Class B busted...My problem or the controller's ?

[Antoñio]

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

[ShawnD2112]

It's ultimately your responsibility for the safe and legal conduct of your
flight. You can technically refuse any instruction given by ATC on the
grounds that it would compromise the safety and legality of your flight. If
you knew the conditions of the pattern relative to Class B, it was your
responsibility to alert the controller to the fact they'd given you
instructions which would risk your busting the space.

Your fault, I'm afraid. Be adult about it and recognize your
responsibility.

Aviation is nearly unique in the world as being a professional community
which lives and breathes by the concept that the final and, really, only
authority in any situation is the pilot in command. I think it's a
brilliant concept that the rest of society is weaker for not embracing. The
blame and victim cultures that relieve everyone of their own personal adult
responsibility do not apply in aviation and, for the most part, pilots
willingly behave appropriately. I think it's one of the crowing glories of
the aviation community.

Shawn
"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
>

[Greg Farris]

Sounds like you knew the airspace well - so you knew extending the
downwind would bring you close to Class B, if not into it - That's an
advantage, compared with someone who is there for the first time, and
gives full trust to the controller. In your case, I would have said
something to the tower, like "Unable to continue downwind into Class
Bravo" asking for advice. That way, if he sends you into Class B, it's
clear(er) who did what.

I'm getting tempted to bring my own pocket recorder to monitor
clearances and instructions. I've had controllers flat out deny the
instructions they gave. I know they have tapes, but I get the feeling
that when you want to contest something, those tapes may go the way of
Rose Mary Woods . . .

Hope you files a NASA form.

G Faris

[kontiki]

ShawnD2112 wrote:

> Aviation is nearly unique in the world as being a professional community
> which lives and breathes by the concept that the final and, really, only
> authority in any situation is the pilot in command. I think it's a
> brilliant concept that the rest of society is weaker for not embracing. The
> blame and victim cultures that relieve everyone of their own personal adult
> responsibility do not apply in aviation and, for the most part, pilots
> willingly behave appropriately. I think it's one of the crowing glories of
> the aviation community.

Eloquently stated sir. Would that all of the other participants in this
great experiement called "Life on Earth" have the same philosophy.

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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?

I don't know how the FAA may have ruled on such situations in practice, but
the FARs seem ambiguous on the question. Of course, FAR 91.131a1 requires a
clearance before entering Class B. But FAR 91.123b requires compliance with
ATC instructions, except in an emergency. Clipping the edge of Class B
probably doesn't constitute an emergency. So the FARs seem contradictory in
a situation where obeying ATC requires you to bust Class B.

In such a situation, I would first make every effort to alert the tower that
I'm about to enter Class B. If the frequency is too congested to talk on the
radio, I'd hit Ident. If I still had no reply from the tower, I'd leave the
traffic pattern, stay clear of Class B, head outside the Class D (if not
outside already), and contact the tower as soon as possible.

I'd suggest that you submit an ASRS form, both for your legal protection,
and also to call attention to the problem.

--Gary

[john smith]

Get a copy of the Letter of Agreement between the CBAS and the CDAS.
Read it to see who is responsible where between the two agencies and
what coordination they have to resolve conflicts.
Fill out a NASA Form 277.
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate
Sounds like you did them in that order.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm getting tempted to bring my own pocket recorder to monitor
> clearances and instructions. I've had controllers flat out deny the
> instructions they gave. I know they have tapes, but I get the feeling
> that when you want to contest something, those tapes may go the way of
> Rose Mary Woods . . .
>

Without the tapes they can't prove you violated an instruction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Get a copy of the Letter of Agreement between the CBAS and the CDAS.
> Read it to see who is responsible where between the two agencies and what
> coordination they have to resolve conflicts.
>

It doesn't matter who has jurisdiction if neither of them issued a clearance
into Class B airspace.

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...]
> Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> or less--you end up in class B surface.

IMHO, that's incorrect. It's true that if you are flying a very wide
downwind, you can clip the area of the Class B airspace that extends to the
surface. But provided you are flying the downwind where you're supposed
to -- over the Duwamish River -- you can fly straight out the valley as far
as you like without running into the Class B.

You do need to make sure you're at the proper pattern altitude (800') to
ensure you're not grazing the bottom (1100' at its lowest). But that's
usually not an issue.

> 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?

Assuming you busted the Class B, you are responsible. The only thing that
the tower controller does is grant you use of the runway. They don't have
the authority to clear you into the Class B, and it's your responsibility to
say "unable" if you're given an instruction with which you can't comply (for
whatever reason, including regulatory).

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

The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind up on
the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's all.
They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all up to
you.

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

Hard to say without knowing the specifics. The "problem" you describe
doesn't actually exist at Boeing Field, so the only way for me to answer is
to assume some other airport where the problem does exist. But airspace
designers try to avoid creating problems like this. So finding such an
airport on which to base my answer might be difficult, or impossible.

That said, let's assume that at Boeing Field, the Class B down to the
surface actually does extend all the way up to, but not including, the final
approach course (it must not go over the final approach course, since then
no straight-in approach would be allowed, except by aircraft who already
have clearance through the Class B). Let's further assume that you need to
turn base before 1/2 mile past the "abeam the numbers" point.

Then your only available option is to not fly more than 1/2 mile past where
you are abeam the numbers. This may require S-turns, to give the
straight-in traffic more time. This may require making a 360 degree turn.
You could possibly turn upwind and try again, hoping that no more
straight-in traffic will show up. There are a variety of ways to solve the
problem. But you would have to solve it...flying into the Class B airspace
without a clearance isn't an option.

Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one's
downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace, and so
the only thing you really need to do is make sure you are far enough east to
avoid the Class B (and far enough west to avoid conflict with straight-in
traffic). It's tighter than you usually find, but it's definitely doable.

For what it's worth, I have found that the easiest way to ensure you're in
the right spot is to fly directly over the Duwamish, and then aim for the
small hill just to the south of the runway. As long as your downwind takes
you just west of that hill, you'll stay clear of both the Class B and the
final approach course. Alternatively, stay over or east of Route 99, and
that will accomplish the same thing. I prefer the topographic landmarks,
because they are easier to see than picking out which roadway is which, but
99 ought to be pretty prominent too.

Pete

[Montblack]

("Greg Farris" wrote)
> I'm getting tempted to bring my own pocket recorder to monitor
> clearances and instructions. I've had controllers flat out deny the
> instructions they gave. I know they have tapes, but I get the feeling
> that when you want to contest something, those tapes may go the way of
> Rose Mary Woods . . .


What she described (her boo boo) was almost physically impossible to achieve
...."accidentally."

http://watergate.info/images/woods-rosemary.jpg
Something about her body language, in that now famous photo, was screaming -
"I'm lying."


Montblack

[Antoñio]

john smith wrote:
> Get a copy of the Letter of Agreement between the CBAS and the CDAS.

I am familiar with what a LOA is but the other two acronymns "CBAS" and
"CDAS" I have never heard of. Can you explain them?


> Aviate
> Navigate
> Communicate
> Sounds like you did them in that order.

Thank you sir! I didn't realize that until you mentioned it.

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> I don't know how the FAA may have ruled on such situations in practice, but
> the FARs seem ambiguous on the question. Of course, FAR 91.131a1 requires a
> clearance before entering Class B.

Didn't I have that clearance by default since I was operating under ATC
instructions?


> In such a situation, I would first make every effort to alert the tower that
> I'm about to enter Class B. If the frequency is too congested to talk on the
> radio, I'd hit Ident.

Good technique to remember--the ident thing. I didn't think of that as
things happened so fast and the frequency was a solid wall of
congestion.

If I still had no reply from the tower, I'd leave the
> traffic pattern, stay clear of Class B, head outside the Class D (if not
> outside already), and contact the tower as soon as possible.

That might have been inadvisable in this particular case. There were
too many aircraft around and the airspace there is difficult to
negotiate. I think it might have caused more confusion to suddenly
depart the pattern and leave them wondering, "what is he going to do"?


> I'd suggest that you submit an ASRS form, both for your legal protection,
> and also to call attention to the problem.

Great idea, once again. Thanks Gary!

Antonio

[A Lieberman]

On 28 May 2005 12:51:19 -0700, Antoñio wrote:

> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> I don't know how the FAA may have ruled on such situations in practice, but
>> the FARs seem ambiguous on the question. Of course, FAR 91.131a1 requires a
>> clearance before entering Class B.
>
> Didn't I have that clearance by default since I was operating under ATC
> instructions?

Absolutely not.

Even with flight following, you must hear the magic words "Cleared into
Bravo".

Allen

[Mike Granby]

1/ NASA form.

2/ Forget about it.

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 May 2005 23:42:07 -0700, "Antoñio"
> wrote in
. com>::

[...]

>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?

While the ultimate responsibility for complying with FARs lies with
the PIC, it is my understanding that ATC is mandated by FAAO 7110.65*
to coordinate transit into/through the airspace of other facilities.

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

Without checking FAAO 7110.65, I would say yes.

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

I would call the tower manager, and discuss the issue to get his
views. Then I'd file a NASA form, and suggest how to change the
current procedures to make the issue less problematic.



* http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/INDEX.HTM

[Antoñio]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Sounds like you knew the airspace well - so you knew extending the
> downwind would bring you close to Class B, if not into it - That's an
> advantage, compared with someone who is there for the first time, and
> gives full trust to the controller. In your case, I would have said
> something to the tower, like "Unable to continue downwind into Class
> Bravo" asking for advice. That way, if he sends you into Class B, it's
> clear(er) who did what.

Greg,

I do like that tactic and will try and use in in the future. Only one
"however" though....had I used it here I would have been well into
class B by the time the controller responded.


> Hope you files a NASA form.

Definitely! And thanks for the reply.

Antonio

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> I don't know how the FAA may have ruled on such situations in practice,
>> but
>> the FARs seem ambiguous on the question. Of course, FAR 91.131a1 requires
>> a
>> clearance before entering Class B.
>
> Didn't I have that clearance by default since I was operating under ATC
> instructions?

Nope. A clearance is a very specific kind of permission. It's conveyed by
ATC using the word "cleared"; for example "cleared for takeoff", "cleared to
land", "cleared into class bravo". As far as I'm aware, a neighboring Class
D controller typically doesn't even have the authority to clear you into
Class B; in any case, he or she hasn't done so unless they said "cleared
into class bravo".

> That might have been inadvisable in this particular case. There were
> too many aircraft around and the airspace there is difficult to
> negotiate. I think it might have caused more confusion to suddenly
> depart the pattern and leave them wondering, "what is he going to do"?

Nonetheless, staying clear of the Class B (even in violation of an ATC
instruction) is apparently what the FAA wants you to do. Your confusion is
understandable, though, since the FARs contradict themselves on this point.

--Gary

[Antoñio]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Anto=F1io" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > [...]
> > Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
> > or less--you end up in class B surface.
>
> IMHO, that's incorrect. It's true that if you are flying a very wide
> downwind, you can clip the area of the Class B airspace that extends to t=
he
> surface. But provided you are flying the downwind where you're supposed
> to -- over the Duwamish River -- you can fly straight out the valley as f=
ar
> as you like without running into the Class B.

Not sure where the Duwamish is however, looking at the Seattle
terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the
downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south.

I see a highway there that seems to just barely stay outside of B. I
will look for it next time.

> > 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?
>
> Assuming you busted the Class B, you are responsible. The only thing that
> the tower controller does is grant you use of the runway. They don't have
> the authority to clear you into the Class B, and it's your responsibility=
to
> say "unable" if you're given an instruction with which you can't comply (=
for
> whatever reason, including regulatory).

So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
clearance?
Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
reason, including regulatory" ?

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


> The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind up on
> the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's all.
> They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all up=
to
> you.

Well, that's one of my points. The controller left me with two options:

1=2E Go into class B
2=2E Turn my base early and cause a conflict

Keep in mind that I have not at all decided yet if I was wrong or right
in my actions. I am simply laying out the facts as I saw them unfold.

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

> That said, let's assume that at Boeing Field, the Class B down to the
> surface actually does extend all the way up to, but not including, the fi=
nal
> approach course (it must not go over the final approach course, since then
> no straight-in approach would be allowed, except by aircraft who already
> have clearance through the Class B). Let's further assume that you need =
to
> turn base before 1/2 mile past the "abeam the numbers" point.
>
> Then your only available option is to not fly more than 1/2 mile past whe=
re
> you are abeam the numbers. This may require S-turns, to give the
> straight-in traffic more time. This may require making a 360 degree turn.
> You could possibly turn upwind and try again, hoping that no more
> straight-in traffic will show up. There are a variety of ways to solve t=
he
> problem. But you would have to solve it...flying into the Class B airspa=
ce
> without a clearance isn't an option.

Whoa! You think flying a 360 in the pattern, or turning upwind (which
means you'd have to cross over?) are better solutions than clipping the
corner of B?

> Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one's
> downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace,

Not very far !

> the only thing you really need to do is make sure you are far enough east=
to
> avoid the Class B (and far enough west to avoid conflict with straight-in
> traffic). It's tighter than you usually find, but it's definitely doable.

It is "doable" only if you wish to be wingtip to wingtip with an MD80
or an L1011 in a C172.


>
> For what it's worth, I have found that the easiest way to ensure you're in
> the right spot is to fly directly over the Duwamish, and then aim for the
> small hill just to the south of the runway. As long as your downwind tak=
es
> you just west of that hill, you'll stay clear of both the Class B and the
> final approach course. Alternatively, stay over or east of Route 99, and
> that will accomplish the same thing. I prefer the topographic landmarks,
> because they are easier to see than picking out which roadway is which, b=
ut
> 99 ought to be pretty prominent too.

Ahhh...good points Pete. Thanks!!

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> While the ultimate responsibility for complying with FARs lies with
> the PIC, it is my understanding that ATC is mandated by FAAO 7110.65*
> to coordinate transit into/through the airspace of other facilities.

So would you say that if one were in the pattern that it would imply
the same responsibilities of ATC as if I were on, say, flight
following?

> >2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
> >base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?
>
> Without checking FAAO 7110.65, I would say yes.

Interesting...

> >3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?
>
> I would call the tower manager, and discuss the issue to get his
> views. Then I'd file a NASA form, and suggest how to change the
> current procedures to make the issue less problematic.

I meant: How would you resolve the problem if it were happening right
now?

Thanks Larry!

Antonio

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> While the ultimate responsibility for complying with FARs lies with
>> the PIC, it is my understanding that ATC is mandated by FAAO 7110.65*
>> to coordinate transit into/through the airspace of other facilities.
>
> So would you say that if one were in the pattern that it would imply
> the same responsibilities of ATC as if I were on, say, flight
> following?

I don't know whether that's the case. But even with flight following, you
can't enter Class B unless you're told "Cleared into Class Bravo". (If
you're flying IFR, then ATC doesn't have to mention Class B, but that's
because you're already on a clearance if you're flying IFR.) You *can*,
however, enter class C or D just by virtue of having flight following,
because no clearance is needed for that airspace; all you need is two-way
communication with ATC, which you've already got via your flight following.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> john smith wrote:
>> Get a copy of the Letter of Agreement between the CBAS and the CDAS.
>
> I am familiar with what a LOA is but the other two acronymns "CBAS" and
> "CDAS" I have never heard of. Can you explain them?

Class B/D airspace.

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>> Assuming you busted the Class B, you are responsible. The only thing
>> that
>> the tower controller does is grant you use of the runway. They don't
>> have
>> the authority to clear you into the Class B, and it's your responsibility
>> to
>> say "unable" if you're given an instruction with which you can't comply
>> (for
>> whatever reason, including regulatory).
>
>Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
>reason, including regulatory" ?

There's no such FAR. The closest you'll find is AIM 4-4-1a,b, and 4-4-6c.
But those clauses address clearances, rather than other ATC instructions;
and those clauses aren't regulations.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Not sure where the Duwamish is however,

If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular basis,
it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish
River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport.

> looking at the Seattle
> terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the
> downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south.

You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at
Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute
confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining
outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg.

> I see a highway there that seems to just barely stay outside of B. I
> will look for it next time.

Good. :)

> So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
> clearance?
> Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
> reason, including regulatory" ?

As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into
the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is likely
to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is not
a clearance to fly into the Class B.

The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B
airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells you
to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence
of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of that
regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that
you need a clearance.

No clearance, no entry. It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
regulations. Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides
you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary
to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b)
the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was
necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have.

> > The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind up
> > on
> > the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's
> > all.
> > They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all
> > up to
> > you.
>
> Well, that's one of my points.

What is one of your points? That issues other than dealing with traffic on
the runway are all up to you?

> The controller left me with two options:
>
> 1. Go into class B
> 2. Turn my base early and cause a conflict

I provided several other options that were available to you. Keeping in
mind, of course, that all of this assumes you had no way to extend your
downwind without flying into the Class B. As I've stated previously, this
is simply not the case.

> Whoa! You think flying a 360 in the pattern, or turning upwind (which
> means you'd have to cross over?) are better solutions than clipping the
> corner of B?

From a regulatory standpoint, certainly yes. Even from a safety standpoint,
there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even
theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if that
were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying
upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It would
be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L;
essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you never
descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final.

Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing and
why. But there would have been other options, had it not been the case that
you could just stay out of the Class B on your downwind.

> > Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one's
> > downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace,
>
> Not very far !

You are simply incorrect. You can fly your downwind as far as you like and
never run into Class B airspace.

> It is "doable" only if you wish to be wingtip to wingtip with an MD80
> or an L1011 in a C172.

I thought you said it was an Arrow? In any case, there is plenty of room
between final and downwind, even staying out of the Class B.

If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to me
that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away
from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just
won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be
comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't
describe you, you should probably spend some time with an instructor --
especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns there
until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> So would you say that if one were in the pattern that it would imply
> the same responsibilities of ATC as if I were on, say, flight
> following?

As Gary points out, whether or not ATC is coordinating transit through other
airspace, you still need the clearance. Beyond that, since flight into the
Class B isn't necessary for operating at KBFI, there would be no need for
ATC to coordinate transit through the Class B, and thus you would have no
expectation that they would.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
>> reason, including regulatory" ?
>
> The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B
> airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells
> you to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The
> absence of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the
> rest of that regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation
> tells you that you need a clearance.

I think what Antoñio was asking for was a regulation to support the notion
that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because compliance
would violate the FARs. That is, what regulation says that other
regulations take precedence over 91.123b (which requires compliance with ATC
instructions, except if there's an emergency need to deviate)? As far as I
can tell, there's no such regulation (although AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c are
at least tangentially relevant).

--Gary

[Antoñio]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Anto=F1io" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Not sure where the Duwamish is however,
>
> If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular bas=
is,
> it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish
> River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport.

I stand behoved.

> > looking at the Seattle
> > terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the
> > downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south.
>
> You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at
> Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute
> confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining
> outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg.

Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your
recall is inaccurate.

> > So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
> > clearance?
> > Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
> > reason, including regulatory" ?
>
> As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into
> the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is lik=
ely
> to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is n=
ot
> a clearance to fly into the Class B.

That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the
controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with
"cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of
miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC
instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and
Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind
the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..."
?

> The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B
> airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells y=
ou
> to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence
> of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of th=
at
> regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that
> you need a clearance.

The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision.
It tells me nothing positive.

And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should
deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was
told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of
this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind.

> No clearance, no entry.

Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
plan.

It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
> regulations.

I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?

Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides
> you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary
> to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b)
> the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was
> necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have.

You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn
upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly
told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the
situation.

> > > The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind =
up
> > > on
> > > the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's
> > > all.
> > > They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all
> > > up to
> > > you.

I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many
options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called
out.


> I provided several other options that were available to you.

Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you
decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing !

>Even from a safety standpoint,
> there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even
> theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if t=
hat
> were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying
> upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It wou=
ld
> be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L;
> essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you nev=
er
> descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final.

I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these
maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in
congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate
your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call
you up and ask, "What are you doing?".

Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the
runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about
30 seconds.

> Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing =
and
> why.

You would never have been able to do that this particular day without
stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow.


> > > Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one=
's
> > > downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace,

To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does
not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the
class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens
all the time there.

> If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to =
me
> that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away
> from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just
> won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be
> comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't
> describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor --
> especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns th=
ere
> until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters.

I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable
when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my
question was about.

Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your
posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a
psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and
practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this
doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-)

Antonio

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> I think what Antoñio was asking for was a regulation to support the notion
> that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because compliance
> would violate the FARs.

Maybe that's what he meant. If so, I'm not convinced that's a reasonable
question. That is, it should go without saying that there are exceptions to
the "must comply with ATC" rule. For example, suppose ATC instructs the
pilot to turn off their radio. Do you believe that is an instruction that a
pilot is required to comply with?

I don't think it is. That means that either there are implicit exceptions
to the "must comply with ATC" rule, or it means that turning off ones radio
would constitute an emergency, granting the pilot the pilot discretion
afforded by 91.123(b). IMHO, it's a stretch to require a pilot to declare
an emergency any time ATC gives an instruction that would result in a safety
or regulatory violation, especially since the word "unable" is clearly
provided as an alternative way to refuse an ATC instruction.

If you don't like the above example, take it further: what about an
instruction that is physically impossible to comply with? Suppose, for
example, that someone flying a C150 is told "climb maintain 17500". Should
the pilot be found in violation of 91.123(b) in that case? It's a perfectly
reasonable ATC instruction, for most other airplanes. No clear emergency is
presented. Yet, the pilot has no way to comply. Are they now in violation
of 91.123(b)? I seriously doubt they would be.

It is clear to me that, though the regulation doesn't spell it out,
exceptions for other than reason of emergency are permitted. Given that, it
is not hard to imagine that one of those implicit exceptions would be if the
instruction would result in the violation of the FARs.

Fortunately, all of the above is moot. In this particular instance, the
controller gave no instruction that would have forced a violation of the
FARs.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>> It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
>> regulations.
>
>I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?

Antoñio, the FAA *will* expect you to override ATC instructions if
compliance would violate the FARs, even though the FARs themselves are
contradictory on that point. Have a look at AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c. Even
though the AIM does not set forth regulations as such, it does specify how
the FAA expects you to interpret the regulations. (And even though 4-4-1 and
4-4-6 talk about clearances rather than ATC instructions in general, the
same reasoning applies to non-clearance instructions too.)

If you want an official opinion on this question, you can email your local
FSDO.

--Gary

[A Lieberman]

On 28 May 2005 18:00:43 -0700, Antoñio wrote:

>> No clearance, no entry.
>
> Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
> plan.

Incorrect Antonio.

As soon as you receive your IFR clearance, you are cleared into Bravo. ATC
makes room for your entry based on your IFR flight plan.

The beauty of IFR is that all airspace becomes "transparent" as you are
cleared from wheels up to wheels down.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> No clearance, no entry.
>>
>
> Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan.
>

While operating on an IFR flight plan you have a clearance.


>>
>> It's your job as pilot in command to follow the regulations.
>>
> I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?
>

That you fly a proper pattern?

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I think what Antoñio was asking for was a regulation to support the
>> notion that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because
>> compliance would violate the FARs.
>
> Maybe that's what he meant. If so, I'm not convinced that's a reasonable
> question. That is, it should go without saying that there are exceptions
> to the "must comply with ATC" rule.

Perhaps, but the question is whether the violation of other FARs in general
constitutes a blanket exception to the rule. It's actually quite odd, given
that apparent intent by the FAA, that 91.123b mentions an exception for
emergencies, but not an exception for compliance with the FARs (in contrast
with AIM 4-4-1a,b which, while not regulatory, does specify that exception).

I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a pilot
conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying with the
other FARs. That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car,
for example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
laws that would otherwise hold (even though there are other, implicit
exceptions of the sort you mentioned; e.g. if you're instructed to stop your
car ten feet above the pavement, you presumably can't be penalized for
failing to comply).

--Gary

[Bob Gardner]

I instructed at BFI for twenty years...and I was never concerned that I
would bust the Class B when doing left traffic to 31L. If you fly at 800
feet, stay over the Duwamish, and turn before you get to 405, there is
nothing to be worried about.

Bob Gardner
"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...


Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Not sure where the Duwamish is however,
>
> If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular
> basis,
> it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish
> River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport.

I stand behoved.

> > looking at the Seattle
> > terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the
> > downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south.
>
> You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at
> Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute
> confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining
> outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg.

Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your
recall is inaccurate.

> > So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
> > clearance?
> > Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
> > reason, including regulatory" ?
>
> As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into
> the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is
> likely
> to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is
> not
> a clearance to fly into the Class B.

That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the
controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with
"cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of
miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC
instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and
Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind
the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..."
?

> The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B
> airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells
> you
> to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence
> of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of
> that
> regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that
> you need a clearance.

The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision.
It tells me nothing positive.

And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should
deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was
told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of
this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind.

> No clearance, no entry.

Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
plan.

It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
> regulations.

I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?

Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides
> you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary
> to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b)
> the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was
> necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have.

You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn
upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly
told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the
situation.

> > > The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind
> > > up
> > > on
> > > the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's
> > > all.
> > > They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all
> > > up to
> > > you.

I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many
options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called
out.


> I provided several other options that were available to you.

Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you
decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing !

>Even from a safety standpoint,
> there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even
> theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if
> that
> were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying
> upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It
> would
> be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L;
> essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you
> never
> descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final.

I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these
maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in
congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate
your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call
you up and ask, "What are you doing?".

Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the
runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about
30 seconds.

> Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing
> and
> why.

You would never have been able to do that this particular day without
stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow.


> > > Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend
> > > one's
> > > downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace,

To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does
not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the
class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens
all the time there.

> If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to
> me
> that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away
> from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just
> won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be
> comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't
> describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor --
> especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns
> there
> until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters.

I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable
when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my
question was about.

Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your
posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a
psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and
practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this
doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-)

Antonio

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I stand behoved.

Good. That's a start.

> Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your
> recall is inaccurate.

I have current charts, and I examine them on a regular basis. They support
my statements.

> That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the
> controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with
> "cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of
> miles out...am I not following ATC instructions?

Yes, if you do what the controller says, you are following ATC instructions.
However, that has nothing to do with whether you are cleared into the Class
B airspace.

> If I am following ATC
> instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and
> Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind
> the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..."
> ?

You should not. Especially when the Class D controller's instruction
doesn't require you to fly into the Class B airspace.

> The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision.
> It tells me nothing positive.

That's silly. Using that logic, every single regulation would require a
statement "you must comply with this regulation". The absence of any other
exception to 91.131(a)(1) means you need to comply with 91.131(a)(1).

> And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should
> deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was
> told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of
> this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind.

You would need to deviate in order to avoid violating 91.131(a)(1). An
instruction from ATC is not a free pass to violate the FARs.

> > No clearance, no entry.
>
> Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
> plan.

My understanding is that we are talking about a specific situation here, in
which an IFR flight plan is not part of the scenario.

> I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?

They can (and do) ask that as pilot in command you take final authority for
the safety and legality of your flight. FAR 91.3

> You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn
> upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly
> told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the
> situation.

First of all, the deviations are purely hypothetical. There was no reason
to enter the Class B in this particular instance, so for you to get hung up
over alternative methods of avoiding the Class B is a bit disingenuous.

Secondly, I find it mind-boggling that you would rather fly into airspace
protected specifically for the purpose of keeping you away from airliners
landing at Sea-Tac airport, than to take the lesser risk and negotiate your
way around the Class D airspace. None of the maneuvers I speak of are
particularly dangerous, certainly not compared to flying through the final
approach of an airliner.

The mandate to stay out of Class B airspace is not simply regulatory. It is
there for a reason: to keep you from being running over by airliners. For
you to complain about potential safety hazards when avoiding Class B
airspace as a justification for flying through Class B airspace without a
clearance is just plain dumb.

> I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many
> options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called
> out.

No, actually they don't. They provide additional services as they are able
to, but their responsibility ends right where I said it does.

> Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you
> decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing !

I'm guessing that if I ever did, you wouldn't even notice. There's a lot
more room up there, even at Boeing Field, than you apparently think.

> I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these
> maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in
> congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate
> your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call
> you up and ask, "What are you doing?".

I have spent plenty of time in the pattern at Boeing Field. Yes, it's a
busy airport. But there is still LOTS of room in the air. I have had
several go-arounds caused by a variety of reasons, and there's lots of room
above the airport to maneuver safely.

> Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the
> runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about
> 30 seconds.

Assuming airspeed of 90 knots, that puts you in the Class B airspace only
3/4 mile from the runway end. The only way for that to happen is for you be
on a VERY wide downwind.

> You would never have been able to do that this particular day without
> stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow.

The difficulty in reporting your actions to ATC should not cause you fail to
take appropriate actions. "Aviate, navigate, communicate". There's a
reason the radio is the last item in that list.

> To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does
> not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the
> class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens
> all the time there.

It's true, Class B violations and near-violations do happen frequently. I
know one person who, while a student, managed to bust the TCA (as it was
called at the time) twice. But it doesn't happen to people who pay
attention to where the airspace is and where they are. There is nothing
about the airspace configuration that makes it impossible to fly normal
patterns while remaining outside the Class B.

> I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable
> when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my
> question was about.

The best way to handle this particular situation is to fly a downwind that
doesn't take you into the Class B.

If you are not uncomfortable flying in tight quarters, then you should have
no trouble at all flying a downwind that doesn't take you into the Class B.
So, which is it? Are you comfortable flying in tight quarters, or was it
impossible for you to avoid the Class B while obeying the ATC instruction to
extend your downwind? Only one of those two possibilities can be true.

Many other pilots manage to extend their downwind on left traffic to 31L
every day, without flying into the Class B. The only pilots who find this
impossible are those who are not comfortable staying close to the runway.

My comment about flying tight quarters is based simply on observed facts.
If you find it condescending (see below), that's your problem. I didn't
even say that you ARE uncomfortable, just that if you are (and thus
explaining why we are even having this thread in the first place), you could
seek more training.

> Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your
> posting style.

You should review the definition of "condescension". The mere fact that I
point out the error in your statements does not make me condescending.

As long as we're criticizing each other for personality defects, you should
probably review the five hazardous attitudes. "Anti-authority" in
particular. You are so convinced that you have every right to bust the
Class B, that you refuse to listen to someone trying to explain to you that
there was no reason to bust the Class B in the first place, nor that you
have the right to just go around violating the FARs at a whim.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a
> pilot conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying
> with the other FARs.

FAR 91.3 grants the final authority for the flight to the pilot. The FAA is
very clear on the point that a controller is not the one flying the
airplane, and that the pilot is expected to make correct decisions even in
the face of ATC instructions that are unreasonable or don't make sense.

> That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car, for
> example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic laws
> that would otherwise hold

Actually, it is analogous. For example, if you are parked on the side of
the road, and a police officer instructs you to pull out in front of an
oncoming car, you are not required to comply. It would be unsafe, and would
violate your legal requirement to yield to traffic when entering the
roadway.

Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a
>> pilot conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying
>> with the other FARs.
>
> FAR 91.3 grants the final authority for the flight to the pilot. The FAA
> is very clear on the point that a controller is not the one flying the
> airplane, and that the pilot is expected to make correct decisions even in
> the face of ATC instructions that are unreasonable or don't make sense.

Agreed. But pilots must still comply with the FARs (except if there's an
emergency need to do otherwise). And if one FAR says to obey ATC
instructions (except if there's an emergency need to do otherwise), and
another FAR contradicts that FAR, there's nothing in the FARs themselves
that says how the pilot should resolve the contradiction. We just know,
through a combination of folklore and AIM passages, how the FAA expects us
to proceed.

>> That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car, for
>> example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
>> laws that would otherwise hold
>
> Actually, it is analogous. For example, if you are parked on the side of
> the road, and a police officer instructs you to pull out in front of an
> oncoming car, you are not required to comply. It would be unsafe, and
> would violate your legal requirement to yield to traffic when entering the
> roadway.

Yes, and similarly the emergency exception in 91.3b and in 91.123b would
clearly entitle a pilot to refuse to cut in front of another aircraft.

> Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
> instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
> The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

A police office does have the authority to require you to do something which
(although safe) would violate a traffic law in the absence of the officer's
directive. For instance, the police can order you to pull over in a
no-stopping zone; they can even direct you to go through an intersection
when there's a red light.

If we didn't happen to know otherwise via folklore and AIM passages, we'd
reasonably guess that a pilot should analogously comply with an ATC
directive to enter Class B without a clearance. The FARs don't say anything
to the contrary.

--Gary

[Bob Gardner]

Did your instructor teach you slow flight? Slowing down and hanging out some
flaps would have given the Arrow plenty of room without your having to
extend your downwind. That's one of the reasons maneuvering at minimum
allowable airspeed is taught.

BTW, the provision in the 7110.65 requiring controllers to coordinate
airspace transits applies to controllers who are providing radar services.
Somehow, I don't think that the BFI controller was providing radar services.


Bob Gardner

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...


Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Not sure where the Duwamish is however,
>
> If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular
> basis,
> it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish
> River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport.

I stand behoved.

> > looking at the Seattle
> > terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the
> > downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south.
>
> You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at
> Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute
> confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining
> outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg.

Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your
recall is inaccurate.

> > So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
> > clearance?
> > Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
> > reason, including regulatory" ?
>
> As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into
> the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is
> likely
> to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is
> not
> a clearance to fly into the Class B.

That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the
controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with
"cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of
miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC
instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and
Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind
the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..."
?

> The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B
> airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells
> you
> to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence
> of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of
> that
> regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that
> you need a clearance.

The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision.
It tells me nothing positive.

And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should
deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was
told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of
this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind.

> No clearance, no entry.

Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
plan.

It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
> regulations.

I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?

Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides
> you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary
> to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b)
> the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was
> necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have.

You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn
upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly
told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the
situation.

> > > The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind
> > > up
> > > on
> > > the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's
> > > all.
> > > They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all
> > > up to
> > > you.

I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many
options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called
out.


> I provided several other options that were available to you.

Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you
decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing !

>Even from a safety standpoint,
> there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even
> theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if
> that
> were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying
> upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It
> would
> be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L;
> essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you
> never
> descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final.

I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these
maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in
congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate
your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call
you up and ask, "What are you doing?".

Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the
runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about
30 seconds.

> Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing
> and
> why.

You would never have been able to do that this particular day without
stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow.


> > > Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend
> > > one's
> > > downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace,

To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does
not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the
class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens
all the time there.

> If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to
> me
> that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away
> from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just
> won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be
> comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't
> describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor --
> especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns
> there
> until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters.

I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable
when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my
question was about.

Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your
posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a
psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and
practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this
doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-)

Antonio

[Jose]

> For example, suppose ATC instructs the
> pilot to turn off their radio. Do you believe that is an instruction that a
> pilot is required to comply with?

It's not unreasonable. I've been told to turn off mode C, and if the
radio is causing interference (a stuck mike comes to mind) it's a
reasonable request.

But if ATC says "follow the Arrow" and the Arrow then proceeds to crash
into a mountainside, I don't think you'd be cited for disobeying the
controller if you choose not to customize your aircraft the same way.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> It's not unreasonable. I've been told to turn off mode C, and if the
> radio is causing interference (a stuck mike comes to mind) it's a
> reasonable request.
>

If your mike is stuck you're not going to hear a request to turn off your
radio.

[BTIZ]

File what used to be NASA reports.. state what happened.. admit no guilt..

and if the tower did not say "call the tower when landing".. then you may
have gotten a pass on this one..

BT

"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
>

[Jose]

> If your mike is stuck you're not going to hear a request to turn off your
> radio.

I knew somebody would say that. You'd hear it on the other radio.

It might even be the other radio that's causing the problem. i.e.
you're operating split, the copilot is on ground with the stuck mike,
and you are on tower. You take off to do pattern work. Tower tell you
to turn off all your radios. The pilot hears it, the copilot (of
course) does not.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I knew somebody would say that. You'd hear it on the other radio.
>

No you wouldn't. A stuck mike blocks the frequency.


>
> It might even be the other radio that's causing the problem. i.e. you're
> operating split, the copilot is on ground with the stuck mike, and you are
> on tower. You take off to do pattern work. Tower tell you to turn off
> all your radios. The pilot hears it, the copilot (of course) does not.
>

The tower isn't going to do that.

[Jose]

> No you wouldn't. A stuck mike blocks the frequency.

It doesn't block the other frequency.

> The tower isn't going to do that.

Maybe your tower won't do that.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> It doesn't block the other frequency.
>

It only broadcasts on one frequency.


>
> Maybe your tower won't do that.
>

No tower will.

[Jose]

> It only broadcasts on one frequency.

Right. The stuck mike is on ground, monitored by the co-pilot operating
split. The other radio is on tower, monitored by the pilot.

Happened at DXR.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Right. The stuck mike is on ground, monitored by the co-pilot operating
> split. The other radio is on tower, monitored by the pilot.
>

Now you're catching on.


>
> Happened at DXR.
>

Perhaps, but DXR tower didn't tell everyone to turn off all their radios.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> While the ultimate responsibility for complying with FARs lies with
> the PIC, it is my understanding that ATC is mandated by FAAO 7110.65*
> to coordinate transit into/through the airspace of other facilities.
>

Radar controllers are required to coordinate with the control tower for
transit authorization when providing radar traffic advisory service to an
aircraft that will enter a Class D surface area. That's not the situation
here.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think what Antoñio was asking for was a regulation to support the notion
> that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because compliance
> would violate the FARs. That is, what regulation says that other
> regulations take precedence over 91.123b (which requires compliance with
> ATC instructions, except if there's an emergency need to deviate)? As far
> as I can tell, there's no such regulation (although AIM 4-4-1a,b and
> 4-4-6c are at least tangentially relevant).
>

From FAA Order 7110.65:

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

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-1

[Jose]

> Perhaps, but DXR tower didn't tell everyone to turn off all their radios.

No, just the offending aircraft.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> No, just the offending aircraft.
>

Not that either.

[Jose]

> Not that either.

You were there? I was.

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

[Rob]

Anto=F1io wrote:
> So would you say that if one were in the pattern that it would imply
> the same responsibilities of ATC as if I were on, say, flight
> following?

Absolutely not. "Flight Following" is a colloquial term for "VFR radar
traffic advisory service". Many towered Class D airports don't have
radar.

-R

[Antoñio]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I think what Anto=F1io was asking for was a regulation to support the n=
otion
> > that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because complia=
nce
> > would violate the FARs.
>
> Maybe that's what he meant.
> Fortunately, all of the above is moot. In this particular instance, the
> controller gave no instruction that would have forced a violation of the
> FARs.


Not so Pete... The controller told me to "follow the Arrow" . To do so
*safely* (in my opinion) required I extend the downwind leg right into
class B.

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Anto=F1io" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > So would you say that if one were in the pattern that it would imply
> > the same responsibilities of ATC as if I were on, say, flight
> > following?
>
> As Gary points out, whether or not ATC is coordinating transit through ot=
her
> airspace, you still need the clearance. Beyond that, since flight into t=
he
> Class B isn't necessary for operating at KBFI, there would be no need for
> ATC to coordinate transit through the Class B, and thus you would have no
> expectation that they would.
>
> Pete

You mean flight into class B for landing at BFI is not *normally*
required. In this particular case I maintain it was for safe
separation.

Given the above is true, how do you think AIM 3-2-1d figures in? ...

"d.VFR requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure
that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to
entry into class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains
this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR
Part 91)"

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Gary Drescher wrote:


> I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a pilot
> conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying with the
> other FARs. That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car,
> for example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
> laws that would otherwise hold (even though there are other, implicit
> exceptions of the sort you mentioned; e.g. if you're instructed to stop your
> car ten feet above the pavement, you presumably can't be penalized for
> failing to comply).
>
> --Gary

Well said and exactly my dilema which, as yet, is unresolved.

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
> instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
> The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

So would you reason that I was not required to "follow the Arrow" on
the 2 mile final because the controller was, by implication, causing me
to "waive laws"
(bust B airspace)?

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> I think what Anto=F1io was asking for was a regulation to support the not=
ion
> that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because compliance
> would violate the FARs. That is, what regulation says that other
> regulations take precedence over 91.123b (which requires compliance with =
ATC
> instructions, except if there's an emergency need to deviate)? As far as I
> can tell, there's no such regulation (although AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c are
> at least tangentially relevant).
>
> --Gary

Exactly. However, AIM 3-2-1d is somewhat disquieting...

"d.VFR requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure
that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to
entry into class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains
this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR
Part 91)"

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Gary Drescher wrote:


> If you want an official opinion on this question, you can email your local
> FSDO.


Good idea. I will do so and report back here.

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> > I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?
> >
>
> That you fly a proper pattern?


Define what the "proper pattern" would have been in this case please.

Antonio

[Antoñio]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On 28 May 2005 18:00:43 -0700, Anto=F1io wrote:
>
> >> No clearance, no entry.
> >
> > Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
> > plan.
>
> Incorrect Antonio.
>
> As soon as you receive your IFR clearance, you are cleared into Bravo. A=
TC
> makes room for your entry based on your IFR flight plan.
>
> The beauty of IFR is that all airspace becomes "transparent" as you are
> cleared from wheels up to wheels down.
>
> Allen

Yes. I believe you may have misunderstood me. I was stating that a
clearance through all airspace comes automatically on IFR flight plans
and using it as an analolgy to explain my point.=20

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> I instructed at BFI for twenty years...and I was never concerned that I
> would bust the Class B when doing left traffic to 31L. If you fly at 800
> feet, stay over the Duwamish, and turn before you get to 405, there is
> nothing to be worried about.

I will remember that and the instructions Peter gave me for the future.
Thanks!

Antonio

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So would you reason that I was not required to "follow the Arrow" on
> the 2 mile final because the controller was, by implication, causing me
> to "waive laws"
> (bust B airspace)?

I'm not really sure how many times you have to be told that the instruction
to follow the Arrow in no way required you to fly through the Class B
airspace.

Until you understand that this is the case, any further attempt to enlighten
you is likely futile.

But even if your mistaken impression that the instruction required you to
fly through Class B airspace was correct, the answer to your question would
still be "yes, you were not required to 'follow the Arrow'". It's very
simple: you say to the controller "unable", you explain why, and then you
either negotiate an alternative course of action (if there is time) or you
maneuver to avoid whatever is the problem (the Class B airspace in this
case).

You need to get over your mistaken idea that you handled the situation
perfectly, and start learning about what you could have done differently.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> It's not unreasonable. I've been told to turn off mode C, and if the
> radio is causing interference (a stuck mike comes to mind) it's a
> reasonable request.

A person with a stuck mic cannot hear anyone tell them to turn off the
radio.

In any case, my hypothetical situation assumes the radios are working
properly. There's no need for you to introduce new elements to the
situation. It's just one example of many situations in which an instruction
from ATC would be unreasonable, and there would be no penalty for refusing
to comply.

> But if ATC says "follow the Arrow" and the Arrow then proceeds to crash
> into a mountainside, I don't think you'd be cited for disobeying the
> controller if you choose not to customize your aircraft the same way.

I don't think so either.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Not so Pete... The controller told me to "follow the Arrow" . To do so
> *safely* (in my opinion) required I extend the downwind leg right into
> class B.

I'm going to repeat this every time you insist on making that FALSE
STATEMENT:

Extending the downwind leg DID NOT require you to fly through the Class B
airspace.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yes. I believe you may have misunderstood me. I was stating that a
> clearance through all airspace comes automatically on IFR flight plans
> and using it as an analolgy to explain my point.

I said "no clearance, no entry". You said "Not Not necessarilly [sic] true
in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan." At least two people
pointed out to you that the IFR clearance *is* a clearance (that's why the
word "clearance" is used to describe an IFR clearance).

If you are IFR and your clearance does not stipulate a route through the
Class B airspace, you are still not authorized into the Class B. If you are
IFR and your clearance does stipulate a route through the Class B airspace,
you ARE authorized into the Class B, and the IFR clearance that so
stipulated is the clearance that allowed that.

In other words, no clearance, no entry. Being IFR doesn't get you out of
having to have a clearance into the Class B.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You mean flight into class B for landing at BFI is not *normally*
> required. In this particular case I maintain it was for safe
> separation.

Extending the downwind leg DID NOT require you to fly through the Class B
airspace.

> Given the above is true, how do you think AIM 3-2-1d figures in? ...

It's not true. Regardless, AIM 3-2-1d serves as a reminder that whatever
you thought that the Class D controller's instructions told you to do, you
are required to ensure that you meet the requirements for entry into the
Class B airspace before doing so.

Pete

[Antoñio]

Peter Duniho wrote:









> > And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should
> > deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was
> > told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of
> > this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind.
>
> You would need to deviate in order to avoid violating 91.131(a)(1). An
> instruction from ATC is not a free pass to violate the FARs.

An instruction from ATC is often a free pass to deviate from the FAR's.
I was allowed deviation from a FAR last week in my J-3 when I entered
the mode C veil of Seatack.


> > I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me?
>
> They can (and do) ask that as pilot in command you take final authority for
> the safety and legality of your flight. FAR 91.3

Which I did by extending my downwind.

> > You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn
> > upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly
> > told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the
> > situation.
>
> First of all, the deviations are purely hypothetical. There was no reason
> to enter the Class B in this particular instance, so for you to get hung up
> over alternative methods of avoiding the Class B is a bit disingenuous.

They were your offerings Pete. I simply responded to them. Surely by
your own extreme solutions to the problem you can see that it was not
easy.

> Secondly, I find it mind-boggling that you would rather fly into airspace
> protected specifically for the purpose of keeping you away from airliners
> landing at Sea-Tac airport, than to take the lesser risk and negotiate your
> way around the Class D airspace. None of the maneuvers I speak of are
> particularly dangerous, certainly not compared to flying through the final
> approach of an airliner.

I was only about 1/2 mile off the end of the abeam point on the runway.
The airspace is tight there and requires a better knowledge of the
ground references than my GPS provided. I agree that in the future I
should have some other solution to the problem.

> The mandate to stay out of Class B airspace is not simply regulatory. It is
> there for a reason: to keep you from being running over by airliners. For
> you to complain about potential safety hazards when avoiding Class B
> airspace as a justification for flying through Class B airspace without a
> clearance is just plain dumb.

You think it's dumb to "complain" about the possibility of being
maneuvered by ATC to a position that does not provide enough separation
for safety just in order to avoid the clipping of a corner of B
airspace? I'll take the busted B over a busted ass any day.

> > Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you
> > decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing !
>
> I'm guessing that if I ever did, you wouldn't even notice. There's a lot
> more room up there, even at Boeing Field, than you apparently think.

I got a buck that says this happens everyday there. In fact, it
happened to a friend of mine about 9 years ago in his 210.

> > I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these
> > maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in
> > congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate
> > your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call
> > you up and ask, "What are you doing?".
>
> I have spent plenty of time in the pattern at Boeing Field. Yes, it's a
> busy airport. But there is still LOTS of room in the air. I have had
> several go-arounds caused by a variety of reasons, and there's lots of room
> above the airport to maneuver safely.

Above the airport, yes. Not to the south end though...which is where I
was.
But I hear you and will consider other options in the future.


> > Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the
> > runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about
> > 30 seconds.
>
> Assuming airspeed of 90 knots, that puts you in the Class B airspace only
> 3/4 mile from the runway end. The only way for that to happen is for you be
> on a VERY wide downwind.

I could have been a bit wide. I don't know the area well enough to say
for sure. However, the airspace is close to the end of the runway.

> > You would never have been able to do that this particular day without
> > stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow.
>
> The difficulty in reporting your actions to ATC should not cause you fail to
> take appropriate actions. "Aviate, navigate, communicate". There's a
> reason the radio is the last item in that list.

That formula is non-regulatory and presumes one has the time and
ability to communicate. It just doesn't realistically work in all
cases. I think I took appropriate actions. ATC obviously thinks it was
OK because they didn't ask me to call them. Nobody, to my knowledge,
was jepordized by my actions. And finally, I am attempting to refine my
thinking process on the matter by laying myself out here for anyone to
attack me. What more do you expect?


> If you are not uncomfortable flying in tight quarters, then you should have
> no trouble at all flying a downwind that doesn't take you into the Class B.
> So, which is it? Are you comfortable flying in tight quarters, or was it
> impossible for you to avoid the Class B while obeying the ATC instruction to
> extend your downwind? Only one of those two possibilities can be true.

Errr...no. There are situations where either/or thinking does not apply
to the reality of the situation. I am (both) not uncomfortable flying
in tight quarters AND it was not possible without unusual maneuvering
for me to avoid getting too close to B. (I am still not sure if I
actually busted it.)

BTW...ATC never told me to extend my downwind. The downwind was
extended by virtue of the fact that the aircraft I was told to follow
was way out there.

> My comment about flying tight quarters is based simply on observed facts.

Your "facts" are not my facts in all cases.

> If you find it condescending (see below), that's your problem.

Actually, it's your problem, though I doubt you recognize it as such.

I didn't
> even say that you ARE uncomfortable, just that if you are (and thus
> explaining why we are even having this thread in the first place), you could
> seek more training.

Ah yes. Sorry, I misread that "if" clause.

> > Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your
> > posting style.

> As long as we're criticizing each other for personality defects, you should
> probably review the five hazardous attitudes. "Anti-authority" in
> particular. You are so convinced that you have every right to bust the
> Class B, that you refuse to listen to someone trying to explain to you that
> there was no reason to bust the Class B in the first place, nor that you
> have the right to just go around violating the FARs at a whim.

Oh dear. Is that what you think I am displaying here? I thought I was
asking for clarification of the regs and suggestions from fellow pilots
as to their opinions. I often play devils advocate to illicit a lively
discussion but "anti authority"? Ah well....perhaps it's just your
projection. ;-)

Pete, please don't misunderstand me. I value your opinions highly as
with others here that I sometimes challenge. I believe a little
adversity sometimes brings out the best in us. This topic is a prime
example--I have learned a great deal.

Watch for the 360 and hammerhead to final in the BFI pattern during
coming months. ;-)

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Did your instructor teach you slow flight? Slowing down and hanging out some
> flaps would have given the Arrow plenty of room without your having to
> extend your downwind. That's one of the reasons maneuvering at minimum
> allowable airspeed is taught.

Slow flight would have been good had there been time. I was abeam the
end of the runway when cleared to follow the Arrow. I was in B airspace
(so it seems) around 20 seconds later.

> BTW, the provision in the 7110.65 requiring controllers to coordinate
> airspace transits applies to controllers who are providing radar services.
> Somehow, I don't think that the BFI controller was providing radar services.

BFI has radar and is separating me from other traffic, right? That is
not technically "radar service"?

> Bob Gardner

[Antoñio]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> It's not true. Regardless, AIM 3-2-1d serves as a reminder that whatever
> you thought that the Class D controller's instructions told you to do, you
> are required to ensure that you meet the requirements for entry into the
> Class B airspace before doing so.
>
> Pete

How could I have done that in this case?

Antonio

[Antoñio]

BTIZ wrote:
> File what used to be NASA reports.. state what happened.. admit no guilt..
>
> and if the tower did not say "call the tower when landing".. then you may
> have gotten a pass on this one..
>
> BT


Bottom line is I think I got a "pass" because it happens all the time
at this airport. It is not even clear whether or not I actually busted
the bravo. I just thought it would make for interesting discussion.

I will file the 207 just for insurance.

Thanks!

Antonio

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> An instruction from ATC is often a free pass to deviate from the FAR's.
> I was allowed deviation from a FAR last week in my J-3 when I entered
> the mode C veil of Seatack.

No you weren't. You *complied* with the FAR that reads, in part, "Unless
otherwise authorized or directed by ATC". That's assuming the J-3 was
originally certified with an engine-driven electrical system (I don't recall
if that's the case or not). If it wasn't, you *complied* with the part that
exempts such aircraft from that regulation.

Either way, ATC didn't allow any deviation from any FAR by permitting you to
enter the Mode C Veil of Sea-Tac.

>> They can (and do) ask that as pilot in command you take final authority
>> for
>> the safety and legality of your flight. FAR 91.3
>
> Which I did by extending my downwind.

If you deem it necessary for the safety of the flight to fly into airspace
for which you were not authorized, it's true that you ought to do that as
PIC. However, a) you need to declare an emergency to do so (even if it's
under your breath, to be reported to ATC later), and b) if the FAA asks you
for an explanation, you have to give one. If they don't like your
explanation, they may cite you for a violation of the regulations.

> [...]
> I was only about 1/2 mile off the end of the abeam point on the runway.
> The airspace is tight there and requires a better knowledge of the
> ground references than my GPS provided. I agree that in the future I
> should have some other solution to the problem.

Funny, you didn't mention the use of a GPS earlier. I will take this
opportunity to point out that flying in the pattern of an airport with such
a complex is a perfect example of when to NOT be relying on a GPS, and to
become familiar with the ground references PRIOR to the flight.

That said, assuming your GPS was performing correctly, it should have
provided you with all the information you required in order to fly the
downwind as far as you liked, without touching the Class B airspace. Even
assuming a worst-case scenario of 300' off (and GPS is usually much better
than that, especially when airborne), the half-mile plus space between the
extended centerline and the Class B airspace still leaves you with over
2000' of room between you and any traffic on final.

> You think it's dumb to "complain" about the possibility of being
> maneuvered by ATC to a position that does not provide enough separation
> for safety just in order to avoid the clipping of a corner of B
> airspace? I'll take the busted B over a busted ass any day.

Even though busting the Class B puts you directly in line with the airliners
on final approach? A collision is undesirable, whether it happens in Class
B or Class D.

And just how much separation do you require anyway? There's at least a
half-mile between the final approach course for 31L and the Class B
airspace. So, you must want more than that. How much more?

>> > Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you
>> > decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing !
>>
>> I'm guessing that if I ever did, you wouldn't even notice. There's a lot
>> more room up there, even at Boeing Field, than you apparently think.
>
> I got a buck that says this happens everyday there. In fact, it
> happened to a friend of mine about 9 years ago in his 210.

I'm a bit bewildered at your statement here. I wouldn't be surprised if
360s are used for spacing at KBFI on a daily basis. But when you try to
make a claim that it does, you hardly reinforce your assertion that doing so
would be dangerous. If it's so dangerous, and it happens so often, why
aren't there any crashes?

>> I have spent plenty of time in the pattern at Boeing Field. Yes, it's a
>> busy airport. But there is still LOTS of room in the air. I have had
>> several go-arounds caused by a variety of reasons, and there's lots of
>> room
>> above the airport to maneuver safely.
>
> Above the airport, yes. Not to the south end though...which is where I
> was.

The air is just as clear south of the airport.

> [...]
> I could have been a bit wide. I don't know the area well enough to say
> for sure. However, the airspace is close to the end of the runway.

I agree the Class B is unusually close at KBFI. But that doesn't mean that
a downwind leg, even an extended one, requires flight through the Class B
airspace. It just means you need to be on top of your game when you fly
there.

>> The difficulty in reporting your actions to ATC should not cause you fail
>> to
>> take appropriate actions. "Aviate, navigate, communicate". There's a
>> reason the radio is the last item in that list.
>
> That formula is non-regulatory and presumes one has the time and
> ability to communicate.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it specifically instructs you to prioritize, and
to not communicate at all until you've addressed your aviation and
navigation. That is, it presumes that one may NOT have the time and ability
to communicate.

It's true that it's non-regulatory, but it's also true that it's a
well-understood mantra, and no pilot has ever been busted for flying the
airplane first, and working the radio second.

> It just doesn't realistically work in all cases.

I haven't seen or heard of a situation in which it doesn't work.
Nevertheless, even if there is such a situation, this wasn't one of them.

> I think I took appropriate actions. ATC obviously thinks it was
> OK because they didn't ask me to call them.

It does seem so, yes. Though, you never really told us what "appropriate
actions" you took. It sounds as though you didn't really do anything other
than just continue to fly your downwind (and presumably turn around and land
at some point). Whatever you did, I'd agree it seems that ATC wasn't
concerned (other than to make whatever comment they made on the radio, but
since you didn't hear that clearly and didn't tell ATC you didn't hear that
clearly, we don't really know what that comment was).

> Nobody, to my knowledge, was jepordized by my actions.

It does seem so, yes. Though, you might consider your own pilot certificate
in assessing whether anyone was jepoardized. It doesn't sound as though any
metal got close to running into any other metal, but flying through the
Class B without a clearance isn't good for the safety of that piece of paper
you've got (or maybe you have the plastic one).

> And finally, I am attempting to refine my
> thinking process on the matter by laying myself out here for anyone to
> attack me. What more do you expect?

I expect for you to acknowledge the information provided, rather than to
insist that you already know the answer. In particular, when someone tells
you that flying an extended downwind leg there doesn't require you to fly
through the Class B airspace, you ought to seriously consider listening to
that statement. When a second person says the exact same thing, you might
start thinking there might be something to it.

No one has attacked you, by the way. But every time you make a false
statement, you prompt someone else to correct that false statement. That's
how it works around here.

> Errr...no. There are situations where either/or thinking does not apply
> to the reality of the situation. I am (both) not uncomfortable flying
> in tight quarters AND it was not possible without unusual maneuvering
> for me to avoid getting too close to B. (I am still not sure if I
> actually busted it.)

There you go again, with the false statements. No unusual maneuvering was
required for you to avoid the Class B. Or, if you prefer, no maneuvering
that would be considered unusual by someone comfortable flying in tight
quarters was required. There is a LOT of room, relative to the size of even
the largest airplane, between the final approach course for 31L and the
Class B airspace.

> BTW...ATC never told me to extend my downwind. The downwind was
> extended by virtue of the fact that the aircraft I was told to follow
> was way out there.

Red herring. You were given an instruction that required you to extend your
downwind. There's no difference between that and an explicit instruction to
extend your downwind.

>> My comment about flying tight quarters is based simply on observed facts.
>
> Your "facts" are not my facts in all cases.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but we're not really concerned with "all
cases" here. We're concerned with THIS case.

Fact #1: there is over a half mile between the final approach course of 31L
and the Class B airspace

Fact #2: a pilot comfortable flying in tight quarters can easily negotiate a
corridor over half a mile wide, using appropriate references (GPS or ground,
doesn't matter).

Fact #3: a pilot who believes it impossible to fly an extended downwind
between the final approach course of 31L at KBFI and the Class B airspace
nearby must not be comfortable flying in tight quarters.

Where you fall in the above facts, I'll let you say. The conclusion remains
however: it is not possible to be both comfortable flying in tight quarters,
and yet not be able to extend one's left downwind to 31L at KBFI. The two
are mututally exclusive of each other.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Slow flight would have been good had there been time. I was abeam the
> end of the runway when cleared to follow the Arrow. I was in B airspace
> (so it seems) around 20 seconds later.

Where you aware, abeam the numbers, that you were approaching the Class B
airspace? If so, why not just slow down when abeam the numbers? It doesn't
take 20 seconds (or 30, which is what you wrote before) to slow an airplane
down, and of course as you are slowing, you get more time.

> BFI has radar and is separating me from other traffic, right? That is
> not technically "radar service"?

KBFI, as is the case at many Class D airports, has a radar display. In
almost all cases (and as far as I know, this includes KBFI), the tower
controller uses this strictly for informational purposes. They aren't
providing radar services, nor do they provide separation any more than any
tower without a radar display would (that is, they basically don't, even
though it may sound like they are sometimes).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> How could I have done that in this case?

You could ask the Class D controller to obtain a clearance for you, though
given how busy you say the airport was at that time, I doubt he would have.
You could have contacted the Class B approach controller yourself to obtain
the clearance.

The fact that neither of those methods would have been very practical at
that point in time is immaterial. They still remain the only options for
obtaining the required clearance.

However, the question is moot, since you did not need to enter the Class B
airspace, and thus did not need to obtain a clearance to do so.

Pete

[Happy Dog]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> It's not unreasonable. I've been told to turn off mode C, and if the
>> radio is causing interference (a stuck mike comes to mind) it's a
>> reasonable request.
>>
>
> If your mike is stuck you're not going to hear a request to turn off your
> radio.

Mike, many planes have more than one radio these days.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message \> "Jose"
> wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> It doesn't block the other frequency.
>>
>
> It only broadcasts on one frequency.
>
>
>>
>> Maybe your tower won't do that.
>>
>
> No tower will.

They often broadcast on ground and tower frequencies simultaneously.

moo

[Greg Farris]

In article et>,
says...

>
>Without the tapes they can't prove you violated an instruction.
>
Sure they can. It's the Bravo tower that will write you up for violating
their airspace. In this case, it becomes "convenient" for them to not be
able to locate the tapes from the Delta tower you were talking to. His
tapes could vindicate you, if you were acting under the assumption the
two are in communication with each other, or at least you were following
ATC instructions. If these tapes are "unavailable", then you just strayed
into calss B, with no justificfation or defense.

G Faris

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a
>> pilot
>> conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying with
>> the
>> other FARs. That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a
>> car,
>> for example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
>> laws that would otherwise hold (even though there are other, implicit
>> exceptions of the sort you mentioned; e.g. if you're instructed to stop
>> your
>> car ten feet above the pavement, you presumably can't be penalized for
>> failing to comply).
>>
>> --Gary
>
> Well said and exactly my dilema which, as yet, is unresolved.

Hm, I'm not sure why it's still unresolved.

Even though the AIM does not set forth regulations as such, it is
nonetheless an official document that the FAA expects pilots to be familiar
with as an advisory about best practices. AIM 4-4-1a says:

"An ATC clearance... IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY
RULE, REGULATION, OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE." (capitalization in the original)

And AIM 4-4-1b says:

"If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule
or regulation... IT IS THE PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REQUEST AN AMENDED
CLEARANCE." (capitalization in the original)

Admittedly, these passages only talk about clearances, not instructions more
generally. But it would make no sense for other instructions to override the
FARs if a clearance--which is an especially formal kind of instruction--does
not. (I'm not addressing emergency instructions here, since it goes without
saying that emergencies take precedence over everything.)

Although I'd be happier if the statement that the FARs override clearances
were in the FARs rather than just the AIM, it still strikes me that these
passages in the AIM resolve the question without ambiguity. Can you explain
why you think otherwise?

Thanks,
Gary

[A Lieberman]

On 29 May 2005 00:11:05 -0700, Antoñio wrote:

> Slow flight would have been good had there been time. I was abeam the
> end of the runway when cleared to follow the Arrow. I was in B airspace
> (so it seems) around 20 seconds later.

Antonio,

Sounds to me, you may need to assess your own flying. Based on your
statement above, sounds to me, that you were 20 seconds behind the airplane
rather then ahead of the plane.

FOR ME, by the time I am abeam the numbers, unless I am asked to keep my
speed up, I am at my final approach speed of 70 knots in my Sundowner.

This allows for a shorter final at this speed and I am taking a lot less
real estate in my pattern.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> You were there?
>

I didn't have to be.


>
> I was.
>

You didn't understand what was happening.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Not so Pete... The controller told me to "follow the Arrow" . To do so
> *safely* (in my opinion) required I extend the downwind leg right into
> class B.
>

But to do *safely* (in fact) probably didn't require you to extend the
downwind leg right into Class B airspace. Where were you on the downwind
when the instruction to follow the Arrow was issued and what were you
flying?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> You mean flight into class B for landing at BFI is not *normally*
> required. In this particular case I maintain it was for safe
> separation.
>

You can maintain that if you like, but that doesn't make it so. All it does
is cause others to question your knowledge and abilities.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> An instruction from ATC is often a free pass to deviate from the FAR's.
> I was allowed deviation from a FAR last week in my J-3 when I entered
> the mode C veil of Seatack.
>

What was the instruction that allowed you to enter the Mode C veil? Does
your J3 have an engine-driven electrical system?


>
> BTW...ATC never told me to extend my downwind. The downwind was
> extended by virtue of the fact that the aircraft I was told to follow
> was way out there.
>

You said it was on a two-mile final. It appears there was plenty of room to
follow the Arrow and avoid Class B if you had flown a proper pattern.

[Arketip]

A Lieberman wrote:


>
> FOR ME, by the time I am abeam the numbers, unless I am asked to keep my
> speed up, I am at my final approach speed of 70 knots in my Sundowner.
>

And everybody behind has to slow down too or extend downwind if flying a
faster aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Slow flight would have been good had there been time. I was abeam the
> end of the runway when cleared to follow the Arrow. I was in B airspace
> (so it seems) around 20 seconds later.
>

What were you flying?


>
> BFI has radar and is separating me from other traffic, right? That is
> not technically "radar service"?
>

BFI probably has a BRITE scope but they're providing separation only on the
runway. VFR aircraft are provided no separation while airborne in Class D
airspace.

[Jose]

> An instruction from ATC is often a free pass to deviate from the FAR's.
> I was allowed deviation from a FAR last week in my J-3 when I entered
> the mode C veil of Seatack.

Many of the rules say "unless authorized by the administrator, no person
may..." and an instruction from ATC =is= such an authorization. So it's
within the rules.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mike, many planes have more than one radio these days.
>

A stuck mike blocks all radios tuned to that frequency.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
>
> They often broadcast on ground and tower frequencies simultaneously.
>

And sometimes clearance delivery as well, but they're still not going to
tell pilots to turn off all their radios.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure they can. It's the Bravo tower that will write you up for violating
> their airspace.
>

What instruction is violated in that case?


>
> In this case, it becomes "convenient" for them to not be
> able to locate the tapes from the Delta tower you were talking to. His
> tapes could vindicate you, if you were acting under the assumption the
> two are in communication with each other, or at least you were following
> ATC instructions. If these tapes are "unavailable", then you just strayed
> into calss B, with no justificfation or defense.
>

If you followed a tower instruction that caused you to enter Class B
airspace then you busted the regulation requiring a clearance to enter Class
B airspace and the tapes will not show that you violated the tower's
instruction. The condition of the tower tapes in that case is irrelevant.

If you violated a tower instruction in order to avoid Class B airspace then
the tapes may prove that you violated an ATC instruction. If that's the
case and the tower tapes are lost or damaged then there's no hard proof that
you violated the tower's instruction.

It's a moot point in any case since ATC does not expect you to follow an
instruction that would require you to violate an FAR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Define what the "proper pattern" would have been in this case please.
>

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-3

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Many of the rules say "unless authorized by the administrator, no person
> may..." and an instruction from ATC =is= such an authorization. So it's
> within the rules.
>

Negative. "Administrator" means the Federal Aviation Administrator or any
person to whom he has delegated his authority in the matter concerned. If
"Administrator" included "ATC" then there wouldn't be any need to
differentiate between them and we'd have no rules that included "Unless
otherwise authorized or required by ATC".

[BTIZ]

used to be.. that all ATC facilities had to keep "tapes" and paper records
for 30days..
after that they could be reused.. if they wait more than 30days to file a
complaint..
I would think they don't have a case.

BT

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> says...
>
>>
>>Without the tapes they can't prove you violated an instruction.
>>
> Sure they can. It's the Bravo tower that will write you up for violating
> their airspace. In this case, it becomes "convenient" for them to not be
> able to locate the tapes from the Delta tower you were talking to. His
> tapes could vindicate you, if you were acting under the assumption the
> two are in communication with each other, or at least you were following
> ATC instructions. If these tapes are "unavailable", then you just strayed
> into calss B, with no justificfation or defense.
>
> G Faris
>

[BTIZ]

Antonio.. if the ATC has not violated you.. do not have an issue to
resolve..

BT

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a
>> pilot
>> conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying with
>> the
>> other FARs. That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a
>> car,
>> for example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
>> laws that would otherwise hold (even though there are other, implicit
>> exceptions of the sort you mentioned; e.g. if you're instructed to stop
>> your
>> car ten feet above the pavement, you presumably can't be penalized for
>> failing to comply).
>>
>> --Gary
>
> Well said and exactly my dilema which, as yet, is unresolved.
>
> Antonio
>

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:24:20 +0000, Arketip wrote:

> And everybody behind has to slow down too or extend downwind if flying a
> faster aircraft.

True, but by the time I turn base to final, I am only a 1/4 mile from the
end of the runway using the slower speed. If I go faster, my plane doesn't
like to slow down, and I end up remaining in the pattern a longer period of
time needing additional real estate to slow down.

A faster plane most likely would have to work a wider and longer pattern
then me anyway.

If that faster plane behind me keeps appropriate spacing behind me, since I
am using much less real estate in the pattern with my slower speed, by the
time I have landed, and cleared the active, he should be on final.

And most importantly, I am not going to compromise my safety to clear the
pattern sooner.

Again, if I was on an ILS, and asked to keep my speed up, no problem since
it's a straight in approach and I do want to be courteous within my safety
limits. I have done ILS approaches at 110 knots which is only 10 knots
below my cruise speed, but I do also have a very long runway to bleed off
that speed. If I felt unsafe, then I would say to the controller unable
even if it meant I had to break off the approach per controller
instructions.

For standard pattern work at an uncontrolled airport, I will not go faster
then 70 knots abeam the numbers. I work hard to get the plane hands off
stabilized before turning base and I am not going to change my
configuration to accommodate a faster plane behind me.

Allen

[Rob]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > You mean flight into class B for landing at BFI is not *normally*
> > required. In this particular case I maintain it was for safe
> > separation.
>
> You can maintain that if you like, but that doesn't make it so. All it does
> is cause others to question your knowledge and abilities.

Exactly. Antonio, dude... I got out the chart and drew a line parallel
to the runway and just touching the corner of the surface area of the
class bravo. It's well over a nautical mile from the runway
centerline. If you stay inside of a mile away from the runway and fly
the appropriate downwind heading, parallel to the runway and at pattern
altitude, you'll never touch the bravo. Pete has tried to say that
about a dozen times.

In my opinion (and I suspect most others), flying downwind over a mile
from the runway it too far out even if there isn't a potential class
bravo incursion/pilot deviation waiting for you just outside that
distance. My main reasoning is twofold: I'd like to be where others
might reasonably expect to find me, and I'd like to be sure I'm within
glide range of the runway in the event of an engine failure.

-R

[Arketip]

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:24:20 +0000, Arketip wrote:
>
>
>>And everybody behind has to slow down too or extend downwind if flying a
>>faster aircraft.
>
>
> True, but by the time I turn base to final, I am only a 1/4 mile from the
> end of the runway using the slower speed. If I go faster, my plane doesn't
> like to slow down, and I end up remaining in the pattern a longer period of
> time needing additional real estate to slow down.
>
> A faster plane most likely would have to work a wider and longer pattern
> then me anyway.
>
> If that faster plane behind me keeps appropriate spacing behind me, since I
> am using much less real estate in the pattern with my slower speed, by the
> time I have landed, and cleared the active, he should be on final.
>
> And most importantly, I am not going to compromise my safety to clear the
> pattern sooner.
>
> Again, if I was on an ILS, and asked to keep my speed up, no problem since
> it's a straight in approach and I do want to be courteous within my safety
> limits. I have done ILS approaches at 110 knots which is only 10 knots
> below my cruise speed, but I do also have a very long runway to bleed off
> that speed. If I felt unsafe, then I would say to the controller unable
> even if it meant I had to break off the approach per controller
> instructions.
>
> For standard pattern work at an uncontrolled airport, I will not go faster
> then 70 knots abeam the numbers. I work hard to get the plane hands off
> stabilized before turning base and I am not going to change my
> configuration to accommodate a faster plane behind me.
>
> Allen

Good enough for me!

[Matt]

Proper phrasology for airspace violation:

N123 posible aircraft deviation suggest you call XYZ Tower/Aproach/etc
at xxx-xxx-xxxx

if your talking to the tower and didnt here this you arent going to
get busted. If controller 'A' is controlling you and they advice you
to follow another aircraft visual speration has been applied. As pilot
you may navigate in a manner to 'follow' that aircraft ie extend out to
follow in.

Controller A is responsible for ensuring aircraft under his control do
not violate an adjacent controllers/facilities airspace. ie. ABC
approach, XYZ tower "pont out' (on the land lines), xx miles east N123
landing XYZ. If your aircraft went into that airspace and the
controller busted you, he would get a 'deal' as well. Which no
controller wants.

Matt

[Matt]

Oops O and ya,

Call the tower and asked to speak with a controller, then ask if there
are any special pattern procedures for avoiding the B airspace so that
you can avoid confusion in the future, if there gruff and miserable
don't let it bug you.

NASA forms are always a good idea if your unsure, plus they help make
the whole system work better by offering a risk free honest feedback
system for improvements.

If you were recieving flight folowing it still exists until you hear
radar services terminated.

[Mike W.]

"Arketip" > wrote in message
...
> A Lieberman wrote:
> > FOR ME, by the time I am abeam the numbers, unless I am asked to keep my
> > speed up, I am at my final approach speed of 70 knots in my Sundowner.

> And everybody behind has to slow down too or extend downwind if flying a
> faster aircraft.

Tough for them. It's not a race.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>
> Tough for them. It's not a race.
>

Right. You fly your pattern any way you want and to hell with everyone
else.

[Mike W.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Mike W." > wrote in message
> ...

> > Tough for them. It's not a race.

> Right. You fly your pattern any way you want and to hell with everyone
> else.
The intent is not to waste others' time or **** them off, but I'm not going
to endanger my safety for any reason. Different planes fly and land at
different speeds. Unless everyone doing touch-and-gos is flying the same
plane, with the same landing configuration, etc., somebody will eventually
have to 360 or widen the pattern or something to adjust.

[Antoñio]

Rob wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > You mean flight into class B for landing at BFI is not *normally*
> > > required. In this particular case I maintain it was for safe
> > > separation.
> >
> > You can maintain that if you like, but that doesn't make it so. All it does
> > is cause others to question your knowledge and abilities.
>
> Exactly. Antonio, dude... I got out the chart and drew a line parallel
> to the runway and just touching the corner of the surface area of the
> class bravo. It's well over a nautical mile from the runway
> centerline. If you stay inside of a mile away from the runway and fly
> the appropriate downwind heading, parallel to the runway and at pattern
> altitude, you'll never touch the bravo. Pete has tried to say that
> about a dozen times.

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

[Antoñio]

Arketip,

Interesting pseudonym ! Are you a fan of Jung?

Antonio

[Antoñio]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Anto=F1io" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > You mean flight into class B for landing at BFI is not *normally*
> > required. In this particular case I maintain it was for safe
> > separation.
> >
>
> You can maintain that if you like, but that doesn't make it so. All it d=
oes
> is cause others to question your knowledge and abilities.

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=2E 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=2E 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=2E5 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=2E 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=2E 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=2E 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=2E 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

[Peter Duniho]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> 2.5 It is quite possible to fly safely in this area and avoiding B
> airspace if one is aware of the VFR landmarks.

Phew...I was afraid you were never going to figure that out. :)

> [...] I thank you all.

You're welcome. :)

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 3. I became stubborn and positioned myself as if a lawyer defending a
> position for a client and lost the big picture.

I think most of us have done that on occasion; it's an occupational hazard
of newsgroup posting. :)

Thanks for a provocative discussion and a gracious conclusion.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> It doesn't matter who has jurisdiction if neither of them issued a
> clearance into Class B airspace.

Being told by the Class D tower controller to follow the Arrow in to land
isn't being "cleared"?

That's just bureaucratic hogwash. If the Class D controller didn't have the
jurisdiction, he shouldn't have given the instruction.

Once again, Class D is shown to be the least controlled, least useful, most
dangerous airspace in the NAS.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TiEme.20500$g66.9921@attbi_s71...
> Being told by the Class D tower controller to follow the Arrow in to land
> isn't being "cleared"?

No, it's not. Not being an actual clearance, it provides no authority to
enter the Class B.

> That's just bureaucratic hogwash.

It's a perfectly natural interpretation of the regulations, and it works
quite well in practice.

> If the Class D controller didn't have the jurisdiction, he shouldn't have
> given the instruction.

The instruction in question didn't require entry into the Class B airspace.

If it had, then yes...it would have been true that the controller shouldn't
have given the instruction, just as no controller should give any
instruction that would require the pilot to operate contrary to the FARs.

Even so, controllers are people too, and thus make mistakes, and thus every
pilot should be paying attention to the implications of any ATC instruction,
and using their PIC responsibility to ensure they don't wind up violating a
regulation (among other things) as a result of complying with the
instruction.

> Once again, Class D is shown to be the least controlled, least useful,
> most dangerous airspace in the NAS.

How so?

The way I see it, by definition Class G airspace is the least controlled.
Accident statistics will prove what's the most dangerous airspace (could be
Class D, but this thread in no way shows accident statistics).

"Least useful" is an entirely subjective description, but with all the
different kinds of airspace out there, I find it difficult to believe that
an airspace that ensures (as much as any airspace boundary can ensure
anything) only aircraft in communication with a controller are present, and
which provides for an area that a controller can use to sequence aircraft
onto and off of a runway, could wind up being the "least useful". I can
name a half-dozen Prohibited Areas, at least one area being called an
"ADIZ", and a Class E surface area, all of which I find less useful than the
KBFI Class D airspace.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TiEme.20500$g66.9921@attbi_s71...
>
> Being told by the Class D tower controller to follow the Arrow in to land
> isn't being "cleared"?
>


No, it's not, for two reasons:

1.) A clearance contains the word "cleared".

2.) Following the Arrow did not require entry of the Class B airspace.


>
> That's just bureaucratic hogwash. If the Class D controller didn't have
> the jurisdiction, he shouldn't have given the instruction.
>

You'd have a point if following the instruction required entry of the Class
B airspace. It didn't.


>
> Once again, Class D is shown to be the least controlled, least useful,
> most dangerous airspace in the NAS.
>

You want more control? Write your Congress Critters. Tell them all Class D
surface areas should be made Class C and you'll happily pay user fees to
cover the cost of the additional controllers and radar.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:12:19 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <TiEme.20500$g66.9921@attbi_s71>::

>Being told by the Class D tower controller to follow the Arrow in to land
>isn't being "cleared"?

No it's not. Being told by the Local Controller to, "Follow the
Arrow" is an instruction. ATC clearances contain the word 'cleared'
and ATC provides separation from known aircraft. Because Class D
Local Controllers are only able to provide runway clearances to VFR
aircraft, being told by the Local Controller to, "Follow the Arrow" is
an instruction, not a clearance. (Approach Control, not Local
Controllers) provide practice approach clearances to VFR aircraft, but
that's another issue.)

Just so we're all on the same page, here's the Pilot/Controller
Glossary definition for ATC Clearance:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/A.HTM#AIR%20TRAFFIC%20CLEARANCE

AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE- An authorization by air traffic control for
the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an
aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within
controlled airspace. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft may not
deviate from the provisions of a visual flight rules (VFR) or
instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic clearance except in an
emergency or unless an amended clearance has been obtained.
Additionally, the pilot may request a different clearance from
that which has been issued by air traffic control (ATC) if
information available to the pilot makes another course of action
more practicable or if aircraft equipment limitations or company
procedures forbid compliance with the clearance issued. Pilots may
also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time
a clearance is not fully understood, or considered unacceptable
because of safety of flight. Controllers should, in such instances
and to the extent of operational practicality and safety, honor
the pilot's request. 14 CFR Part 91.3(a) states: "The pilot in
command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the
final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." THE PILOT
IS RESPONSIBLE TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE if ATC issues a
clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or
regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in
jeopardy.

>That's just bureaucratic hogwash. If the Class D controller didn't have the
>jurisdiction, he shouldn't have given the instruction.

Right; Being told by the Local Controller to, "Follow the Arrow" is an
instruction, not a clearance. ATC Instructions, unlike ATC
Clearances, do not provide separation from other known aircraft to
prevent collision. Because being instructed by the Local Controller
to, "Follow the Arrow" is not a clearance, the pilot has the
discretion to navigate his aircraft as he determines appropriate
within the bounds of the instruction, including a 360 degree turn for
spacing (not recommended) if s/he feels that is the most appropriate
action to remain outside of Class B airspace in this case while
following the Arrow.

Here's the definition for ATC Instruction:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/A.HTM#ATC%20INSTRUCTIONS

ATC INSTRUCTIONS- Directives issued by air traffic control for the
purpose of requiring a pilot to take specific actions; e.g., "Turn
left heading two five zero," "Go around," "Clear the runway."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Proper phrasology for airspace violation:
>
> N123 posible aircraft deviation suggest you call XYZ Tower/Aproach/etc
> at xxx-xxx-xxxx
>
> if your talking to the tower and didnt here this you arent going to
> get busted. If controller 'A' is controlling you and they advice you
> to follow another aircraft visual speration has been applied.
>

That's true where separation is being provided, but no separation is
provided for VFR aircraft in Class D airspace.


>
> Controller A is responsible for ensuring aircraft under his control do
> not violate an adjacent controllers/facilities airspace. ie. ABC
> approach, XYZ tower "pont out' (on the land lines), xx miles east N123
> landing XYZ. If your aircraft went into that airspace and the
> controller busted you, he would get a 'deal' as well. Which no
> controller wants.
>

A "point out" is a radar function, used to transfer the radar identification
of an aircraft to another radar controller if the aircraft will or may enter
the airspace of another controller and radio communications will not be
transferred.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:TiEme.20500$g66.9921@attbi_s71...
>>
>> Being told by the Class D tower controller to follow the Arrow in to land
>> isn't being "cleared"?
>
> No, it's not, for two reasons:
>
> 1.) A clearance contains the word "cleared".

Not always. Taxi clearances don't (AIM 4-3-18a5). Also, once you've been
cleared into Class B, don't subsequent vectors or altitude assignments
constitute clearances, even though they don't say "cleared"?

If you're getting flight following and a Class B approach controller tells
you to fly a heading and altitude which would in fact take you into the
Class B, would that constitute a clearance? I've been taught it would not
(and I'd always ask the controller to confirm clearance into Class B), but I
see nothing in the FARs or the AIM that says whether or not such an
instruction (even without "cleared to") constitutes a clearance; I see
nothing there that says a clearance contains the word "cleared" (even though
I assume that's the case, except for taxi clearances and revisions to
previous clearances).

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not always. Taxi clearances don't (AIM 4-3-18a5).
>

Nor do they provide separation.


>
> Also, once you've been cleared into Class B, don't subsequent vectors or
> altitude assignments constitute clearances, even though they don't say
> "cleared"?
>

Just as they do on IFR clearances.


>
> If you're getting flight following and a Class B approach controller tells
> you to fly a heading and altitude which would in fact take you into the
> Class B, would that constitute a clearance?
>

It isn't proper for a Class B approach controller to issue a heading or
altitude to a VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> It isn't proper for a Class B approach controller to issue a heading or
> altitude to a VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace.

Ok, let's try a different scenario then. Suppose you're talking to the Class
B tower and you're just outside the Class B surface area (and below the
remaining Class B). You want to land, and the tower says "follow the Arrow
on five-mile final, runway 31". Doing so would take you into the Class B,
but the controller didn't say "cleared". Is that still a clearance into
Class B? I assume not, but I don't see anything in the FARs or the AIM
saying that a clearance (except for taxi clearances) must say "cleared"; so
I'm not certain.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, let's try a different scenario then. Suppose you're talking to the
> Class B tower and you're just outside the Class B surface area (and below
> the remaining Class B). You want to land, and the tower says "follow the
> Arrow on five-mile final, runway 31". Doing so would take you into the
> Class B, but the controller didn't say "cleared". Is that still a
> clearance into Class B? I assume not, but I don't see anything in the FARs
> or the AIM saying that a clearance (except for taxi clearances) must say
> "cleared"; so I'm not certain.
>

No, it's not a clearance, and it's not a realistic scenario. The tower
isn't going to tell you to follow anyone, the tower's going to tell you to
contact Class B Approach.

[Guillermo]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...

> If you're getting flight following and a Class B approach controller tells
> you to fly a heading and altitude which would in fact take you into the
> Class B, would that constitute a clearance? I've been taught it would not
> (and I'd always ask the controller to confirm clearance into Class B), but
I
> see nothing in the FARs or the AIM that says whether or not such an
> instruction (even without "cleared to") constitutes a clearance; I see
> nothing there that says a clearance contains the word "cleared" (even
though
> I assume that's the case, except for taxi clearances and revisions to
> previous clearances).

Sometimes I think I have been cleared through a class bravo without really
hearing the word "cleared", I think it depends on the situation, who are you
talking to, etc:

Cessna 5GT: Atlanta approach, cessna 5GT, 15 miles south of ATL, 5500 ft,
request transition on the class B to fly over ATL

ATL approach: Cessna 5GT, squawk 1234

ATL approach: Cessna 5GT, radar contact, descend and maintain 5000, fly
heading 010
(which takes me straight over ATL)

Cessna 5GT: descend to 5000, heading 010.

In this case, it is very clear that the controller is vectoring me inside
the class B airspace, and even though I did not hear the magic "clear
through class B", I assume that I am cleared to go in, beacause 1) I am
talking to the guy who is controlling the class B and 2) he issued me a
vector that takes me right through the class B, as I requested.

If I were in flight following, really close to a class bravo shelf, I'll
probably maintain away from it, or talk to approach telling him that I am
about to enter the class B if I continue with the recommended heading.

[Guillermo]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...

>
> It isn't proper for a Class B approach controller to issue a heading or
> altitude to a VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace.

Why? you could be doing fight following and he can recommend a heading for
traffic avoidance. Are they not allowed to do that?
Also, if you want to transition the class bravo, they may give you a heading
before you enter the class B so they place you somewhere where you can
transition the class bravo airspace safely. If I am coming heading towards
the approach end of a runway, they may want to vector me out towards the
center of the airport before I enter the class B.

[Antoñio]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> No, it's not a clearance, and it's not a realistic scenario. The tower
> isn't going to tell you to follow anyone, the tower's going to tell you to
> contact Class B Approach.

Sorry Stephen but it happened to me! (of all people!) I was in a C-150
(that's right) going into KSEA class Bravo. I never received the magic
words "cleared into bravo" but was given a squawk code, told only to
follow the MD80 after " I call your base".

Coming from the south the controller had me parallel the extended
centerline as the big jets landed one-after-another. Right about the
threshold the controller said, "Cessna xxxx, you may now turn your base
and follow the MD80 on short final, cleared to land runway xx, Caution
wake turbulence..." I never spoke with approach...just the tower.

Antonio

[Rob]

Guillermo wrote:
> Sometimes I think I have been cleared through a class bravo without really
> hearing the word "cleared", I think it depends on the situation, who are you
> talking to, etc:

I always listen for the words "cleared into class bravo" and repeat
them back, just to get 'em on the tape twice in case there's any
question later. If I don't hear them, I ask for verification that I am
in fact cleared into the bravo.

-R

[Dylan Smith]

In article <TiEme.20500$g66.9921@attbi_s71>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> It doesn't matter who has jurisdiction if neither of them issued a
>> clearance into Class B airspace.
>
> Being told by the Class D tower controller to follow the Arrow in to land
> isn't being "cleared"?

No - because you typically don't get any clearances at all in Class D
except for 'Cleared to land', 'Cleared for takeoff' and IFR clearances.
If he was operating under VFR, in all probability he didn't have any ATC
clearances at all.

If ATC gives you a vector and it takes you straight through a cloud (and
you are VFR) you must not follow that vector. Same thing with class B
airspace. If you are VFR and have not heard "Cleared into class bravo"
you must not enter class bravo regardless of what a controller says. You
must treat the class B exactly like getting too close to a cloud.

> That's just bureaucratic hogwash. If the Class D controller didn't have the
> jurisdiction, he shouldn't have given the instruction.

There are many instructions controllers shouldn't be giving, but that
doesn't relieve the pilot in command of the responsibility not to bust
airspace they shouldn't be busting (or fly into clouds they shouldn't be
flying in).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article . com>, Antoñio wrote:
> So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
> clearance?

Absolutely right. The ATC instruction you had did not include the phrase
"...cleared into Class Bravo" so you weren't cleared.

Treat the class B like you would a cloud. If there had been a cloud
starting exactly where the class B started and filling the entire volume
of the class B airspace, as you were (I presume) operating under VFR,
what would you have done as you approached the cloud you didn't have
an IFR clearance to enter?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Gary Drescher wrote:
> If we didn't happen to know otherwise via folklore and AIM passages, we'd
> reasonably guess that a pilot should analogously comply with an ATC
> directive to enter Class B without a clearance. The FARs don't say anything
> to the contrary.

Yes they do - they say you must not enter class B without an explicit
clearance from the controlling agency responsible for class B. A class D
tower does not trump this. The police officer analogy is a bit weak
because typically when a police officer is directing traffic through red
lights it is due to an *abnormal* traffic situation. However, a class D
controller sequencing his traffic is not, and the class D controller
(unlike the police officer) giving an instruction without "cleared into
class B" is not clearing you into class B airspace. Similarly, if a
controller instructs you to fly a course and altitude that means you
cannot land without endangering persons or property on the ground (i.e.
over a densely populated area), and your engine swallows a valve and you
crash into the roof of a house, the FAA will find you - not the
controller - at fault for accepting an instruction or clearance that
requires you to do something that is against the FARs. I noticed in the
US not much attention is paid to this - however, here, the documentation
I've read has a couple of reminders that you as pilot in command must
refuse ATC instructions that make you do something against the regs
(such as flying VFR through a cloud, or flying less than the minimum
distances to persons or property, or being in a situation that you would
not be able to 'land clear' in the event of your engine stopping).

The pilot's requirement to not violate the regs trumps any instruction
ATC might give you. The pilot being the final authority to the operation
of the aircraft trumps any instruction ATC may give you. However, it's
always nice that you tell a controller that you're 'unable'!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article . com>, Antoñio wrote:
> Not so Pete... The controller told me to "follow the Arrow" . To do so
> *safely* (in my opinion) required I extend the downwind leg right into
> class B.

If there was a cloud at the boundary of the class B, what would you have
done?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Arketip wrote:
>>
>> FOR ME, by the time I am abeam the numbers, unless I am asked to keep my
>> speed up, I am at my final approach speed of 70 knots in my Sundowner.
>
> And everybody behind has to slow down too or extend downwind if flying a
> faster aircraft.

Flying the circuit (pattern) is not an exercise in doing it in a rigidly
set way every time. You have to have situational awareness and choose
the appropriate action.

Having been in a Bonanza following a Cub, and been in a Cessna 140 being
followed by a Bonanza in the past, so long as everyone is looking and
listening it's not rocket science. If I'm being followed by faster
traffic, and I'm in a slow plane, I will make a very tight pattern so
that the following faster traffic doesn't get cramped behind me. If I'm
in a fast plane following a slow one, I'll put some flaps out and slow
down. If someone's flying a wide pattern and I'm behind, I'll slow down
so I don't have to also fly a massive pattern, however, if there's a
LearJet right behind me, I may exit the pattern to allow the jet to go
ahead and rejoin behind it.

It's always a matter of judgement what the best course of action is - no
one action is necessarily always correct.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[[email protected]]

Good practice. This is what I teach my primary students. We fly out of
KLUK, a Class D airport under the KCVG Class B shelf. Really easy to
bust B, and with a FSDO at KLUK, well...bad things tend to happen then.
I teach my students that until they hear *specifically* "cleared into
Class B", they are to assume they are not, regardless of who they are
talking to, and regardless of what instructions they are given. I tell
my students to always say "understand cleared into Bravo, 49F". If
there is *any* doubt whatsoever, then ask the controller. Situational
awareness is paramount in any circumstance, but when flying around
congested, complex airspace, it becomes even more so. And this isn't
just pedantic, or because I don't want to see my students
benched...KCVG has MD88s and 737s flying around like mosquitos...and I
have a couple of accident reports printed out for my students to hit
home the importance of being careful.

Cheers,

Cap

[Newps]

Guillermo wrote:


>
> Sometimes I think I have been cleared through a class bravo without really
> hearing the word "cleared", I think it depends on the situation, who are you
> talking to, etc:
>
> Cessna 5GT: Atlanta approach, cessna 5GT, 15 miles south of ATL, 5500 ft,
> request transition on the class B to fly over ATL
>
> ATL approach: Cessna 5GT, squawk 1234
>
> ATL approach: Cessna 5GT, radar contact, descend and maintain 5000, fly
> heading 010
> (which takes me straight over ATL)
>
> Cessna 5GT: descend to 5000, heading 010.
>
> In this case, it is very clear that the controller is vectoring me inside
> the class B airspace,

And everytime the FAA has busted a pilot for this the FAA loses. If the
approach controller gives you a vector that brings you into the class B
that is good enough.

[Rich Ahrens]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> It isn't proper for a Class B approach controller to issue a heading or
> altitude to a VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace.

And yet it happens all the time with flight following here (MSP). For
instance, a few weeks ago I was using FF returning from EAU to FCM
(Minneapolis Flying Cloud, southwest of the Cities and under the Class
B). When center handed me off to approach, I was told "Maintain VFR, fly
direct Farmington, direct Flying Cloud." No, not a heading per se, but
as good as one. And on numerous other occasions I *have* been issued a
heading that accomplished the same thing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
>
> And yet it happens all the time with flight following here (MSP). For
> instance, a few weeks ago I was using FF returning from EAU to FCM
> (Minneapolis Flying Cloud, southwest of the Cities and under the Class B).
> When center handed me off to approach, I was told "Maintain VFR, fly
> direct Farmington, direct Flying Cloud." No, not a heading per se, but as
> good as one. And on numerous other occasions I *have* been issued a
> heading that accomplished the same thing.
>

Just say no. You're operating VFR in Class E airspace, ATC has no authority
to issue a route or heading to you and no reason to do so either.

[Rich Ahrens]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>And yet it happens all the time with flight following here (MSP). For
>>instance, a few weeks ago I was using FF returning from EAU to FCM
>>(Minneapolis Flying Cloud, southwest of the Cities and under the Class B).
>>When center handed me off to approach, I was told "Maintain VFR, fly
>>direct Farmington, direct Flying Cloud." No, not a heading per se, but as
>>good as one. And on numerous other occasions I *have* been issued a
>>heading that accomplished the same thing.
>>
> Just say no. You're operating VFR in Class E airspace, ATC has no
> authority to issue a route or heading to you and no reason to do
> so either.

Of course. However, the next thing I hear will probably be "Traffic
advisories terminated, squawk 1200." Playing along isn't much of a
delay, if any, and flight following is worth it to me in that environment.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course. However, the next thing I hear will probably be "Traffic
> advisories terminated, squawk 1200." Playing along isn't much of a delay,
> if any, and flight following is worth it to me in that environment.
>

Yup.

[Guillermo]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
> Just say no. You're operating VFR in Class E airspace, ATC has no
authority
> to issue a route or heading to you and no reason to do so either.

Traffic avoidance maybe?
Isn't that one of the reasons you are requesting flight following for?

Also, a slight change of course may make his job easier.

What is the point of asking for flight following if you don't want to do
what ATC recommends?

I would agree that if you get a crazy instruction from ATC which will take
you off course by a lot, I would tell him that I don't want to fly that, but
I don't see the point of not collaborating with ATC if the instructions are
reasonable.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Guillermo" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why?
>

Because the rules don't allow it.


>
> you could be doing fight following and he can recommend a heading for
> traffic avoidance. Are they not allowed to do that?
>

Yes, headings can be suggested.


>
> Also, if you want to transition the class bravo, they may give you a
> heading before you enter the class B so they place you somewhere where you
> can
> transition the class bravo airspace safely. If I am coming heading towards
> the approach end of a runway, they may want to vector me out towards the
> center of the airport before I enter the class B.
>

Yes, they can require you to enter Class B airspace at a specific point, and
they can suggest headings to help you to do that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Guillermo" > wrote in message
...
>
> Traffic avoidance maybe?
>

ATC does not separate VFR traffic in Class E airspace.


>
> Isn't that one of the reasons you are requesting flight following for?
>

Flight following is requested for traffic advisories. ATC advises you of
observed traffic, it's up to you to avoid it. You may request a heading for
that purpose or ATC may suggest one, but ATC cannot require you to fly any
specific heading.


>
> Also, a slight change of course may make his job easier.
>

In what way?


>
> What is the point of asking for flight following if you don't want to do
> what ATC recommends?
>

One asks for flight following to assist in spotting other traffic, not to be
vectored aimlessly about the sky.


>
> I would agree that if you get a crazy instruction from ATC which will take
> you off course by a lot, I would tell him that I don't want to fly that,
> but I don't see the point of not collaborating with ATC if the
> instructions
> are reasonable.
>

What do you see as the goal of this "collaboration"?