Canadian class C = USA class B?

[Clyde Torres]

Does anyone here know if Canada's class C is equivalent to the USA's class
B? A Canadian has told me this is so and that the USA does not follow ICAO
convention. Is this true?

Clyde Torres

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Clyde Torres" > wrote in
:

> Does anyone here know if Canada's class C is equivalent to the USA's
> class B? A Canadian has told me this is so and that the USA does not
> follow ICAO convention. Is this true?
>
> Clyde Torres
>
>
>


It is true. The Canadian class C requires a clearance to enter, just like
the US class B. They also have a 30NM mode C veil. They are depicted as a
class B (blue lines) on the US sectional charts, although the airport
surface areas are shown as a class D.

[Julian Scarfe]

"Clyde Torres" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone here know if Canada's class C is equivalent to the USA's class
> B? A Canadian has told me this is so and that the USA does not follow
ICAO
> convention. Is this true?

The class of airspace tells you what separation is provided by ATC. In
class B, all flights are separated. In class C, IFR flights are separated
from everything else, but VFR flights are not separated from each other.
This distinction is part of the ICAO classification scheme and is the same
the world over.

Where the US differs from ICAO (and the rest of the world) is in allowing
VFR flights to operate in class C and D airspace without an explicit
clearance, replacing this with a requirement for two-way comms. From an
operational point of view I've never really understood the purpose of the
distinction. The pilot is required to obey ATC instructions in class C just
as in class B.

Julian Scarfe

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Where the US differs from ICAO (and the rest of the world) is in allowing
> VFR flights to operate in class C and D airspace without an explicit
> clearance, replacing this with a requirement for two-way comms. From an
> operational point of view I've never really understood the purpose of the
> distinction.

The "purpose" is simply that those were the requirements of the airspace in
the US that became Class C and D (Airport Radar Service Areas and Airport
Traffic Areas, respectively). The airspace "reclassification" was simpler
to do by not changing the requirements (not the mention easier to "sell" to
American pilots, most of whom would reject an increase in regulation just
for the sake of "being like the rest of the world").

Pete

[Icebound]

"Clyde Torres" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone here know if Canada's class C is equivalent to the USA's class
> B? A Canadian has told me this is so and that the USA does not follow
ICAO
> convention. Is this true?
>
> Clyde Torres
>
>

As I read it, VFR in Canadian class C requires 1 Statute mile horizontal,
and 500 feet vertical clearance from cloud, whereas USA class B is simply
"clear of cloud"...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
>
> The class of airspace tells you what separation is provided by ATC. In
> class B, all flights are separated. In class C, IFR flights are separated
> from everything else, but VFR flights are not separated from each other.
> This distinction is part of the ICAO classification scheme and is the same
> the world over.
>
> Where the US differs from ICAO (and the rest of the world) is in allowing
> VFR flights to operate in class C and D airspace without an explicit
> clearance, replacing this with a requirement for two-way comms. From an
> operational point of view I've never really understood the purpose of the
> distinction. The pilot is required to obey ATC instructions in class C
> just as in class B.
>

The US should conform to the ICAO standard in requiring a clearance for VFR
operations in Class C airspace as VFR aircraft are provided separation. A
clearance and separation go hand-in-hand. The ICAO standard should not
require a clearance for VFR operations in Class D airspace as VFR aircraft
are not separated.

[Rob Perkins]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>The US should conform to the ICAO standard in requiring a clearance for VFR
>operations in Class C airspace as VFR aircraft are provided separation. A
>clearance and separation go hand-in-hand. The ICAO standard should not
>require a clearance for VFR operations in Class D airspace as VFR aircraft
>are not separated.

I operate out of an airport which is Class D, cut out of a class C
terminal area, with the only movement area being the runway. The tower
we call is a couple of miles away centered in a Class C airport.

Every time I call them (and I only have to call them to get
instructions for the Delta airspace underlying their Charlie), I get a
"remain clear of Charlie airspace" instruction. The end result is the
same as the ICAO standard, isn't it, since U.S. pilots have to obey
traffic control in Charlie airspace?

Rob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>
> I operate out of an airport which is Class D, cut out of a class C
> terminal area, with the only movement area being the runway. The tower
> we call is a couple of miles away centered in a Class C airport.
>

Pearson Field?

What do you mean by "the only movement area being the runway"? "Movement
area" means the runways, taxiways, and other areas that are used for
taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, other than loading ramps and
parking areas. "Nonmovement area" means the area not under ATC control. At
untowered airports the term "nonmovement area" is meaningless since ATC has
no control over any surface.


>
> Every time I call them (and I only have to call them to get
> instructions for the Delta airspace underlying their Charlie), I get a
> "remain clear of Charlie airspace" instruction. The end result is the
> same as the ICAO standard, isn't it, since U.S. pilots have to obey
> traffic control in Charlie airspace?
>

The end result is to require VFR aircraft with radios to call the tower and
to hinder aircraft without radios.

A Class D surface area without a towered airport serves no useful purpose.