Minimum altitude and ATC

[bob turner]

Thinking of 14 CFR 91.119 - a thousand feet above congested area.
Looking for opinions -do you think this is “unless otherwise authorized by ATC?”

Reason I am asking - we have local sightseeing flights routinely authorized by tower controllers at 800 feet msl, over beautiful but congested areas. Not that I mind - seems perfectly safe. I would just like to know if I might get violated.

The words in part 91 do not seem all that wishy-washy.

 

[BC12D-4-85]

I was able to obtain ATC authorization for a 91.119 deviation to fly over waterways that passed through congested areas lower that 1000' AGL/2000' horizontal. First I called them on the landline explaining my request, then contacted them via radio prior to entering two Class D surface areas, one a military base. The route was mainly in and out slow flight, but often I had to circle several times and they sometimes requested I call them via radio prior. But most of the time I was cleared to cruise unless there was a traffic conflict.

Gary

 

[mvivion]

The only caveat offered in 91.119 is “except when necessary for landing or takeoff”. I’d be very skeptical of accepting such a directive from ATC. If given that directive, I’d ask ATC if they are exempting me from the provisions of 91.119.

Personally, I don’t believe ATC has that authority, and it’s pretty clear that a pilot should never accept an ATC instruction that the pilot believes is illegal or hazardous.

It sounds to me that some Controllers are seeking a “solution” to make THEIR lives easier.

No way I’d go there.

Years ago, USFWS pilots had a specific waiver from the provisions of 119 to conduct wildlife census and law enforcement activities. That waiver was summarily cancelled by the FAA with no explanation a loooong time ago….maybe 1988?? There had been NO issues or complaints that anyone in FWS was aware of….the FAA just rescinded the waiver.

So, consider that the FAA cancelled a waiver of 119 which allowed government pilots of public aircraft to exceed the requirements of 91.119, only while engaged in government business.

Next time they give that instruction, ask if they are waiving the provisions of 91.119. My guess is they’ll say no. If they say yes, get a recording…..

MTV

 

[h2oavi8r]

The only caveat offered in 91.119 is “except when necessary for landing or takeoff”. I’d be very skeptical of accepting such a directive from ATC. If given that directive, I’d ask ATC if they are exempting me from the provisions of 91.119.

Personally, I don’t believe ATC has that authority, and it’s pretty clear that a pilot should never accept an ATC instruction that the pilot believes is illegal or hazardous.

It sounds to me that some Controllers are seeking a “solution” to make THEIR lives easier.

No way I’d go there.

Years ago, USFWS pilots had a specific waiver from the provisions of 119 to conduct wildlife census and law enforcement activities. That waiver was summarily cancelled by the FAA with no explanation a loooong time ago….maybe 1988?? There had been NO issues or complaints that anyone in FWS was aware of….the FAA just rescinded the waiver.

So, consider that the FAA cancelled a waiver of 119 which allowed government pilots of public aircraft to exceed the requirements of 91.119, only while engaged in government business.

Next time they give that instruction, ask if they are waiving the provisions of 91.119. My guess is they’ll say no. If they say yes, get a recording…..

MTV

I agree that ATC doesn’t have the authority to allow a pilot to break any FAR. Several times approaching OAK (Oakland, CA) in a jet the controller told me to speed up after I slowed to 200 going BELOW class B. When I asked to verify I was below class B, their next call was to the aircraft behind me to reduce speed. This was a common practice to smooth the arrival flow but the pilot was the one busting an FAR. I’m sure a Fed in the jump seat would have critiqued it (or worse). The only way to break an FAR is to use your emergency authority as PIC. Then you’re going to have to explain your actions.

I hope my memory of the 200kt restriction is still accurate!

Robert

 

[frequent_flyer]

[h=2]91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.[/h] (a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

 

[bcone1381]

The 200 kt restriction still applies.

The question in the OP is about ATC authorizing sight seeing flights below FAR 91.119 altitudes. ATC is a traffic and clearance service. They are not the cops, the judges, or law makers. Thats the FAA. ATC provides a service, required to report things to the FAA. I am not aware of ATC having wide authority to waive FAR's. If a request is made and they approve it, I sense they do so because no traffic conflict. It's not an FAR waiver from the FAA.

In this case ATC is not directing a clearance below the minimum vectoring altitude (1000' above the highest obstacle in non-mountainous areas.) I suspect what is happening is the low altitude sight seeing request poses no conflict with ATC so they don't care, not responsible for FAR91.119 and and may not even think to apply FAR91.119. That the PIC responsibility. then this becomes a routine that no one cares about and then violating FAR's morphs into being Standard Operating Procedure. If this is the case the FAA should swing by the operator, show them the rule, and give them advice to adjust their procedures.

 

[BC12D-4-85]

I also recall (Post #2) contacting the local FSDO prior and one seasoned ASI verbally had no issue providing there was no conflict with other traffic. The flights occurred seasonally several times over a few years, so it wasn't unusual. Today....?

Edit: Note the flights were conducted over a river, so maybe that had some bearing.

Gary

 

[mam90]

Yep, ATC doesn’t even know some of the FAR’s, nor do they care. Lots of examples in my career but one that stands out was on an IFR Part 135 flight to Middleton Island. No weather reporting so I could not fly an approach so we always descended to the MEA and went VFR weather permitting. One day, ATC said “cleared for an approach to the Middleton Island airport, report down or cancellation “. When I told them I couldn’t accept an approach clearance due to lack of weather reporting, he said he didn’t know or care about that, I was cleared for an approach and could do what I wanted. Descended to MEA and cancelled. Being an upstanding aviator, I promptly called my POI and tried to clear up what our pilots should do under these circumstances. When he said “you may have committed a violation” I promptly hung up and called the FSDO manager and told him I now understood why there were so many pilots unwilling to interact with them. He said he’d handle it and that’s the last I heard of it. ATC cannot authorize you to do something contrary to the FAR’s.

 

[cubdrvr]

Can you say ADS-B?

 

[bob turner]

As always, thanks for all the good opinions. As you might guess, I read this pretty much like MTV above, even though I lean toward interpreting ambiguities in my favor. The problem here appears to be "no wiggle room." I am of course delighted that the local federales are ignoring it.

On the ADS-B - be aware that local homeowners have learned that data is now simply on the internet, and that also apparently your N-number and altitude at a given time are semi-permanently available for forwarding to the nearest enforcement entity. The data could conceivably be linked to the owner, his phone number and address, and maybe the address of his/her paramour or first-born. Be careful out there.

 

[mam90]

If you think inconsistency from the FAA only applies to GA, read this……

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/aviation/2023/04/20/unlike-other-airlines-alaska-air-groups-horizon-cant-fly-without-anti-collision-system-in-use/

 

[SteveE]

Here is a guy going thru some crap with the FAA about “when necessary for takeoff and landing “

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media.../trent-palmer-battles-faa-over-word-necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[frequent_flyer]

ATC cannot authorize you to do something contrary to the FAR’s.

If they issue a clearance and you do not comply you are in violation of 91.123. As I see it your only hope is to know the clearance would violate a regulation and request an ammended clearance.

I think I agree that if you request a clearance that is in violation of a regulation, and it is granted, you are responsible for the violation.

 

[mam90]

Yep.. spelled out in the AIM.

[FONT=&quot]14 CFR Section 91.3(a) states: “The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, IT IS THE PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE.[/FONT]

 

[BC12D-4-85]

Seek a waiver via 91.903-> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-J

That might have been the case in Post #2 during 1980's. The projects were coordinated via State Government in Juneau and Fairbanks. I was the cab driver for others that knew more.

Gary

 

[mvivion]

Seek a waiver via 91.903-> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-J

That might have been the case in Post #2 during 1980's. The projects were coordinated via State Government in Juneau and Fairbanks. I was the cab driver for others that knew more.

Gary

Good luck with that. That was our waiver, till it was rescinded years ago. I suspect this is kinda like the reg. That permits operators in AK to operate ten percent over gross weight. Looks good in theory.

MTV

 

[BC12D-4-85]

Good luck with that. That was our waiver, till it was rescinded years ago. I suspect this is kinda like the reg. That permits operators in AK to operate ten percent over gross weight. Looks good in theory.

MTV

Could have been just that Mike. We went from Public Use to Part 91 around then....not sure but it's buried in my logs. All I know is the FSDO (Don Nelson) said ok after a formal request from our management, same for ATC. There was 75% Federal funding for those projects that Juneau coordinated. They tried the fish telemetry from boats but didn't work well....the already weak signal cone was too narrow below 500'. So I went for 1000' AGL, but with constant turns and rising terrain and no radar alt or GPS it was impossible not to go lower, especially if they were grouped. Over 1200' the sigs faded markedly. Unlikely to fly today as noted.

Gary

 

[Tennessee]

An important aspect of the question is whether the airspace in question is controlled or not. In class G below Class E, "uncontrolled airspace", pilots can operate as they want, but still need to follow any regs restricting their movement, i.e. low altitude aerobatics, VFR flight into clouds, flight into low visibility or activities that are potentially dangerous to people or objects on the ground. I have never seen a direct statement that ATC has NO controlling authority in class G, but to me, that's what "uncontrolled airspace" means. So there's a conflict between the two facts that it's not their job to control you but you are always required to follow their control instructions. This means it's always OK to question & clarify, but you always do what they say unless it's time to assert your PIC card. The ATC guy is our friend, but he can't absolve us from responsibility for following the regs restricting movement. If a citizen complains about you being to low, the complaint will go to FAA enforcement, not ATC. Anything that the ATC told you will just be a weak excuse in their eyes.

 

[GreggB]

On the Boston heli chart just South of the Bravo surface area there is a note stating ...Helicopter route assignments and altitudes do not relieve pilots of compliance with FAR 91.119 and 135.203 (b) compliance...
Telling you right there they might tell you to do something you might get in trouble for and it is up to you to seek an alternate clearance.