Class B airspace notation

On Dec 16, 6:07 pm, TheSmokingGnu
wrote:
Airbus wrote:
"Upward from above" is the term used on the TAC.
In other words, (IIUC) it means you can operate at 1200 feet talkiing to
nobody, while ATC runs a heavy jet 1 foot over your head at 1201, where CBAS
begins . . .

Good eatin', them CBAS. ;P

Yeah, except for those foul-tempered ones with the frickin' laser
beams on their heads...

In article ,
says...



I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.
For exampple, one is 12/SFC, the other is 70/12+. So at 1200 feet you're in
one airspace, and at 1201 feet, you're in the other. If they were specified
as 11/SFC and 70/12, the space between 1101 feet and 1199 feet inclusive would
be outside either airspace.



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). 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.

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 . . .

WingFlaps writes:

You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose to
fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?

I don't know, but if the charts didn't use the + and - notation, you'd be able
to, and you'd have a defense for doing so if you were called on it. Clearly,
the FAA doesn't want to leave that loophole open.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

WingFlaps writes:

You need to understand the vertical relationship between airspaces.
Have a look at a sectional and think about it. Why would you choose
to fly on the vertical limit between to airspsaces anyway?

I don't know,

I know.


Bertie

writes:

But not every +X floor adjoins a designated X ceiling below. For
instance, consider the +05, +08, +11, and +12 Class B segments around
EWR on the NY TAC (see skyvector.com). What's the point of the + for
those segment floors? A +11 lets you fly at 1100', as opposed to 1099'
without the +. But letting you fly one foot higher is of no value,
since that's much less than the accuracy with which you can control or
even measure your altitude. So why do they bother having the + there?

I'm not sure, but I note that there's a tremendous amount of helicopter
traffic in those areas, and many high obstacles. The Class B also intersects
a number of Class D areas, which may be a factor.

In article ,
says...


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). 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.

Okay ... so explain why the charts include + and - for altitude limits on
airspaces?

I already know the answer, since I looked it up ages ago, and I've given it,
but I'll try again:

If you see, say, 50/SFC for a Class C, and 80/50+ for a Class B above it, it
means that the Class C extends from the surface to 5000 feet inclusive, and
the Class B extends from 5001 feet to 8000 feet inclusive.

Without a plus or minus sign, there is an ambiguous margin of 100 feet between
the airspaces. For example 50/SFC for the Class C and 80/51 for the Class B
means that the area between 5001 feet and 5099 feet inclusive is in neither
airspace. Since this could cause problems if someone were to actually try to
fly through this thin slice of air, calling it uncontrolled, the + and - are
used to make it clear that the two airspaces touch each other, with no space
between.



The fact that you looked something up "ages ago" and still manage to post a
completely incorrect response does not argue well for your learning ability.
If you want to prove me wrong - show us a case of a Class "C" underlying a
Class "B" (very rare occurrence) in which this 100 ft ambiguity exists. Usually
you'll find a "T" notation (eg Chicago) otherwise the floors and ceilings are
far apart (eg Los Angeles). Do you really believe you can fly 90ft under
Class"B" in "no man's land" - not in any airspace category? The fact that you
repeatedly invert the symbols (50+ instead of +50) is further proof you don't
know how to read aviation terminology.

Airbus writes:

In the case you cite, where one ceiling is lower than an overlying floor, the
space between is also readable on the chart - usually Class E, which is not
uncontrolled airspace.

The space between is not specially marked on the chart. It must be inferred
from the vertical limits of the surrounding airspaces.

Pilots know how to read the charts.

Most of them do, in most cases. So do I.

Fortunate we are that you do not fly airplanes, and we do not have
to worry about sharing the airspace with you and your fuzzy theories.

I find it increasingly plausible that many PPLs do not look things up and are
undisturbed by their ignorance, but I nevertheless hope that this is not too
widespread.

Airbus writes:

It is specifically indicated on the chart, in every case.

Point me to an example.

Class E is usually implied rather than explicit. Although it nominally starts
at 14,500 feet MSL, so much of the U.S. is an exception to this that the
absence of any marking implies an exceptional floor of 1200 feet AGL. Only
Class E that starts at 700 feet, or starts at the surface, or that starts at
1200 feet _and_ is adjacent to Class G, or that starts at some other altitude
besides 14,500, is explicitly delimited. So if you see [27] for a Class D
airspace and 50/28 for the Class C above it, between 2701 feet and 2799 feet,
it's Class E. If you see [27] for the Class D and 50/27+ for the Class C,
it's Class D up to 2700 feet inclusive, and Class C from 2701 feet up to 5000
feet inclusive, and Class E and A above, in that order.

The above proves the contrary.

It doesn't prove anything, since you've given no examples.

Airbus writes:

Pretentious prick!

I'm simply making an observation.

You've just been proven completely wrong.

Hardly. You made an unsupported assertion. That's not proof.

Your whole fuzzy argument debunked.

What was fuzzy about it?

Everything you've said over the past twenty posts proven to be the aviation
equivalent of a slime mold, and yet you presume to go on about pilots'
ignorance. . .

I'm more convinced of it each day. It's a bit disappointing.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

But not every +X floor adjoins a designated X ceiling below. For
instance, consider the +05, +08, +11, and +12 Class B segments around
EWR on the NY TAC (see skyvector.com). What's the point of the + for
those segment floors? A +11 lets you fly at 1100', as opposed to
1099' without the +. But letting you fly one foot higher is of no
value, since that's much less than the accuracy with which you can
control or even measure your altitude. So why do they bother having
the + there?

I'm not sure,

I know.

Bertie