ATC out to get us?

[mvgossman]

I have a question that I am curious about having stumped several CFIs
locally.

I'm flying from my home base, St. Cloud, Minnesota, to St. Paul
Downtown Airport. Pull out your Twin Cities sectional if you have
one... Along the way my son and I are going to do some sightseeing over
the State Fairgrounds. The MSP class B airspace is 100/70, 100/40,
100/30, 100/23, and 100/SFC. The fairgrounds are just outside the inner
surface ring. The terrain is around 1000 ft MSL and some significant
towers in the area also. I would rather stay at 2500 which would place
me inside Bravo of the 100/23 ring over the Fairgrounds. Complicating
matters are two class D areas, virtually touching, at [34] between St.
Cloud and the Fairgrounds.

So I am VFR, flying to the southeast at 5500, I speak to approach and
ask for direct to the Fairgrounds for sightseeing with clearance to
enter class B. That is denied but I am advised to continue, maintain
3000. As I get close to the class D at [34], but still under the 100/40
shelf pf course, I point out that I will need to speak to Anoka Class D
to traverse their airspace unless Approach can get me clearance. They
told me to maintain 3000 "and you'll be OK". By this I assume
they meant "no traffic in the class D area at that altitude" but I
was unsure. Having faith they were not out to get me, I complied and
remained at 3000, bored through the upper reaches of Anoka's Class D.

I was next to enter the 100/30 ring at 3000. I have always understood
that 100/30 means inclusive so I advised approach I would either need
lower or a clearance to enter Bravo. I was told "Stay at 3000 and
you'll be OK." No "cleared to enter Bravo" magic words, so I
said "how about 2800 to remain clear of Bravo?" and clearance for
this was granted.

Next I was to enter the 100/23 ring so I advised approach "In order
to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance, I'll between 2500 and
2800 and clearance to enter class Bravo over the Fairgrounds". I was
switched to the tower frequency and given clearance to enter Bravo and
advised to stay northeast of the active runways, and after a few
circles, on to STP.

So all's well that ends well, but:

1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
not know about VFR.

2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
potentially get cited? Is it conceivable that a controller would be so
sadistic as to send a place through Bravo without clearance and then
bust them?

3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?

Mitchell

St. Cloud, Minnesota

[Ron Natalie]

mvgossman wrote:
> They
> told me to maintain 3000 "and you'll be OK". By this I assume
> they meant "no traffic in the class D area at that altitude" but I
> was unsure.

Nope, it means that they have an agreement with the tower to route
traffic through that area.

> 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> not know about VFR.

Certainly. As a matter of fact, the rules specifically say it is
their responsibility to handle it. Of course, reminding them that
you're heading for another airspace never hurts as you did. Sometimes
it yields a "contact FOOBAR tower on 118.5" or whatever).
>
> 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> potentially get cited? Is it conceivable that a controller would be so
> sadistic as to send a place through Bravo without clearance and then
> bust them?

He was technically wrong, but you can claim you were at 2999 as well.
I've always found the difference between 3000 and +3000 (which they
do use in places) to be somewhat spurious.

[Jose[_1_]]

> 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> not know about VFR.

I believe so. What they do is "coordinate" with the tower under letters
of agreement that the pilot has no access to. But if they drop the
ball, it's your problem.

However, you may have been above the D when you passed over them (I
don't have the relevant chart). Check for the altitude in square corner
brackets (something like [24]) in the D ring.

> 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> potentially get cited?

You =must= hear the word "cleared" or it doesn't count. It may be that
the controller wasn't aware that exactly 3000 feet was a bust (though
2999 was not). Remember that if you are not under their control (that
is, you are VFR outside the alphabet) ATC can only advise you, not
direct you. When they said "maintain 3000 and you'll be fine" it is
advice and reassurance (which in this case would have been incorrect,
but that's why you're the pilot).

> 3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
> instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
> a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
> to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?

I don't know if there's a better way. I don't think that one is it
however. Sometimes you just can't do it (due to their traffic concerns).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steve Foley]

"mvgossman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have a question that I am curious about having stumped several CFIs
> locally.

Sounds like a great reason to file a NASA form.

[Roy Smith]

"mvgossman" > wrote:
> 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> not know about VFR.

Yes, it's standard practice, especially near the ceiling of the CDAS.

> 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> potentially get cited?

You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.
If the conversation really went on as you described it, I'd say the
controller was guilty of using some sloppy language. He should have either
said, "cleared into the class bravo", or "unable class bravo clearance".
One way or the other, you would have known exactly what he meant. I
haven't the foggiest idea what "You'll be OK" means.

Whenever in doubt, especially with a controller who is not being clear, the
way you can force a clear answer is to say, "Confirm Cessna 12345 is
cleared into the class bravo at 3000", or perhaps even, "Understand Cessna
12345 is cleared into the class bravo at 3000". That should get you an
unambiguous response.

> Is it conceivable that a controller would be so sadistic as to send a
> place through Bravo without clearance and then bust them?

Sadistic, no. But, I could certainly see a mis-understanding leading to a
bust. That's why the AIM has a glossary of specific words that have
specific meanings. If you ad-lib, you get mis-understandings.

> 3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
> instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
> a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
> to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?

There is no "implied" clearance. If you are on an IFR clearance, you've
got a clearance. Nothing implied about it.

Could you file IFR? Sure you could. But, if you wanted to do that, don't
spring any surprises on the controller. File an IFR flight plan from your
home base to your home base. For the route, put in a single waypoint, a
radial/DME from the nearest VOR. Put a comment that explains what you're
doing. I just did one in DUATS and it looks like this:

1 Type of flight plan: IFR
2 Aircraft tail number: N9003S
3 Acft type/special equip: BE35/G
4 True airspeed: 130
5 Departure point: HPN
6 Departure time: (UTC) Tue Oct 24 16:00
7 Altitude: 25
8 Route of flight: CMK270010/D00+20
9 Destination: HPN
10 Estimated time enroute: 0040
11 Remarks: SIGHTSEEING OVER FAIRGROUNDS
12 Fuel on board: 0400
13 Alternate destination(s):

I'm assuming 'the fairgrounds' would be a locally familiar landmark to ATC.

But, in all honesty, that's probably more trouble than it's worth. Just
call up VFR, tell the controller exactly what you want to do, and make sure
you get an unambiguous statement from him if you're cleared into the CBAS
or not.

If you're taking off from a towered airport, as CD to get you the class
bravo clearance before you take off. Even if they can't get you the
clearance per-se, they can generate a strip for you, get you a squawk, and
then Tracon will be expecting your handoff. Once you get in contact with
the first approach controller, he's the guy to tell what you want to do, "I
want to proceed direct to the Gopher 150 radial, 12 DME, and orbit at 3000
in that vicinity for 20 minutes".

[Newps]

mvgossman wrote:


> 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> not know about VFR.

Yes, that's their job. They are required to do that.


>
> 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> potentially get cited? Is it conceivable that a controller would be so
> sadistic as to send a place through Bravo without clearance and then
> bust them?

You were right to keep pestering them.


>
> 3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
> instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
> a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
> to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?

VFR is better.

[Maule Driver]

I would propose that there are sightseeing flights not worth taking
(and this may be one of them though I have not looked at a chart to make
an informed judgment).

I hereby recognize that we have this great freedom to fly practically
anywhere at almost any time.

I also declare that great freedom implies great responsibility. In
aviation we often call it pilot discretion.

And therefore conclude that some flights are best left undone despite
legal clearance, CAVU conditions and our irrepressible desire to view
earthly proceedings from a lofty perch.

Can I get a "amen"? (tightening chin strap)

(Fascinating post - this is not aimed at that particular situation, just
a general proclamation that might be applied to something like, the East
River part of the NYC VFR corridor)

mvgossman wrote:
> I have a question that I am curious about having stumped several CFIs
> locally.
>
> I'm flying from my home base, St. Cloud, Minnesota, to St. Paul
> Downtown Airport. Pull out your Twin Cities sectional if you have
> one... Along the way my son and I are going to do some sightseeing over
> the State Fairgrounds. The MSP class B airspace is 100/70, 100/40,
> 100/30, 100/23, and 100/SFC. The fairgrounds are just outside the inner
> surface ring. The terrain is around 1000 ft MSL and some significant
> towers in the area also. I would rather stay at 2500 which would place
> me inside Bravo of the 100/23 ring over the Fairgrounds. Complicating
> matters are two class D areas, virtually touching, at [34] between St.
> Cloud and the Fairgrounds.
>
> So I am VFR, flying to the southeast at 5500, I speak to approach and
> ask for direct to the Fairgrounds for sightseeing with clearance to
> enter class B. That is denied but I am advised to continue, maintain
> 3000. As I get close to the class D at [34], but still under the 100/40
> shelf pf course, I point out that I will need to speak to Anoka Class D
> to traverse their airspace unless Approach can get me clearance. They
> told me to maintain 3000 "and you'll be OK". By this I assume
> they meant "no traffic in the class D area at that altitude" but I
> was unsure. Having faith they were not out to get me, I complied and
> remained at 3000, bored through the upper reaches of Anoka's Class D.
>
> I was next to enter the 100/30 ring at 3000. I have always understood
> that 100/30 means inclusive so I advised approach I would either need
> lower or a clearance to enter Bravo. I was told "Stay at 3000 and
> you'll be OK." No "cleared to enter Bravo" magic words, so I
> said "how about 2800 to remain clear of Bravo?" and clearance for
> this was granted.
>
> Next I was to enter the 100/23 ring so I advised approach "In order
> to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance, I'll between 2500 and
> 2800 and clearance to enter class Bravo over the Fairgrounds". I was
> switched to the tower frequency and given clearance to enter Bravo and
> advised to stay northeast of the active runways, and after a few
> circles, on to STP.
>
> So all's well that ends well, but:
>
> 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> not know about VFR.
>
> 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> potentially get cited? Is it conceivable that a controller would be so
> sadistic as to send a place through Bravo without clearance and then
> bust them?
>
> 3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
> instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
> a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
> to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?
>
> Mitchell
>
> St. Cloud, Minnesota
>

[tjd]

mvgossman wrote:
> 3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
> instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
> a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
> to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?

I have a similar issue with trying to sightsee my house, it's under the
2500MSL (~1500AGL) ring of PIT class B and close to the SFC area. I
haven't managed to try it yet, but I did go to one of those FAA "Meet
the Controllers" things where someone asked a question about
sightseeing. The controllers said give them a call on the phone a
couple days in advance, tell them what you want to do, and they'll try
to give you some days and times when traffic should be light and they
can hopefully accommodate you. But, he added that it wasn't entirely
predictable so don't be upset if you go at the appointed time and find
out they can't handle you.

todd.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:47:13 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

> You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.

Hmm.

Yesterday, I was southbound towards CDW at 3500. I was VFR, but wanted
the LOC22 into CDW (for practice, not because it's an annoying airport to
spot at a distance {8^). The way I worded the request (more or less) was:

...requesting class B at 3500 and LOC22 circle to land

[CDW was landing 27 and it was windy enough that I wasn't going to argue
that one.]

The response was something like "both requests approved as requested" and
he then mentioned, though I forget the wording, that I'd only be at 3500
for a few more moments.

No "cleared". Yet I felt that there was sufficient clarity in the
approval of my request.

Should I drag out and send in a NASA form?

I was flying with someone else (because I was doing approaches under
foggles). We discussed whether that constituted a valid clearance. My
copilot was sure that it was fine, and I was pretty sure.

But I did mention that, just as we passed "that line" (pointing to the
class B boundary on the GPS), he was PIC.

Perhaps my friend should drag out and send in a NASA form <laugh>?

- Andrew

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:47:13 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Yesterday, I was southbound towards CDW at 3500. I was VFR, but wanted
> the LOC22 into CDW (for practice, not because it's an annoying airport to
> spot at a distance {8^). The way I worded the request (more or less) was:
>
> ...requesting class B at 3500 and LOC22 circle to land
>
> [CDW was landing 27 and it was windy enough that I wasn't going to argue
> that one.]
>
> The response was something like "both requests approved as requested" and
> he then mentioned, though I forget the wording, that I'd only be at 3500
> for a few more moments.
>
> No "cleared". Yet I felt that there was sufficient clarity in the
> approval of my request.

I'm glad you thought so. Did you think you had permission to enter the
CBAS? Were you planning on doing so? Did you?

> Should I drag out and send in a NASA form?

Depends. Do you think you violated some FAR?

What I would have done in that situation was to read back, "Understand I'm
cleared into the Class Bravo".

> I was flying with someone else (because I was doing approaches under
> foggles). We discussed whether that constituted a valid clearance. My
> copilot was sure that it was fine, and I was pretty sure.

If he didn't say the word "cleared", then it wasn't a clearance. At least
not one that I would be confident would stand up to a review of the tapes.

[Gary Drescher]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> What I would have done in that situation was to read back, "Understand I'm
> cleared into the Class Bravo".

When I'm in that situation, I prefer "Confirm cleared into Class Bravo", to
make it explicit that I'm requesting a response.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"mvgossman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I have a question that I am curious about having stumped several CFIs
> locally.
>
> I'm flying from my home base, St. Cloud, Minnesota, to St. Paul
> Downtown Airport. Pull out your Twin Cities sectional if you have
> one... Along the way my son and I are going to do some sightseeing over
> the State Fairgrounds. The MSP class B airspace is 100/70, 100/40,
> 100/30, 100/23, and 100/SFC. The fairgrounds are just outside the inner
> surface ring. The terrain is around 1000 ft MSL and some significant
> towers in the area also. I would rather stay at 2500 which would place
> me inside Bravo of the 100/23 ring over the Fairgrounds. Complicating
> matters are two class D areas, virtually touching, at [34] between St.
> Cloud and the Fairgrounds.
>
> So I am VFR, flying to the southeast at 5500, I speak to approach and
> ask for direct to the Fairgrounds for sightseeing with clearance to
> enter class B. That is denied but I am advised to continue, maintain
> 3000. As I get close to the class D at [34], but still under the 100/40
> shelf pf course, I point out that I will need to speak to Anoka Class D
> to traverse their airspace unless Approach can get me clearance. They
> told me to maintain 3000 "and you'll be OK". By this I assume
> they meant "no traffic in the class D area at that altitude" but I
> was unsure. Having faith they were not out to get me, I complied and
> remained at 3000, bored through the upper reaches of Anoka's Class D.
>
> I was next to enter the 100/30 ring at 3000. I have always understood
> that 100/30 means inclusive so I advised approach I would either need
> lower or a clearance to enter Bravo. I was told "Stay at 3000 and
> you'll be OK." No "cleared to enter Bravo" magic words, so I
> said "how about 2800 to remain clear of Bravo?" and clearance for
> this was granted.
>
> Next I was to enter the 100/23 ring so I advised approach "In order
> to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance, I'll between 2500 and
> 2800 and clearance to enter class Bravo over the Fairgrounds". I was
> switched to the tower frequency and given clearance to enter Bravo and
> advised to stay northeast of the active runways, and after a few
> circles, on to STP.
>
> So all's well that ends well, but:
>
> 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> not know about VFR.
>

There are no clearances to transit Class D airspace while VFR. If you're
receiving flight following the radar controller is required to coordinate
your transition with the tower. You are not expected to do it yourself.


>
> 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> potentially get cited? Is it conceivable that a controller would be so
> sadistic as to send a place through Bravo without clearance and then
> bust them?
>

I'd make "cleared to enter Class B airspace" part of my readback. If the
intent was to deny entry he'll have to correct the readback, if he doesn't
correct the readback I have a clearance.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The response was something like "both requests approved as requested" ...
> No "cleared". Yet I felt that there was sufficient clarity in the
> approval of my request.
>
> Should I drag out and send in a NASA form?

Yes.

I agree there was sufficient clarity. However, if the FAA is willing to
bust people who don't hear "cleared" (or is willing to allow such a
rumor to circulate unchallenged) then they have to give us the correct
wording.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I believe so. What they do is "coordinate" with the tower under letters
> of agreement that the pilot has no access to. But if they drop the ball,
> it's your problem.
>

Negative. If they drop the ball it's the radar controller's problem.


FAA Order 7110.65R

Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization
when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that
will enter another facility's airspace.

NOTE-
The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each
area when in contact with a radar facility.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.
>

Odd, then, that that phrase appears nowhere in Part 91.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.
>
> Odd, then, that that phrase appears nowhere in Part 91.

What other clearance would VFR traffic get that would allow them to enter
the Class B airspace? I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

I agree that the specific phraseology is not required. But *some* kind of
clearance is required, and that is stated in the FARs. I doubt VFR traffic
is going to get a landing clearance while still outside the Class B, and I'm
hard-pressed to think of another one that would be applicable to VFR
traffic.

Pete

[RK Henry]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:27:03 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Andrew Gideon > wrote:

>> Should I drag out and send in a NASA form?
>
>Depends. Do you think you violated some FAR?

You don't need to have violated any rules to file an ASRS report. The
idea of the system is to gather data on safety issues. Immunity is
just a bonus to encourage reports. If you think that an unsafe
condition exists, feel free to tell about it, regardless of whether
you think you're on the hook. Data submitted when you've done
everything right are just as useful as data submitted when you've
screwed up. Don't worry that the safety issue isn't serious enough,
let the NASA analysts worry about that. The report costs nothing
(well, postage), might protect you from FAA action, and might help
make the system safer. It's a win/win.

If you're worried that you need to file a NASA ASRS report, then why
not just do it and get some sleep?

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/

Has anyone tried the electronic filing yet? If so, how about a pirep?

RK Henry

[Roy Smith]

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

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.
> >
>
> Odd, then, that that phrase appears nowhere in Part 91.

You're picking nits, as you always do.

The wording in part 91 is "The operator must receive an ATC clearance from
the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an
aircraft in that area."

It does not say that you must hear the particular phrase "cleared into the
class bravo". It just says that you need "an ATC clearance". That could
be an IFR clearance ("cleared to the Gopher VOR 150 radial 12 DME fix, via
radar vectors, maintain 3000"). In response to a request for a class bravo
clearance, it could be "Cleared as requested". The real magic word is
"cleared".

The most common thing a controller will say is "cleared into the class
bravo". That's what you want to hear. Variations on the theme are OK, as
long as they include the word "cleared".

What's not OK are things like "approved as requested", "proceed", or the
wonderfully vague "You'll be OK" that the OP reports having heard. Nowhere
in Part 91 does it say, "The operator must be told that they'll be OK".

[Roy Smith]

Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> You folks can be awfully anal, sometimes.

It comes from working with an agency who's main goal in life seems to be
ramming uncomfortable objects up your ass.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:40:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote in
>:

>You folks can be awfully anal, sometimes.
>I would have gone with.........
>"Yea, go for it"
>"You got it, Pal"
>or
>"Sure, why the hell not"

That would explain why you hide behind an anonymous news server.

Have you ever stopped to consider that these are matters of life and
death? Anyone who is so flippant as you has no place acting as Pilot
In Command.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> What other clearance would VFR traffic get that would allow them to enter
> the Class B airspace? I'm drawing a blank at the moment.
>
> I agree that the specific phraseology is not required. But *some* kind of
> clearance is required, and that is stated in the FARs. I doubt VFR
> traffic is going to get a landing clearance while still outside the Class
> B, and I'm hard-pressed to think of another one that would be applicable
> to VFR traffic.
>

How about "cleared for takeoff"? The regulation states, " The operator must
receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that
area before operating an aircraft in that area." If you're departing VFR
from the core airport in a Class B surface area wouldn't a takeoff clearance
meet the letter of the law?

Let's say you're doing practice instrument approaches under VFR near a
Class
B boundary, and the approach procedure requires you to enter Class B
airspace.
Wouldn't clearance for the approach meet the letter of the law?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're picking nits, as you always do.
>

You say that like there's something wrong with it.


>
> The wording in part 91 is "The operator must receive an ATC clearance from
> the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an
> aircraft in that area."
>
> It does not say that you must hear the particular phrase "cleared into the
> class bravo". It just says that you need "an ATC clearance". That could
> be an IFR clearance ("cleared to the Gopher VOR 150 radial 12 DME fix, via
> radar vectors, maintain 3000"). In response to a request for a class
> bravo clearance, it could be "Cleared as requested". The real magic word
> is
> "cleared".
>
> The most common thing a controller will say is "cleared into the class
> bravo". That's what you want to hear. Variations on the theme are OK, as
> long as they include the word "cleared".
>
> What's not OK are things like "approved as requested", "proceed", or the
> wonderfully vague "You'll be OK" that the OP reports having heard.
> Nowhere in Part 91 does it say, "The operator must be told that they'll be
> OK".
>

Correct.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> How about "cleared for takeoff"? The regulation states, " The operator must
> receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that
> area before operating an aircraft in that area." If you're departing VFR
> from the core airport in a Class B surface area wouldn't a takeoff clearance
> meet the letter of the law?
>
You would think, but ATC here always issues "Cleared into the class
Bravo via fly runway heading..." just as if they were issuing an IFR
clearance.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> How about "cleared for takeoff"? The regulation states, " The operator
> must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction
> for that area before operating an aircraft in that area." If you're
> departing VFR from the core airport in a Class B surface area wouldn't a
> takeoff clearance meet the letter of the law?

Sure, that seems like a good example. Possibly the only one. :)

> Let's say you're doing practice instrument approaches under VFR near a
> Class B boundary, and the approach procedure requires you to enter Class B
> airspace. Wouldn't clearance for the approach meet the letter of the law?

If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
"clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism under
VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller may
offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just as the
approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling a real
clearance.

Is there some regulation that I'm missing that allows an actual approach
clearance to be granted to an aircraft operating under VFR?

Pete

[Roy Smith]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
> "clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism under
> VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller may
> offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just as the
> approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling a real
> clearance.

It's completely routine to get "Cleared practice ILS-16, maintain VFR at
all times". That's a clearance in the full sense of the word, which is to
say they are providing separation services.

Sometimes, NY Approach will be too busy to provide you separation, but
doesn't mind if you fly the approach on your own. In that case, they'll
say something like, "Proceed as requested, no separation services
provided". That is NOT a clearance.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> You would think, but ATC here always issues "Cleared into the class Bravo
> via fly runway heading..." just as if they were issuing an IFR
> clearance.
>

Perhaps because pilots questioned the lack of specific Class B clearance in
that situation. It's not required by FAAO 7110.65.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure, that seems like a good example. Possibly the only one. :)
>

I provided two examples.


>
> If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
> "clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism
> under VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller
> may offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just
> as the approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling
> a real clearance.
>
> Is there some regulation that I'm missing that allows an actual approach
> clearance to be granted to an aircraft operating under VFR?
>

ATC provides separation between IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approaches wherever it is practical to do so and has been doing
so for a long time. At those locations VFR aircraft are given an approach
clearance. See AIM para. 4-3-21.d.

[mvgossman]

Good advice here and from all... By the way, when I said "permission"
to enter class B as opposed to a "clearance", what I meant to convey
was not that permission=clearance but rather that permission most
emphatically is NOT a clearance, i.e., not accompanied by the magic
words. You have a good idea there, when getting "remain at 3000 and
you'll be fine" I could have said "understand cleared into class B" but
I at least could have said "does that mean you are clearing me into
class B"?

None of this is post 9-11 issues though... I encounter similar
scenarios all the time close in to class B both before and after 9-11,
namely a reluctance to give a clearance into class B for sightseeing,
but have yet to get denied without polite begging, and the request is
granted +/- special requests such as "remain northeast of MSP runway
12" etc.

Mitch

Roy Smith wrote:
> "mvgossman" > wrote:
> > 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> > VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> > not know about VFR.
>
> Yes, it's standard practice, especially near the ceiling of the CDAS.
>
> > 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> > class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> > potentially get cited?
>
> You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.
> If the conversation really went on as you described it, I'd say the
> controller was guilty of using some sloppy language. He should have either
> said, "cleared into the class bravo", or "unable class bravo clearance".
> One way or the other, you would have known exactly what he meant. I
> haven't the foggiest idea what "You'll be OK" means.
>
> Whenever in doubt, especially with a controller who is not being clear, the
> way you can force a clear answer is to say, "Confirm Cessna 12345 is
> cleared into the class bravo at 3000", or perhaps even, "Understand Cessna
> 12345 is cleared into the class bravo at 3000". That should get you an
> unambiguous response.
>
> > Is it conceivable that a controller would be so sadistic as to send a
> > place through Bravo without clearance and then bust them?
>
> Sadistic, no. But, I could certainly see a mis-understanding leading to a
> bust. That's why the AIM has a glossary of specific words that have
> specific meanings. If you ad-lib, you get mis-understandings.
>
> > 3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
> > instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
> > a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
> > to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?
>
> There is no "implied" clearance. If you are on an IFR clearance, you've
> got a clearance. Nothing implied about it.
>
> Could you file IFR? Sure you could. But, if you wanted to do that, don't
> spring any surprises on the controller. File an IFR flight plan from your
> home base to your home base. For the route, put in a single waypoint, a
> radial/DME from the nearest VOR. Put a comment that explains what you're
> doing. I just did one in DUATS and it looks like this:
>
> 1 Type of flight plan: IFR
> 2 Aircraft tail number: N9003S
> 3 Acft type/special equip: BE35/G
> 4 True airspeed: 130
> 5 Departure point: HPN
> 6 Departure time: (UTC) Tue Oct 24 16:00
> 7 Altitude: 25
> 8 Route of flight: CMK270010/D00+20
> 9 Destination: HPN
> 10 Estimated time enroute: 0040
> 11 Remarks: SIGHTSEEING OVER FAIRGROUNDS
> 12 Fuel on board: 0400
> 13 Alternate destination(s):
>
> I'm assuming 'the fairgrounds' would be a locally familiar landmark to ATC.
>
> But, in all honesty, that's probably more trouble than it's worth. Just
> call up VFR, tell the controller exactly what you want to do, and make sure
> you get an unambiguous statement from him if you're cleared into the CBAS
> or not.
>
> If you're taking off from a towered airport, as CD to get you the class
> bravo clearance before you take off. Even if they can't get you the
> clearance per-se, they can generate a strip for you, get you a squawk, and
> then Tracon will be expecting your handoff. Once you get in contact with
> the first approach controller, he's the guy to tell what you want to do, "I
> want to proceed direct to the Gopher 150 radial, 12 DME, and orbit at 3000
> in that vicinity for 20 minutes".

[mvgossman]

I won't give an "Amen" but I will give an "Amen, but..."

We should not hesitate to operate in a legal manner in any way possible
that is safe. Circling an object of interest within Class B should not
be a big deal if it can be worked by the controllers, and to a man I
have found them to be very helpful and not once have I been denied a
clearance for sightseeing anywhere. On the other hand, we should not
request to do low circling ("loitering" as the FAA puts it) in the
vicinity of nuclear power plants etc... it makes people nervous.

To restrict aircraft movements in sensitive areas is not workable
unless accompanied by an F-15 in the air ready to shoot airplanes down.
Virtually every sensitive structure is within 5 miles of uncontrolled
airspace at a decent altitude, which, if a madman were at the controls,
is 2.5 minutes from impact in my small airplane. And all of these sites
are mere feet from a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil. No
way to counteract airplanes without surface to air missiles such as the
White House is said to have.

Mitch


Maule Driver wrote:
> I would propose that there are sightseeing flights not worth taking
> (and this may be one of them though I have not looked at a chart to make
> an informed judgment).
>
> I hereby recognize that we have this great freedom to fly practically
> anywhere at almost any time.
>
> I also declare that great freedom implies great responsibility. In
> aviation we often call it pilot discretion.
>
> And therefore conclude that some flights are best left undone despite
> legal clearance, CAVU conditions and our irrepressible desire to view
> earthly proceedings from a lofty perch.
>
> Can I get a "amen"? (tightening chin strap)
>
> (Fascinating post - this is not aimed at that particular situation, just
> a general proclamation that might be applied to something like, the East
> River part of the NYC VFR corridor)
>
> mvgossman wrote:
> > I have a question that I am curious about having stumped several CFIs
> > locally.
> >
> > I'm flying from my home base, St. Cloud, Minnesota, to St. Paul
> > Downtown Airport. Pull out your Twin Cities sectional if you have
> > one... Along the way my son and I are going to do some sightseeing over
> > the State Fairgrounds. The MSP class B airspace is 100/70, 100/40,
> > 100/30, 100/23, and 100/SFC. The fairgrounds are just outside the inner
> > surface ring. The terrain is around 1000 ft MSL and some significant
> > towers in the area also. I would rather stay at 2500 which would place
> > me inside Bravo of the 100/23 ring over the Fairgrounds. Complicating
> > matters are two class D areas, virtually touching, at [34] between St.
> > Cloud and the Fairgrounds.
> >
> > So I am VFR, flying to the southeast at 5500, I speak to approach and
> > ask for direct to the Fairgrounds for sightseeing with clearance to
> > enter class B. That is denied but I am advised to continue, maintain
> > 3000. As I get close to the class D at [34], but still under the 100/40
> > shelf pf course, I point out that I will need to speak to Anoka Class D
> > to traverse their airspace unless Approach can get me clearance. They
> > told me to maintain 3000 "and you'll be OK". By this I assume
> > they meant "no traffic in the class D area at that altitude" but I
> > was unsure. Having faith they were not out to get me, I complied and
> > remained at 3000, bored through the upper reaches of Anoka's Class D.
> >
> > I was next to enter the 100/30 ring at 3000. I have always understood
> > that 100/30 means inclusive so I advised approach I would either need
> > lower or a clearance to enter Bravo. I was told "Stay at 3000 and
> > you'll be OK." No "cleared to enter Bravo" magic words, so I
> > said "how about 2800 to remain clear of Bravo?" and clearance for
> > this was granted.
> >
> > Next I was to enter the 100/23 ring so I advised approach "In order
> > to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance, I'll between 2500 and
> > 2800 and clearance to enter class Bravo over the Fairgrounds". I was
> > switched to the tower frequency and given clearance to enter Bravo and
> > advised to stay northeast of the active runways, and after a few
> > circles, on to STP.
> >
> > So all's well that ends well, but:
> >
> > 1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
> > VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
> > not know about VFR.
> >
> > 2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
> > class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
> > potentially get cited? Is it conceivable that a controller would be so
> > sadistic as to send a place through Bravo without clearance and then
> > bust them?
> >
> > 3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
> > instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
> > a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
> > to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?
> >
> > Mitchell
> >
> > St. Cloud, Minnesota
> >

[Mxsmanic]

mvgossman writes:

> To restrict aircraft movements in sensitive areas is not workable
> unless accompanied by an F-15 in the air ready to shoot airplanes down.
> Virtually every sensitive structure is within 5 miles of uncontrolled
> airspace at a decent altitude, which, if a madman were at the controls,
> is 2.5 minutes from impact in my small airplane. And all of these sites
> are mere feet from a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil. No
> way to counteract airplanes without surface to air missiles such as the
> White House is said to have.

A suicidal pilot in a plane isn't likely to be discouraged by the
prospect of being shot down, nor is shooting him down likely to stop
him from accomplishing his purpose. If the aircraft is loaded with
biological or radiological toxins, they will be spread effectively
whether the plane crashes at the controls of the pilot or explodes
when struck by a missile. Either way, it's mission accomplished for
the nut case in the cockpit. From what I've read, not too many people
have thought of that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.