ATC out to get us?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.


Odd, then, that that phrase appears nowhere in Part 91.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.

Odd, then, that that phrase appears nowhere in Part 91.

What other clearance would VFR traffic get that would allow them to enter
the Class B airspace? I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

I agree that the specific phraseology is not required. But *some* kind of
clearance is required, and that is stated in the FARs. I doubt VFR traffic
is going to get a landing clearance while still outside the Class B, and I'm
hard-pressed to think of another one that would be applicable to VFR
traffic.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

What other clearance would VFR traffic get that would allow them to enter
the Class B airspace? I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

I agree that the specific phraseology is not required. But *some* kind of
clearance is required, and that is stated in the FARs. I doubt VFR
traffic is going to get a landing clearance while still outside the Class
B, and I'm hard-pressed to think of another one that would be applicable
to VFR traffic.


How about "cleared for takeoff"? The regulation states, " The operator must
receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that
area before operating an aircraft in that area." If you're departing VFR
from the core airport in a Class B surface area wouldn't a takeoff clearance
meet the letter of the law?

Let's say you're doing practice instrument approaches under VFR near a
Class
B boundary, and the approach procedure requires you to enter Class B
airspace.
Wouldn't clearance for the approach meet the letter of the law?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

How about "cleared for takeoff"? The regulation states, " The operator must
receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that
area before operating an aircraft in that area." If you're departing VFR
from the core airport in a Class B surface area wouldn't a takeoff clearance
meet the letter of the law?

You would think, but ATC here always issues "Cleared into the class
Bravo via fly runway heading..." just as if they were issuing an IFR
clearance.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

You would think, but ATC here always issues "Cleared into the class Bravo
via fly runway heading..." just as if they were issuing an IFR
clearance.


Perhaps because pilots questioned the lack of specific Class B clearance in
that situation. It's not required by FAAO 7110.65.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
How about "cleared for takeoff"? The regulation states, " The operator
must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction
for that area before operating an aircraft in that area." If you're
departing VFR from the core airport in a Class B surface area wouldn't a
takeoff clearance meet the letter of the law?

Sure, that seems like a good example. Possibly the only one.

Let's say you're doing practice instrument approaches under VFR near a
Class B boundary, and the approach procedure requires you to enter Class B
airspace. Wouldn't clearance for the approach meet the letter of the law?

If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
"clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism under
VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller may
offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just as the
approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling a real
clearance.

Is there some regulation that I'm missing that allows an actual approach
clearance to be granted to an aircraft operating under VFR?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
"clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism under
VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller may
offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just as the
approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling a real
clearance.

It's completely routine to get "Cleared practice ILS-16, maintain VFR at
all times". That's a clearance in the full sense of the word, which is to
say they are providing separation services.

Sometimes, NY Approach will be too busy to provide you separation, but
doesn't mind if you fly the approach on your own. In that case, they'll
say something like, "Proceed as requested, no separation services
provided". That is NOT a clearance.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Sure, that seems like a good example. Possibly the only one.


I provided two examples.



If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
"clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism
under VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller
may offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just
as the approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling
a real clearance.

Is there some regulation that I'm missing that allows an actual approach
clearance to be granted to an aircraft operating under VFR?


ATC provides separation between IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approaches wherever it is practical to do so and has been doing
so for a long time. At those locations VFR aircraft are given an approach
clearance. See AIM para. 4-3-21.d.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.


Odd, then, that that phrase appears nowhere in Part 91.

You're picking nits, as you always do.

The wording in part 91 is "The operator must receive an ATC clearance from
the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an
aircraft in that area."

It does not say that you must hear the particular phrase "cleared into the
class bravo". It just says that you need "an ATC clearance". That could
be an IFR clearance ("cleared to the Gopher VOR 150 radial 12 DME fix, via
radar vectors, maintain 3000"). In response to a request for a class bravo
clearance, it could be "Cleared as requested". The real magic word is
"cleared".

The most common thing a controller will say is "cleared into the class
bravo". That's what you want to hear. Variations on the theme are OK, as
long as they include the word "cleared".

What's not OK are things like "approved as requested", "proceed", or the
wonderfully vague "You'll be OK" that the OP reports having heard. Nowhere
in Part 91 does it say, "The operator must be told that they'll be OK".

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

You're picking nits, as you always do.


You say that like there's something wrong with it.



The wording in part 91 is "The operator must receive an ATC clearance from
the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an
aircraft in that area."

It does not say that you must hear the particular phrase "cleared into the
class bravo". It just says that you need "an ATC clearance". That could
be an IFR clearance ("cleared to the Gopher VOR 150 radial 12 DME fix, via
radar vectors, maintain 3000"). In response to a request for a class
bravo clearance, it could be "Cleared as requested". The real magic word
is
"cleared".

The most common thing a controller will say is "cleared into the class
bravo". That's what you want to hear. Variations on the theme are OK, as
long as they include the word "cleared".

What's not OK are things like "approved as requested", "proceed", or the
wonderfully vague "You'll be OK" that the OP reports having heard.
Nowhere in Part 91 does it say, "The operator must be told that they'll be
OK".


Correct.