What's new

When ATC directions conflict with regulations

Aeromot

Flies over Oceans
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
11,155
Location
Santa Paula Airport (KSZP), the west end
Note that unlike paragraphs a and b of 91.117, the paragraph under discussion (paragraph c) does NOT have an "unless authorized" qualification.
 
Last edited:
I've said "unable" while on flight following inside the Boston Bravo for exactly that reason.
 
I've said "unable" while on flight following inside the Boston Bravo for exactly that reason.
If you can't maintain 3 miles visibility and remain clear of clouds, I would definitely suggest "unable" when VFR in a Bravo. Of course, with prevailing visibilities less than 3 miles, I wouldn't be VFR to begin with.

But I'm referring to being, for example, 400' below the cloud deck and 1,500' away from the nearest cloud in otherwise CAVU conditions. and where, practically speaking, ATC is separating everyone. I've used that as a flight review scenario and there are definitely those who would treat the regulatory violation the same as driving 42 MPH in a 35 MPH zone.
 
If you can't maintain 3 miles visibility and remain clear of clouds, I would definitely suggest "unable" when VFR in a Bravo. Of course, with prevailing visibilities less than 3 miles, I wouldn't be VFR to begin with.

Agreed.

If I'm in the Boston Bravo, I'm normally transiting it at a level altitude or climbing through it to get above it. The instance that I was referring to occurred while climbing on a day with lots of visibility and scattered clouds. A controller told me to make a turn that would have resulted in flying into a cloud. "Unable due to cloud clearance."

The controller acknowledged and that was that.
 
Top Bottom