Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
approach--the most common approach from the west.

I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.

The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
clearly hear which).
Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
or less--you end up in class B surface.

My questions:

1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?

2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?

3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?

Any thoughts would be appreciated...

Antonio

Antoñio wrote:

> Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
> extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
> altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
> favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
> approach--the most common approach from the west.
>
> I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
> three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
> approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
> up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.
>
> The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
> either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
> clearly hear which).
> Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> or less--you end up in class B surface.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
> reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
> aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?
>
> 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?
>
> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated...
>
> Antonio

You are always responsible for remaining clear of Class B airspace unless
you receive a clearance to enter Class B airspace. You should be well
aware of the boundaries at a secondary airport like BFI.

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
> extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
> altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
> favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
> approach--the most common approach from the west.
>
> I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
> three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
> approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
> up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.
>
> The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
> either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
> clearly hear which).
> Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> or less--you end up in class B surface.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
> reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
> aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?
>
> 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?
>
> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?
> Any thoughts would be appreciated...


1. Ask the controller to call my base turn.
2. Invest in a Garmin 196 at a minimum
3. File IFR when going into KBFI
4. Not get that close (and boxed in) to class B without permission to enter.
My thoughts in order of preference

Howard

> Antonio
>

Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.

On 27 May 2005 23:39:18 -0700, Antoñio wrote:

> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
> reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
> aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?

Bottom line, it is your fault.

If a controller gives you instructions that cause a problem, then you need
to speak up and say "cannot comply without clearance into Bravo. See
4-4-13 B at http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html Look at the
note where it says:

....the pilot should promptly notify the controller if visual contact with
the other aircraft is lost or cannot be maintained or if the pilot cannot
accept the responsibility for the separation for any reason.

Note the second half of the paragraph, which would be fitting your
situation.

> 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?

See above reference for ATC responsibilities..

> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?

I would have requested clearance into Bravo if he had me heading in that
direction. I would have slowed my speed down significantly to slow my
approach into Bravo.

Hope this helps!

Allen

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
> for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.

You always need a clearance to be in Class B. But if your IFR clearance
takes you through Class B, then that *is* a clearance to be in Class B, even
if the words "Class B" are not mentioned in the clearance.

--Gary

Doug wrote:

> Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
> for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.

That's correct. But, it doesn't seem this guy was on an IFR flight
plan. I don't find any "Vashon Approach" in my IFR charts for KBFI.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Antoñio" > wrote:
>> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
>> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in?
>
> You are.
>
>> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you?
>
> When the controller tells you to do something that would cause you to bust
> the Class Bravo, tell him, "Unable without a class bravo clearance".

That's not always feasible. At the time you accept the instruction, you may
have no way of knowing that your traffic won't materialize until you're in
Class B. Or the instruction might just be "Continue downwind, I'll call your
base".

If the frequency is then too crowded for you to alert the controller to your
position as you approach Class B, you either have to disobey the
instruction, or else bust the Class B. I'd do the former, but I don't see
any guidance in the FARs or the AIM that clarifies whether that's the right
choice.

--Gary

I agree with the other posters the responsibility is yours, not the tower
controllers. If an enforcement action was contemplated, it would work in
your favor, but not exonerate you.

One thing for certain, file an ASRS! That can stop an enforcement action.
See http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov


"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
> extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
> altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
> favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
> approach--the most common approach from the west.
>
> I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
> three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
> approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
> up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.
>
> The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
> either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
> clearly hear which).
> Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> or less--you end up in class B surface.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
> reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
> aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?
>
> 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?
>
> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated...
>
> Antonio
>

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
> extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
> altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
> favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
> approach--the most common approach from the west.
>
> I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
> three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
> approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
> up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.
>
> The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
> either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
> clearly hear which).
> Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> or less--you end up in class B surface.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
> reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
> aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?
>
> 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?
>
> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated...
>


Where were you on the downwind when the Arrow was on a two mile final? I
make the RWY 31L threshold to be 0.93 miles from the Class B boundary.
Unless you were pretty much abeam the threshold or further south when the
instruction was issued there should have been plenty of room to follow and
avoid the Class B airspace.

You're responsible for any bust. If following the instruction meant
entering the Class B airspace I'd respond to it with "verify I'm cleared
into Class B airspace." If the controller replies with "Negative" I'd
inform
him I was turning to avoid Class B airspace. Pilots are required to abide
by the FARs regardless of any ATC instruction.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> You're responsible for any bust. If following the instruction meant
> entering the Class B airspace I'd respond to it with "verify I'm cleared
> into Class B airspace." If the controller replies with "Negative" I'd
> inform
> him I was turning to avoid Class B airspace. Pilots are required to abide
> by the FARs regardless of any ATC instruction.

I don't dispute that the FAA takes that position. But the FARs themselves
are contradictory on that point. FAR 91.123b requires obeying ATC
instructions, except if an emergency requires otherwise. There's no stated
exception for non-emergency violations of the regs. If the tower says
"Continue downwind, I'll call your base" and then hasn't gotten back to you
two minutes later when you're about to enter Class B, and if the frequency
is too crowded for you to call, then the only way to avoid busting Class B
may be to violate 91.123b.

--Gary

"Doug" > wrote:
> Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
> for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.

The applicable reg is 91.131(a)(1): "No person may operate an aircraft
within a Class B airspace area except [...] The operator must receive an
ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area
before operating an aircraft in that area"

If you are IFR, you have "a clearance". You don't have to specifically be
cleared into the class bravo, you just have to have "a clearance".

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't dispute that the FAA takes that position. But the FARs themselves
> are contradictory on that point. FAR 91.123b requires obeying ATC
> instructions, except if an emergency requires otherwise. There's no stated
> exception for non-emergency violations of the regs. If the tower says
> "Continue downwind, I'll call your base" and then hasn't gotten back to
> you two minutes later when you're about to enter Class B, and if the
> frequency is too crowded for you to call, then the only way to avoid
> busting Class B may be to violate 91.123b.
>

Given that the FAA tells it's controllers that pilots are required to abide
by the FARs regardless of any ATC instruction, who is there to charge you
with violating FAR 91.123(b) in this situation?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Given that the FAA tells it's controllers that pilots are required to
> abide by the FARs regardless of any ATC instruction, who is there to
> charge you with violating FAR 91.123(b) in this situation?

No one, presumably. As I said, I don't dispute that the FAA takes that
position. This is just another situation where I wish they'd amend the FARs
to say what they mean.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > You're responsible for any bust. If following the instruction meant
> > entering the Class B airspace I'd respond to it with "verify I'm cleared
> > into Class B airspace." If the controller replies with "Negative" I'd
> > inform
> > him I was turning to avoid Class B airspace. Pilots are required to abide
> > by the FARs regardless of any ATC instruction.
>
> I don't dispute that the FAA takes that position. But the FARs themselves
> are contradictory on that point. FAR 91.123b requires obeying ATC
> instructions, except if an emergency requires otherwise. There's no stated
> exception for non-emergency violations of the regs. If the tower says
> "Continue downwind, I'll call your base" and then hasn't gotten back to you
> two minutes later when you're about to enter Class B, and if the frequency
> is too crowded for you to call, then the only way to avoid busting Class B
> may be to violate 91.123b.
>
> --Gary

If frequency conjestion creates a sustained inability to request either a Class
B clearance to enter the imminent Class B airspace or a new instruction to avoid
the Class B, you have an emergency brewing. An emergency is not limited to the
aircraft having a mechanical or similar such problem. Violating Class B
airspace has unknown ramifactions, such as perhaps approach control seeing the
intrustion and declaring an emergency on your flight because of loss of
separation, etc., etc.

So, in that light, use of your emergency authority under 91.03 (a) and (b) would
be considered appropriate. Having said that, whatever action you have to take
to avoid the Class B should be reasonable and prudent so as to not unnecessarily
create an unsafe condition for the local controller working your flight.

Sometimes, operating in conjested airspace involves juggling several balls at
the same time. Operating IFR actually makes it all more straight-forward
because the entire concept of Class B operates in favor of IFR operations.

When Class B (TCAs) first was proposed in this country there were a lot of
advocates that wanted to make that airspace Class A. But, other interests
strongly opposed going that far.

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> No one, presumably.

Exactly. It's not an issue.

> wrote in message ...
> An emergency is not limited to the
> aircraft having a mechanical or similar such problem. Violating Class B
> airspace has unknown ramifactions, such as perhaps approach control seeing
> the
> intrustion and declaring an emergency on your flight because of loss of
> separation, etc., etc.

It's true that a controller *might*, for additional reasons, deem a Class B
incursion to be an emergency. But I doubt that a slight breach of Class B,
with good visibility and no conflicting traffic, would *by itself*
constitute an emergency. So I don't think 91.3b would necessarily come into
play.

Again, I don't dispute that you should avoid the incursion, even if you have
to violate 91.123b. I just wish the FARs weren't contradictory on that
point.

--Gary

> wrote in message ...
>
> If frequency conjestion creates a sustained inability to request either a
> Class
> B clearance to enter the imminent Class B airspace or a new instruction to
> avoid
> the Class B, you have an emergency brewing.
>

Well, that's certainly a stretch, but if you respond as I suggested it's not
a problem.

According to my SEA Class B chart, if you are at 800 feet and turn before
you get to I-405, you will not enter Class B. Something to check before
takeoff. The Boeing controller has no authority in the SEA Class B. You
should have spoken up before reaching 405.

Bob Gardner

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
> extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
> altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
> favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
> approach--the most common approach from the west.
>
> I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
> three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
> approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
> up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.
>
> The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
> either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
> clearly hear which).
> Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> or less--you end up in class B surface.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
> reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
> aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?
>
> 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?
>
> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated...
>
> Antonio
>

> But I doubt that a slight breach of Class B,
> with good visibility and no conflicting traffic, would *by itself*
> constitute an emergency. So I don't think 91.3b would necessarily come into
> play.

An emergency is whatever the PIC deems it to be at the time. So, ok,
you're on the ground, they have paperwork for you, and it ends up in a
faceoff between you and the FAA.

The controller says "You disobeyed my order. Fie on you."

You say "You ordered me to violate the law, creating an unsafe
condition. Fie on you."

The controller says "By turning early, you created an unsafe condition."

You say "By turning early, I created an inconvenience for you, and I was
on your frequency. By not turning early, I'd create an inconvenience
for an unknown entity with whom I was not in communication."

My guess is that the FAA would side with you turning to avoid the class B.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:
> whatever action you have to take to avoid the Class B should be
> reasonable and prudent so as to not unnecessarily create an unsafe
> condition for the local controller working your flight.

I can't imagine anything you could do to create an unsafe condition for the
local controller short of crashing into the tower.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> You say "By turning early, I created an inconvenience for you, and I was
> on your frequency. By not turning early, I'd create an inconvenience for
> an unknown entity with whom I was not in communication."

Avoiding the incursion is apparently what the FAA expects you to do (despite
the ambiguity in the FARs), so you shouldn't have to make any argument at
all about who's more inconvenienced. In particular, there's no need to
invent an "emergency" where none exists.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > An emergency is not limited to the
> > aircraft having a mechanical or similar such problem. Violating Class B
> > airspace has unknown ramifactions, such as perhaps approach control seeing
> > the
> > intrustion and declaring an emergency on your flight because of loss of
> > separation, etc., etc.
>
> It's true that a controller *might*, for additional reasons, deem a Class B
> incursion to be an emergency. But I doubt that a slight breach of Class B,
> with good visibility and no conflicting traffic, would *by itself*
> constitute an emergency. So I don't think 91.3b would necessarily come into
> play.
>
> Again, I don't dispute that you should avoid the incursion, even if you have
> to violate 91.123b. I just wish the FARs weren't contradictory on that
> point.
>
> --Gary

I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then that's
your judgment. You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement
hearing if you remain clear of the Class B.

Roy Smith wrote:

> wrote:
> > whatever action you have to take to avoid the Class B should be
> > reasonable and prudent so as to not unnecessarily create an unsafe
> > condition for the local controller working your flight.
>
> I can't imagine anything you could do to create an unsafe condition for the
> local controller short of crashing into the tower.

I didn't mean him personally as to his physical well-being.

Bob Gardner wrote:

> According to my SEA Class B chart, if you are at 800 feet and turn before
> you get to I-405, you will not enter Class B. Something to check before
> takeoff. The Boeing controller has no authority in the SEA Class B. You
> should have spoken up before reaching 405.

The airspace there is so complex with not only the Class B but the Renton
Class D. If I were going to land at BFI as an out-of-towner, it would be IFR
or I wouldn't get near any of it. I don't think I would even accept a visual
approach to BFI.

> wrote in message ...
>
> I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then
> that's
> your judgment.

But 91.3a merely says that the PIC has final responsibility and authority.
That *doesn't* mean that the PIC is at liberty (except in emergencies) to
violate the FARs, though! And what's under discussion here is whether
rejecting an ATC instruction (except in an emergency) violates the FARs
(specifically, 91.123b, which requires compliance with ATC instructions,
except in emergencies). There's nothing in 91.3a that addresses that
question.

> You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement
> hearing if you remain clear of the Class B.

Sure, I've never disputed that. I'm just disputing that the FARs make that
clear.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then
> > that's
> > your judgment.
>
> But 91.3a merely says that the PIC has final responsibility and authority.
> That *doesn't* mean that the PIC is at liberty (except in emergencies) to
> violate the FARs, though! And what's under discussion here is whether
> rejecting an ATC instruction (except in an emergency) violates the FARs
> (specifically, 91.123b, which requires compliance with ATC instructions,
> except in emergencies). There's nothing in 91.3a that addresses that
> question.
>
> > You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement
> > hearing if you remain clear of the Class B.
>
> Sure, I've never disputed that. I'm just disputing that the FARs make that
> clear.
>

Well, this isn't the only case where FARs are not clear. In some cases, they
are downright misleading; in some cases they are quite clear, and then there
is the great middle: basic regulatory guidance that is suspended on a vast web
of "advisory" guidance and policy statements from the FAA over the years.

This one is fairly simple in that context: no Class B clearance, no enter the
Class B.

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
> extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
> altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
> favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
> approach--the most common approach from the west.
>
> I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
> three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
> approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
> up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.
>
> The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
> either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
> clearly hear which).
> Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> or less--you end up in class B surface.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
> follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
> reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
> aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?
>
> 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?
>
> 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated...
>
> Antonio
>

If you're VFR, as we are assuming you were, you are responsible for
following the tower controllers instructions up to the point that they cause
a potential for collision. ATC in class D is responsible for separating IFR
from IFR traffic only. If an instruction sends you towards another
aircraft, you'd deviate as necessary. That wasn't an emergency, it was
see-and-avoid. You'd notify ATC that you'd deviated, and why, and because
no metal hit and no loss of separation occurred, no harm, no foul. The
controller may be ****ed that the traffic flow is now messed up...oh well.

Now if you proceed into class B airspace, you're entering an area of
positive separation of everyone from everyone...that's why you need a
clearance. Bust class B without a clearance and you could very well cause a
loss of separation...bet your butt you'll get a call about that.

Here's the thing: the tower controller knows you're not cleared into class B
and is expecting you'll avoid it on your own. If the aircraft you're
following does something unexpectly (i.e. extending downwind too long) than
the controller expects you'll do whatever's necessary to 1) avoid hitting
other airplanes, 2) avoid busting class B. His instruction was provided to
sequence aircraft, not to keep from hitting each other.

If this thread was on rec.aviation.piloting, Jay Honeck would probably chime
in at this point mentioning how much class D airspace sucks. It's fine as
long as all pilots in the airspace understand the roles and responsibilities
of ATC and themselves. Then again, maybe Jay has a point.

> wrote in message ...
> This one is fairly simple in that context: no Class B clearance, no enter
> the
> Class B.

Yes, that's simple and unambiguous. There's no doubt that it violates the
FARs to enter Class B without a clearance, even if so instructed by ATC.
That was never the issue.

Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed
to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
*whether you comply or not*.

You and I agree about how the FAA wants us to resolve that conflict in the
FARs. My point is just that the conflict there does exist.

--Gary

> Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
> disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed
> to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
> *whether you comply or not*.

How is this different from "refusing" to obey an ATC instruction that
would be impossible to follow? There is no stated exception for
impossible things either, but somehow nobody gets busted for that.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
> disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed
> to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
> *whether you comply or not*.

You really need to read this stuff with some common sense applied. For
example, 91.123(a) lists three ways in which you may legally deviate from a
clearance: get an ammended clearance, in response to an emergency, or in
response to a TCAS RA. 91.123(b) talks about instructions (as opposed to
clearances) and says you can only operate contrary to an instruction in
response to an emergency.

A strict literal reading of those two paragraphs would lead you to the
conclusion that while responding to a TCAS RA allows you to violate a
clearance, it does NOT allow you to violate an instruction. Such a
conclusion is clearly absurd, but that's what a literal reading says.

For VFR operations, if you adopt that idea that "clearances trump
instructions", you'll do fine. Don't go into CBAS without a clearance,
even if told to follow another aircraft or fly a heading which would take
you into it. Likewise for flying into a cloud. Or taking off or landing
at a towered airport.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
>> disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're
>> instructed to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or
>> another *whether you comply or not*.
>
> How is this different from "refusing" to obey an ATC instruction that
> would be impossible to follow? There is no stated exception for
> impossible things either, but somehow nobody gets busted for that.

That's because (as you acknowledge by your use of scare-quotes) there is no
actual refusal to be busted for in that case.

--Gary

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>> Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
>> disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're
>> instructed
>> to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
>> *whether you comply or not*.
>
> You really need to read this stuff with some common sense applied.

Sure, that's always true. My point here, though, is that common sense
doesn't resolve the conflict. We need to rely on folklore (and AIM
passages), rather than just on the regulations plus common sense. After all,
when we're driving cars, instructions from police *do* trump traffic
regulations; so it's not just "common sense" that the opposite principle
holds when flying (even though it does).

--Gary

> That's because (as you acknowledge by your use of scare-quotes) there is no
> actual refusal to be busted for in that case.

Ok, (and you're right - a pet peeve of mine is the overuse of quotes
like that, and there I go doing it myself)

How is this different from refusing to obey an ATC instruction that
would be impossible to follow, or would lead you into a cloud VFR?
Tower says "extend your downwind" but there's a cloud in the way. Tower
is issuing other instructions and you can't get a word in on the radio.
Fly into the cloud, you're busted. Disobey the instruction, I suspect
you would =not= be busted.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> That's because (as you acknowledge by your use of scare-quotes) there is
>> no actual refusal to be busted for in that case.
>
> Ok, (and you're right - a pet peeve of mine is the overuse of quotes like
> that, and there I go doing it myself)

Actually, I thought that was an entirely proper use of scare-quotes. (But I
agree that there's overuse when people put quotes around every metaphor or
cliche they deploy--or worse, when they think quotes connote emphasis.)

> How is this different from refusing to obey an ATC instruction that would
> be impossible to follow, or would lead you into a cloud VFR? Tower says
> "extend your downwind" but there's a cloud in the way. Tower is issuing
> other instructions and you can't get a word in on the radio.

VFR into clouds qualifies as an emergency, so the emergency-exception
provision kicks in there.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > This one is fairly simple in that context: no Class B clearance, no enter
> > the
> > Class B.
>
> Yes, that's simple and unambiguous. There's no doubt that it violates the
> FARs to enter Class B without a clearance, even if so instructed by ATC.
> That was never the issue.
>
> Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
> disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed
> to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another
> *whether you comply or not*.
>
> You and I agree about how the FAA wants us to resolve that conflict in the
> FARs. My point is just that the conflict there does exist.

Yep, no doubt you have some issue with 91.123b, but the FAA will almost
certainly buy into it being a legitimate use of pilot's emergency authority.

How about radar vectors that often violate the off-regulatory routes or
segments part of 91.177? The FAA admits that MVA charts, especially in DMAs,
often cause pilots to violate 91.177, but they (the feds) consider that to be a
"technical" violation.

Brad,

I just noticed that this thread has been cross posted to r.a.ifr. I
have been responding in r.a.piloting and not really reading the posts
here.

My final post on the matter ( I do hope ) is on r.a.piloting and goes
like this:

Rob,

I am not sure of exactly where to put this post so I will just stick it
here and repeat it elsewhere in hopes that everyone will read it.

Due to the gallant efforts of Peter, Bob, Steve, Gary, you and a few
others I must humbly eat crow. You guys have made me see the light.

I have come to the conclusions that:

1. I flew too wide a pattern without regard to VFR references but only
paying attention to the aircraft that I had to follow. Looking back, I
suspect that I did not actually enter class B but was very close to it.
The controller warned me of that fact and I turned sufficiently early
because of that warning to avoid penetrating B airspace. This is why I
never got the infamous, "Call the tower..." message.

2. Though I am quite capable of flying a tight pattern with 14 years of
mountain flying under my belt, I got a bit lazy. I possibly turned my
downwind too wide, I think, causing me to be headed for the closest
part of B airspace from the get-go. B airspace is about 3/4 mile or so
from the end of the runway if one is too wide as I understand it.

2.5 It is quite possible to fly safely in this area and avoiding B
airspace if one is aware of the VFR landmarks. Pete is correct... So is
the unnamed famous author that wrote me privately. ;-)

3. I became stubborn and positioned myself as if a lawyer defending a
position for a client and lost the big picture. It was fun though and
I learned alot! :-)

4. As has been pointed out, I sort of expected ATC to bail me out of my
lazy piloting by blaming them for not sequencing me properly. Had I
been on the ball I would have slowed or s-turned ( but no 360 ! ) and
turned a tighter pattern.

5. I may have insulted some here. I apologize for that. Especially to
Pete for my crack about seeing a psychologist. I hope you know that I
don't think you are crazy all the time. ;-)

6. Though I am still a bit hazy on the tiny details of the legal
responsibilities of ATC in this, I am sure that they acted
appropriately within the boundaries of what was traditionally expected.

In conclusion, ( I hope!) let me say that you all have made me see
things more clearly and have helped this pilot to be a little safer. I
thank you all.

Sincerly,

Antonio

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
> for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.
>

If you are in IFR clearance you only got to distinguinsh two classes of
airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. You don't need to worry about the
classes of controlled airspace.

Gary Drescher wrote:

> My point here, though, is that common sense
> doesn't resolve the conflict.

Near my office is a road that crosses a couple of railroad tracks. South of
the road's crossing of the tracks, there's a fence between the two tracks.
Where that fence ends, next to the road, is a sign:

Do not cross railroad tracks

Unfortunately, that sign gives every appearance of requiring that one not
follow the road (or the pedestrian way along the road) across the tracks.
Although I've not checked, I'm reasonably sure that it is supposed to mean
"cross tracks only at designated crossings".

It irks me when people that author signs - or rules - cannot do so clearly
and accurately. For what else are they being paid?

- Andrew

Guillermo wrote:

> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
> > for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.
> >
>
> If you are in IFR clearance you only got to distinguinsh two classes of
> airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. You don't need to worry about the
> classes of controlled airspace.

Well, you do have to worry about equipage to go above FL 240 (DME) and above
290 (RVSM).

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Guillermo wrote:
>
> > "Doug" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
> > > for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.
> > >
> >
> > If you are in IFR clearance you only got to distinguinsh two classes of
> > airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. You don't need to worry about
the
> > classes of controlled airspace.
>
> Well, you do have to worry about equipage to go above FL 240 (DME) and
above
> 290 (RVSM).

I'm not planning on going above FL240 in the C172RG that I fly.
I wish I were flying something that could go that high up ;)

What is RVSM?

Guillermo wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Guillermo wrote:
> >
> > > "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > > Uh, If you are on an IFR flight plan, you don't need to hear "cleared
> > > > for Class B". At least that is always the way it has worked for me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you are in IFR clearance you only got to distinguinsh two classes of
> > > airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. You don't need to worry about
> the
> > > classes of controlled airspace.
> >
> > Well, you do have to worry about equipage to go above FL 240 (DME) and
> above
> > 290 (RVSM).
>
> I'm not planning on going above FL240 in the C172RG that I fly.
> I wish I were flying something that could go that high up ;)
>
> What is RVSM?

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect in the U.S., Mexico
and Canada this past January 20th, where the former 2,000 feet of vertical
separation above flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you have to
have to have additional approval to operate up there.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect in the U.S.,
> Mexico
> and Canada this past January 20th, where the former 2,000 feet of vertical
> separation above flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you have
> to
> have to have additional approval to operate up there.
>

Not above FL290, between FL290 and FL410.

ok, so then I'll take the C172RG to FL420 and I'll be OK with no RVSM :)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect in the U.S.,
> > Mexico
> > and Canada this past January 20th, where the former 2,000 feet of
vertical
> > separation above flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you
have
> > to
> > have to have additional approval to operate up there.
> >
>
> Not above FL290, between FL290 and FL410.
>
>

"Guillermo" > wrote in message
...
>
> ok, so then I'll take the C172RG to FL420 and I'll be OK with no RVSM :)
>

Only if you're VFR. If you're IFR you'll have to take the C172RG to FL430.
RVSM ends at FL410 so 2000 feet vertical separation is required for all IFR
aircraft regardless of RVSM capability.

"Guillermo" > writes:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> > > wrote
> > >
> > > Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect
> > > in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this past January 20th,
> > > where the former 2,000 feet of vertical separation above
> > > flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you have
> > > to have additional approval to operate up there.
> >
> > Not above FL290, between FL290 and FL410.
> >
> ok, so then I'll take the C172RG to FL420 and I'll be OK
> with no RVSM :)

But then you have to keep your eyes open for low-flying SR-71s!
I believe they're a tad faster than your 172.

Strange limits. You can be cleared to FL410 and above but
how do you get there without the RVSM and DME?

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
> "Guillermo" > writes:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>> > > wrote
>> > >
>> > > Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect
>> > > in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this past January 20th,
>> > > where the former 2,000 feet of vertical separation above
>> > > flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you have
>> > > to have additional approval to operate up there.
>> >
>> > Not above FL290, between FL290 and FL410.
>> >
>> ok, so then I'll take the C172RG to FL420 and I'll be OK
>> with no RVSM :)
>
> But then you have to keep your eyes open for low-flying SR-71s!
> I believe they're a tad faster than your 172.
>
> Strange limits. You can be cleared to FL410 and above but
> how do you get there without the RVSM and DME?

By climbing through all the altitudes below your clearance altitude.

Brad Zeigler wrote:

> "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Guillermo" > writes:
> >> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> >> > > wrote
> >> > >
> >> > > Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect
> >> > > in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this past January 20th,
> >> > > where the former 2,000 feet of vertical separation above
> >> > > flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you have
> >> > > to have additional approval to operate up there.
> >> >
> >> > Not above FL290, between FL290 and FL410.
> >> >
> >> ok, so then I'll take the C172RG to FL420 and I'll be OK
> >> with no RVSM :)
> >
> > But then you have to keep your eyes open for low-flying SR-71s!
> > I believe they're a tad faster than your 172.
> >
> > Strange limits. You can be cleared to FL410 and above but
> > how do you get there without the RVSM and DME?
>
> By climbing through all the altitudes below your clearance altitude.

But, if you are not RVSM compliant, you can't even climb or descend
through the RVSM altitudes unless ATC gives you a dispensation.

In article >, > wrote:
>
>
>Brad Zeigler wrote:
>
>> "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Guillermo" > writes:
>> >> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>> >> > > wrote
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect
>> >> > > in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this past January 20th,
>> >> > > where the former 2,000 feet of vertical separation above
>> >> > > flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you have
>> >> > > to have additional approval to operate up there.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not above FL290, between FL290 and FL410.
>> >> >
>> >> ok, so then I'll take the C172RG to FL420 and I'll be OK
>> >> with no RVSM :)
>> >
>> > But then you have to keep your eyes open for low-flying SR-71s!
>> > I believe they're a tad faster than your 172.
>> >
>> > Strange limits. You can be cleared to FL410 and above but
>> > how do you get there without the RVSM and DME?
>>
>> By climbing through all the altitudes below your clearance altitude.
>
>But, if you are not RVSM compliant, you can't even climb or descend
>through the RVSM altitudes unless ATC gives you a dispensation.
>

Get NASA to give you a lift on one of their shuttle-carrier 747's then
drop you once you're up there. At least that takes care of the
climbing part; I guess you still need to figure out the descending
part.

> But, if you are not RVSM compliant, you can't even climb or descend
> through the RVSM altitudes unless ATC gives you a dispensation.

.... or you go out over the Pacific ocean. Or is this global?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >, > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Brad Zeigler wrote:
> >
> >> "Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Guillermo" > writes:
> >> >> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> >> >> > > wrote
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum. It went into effect
> >> >> > > in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this past January 20th,
> >> >> > > where the former 2,000 feet of vertical separation above
> >> >> > > flight level 290 was reduced to 1,000 feet, and you have
> >> >> > > to have additional approval to operate up there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not above FL290, between FL290 and FL410.
> >> >> >
> >> >> ok, so then I'll take the C172RG to FL420 and I'll be OK
> >> >> with no RVSM :)
> >> >
> >> > But then you have to keep your eyes open for low-flying SR-71s!
> >> > I believe they're a tad faster than your 172.
> >> >
> >> > Strange limits. You can be cleared to FL410 and above but
> >> > how do you get there without the RVSM and DME?
> >>
> >> By climbing through all the altitudes below your clearance altitude.
> >
> >But, if you are not RVSM compliant, you can't even climb or descend
> >through the RVSM altitudes unless ATC gives you a dispensation.
> >
>
> Get NASA to give you a lift on one of their shuttle-carrier 747's then
> drop you once you're up there. At least that takes care of the
> climbing part; I guess you still need to figure out the descending
> part.

If you can work that out, you can probably afford to upgrade to RVSM. But,
if you would rather not on principle, then you simply remain at, or above,
FL 430, and when the gas gets low, you declare an emergency and descend.

Jose wrote:

> > But, if you are not RVSM compliant, you can't even climb or descend
> > through the RVSM altitudes unless ATC gives you a dispensation.
>
> ... or you go out over the Pacific ocean. Or is this global?

No, and probably never will be. But, RVSM went into effect over the
North Atlantic oceanic airspace before it migtrated to the U.S.

So far as I know, it hasn't migrated to the busier Pacific Ocean
airspace, but I am sure it will. The routes between LAX, SFO, PDX, and
SEA, could can some relief with RVSM.

Not exactly accurate. RVSM airspace is used in the North Atlantic Airspace
which is designated on appropriate charts. You can go outside the coastal
ADIZ, be in international airspace, but not RVSM airspace. The Pacific does
have RVSM in some areas (desiganted on the charts), but they are much more
tolerant of waiver requests. There is no chance for a waiver in the
Atlantic, except in an emergency, and even then it is likely to be denied
because of the "congestion."

In Europe, we have had our aircraft which were not RVSM equiped and above
FL430 and were were required to descend to below the RVSM airspace. After
official complaints, the offending country's ATC apologized for the required
descent.


> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jose wrote:
>
>> > But, if you are not RVSM compliant, you can't even climb or descend
>> > through the RVSM altitudes unless ATC gives you a dispensation.
>>
>> ... or you go out over the Pacific ocean. Or is this global?
>
> No, and probably never will be. But, RVSM went into effect over the
> North Atlantic oceanic airspace before it migtrated to the U.S.
>
> So far as I know, it hasn't migrated to the busier Pacific Ocean
> airspace, but I am sure it will. The routes between LAX, SFO, PDX, and
> SEA, could can some relief with RVSM.
>

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
...
>
> But then you have to keep your eyes open for low-flying SR-71s!
> I believe they're a tad faster than your 172.
>

There are no SR-71s flying at any altitude.


>
> Strange limits. You can be cleared to FL410 and above but
> how do you get there without the RVSM and DME?
>

The requirement for DME kicks in at FL240, RVSM apply to FL290 thru FL410.