Narrative:

I was acting as sic on a cpr passenger flight from 7d2 to pwk in chicago. We were receiving radar vectors from chicago approach control on 120.55. At approximately 30 mi from ord VOR, we received instructions to descend from 4000 ft to 3000 ft, which caused us to be under chicago's class B airspace which begins at 25 NM with a floor of 3600 ft on the east side. Before reaching the 25 NM point from ord, we appropriately slowed to the required 200 NM per hour speed restr as per 91.117C. Upon 22 DME from ord VOR, chicago approach asked us our indicated speed and I replied '200 KIAS.' approach told us to increase speed to 250 KIAS. After a quick discussion with the captain, I replied 'unable 250 KIAS, under class B, airspace, we would like to stay at 200 KIAS. Why do you need us at 250 KIAS?' the controller replied 'well, there is a lot of traffic in the area and I am trying to set you up for first to pwk.' I replied 'we do not care about being first to pwk and we are required to be at 200 KIAS under class B and we would like to remain here if you don't have a problem with that.' the controller replied, 'I only have a problem with the VFR traffic at 2 O'clock position and 3 mi.' I replied 'we have the traffic in sight.' he then told us to maintain a minimum of 200 KTS for as long as possible and contact pwk tower on 119.9. I read back the clearance of 'maintain 200 KIAS and contact tower on 119.9.' it was very disconcerting to hear a clearance from ATC that was contrary to FARS in the opinion of the captain flying and myself, acting as sic. I admit that there is an argument for always obeying ATC instruction (91.123B). However, I am also aware that the pilots are responsible to obey FARS even if we are given a clearance contrary to them. The 91.117C regulation is so clear and precise that I feel it gives no room for doubt. It does not state an 'unless otherwise provided,' or 'unless otherwise required by ATC.' it clearly states 'no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a class B airspace area designated for an airport, or in a VFR corridor designated through such a class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 KTS.' I personally feel that unless ATC gave us a 'traffic alert' call, or stated 'due to conflicting traffic maintain 250 KIAS,' we would have been in violation if we complied with the clearance. It seems that the reason of 'there is a lot of traffic in the area and I am trying to set you up for first to pwk,' is not reason enough to issue a clearance contrary to an far. It seemed that our rejection of the clearance caught the controller off guard, and I can understand that. I do wonder if ATC was completely understanding of the speed requirement or the boundaries of the class B airspace.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A C525 REFUSED TO EXCEED THE 200 KT MAX SPD UNDERNEATH CLASS B AIRSPACE WHEN ASKED BY APCH CTLR TO INCREASE SPD.

Narrative: I WAS ACTING AS SIC ON A CPR PAX FLT FROM 7D2 TO PWK IN CHICAGO. WE WERE RECEIVING RADAR VECTORS FROM CHICAGO APCH CTL ON 120.55. AT APPROX 30 MI FROM ORD VOR, WE RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS TO DSND FROM 4000 FT TO 3000 FT, WHICH CAUSED US TO BE UNDER CHICAGO'S CLASS B AIRSPACE WHICH BEGINS AT 25 NM WITH A FLOOR OF 3600 FT ON THE E SIDE. BEFORE REACHING THE 25 NM POINT FROM ORD, WE APPROPRIATELY SLOWED TO THE REQUIRED 200 NM PER HR SPD RESTR AS PER 91.117C. UPON 22 DME FROM ORD VOR, CHICAGO APCH ASKED US OUR INDICATED SPD AND I REPLIED '200 KIAS.' APCH TOLD US TO INCREASE SPD TO 250 KIAS. AFTER A QUICK DISCUSSION WITH THE CAPT, I REPLIED 'UNABLE 250 KIAS, UNDER CLASS B, AIRSPACE, WE WOULD LIKE TO STAY AT 200 KIAS. WHY DO YOU NEED US AT 250 KIAS?' THE CTLR REPLIED 'WELL, THERE IS A LOT OF TFC IN THE AREA AND I AM TRYING TO SET YOU UP FOR FIRST TO PWK.' I REPLIED 'WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT BEING FIRST TO PWK AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO BE AT 200 KIAS UNDER CLASS B AND WE WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN HERE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PROB WITH THAT.' THE CTLR REPLIED, 'I ONLY HAVE A PROB WITH THE VFR TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK POS AND 3 MI.' I REPLIED 'WE HAVE THE TFC IN SIGHT.' HE THEN TOLD US TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 200 KTS FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE AND CONTACT PWK TWR ON 119.9. I READ BACK THE CLRNC OF 'MAINTAIN 200 KIAS AND CONTACT TWR ON 119.9.' IT WAS VERY DISCONCERTING TO HEAR A CLRNC FROM ATC THAT WAS CONTRARY TO FARS IN THE OPINION OF THE CAPT FLYING AND MYSELF, ACTING AS SIC. I ADMIT THAT THERE IS AN ARGUMENT FOR ALWAYS OBEYING ATC INSTRUCTION (91.123B). HOWEVER, I AM ALSO AWARE THAT THE PLTS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO OBEY FARS EVEN IF WE ARE GIVEN A CLRNC CONTRARY TO THEM. THE 91.117C REG IS SO CLR AND PRECISE THAT I FEEL IT GIVES NO ROOM FOR DOUBT. IT DOES NOT STATE AN 'UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED,' OR 'UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY ATC.' IT CLRLY STATES 'NO PERSON MAY OPERATE AN ACFT IN THE AIRSPACE UNDERLYING A CLASS B AIRSPACE AREA DESIGNATED FOR AN ARPT, OR IN A VFR CORRIDOR DESIGNATED THROUGH SUCH A CLASS B AIRSPACE AREA, AT AN INDICATED AIRSPD OF MORE THAN 200 KTS.' I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT UNLESS ATC GAVE US A 'TFC ALERT' CALL, OR STATED 'DUE TO CONFLICTING TFC MAINTAIN 250 KIAS,' WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION IF WE COMPLIED WITH THE CLRNC. IT SEEMS THAT THE REASON OF 'THERE IS A LOT OF TFC IN THE AREA AND I AM TRYING TO SET YOU UP FOR FIRST TO PWK,' IS NOT REASON ENOUGH TO ISSUE A CLRNC CONTRARY TO AN FAR. IT SEEMED THAT OUR REJECTION OF THE CLRNC CAUGHT THE CTLR OFF GUARD, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. I DO WONDER IF ATC WAS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SPD REQUIREMENT OR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLASS B AIRSPACE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.