Class B busted...My problem or the controller's ?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
I think what Antoñio was asking for was a regulation to support the
notion that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because
compliance would violate the FARs.

Maybe that's what he meant. If so, I'm not convinced that's a reasonable
question. That is, it should go without saying that there are exceptions
to the "must comply with ATC" rule.

Perhaps, but the question is whether the violation of other FARs in general
constitutes a blanket exception to the rule. It's actually quite odd, given
that apparent intent by the FAA, that 91.123b mentions an exception for
emergencies, but not an exception for compliance with the FARs (in contrast
with AIM 4-4-1a,b which, while not regulatory, does specify that exception).

I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a pilot
conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying with the
other FARs. That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car,
for example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
laws that would otherwise hold (even though there are other, implicit
exceptions of the sort you mentioned; e.g. if you're instructed to stop your
car ten feet above the pavement, you presumably can't be penalized for
failing to comply).

--Gary

I instructed at BFI for twenty years...and I was never concerned that I
would bust the Class B when doing left traffic to 31L. If you fly at 800
feet, stay over the Duwamish, and turn before you get to 405, there is
nothing to be worried about.

Bob Gardner
"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...


Peter Duniho wrote:
"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not sure where the Duwamish is however,

If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular
basis,
it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish
River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport.

I stand behoved.

looking at the Seattle
terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the
downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south.

You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at
Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute
confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining
outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg.

Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your
recall is inaccurate.

So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
clearance?
Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
reason, including regulatory" ?

As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into
the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is
likely
to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is
not
a clearance to fly into the Class B.

That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the
controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with
"cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of
miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC
instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and
Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind
the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..."
?

The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B
airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells
you
to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence
of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of
that
regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that
you need a clearance.

The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision.
It tells me nothing positive.

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.

No clearance, no entry.

Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
plan.

It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
regulations.

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

Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides
you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary
to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b)
the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was
necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have.

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.

The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind
up
on
the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's
all.
They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all
up to
you.

I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many
options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called
out.


I provided several other options that were available to you.

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 !

Even from a safety standpoint,
there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even
theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if
that
were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying
upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It
would
be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L;
essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you
never
descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final.

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?".

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.

Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing
and
why.

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


Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend
one's
downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace,

To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does
not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the
class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens
all the time there.

If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to
me
that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away
from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just
won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be
comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't
describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor --
especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns
there
until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters.

I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable
when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my
question was about.

Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your
posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a
psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and
practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this
doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-)

Antonio

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
I stand behoved.

Good. That's a start.

Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your
recall is inaccurate.

I have current charts, and I examine them on a regular basis. They support
my statements.

That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the
controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with
"cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of
miles out...am I not following ATC instructions?

Yes, if you do what the controller says, you are following ATC instructions.
However, that has nothing to do with whether you are cleared into the Class
B airspace.

If I am following ATC
instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and
Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind
the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..."
?

You should not. Especially when the Class D controller's instruction
doesn't require you to fly into the Class B airspace.

The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision.
It tells me nothing positive.

That's silly. Using that logic, every single regulation would require a
statement "you must comply with this regulation". The absence of any other
exception to 91.131(a)(1) means you need to comply with 91.131(a)(1).

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.

No clearance, no entry.

Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
plan.

My understanding is that we are talking about a specific situation here, in
which an IFR flight plan is not part of the scenario.

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

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.

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.

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.

I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many
options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called
out.

No, actually they don't. They provide additional services as they are able
to, but their responsibility ends right where I said it does.

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 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.

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.

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.

To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does
not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the
class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens
all the time there.

It's true, Class B violations and near-violations do happen frequently. I
know one person who, while a student, managed to bust the TCA (as it was
called at the time) twice. But it doesn't happen to people who pay
attention to where the airspace is and where they are. There is nothing
about the airspace configuration that makes it impossible to fly normal
patterns while remaining outside the Class B.

I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable
when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my
question was about.

The best way to handle this particular situation is to fly a downwind that
doesn't take you into the Class B.

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.

Many other pilots manage to extend their downwind on left traffic to 31L
every day, without flying into the Class B. The only pilots who find this
impossible are those who are not comfortable staying close to the runway.

My comment about flying tight quarters is based simply on observed facts.
If you find it condescending (see below), that's your problem. 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.

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

You should review the definition of "condescension". The mere fact that I
point out the error in your statements does not make me condescending.

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.

Pete

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a
pilot conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying
with the other FARs.

FAR 91.3 grants the final authority for the flight to the pilot. The FAA is
very clear on the point that a controller is not the one flying the
airplane, and that the pilot is expected to make correct decisions even in
the face of ATC instructions that are unreasonable or don't make sense.

That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car, for
example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic laws
that would otherwise hold

Actually, it is analogous. For example, if you are parked on the side of
the road, and a police officer instructs you to pull out in front of an
oncoming car, you are not required to comply. It would be unsafe, and would
violate your legal requirement to yield to traffic when entering the
roadway.

Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
I don't think there's anything in the FARs themselves that would let a
pilot conclude that following ATC instructions is secondary to complying
with the other FARs.

FAR 91.3 grants the final authority for the flight to the pilot. The FAA
is very clear on the point that a controller is not the one flying the
airplane, and that the pilot is expected to make correct decisions even in
the face of ATC instructions that are unreasonable or don't make sense.

Agreed. But pilots must still comply with the FARs (except if there's an
emergency need to do otherwise). And if one FAR says to obey ATC
instructions (except if there's an emergency need to do otherwise), and
another FAR contradicts that FAR, there's nothing in the FARs themselves
that says how the pilot should resolve the contradiction. We just know,
through a combination of folklore and AIM passages, how the FAA expects us
to proceed.

That's not the way analogous situations work when driving a car, for
example; there, police directives do take precedence over the traffic
laws that would otherwise hold

Actually, it is analogous. For example, if you are parked on the side of
the road, and a police officer instructs you to pull out in front of an
oncoming car, you are not required to comply. It would be unsafe, and
would violate your legal requirement to yield to traffic when entering the
roadway.

Yes, and similarly the emergency exception in 91.3b and in 91.123b would
clearly entitle a pilot to refuse to cut in front of another aircraft.

Generally speaking, you are required to comply with a police officer's
instruction only so long as it would not cause you to break any other law.
The police officer does not have the authority to waive laws.

A police office does have the authority to require you to do something which
(although safe) would violate a traffic law in the absence of the officer's
directive. For instance, the police can order you to pull over in a
no-stopping zone; they can even direct you to go through an intersection
when there's a red light.

If we didn't happen to know otherwise via folklore and AIM passages, we'd
reasonably guess that a pilot should analogously comply with an ATC
directive to enter Class B without a clearance. The FARs don't say anything
to the contrary.

--Gary

Did your instructor teach you slow flight? Slowing down and hanging out some
flaps would have given the Arrow plenty of room without your having to
extend your downwind. That's one of the reasons maneuvering at minimum
allowable airspeed is taught.

BTW, the provision in the 7110.65 requiring controllers to coordinate
airspace transits applies to controllers who are providing radar services.
Somehow, I don't think that the BFI controller was providing radar services.


Bob Gardner

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...


Peter Duniho wrote:
"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not sure where the Duwamish is however,

If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular
basis,
it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish
River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport.

I stand behoved.

looking at the Seattle
terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the
downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south.

You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at
Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute
confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining
outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg.

Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your
recall is inaccurate.

So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the
clearance?
Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
reason, including regulatory" ?

As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into
the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is
likely
to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is
not
a clearance to fly into the Class B.

That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the
controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with
"cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of
miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC
instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and
Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind
the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..."
?

The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B
airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells
you
to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence
of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of
that
regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that
you need a clearance.

The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision.
It tells me nothing positive.

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.

No clearance, no entry.

Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight
plan.

It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
regulations.

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

Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides
you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary
to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b)
the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was
necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have.

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.

The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind
up
on
the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's
all.
They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all
up to
you.

I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many
options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called
out.


I provided several other options that were available to you.

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 !

Even from a safety standpoint,
there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even
theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if
that
were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying
upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It
would
be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L;
essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you
never
descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final.

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?".

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.

Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing
and
why.

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


Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend
one's
downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace,

To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does
not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the
class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens
all the time there.

If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to
me
that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away
from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just
won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be
comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't
describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor --
especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns
there
until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters.

I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable
when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my
question was about.

Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your
posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a
psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and
practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this
doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-)

Antonio

For example, suppose ATC instructs the
pilot to turn off their radio. Do you believe that is an instruction that a
pilot is required to comply with?

It's not unreasonable. I've been told to turn off mode C, and if the
radio is causing interference (a stuck mike comes to mind) it's a
reasonable request.

But if ATC says "follow the Arrow" and the Arrow then proceeds to crash
into a mountainside, I don't think you'd be cited for disobeying the
controller if you choose not to customize your aircraft the same way.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

It's not unreasonable. I've been told to turn off mode C, and if the
radio is causing interference (a stuck mike comes to mind) it's a
reasonable request.


If your mike is stuck you're not going to hear a request to turn off your
radio.

File what used to be NASA reports.. state what happened.. admit no guilt..

and if the tower did not say "call the tower when landing".. then you may
have gotten a pass on this one..

BT

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has
extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to
altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were
favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon
approach--the most common approach from the west.

I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number
three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley
approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come
up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing.

The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said
either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did
clearly hear which).
Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
or less--you end up in class B surface.

My questions:

1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to
follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can
reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the
aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right?

2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn
base and not be in conflict with other aircraft?

3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ?

Any thoughts would be appreciated...

Antonio

If your mike is stuck you're not going to hear a request to turn off your
radio.

I knew somebody would say that. You'd hear it on the other radio.

It might even be the other radio that's causing the problem. i.e.
you're operating split, the copilot is on ground with the stuck mike,
and you are on tower. You take off to do pattern work. Tower tell you
to turn off all your radios. The pilot hears it, the copilot (of
course) does not.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.