Class B airspace notation

On 2007-12-17, Rip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

What is the practical difference between "above, but not
including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?

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.

Wrong. Study the TERPS. Again, Anthony, you're a simulator freak, not a
pilot of any kind. Your posting of incorrect and misleading answers is a
waste of everyone's time. What you "think" is irrelevant.

It's easy to put trolls into the kill file. However I haven't found a good way
to kill troll fodder like this in SLRN. Any suggestions?
--
Doug Carter

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

What is the practical difference between "above, but not
including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?

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.


Wrong

Bertie

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 . . .

Airbus wrote in
:

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 . . .


Unless he gets his rudder trimmed so the guy above him doesn't clean it
off.


Bertie

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.

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?

On Dec 17, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
What is the practical difference between "above, but not
including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?

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.

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?

Cheers

On Dec 17, 2:14 am, WingFlaps wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:
What is the practical difference between "above, but not
including" (e.g., +12) and "above and including" (e.g., 12)?

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.

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?

There are certainly reasons to want to fly at a +X altitude rather
than 100' lower. For example, if you're under a low Class B shelf, you
might want to be as high as possible as a precaution in case there's
an engine failure; 100' higher might give you 1000' further to glide.

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?

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.