Busting airspace question

[Dallas]

Hypothetically speaking, what happens if a student wanders off course and
clips the inside of a class B ring. I've heard stories of the FAA waiting
for violators at the airport.



If these stories are true, how does ATC figure out who the pilot/aircraft is
and which airport to find them? What if you were squawking 1200 and landed
at a non-towered airport?



How serious is this infraction and what generally happens to the hapless
pilot?



Dallas

[BT]

If it is a serious enough violation.. they will track the aircraft by radar
as far as possible, and many times they will call ahead and have some
authority type waiting, or calling into to the Class D Tower. But you said
uncontrolled field.

If it is a mere clipping and he was not "eyeballed" by another aircraft for
a description and n-number, by landing at a non-towered it field may be
difficult to prove. Of course, a lot of Class B airspace may have local
police air units on frequency, and if the air unit is free, and the
violation serious enough, they may ask the air unit to intercept to at least
gather an n-number or steer the violator away from the dense airspace.

BT

"Dallas" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Hypothetically speaking, what happens if a student wanders off course and
> clips the inside of a class B ring. I've heard stories of the FAA
> waiting for violators at the airport.
>
>
>
> If these stories are true, how does ATC figure out who the pilot/aircraft
> is and which airport to find them? What if you were squawking 1200 and
> landed at a non-towered airport?
>
>
>
> How serious is this infraction and what generally happens to the hapless
> pilot?
>
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 31, 4:33 pm, "Dallas" > wrote:
> Hypothetically speaking, what happens if a student wanders off course and
> clips the inside of a class B ring. I've heard stories of the FAA waiting
> for violators at the airport.
>
> If these stories are true, how does ATC figure out who the pilot/aircraft is
> and which airport to find them? What if you were squawking 1200 and landed
> at a non-towered airport?
>
> How serious is this infraction and what generally happens to the hapless
> pilot?


A friend of mine got a 30 day suspension and a bad record for 5 years
on his solo cross country. Personally, I require my students to use
flight following in case they get into the class C by mistake.
-Robert

[C J Campbell]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:33:45 -0800, Dallas wrote
(in article .net>):

> Hypothetically speaking, what happens if a student wanders off course and
> clips the inside of a class B ring. I've heard stories of the FAA waiting
> for violators at the airport.
>

Nothing, to the student. His instructor is another matter. If the FAA finds
that the instructor was negligent in teaching his student, then they may take
any action from warning him to taking away his certificates.

>
>
> If these stories are true, how does ATC figure out who the pilot/aircraft is
> and which airport to find them? What if you were squawking 1200 and landed
> at a non-towered airport?
>

They can't, usually. They might call someone at the non-towered airport and
watch for people landing there if it looks like you are headed that way.

>
>
> How serious is this infraction and what generally happens to the hapless
> pilot?
>

Usually nothing, unless you forced an airliner to take evasive action. Then
there will be an investigation and heads could roll. I have known a few
pilots who have inadvertently clipped class B. The FAA tends to be more
severe with people who should know better. Sometimes they are required to fly
with an instructor and get retraining. If it causes an accident, you could
easily lose all your certificates and you will be sued by just about
everyone. You will go bankrupt. Your instructor will deny having ever met
you. Homeland Security will brand you a terrorist. You will lose your home,
your family and they might even shoot your dog.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
>
> How serious is this infraction and what generally happens to the hapless
> pilot?

As far as barely clipping airspace, I know folks who have _just_ by a
hair clipped BOS & NY, and were not pursued. Personally, I contact them
well clear of the space and ask for clearance if I'm anywhere near the
edge, as I really don't want to poke at the beast.

What's probably worse is popping up through the floor, or suddenly
showing up some other way.

I am personally familiar with someone who was cut loose from a VFR
flight following and told to squawk VFR by NYC Bravo controllers, while
INSIDE Newark's inner-ring airspace, on approach to Linden, NJ.

Newark Tower called Linden and they had Newark on the phone when he
walked into the FBO.

Lucky for him, the conversation started off like this:

Caller: "Did those MF'er's (ref: NY Bravo control) do what we think they
did?"
Pilot: "Yes"
Caller" (in background) "Get those a--holes on the phone!" (back to
phone) "If that _ever_ happens again, fly directly over the center of
the field and contact the tower"

Apparently, an airliner had to go around due to his Piper Arrow zipping
right through the space as a 1200. The pilot filed a NASA form.

[C J Campbell]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:15:36 -0800, B A R R Y wrote
(in article >):

> Dallas wrote:
>>
>> How serious is this infraction and what generally happens to the hapless
>> pilot?
>
> As far as barely clipping airspace, I know folks who have _just_ by a
> hair clipped BOS & NY, and were not pursued. Personally, I contact them
> well clear of the space and ask for clearance if I'm anywhere near the
> edge, as I really don't want to poke at the beast.
>
> What's probably worse is popping up through the floor, or suddenly
> showing up some other way.
>
> I am personally familiar with someone who was cut loose from a VFR
> flight following and told to squawk VFR by NYC Bravo controllers, while
> INSIDE Newark's inner-ring airspace, on approach to Linden, NJ.
>
> Newark Tower called Linden and they had Newark on the phone when he
> walked into the FBO.
>
> Lucky for him, the conversation started off like this:
>
> Caller: "Did those MF'er's (ref: NY Bravo control) do what we think they
> did?"
> Pilot: "Yes"
> Caller" (in background) "Get those a--holes on the phone!" (back to
> phone) "If that _ever_ happens again, fly directly over the center of
> the field and contact the tower"
>
> Apparently, an airliner had to go around due to his Piper Arrow zipping
> right through the space as a 1200. The pilot filed a NASA form.

This is a great example of why you don't blindly follow ATC instructions. I
think the proper response would have been, "Say again? We are still inside
the Bravo."

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[alice]

On Jan 31, 9:57 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:33 pm, "Dallas" > wrote:
>
>
> A friend of mine got a 30 day suspension and a bad record for 5 years
> on his solo cross country. Personally, I require my students to use
> flight following in case they get into the class C by mistake.
> -Robert

Robert,
A 30 day suspension for what?Did he contest this in court?What
happened to his instructor?
How does using flight following absolve you from guilt when you
violate a reg?
KM

[Steve Foley]

"alice" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jan 31, 9:57 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> Personally, I require my students to use
>> flight following in case they get into the class C by mistake.

>
> How does using flight following absolve you from guilt when you
> violate a reg?

When using flight following, you've met the requirement to enter class C (2
way comminucations)

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> This is a great example of why you don't blindly follow ATC instructions. I
> think the proper response would have been, "Say again? We are still inside
> the Bravo."

While flying from HOU to AXH, I've had the tower quite a few times turn
me loose and tell me to squawk 1200 a few miles before being clear of
the Class-B... I guess they figure that on a flight on a straight out
radial from the airport, it's not like I'm going to make any abrupt
course changes in the next minute or so...

On the other hand, I've had controllers keep me until I was well out of
the Class-B and I had to remind them to let me go...

[C J Campbell]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:47:01 -0800, Grumman-581 wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> This is a great example of why you don't blindly follow ATC instructions. I
>> think the proper response would have been, "Say again? We are still inside
>> the Bravo."
>
> While flying from HOU to AXH, I've had the tower quite a few times turn
> me loose and tell me to squawk 1200 a few miles before being clear of
> the Class-B... I guess they figure that on a flight on a straight out
> radial from the airport, it's not like I'm going to make any abrupt
> course changes in the next minute or so...
>
> On the other hand, I've had controllers keep me until I was well out of
> the Class-B and I had to remind them to let me go...

Yeah, we get that sort of thing in Seattle, too.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

alice wrote:
> A 30 day suspension for what?Did he contest this in court?

Some might argue that a 30 day suspension is not worth taking it to
court if you are just a private pilot... Especially since for a lot of
people it is not like it would really prevent them from flying their own
plane anyway... Just like being a bit past their medical or BFR or
annual on their aircraft do not cause some people to ground themselves...

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 1, 7:53 am, "alice" > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:57 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 4:33 pm, "Dallas" > wrote:
>
> > A friend of mine got a 30 day suspension and a bad record for 5 years
> > on his solo cross country. Personally, I require my students to use
> > flight following in case they get into the class C by mistake.
> > -Robert
>
> Robert,
> A 30 day suspension for what?Did he contest this in court?What
> happened to his instructor?

He busted the airspace so there wasn't much to contest. I'm sure if
he'd gone to court and lost the FAA would haved asked for at least 90
days (this is typical, 30 days now or make us go to court and we'll
ask for 90). He did have to report it to his insurance co for
something like 5 years, after that the FAA removed it from his record.

> How does using flight following absolve you from guilt when you
> violate a reg?

If he has flight following he's not violated any reg.

-robert

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> Yeah, we get that sort of thing in Seattle, too.

Well, up there they just figure you're going to turn back around after
you realize that you're out of coffee...

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> If he has flight following he's not violated any reg.
>


A gentle reminder that the OP asked about Bravo, not Charlie space.

You certainly can bust Bravo with a flight following. Some controllers
are very good and professional about helping you not bust it. Others
might be too busy, not care, or on that rare occasion, devious, but it's
up to the pilot to make sure clearance is granted.

A student pilot on flight following clipping the edge of Bravo is possible.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> A gentle reminder that the OP asked about Bravo, not Charlie space.
>
> You certainly can bust Bravo with a flight following. Some controllers
> are very good and professional about helping you not bust it. Others
> might be too busy, not care, or on that rare occasion, devious, but it's
> up to the pilot to make sure clearance is granted.
>
> A student pilot on flight following clipping the edge of Bravo is possible.

How does ATC prove that someone has entered Bravo airspace?

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> How does ATC prove that someone has entered Bravo airspace?

Radar

[alice]

> > > A friend of mine got a 30 day suspension and a bad record for 5 years
> > > on his solo cross country. Personally, I require my students to use
> > > flight following in case they get into the class C by mistake.
> > > -Robert
> He busted the airspace so there wasn't much to contest. I'm sure if
> he'd gone to court and lost the FAA would haved asked for at least 90
> days (this is typical, 30 days now or make us go to court and we'll
> ask for 90).

Robert,
Nothing to contest?????! What???!
There is always something to contest.How strong was the FAA's evidence?
Who was this pilots attorney?When in doubt, file a NASA report.Just
because the FAA ask, it doesnt mean you have to take a violation.It
also doesnt mean there will be a greater penalty if you contest a
certificate action. As a CFI you should know this.

> If he has flight following he's not violated any reg.

I hope you dont teach your students this! You cant enter class B
unless you have a specific clearance to do so.AND, just because your
students request flight following it shouldnt mean that they can
meander into any airspace they wish.What do your students do when
flight following isnt available?Your attitude is kinda dangerous.
>
> -robert
KM

[Steve Foley]

"alice" > wrote in message
> Who was this pilots attorney?

There's no way I'm paying a lawyer to fight a 30 day suspension.

>
> I hope you dont teach your students this! You cant enter class B

He pretty clearly said class C - as in Charlie.

[C J Campbell]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:48:05 -0800, Grumman-581 wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> Yeah, we get that sort of thing in Seattle, too.
>
> Well, up there they just figure you're going to turn back around after
> you realize that you're out of coffee...

We call that spare hydraulic fluid.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Robert Chambers]

So fly to a non towered airport, do a low approach, turn off the
transponder and fly home at treetop level. Make sure you put your foil
helmet on and watch out for black helicopters.

[alice]

On Feb 1, 2:18 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "alice" > wrote in message
> > Who was this pilots attorney?
>
> There's no way I'm paying a lawyer to fight a 30 day suspension.

Was this person you?The problem is that you dont know what the penalty
is before hand.If you get a letter of investigation it would be a good
idea to talk to your attorney.Its like the old saying "Anyone who
provides his own legal counsel has a fool for a client"
>
>
> > I hope you dont teach your students this! You cant enter class B
>
> He pretty clearly said class C - as in Charlie.

Actualy, he didnt say what the suspension was for.Besides, his
asumption that you just use flight following to absolve yourself of
airspace worries is kind of silly.

[C J Campbell]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:39:24 -0800, Robert Chambers wrote
(in article >):

> So fly to a non towered airport, do a low approach, turn off the
> transponder and fly home at treetop level. Make sure you put your foil
> helmet on and watch out for black helicopters.

Well, that is what I always do. Except for the foil helmet. My bald head is
already plenty reflective enough.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Radar

How does radar prove it?

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

[NW_Pilot]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:BOswh.9000$635.8674@trndny05...
> "alice" > wrote in message
>> Who was this pilots attorney?
>
> There's no way I'm paying a lawyer to fight a 30 day suspension.

Yea, I agree 30 days of no flying or pay an attorney thousands of dollars
take time to go to court etc.? I'd take the 30 days!

[Gary[_2_]]

On Feb 1, 6:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > Radar
>
> How does radar prove it?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

RADAR is an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging. The Ranging
part pretty well covers postion determination. Do some reading on
Wikpedia or somewhere--lotsa sources can explain Radar for you.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> Yea, I agree 30 days of no flying or pay an attorney thousands of dollars
> take time to go to court etc.? I'd take the 30 days!

And then keep flying *anyway*... Hell, who the **** do they think they
are telling me I can't fly my own plane?

[Alan Gerber]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> A friend of mine got a 30 day suspension and a bad record for 5 years
> on his solo cross country. Personally, I require my students to use
> flight following in case they get into the class C by mistake.

My instructor solved this a different way: I got into the class C
airspace on purpose. My second cross-country solo was to a class C airport.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

alice > wrote:
> How does using flight following absolve you from guilt when you
> violate a reg?

It doesn't absolve you. It increases the odds that you won't enter the
airspace inadvertantly, and there's a chance they'll clear you without you
even asking for it. (And, for class C, you're already talking with them,
so there's no violation.)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

B A R R Y > wrote:
> You certainly can bust Bravo with a flight following. Some controllers
> are very good and professional about helping you not bust it. Others
> might be too busy, not care, or on that rare occasion, devious, but it's
> up to the pilot to make sure clearance is granted.

On my first cross-country solo, the controller cleared me into the Bravo
without me asking for it. (My home airport is underneath the shelf.)

I didn't actually enter the Bravo, since I was a student at the time, but
this is an example of the controller helping you. :-)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Radar
>
> How does radar prove it?

Pretty much the same way busting a traffic law
right under a police officer's nose does it.
Besides they do keep a record as well.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> Pretty much the same way busting a traffic law
> right under a police officer's nose does it.
> Besides they do keep a record as well.

Think like a lawyer. Radar provides position and distance, but that
is all. To determine whether or not a pilot has entered Class B
without authorization, you also need a way to determine the boundaries
of that airspace, something that radar does not provide. And you must
show that all the information available to the pilot specified the
same limits as whatever source was used by ATC. If there is a
discrepancy, and the pilot's information shows that he was clear of
the airspace, the pilot is in the clear. If ATC told him he was
inside the airspace, then there is a conflict, and much depends on
exactly how large the error was. If the chart shows him indisputably
outside the airspace but ATC insists otherwise, the pilot, as pilot in
command, can ignore what ATC says for safety reasons, based on the
assumption that the controller is incompetent or is deliberately
misleading the pilot.

There are many possible scenarios, only some of which favor ATC.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Gerber writes:

> It doesn't absolve you. It increases the odds that you won't enter the
> airspace inadvertantly, and there's a chance they'll clear you without you
> even asking for it. (And, for class C, you're already talking with them,
> so there's no violation.)

While flight following is not an automatic clearance into controlled
airspace, a controller who was providing flight following and failed
to mention a potential unauthorized intrusion into controlled airspace
could be held to not be doing his duty. The pilot would not be
relieved of his responsibility (he's supposed to know for himself that
he is entering Class B), but the controller would seem negligent if he
failed to bring up something this important.

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

[Steve Foley]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
...

>
> Yea, I agree 30 days of no flying or pay an attorney thousands of dollars
> take time to go to court etc.? I'd take the 30 days!

If I were in your shoes, I'd consider hiring a lawyer. I fly for fun. You
fly for money.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Robert Chambers wrote:
> So fly to a non towered airport, do a low approach, turn off the
> transponder and fly home at treetop level. Make sure you put your foil
> helmet on and watch out for black helicopters.


You forgot the colored duct tape for "pick your own" N-numbers. <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Alan Gerber wrote:
>
> On my first cross-country solo, the controller cleared me into the Bravo
> without me asking for it. (My home airport is underneath the shelf.)
>
> I didn't actually enter the Bravo, since I was a student at the time, but
> this is an example of the controller helping you. :-)
>
> ... Alan

Exactly!

I've had that happen many times heading through NYC. As I'm flying
across Long Island Sound on VFR flight following, as I'm preparing to
ask, I get "58S cleared to enter Bravo airspace". If I'm headed through
to the south, they'll also often vector me to the Colts Neck VOR,
straight over JFK.

Without FF, you're calling up and asking for clearance out of the blue.

With FF, they've already got an idea where you're headed, you've already
got a code, they expect you to ask for clearance, and I think it makes
their job that much easier.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Radar
>
> How does radar prove it?

While I fully beleive you are stupid. I don't for a second beleive you are
THAT stupid.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> While I fully beleive you are stupid. I don't for a second beleive you are
> THAT stupid.

I've explained the legal ramifications in a previous post. Radar
shows your position and distance but cannot be used by itself to
determine whether or not you are in a given airspace. For that, you
need some other additional reference.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> While I fully beleive you are stupid. I don't for a second beleive
>> you are THAT stupid.
>
> I've explained the legal ramifications in a previous post. Radar
> shows your position and distance but cannot be used by itself to
> determine whether or not you are in a given airspace. For that, you
> need some other additional reference.

You explained how you thought it would work out. In the real world the data
the FAA gives the FAA proves to the FAA what the circumstances were. The
burden of proof then shifts to the pilot. And about half of the things the
pilot could bring up might to explain the error would get him in just as
much trouble as busting the airspace. i.e. Something wrong with the
equipment in his aircraft.

[Dallas]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:33:49 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

> If the FAA finds
> that the instructor was negligent in teaching his student, then they may take
> any action from warning him to taking away his certificates.

That would explain why my normally composed instructor became nervous as we
got underneath a Class B ring.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:57:28 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

> My bald head is
> already plenty reflective enough.

Gosh, I'm not sure that's enough.

Best to be safe and check the AFDB site:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

--
Dallas

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sylvain writes:
>
>> Pretty much the same way busting a traffic law
>> right under a police officer's nose does it.
>> Besides they do keep a record as well.
>
> Think like a lawyer. Radar provides position and distance, but that
> is all. To determine whether or not a pilot has entered Class B
> without authorization, you also need a way to determine the boundaries
> of that airspace, something that radar does not provide.

The radar provides your lat/lon.



And you must
> show that all the information available to the pilot specified the
> same limits as whatever source was used by ATC.

The class B is well defined and is not a matter of contention.

Rest of drivel snipped.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Alan Gerber writes:
>
>> It doesn't absolve you. It increases the odds that you won't enter the
>> airspace inadvertantly, and there's a chance they'll clear you without you
>> even asking for it. (And, for class C, you're already talking with them,
>> so there's no violation.)
>
> While flight following is not an automatic clearance into controlled
> airspace,

It is authorization in all but class B.



a controller who was providing flight following and failed
> to mention a potential unauthorized intrusion into controlled airspace
> could be held to not be doing his duty.

No, wrong. You need a clearance into class B. Period.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> While I fully beleive you are stupid. I don't for a second beleive you are
>> THAT stupid.
>
> I've explained the legal ramifications in a previous post. Radar
> shows your position and distance but cannot be used by itself to
> determine whether or not you are in a given airspace. For that, you
> need some other additional reference.




No, he really is that stupid.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The radar provides your lat/lon.

That isn't of much use unless you also have a reference that gives you
the boundaries of the airspace. While radar is relatively difficult
to refute, the source of information providing the boundaries may be a
problem. If all information available to the pilot said that he was
outside the boundaries, one cannot really hold him responsible for
entering the airspace.

> The class B is well defined and is not a matter of contention.

The source of the definitions is important, and all sources must
agree.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> It is authorization in all but class B.

So a VFR pilot can climb into Class A once he has flight following,
right?

The other classes don't require an authorization, so flight following
doesn't really provide authorization for anything.

> No, wrong. You need a clearance into class B. Period.

That's not what I said. A controller who knowingly allows a pilot to
enter Class B without warning him could be considered negligent,
irrespective of any wrongdoing on the part of the pilot.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> It is authorization in all but class B.
>
> So a VFR pilot can climb into Class A once he has flight following,
> right?



Spoken like a true sim pilot.




>
> The other classes don't require an authorization, so flight following
> doesn't really provide authorization for anything.
>
>> No, wrong. You need a clearance into class B. Period.
>
> That's not what I said. A controller who knowingly allows a pilot to
> enter Class B without warning him could be considered negligent,
> irrespective of any wrongdoing on the part of the pilot.

No he cannot. The rule is very clear. You want in to the class B?
Then get a clearance.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> The radar provides your lat/lon.
>
> That isn't of much use unless you also have a reference that gives you
> the boundaries of the airspace.

The airspace is very clearly defined and is not a matter of debate.

[BT]

Wrong..
charts have lines
radar displays have lines
which side of the line are you on

Busted
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain writes:
>
>> Pretty much the same way busting a traffic law
>> right under a police officer's nose does it.
>> Besides they do keep a record as well.
>
> Think like a lawyer. Radar provides position and distance, but that
> is all. To determine whether or not a pilot has entered Class B
> without authorization, you also need a way to determine the boundaries
> of that airspace, something that radar does not provide. And you must
> show that all the information available to the pilot specified the
> same limits as whatever source was used by ATC. If there is a
> discrepancy, and the pilot's information shows that he was clear of
> the airspace, the pilot is in the clear. If ATC told him he was
> inside the airspace, then there is a conflict, and much depends on
> exactly how large the error was. If the chart shows him indisputably
> outside the airspace but ATC insists otherwise, the pilot, as pilot in
> command, can ignore what ATC says for safety reasons, based on the
> assumption that the controller is incompetent or is deliberately
> misleading the pilot.
>
> There are many possible scenarios, only some of which favor ATC.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> The class B is well defined and is not a matter of contention.
>
> The source of the definitions is important, and all sources must
> agree.

They do. Moreover, if you have a transponder (mode C) they'll
also have your altitude on record. Remember that the FAA in this
case is the witness, the prosecution, the judge/jury and executioner
-- think Judge Dredd -- so you are welcome to argue, but the odds
are not in your favor.

--Sylvain

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

> No, he really is that stupid.

That, and plus some.

I can't believe that so many of the participants on this group still
tolerate him, or think his participation has any value, at all. I admit to
being perplexed, on this one.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

It's a sport and I don't have to buy a hunting license.



Morgans wrote:
>
> "Newps" > wrote
>
>> No, he really is that stupid.
>
> That, and plus some.
>
> I can't believe that so many of the participants on this group still
> tolerate him, or think his participation has any value, at all. I admit
> to being perplexed, on this one.

[Peter Dohm]

> Think like a lawyer.

You flatter yourself needlessly.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> It's a sport and I don't have to buy a hunting license.
>

No daily limit, and no bag limit.

> Morgans wrote:
>>
>> "Newps" > wrote
>>
>>> No, he really is that stupid.
>>
>> That, and plus some.
>>
>> I can't believe that so many of the participants on this group still
>> tolerate him, or think his participation has any value, at all. I admit
>> to being perplexed, on this one.

[Matt Barrow]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> Wrong..
> charts have lines
> radar displays have lines
> which side of the line are you on
>

The pathological borderline.

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>> Think like a lawyer.
>
> You flatter yourself needlessly.

Flatter? Lawyer?

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Spoken like a true sim pilot.

No, spoken like someone who sees the flaws in arguments. You said "it
is authorization in all but Class B," therefore it is authorization in
Class A, C, D, E, (F), and G--but in fact this is incorrect, as I
demonstrated.

> No he cannot. The rule is very clear. You want in to the class B?
> Then get a clearance.

That's not what I said.

If a controller fails to tell a landing pilot that the runway for
which he has been cleared still is occupied by another aircraft, has
the controller done anything wrong? The responsibility for avoiding
the aircraft on the runway belongs with the pilot. Does that absolve
the controller of all responsibility?

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> It's a sport and I don't have to buy a hunting license.

Kinda like shooting dead ducks in a bucket.

> Morgans wrote:
>>
>> "Newps" > wrote
>>
>>> No, he really is that stupid.
>>
>> That, and plus some.
>>
>> I can't believe that so many of the participants on this group still
>> tolerate him, or think his participation has any value, at all. I admit
>> to being perplexed, on this one.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Spoken like a true sim pilot.
>
>
> No, spoken like someone who sees the flaws in arguments. You said "it
> is authorization in all but Class B," therefore it is authorization in
> Class A, C, D, E, (F), and G--but in fact this is incorrect, as I
> demonstrated.

Like I said, spoken like a sim pilot. No grip on reality.


>
>
>>No he cannot. The rule is very clear. You want in to the class B?
>>Then get a clearance.
>
>
> That's not what I said.
>
> If a controller fails to tell a landing pilot that the runway for
> which he has been cleared still is occupied by another aircraft, has
> the controller done anything wrong?

No, that's called anticipated separation. The runway does not need to
be clear of traffic before the next one is cleared to land.



The responsibility for avoiding
> the aircraft on the runway belongs with the pilot.

It primarily belongs to the controller.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>It's a sport and I don't have to buy a hunting license.
>
>
> Kinda like shooting dead ducks in a bucket.

Well, they're squirming around a little.

[Dallas]

"NW_Pilot"
> Yea, I agree 30 days of no flying or pay an attorney thousands of dollars
> take time to go to court etc.? I'd take the 30 days!

I wonder how much help the AOPA's Legal Services Plan would give you to
fight a 30 day suspension?


Dallas

[Dallas]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:33:10 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:

> You flatter yourself needlessly.

Damn... there goes another keyboard.

--
Dallas

[NW_Pilot]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "NW_Pilot"
>> Yea, I agree 30 days of no flying or pay an attorney thousands of dollars
>> take time to go to court etc.? I'd take the 30 days!
>
> I wonder how much help the AOPA's Legal Services Plan would give you to
> fight a 30 day suspension?
>
>
> Dallas
>

Not sure hope I am never in that situation!!!

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Like I said, spoken like a sim pilot. No grip on reality.

play a game isn't being a pilot.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Alan Gerber]

Richard Riley > wrote:
> I was in that situation.

Me, too!

> Flying home on my first solo cross country, I had flight following
> direct me to transit the Los Angeles class B.

The same with me - coming home from my first solo cross country, on my way
to an airport underneath the New York class B shelf, I was cleared into
the Bravo without asking for it. I thought about rejecting it, but since
I was given descent at my discretion, I just descended below the shelf
before I got there.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Newps > wrote:
> > If a controller fails to tell a landing pilot that the runway for
> > which he has been cleared still is occupied by another aircraft, has
> > the controller done anything wrong?

> No, that's called anticipated separation. The runway does not need to
> be clear of traffic before the next one is cleared to land.

I've been cleared #4 to land on occasion. That doesn't even *count* the
aircraft that's still on the runway. (Of course, being cleared #4 does
imply that there will be other aircraft on the runway before you land, but
even when cleared without any other traffic, they don't mention anybody
who's actually on the runway, in anticipation of them being clear in
time.)

Of course, occasionally the anticipated separation doesn't materialize. I
had to go around once or twice because of that. I think one might have
even been on my first solo.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Cecil Chapman]

None of our students at my FBO (to my knowledge) have broke the Bravo but we
DID have a student who busted Class Charlie and the FAA had a long,
drawn-out talk with them.

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CFI-A, CP-ASEL-IA

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[alice]

On Feb 3, 12:04 pm, "Dallas" > wrote:
> "NW_Pilot"
>
> > Yea, I agree 30 days of no flying or pay an attorney thousands of dollars
> > take time to go to court etc.? I'd take the 30 days!
>
> I wonder how much help the AOPA's Legal Services Plan would give you to
> fight a 30 day suspension?
>
> Dallas

Dallas,
The AOPA Legal Services Plan pretty much blows.I would not count on
ANY help from them.
Now of course you are going to ask me how I know this.Years ago I had
an issue come up so I called the AOPA plan (I was a subscriber at the
time), and the only person I could talk to was a legal aid.This guy
told me that I was screwed, and that I was probably going to face a
revocation, AND that AOPA could not help me.
Fortunatly, A top aviation laywer lived in my state at the time (what
is interesting is that she, and several other aviation attorneys
dropped out of the AOPA plan for non payment) so I called and told her
the same story that I told the AOPA jerk off.She just laughed and told
me not to worry.She solved my problem with a phone call and a follow
up letter and billed me for half of an hour.
The sad part of this is that my story is not unique.Your AOPA Legal
Services Plan is not worth the paper it is printed on.
KM

[Jose]

>>How does ATC prove that someone has entered Bravo airspace?
> Radar

While true, radar doesn't seem up to the task for a clip. The three
radar tracks of the Cirrus crash over the East River in NY differ by
enough to convince me that radar could easily indict somebody who was
actually outside the airspace.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>>> How does ATC prove that someone has entered Bravo airspace?
>> Radar
>
> While true, radar doesn't seem up to the task for a clip. The three
> radar tracks of the Cirrus crash over the East River in NY differ by
> enough to convince me that radar could easily indict somebody who was
> actually outside the airspace.
>
> Jose

Are you talking about the tracks you and many of us saw via online services
or honest to God FAA radar tracks?

[Jose]

> Are you talking about the tracks you and many of us saw via online services
> or honest to God FAA radar tracks?

I'm talking about the tracks I saw on the web. I presume these are FAA
radar tracks. They (allegedly) came from the Newark tower, the LGA
tower and the JFK tower, or something like that - three separate nearby
radar facilities.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:


>
> I'm talking about the tracks I saw on the web. I presume these are FAA
> radar tracks. They (allegedly) came from the Newark tower, the LGA
> tower and the JFK tower, or something like that - three separate nearby
> radar facilities.


>

The actual FAA NTAP readout will have a point plotted every six seconds
with the aircrafts lat/lon.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>> Are you talking about the tracks you and many of us saw via online
>> services or honest to God FAA radar tracks?
>
> I'm talking about the tracks I saw on the web. I presume these are
> FAA radar tracks. They (allegedly) came from the Newark tower, the
> LGA tower and the JFK tower, or something like that - three separate
> nearby radar facilities.
>
> Jose

That's what I thought you were saying. Those are VERY crude interpitations
of FAA radar plots.

[Jose]

> The actual FAA NTAP readout will have a point plotted every six seconds with the aircrafts lat/lon.

That's what I believe I saw. There were three such sets of points.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> That's what I thought you were saying. Those are VERY crude interpitations
> of FAA radar plots.

How would they be interpreted less crudely? Is there some signal
processing that goes on, that was not presented to the media?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>> That's what I thought you were saying. Those are VERY crude
>> interpitations of FAA radar plots.
>
> How would they be interpreted less crudely? Is there some signal
> processing that goes on, that was not presented to the media?
>
> Jose

Go visit an ATC facility.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I think we should be worrying less about who busted the airspace and more
about who is going to fix it!

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[buttman]

On Feb 4, 6:36 am, "Cecil Chapman" > wrote:
> None of our students at my FBO (to my knowledge) have broke the Bravo but we
> DID have a student who busted Class Charlie and the FAA had a long,
> drawn-out talk with them.
>
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman
> CFI-A, CP-ASEL-IA
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at:www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -

What about busting a Delta? There is no way they could catch you
unless you happened to land there.

When i was going through my training, there were a few delta's around
(but no Bravos or Charlies), and I remember being so paranoid that I
might clip one of them. Looking back, I don't think it would have been
possible for them to catch me, unless I were to come within binocular
range of the tower...