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

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
So would you reason that I was not required to "follow the Arrow" on
the 2 mile final because the controller was, by implication, causing me
to "waive laws"
(bust B airspace)?

I'm not really sure how many times you have to be told that the instruction
to follow the Arrow in no way required you to fly through the Class B
airspace.

Until you understand that this is the case, any further attempt to enlighten
you is likely futile.

But even if your mistaken impression that the instruction required you to
fly through Class B airspace was correct, the answer to your question would
still be "yes, you were not required to 'follow the Arrow'". It's very
simple: you say to the controller "unable", you explain why, and then you
either negotiate an alternative course of action (if there is time) or you
maneuver to avoid whatever is the problem (the Class B airspace in this
case).

You need to get over your mistaken idea that you handled the situation
perfectly, and start learning about what you could have done differently.

Pete

"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.

A person with a stuck mic cannot hear anyone tell them to turn off the
radio.

In any case, my hypothetical situation assumes the radios are working
properly. There's no need for you to introduce new elements to the
situation. It's just one example of many situations in which an instruction
from ATC would be unreasonable, and there would be no penalty for refusing
to comply.

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.

I don't think so either.

Pete

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not so Pete... The controller told me to "follow the Arrow" . To do so
*safely* (in my opinion) required I extend the downwind leg right into
class B.

I'm going to repeat this every time you insist on making that FALSE
STATEMENT:

Extending the downwind leg DID NOT require you to fly through the Class B
airspace.

Pete

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes. I believe you may have misunderstood me. I was stating that a
clearance through all airspace comes automatically on IFR flight plans
and using it as an analolgy to explain my point.

I said "no clearance, no entry". You said "Not Not necessarilly [sic] true
in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan." At least two people
pointed out to you that the IFR clearance *is* a clearance (that's why the
word "clearance" is used to describe an IFR clearance).

If you are IFR and your clearance does not stipulate a route through the
Class B airspace, you are still not authorized into the Class B. If you are
IFR and your clearance does stipulate a route through the Class B airspace,
you ARE authorized into the Class B, and the IFR clearance that so
stipulated is the clearance that allowed that.

In other words, no clearance, no entry. Being IFR doesn't get you out of
having to have a clearance into the Class B.

Pete

"Antoñio" wrote in message
ups.com...
You mean flight into class B for landing at BFI is not *normally*
required. In this particular case I maintain it was for safe
separation.

Extending the downwind leg DID NOT require you to fly through the Class B
airspace.

Given the above is true, how do you think AIM 3-2-1d figures in? ...

It's not true. Regardless, AIM 3-2-1d serves as a reminder that whatever
you thought that the Class D controller's instructions told you to do, you
are required to ensure that you meet the requirements for entry into the
Class B airspace before doing so.

Pete

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

Bob Gardner wrote:
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.

Slow flight would have been good had there been time. I was abeam the
end of the runway when cleared to follow the Arrow. I was in B airspace
(so it seems) around 20 seconds later.

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.

BFI has radar and is separating me from other traffic, right? That is
not technically "radar service"?

Bob Gardner

Peter Duniho wrote:

It's not true. Regardless, AIM 3-2-1d serves as a reminder that whatever
you thought that the Class D controller's instructions told you to do, you
are required to ensure that you meet the requirements for entry into the
Class B airspace before doing so.

Pete

How could I have done that in this case?

Antonio

BTIZ wrote:
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


Bottom line is I think I got a "pass" because it happens all the time
at this airport. It is not even clear whether or not I actually busted
the bravo. I just thought it would make for interesting discussion.

I will file the 207 just for insurance.

Thanks!

Antonio

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

No you weren't. You *complied* with the FAR that reads, in part, "Unless
otherwise authorized or directed by ATC". That's assuming the J-3 was
originally certified with an engine-driven electrical system (I don't recall
if that's the case or not). If it wasn't, you *complied* with the part that
exempts such aircraft from that regulation.

Either way, ATC didn't allow any deviation from any FAR by permitting you to
enter the Mode C Veil of Sea-Tac.

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.

If you deem it necessary for the safety of the flight to fly into airspace
for which you were not authorized, it's true that you ought to do that as
PIC. However, a) you need to declare an emergency to do so (even if it's
under your breath, to be reported to ATC later), and b) if the FAA asks you
for an explanation, you have to give one. If they don't like your
explanation, they may cite you for a violation of the regulations.

[...]
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.

Funny, you didn't mention the use of a GPS earlier. I will take this
opportunity to point out that flying in the pattern of an airport with such
a complex is a perfect example of when to NOT be relying on a GPS, and to
become familiar with the ground references PRIOR to the flight.

That said, assuming your GPS was performing correctly, it should have
provided you with all the information you required in order to fly the
downwind as far as you liked, without touching the Class B airspace. Even
assuming a worst-case scenario of 300' off (and GPS is usually much better
than that, especially when airborne), the half-mile plus space between the
extended centerline and the Class B airspace still leaves you with over
2000' of room between you and any traffic on final.

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.

Even though busting the Class B puts you directly in line with the airliners
on final approach? A collision is undesirable, whether it happens in Class
B or Class D.

And just how much separation do you require anyway? There's at least a
half-mile between the final approach course for 31L and the Class B
airspace. So, you must want more than that. How much more?

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'm a bit bewildered at your statement here. I wouldn't be surprised if
360s are used for spacing at KBFI on a daily basis. But when you try to
make a claim that it does, you hardly reinforce your assertion that doing so
would be dangerous. If it's so dangerous, and it happens so often, why
aren't there any crashes?

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.

The air is just as clear south of the airport.

[...]
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.

I agree the Class B is unusually close at KBFI. But that doesn't mean that
a downwind leg, even an extended one, requires flight through the Class B
airspace. It just means you need to be on top of your game when you fly
there.

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.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it specifically instructs you to prioritize, and
to not communicate at all until you've addressed your aviation and
navigation. That is, it presumes that one may NOT have the time and ability
to communicate.

It's true that it's non-regulatory, but it's also true that it's a
well-understood mantra, and no pilot has ever been busted for flying the
airplane first, and working the radio second.

It just doesn't realistically work in all cases.

I haven't seen or heard of a situation in which it doesn't work.
Nevertheless, even if there is such a situation, this wasn't one of them.

I think I took appropriate actions. ATC obviously thinks it was
OK because they didn't ask me to call them.

It does seem so, yes. Though, you never really told us what "appropriate
actions" you took. It sounds as though you didn't really do anything other
than just continue to fly your downwind (and presumably turn around and land
at some point). Whatever you did, I'd agree it seems that ATC wasn't
concerned (other than to make whatever comment they made on the radio, but
since you didn't hear that clearly and didn't tell ATC you didn't hear that
clearly, we don't really know what that comment was).

Nobody, to my knowledge, was jepordized by my actions.

It does seem so, yes. Though, you might consider your own pilot certificate
in assessing whether anyone was jepoardized. It doesn't sound as though any
metal got close to running into any other metal, but flying through the
Class B without a clearance isn't good for the safety of that piece of paper
you've got (or maybe you have the plastic one).

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?

I expect for you to acknowledge the information provided, rather than to
insist that you already know the answer. In particular, when someone tells
you that flying an extended downwind leg there doesn't require you to fly
through the Class B airspace, you ought to seriously consider listening to
that statement. When a second person says the exact same thing, you might
start thinking there might be something to it.

No one has attacked you, by the way. But every time you make a false
statement, you prompt someone else to correct that false statement. That's
how it works around here.

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.)

There you go again, with the false statements. No unusual maneuvering was
required for you to avoid the Class B. Or, if you prefer, no maneuvering
that would be considered unusual by someone comfortable flying in tight
quarters was required. There is a LOT of room, relative to the size of even
the largest airplane, between the final approach course for 31L and the
Class B airspace.

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.

Red herring. You were given an instruction that required you to extend your
downwind. There's no difference between that and an explicit instruction to
extend your downwind.

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

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

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but we're not really concerned with "all
cases" here. We're concerned with THIS case.

Fact #1: there is over a half mile between the final approach course of 31L
and the Class B airspace

Fact #2: a pilot comfortable flying in tight quarters can easily negotiate a
corridor over half a mile wide, using appropriate references (GPS or ground,
doesn't matter).

Fact #3: a pilot who believes it impossible to fly an extended downwind
between the final approach course of 31L at KBFI and the Class B airspace
nearby must not be comfortable flying in tight quarters.

Where you fall in the above facts, I'll let you say. The conclusion remains
however: it is not possible to be both comfortable flying in tight quarters,
and yet not be able to extend one's left downwind to 31L at KBFI. The two
are mututally exclusive of each other.

Pete