A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Class B airspace notation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 17th 07, 02:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Kingfish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default 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...
  #33  
Old December 18th 07, 03:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Class B airspace notation

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.
  #34  
Old December 18th 07, 03:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Class B airspace notation

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
  #36  
Old December 18th 07, 05:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Airbus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Class B airspace notation

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.

  #37  
Old December 18th 07, 08:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Class B airspace notation

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.
  #38  
Old December 18th 07, 09:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Class B airspace notation

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.
  #39  
Old December 18th 07, 09:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Class B airspace notation

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windows into the Class A airspace [email protected] Soaring 6 August 11th 07 10:32 AM
Class F Airspace in Germany Guy Corbett Soaring 4 May 9th 07 09:25 AM
Class A airspace flying_monkey Soaring 66 October 22nd 06 03:38 PM
Meigs Class D Airspace Defly Instrument Flight Rules 0 July 19th 04 02:53 PM
vfr corridors through class B airspace [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 26 November 2nd 03 11:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.