted to me was that the adminstrator delegates the authority becasue he/she would have to. They aren't in the Towers, Trac's and ARTCC's. But once I did some research and took into consideration the Houston ARTCC notam it makes sense how those rules are over thrown.

So I appologize. I was wrong. I don't know everything, I dont pretend to. I asked the controllers at my facility and they told me we can tell pilots to do whatever we want. They most likely wont comply but we can ask them to.
 
I like the way the do it in Europe . All you have to do is ask for high speed. If the controller says "high speed approved" goes as fast as you like 10000 feet or below. Also departing hou is the same way . Haul zee a$$ ......
 
LrjtCaptain

"**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** you guys are getting angry."

We'll, not so much angry but hate to see bad info go unchallenged. Most pilots think what ATC says is gospel. I mean, people read these threads and I hate to see a guy get screwed because he got some bad info here.

Plus, you made some pretty strong statements. Your "hub manager" (I guess that's your boss) said you were right....you don't sound "semi sketchy about the rule" in your replys.

You think 250 below 10 is no big deal? Say that with an FAA inspector looking over your shoulder on a line check. I promise you if I exceed 250 below 10 with a company check airman on board it's a debrief item....everyone looks for it.

And I love this:

"I asked the controllers at my facility and they told me we can tell pilots to do whatever we want. They most likely wont comply but we can ask them to."

Glad I know how the system works now....where do you work at again?
 
Last edited:
ATCer

I was surprized at how few pilot devations turn into violations. I know the guys I fly with are super paranoid about ATC and think you are all out to get us. Being that I worked in a FAA facility, I know you guys just want to do your job and go home at the end of the day without any hassles. Busting every pilot that screwed up would be a lot of extra work for you.....guess we're lucky it is.....

For sure you have to cover yourself, though. If it becomes a deal for you or the snitch goes off.....then you gotta CYA.

In honor of this thread, I'm declaring tomorrow "Be extra nice to ATC day". Can I do that???......

I promise I'll be extra nice.
 
thanks for the info, ATCER, only saw them a couple times at JFK, but it was always a rush, glad to see they got special handling...
 
I'm late replying to this thread because I was out of town.

Controllers shouldn't be asking/telling pilots to exceed 250 kts below 10,000'. We're not authorised to. (except in an emergency.) That said, any aircraft that requires a speed greater than 250 kts for safe operation is allowed to do so. I have worked a sh*t load of T-38s at 300-310 kts on downwind etc.

Years ago, I occasionally would ask a pilot to descend immediately to 9000 or 8000 before slowing to 250 to avoid a situation, because I wasn't that familiar with the rule, but I recall a briefing item about a dozen years ago that stated it was wrong, and have not done it since. There are still controllers however, that don't really know the rule, or just choose to "ignore" it because they figure it's no big deal. It's not to them, but could be to a flight crew.

All that said, I WILL ask a crew for "Best Forward Speed", and my intent is;

As fast as legally and safely possible for your configuration and altitude.
I just don't have time to explain my intent.

I also want to say there's been many times when I've had two aircraft in trail both report 250 kts, and there's a 30 kt difference in GS at nearly the same altitude. While there has always been a little bit of good natured "gamesmanship" on both sides of the mike, it doesn't often pay to fib about airspeed too much in a busy terminal environment, unless you want to see some pretty draconian speed restrictions 30 miles out......;)
 
Vector4fun

That was a good reply. I hope the majority of controllers understand the rules like you do. We all have our careers on the line. Breaking a regulation or asking a pilot to break a regulation is nothing to play around with in our line of work.
 
de727ups said:
I was surprized at how few pilot devations turn into violations. I know the guys I fly with are super paranoid about ATC and think you are all out to get us. Being that I worked in a FAA facility, I know you guys just want to do your job and go home at the end of the day without any hassles. Busting every pilot that screwed up would be a lot of extra work for you.....guess we're lucky it is.....
When pilots tour the facility that is their first question... they think we are out to get them. I'm replying to CONFIRM THIS !!! :D

I'm kidding... why bust a guy if nothing serious happened ??? He/She (being PC here fellas) is doing a job just like me... did I say deviation left or west ??? Did I say the right call sign or did they respond to the wrong one ??? The airspace around New York is so complex, there is SO MUCH traffic (ZNY is averging close to 10K ops a day) and we're all trying to get through our day together. Mistakes are going to happen, it's just a fact in this business. If it's minor we might snap at you, if you gave us a nice scare you might get the phone # to the wood shed. Every time I have spoken to a pilot after giving out a # they call thinking they are in deep $hit... only to find out I just wanted to say hey, talk it out, see if I issued something confusing, here what happened on their end, ok... have a nice day... and next time you fly though say hi... That's the average of what happens. I can't speak about all facilities but most places here in NY are like that.

And don't forget... fill out the NASA form if your unsure.
 
de727ups said:
In honor of this thread, I'm declaring tomorrow "Be extra nice to ATC day". Can I do that???......

I promise I'll be extra nice.
Oh sure... today is my one big day off...

It's the thought that counts... :p
 
lets just make every other day "be nice to ATC day", and the alternating days will be "be nice to pilots day"
 
Question for all the controllers out there. Do you see alot of backup whiplashing thru the system because of delays into and out of ORD/MDW?
Main reason I ask is it seems to becoming a hot topic in aviation news lately. I fly out of MKE and it seems everytime a squirrel farts over western Kansas it causes ground stops/flow restrictions into and out of MDW/ORD; meanwhile I get to hear all the inbounds into ORD getting spun into the holds. Is the relief more runways as has been suggested or airlines reducing flights; I know that one won't work because Main lines have reduced the numbers and pumped up the Regional jets.

It feels like,as Jean Luke Picard wouls say " Were caught in some kind of temporal coarsality loop"

Jobear
 
jobear said:
Question for all the controllers out there. Do you see alot of backup whiplashing thru the system because of delays into and out of ORD/MDW?

Jobear
I don't work any traffic over western departure gates... so I don't see it directly. We are surrounded by computer screens that give us flow information, airport delays, all in pretty colors... :rolleyes: (Green is good, Yellow is not so good, and Red means you're F***ed) And you thought the FAA was wasting your tax money ???

ORD/MDW is always look like this ~> ORD / MDW

There seems to be an eternal MIT restriction posted for traffic landing there and at least once a day (usually more) I see this on the screens...

ALL THRAFFIC DESTINED ORD/MDW - GROUND STOP UFN - EXPECT UPDATE @ 1810Z

I look at the clock and it's like 1300Z ...

This must be you sitting on the ground looking up at clear skies ~> :mad:

Sorry man... hang in there, at least we have the colors !!!
 
here is some food for thought on the exceed 250 kt deal.


A FSDO inspector ramp checks some guy on the ramp and asks to see his pilots liscence and medical and all that other crap. A pilot says screw you. The regs say something like "a pilot must show his/her liscence and medical to the administrator or his/her representitive. Does that mean the FSDO has to file a notam? Or did the admin give the FSDO authority.

Now lets take the 250kt rule here. ATC has responsibilty for moving traffic through the sky. The same sort of sentence in the regs says, No one may operate an A/C below 10,000 feet and exceed 250 kts unless requested by the admin or his/her representitive. Who the hell is the rep in this case? Just answer me that!
 
On the ORD topic....

Does anyone think that reinstituting slots into ORD would help the flow problem? They would just have to be fairly restrictive in the number of slots allotted, etc.
 
FAR interpretation...

It's very confusing. Some regs just make sense and others leave you in a grey area. Think an FSDO inspectors word is golden? Think again. You can ask two different inspectors a question and get two different answers. Who's right? You have to go to the FAA lawyers in DC and see what they have to say....or have said in the past. That's what it boils down too.

You can look up the defination of Administrator in FAR 1. It seems pretty wide open to me and I can understand why it seems to apply to ATC, but it doesn't. Does it apply to a FSDO inspector? I don't think so. FSDO inspectors don't set policy....though I think some would like to think they do. Again, you have to go to the top of the FAA legal system to get those answers....and those answers are hard to find.

Personally, I think the system sucks....
 
LRJTcaptain,

You just won't let it go, will you?

OK, if you really don't understand the difference:

An inspector *has* been delegated some of the administrator's authority. An inspector can approve an air carrier's operations specifications on behalf of the administrator. An inspector is in fact authorized to issue waivers of certain regulations on behalf of the administrator. Not all FAA employees are delegated the authority of hte administrator. You as an ATC specialist have not been deegated the administrators authority. If you, as an air traffic controller, walk up to my airplane and ask to see my certificate, I am perfectly justified in ignoring your request. Not so with an inspector.

Examples of persons who have been delegated certain portions of the anministrator's authority.

FAA legal counsel has been given the authority to interpret the regulations and the authority to pursue enforcements before the NTSB on behalf of the administrator.

Inspectors have been given the authority to approve operations specifications, issue operating certificates issue airman's certificates and issue waivers.

Examiner designees. Even though they are not FAA employees, they have been given the authority of the administrator to examine airmen and issue certificates.

Notice that I said certain portions of the administrator's authority. The Chief Counsel cannot issue an operating certificate. An ops inspector cannot issue an official legal interepretation, an examiner designee cannot prosecute an enforcement. They each have specific, limited powers of the administrator delegated to them.

Examples of persons who do not have the authority of discretion of the administrator:

An electronics technician in Airways and facilities. His job is to maintain electronics in accordance with the guidelines and standards set for his position. He does not have the administrators authority to (for example) ammend the specifications for an ILS installation.

ATC controllers. Your job is to seperate air traffic in accordance with the regulations, procedures and standards established for traffic seperation. You do not have the authority to hand out waivers to those regulations.

Take or example, the regulation about minimum altitudes. An inspector at the FSDO can give a banner tow operator a waiver to those regulations. An air traffic controller on other hand, cannot relieve a pilot from complying with that regulation, merely by clearing him to do so.


>>>>>>"The same sort of sentence in the regs says, No one may operate an A/C below 10,000 feet and exceed 250 kts unless requested by the admin or his/her representitive."

Uhhh, no, that is *not* what is says. You have the deplorable habit of making up crap and inserting it into "quotes" from the regulations to try to make it sound like it's supporting your case. In one of your earlier posts you added: "Air Traffic Controllers have been delegated the authority by the admin." to the Part 1 definition of "administrator" wnen in fact it is *not* part of hte definition. Look, pal, we all have copies of the regulations, and we can all read. It just makes you look very stupid to attempt to misrepresent what the regulations say.

Here's what the reg about 250 knots *actually* says:

"unless authorized by the administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots."

It does not say "requested", it does not say "his/her representative". It says "authorized by the administrator" The administrator authorized (for a period of time) deviations to that rule in Houston. That is an example of what "authorized by the administrator" means. There may be operators who have specific waivers to that rule authorized by the administrator.

Why don't you actually read 91.117? Take a look at it and read it carefully. read the entire section. Notice that in paragraph (a) which prohibits 250 kt below 10,000 it says "authorized by the administrator" while in paragraph (b) which prohibits 200 kt below 2500 ft of the surface says "authorized or required by ATC"

Now, you explain to me, why, if ATC and "the administrator" are one and the same, do thay specify "the administrator" in one paragraph, and ATC in the very next paragraph? I'll give you a hint, they *say* "the administrator" when they *mean* the administrator, and they *say* "ATC", when they *mean* ATC, and the two are not the same.

OK, let's summarize:

We have the actual text of the regulation which shows that ATC does not have the authority to waive the 250/10K rule (like they do the 200/2500' rule)

We have a Docket from the Federal Register which states in no uncertain terms that FAA does not intend for ATC to be allowed to waive the 250/10k rule.

and we have an excerpt from the AIM which states that ATC does not have the authority to allow a pilot to deviate from regulations in general.


All official sources, all pointing to exactly the same conclusion. On the other hand, you have nothing, zip, Nada. You haven't offered us *anything* official which suggests that you are right. All you've done at this point is the intellectual equivalant of shouting "yes I can, yes I can" louder and louder.

Until you can present persuasive arguments on why the Federal register is wrong, the regulation is wrong and the AIM is wrong, I would reccommend that you just remain silent on this issue. You're starting to look like a fool.
 
Last edited:
SKC said:
On the ORD topic....

Does anyone think that reinstituting slots into ORD would help the flow problem? They would just have to be fairly restrictive in the number of slots allotted, etc.
I dunno...

I don't know a lot about ORD. The last 2-3 months it seems they are ground stopped every day. My $.02 ... (this is opinion only folks) is that yea, there is a problem with volume but I think a lot of what is in the news is about politics and the new runway the FAA wants to install. There is a lot of opposition to it and this may be just another piece of the political puzzle. Would slots help... maybe but when they had em' there was still flow restrictions.

You guys who fly in and out of there see it more then anyone ... is it really that bad there ??? When you land are you waiting 30 minutes for a gate to open ???
 
SKC said:
On the ORD topic....

Does anyone think that reinstituting slots into ORD would help the flow problem? They would just have to be fairly restrictive in the number of slots allotted, etc.

The increased delays at O'Hare are directly attributable to the gutting of LAHSO-- and reinstituting LAHSO (which have a 30-year track record of being both safe and efficient at O'Hare) is the surest way to decrease delays.

Absent that, reducing flights (either "voluntarily" or by reinstituting a slot program) is the only near-term solution.
 
Lrjtcaptain said:
Or did the admin give the FSDO authority.
Exactly! An Aviation Safety Inspector is appointed as a representative of the Administrator. He is trained to be exactly that. It is in writing in his FAA Orders.
Not so with the ATC guy. Give it up.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top