Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilots Overriding ATC  
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7824 times:

Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet, how straightforward a proposition is it for pilots to ignore, change or go against ATC instructions?

Is there automatically a presumption of pilot fault attached to such actions which becomes the pilot's burden to disprove? Are both the captain and co-pilot treated in the same way in such a proceeding, if the co-pilot was the one in command at the time of the ATC incident?


Faro


The chalice not my son
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16976 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7799 times:

Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency. In that case you may (and should) do whatever you need to do for the safety of the aircraft.

In case there is no emergency, prepare for everything from gentle prod to tongue-lashing to investigation. Note also that most violations are inadvertent, due to misunderstanding or incompetence.

A lot depends on what actually happened and if you endangered anyone and/or how much you disrupted traffic flow. If you are flying a Cessna 172, the pattern is completely empty and through inattention to your take-off clearance you take off and turn to your (reciprocal) on course heading with a left instead of a right turn, these things (though bad) happen. If you busted Class B in the same Cessna 172 and disrupted the JFK arrivals corridor, ATC will be more "insistent" (heh...). If you busted Class B in that way and kept going despite repeated calls from ATC, you will certainly get "a number to call once you land".

With regards to getting a clearance changed, there is a simple procedure: Ask the controller. They are typically happy to help if they can.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Is there automatically a presumption of pilot fault attached to such actions which becomes the pilot's burden to disprove? Are both the captain and co-pilot treated in the same way in such a proceeding, if the co-pilot was the one in command at the time of the ATC incident?

The Captain is always in command, even when he is PNF (Pilot Not Flying). Ultimately, the Captain is responsible, though I suppose if he is not in the cockpit when the violation occurs whoever is senior in the cockpit would be in the hot seat.

In any case it would depend on the particular circumstances.

[Edited 2012-11-23 04:35:45]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7764 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The Captain is always in command, even when he is PNF (Pilot Not Flying). Ultimately, the Captain is responsible, though I suppose if he is not in the cockpit when the violation occurs whoever is senior in the cockpit would be in the hot seat.

And legally, the onus is on whom? The flight crew to prove the necessity of their non-compliance or ATC to prove the well-foundedness of their instructions? Or are they both treated on an equal footing?


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7760 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency. In that case you may (and should) do whatever you need to do for the safety of the aircraft.

Not true, pilot can always say "unable XXX"

Quoting faro (Reply 2):
And legally, the onus is on whom?

The crew has the final responsibility that the aircraft does not run into another aircraft or terrain.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16976 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7753 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 2):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The Captain is always in command, even when he is PNF (Pilot Not Flying). Ultimately, the Captain is responsible, though I suppose if he is not in the cockpit when the violation occurs whoever is senior in the cockpit would be in the hot seat.

And legally, the onus is on whom? The flight crew to prove the necessity of their non-compliance or ATC to prove the well-foundedness of their instructions? Or are they both treated on an equal footing?

In the US, AIM 5-5-1 paragraph b. states "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the inal authority as to the safe operation of that aircraft. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot-in-command may deviate from any rule in the General Subpart A and Flight Rules Subpart B in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.3"

Other countries may vary.

So I the pilot in command is always legally responsible. However, I would assume if the Captain is, say, asleep in the rest area while the First Officer (acting in command) violates procedure, the authorities would make the First Officer answer. On a case by case basis of course. Conveniently, all this stuff is recorded on the radio and, in the case of larger airliners, in the DFDR and the CVR.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16976 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7747 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency. In that case you may (and should) do whatever you need to do for the safety of the aircraft.

Not true, pilot can always say "unable XXX"

Oops. Of course you are correct. ***bangs head on table*** This would fall under "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the safe operation of that aircraft."

However if you bust Class B because you were "unable" you'd better have a good explanation.

[Edited 2012-11-23 05:17:29]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7672 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet

One issue I have with a simple recording is that the entire scenario including other tasks are not shown along with that. It might sound like a ballsup, and might have been a ballsup, however its usually a little more complicated that "lame" or "incompetent" ATC. I'm not saying that we are perfect, we do make messes. Its how we resolve it afterwards!! But to listen to an liveatc clip and determine that the atc was lame-to-incompetent is not quite fair.

It would be like saying that every pilot inn a CFIT accident was a moron. Not true, circumstances play a big part, and its that part the public realm don't get to see.

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
Not true, pilot can always say "unable XXX"

Most definitely correct! - If its a silly speed, or a heading that puts and aircraft into a storm, or a level assignment with there is something coming head on etc etc, that is most acceptable. I encourage it - because it makes a controller aware that they are giving an unrealistic instruction.

I have had in recent times a rash of deliberate ignoring speed instructions. 280 is not 210. Saying sorry after the wild vector doesn't help, and if you have an issue with a speed *please* speak up when its issued so we can slow the traffic behind and/or re-vector somebody. Whatever the reason, whether it be company policy, fuel conservation, or you just don't like it or feel comfortable or crew are training, just say so early!!! When you're spacing to be exactly 3.0nm apart at touchdown there is not a lot of tolerance for us...

And as has come out in another thread, with the advent of Mode-S Enhanced Surveillance, we can see very quickly who's 'forgotten' about a speed, or 'fudged' a heading etc etc...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinestarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16976 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7648 times:

In my admittedly limited experience, pilots screw up way more often than ATC.

If ATC screws up, the first alternative is not to ignore them and do your own thing. Ask for clarification, say unable and suggest an alternative, etc...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
how straightforward a proposition is it for pilots to ignore, change or go against ATC instructions?

The procedure to ignore/change is very straighforward. It's the justification afterward that's a problem.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Is there automatically a presumption of pilot fault attached to such actions which becomes the pilot's burden to disprove?

It's not a presumption of pilot fault; the pilot is in command at all times. However, there is a presumption that ATC instructions will be complied with as issued unless the pilot is unable to safety do so. So there is a burden on the pilot to show that it would have been unsafe to comply. That doesn't mean the pilot was at fault, but it does mean the pilot has to have a legitimate reason.

Quoting faro (Reply 2):
And legally, the onus is on whom? The flight crew to prove the necessity of their non-compliance or ATC to prove the well-foundedness of their instructions?

It's on the flight crew. ATC instructions don't have to be well-founded (try pissing off a controller some time and see how well-founded their vectors will become), they just have to be complied with unless it would be unsafe to do so. Pilots can *never* escape the obligation to maintain safe operation of the aircraft.

Tom.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7575 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 6):
One issue I have with a simple recording is that the entire scenario including other tasks are not shown along with that. It might sound like a ballsup, and might have been a ballsup, however its usually a little more complicated that "lame" or "incompetent" ATC. I'm not saying that we are perfect, we do make messes. Its how we resolve it afterwards!! But to listen to an liveatc clip and determine that the atc was lame-to-incompetent is not quite fair.

It would be like saying that every pilot inn a CFIT accident was a moron. Not true, circumstances play a big part, and its that part the public realm don't get to see.

Agree 100%, there are in fact even more examples of pilot messups on those recordings. The present thread is simply based on the premise that ATC has a central co-ordination role vs that of pilots; they are the nominal arbiter. And to be fair, linguistic misperceptions seem to account for a large chunk of both of the aforementioned messups.


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1572 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7572 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet, how straightforward a proposition is it for pilots to ignore, change or go against ATC instructions?

Being a pilot and able to admit this on behalf of all of us, I know there a lot more lame to incompetent pilot actions going on out there versus ATC as a whole, they just aren't always recorded or seen by the public 

I've heard this from a few guys that if the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. If ATC screws up, the pilot still dies.

But that being said, I don't think I have ever really been in a situation where I absolutely felt I had to override ATC's instructions. I have questioned some and maybe hinted at something I would rather have done, sometimes getting my way and sometimes not but that is mostly with routing.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
It's not a presumption of pilot fault; the pilot is in command at all times. However, there is a presumption that ATC instructions will be complied with as issued unless the pilot is unable to safety do so. So there is a burden on the pilot to show that it would have been unsafe to comply. That doesn't mean the pilot was at fault, but it does mean the pilot has to have a legitimate reason.

Exactly.

I do think as PIC, I would have to follow the aviate, navigate, then communicate "rule" if I was ever in doubt and I better have a darn good reason if I do go off and do my own thing.



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7438 times:

Item from the Transport Canada daily occurrence reports a day or two ago below, which seems somewhat related to the subject:

The WestJet Boeing 737-700 (operating as flight WJA325) was ready to depart on a scheduled IFR flight from Toronto (CYYZ) to Edmonton (CYEG). The American Airlines Boeing 737-800 (operating as flight AAL1586) was concluding a scheduled IFR flight from Los Angeles (KLAX) to Toronto. NAV CANADA staff at Toronto Tower reported that the WJA325 flight crew was asked by the Tower Controller if they were able to conduct an immediate take-off with AAL1586 approximately five (5)NM final. The WJA325 flight crew said that they were able, however, when cleared for an immediate take-off, they were very slow to comply. A reduced power take-off by WJA325 resulted in AAL1586 being instructed to overshoot.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21423 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7358 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet

I'm not aware of this abundance. I know there are a lot of recordings out there where the controllers aren't able to convey what they want to convey, but I have heard very few recordings that would lead me to believe that the controller does not have a firm idea of how he or she wants to work the traffic flow and maintain separation, which is about the only time a pilot would be justified in disregarding instructions (on safety grounds, of course).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8841 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7202 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 6):

I have had in recent times a rash of deliberate ignoring speed instructions. 280 is not 210.

Don't worry, this annoys me too, what annoys me more is that ATC often do not vector these people around to join the sequence later, they make people behind pay for it. I was following someone recently they were asked to maintain 300 or greater, we were asked to maintain 290 or less, they slowed to 250. ATC spun them 90 degrees off track, increased our speed, let 4 aircraft through and then let them join back in. They got they message.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7149 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
ATC spun them 90 degrees off track, increased our speed, let 4 aircraft through and then let them join back in. They got they message



Perfect, and that is exactly what should happen IMHO.

In the for what it's worth department, in over 32 years of being a controller I can only think of once when a pilot even attempted to override what the clearance was that I issued and that was in the very early days of TCAS. This particularly bright MD80 crew flying from LAX to HOU thought they had the plan when I had turned then base leg for the approach. The figured out due to TCAS that the airplane they were following would be to close to them so they didn't turn nor told me they were not turning. Since the wind was 50 knots or so on their tail it was necessary to turn them early to fill the hole on final and when they didn't turn the got to see the very far northeast side of HOU for an extended period of time.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
ATC instructions don't have to be well-founded (try pissing off a controller some time and see how well-founded their vectors will become)



Oh so true!  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21423 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7141 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 14):
Perfect, and that is exactly what should happen IMHO.

So just out of curiosity, what should happen when ATC gives you a vector to join a different approach from the one you were told to expect, and then when you say you're unable to fly it (don't have the appropriate equipment and certification), they give you a fifteen minute tour of the west side of Chicago? Because that was rather frustrating.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7137 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
So just out of curiosity, what should happen when ATC gives you a vector to join a different approach from the one you were told to expect, and then when you say you're unable to fly it (don't have the appropriate equipment and certification)



Curious what approach you were told to expect and what may have been advertised on the ATIS if the airport was equipped with one?

Where I have worked you'd be assigned the advertised approach on the ATIS, if anything different which from time to time you could be told to expect maybe an RNAV (GPS) or RNAV (RNP) if not advertised would be inserted into the data block for the final controller to know that is what was assigned. So in my mind there should not be any tour of any place, unless the crew didn't inform the controller they couldn't accept the assigned approach then I can't tell ya other than you're going back in the conga line.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21423 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7109 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 16):
Curious what approach you were told to expect and what may have been advertised on the ATIS if the airport was equipped with one?

ATIS advised the ILS and RNP to 13C in use (at MDW). Was told to expect the ILS by the first approach controller we talked to, the second controller tried to put us on the RNP.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 16):
unless the crew didn't inform the controller they couldn't accept the assigned approach

It's true that I didn't say that we couldn't accept the RNP approach (until we were given clearance for it, that is), but if we had been told to expect it I certainly would have.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7057 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
Don't worry, this annoys me too, what annoys me more is that ATC often do not vector these people around to join the sequence later, they make people behind pay for it.

Hi Zeke,

Yes, I am sure that is annoying. However, one thing to consider with this, is that when we operate really close to the minimum separation (where I am 3nm on final), it becomes tricky to break out the offender without a loss of separation. I am not permitted to use visual separation during this sort of maneouvre, so it ties my hands unfortunately...

What I refer to as an "Educational Vector", it is - as you rightfully say - deserved by the non-complying aircraft...But once they are below you and ahead of you on the GS, and they throw the anchors out, its hard for us to break them out without a flashing red set of radar targets, and tea later with the boss...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7034 times:

Unless its an emergency & same action is conveyed to ATC......Other cases there is always the right to counter the Instructiions & convince ATC if things are not accurate.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6998 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
ATIS advised the ILS and RNP to 13C in use (at MDW). Was told to expect the ILS by the first approach controller we talked to, the second controller tried to put us on the RNP.



If RNAV (RNP) 13C and the ILS are overlays (I haven't looked at them) with the same lateral/vertical paths then I would not have a problem changing the approach clearance, take all of about 5 seconds or less. It shouldn't make a difference what you flew in that case unless the weather was such you needed a lower min.....but my guess is they are not overlays.

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
It's true that I didn't say that we couldn't accept the RNP approach (until we were given clearance for it, that is), but if we had been told to expect it I certainly would have.



Somebody has to keep ya guessing.  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6999 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I had this case yesterday during approach. We were instructed to reduce speed to 300 knots and descent to 10,000 feet to reach at a specific point. This was simply impossible unless the 744 changed to a flying piano.
So we told the controller: either 300 knots or 10,000. So he picked the 10,000 feet and we did our best to get as close as possible to that target altitude.
So it is basically a working together here. The controller does his best and we try our best to obey and follow the instructions, but if we cannot, we simply are unable to follow and let him know early enough so that he can plan for Plan B.
We should work together and not against each other.

Same for the approach. They said plane for ILS 27L (which is rather short). I requested runway 28 and he said: "Expect ILS 28." Simple as that.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6991 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 21):
We should work together and not against each other



Exactly, and I believe we do in 99.99% of the situations.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6982 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 22):
Exactly, and I believe we do in 99.99% of the situations.

Yes, I 100% agree.

The best support I received from ATC was during a medical emergency. The work of ATC was just excellent. They supported us as much as they could, held the airspace free for us and we could land right away, right to our parking spot where the paramedics were waiting. Was for sure a great job by ATC.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinemusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6979 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
Don't worry, this annoys me too, what annoys me more is that ATC often do not vector these people around to join the sequence later, they make people behind pay for it. I was following someone recently they were asked to maintain 300 or greater, we were asked to maintain 290 or less, they slowed to 250. ATC spun them 90 degrees off track, increased our speed, let 4 aircraft through and then let them join back in. They got they message.

lol Zeke, thanks for the insight, who was that aircraft? i will try to avoid flying on such an airline, 300 or greater and 250 is QUITE different!

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 21):
I had this case yesterday during approach. We were instructed to reduce speed to 300 knots and descent to 10,000 feet to reach at a specific point. This was simply impossible unless the 744 changed to a flying piano.
So we told the controller: either 300 knots or 10,000. So he picked the 10,000 feet and we did our best to get as close as possible to that target altitude.

Where is this Wilco? back at your homebase I hope not?



Lufthansa Group of Airlines
25 Post contains images wilco737 : No, the guys in FRA are pretty good. It was in ORD. They kept us high for quite some time and then wanted us to descent like a piano... wilco737
26 Speedbird128 : Most definitely agree 100%. My aim is to get everybody in and out as fast as possible within the safety margins. I drum it into my students never to
27 CosmicCruiser : I don't know if this holds true for every FMS but in the -11 it will honor the alt first and airspeed second so to do both requires some pilot input.
28 Post contains images wilco737 : Very good. Thanks for that Neither do I. Of course it takes a while to reduce from 360 knots to minimum clean, but I comply with the clearance. If no
29 Speedbird128 : Yup it sure can confuse the FMC. However, unless your crossing restriction is specifically cancelled, it still holds true. Yes slowing down results i
30 CosmicCruiser : We are encouraged to stay on prof. and not start down early due to extra fuel used but it can get busy if an airspeed change is given and the FMS says
31 tdscanuck : We got into that situation on a Boeing Field approach before (they wanted to keep us under SeaTac's traffic). Fortunately, we'd been out testing emer
32 Post contains images Speedbird128 : Yes, without the pax it can be fun! I had the privilege of flying up front with some friends in a 77W, and also, the expedite climb/descent commands
33 Mir : It doesn't, though. Even if the points were the same, we'd have to go into the FMS, load the other approach, pull up the chart for the other approach
34 Post contains images moose135 : Did that in a KC-135 going into KGUS one time. For some reason that I've long since forgotten, ATC held us up high over Indy and gave us a late decen
35 MHG : He was probably talking about the controllers side ...
36 Post contains images IAHFLYR : No probably, I was! I was referring to the fact you've loaded and briefed for the approach expected and the controller cleared you for the other it w
37 CosmicCruiser : If I understand correctly, yes you would be required to "rebuild" the app and rebrief. For example, the LOC app may have diff. mins from the RNAV to
38 IAHFLYR : Oh that makes it fun then for sure. And even more fun expect more of those type altitude/speed constraints as those who have a slight understanding o
39 CosmicCruiser : but it is a separate app in the data base. I can pick the ILS or RNAV or LOC therefore you must load what you're cleared for.
40 tdscanuck : If you're cleared for the ILS and the RNAV is an overlay (i.e. it's the same physical path in space with the same minimums and requirements) do you a
41 FlyHossD : Good thread. Over the course of many years, I've said "Unable" a few times and in most cases, that was that. There were examples of the Controller bei
42 sprout5199 : After reading all about you big airplane guys, I will throw in my little airplane story. On approach to PBI, in a C152, I was vectored offshore to pas
43 CosmicCruiser : Well for us I'm sure it's partly not to be so easily lead to think one is the other. If the app is in the data base we're suppose to pick the app we
44 Post contains links and images IAHFLYR : I really think you're missing my point. Let me try again because I don't want to confuse anyone, let alone myself! Point is, you're told by the feede
45 Mir : I'd say so. I don't like flying an approach different from the one I have in the FMS, or the one I've pulled out the chart for. If it's an overlay ap
46 IAHFLYR : While I completely respect your opinion, they are totally considered overlays.....everything except maybe the missed approach and respective minimums
47 FlyHossD : No, we didn't divert - we continued to the destination on the original clearance. But there was a threat of a violation (to be issued against us). As
48 highflyer9790 : I think its already been covered, but as long as i have the ability to mouth the words "unable," then i will always make sure whatever ATC is telling
49 starlionblue : Yepp. It was covered. I had a brainfart and totally missed "unable". Duh!
50 bond007 : Yes, although in the context of this thread, Starlionblue is still correct in his statement IMO. Saying "unable" is not the same as ignoring ATC inst
51 HAWK21M : On a scheduled flight.......Can that be done....
52 zeke : No real reason why one could not, during an emergency descent none of the airframe limits are normally exceeded. When coming into HKG from the NW, it
53 bond007 : Ah, in my case, no pax! Jimbo
54 sprout5199 : Not Kidding. I chalk it up to a brain fart more than anything else. It wasn't like we were any where near the approach path or anything. just tooling
55 Post contains images BE77 : I'll back Sprout on this one - getting forgotten or treated as if I were flying something more capable has happened to me probably every couple of ye
56 Post contains images IAHFLYR : I can't go along with you on that concept, even though I know there are some controllers that have that mind set. It is just way to simple to look at
57 sprout5199 : I dont think it was a speed issue, as there is no way she could have thought I was something else. I think that since I was a student, I was thinking
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pilots Overriding ATC
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pilots To ATC Communications - Questions? posted Tue Sep 23 2003 20:57:59 by Mr Spaceman
For The Pilots, An ATC Question posted Wed Aug 13 2003 05:37:42 by Cancidas
Pilots Moaning To ATC? posted Wed Mar 14 2012 12:56:27 by readytotaxi
I Can Hear ATC, But Not The Pilots, Why? posted Sat Apr 3 2010 10:48:52 by c5load
Pilots Your Vote Pls, Best ATC Country? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 09:53:21 by Readytotaxi
Pilots- What Irritates You About ATC? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 18:36:32 by N766UA
Little Things (ops, ATC) That Annoy Airline Pilots posted Thu Aug 25 2005 15:17:24 by Sabenaboy
To All Airline Pilots, ATC Question posted Thu Oct 21 2004 01:45:01 by ERAUPilotATC
How Do Pilots Talk With ATC And Ground Crew? posted Mon Sep 1 2003 21:51:48 by Bio15
Pilots: Walk Me Through Your Job Seeklng Process? posted Sun Nov 18 2012 16:50:24 by prizeframe
Pilots & ATC.. Again? posted Mon Apr 19 2004 19:52:55 by SolarWind
Pilots To ATC Communications - Questions? posted Tue Sep 23 2003 20:57:59 by Mr Spaceman
For The Pilots, An ATC Question posted Wed Aug 13 2003 05:37:42 by Cancidas
Pilots Moaning To ATC? posted Wed Mar 14 2012 12:56:27 by readytotaxi
I Can Hear ATC, But Not The Pilots, Why? posted Sat Apr 3 2010 10:48:52 by c5load

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format