Busting airspace question

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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