(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.
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.
(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)
[Docket 18834, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991; Amdt. 91-244, 60 FR 50679, Sept. 29, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Friends of Blackwater v. Kenneth Salazar, 691 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “As the dissent notes, a portion of the regulation regarding flight plans allows a pilot to deviate from a flight plan if “an emergency exists,” 14 C.F.R. § 91.123 (a), which the pilot may declare in his discretion, id.”
Donald J. Jackson v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Fed. Aviation Admin., 114 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Jackson seeks review of an order of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board) affirming an oral decision and order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) which in turn affirmed the finding of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that Jackson violated two air…”
Walter Bradshaw v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 8 F.4th 1215 (11th Cir. 2021).
“2B, Chapter 7, Section 2, Paragraph 6; and 14 CFR § 91.123 (a). Additionally, throughout the flight, you were heard conducting numerous radio transmissions that draws into question whether or not you adequately tested the applicant’s single pilot resource management (SRM) skills.”
Hersch v. United States, 719 F.2d 873 (6th Cir. 1983).
“14 C.F.R. § 91.123 (1983). During the pertinent time period, both aircraft were communicating with air traffic controller Frederick Peter Feigert (Feigert), at the Indianapolis Control Center.”
Allen v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
“329 (restricting runway/taxiway movements); 14 C.F.R. § 91.123 (b) (requiring crew to comply with air traffic controller instruction); 14 C.”
Garvey v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 190 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
· cites it 8× “The order alleged that Merrell had violated FAA safety regulations by, inter alia, (1) “operating] an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised,” in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.123 (b); and (2) “operating] an aircraft according…”
Garvey v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 190 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
· cites it 8× “The order alleged that Merrell had violated FAA safety regulations by, inter alia, (1) “operating] an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised,” in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.123 (b); and (2) “operating] an aircraft according…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.