Does anyone in this forum know if class C in Canada is equivalent to class B
in the USA? I have been told that the USA does not follow ICAO conventions
and is therefore wrong? Can anyone here credit or discredit this statement?

Thanks.

Clyde Torres

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Clyde Torres wrote:

> Does anyone in this forum know if class C in Canada is equivalent to class B
> in the USA? I have been told that the USA does not follow ICAO conventions
> and is therefore wrong? Can anyone here credit or discredit this statement?

In practice, Canadian C more or less equals US B; they're both used for
terminal areas around major airports. Canadian B is (AFAIK) only used from
12,500ft-17999ft.

(I have heard that Toronto/Pearson uses actual Class B down to the surface
for their control zone, but I live on the far side of the country and
haven't bothered confirming this. Anyone know if it's done this way?)

Canada doesn't follow ICAO conventions all the time either - our "Class F"
Restricted/Advisory airspace isn't what the ICAO means by Class F.

Countries don't *have* to follow all the ICAO conventions - they can pick
and choose, and then register their differences w/ the ICAO.

Brian.
www.warbard.ca/avgas/

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Clyde Torres wrote:
>
> > Does anyone in this forum know if class C in Canada is equivalent to
class B
> > in the USA? I have been told that the USA does not follow ICAO
conventions
> > and is therefore wrong? Can anyone here credit or discredit this
statement?
>
> In practice, Canadian C more or less equals US B; they're both used for
> terminal areas around major airports. Canadian B is (AFAIK) only used from
> 12,500ft-17999ft.
>
> (I have heard that Toronto/Pearson uses actual Class B down to the surface
> for their control zone, but I live on the far side of the country and
> haven't bothered confirming this. Anyone know if it's done this way?)
>


No, Toronto/Pearson is a standard upside-down cake, considered class C,
topped at 12.5.

Class B in Canada is only that bit from 12.5 to 18.0 along airways and other
geographical areas where it is considered "controlled" and hence Class B...

In a previous article, "Icebound" > said:
>"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
>> (I have heard that Toronto/Pearson uses actual Class B down to the surface
>> for their control zone, but I live on the far side of the country and
>> haven't bothered confirming this. Anyone know if it's done this way?)
>
>No, Toronto/Pearson is a standard upside-down cake, considered class C,
>topped at 12.5.

I thought the center core of the class C is class F because it requires an
arrival reservation?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting.
-- The BOFH

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Clyde Torres wrote:
>
> > Does anyone in this forum know if class C in Canada is equivalent to
class B
> > in the USA? I have been told that the USA does not follow ICAO
conventions
> > and is therefore wrong? Can anyone here credit or discredit this
statement?
>
> In practice, Canadian C more or less equals US B; they're both used for
> terminal areas around major airports. Canadian B is (AFAIK) only used from
> 12,500ft-17999ft.
>
> (I have heard that Toronto/Pearson uses actual Class B down to the surface
> for their control zone, but I live on the far side of the country and
> haven't bothered confirming this. Anyone know if it's done this way?)
>
> Canada doesn't follow ICAO conventions all the time either - our "Class F"
> Restricted/Advisory airspace isn't what the ICAO means by Class F.
>
> Countries don't *have* to follow all the ICAO conventions - they can pick
> and choose, and then register their differences w/ the ICAO.

I think the ICAO class definitions are only about how the airspaces are
controlled and what services must be offered. They don't tell you how to lay
out the airspaces. Thus Class A is "IFR only", but it's the decision of the
US to put it up above 18,000ft (and to put the transition altitude at the
same level), while other countries have A to the surface around major
airports. The US didn't implement Class F because it doesn't have a control
regime that corresponds with the international definition of F.

Someone correct me if there's an ICAO document also talking about airspace
design.

-- David Brooks

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Icebound" >
said:
> >"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
> ia.tc.ca...
> >> (I have heard that Toronto/Pearson uses actual Class B down to the
surface
> >> for their control zone, but I live on the far side of the country and
> >> haven't bothered confirming this. Anyone know if it's done this way?)
> >
> >No, Toronto/Pearson is a standard upside-down cake, considered class C,
> >topped at 12.5.
>
> I thought the center core of the class C is class F because it requires an
> arrival reservation?
>

The Terminal Chart calls it C.

I don't believe a Reservation requirement would make a class F, anyway. My
reading is that class F is a different purpose totally... Restriced: where
non-participatories are not allowed in, ever... or Advisory: where as
non-participatory you "should" avoid, but you could feasibly still enter at
your own risk...

Neither of those apply to a public airport.