Flying under Class B

[PaulaJay1]

What is the minimum legal distance (altitude) to fly VFR under a Class B
"wedding cake"? CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie and I
have flown at 1800 to go around CLE. I was not talking to CLE so I don't know
if they objected. Today I was coming around CLE decending IFR. When in VMS I
cancelled IFR and remained on squak for advisories. The controller wanted me
at 3000 when under a 4000 ft designated altitude. Was he just being safe for
his own good or is 1000 ft suggested as the minimum buffer? I know, I should
have ask him but the frequency was pretty busy.

Chuck

[G.R. Patterson III]

PaulaJay1 wrote:
>
> What is the minimum legal distance (altitude) to fly VFR under a Class B
> "wedding cake"?

Whatever the floor is.

> CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie and I
> have flown at 1800 to go around CLE.

You could fly it at 1900. Hit a bump and go to 1901, however, you're illegal, but the
controller won't know it. The typical mode-C transponder reports altitude in 100'
increments and changes readings at about the 50' level; that is, at 1949', your
transponder should report 1900' and at 1950' it should report 2000'.

Dunno about you, but my encoder isn't that accurate. Still, it won't be precise
enough to get me busted at 1' over the floor.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dude]

If you are VFR, you can be within 1 foot of that space, and be legal. AFAIK.

However, if you are using radar services, they will often fly you at an
altitude for their own reasons, whatever they may be (always good reasons,
but varying in importance). I have had controllers argue with me over this,
so I know it varies around the country. The rules and regs are the same, but
geography, weather, and habit have pretty large influences on how they are
applied.

You can call them and get an answer why they do that in your area if you
really want to know. Used to be you could go tour the facility and sit with
a controller to learn, but they supposedly stopped doing that. I haven't
sat with a controller in a dozen years, so I suspect things have changed
alot and would like to do it again.

Legally, you could have told them you wanted another altitude, since you
were VFR, like 3500, but legally, he could cancel you since you canceled IFR
as well. So the rules are one thing, and how they are applied can vary.

Mostly, I go along because I figure it makes a big difference to them, and
a little one to me. Whenever I have asked for a different altitude (due to
obscuration or turbulence, or heat), I usually hear "cleared VFR under 4000
feet" - or whatever applies.

Once though, I got a nice request/advice to stay where assigned due to
traffic. I was happy to bump along at 1500 rather than try to stay cooler
and smoother if it meant avoiding an unwanted meeting with a regional jet :)


"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> What is the minimum legal distance (altitude) to fly VFR under a Class B
> "wedding cake"? CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie
and I
> have flown at 1800 to go around CLE. I was not talking to CLE so I don't
know
> if they objected. Today I was coming around CLE decending IFR. When in
VMS I
> cancelled IFR and remained on squak for advisories. The controller wanted
me
> at 3000 when under a 4000 ft designated altitude. Was he just being safe
for
> his own good or is 1000 ft suggested as the minimum buffer? I know, I
should
> have ask him but the frequency was pretty busy.
>
> Chuck

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
>
> What is the minimum legal distance (altitude) to fly VFR under a Class B
> "wedding cake"?
>

No such mimimum distance exists.


>
> CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie and I have
> flown at 1800 to go around CLE. I was not talking to CLE so I
> don't know if they objected.
>

There's nothing for them to object to.


>
> Today I was coming around CLE decending IFR. When in VMS I
> cancelled IFR and remained on squak for advisories. The controller
> wanted me at 3000 when under a 4000 ft designated altitude. Was he
> just being safe for his own good or is 1000 ft suggested as the minimum
> buffer?
>

Outside of Class B airspace he has no responsibility for separation and
cannot require VFR aircraft to operate at any particular altitude. Of
course, other regulations can come into play here, such as VFR cruising
altitudes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> However, if you are using radar services, they will often fly you at an
> altitude for their own reasons, whatever they may be (always good reasons,
> but varying in importance). I have had controllers argue with me over
> this,
> so I know it varies around the country. The rules and regs are the same,
> but
> geography, weather, and habit have pretty large influences on how they are
> applied.
>

It doesn't vary at all. If you're outside of the Class B airspace ATC has
no authority to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft.

[Roy Smith]

(PaulaJay1) wrote:
> What is the minimum legal distance (altitude) to fly VFR under a Class B
> "wedding cake"? CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie and I
> have flown at 1800 to go around CLE.

Nothing wrong with that from a legal standpoint.

> Today I was coming around CLE decending IFR. When in VMS I
> cancelled IFR and remained on squak for advisories. The controller wanted me
> at 3000 when under a 4000 ft designated altitude.

If you're VFR, you decide what altitude to fly at. I can't see any
reason why flying at 3500 below at 4000 foot floor would be
inappropriate.

[Dave S]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>However, if you are using radar services, they will often fly you at an
>>altitude for their own reasons, whatever they may be (always good reasons,
>>but varying in importance). I have had controllers argue with me over
>>this,
>>so I know it varies around the country. The rules and regs are the same,
>>but
>>geography, weather, and habit have pretty large influences on how they are
>>applied.
>>
>
>
> It doesn't vary at all. If you're outside of the Class B airspace ATC has
> no authority to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft.
>

Nor any obligation to continue radar services to said VFR aircraft.

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> It doesn't vary at all. If you're outside of the Class B airspace ATC
>> has no authority to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft.
>
> Nor any obligation to continue radar services to said VFR aircraft.
>

Actually, there is.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision
between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the
flow of traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the
capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as
the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller
workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized
that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of
services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the
aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service
procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the
part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation
permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures and minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic
control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement,
FAA directive, or a military document, or:

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling,
fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-8.

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency
has been declared.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10.
FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.

[Patrick Mayer]

Hi,

>> CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie and I
>> have flown at 1800 to go around CLE.
>
> You could fly it at 1900. Hit a bump and go to 1901, however, you're
> illegal, but the
> controller won't know it.

Isn't the stated altitude included in class B? So, nitpicking, you'd have to
fly at 1899 to be legal, unless there's this "+" sign on the chart...

Happy flying,
Patrick

[OtisWinslow]

There can be a lot of VFR traffic cruising around under the B space. It's
a good idea to just talk to ATC and get their help.


"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> What is the minimum legal distance (altitude) to fly VFR under a Class B
> "wedding cake"? CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie
> and I
> have flown at 1800 to go around CLE. I was not talking to CLE so I don't
> know
> if they objected. Today I was coming around CLE decending IFR. When in
> VMS I
> cancelled IFR and remained on squak for advisories. The controller wanted
> me
> at 3000 when under a 4000 ft designated altitude. Was he just being safe
> for
> his own good or is 1000 ft suggested as the minimum buffer? I know, I
> should
> have ask him but the frequency was pretty busy.
>
> Chuck

[C J Campbell]

One inch under the floor is okay. The area under class B is often
constricted, so it can help to get flight following. Whether ATC has a right
to do it or not, controllers regularly assign altitudes to VFR traffic for
whatever reasons of their own.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> One inch under the floor is okay. The area under class B is often
> constricted, so it can help to get flight following. Whether ATC has a
> right
> to do it or not, controllers regularly assign altitudes to VFR traffic for
> whatever reasons of their own.
>

Yup, and receiving an altitude assignment from a controller that hasn't the
authority to issue it is an indication that you're not working with a sharp
troop.

[G.R. Patterson III]

OtisWinslow wrote:
>
> There can be a lot of VFR traffic cruising around under the B space. It's
> a good idea to just talk to ATC and get their help.

I've only dealt with Orlando and New York. New York would rather not deal with you
most of the time. Even when they politely acknowledge your presence, they are usually
too busy to advise you about other traffic. One controller stated at a Wings seminar
years ago that most of the time he has the radar set to block low-level VFR returns
'cause they clutter the screen too much. As he put it "The area around the Solberg
VOR looks like a beehive. You're all gonna crash and I don't wanna see it."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Roy Smith]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > One inch under the floor is okay. The area under class B is often
> > constricted, so it can help to get flight following. Whether ATC has a
> > right
> > to do it or not, controllers regularly assign altitudes to VFR traffic for
> > whatever reasons of their own.
> >
>
> Yup, and receiving an altitude assignment from a controller that hasn't the
> authority to issue it is an indication that you're not working with a sharp
> troop.

This is one of my pet peeves about the folks at NY Tracon. They've got
this strange habit of telling VFR flights inbound to HPN to "descend to
pattern altitude". It used to only happen to me once in a while, but
lately it seems to have become SOP.

It's more than just a polite suggestion, too. I've had controllers tell
me that I'm not descending fast enough, and that they "need me" to
descend. I once said "unable" when a controller tried to do this to me
15 miles out at night and ended up with an invitation to call them when
I got on the ground. Said phone call resulted in a verbal reaming out
by the supervisor for refusing to follow instructions.

A written complaint from me to the tracon resulted in a letter informing
me that I must obey all controller's instructions.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yup, and receiving an altitude assignment from a controller that hasn't
>> the
>> authority to issue it is an indication that you're not working with a
>> sharp
>> troop.
>>
>
> This is one of my pet peeves about the folks at NY Tracon. They've got
> this strange habit of telling VFR flights inbound to HPN to "descend to
> pattern altitude". It used to only happen to me once in a while, but
> lately it seems to have become SOP.
>
> It's more than just a polite suggestion, too. I've had controllers tell
> me that I'm not descending fast enough, and that they "need me" to
> descend.
>

Again, a sign that you're not working with a sharp troop.


>
> I once said "unable" when a controller tried to do this to me
> 15 miles out at night and ended up with an invitation to call them when
> I got on the ground. Said phone call resulted in a verbal reaming out
> by the supervisor for refusing to follow instructions.
>

Had it been me it would have been the supervisor that would have received
the verbal reaming out.


>
> A written complaint from me to the tracon resulted in a letter informing
> me that I must obey all controller's instructions.
>

But not supported by any documentation, of course.

[Peter R.]

Roy Smith ) wrote:

> It's more than just a polite suggestion, too. I've had controllers tell
> me that I'm not descending fast enough, and that they "need me" to
> descend. I once said "unable" when a controller tried to do this to me
> 15 miles out at night and ended up with an invitation to call them when
> I got on the ground. Said phone call resulted in a verbal reaming out
> by the supervisor for refusing to follow instructions.
>
> A written complaint from me to the tracon resulted in a letter informing
> me that I must obey all controller's instructions.

Shoulda had the supervisor tell you what section of the Federal Aviation
Regulation supports his assertion that ATC control VFR aircraft outside
of B or C airspace.

--
Peter

[OtisWinslow]

I haven't flown around NY. I have dealt with Tampa and Miami .. both of whom
were helpful.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> OtisWinslow wrote:
>>
>> There can be a lot of VFR traffic cruising around under the B space. It's
>> a good idea to just talk to ATC and get their help.
>
> I've only dealt with Orlando and New York. New York would rather not deal
> with you
> most of the time. Even when they politely acknowledge your presence, they
> are usually
> too busy to advise you about other traffic. One controller stated at a
> Wings seminar
> years ago that most of the time he has the radar set to block low-level
> VFR returns
> 'cause they clutter the screen too much. As he put it "The area around the
> Solberg
> VOR looks like a beehive. You're all gonna crash and I don't wanna see
> it."
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

[Malcolm Teas]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> PaulaJay1 wrote:
> >
> > What is the minimum legal distance (altitude) to fly VFR under a Class B
> > "wedding cake"?
>
> Whatever the floor is.
>
> > CLE has a 1900 ft floor at the north side by Lake Erie and I
> > have flown at 1800 to go around CLE.
>
> You could fly it at 1900. Hit a bump and go to 1901, however, you're illegal, but the
> controller won't know it. The typical mode-C transponder reports altitude in 100'
> increments and changes readings at about the 50' level; that is, at 1949', your
> transponder should report 1900' and at 1950' it should report 2000'.
>
> Dunno about you, but my encoder isn't that accurate. Still, it won't be precise
> enough to get me busted at 1' over the floor.

Yup, legal distance is the floor. But my method to handle it is to
fly 200 feet below the floor if I can do that safely. Since the
transponders report in 100 foot intervals, and there may be error in
either the transponder or the ATC side of the reporting system, this
keeps me out of ATC's concern for busting the Bravo. (I got this from
an instructor of mine.) This also allows for errors (mine or others)
in flying level, or setting the altimeter too.

That being said, I'll scrap the floor with my tail if I have to for
safety & ground clearance, or ask for Bravo clearance (but never get
it near here). If ATC calls traffic and gives me an altitude or
heading to take, I'll take it and debate the issue later if necessary.

I'm out of Leesburg VA under the Wash DC ADIZ, so under Bravo space
I'm ALWAYS talking to ATC. The rules are a little different here, but
I do appreciate the effective result of flight following it gives me.

I do wish they'd call out type as well as traffic though. Watching
for a C172 is a little different from watching for a business jet or
turbo prop. I kept looking for the other "Cessna" going into Leesburg
last weekend and not finding him till I figured out that he was much
much faster, with a wider approach and pattern than the C172M I was
flying.

-Malcolm Teas

[Dave S]

The controller has the authority to arbitrarily decide he does not have
the ability to provide VFR services due to workload constraints.

Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>>It doesn't vary at all. If you're outside of the Class B airspace ATC
>>>has no authority to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft.
>>
>>Nor any obligation to continue radar services to said VFR aircraft.
>>
>
>
> Actually, there is.
>
>
> FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
>
> Chapter 2. General Control
>
> Section 1. General
>
> 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
>
> The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision
> between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the
> flow of traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the
> capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
> ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as
> the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller
> workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
> and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized
> that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of
> services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the
> aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service
> procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
> circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the
> part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation
> permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the
> procedures and minima in this order except when:
>
> a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
> Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic
> control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:
>
> NOTE-
> Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations
> regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.
>
> b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement,
> FAA directive, or a military document, or:
>
> NOTE-
> These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling,
> fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-8.
>
> c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency
> has been declared.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
> FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10.
> FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

OtisWinslow wrote:

> I haven't flown around NY. I have dealt with Tampa and Miami .. both of
> whom were helpful.

I fly around NY, and have found the controllers typically quite helpful to
VFR traffic. In fact, I once surprised a VFR-only pilot in our club with
how helpful they are. We were departing Caldwell for the NJ shore in an
aircraft w/o a GPS (it has since been upgraded, of course {8^). His plan
was to fly around the class B to the west. I suggested "through", which
surprised him a little.

But a quick request to TRACON got us not only entry, but a vector to Colts
Neck (which we couldn't receive at our current position/altitude).

As I said, they're very helpful.

There have been a few exceptions, but these were all (as far as I can
recall) recognizably high-workload situations for them.

But this raises a question about which I keep forgetting. I was once IFRing
into Linden - an uncontrolled airport right next to Newark - in VMC. ATC
wanted me to cancel as early as possible of course, and I was perfectly
willing to do so. I just wanted to be below the class B first, but - at
least where I was - the floor was below ATC's MVA. So I cancelled, but I
felt a little odd being in class B having never received explicit clearance
into it.

Silly of me?

- Andrew

[Jeremy Lew]

You didn't mention, but I presume you were not flying in the class bravo at
the time? That is weird.

[Dave Butler]

> But this raises a question about which I keep forgetting. I was once IFRing
> into Linden - an uncontrolled airport right next to Newark - in VMC. ATC
> wanted me to cancel as early as possible of course, and I was perfectly
> willing to do so. I just wanted to be below the class B first, but - at
> least where I was - the floor was below ATC's MVA. So I cancelled, but I
> felt a little odd being in class B having never received explicit clearance
> into it.
>
> Silly of me?

You were on a clearance when you entered Class B. That would be good enough for me.

[Dude]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > However, if you are using radar services, they will often fly you at an
> > altitude for their own reasons, whatever they may be (always good
reasons,
> > but varying in importance). I have had controllers argue with me over
> > this,
> > so I know it varies around the country. The rules and regs are the same,
> > but
> > geography, weather, and habit have pretty large influences on how they
are
> > applied.
> >
>
> It doesn't vary at all. If you're outside of the Class B airspace ATC has
> no authority to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft.
>


Steve,

We can argue rules all day long, but the way things are done can make the
results of whats done inside the rules seem strangely dissimilar in the
cockpit.

Whether they have authority or not at all, doesn't matter one wit. They do
it, and you can respond with compliance or not (since they do not have
authority, you can choose to disregard).

I have given you a real life, and common, example of what happens in my
area. If you choose to not believe me, that is fine. Lots of people fly
down the coast of Florida outside of the class B. Am I the only one who
ever gets an assignment?

[Dude]

So long as they are not directing you to do something unsafe, or hard on the
equipment or passengers, or otherwise an extreme hassle - why not just go
along?

Lets say he is not a sharp troop. Why make his job harder. While you are
giving the guy fits, someone else is trying to get a clearance or advice.
Keep it up, and they will just expand the class B, because they NEED to
control that space.

If we go along, we can delay or eliminate the need to expand class B areas.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Yup, and receiving an altitude assignment from a controller that hasn't
> >> the
> >> authority to issue it is an indication that you're not working with a
> >> sharp
> >> troop.
> >>
> >
> > This is one of my pet peeves about the folks at NY Tracon. They've got
> > this strange habit of telling VFR flights inbound to HPN to "descend to
> > pattern altitude". It used to only happen to me once in a while, but
> > lately it seems to have become SOP.
> >
> > It's more than just a polite suggestion, too. I've had controllers tell
> > me that I'm not descending fast enough, and that they "need me" to
> > descend.
> >
>
> Again, a sign that you're not working with a sharp troop.
>
>
> >
> > I once said "unable" when a controller tried to do this to me
> > 15 miles out at night and ended up with an invitation to call them when
> > I got on the ground. Said phone call resulted in a verbal reaming out
> > by the supervisor for refusing to follow instructions.
> >
>
> Had it been me it would have been the supervisor that would have received
> the verbal reaming out.
>
>
> >
> > A written complaint from me to the tracon resulted in a letter informing
> > me that I must obey all controller's instructions.
> >
>
> But not supported by any documentation, of course.
>
>

[Roy Smith]

Peter R. > wrote:
>Roy Smith ) wrote:
>
>> It's more than just a polite suggestion, too. I've had controllers tell
>> me that I'm not descending fast enough, and that they "need me" to
>> descend. I once said "unable" when a controller tried to do this to me
>> 15 miles out at night and ended up with an invitation to call them when
>> I got on the ground. Said phone call resulted in a verbal reaming out
>> by the supervisor for refusing to follow instructions.
>>
>> A written complaint from me to the tracon resulted in a letter informing
>> me that I must obey all controller's instructions.
>
>Shoulda had the supervisor tell you what section of the Federal Aviation
>Regulation supports his assertion that ATC control VFR aircraft outside
>of B or C airspace.

That was in the letter I wrote to complain. The (written) response
was "you have to follow all instructions the controller gives you".

[Peter R.]

Roy Smith ) wrote:

> That was in the letter I wrote to complain. The (written) response
> was "you have to follow all instructions the controller gives you".

To which you should have returned: "What regulation states that a VFR
aircraft in class E (which I presume you were in) airspace is required
to follow all instructions given by the controller?

--
Peter

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Peter R. > wrote:
>Roy Smith ) wrote:
>
>> That was in the letter I wrote to complain. The (written) response
>> was "you have to follow all instructions the controller gives you".
>
>To which you should have returned: "What regulation states that a VFR
>aircraft in class E (which I presume you were in) airspace is required
>to follow all instructions given by the controller?

Well, I look at it this way. I may have been stupid enough to have
gotten into a ****ing contest with the FAA in the first place, but at
least I was smart enough to quit while I still had some dry clothes
on.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It doesn't vary at all. If you're outside of the Class B airspace ATC
>> has
>> no authority to assign altitudes to VFR aircraft.
>>
>
>
> Steve,
>
> We can argue rules all day long, but the way things are done can make the
> results of whats done inside the rules seem strangely dissimilar in the
> cockpit.
>
> Whether they have authority or not at all, doesn't matter one wit. They
> do
> it, and you can respond with compliance or not (since they do not have
> authority, you can choose to disregard).
>
> I have given you a real life, and common, example of what happens in my
> area. If you choose to not believe me, that is fine. Lots of people fly
> down the coast of Florida outside of the class B. Am I the only one who
> ever gets an assignment?
>

I didn't say it wasn't done, I said they don't have the authority to do it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> So long as they are not directing you to do something unsafe, or hard on
> the
> equipment or passengers, or otherwise an extreme hassle - why not just go
> along?
>

For what purpose?


>
> Lets say he is not a sharp troop. Why make his job harder.
>

But it doesn't make his job harder.


>
> While you are
> giving the guy fits, someone else is trying to get a clearance or advice.
>

It's not me that's giving him fits, it's his misunderstang of procedures
that's giving him fits.


>
> Keep it up, and they will just expand the class B, because they NEED to
> control that space.
>

Why do they NEED to control it?


>
> If we go along, we can delay or eliminate the need to expand class B
> areas.
>

That's got nothing to do with it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> The controller has the authority to arbitrarily decide he does not have
> the ability to provide VFR services due to workload constraints.
>

No he doesn't. There has to actually be workload constraints. If there
isn't he must provide the service.

[Dude]

> >
> > So long as they are not directing you to do something unsafe, or hard on
> > the
> > equipment or passengers, or otherwise an extreme hassle - why not just
go
> > along?
> >
>
> For what purpose?
>

Safety! What does he know that you do not?

>
> >
> > Lets say he is not a sharp troop. Why make his job harder.
> >
>
> But it doesn't make his job harder.
>

Every extra statement he makes takes time. Also, you may now be too close
to another flight path, making him divert it. What are you thinking? How
about the added stress from your denial adding to the rest of his stress. I
find it strange that you really don't care about being nice to controllers.

>
> >
> > While you are
> > giving the guy fits, someone else is trying to get a clearance or
advice.
> >
>
> It's not me that's giving him fits, it's his misunderstang of procedures
> that's giving him fits.
>

No, its you. You are at fault. You are being hard headed and stubborn for
no reason. You don't know what he is up against. You don't even know what
you are up against. You don't have to move out of the way to let a drunk
stumble by you in a crowded bar either, but its your dry cleaning bill.


> >
> > Keep it up, and they will just expand the class B, because they NEED to
> > control that space.
> >
>
> Why do they NEED to control it?
>

Because they are control freaks, and have ever expanding volumes of traffic.
This is how government agencies work. They want control, they need
control, they demand control, and then AOPA has to fight them to keep them
from grabbing it.

The only reason the Class B area around you is not bigger, is that they
cannot show they need it. Otherwise, they would expand it. Every time a
flight has to get vectored to avoid VFR traffic, is another straw on the
proverbial camel's back.


>
> >
> > If we go along, we can delay or eliminate the need to expand class B
> > areas.
> >
>
> That's got nothing to do with it.
>

See above, it has everything to do with it. Why do you think we have Class B
areas to start with? ATC wants your airspace, don't give them an excuse to
take it!

[Dude]

> >
> >> That was in the letter I wrote to complain. The (written) response
> >> was "you have to follow all instructions the controller gives you".
> >
> >To which you should have returned: "What regulation states that a VFR
> >aircraft in class E (which I presume you were in) airspace is required
> >to follow all instructions given by the controller?
>
> Well, I look at it this way. I may have been stupid enough to have
> gotten into a ****ing contest with the FAA in the first place, but at
> least I was smart enough to quit while I still had some dry clothes
> on.

Wise decision, Grasshoppa.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Shoulda had the supervisor tell you what section of the Federal Aviation
> Regulation supports his assertion that ATC control VFR aircraft outside
> of B or C airspace.
>

He might respond with FAR 91.123(b), which states; "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." Well,
the VFR aircraft is in Class E airspace, and Class E airspace is
obviously an area in which air traffic control is exercised, so if the
controller instructs the pilot to maintain a specific altitude then absent
an emergency the pilot must maintain that specified altitude, right?

Wrong.

That line of reasoning would treat all ATC instructions equally. Let's take
a rather extreme example to illustrate. Let's say you're on short final in
Class D airspace when the tower instructs you to "roll inverted and pull".
Must you adhere to that instruction? Are you required by regulation to bury
yourself and your aircraft in the dirt? Of course not. Clearly, then,
there are limits to the "control" exercised by ATC.

FAA Order 7110.65 places substantial limits on the authority of ATC in
various situations. Paragraph 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE states, in part:

"Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and
minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic
control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order."

In short, ATC cannot require you to do something which would be a violation
of an FAR. That altitude assigned by our wayward controller could require
to violate cloud clearance requirements or minimum safe altitudes.

FAA Order 7110.65 does have provisions for the issuance of altitudes to VFR
aircraft, but only in Class B and Class C airspace, the Outer Area
associated with Class C airspace, and in TRSAs. That makes sense, because
ATC separates VFR aircraft in those areas. Clearly, if separation is
required the controller must have the necessary tools to provide it. But
outside of those areas ATC does not separate VFR aircraft and has no
authority to assign altitudes to them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> > So long as they are not directing you to do something unsafe, or hard
>> > on the equipment or passengers, or otherwise an extreme hassle - why >>
>> > > not just go along?
>> >
>>
>> For what purpose?
>>
>
> Safety!
>

A rather broad subject. Do you think you could expand on that a bit?


>
> What does he know that you do not?
>

He knows where the other radar targets are.


>> >
>> > Lets say he is not a sharp troop. Why make his job harder.
>> >
>>
>> But it doesn't make his job harder.
>>
>
> Every extra statement he makes takes time.
>

The only "extra statement" here is the one where he directed a VFR aircraft
operating in Class E airspace to descend. He was wrong to make that
statement.


>
> Also, you may now be too close to another flight path, making him
> divert it. What are you thinking?
>

What are you thinking? How could my presence require him to divert another
aircraft? I'm operating VFR in Class E airspace, ATC does not provide
VFR/IFR or VFR/VFR separation in Class E airspace.


>
> How about the added stress from your denial adding to the rest of
> his stress. I find it strange that you really don't care about being nice
> to controllers.
>

I'm very nice to controllers, and to pilots too. If the controller finds
the issuance of traffic advisories to be stressful he should find another
occupation.


>> >
>> > While you are giving the guy fits, someone else is trying to get
>> > a clearance or advice.
>> >
>>
>> It's not me that's giving him fits, it's his misunderstang of procedures
>> that's giving him fits.
>>
>
> No, its you. You are at fault.
>

How so? What am I at fault for?


>
> You are being hard headed and stubborn for no reason.
>

I don't think you understand the situation here. The service the controller
is providing in this case is radar traffic advosories. Nothing more. This
is not a separation issue.


>
> You don't know what he is up against.
>

What is he up against?


>
> You don't even know what you are up against.
>

What am I up against?


>
> You don't have to move out of the way to let a drunk
> stumble by you in a crowded bar either, but its your dry cleaning bill.
>

Right, no third party is involved. Just as responsibility for separation
rests with me and the other aircraft, not the controller.



>
>> >
>> > Keep it up, and they will just expand the class B, because they NEED to
>> > control that space.
>> >
>>
>> Why do they NEED to control it?
>>
>
> Because they are control freaks, and have ever expanding volumes of
> traffic. This is how government agencies work. They want control,
> they need control, they demand control, and then AOPA has to fight
> them to keep them from grabbing it.
>
> The only reason the Class B area around you is not bigger, is that they
> cannot show they need it. Otherwise, they would expand it. Every time a
> flight has to get vectored to avoid VFR traffic, is another straw on the
> proverbial camel's back.
>

But no flight NEEDS to be vectored to avoid VFR traffic in Class E airspace.


>> >
>> > If we go along, we can delay or eliminate the need to expand class B
>> > areas.
>> >
>>
>> That's got nothing to do with it.
>>
>
> See above, it has everything to do with it. Why do you think we have
> Class B areas to start with? ATC wants your airspace, don't give them
> an excuse to take it!
>

We're not talking about Class B airspace, we're talking about Class E
airspace.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> But a quick request to TRACON got us not only entry, but a vector to Colts
> Neck (which we couldn't receive at our current position/altitude).
>
> As I said, they're very helpful.

That's different. The original poster was suggesting that you request traffic
advisories while under the class-B floor. In my experience, you won't get VFR traffic
advisories from NY ATC.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Roy Smith]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
> That's different. The original poster was suggesting that you request traffic
> advisories while under the class-B floor. In my experience, you won't get VFR
> traffic advisories from NY ATC.

Not in my experience. Sure, if it's busy they may not be able, but most
of the time advisories are no problem.

[Andrew Gideon]

Roy Smith wrote:

> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>> That's different. The original poster was suggesting that you request
>> traffic advisories while under the class-B floor. In my experience, you
>> won't get VFR traffic advisories from NY ATC.
>
> Not in my experience. Sure, if it's busy they may not be able, but most
> of the time advisories are no problem.

I've never tried to get advisories from TRACON while under the class B.
I've no idea what RADAR coverage they have there, in fact. If I'm going to
be talking to someone anyway, why not get clearance through?

Oh, well, this isn't quite true. Plenty of times I've contacted TRACON
while under the class B after departing CDW, but I've always requested
class B as well as advisories. On the rare case where I couldn't climb
immediately, I've still usually received the flight following.

There have been odd cases where I've not been able to get advisories outside
of the class B, but they've been few and - at least as far as I can recall
- all situations where the issue was workload. Usually, I'm told to call
back in a few minutes.

FWIW, I've also done the "Parkway Transition" at 1000, but this involves
talking to Newark Tower. They had me wait once, but have never said "no".

So my experience with NY TRACON has been that they're usually quite willing
to provide VFR advisories.

- Andrew

[Gary Drescher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>>> That's different. The original poster was suggesting that you request
>>> traffic advisories while under the class-B floor. In my experience, you
>>> won't get VFR traffic advisories from NY ATC.
>>
>> Not in my experience. Sure, if it's busy they may not be able, but most
>> of the time advisories are no problem.
>
> I've never tried to get advisories from TRACON while under the class B.
> I've no idea what RADAR coverage they have there, in fact. If I'm going
> to
> be talking to someone anyway, why not get clearance through?

If you fly along the LI shore past JFK, you might not get cleared into Class
B (which starts just above 500'), but you can usually get traffic advisories
underneath. Along the Hudson corridor, though, I think they want you in
Class B for advisories.

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> st JFK, you might not get cleared into Class
> B (which starts just above 500'), but you can usually get traffic
> advisories underneath.

That's not really very convenient for me. Plus, I'd prefer to be higher.
Plus plus, over Manhatten would certainly add to the fun. That's why I'm
looking for a route through the class B. Hopefully, someone'll write that
something like TEB->LGA at 5500 is what they prefer, or some such. That
would work perfectly for me.

> Along the Hudson corridor, though, I think they
> want you in Class B for advisories.

I'm afraid I don't understand. When someone writes "the Hudson corridor",
he or she is usually referring to the "exclusion zone" in which people can
fly within - but not in - the class B. I have flown *over* the corridor
while speaking to ATC (LGA tower, mostly). Is that what you mean? I
didn't know that this was preferred by ATC.

[*I* like it because it permits a transit over Manhatten and then down the
East River. A nice alternative view to just the Hudson.]

- Andrew

[Roy Smith]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> > st JFK, you might not get cleared into Class
> > B (which starts just above 500'), but you can usually get traffic
> > advisories underneath.
>
> That's not really very convenient for me. Plus, I'd prefer to be higher.
> Plus plus, over Manhatten would certainly add to the fun. That's why I'm
> looking for a route through the class B. Hopefully, someone'll write that
> something like TEB->LGA at 5500 is what they prefer, or some such. That
> would work perfectly for me.

If you're transiting the Class B east-west, NY Approach will often hand
you off to LGA Tower, and tower will bring you right over the top of the
airport at 1500. They'll tell you to fly directly over the runway
intersection. Heading west, LGA Tower will sometimes give you back to
NY Approach, or sometimes just hand you off directly to TEB Tower as you
cross the Hudson.

It seems strange the first time, but it actually makes a lot of sense.
Right over the top of the airport, all the traffic is at ground level,
safely below you. You get some good sight-seeing in too!

>> Along the Hudson corridor, though, I think they
>> want you in Class B for advisories.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand. When someone writes "the Hudson corridor",
> he or she is usually referring to the "exclusion zone" in which people can
> fly within - but not in - the class B. I have flown *over* the corridor
> while speaking to ATC (LGA tower, mostly). Is that what you mean? I
> didn't know that this was preferred by ATC.

I think what he meant was while they're often willing to give you a
Class B clearance at 1500 down (or up) the Hudson, if you call them up
at 1000 in the exclusion corridor and ask for flight following, you'll
almost certainly be turned down. My personal preference is 1500 with
the clearance; the view is just as good, and I like the idea of not
being down in the zoo of traffic at 1000. NY Approach will clear you
in, then hand you off to LGA Tower, who in turn will hand you off to EWR
Tower once you get to about midtown.

If you're looking for a scenic route, I've often had good luck getting
Class Bravo clearances up the East River. Once you get to the 59th
Street Bridge, you'll get your choice of a left turn over Central Park
and over to the Hudson, or a right turn over LGA (see above) and out to
Long Island Sound.

[Gary Drescher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>> Along the Hudson corridor, though, I think they
>> want you in Class B for advisories.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand. When someone writes "the Hudson corridor",
> he or she is usually referring to the "exclusion zone" in which people can
> fly within - but not in - the class B. I have flown *over* the corridor
> while speaking to ATC (LGA tower, mostly). Is that what you mean?

Yup, sorry I stated it confusingly. The times I've approached the Hudson
with flight following, intending to fly in the Class E corridor, ATC cleared
me up into the Class B. When I replied that I'd rather stay below (for a
better view), they terminated services. I assume that's either because the
exclusion zone is too low for radar coverage, or else because it has too
much traffic for them to issue advisories there.

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> I assume that's either
> because the exclusion zone is too low for radar coverage, or else because
> it has too much traffic for them to issue advisories there.

I'm not sure about the coverage, but can definitely see the problem issuing
advisories for that (as Roy calls it {8^) zoo. I've never tried this
myself, as - if I'm going to be in the zoo - I'd rather be on the same
frequency as all the other animals <laugh>.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Roy Smith wrote:

> If you're transiting the Class B east-west, NY Approach will often hand
> you off to LGA Tower, and tower will bring you right over the top of the
> airport at 1500. They'll tell you to fly directly over the runway
> intersection. Heading west, LGA Tower will sometimes give you back to
> NY Approach, or sometimes just hand you off directly to TEB Tower as you
> cross the Hudson.
>
> It seems strange the first time, but it actually makes a lot of sense.
> Right over the top of the airport, all the traffic is at ground level,
> safely below you. You get some good sight-seeing in too!

I understand that. My usual route from CDW to points south passes over EWR.
I'm a little surprised at the altitude, though. I've not looked at the
approach plates, but I'd have guessed that JFK's approaches from the north
would be an issue.

- Andrew