Class B airspace notation

[BillJ]

I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
(EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean? I
went to the aeronautical chart users guide which has lots of symbols but
not this. They do mention a "-" means up to but not including in one
example not having to do with floor and ceilings, but what could does
this mean for a floor? AGL?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
BillJ > wrote:

> I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
> before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
> terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
> (EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
> for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean? I
> went to the aeronautical chart users guide which has lots of symbols but
> not this. They do mention a "-" means up to but not including in one
> example not having to do with floor and ceilings, but what could does
> this mean for a floor? AGL?

It means exactly the same as the "-" does for a ceiling; the airspace
includes all altitudes above (but not including) 1200 MSL, and up to (and
including) 7000 MSL.

In theory, it means you are legal to fly at 1199 feet talking to nobody
while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot above your head at 1200. In practice, it
means if you want to go below the CBAS, do it at 1100.

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:48:42 -0500, BillJ > wrote:

>I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
>before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
>terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
>(EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
>for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean? I
>went to the aeronautical chart users guide which has lots of symbols but
>not this. They do mention a "-" means up to but not including in one
>example not having to do with floor and ceilings, but what could does
>this mean for a floor? AGL?

Above but not including.

[Mxsmanic]

BillJ writes:

> I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
> before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
> terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
> (EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
> for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean?

Above, but not including 1200 feet MSL, presumably (although I've never seen
this myself).

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> BillJ writes:
>
>
>>I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
>>before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
>>terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
>>(EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
>>for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean?
>
>
> Above, but not including 1200 feet MSL, presumably (although I've never seen
> this myself).
Nobody asked for your damned "presumptions", Anthony. Note to all:
Mxsmanic is not a pilot, has never flown an aircraft of any type, and
thinks that hundreds of hours wasted playing Microsoft Flight Simulator
qualifies him to make comments ad nauseum.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BillJ writes:
>
>> I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
>> before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
>> terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of
>> Newark (EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as
>> 70/+12 in blue for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What
>> does the "+" mean?
>
> Above, but not including 1200 feet MSL, presumably (although I've
> never seen this myself).
>


And you never, ever, will.



Bertie

[Roy Smith]

In article >, Airbus >
wrote:

> In article >, says...
> >
> >
> >In article >,
> > BillJ > wrote:
> >
> >> I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
> >> before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
> >> terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
> >> (EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
> >> for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean? I
> >> went to the aeronautical chart users guide which has lots of symbols but
> >> not this. They do mention a "-" means up to but not including in one
> >> example not having to do with floor and ceilings, but what could does
> >> this mean for a floor? AGL?
> >
> >It means exactly the same as the "-" does for a ceiling; the airspace
> >includes all altitudes above (but not including) 1200 MSL, and up to (and
> >including) 7000 MSL.
> >
> >In theory, it means you are legal to fly at 1199 feet talking to nobody
> >while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot above your head at 1200. In practice, it
> >means if you want to go below the CBAS, do it at 1100.
>
>
>
>
> "Upward from above" is the term used on the TAC.
> In other words, (IIUC) it means you can operate at 1200 feet talkiing to
> nobody, while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot over your head at 1201, where CBAS
> begins . . .

Duh. Yes, of course. Fencepost error :-)

[TheSmokingGnu]

Airbus wrote:
> "Upward from above" is the term used on the TAC.
> In other words, (IIUC) it means you can operate at 1200 feet talkiing to
> nobody, while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot over your head at 1201, where CBAS
> begins . . .
>

Good eatin', them CBAS. ;P

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> Nobody asked for your damned "presumptions", Anthony.

So?

> Note to all: Mxsmanic is not a pilot, has never flown an aircraft
> of any type, and thinks that hundreds of hours wasted playing
> Microsoft Flight Simulator qualifies him to make comments ad nauseum.

And yet I gave the correct answer, didn't I?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rip writes:
>
>> Nobody asked for your damned "presumptions", Anthony.
>
> So?
>
>> Note to all: Mxsmanic is not a pilot, has never flown an aircraft
>> of any type, and thinks that hundreds of hours wasted playing
>> Microsoft Flight Simulator qualifies him to make comments ad nauseum.
>
> And yet I gave the correct answer, didn't I?
>

Nope


Bertie

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rip writes:
>
>
>>Nobody asked for your damned "presumptions", Anthony.
>
>
> So?

So, keep your damned presumptions to yourself. There is no room for them
in real aviation.

>
>
>>Note to all: Mxsmanic is not a pilot, has never flown an aircraft
>>of any type, and thinks that hundreds of hours wasted playing
>>Microsoft Flight Simulator qualifies him to make comments ad nauseum.
>
>
> And yet I gave the correct answer, didn't I?

No, you didn't. Find a good English dictionary and study the definitions
of "presume" and "answer". And then study a sectional.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 16, 12:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BillJ writes:
> > I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
> > before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
> > terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
> > (EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
> > for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean?
>
> Above, but not including 1200 feet MSL, presumably (although I've never seen
> this myself).

What is the practical difference between "above, but not
including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?

[Rip]

wrote:
> On Dec 16, 12:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>BillJ writes:
>>
>>>I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
>>>before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
>>>terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
>>>(EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
>>>for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean?
>>
>>Above, but not including 1200 feet MSL, presumably (although I've never seen
>>this myself).
>
>
> What is the practical difference between "above, but not
> including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?

One foot.

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> So, keep your damned presumptions to yourself. There is no room for them
> in real aviation.

Fortunately, freedom of speech is an important aspect of USENET, and so I'll
post my presumptions if I so desire, irrespective of any orders you might
give.

> No, you didn't. Find a good English dictionary and study the definitions
> of "presume" and "answer". And then study a sectional.

I said "above but not including 1200 feet MSL." So did a lot of other people.

Show the error.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rip writes:
>
>> So, keep your damned presumptions to yourself. There is no room for
>> them in real aviation.
>
> Fortunately, freedom of speech is an important aspect of USENET, and
> so I'll post my presumptions if I so desire, irrespective of any
> orders you might give.
>
>> No, you didn't. Find a good English dictionary and study the
>> definitions of "presume" and "answer". And then study a sectional.
>
> I said "above but not including 1200 feet MSL." So did a lot of other
> people.
>
> Show the error.
>

BD, you can use a search engine.


Doesn;'t matter, you don;'t fly and you never will so you don't count.


And you know it.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What is the practical difference between "above, but not
> including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?

I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
be outside either airspace.

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>>What is the practical difference between "above, but not
>>including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?
>
>
> I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
> For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
> one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
> as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
> be outside either airspace.

Wrong. Study the TERPS. Again, Anthony, you're a simulator freak, not a
pilot of any kind. Your posting of incorrect and misleading answers is a
waste of everyone's time. What you "think" is irrelevant.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> What is the practical difference between "above, but not
>> including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?
>
> I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between
> them. For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200
> feet you're in one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other.
> If they were specified as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101
> feet and 1199 feet inclusive would be outside either airspace.


Wrong

Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> Wrong. Study the TERPS. Again, Anthony, you're a simulator freak, not a
> pilot of any kind. Your posting of incorrect and misleading answers is a
> waste of everyone's time. What you "think" is irrelevant.

If I'm incorrect, why don't you provide the correct answer? You waste
everyone's time by saying I'm wrong without saying what's right.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rip writes:
>
>> Wrong. Study the TERPS. Again, Anthony, you're a simulator freak, not
>> a pilot of any kind. Your posting of incorrect and misleading answers
>> is a waste of everyone's time. What you "think" is irrelevant.
>
> If I'm incorrect, why don't you provide the correct answer? You waste
> everyone's time by saying I'm wrong without saying what's right.


Because you don't fly.


Bertie

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-17, Rip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>>What is the practical difference between "above, but not
>>>including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?
>>
>> I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
>> For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
>> one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
>> as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
>> be outside either airspace.
>
> Wrong. Study the TERPS. Again, Anthony, you're a simulator freak, not a
> pilot of any kind. Your posting of incorrect and misleading answers is a
> waste of everyone's time. What you "think" is irrelevant.

It's easy to put trolls into the kill file. However I haven't found a good way
to kill troll fodder like this in SLRN. Any suggestions?
--
Doug Carter

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>In article >,
> BillJ > wrote:
>
>> I thought I understood everything that could be on a sectional, but
>> before a trip to New York City airspace, I studied the sectional and
>> terminal area charts a little extra carefully. Just southwest of Newark
>> (EWR) (and also other places) there is a notation such as 70/+12 in blue
>> for the floor and ceiling of class B airspace. What does the "+" mean? I
>> went to the aeronautical chart users guide which has lots of symbols but
>> not this. They do mention a "-" means up to but not including in one
>> example not having to do with floor and ceilings, but what could does
>> this mean for a floor? AGL?
>
>It means exactly the same as the "-" does for a ceiling; the airspace
>includes all altitudes above (but not including) 1200 MSL, and up to (and
>including) 7000 MSL.
>
>In theory, it means you are legal to fly at 1199 feet talking to nobody
>while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot above your head at 1200. In practice, it
>means if you want to go below the CBAS, do it at 1100.




"Upward from above" is the term used on the TAC.
In other words, (IIUC) it means you can operate at 1200 feet talkiing to
nobody, while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot over your head at 1201, where CBAS
begins . . .

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Airbus > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>>
>>I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between
>>them. For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200
>>feet you're in one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other.
>>If they were specified as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101
>>feet and 1199 feet inclusive would be outside either airspace.
>
>
>
> Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it
> would appear the writer is suffering from the illusion that
> "fractional" airspace altitudes in a given segment are indicated both
> for the charted (Class B) airspace and for the underlying (Class E).
> Readers should be advised of the fact that this expert, offering his
> "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional chart, and certainly
> has never studied the subject - does not know how to read the chart.
>
> The original poster, writing for information or clarification, should
> be advised that use or application of any information gleaned from
> this expert could lead to hazardous in-flight conditions . . .
>

Unless he gets his rudder trimmed so the guy above him doesn't clean it
off.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Because you're a dip****

Nope, that's not the reason.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it would appear
> the writer is suffering from the illusion that "fractional" airspace altitudes
> in a given segment are indicated both for the charted (Class B) airspace and
> for the underlying (Class E). Readers should be advised of the fact that this
> expert, offering his "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional chart, and
> certainly has never studied the subject - does not know how to read the chart.

Okay ... so explain why the charts include + and - for altitude limits on
airspaces?

I already know the answer, since I looked it up ages ago, and I've given it,
but I'll try again:

If you see, say, 50/SFC for a Class C, and 80/50+ for a Class B above it, it
means that the Class C extends from the surface to 5000 feet inclusive, and
the Class B extends from 5001 feet to 8000 feet inclusive.

Without a plus or minus sign, there is an ambiguous margin of 100 feet between
the airspaces. For example 50/SFC for the Class C and 80/51 for the Class B
means that the area between 5001 feet and 5099 feet inclusive is in neither
airspace. Since this could cause problems if someone were to actually try to
fly through this thin slice of air, calling it uncontrolled, the + and - are
used to make it clear that the two airspaces touch each other, with no space
between.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it
>> would appear the writer is suffering from the illusion that
>> "fractional" airspace altitudes in a given segment are indicated both
>> for the charted (Class B) airspace and for the underlying (Class E).
>> Readers should be advised of the fact that this expert, offering his
>> "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional chart, and certainly
>> has never studied the subject - does not know how to read the chart.
>
> Okay ... so explain why the charts include + and - for altitude limits
> on airspaces?
>

Doesn't matter, you don't use airspace.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Because you're a dip****
>
> Nope, that's not the reason.
>

Yes, it is.


Bertie

[WingFlaps[_2_]]

On Dec 17, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > What is the practical difference between "above, but not
> > including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?
>
> I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
> For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
> one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
> as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
> be outside either airspace.

You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose to
fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?

Cheers

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Upward from above" is the term used on the TAC.
> In other words, (IIUC) it means you can operate at 1200 feet talkiing to
> nobody, while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot over your head at 1201, where
> CBAS
> begins . . .
>

A bit more than a foot would be required. An altitude assigned by ATC
cannot be lower than the MVA.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 2:14 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > What is the practical difference between "above, but not
> > > including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?
>
> > I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
> > For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
> > one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
> > as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
> > be outside either airspace.
>
> You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
> Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose to
> fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?

There are certainly reasons to want to fly at a +X altitude rather
than 100' lower. For example, if you're under a low Class B shelf, you
might want to be as high as possible as a precaution in case there's
an engine failure; 100' higher might give you 1000' further to glide.

But not every +X floor adjoins a designated X ceiling below. For
instance, consider the +05, +08, +11, and +12 Class B segments around
EWR on the NY TAC (see skyvector.com). What's the point of the + for
those segment floors? A +11 lets you fly at 1100', as opposed to 1099'
without the +. But letting you fly one foot higher is of no value,
since that's much less than the accuracy with which you can control or
even measure your altitude. So why do they bother having the + there?

[Kingfish]

On Dec 16, 6:07 pm, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:
> Airbus wrote:
> > "Upward from above" is the term used on the TAC.
> > In other words, (IIUC) it means you can operate at 1200 feet talkiing to
> > nobody, while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot over your head at 1201, where CBAS
> > begins . . .
>
> Good eatin', them CBAS. ;P

Yeah, except for those foul-tempered ones with the frickin' laser
beams on their heads...

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...


>
>I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
>For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
>one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
>as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
>be outside either airspace.



Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it would appear
the writer is suffering from the illusion that "fractional" airspace altitudes
in a given segment are indicated both for the charted (Class B) airspace and
for the underlying (Class E). Readers should be advised of the fact that this
expert, offering his "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional chart, and
certainly has never studied the subject - does not know how to read the chart.

The original poster, writing for information or clarification, should be
advised that use or application of any information gleaned from this expert
could lead to hazardous in-flight conditions . . .

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
> Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose to
> fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?

I don't know, but if the charts didn't use the + and - notation, you'd be able
to, and you'd have a defense for doing so if you were called on it. Clearly,
the FAA doesn't want to leave that loophole open.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
>> Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose
>> to fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?
>
> I don't know,

I know.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> But not every +X floor adjoins a designated X ceiling below. For
> instance, consider the +05, +08, +11, and +12 Class B segments around
> EWR on the NY TAC (see skyvector.com). What's the point of the + for
> those segment floors? A +11 lets you fly at 1100', as opposed to 1099'
> without the +. But letting you fly one foot higher is of no value,
> since that's much less than the accuracy with which you can control or
> even measure your altitude. So why do they bother having the + there?

I'm not sure, but I note that there's a tremendous amount of helicopter
traffic in those areas, and many high obstacles. The Class B also intersects
a number of Class D areas, which may be a factor.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it would
appear
>> the writer is suffering from the illusion that "fractional" airspace
altitudes
>> in a given segment are indicated both for the charted (Class B) airspace and
>> for the underlying (Class E). Readers should be advised of the fact that
this
>> expert, offering his "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional chart,
and
>> certainly has never studied the subject - does not know how to read the
chart.
>
>Okay ... so explain why the charts include + and - for altitude limits on
>airspaces?
>
>I already know the answer, since I looked it up ages ago, and I've given it,
>but I'll try again:
>
>If you see, say, 50/SFC for a Class C, and 80/50+ for a Class B above it, it
>means that the Class C extends from the surface to 5000 feet inclusive, and
>the Class B extends from 5001 feet to 8000 feet inclusive.
>
>Without a plus or minus sign, there is an ambiguous margin of 100 feet between
>the airspaces. For example 50/SFC for the Class C and 80/51 for the Class B
>means that the area between 5001 feet and 5099 feet inclusive is in neither
>airspace. Since this could cause problems if someone were to actually try to
>fly through this thin slice of air, calling it uncontrolled, the + and - are
>used to make it clear that the two airspaces touch each other, with no space
>between.



The fact that you looked something up "ages ago" and still manage to post a
completely incorrect response does not argue well for your learning ability.
If you want to prove me wrong - show us a case of a Class "C" underlying a
Class "B" (very rare occurrence) in which this 100 ft ambiguity exists. Usually
you'll find a "T" notation (eg Chicago) otherwise the floors and ceilings are
far apart (eg Los Angeles). Do you really believe you can fly 90ft under
Class"B" in "no man's land" - not in any airspace category? The fact that you
repeatedly invert the symbols (50+ instead of +50) is further proof you don't
know how to read aviation terminology.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> In the case you cite, where one ceiling is lower than an overlying floor, the
> space between is also readable on the chart - usually Class E, which is not
> uncontrolled airspace.

The space between is not specially marked on the chart. It must be inferred
from the vertical limits of the surrounding airspaces.

> Pilots know how to read the charts.

Most of them do, in most cases. So do I.

> Fortunate we are that you do not fly airplanes, and we do not have
> to worry about sharing the airspace with you and your fuzzy theories.

I find it increasingly plausible that many PPLs do not look things up and are
undisturbed by their ignorance, but I nevertheless hope that this is not too
widespread.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> It is specifically indicated on the chart, in every case.

Point me to an example.

Class E is usually implied rather than explicit. Although it nominally starts
at 14,500 feet MSL, so much of the U.S. is an exception to this that the
absence of any marking implies an exceptional floor of 1200 feet AGL. Only
Class E that starts at 700 feet, or starts at the surface, or that starts at
1200 feet _and_ is adjacent to Class G, or that starts at some other altitude
besides 14,500, is explicitly delimited. So if you see [27] for a Class D
airspace and 50/28 for the Class C above it, between 2701 feet and 2799 feet,
it's Class E. If you see [27] for the Class D and 50/27+ for the Class C,
it's Class D up to 2700 feet inclusive, and Class C from 2701 feet up to 5000
feet inclusive, and Class E and A above, in that order.

> The above proves the contrary.

It doesn't prove anything, since you've given no examples.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Pretentious prick!

I'm simply making an observation.

> You've just been proven completely wrong.

Hardly. You made an unsupported assertion. That's not proof.

> Your whole fuzzy argument debunked.

What was fuzzy about it?

> Everything you've said over the past twenty posts proven to be the aviation
> equivalent of a slime mold, and yet you presume to go on about pilots'
> ignorance. . .

I'm more convinced of it each day. It's a bit disappointing.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> But not every +X floor adjoins a designated X ceiling below. For
>> instance, consider the +05, +08, +11, and +12 Class B segments around
>> EWR on the NY TAC (see skyvector.com). What's the point of the + for
>> those segment floors? A +11 lets you fly at 1100', as opposed to
>> 1099' without the +. But letting you fly one foot higher is of no
>> value, since that's much less than the accuracy with which you can
>> control or even measure your altitude. So why do they bother having
>> the + there?
>
> I'm not sure,

I know.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> In the case you cite, where one ceiling is lower than an overlying
>> floor, the space between is also readable on the chart - usually
>> Class E, which is not uncontrolled airspace.
>
> The space between is not specially marked on the chart. It must be
> inferred from the vertical limits of the surrounding airspaces.
>
>> Pilots know how to read the charts.
>
> Most of them do, in most cases. So do I.
>


No, you don't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> It is specifically indicated on the chart, in every case.
>
> Point me to an example.
>


Why? You don't fly, fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Pretentious prick!
>
> I'm simply making an observation.
>
>> You've just been proven completely wrong.
>
> Hardly. You made an unsupported assertion. That's not proof.
>
>> Your whole fuzzy argument debunked.
>
> What was fuzzy about it?


It's moldy..



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 8:36 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2:41 am, wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2:14 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> > > On Dec 17, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > > writes:
> > > > > What is the practical difference between "above, but not
> > > > > including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?
>
> > > > I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
> > > > For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
> > > > one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
> > > > as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
> > > > be outside either airspace.
>
> > > You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
> > > Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose to
> > > fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?
>
> > There are certainly reasons to want to fly at a +X altitude rather
> > than 100' lower. For example, if you're under a low Class B shelf, you
> > might want to be as high as possible as a precaution in case there's
> > an engine failure; 100' higher might give you 1000' further to glide.
>
> > But not every +X floor adjoins a designated X ceiling below. For
> > instance, consider the +05, +08, +11, and +12 Class B segments around
> > EWR on the NY TAC (see skyvector.com). What's the point of the + for
> > those segment floors? A +11 lets you fly at 1100', as opposed to 1099'
> > without the +. But letting you fly one foot higher is of no value,
> > since that's much less than the accuracy with which you can control or
> > even measure your altitude. So why do they bother having the + there?
>
> My point is that you would not normally fly within 100' of an airspace
> boundary unless told that by ATC in which case you have clearance and
> won't accidently bust into airspace?

I've done that many times. I just gave one reason you might want to do
that. Here's another: you might otherwise be too low to abide by the
relevant obstance-clearance regulations. (As for Class B clearance,
you might not be able to get it. You might not even have a radio.)

> In addition the cruising
> altitudes are Xthousand plus or minus 500, and I think. Or have I
> missed something?

Yes. You're forgetting that those cruise-altitude rules only apply
above 3000' AGL.

So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
if anyone knows.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...


I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.


>
>If you see, say, 50/SFC for a Class C, and 80/50+ for a Class B above it, it
>means that the Class C extends from the surface to 5000 feet inclusive, and
>the Class B extends from 5001 feet to 8000 feet inclusive.
>
>Without a plus or minus sign, there is an ambiguous margin of 100 feet between
>the airspaces. For example 50/SFC for the Class C and 80/51 for the Class B
>means that the area between 5001 feet and 5099 feet inclusive is in neither
>airspace. Since this could cause problems if someone were to actually try to
>fly through this thin slice of air, calling it uncontrolled, the + and - are
>used to make it clear that the two airspaces touch each other, with no space
>between.


There is never any space "between" overlying airspaces.
There is no "ambiguous margin". Airspace altitudes are charted and unambiguous.
If Class B is charted at XX for a given zone, and you fly higher without being
cleared into it, do not expect the FAA to look at you with pitiful indulgence
while you roll out your "ambiguous zone" theory.

In the case you cite, where one ceiling is lower than an overlying floor, the
space between is also readable on the chart - usually Class E, which is not
uncontrolled airspace.

Class D underlying Class B has its own ceiling, also clearly charted.

Pilots know how to read the charts. Fortunate we are that you do not fly
airplanes, and we do not have to worry about sharing the airspace with you and
your fuzzy theories.

[WingFlaps[_2_]]

On Dec 19, 3:30 pm, wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:36 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2:41 am, wrote:
> > > On Dec 17, 2:14 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 17, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > > > writes:
> > > > > > What is the practical difference between "above, but not
> > > > > > including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?
>
> > > > > I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
> > > > > For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
> > > > > one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
> > > > > as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
> > > > > be outside either airspace.
>
> > > > You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
> > > > Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose to
> > > > fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?
>
> > > There are certainly reasons to want to fly at a +X altitude rather
> > > than 100' lower. For example, if you're under a low Class B shelf, you
> > > might want to be as high as possible as a precaution in case there's
> > > an engine failure; 100' higher might give you 1000' further to glide.
>
> > > But not every +X floor adjoins a designated X ceiling below. For
> > > instance, consider the +05, +08, +11, and +12 Class B segments around
> > > EWR on the NY TAC (see skyvector.com). What's the point of the + for
> > > those segment floors? A +11 lets you fly at 1100', as opposed to 1099'
> > > without the +. But letting you fly one foot higher is of no value,
> > > since that's much less than the accuracy with which you can control or
> > > even measure your altitude. So why do they bother having the + there?
>
> > My point is that you would not normally fly within 100' of an airspace
> > boundary unless told that by ATC in which case you have clearance and
> > won't accidently bust into airspace?
>
> I've done that many times. I just gave one reason you might want to do
> that. Here's another: you might otherwise be too low to abide by the
> relevant obstance-clearance regulations. (As for Class B clearance,
> you might not be able to get it. You might not even have a radio.)

I don't follow the relevance of your reason to the suggestion/idea
that you might want to fly within a few feet of an airspace bounday.
Flying 100' off the boundary is common, 50' and less is pushing it -
your altimeter had better be right.
As I said, why fly _within_ 100' and if you really need that extra
1000' glide I'd suggest you are probably too low... Why not just get
clearance -it's only a radio call.

>
> > In addition the cruising
> > altitudes are Xthousand plus or minus 500, and I think. Or have I
> > missed something?
>
> Yes. You're forgetting that those cruise-altitude rules only apply
> above 3000' AGL.
>

No, I did not forget that. I was trying to point out that if the top
of airspace was >3000' then you wouldn't want to cruise at X+(0-400)
or X-(0-400) anyway.

> So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
> mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
> if anyone knows.

Well, I've not seen such (yet) and the rationale for +X escapes me
(too) so far... Maybe a bean counter was involved?

;-)

Cheers

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> In the case you cite, where one ceiling is lower than an overlying floor,
the
>> space between is also readable on the chart - usually Class E, which is not
>> uncontrolled airspace.
>
>The space between is not specially marked on the chart. It must be inferred
>from the vertical limits of the surrounding airspaces.


It is specifically indicated on the chart, in every case.


>
>> Pilots know how to read the charts.
>
>Most of them do, in most cases. So do I.


The above proves the contrary.

>
>> Fortunate we are that you do not fly airplanes, and we do not have
>> to worry about sharing the airspace with you and your fuzzy theories.
>
>I find it increasingly plausible that many PPLs do not look things up and are
>undisturbed by their ignorance, but I nevertheless hope that this is not too
>widespread.

No it is not. Your case is unique in the annals of aviation history.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...

>
>I find it increasingly plausible that many PPLs do not look things up and are
>undisturbed by their ignorance, but I nevertheless hope that this is not too
>widespread.


Pretentious prick!
You've just been proven completely wrong. Your whole fuzzy argument debunked.
Everything you've said over the past twenty posts proven to be the aviation
equivalent of a slime mold, and yet you presume to go on about pilots'
ignorance. . .

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> Pretentious prick!
>
>I'm simply making an observation.
>
>> You've just been proven completely wrong.
>
>Hardly. You made an unsupported assertion. That's not proof.


What's left to prove?
You've walked away from your whole argument. This whole fuzzy thing about
ambiguity zones and psyhchotic loopholes - that's all history and we're on
to your favorite topic of everyone else's incompetence!!



>
>> Your whole fuzzy argument debunked.
>
>What was fuzzy about it?

You're right! Slimy is closer. . .


>
>> Everything you've said over the past twenty posts proven to be the aviation
>> equivalent of a slime mold, and yet you presume to go on about pilots'
>> ignorance. . .
>
>I'm more convinced of it each day. It's a bit disappointing.


Help is available. I don't know how old you are, but you have the rest of your
life to live. You already have the number written down. Call it! It's urgent!

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> It is specifically indicated on the chart, in every case.
>
>Point me to an example.

Every sectional chart is an example - but you must take a couple of hours to
learn how to read it - which you will never do. . .


>
>Class E is usually implied rather than explicit. Although it nominally starts
>at 14,500 feet MSL, so much of the U.S. is an exception to this that the
>absence of any marking implies an exceptional floor of 1200 feet AGL. Only
>Class E that starts at 700 feet, or starts at the surface, or that starts at
>1200 feet _and_ is adjacent to Class G, or that starts at some other altitude
>besides 14,500, is explicitly delimited. So if you see [27] for a Class D
>airspace and 50/28 for the Class C above it, between 2701 feet and 2799 feet,
>it's Class E. If you see [27] for the Class D and 50/27+ for the Class C,
>it's Class D up to 2700 feet inclusive, and Class C from 2701 feet up to 5000
>feet inclusive, and Class E and A above, in that order.
>
>> The above proves the contrary.
>
>It doesn't prove anything, since you've given no examples.



This one is really funny. A classic in the annals of documented psychosis.
Take note, fellow pilots - Class E has now been abolished below 14,500 feet
and most of the US is exempt!!


Other than that, it is duly noted that Class E that starts at 700 feet, or
starts at the surface, or that starts at Class C above it for the Class D and
50/27+ up to 5000 adjacent to Class G is explicitly delimited. So if you see
any marking implies an exceptional floor of 1200 to Class G, or that starts at
some other altitude between 2701 feet and 2799 feet, it's Class E. Although it
nominally starts at 700 feet, or starts at the surface, or that starts at [27]
for the Class D 1200 feet _and_ is adjacent to Class G and Class E and A above,
in that order it may be 1200 feet.

[[email protected]]

Airbus > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >Airbus writes:
> >
> >> Every sectional chart is an example - but you must take a couple of hours
> to
> >> learn how to read it - which you will never do. . .
> >
> >Translation: You don't have an example.

> Every sectional chart is an example.
> Pilots here know how to read them.
> You do not.

His psychosis will never allow him to accept any of that.

You might as well spend your time trying to teach a pig to sing opera.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 12:18 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 3:30 pm,
> > > In addition the cruising
> > > altitudes are Xthousand plus or minus 500, and I think. Or have I
> > > missed something?
>
> > Yes. You're forgetting that those cruise-altitude rules only apply
> > above 3000' AGL.
>
> No, I did not forget that. I was trying to point out that if the top
> of airspace was >3000' then you wouldn't want to cruise at X+(0-400)
> or X-(0-400) anyway.

Ok, but we were talking about +X altitudes, which are used for the
*floor* of an airspace, not for the ceiling. In the specific example
under discussion, there were Class B floors of +05, +08, +11, and +12,
all well below 3000' AGL.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 9:32 am, Airbus > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> >So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
> >mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
> >if anyone knows.
>
> +XX simply means they want XX to be flyable without transitioning class bravo.

Yes, the meaning of the notation is clear. What's puzzling is the
rationale for the notation.

> Without this, most pilots would fly 100 lower

That's the part I don't understand. Even without the +, there's no
*requirement* to be 100' lower (as opposed to, say, 50' lower). True,
many pilots would want to leave about 100' margin of error. But then
why wouldn't they want to do that for a +X floor too? In that case, a
+11 floor lets them fly at 1000', not 1100'--essentially the same as a
plain 11 floor.

On the other hand, if you're *not* leaving a margin of error, then a
+11 floor lets you fly at 1100', whereas a plain 11 floor lets you fly
at 1099'. But you can't control or measure your altitude to that
accuracy anyway. So an extra foot can't plausibly be the motivation
for the +. But I don't see how the + has any other consequence. So I'm
still puzzled about what its motivation could be.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> Every sectional chart is an example - but you must take a couple of hours
to
>> learn how to read it - which you will never do. . .
>
>Translation: You don't have an example.

Every sectional chart is an example.
Pilots here know how to read them.
You do not.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...

>
>So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
>mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
>if anyone knows.


+XX simply means they want XX to be flyable without transitioning class bravo.
Without this, most pilots would fly 100 lower (even if not required below
3000)which would have you at 400'-700' operating in and out of Linden. TPA at
Linden is 800.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it would appear
> the writer is suffering from the illusion that "fractional" airspace altitudes
> in a given segment are indicated both for the charted (Class B) airspace and
> for the underlying (Class E).

Even a very quick glance at the chart will show that airspace limits are given
as one number over another, separated by a horizontal line. The top number is
the upper limit, the bottom is the lower, in units of 100 feet. Since this
vertical positioning is not technically possible in running text, I used a
slash in place of the horizontal line. Nothing weird about that.

> Readers should be advised of the fact that this
> expert, offering his "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional chart, and
> certainly has never studied the subject - does not know how to read the chart.

I've seen lots of sectional charts and I've become pretty good at reading
them.

> The original poster, writing for information or clarification, should be
> advised that use or application of any information gleaned from this expert
> could lead to hazardous in-flight conditions . . .

Examples?

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> This one is really funny. A classic in the annals of documented psychosis.
> Take note, fellow pilots - Class E has now been abolished below 14,500 feet
> and most of the US is exempt!!

See FAR 71.71 for a complete definition of Class E.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it
>> would appear the writer is suffering from the illusion that
>> "fractional" airspace altitudes in a given segment are indicated both
>> for the charted (Class B) airspace and for the underlying (Class E).
>
> Even a very quick glance at the chart will show that airspace limits
> are given as one number over another, separated by a horizontal line.
> The top number is the upper limit, the bottom is the lower, in units
> of 100 feet. Since this vertical positioning is not technically
> possible in running text, I used a slash in place of the horizontal
> line. Nothing weird about that.


Wrong again, fukkwit.
>
>> Readers should be advised of the fact that this
>> expert, offering his "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional
>> chart, and certainly has never studied the subject - does not know
>> how to read the chart.
>
> I've seen lots of sectional charts and I've become pretty good at
> reading them.
>

No, you haven't.


You have to fly to read them, fjukkwit.

It's like saying you read music without playing any instrument.
Completely pointless and totally inaccurate.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> This one is really funny. A classic in the annals of documented
>> psychosis. Take note, fellow pilots - Class E has now been
>> abolished below 14,500 feet and most of the US is exempt!!
>
> See FAR 71.71 for a complete definition of Class E.
>

Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:30:21 -0800, AirplaneSense wrote:

>> My point is that you would not normally fly within 100' of an airspace
>> boundary unless told that by ATC in which case you have clearance and
>> won't accidently bust into airspace?
>
> I've done that many times. I just gave one reason you might want to do
> that. Here's another:

Or another: Take a look at LDJ, hiding under a CBAS shelf south of EWR
(since we're writing about this area anyway). Note LDJ's TPA.

FWIW, a lot of pilots fear that airport for just that reason, though
given the opportunity most seem to get over it (my club keeps two
aircraft there {8^).

An interesting side note: the GPS-A approach into LDJ never enters CBAS.
Was that just a coincidence? By design to permit practice approaches w/o
bugging ATC? But it makes it very simple for those unfamiliar with the
area to get to the airport w/o being required to talk to a controller.

- Andrew