Class B airspace notation

Airbus wrote:
In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

Every sectional chart is an example - but you must take a couple of hours
to
learn how to read it - which you will never do. . .

Translation: You don't have an example.

Every sectional chart is an example.
Pilots here know how to read them.
You do not.

His psychosis will never allow him to accept any of that.

You might as well spend your time trying to teach a pig to sing opera.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 19, 12:18 am, WingFlaps wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:30 pm,
In addition the cruising
altitudes are Xthousand plus or minus 500, and I think. Or have I
missed something?

Yes. You're forgetting that those cruise-altitude rules only apply
above 3000' AGL.

No, I did not forget that. I was trying to point out that if the top
of airspace was 3000' then you wouldn't want to cruise at X+(0-400)
or X-(0-400) anyway.

Ok, but we were talking about +X altitudes, which are used for the
*floor* of an airspace, not for the ceiling. In the specific example
under discussion, there were Class B floors of +05, +08, +11, and +12,
all well below 3000' AGL.

On Dec 19, 9:32 am, Airbus wrote:
In article ,
says...

So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
if anyone knows.

+XX simply means they want XX to be flyable without transitioning class bravo.

Yes, the meaning of the notation is clear. What's puzzling is the
rationale for the notation.

Without this, most pilots would fly 100 lower

That's the part I don't understand. Even without the +, there's no
*requirement* to be 100' lower (as opposed to, say, 50' lower). True,
many pilots would want to leave about 100' margin of error. But then
why wouldn't they want to do that for a +X floor too? In that case, a
+11 floor lets them fly at 1000', not 1100'--essentially the same as a
plain 11 floor.

On the other hand, if you're *not* leaving a margin of error, then a
+11 floor lets you fly at 1100', whereas a plain 11 floor lets you fly
at 1099'. But you can't control or measure your altitude to that
accuracy anyway. So an extra foot can't plausibly be the motivation
for the +. But I don't see how the + has any other consequence. So I'm
still puzzled about what its motivation could be.

In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

Every sectional chart is an example - but you must take a couple of hours
to
learn how to read it - which you will never do. . .

Translation: You don't have an example.

Every sectional chart is an example.
Pilots here know how to read them.
You do not.

In article ,
says...


So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
if anyone knows.


+XX simply means they want XX to be flyable without transitioning class bravo.
Without this, most pilots would fly 100 lower (even if not required below
3000)which would have you at 400'-700' operating in and out of Linden. TPA at
Linden is 800.

Airbus writes:

Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it would appear
the writer is suffering from the illusion that "fractional" airspace altitudes
in a given segment are indicated both for the charted (Class B) airspace and
for the underlying (Class E).

Even a very quick glance at the chart will show that airspace limits are given
as one number over another, separated by a horizontal line. The top number is
the upper limit, the bottom is the lower, in units of 100 feet. Since this
vertical positioning is not technically possible in running text, I used a
slash in place of the horizontal line. Nothing weird about that.

Readers should be advised of the fact that this
expert, offering his "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional chart, and
certainly has never studied the subject - does not know how to read the chart.

I've seen lots of sectional charts and I've become pretty good at reading
them.

The original poster, writing for information or clarification, should be
advised that use or application of any information gleaned from this expert
could lead to hazardous in-flight conditions . . .

Examples?

Airbus writes:

This one is really funny. A classic in the annals of documented psychosis.
Take note, fellow pilots - Class E has now been abolished below 14,500 feet
and most of the US is exempt!!

See FAR 71.71 for a complete definition of Class E.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Airbus writes:

Trying to read between the lines of this incredibly weird post, it
would appear the writer is suffering from the illusion that
"fractional" airspace altitudes in a given segment are indicated both
for the charted (Class B) airspace and for the underlying (Class E).

Even a very quick glance at the chart will show that airspace limits
are given as one number over another, separated by a horizontal line.
The top number is the upper limit, the bottom is the lower, in units
of 100 feet. Since this vertical positioning is not technically
possible in running text, I used a slash in place of the horizontal
line. Nothing weird about that.


Wrong again, fukkwit.

Readers should be advised of the fact that this
expert, offering his "presumptions" may never have seen a sectional
chart, and certainly has never studied the subject - does not know
how to read the chart.

I've seen lots of sectional charts and I've become pretty good at
reading them.


No, you haven't.


You have to fly to read them, fjukkwit.

It's like saying you read music without playing any instrument.
Completely pointless and totally inaccurate.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Airbus writes:

This one is really funny. A classic in the annals of documented
psychosis. Take note, fellow pilots - Class E has now been
abolished below 14,500 feet and most of the US is exempt!!

See FAR 71.71 for a complete definition of Class E.


Fjukkwit.


Bertie

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:30:21 -0800, AirplaneSense wrote:

My point is that you would not normally fly within 100' of an airspace
boundary unless told that by ATC in which case you have clearance and
won't accidently bust into airspace?

I've done that many times. I just gave one reason you might want to do
that. Here's another:

Or another: Take a look at LDJ, hiding under a CBAS shelf south of EWR
(since we're writing about this area anyway). Note LDJ's TPA.

FWIW, a lot of pilots fear that airport for just that reason, though
given the opportunity most seem to get over it (my club keeps two
aircraft there {8^).

An interesting side note: the GPS-A approach into LDJ never enters CBAS.
Was that just a coincidence? By design to permit practice approaches w/o
bugging ATC? But it makes it very simple for those unfamiliar with the
area to get to the airport w/o being required to talk to a controller.

- Andrew