Peter Duniho wrote:









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

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

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


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

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

Which I did by extending my downwind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antonio