ATC 'orders'

They can give and refuse clearances and the PIC has emergency authority to not comply.

They can’t order you to return to an airport directly.

I think you need to differentiate between different authorities and different states.

In the UK, there are forms of words like “I am instructed by the Airport Authority” and “I am instructed by Her Majesty’s Government” as well as “Danger to life”. It’s a complex arena without a single, simple answer.

Timothy wrote:

In the UK, there are forms of words like “I am instructed by the Airport Authority” and “I am instructed by Her Majesty’s Government” as well as “Danger to life”.

These are reasonably specific examples:

“I am instructed by Her Majesty’s Government” seems to be used when ATC (or an intercepting aircraft) are passing on orders relating to national security or sovereignty. The UK AIP specifically mentions it in the context of unlawful interference: eg. “I am instructed by Her Majesty’s Government to refuse entry into United Kingdom airspace” or this friendly example:

ATC might warn you about something they think is a really bad idea: “I am informed that there may be damage to the port wing tip of your aircraft. It appears that your planned flight is liable to endanger life.” or “your planned flight appears to contravene legislation because the required minima for VFR flight are not present. If you take off I shall be required to report the facts.”

In the UK, airport operators are also allowed to prohibit flight, but my understanding is this applies to your actions on their property – i.e on the ground. They can certainly refuse takeoff and landing clearances. Once you are airborne, I don’t think they have any direct authority.

It doesn’t sound like any of these apply to your situation.

Not a lawyer etc etc.

I don’t think the OP’s question is related to the UK, but what I have heard regarding

this applies to your actions on their property – i.e on the ground.

I believe that a FISO is supposed to use the phrase “on behalf of the landowner”. In reality the “Hitler” types (there is a few of them about) don’t do that and pretend to be ATC

BTW if you are intercepted and refused entry into UK airspace, but would run out of fuel otherwise, what is the correct procedure?

My understanding is that the ATC can give you clearances and deny you clearances, but they cannot order you to do anything. They are not the police or the military. But then again, not complying with the ATC is a criminal offense, and all communication is recorded, so you wouldn’t stand a chance in court.

On the other hand, the ATC could also be the military, or working on behalf of the military, or even the police in special circumstances. If not complying, you could be in really deep shit.

Not complying with ATC is definitely not a criminal offence in most places. Maybe in Norway?

The consequence of not complying might result in a criminal offence.

If you are in the military that’s very different.

Peter wrote:

BTW if you are intercepted and refused entry into UK airspace, but would run out of fuel otherwise, what is the correct procedure?

I wouldn’t know how that works because the international protocol for interceptions does not have “refusal of entry” as an option. There is no way a fighter pilot could signal that to an intercepted aircraft in unambiguous way. All there is is “follow me” – and a fighter can not make you follow him into foreign (to him) airspace because he has no right to be there himself.

Maybe ICAO regulations help:

lmsl1967, maybe you should share a little more details about what happened to you so we can get a better understanding…

The other day I waited for takeoff clearance short of R07L for 15 minutes to be allowed to depart because of the traffic. There was apparently an airplane doing T&G that did not follow ATC instructions well enough and the controller finally cleared him for a full stop instead of the requested T&G. That was his way of getting him out of the circuit.