Clearly there's no point in continuing this discussion when you arte unable to give a straightforward answer to the question:
 

If the clearance includes a height restriction is the pilot entitled to break that on a whim or only if an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory?

There are two answers

Yes - the pilot entitled to break that on a whim

No - the pilot entitled to break that only if an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory

Which is it?

Your question is very similar to the:

 

"Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no".

 

Try adding "… or the clearance provides unsafe flight conditions" to the second answer and ask again.

 

 

There are two answers

Yes - the pilot entitled to break that on a whim

No - the pilot entitled to break that only if an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory

Which is it?

 

No.

 

Gloves are now coming off and you really need to get a grasp on reality here.  I have stated on numerous occasions - nicely, and patiently, I might add - that the situation is not as you're making it out to be.

 

It's not either break it "on a whim" or in an emergency.

 

"On a whim" means the pilot can do it just because he or she wants to and that could not be further from the truth.  You have to have a reason for not following a command instruction and that reason has to be rooted in a decision that was made for the safety of the flight.  I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to comprehend.  I have a feeling it's either that you refuse to admit that you're wrong in this argument, or that you're just trolling me, but the sad part is that I'm really so stubborn that I'll keep at this as long as I need to.  Honestly, even if you keep trying to pull the most obscure references, and refuse to acknowledge reality in this case, I think anyone who reads this will know what the truth really is.

 

So, no, it really isn't "just allow pilots to act on a whim" or only in emergency cases.  It's the pilot exercising his or her own judgment, as outlined in 91.3, to determine the safety of the flight.  If a controller's instruction is not in line with that safety, then the pilot may disregard it.  Again, only in the cases listed by the AIM (safety and breaking other regs, since this fact seems to be escaping you) may the pilot do this, ergo, this is not on a whim.  As this action is rooted in something explainable, it would not satisfy the definition of 'whim,' quoted here for your convenience:

"A sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained."

 

Next?

 

...and please, actually try this time, because it's really getting pitiful at this point.

O my, we are at it again. As the PIC, you are responsible for adherence to rules and guidelines. Also as PIC, authority is invested into sound judgement. Alot rests on judgement, that's why we get the big bucks. Nothing's done on a whim, it's all judgement. What ever decisions you make in regard to rules, you have to be willing to support and explain your actions. ATC will not hesitate to have you call and explain your actions. I've been asked to call twice in regard to crossing restrictions not met during descents. After explaining the capabilities of the aircraft, the conversations ends with "Ok, just wanted to know why". This happens alot on the East coast when kept high and then slammed dunked.

 

 

Nothing's done on a whim, it's all judgement. What ever decisions you make in regard to rules, you have to be willing to support and explain your actions.

 

Bingo.

This thread is amazing

Here's a good story with plenty examples of judgement used in the face of rules.

 

I was leading a formation of 14 aircraft on our final leg from PHNL to the California coast. 12 F/A-18s headed to KNKX and 2 KC-10s headed to KSUU. Prior to clearance request, ATIS reported that the reef runway was closed due to barrier maintenance. A quick review of the NOTAMS revealed that it wasn't mentioned. I was 20,000 pounds too heavy for 8L so I called base ops for a waiver to the closure. Base Ops referred me to the FAA who in turn referred back to base ops. After the tennis match, the FAA and base ops decided to let the restriction stand. I asked my crew chief how long it would take to defuel. I had two options. 1. Wait 3 hours until the Mx was complete or 2. Defuel the 20K and depart runway 8L. I called my wing man and informed him of my options. Lucky for him, he was only carrying fuel as I had cargo, passengers and fuel. I called the fighter lead and gave the options. He strongly requested option 2 as they were returning from a tour and wanted to get home asap. I thought it through thoroughly and set plan 2 in motion. Defuel took 30 minutes longer than expected and we departed 8L.

 

After getting in the air, the fighters re-joined and cycled through for a quick refuel system check. 10 minutes prior to coast in, SAN FRAN radio directed me to hold current position and to expect further clearance in 45. Immediately the fighters requested fuel. We both passed a couple thousand pounds each as I questioned SAN FRAN. SAN FRAN replied that LA CENTER primary and back up radars were down. I passed along that my team mates needed to get going very soon. Again my fighters requested fuel and we ran some numbers to see what was possible. We both decided to sacrifice some fuel reserves. While figuring an alternate route around the black out, the fighters requested more fuel. I gave another 4K to 3 and sent the remainders to my wingman as he had more due to his lighter weight. The fighters made another request and I denied it. At this point, the fighters departed the formation. I gave them bearing and distance to KNKX and off they went. I notified SAN FRAN of the breakup and passed that I was only holding hands with the other heavy DC10. Shortly after, fighter lead was contacted by SAN FRAN and he announced due regard and dis regarded SAN FRAN. The frustrated controller requested the fighter leads info and I passed it on. I gave my intentions to SAN FRAN, and we proceeded around and behind LA center.

 

First judgement  was made by ops and FAA to let the closure stand.

 

Next judgement was to entertain the defuel option. In hind sight, option 1 would have worked perfect. You can't plan for every situation so judgement is the best tool. I am content with my decision made about the defuel.

 

The next judgement call came with the decision to give up fuel. I sacrificed my reserve fuel for my brothers at arms. It was day time with VMC conditions. Plenty airports along the Cali coast and I could cut directly through LA airspace since it was clear and empty.

 

The final judgement was made by the flight lead to depart the formation. He didn't declare min fuel, but made his best decision to reach destination.

 

In the end, there were no issues as we all used sound judgement to accomplish the tasks at hand.

@Gerry This is when the topic started.

 

Just a little brain fart, but maybe it's nice to look at this site http://www.flightradar24.com/52.31,4.76/8 You can go to every (other) main airport and you'll see that every heavy (ICA flight) will go faster than 250kt <FL100. Litteraly, all of them!

@Gerry This is when the topic started.

 

Just a little brain fart, but maybe it's nice to look at this site http://www.flightradar24.com/52.31,4.76/8 You can go to every (other) main airport and you'll see that every heavy (ICA flight) will go faster than 250kt <FL100. Litteraly, all of them!

 

I take it you read my post below?

 

I'm not sure what FR24 shows but most radars show GS and not IAS, however speed restrictions are based on IAS.

 

My point being that you should be carefull in assuming speed based on the speed off a radar picture.

 

Obviously if FR24 uses the IAS downlink from the mode S and not the GS donwlink then the above isn't valid when using FR24.

 

Since nobody seems to know I'll try and see at work tomorrow if I can compare our ADS-B reciver with the one from FR24 to try and figure out if FR24 shows IAS or GS. I am fairly certain it is GS though considering the high speed readouts you get of hifh level traffic.

 

In order words, showing more than 250 knots GS under FL100 means nothing, as speed restrictions are based on IAS and not GS.

I know what they are based on... But you have a point, I have to admit with the site. But still it's true, heavies can get their speed with wing clean. Other wise they would go to cruise speed and that doesn't happen! They go about 270 + or - on the MD11. Above 10000 ft they will excellerate to "cruise" speed.

 

With that, right or wrong a captain is always responsible of his/her flight. This is with ATC but also with the co pilot. I say again, the captain is always responsible for any action during the flight! If ATC turns the plane into a mountain it will be a pilot error!

 

ATC can file a report, so does the Co if regulations are overruled by the captain (even when the co does it). That's the thea and biscuit is all about!

Yes they can, but not withotu prior permission from ATC. Something that was established a few pages back.

 

This now relevant to the area which I know ie the London TMA.

 

 

And yes a pilot shouldn't accept a turn into a mountain but if I as an ATCO turned a flight into terrain during vectoring through me not following the procedures I would not only lose my license but also face legal charges so all the blame doesn't fall on the pilot.

I know what they are based on... But you have a point, I have to admit with the site. But still it's true, heavies can get their speed with wing clean. Other wise they would go to cruise speed and that doesn't happen! They go about 270 + or - on the MD11. Above 10000 ft they will excellerate to "cruise" speed.

 

With that, right or wrong a captain is always responsible of his/her flight. This is with ATC but also with the co pilot. I say again, the captain is always responsible for any action during the flight! If ATC turns the plane into a mountain it will be a pilot error!

 

ATC can file a report, so does the Co if regulations are overruled by the captain (even when the co does it). That's the thea and biscuit is all about!

If ATC(FAA) clears you on  a departure, you are responsible for terrain clearance. Once he/she issues vectors or headings off route, he shares that responsibility with you. In South America, ATC will clear you below the mountains. eye opening, but you should all ways have your SA working to alter descents around terrain. I've had this happen to me a few times while flying into Honduran airfields.

While flying into Vnukovo International Airport, the controller cleared me below MSA. He vectored a Russian airliner in front of me. Since it was daytime, I chose accept the clearance and keep a sharp eye rather than go through the motions with a language barrier. Had it been marginal weather or night time, I would questioned it and offered MSA.

 

See, I thought it had to do with the fact that VFR aircraft operate under 10,000 ft., and usually below 250kts, so it was set to 250kts for safety reasons in that regard, and well as the fact that under 10k is generally more populated than higher altitudes. 

Here's my suggestion.. don't worry too much about what it's like flying in the real world. Most of us are stuck in the pretend world, and so we should live with within those parameters. Considering jets like the MD11 typically clear 10,000 w/in 5 minutes no matter what the speed, who cares? Plus, if you're following your SIDS/STARS like good little boys and girls, then you need the maneuverability of the lower speeds to accommodate those flight paths.