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

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...

Sure they can. It's the Bravo tower that will write you up for violating
their airspace.


What instruction is violated in that case?



In this case, it becomes "convenient" for them to not be
able to locate the tapes from the Delta tower you were talking to. His
tapes could vindicate you, if you were acting under the assumption the
two are in communication with each other, or at least you were following
ATC instructions. If these tapes are "unavailable", then you just strayed
into calss B, with no justificfation or defense.


If you followed a tower instruction that caused you to enter Class B
airspace then you busted the regulation requiring a clearance to enter Class
B airspace and the tapes will not show that you violated the tower's
instruction. The condition of the tower tapes in that case is irrelevant.

If you violated a tower instruction in order to avoid Class B airspace then
the tapes may prove that you violated an ATC instruction. If that's the
case and the tower tapes are lost or damaged then there's no hard proof that
you violated the tower's instruction.

It's a moot point in any case since ATC does not expect you to follow an
instruction that would require you to violate an FAR.

used to be.. that all ATC facilities had to keep "tapes" and paper records
for 30days..
after that they could be reused.. if they wait more than 30days to file a
complaint..
I would think they don't have a case.

BT

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...


Without the tapes they can't prove you violated an instruction.

Sure they can. It's the Bravo tower that will write you up for violating
their airspace. In this case, it becomes "convenient" for them to not be
able to locate the tapes from the Delta tower you were talking to. His
tapes could vindicate you, if you were acting under the assumption the
two are in communication with each other, or at least you were following
ATC instructions. If these tapes are "unavailable", then you just strayed
into calss B, with no justificfation or defense.

G Faris

("Greg Farris" wrote)
I'm getting tempted to bring my own pocket recorder to monitor
clearances and instructions. I've had controllers flat out deny the
instructions they gave. I know they have tapes, but I get the feeling
that when you want to contest something, those tapes may go the way of
Rose Mary Woods . . .


What she described (her boo boo) was almost physically impossible to achieve
...."accidentally."

http://watergate.info/images/woods-rosemary.jpg
Something about her body language, in that now famous photo, was screaming -
"I'm lying."


Montblack

Greg Farris wrote:
Sounds like you knew the airspace well - so you knew extending the
downwind would bring you close to Class B, if not into it - That's an
advantage, compared with someone who is there for the first time, and
gives full trust to the controller. In your case, I would have said
something to the tower, like "Unable to continue downwind into Class
Bravo" asking for advice. That way, if he sends you into Class B, it's
clear(er) who did what.

Greg,

I do like that tactic and will try and use in in the future. Only one
"however" though....had I used it here I would have been well into
class B by the time the controller responded.


Hope you files a NASA form.

Definitely! And thanks for the reply.

Antonio

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
or less--you end up in class B surface.

IMHO, that's incorrect. It's true that if you are flying a very wide
downwind, you can clip the area of the Class B airspace that extends to the
surface. But provided you are flying the downwind where you're supposed
to -- over the Duwamish River -- you can fly straight out the valley as far
as you like without running into the Class B.

You do need to make sure you're at the proper pattern altitude (800') to
ensure you're not grazing the bottom (1100' at its lowest). But that's
usually not an issue.

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?

Assuming you busted the Class B, you are responsible. The only thing that
the tower controller does is grant you use of the runway. They don't have
the authority to clear you into the Class B, and it's your responsibility to
say "unable" if you're given an instruction with which you can't comply (for
whatever reason, including regulatory).

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

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.

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

Hard to say without knowing the specifics. The "problem" you describe
doesn't actually exist at Boeing Field, so the only way for me to answer is
to assume some other airport where the problem does exist. But airspace
designers try to avoid creating problems like this. So finding such an
airport on which to base my answer might be difficult, or impossible.

That said, let's assume that at Boeing Field, the Class B down to the
surface actually does extend all the way up to, but not including, the final
approach course (it must not go over the final approach course, since then
no straight-in approach would be allowed, except by aircraft who already
have clearance through the Class B). Let's further assume that you need to
turn base before 1/2 mile past the "abeam the numbers" point.

Then your only available option is to not fly more than 1/2 mile past where
you are abeam the numbers. This may require S-turns, to give the
straight-in traffic more time. This may require making a 360 degree turn.
You could possibly turn upwind and try again, hoping that no more
straight-in traffic will show up. There are a variety of ways to solve the
problem. But you would have to solve it...flying into the Class B airspace
without a clearance isn't an option.

Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one's
downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace, and so
the only thing you really need to do is make sure you are far enough east to
avoid the Class B (and far enough west to avoid conflict with straight-in
traffic). It's tighter than you usually find, but it's definitely doable.

For what it's worth, I have found that the easiest way to ensure you're in
the right spot is to fly directly over the Duwamish, and then aim for the
small hill just to the south of the runway. As long as your downwind takes
you just west of that hill, you'll stay clear of both the Class B and the
final approach course. Alternatively, stay over or east of Route 99, and
that will accomplish the same thing. I prefer the topographic landmarks,
because they are easier to see than picking out which roadway is which, but
99 ought to be pretty prominent too.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Anto=F1io" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile
or less--you end up in class B surface.

IMHO, that's incorrect. It's true that if you are flying a very wide
downwind, you can clip the area of the Class B airspace that extends to t=
he
surface. But provided you are flying the downwind where you're supposed
to -- over the Duwamish River -- you can fly straight out the valley as f=
ar
as you like without running into the Class B.

Not sure where the Duwamish is however, 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.

I see a highway there that seems to just barely stay outside of B. I
will look for it next time.

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?

Assuming you busted the Class B, you are responsible. The only thing that
the tower controller does is grant you use of the runway. They don't have
the authority to clear you into the Class B, and it's your responsibility=
to
say "unable" if you're given an instruction with which you can't comply (=
for
whatever reason, including regulatory).

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" ?

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


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.

Well, that's one of my points. The controller left me with two options:

1=2E Go into class B
2=2E Turn my base early and cause a conflict

Keep in mind that I have not at all decided yet if I was wrong or right
in my actions. I am simply laying out the facts as I saw them unfold.

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

That said, let's assume that at Boeing Field, the Class B down to the
surface actually does extend all the way up to, but not including, the fi=
nal
approach course (it must not go over the final approach course, since then
no straight-in approach would be allowed, except by aircraft who already
have clearance through the Class B). Let's further assume that you need =
to
turn base before 1/2 mile past the "abeam the numbers" point.

Then your only available option is to not fly more than 1/2 mile past whe=
re
you are abeam the numbers. This may require S-turns, to give the
straight-in traffic more time. This may require making a 360 degree turn.
You could possibly turn upwind and try again, hoping that no more
straight-in traffic will show up. There are a variety of ways to solve t=
he
problem. But you would have to solve it...flying into the Class B airspa=
ce
without a clearance isn't an option.

Whoa! You think flying a 360 in the pattern, or turning upwind (which
means you'd have to cross over?) are better solutions than clipping the
corner of B?

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

Not very far !

the only thing you really need to do is make sure you are far enough east=
to
avoid the Class B (and far enough west to avoid conflict with straight-in
traffic). It's tighter than you usually find, but it's definitely doable.

It is "doable" only if you wish to be wingtip to wingtip with an MD80
or an L1011 in a C172.



For what it's worth, I have found that the easiest way to ensure you're in
the right spot is to fly directly over the Duwamish, and then aim for the
small hill just to the south of the runway. As long as your downwind tak=
es
you just west of that hill, you'll stay clear of both the Class B and the
final approach course. Alternatively, stay over or east of Route 99, and
that will accomplish the same thing. I prefer the topographic landmarks,
because they are easier to see than picking out which roadway is which, b=
ut
99 ought to be pretty prominent too.

Ahhh...good points Pete. Thanks!!

Antonio

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Peter Duniho wrote:
Assuming you busted the Class B, you are responsible. The only thing
that
the tower controller does is grant you use of the runway. They don't
have
the authority to clear you into the Class B, and it's your responsibility
to
say "unable" if you're given an instruction with which you can't comply
(for
whatever reason, including regulatory).

Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
reason, including regulatory" ?

There's no such FAR. The closest you'll find is AIM 4-4-1a,b, and 4-4-6c.
But those clauses address clearances, rather than other ATC instructions;
and those clauses aren't regulations.

--Gary

"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.

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.

I see a highway there that seems to just barely stay outside of B. I
will look for it next time.

Good.

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.

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.

No clearance, no entry. It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
regulations. 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.

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.

Well, that's one of my points.

What is one of your points? That issues other than dealing with traffic on
the runway are all up to you?

The controller left me with two options:

1. Go into class B
2. Turn my base early and cause a conflict

I provided several other options that were available to you. Keeping in
mind, of course, that all of this assumes you had no way to extend your
downwind without flying into the Class B. As I've stated previously, this
is simply not the case.

Whoa! You think flying a 360 in the pattern, or turning upwind (which
means you'd have to cross over?) are better solutions than clipping the
corner of B?

From a regulatory standpoint, certainly yes. 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.

Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing and
why. But there would have been other options, had it not been the case that
you could just stay out of the Class B on your downwind.

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

Not very far !

You are simply incorrect. You can fly your downwind as far as you like and
never run into Class B airspace.

It is "doable" only if you wish to be wingtip to wingtip with an MD80
or an L1011 in a C172.

I thought you said it was an Arrow? In any case, there is plenty of room
between final and downwind, even staying out of the Class B.

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 should 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.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever
reason, including regulatory" ?

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.

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. That is, what regulation says that other
regulations take precedence over 91.123b (which requires compliance with ATC
instructions, except if there's an emergency need to deviate)? As far as I
can tell, there's no such regulation (although AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c are
at least tangentially relevant).

--Gary

"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. 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?

I don't think it is. That means that either there are implicit exceptions
to the "must comply with ATC" rule, or it means that turning off ones radio
would constitute an emergency, granting the pilot the pilot discretion
afforded by 91.123(b). IMHO, it's a stretch to require a pilot to declare
an emergency any time ATC gives an instruction that would result in a safety
or regulatory violation, especially since the word "unable" is clearly
provided as an alternative way to refuse an ATC instruction.

If you don't like the above example, take it further: what about an
instruction that is physically impossible to comply with? Suppose, for
example, that someone flying a C150 is told "climb maintain 17500". Should
the pilot be found in violation of 91.123(b) in that case? It's a perfectly
reasonable ATC instruction, for most other airplanes. No clear emergency is
presented. Yet, the pilot has no way to comply. Are they now in violation
of 91.123(b)? I seriously doubt they would be.

It is clear to me that, though the regulation doesn't spell it out,
exceptions for other than reason of emergency are permitted. Given that, it
is not hard to imagine that one of those implicit exceptions would be if the
instruction would result in the violation of the FARs.

Fortunately, all of the above is moot. In this particular instance, the
controller gave no instruction that would have forced a violation of the
FARs.

Pete