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

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


john smith wrote:
Get a copy of the Letter of Agreement between the CBAS and the CDAS.

I am familiar with what a LOA is but the other two acronymns "CBAS" and
"CDAS" I have never heard of. Can you explain them?

Class B/D airspace.

"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

"Antoñio" wrote in message
ups.com...
So would you say that if one were in the pattern that it would imply
the same responsibilities of ATC as if I were on, say, flight
following?

As Gary points out, whether or not ATC is coordinating transit through other
airspace, you still need the clearance. Beyond that, since flight into the
Class B isn't necessary for operating at KBFI, there would be no need for
ATC to coordinate transit through the Class B, and thus you would have no
expectation that they would.

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

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Anto=F1io" 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 bas=
is,
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 lik=
ely
to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is n=
ot
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 y=
ou
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 th=
at
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 t=
hat
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 wou=
ld
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 nev=
er
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 th=
ere
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

"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

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
Peter Duniho wrote:
It's your job as pilot in command to follow the
regulations.

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

Antoñio, the FAA *will* expect you to override ATC instructions if
compliance would violate the FARs, even though the FARs themselves are
contradictory on that point. Have a look at AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c. Even
though the AIM does not set forth regulations as such, it does specify how
the FAA expects you to interpret the regulations. (And even though 4-4-1 and
4-4-6 talk about clearances rather than ATC instructions in general, the
same reasoning applies to non-clearance instructions too.)

If you want an official opinion on this question, you can email your local
FSDO.

--Gary

On 28 May 2005 18:00:43 -0700, Antoñio wrote:

No clearance, no entry.

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

Incorrect Antonio.

As soon as you receive your IFR clearance, you are cleared into Bravo. ATC
makes room for your entry based on your IFR flight plan.

The beauty of IFR is that all airspace becomes "transparent" as you are
cleared from wheels up to wheels down.

Allen

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

No clearance, no entry.


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


While operating on an IFR flight plan you have a clearance.



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

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


That you fly a proper pattern?