Class B airspace notation

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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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?


Doesn't matter, you don't use airspace.


Bertie

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.

In article ,
says...


I think it serves when you have two airspaces with no margin between them.



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.


There is never any space "between" overlying airspaces.
There is no "ambiguous margin". Airspace altitudes are charted and unambiguous.
If Class B is charted at XX for a given zone, and you fly higher without being
cleared into it, do not expect the FAA to look at you with pitiful indulgence
while you roll out your "ambiguous zone" theory.

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.

Class D underlying Class B has its own ceiling, also clearly charted.

Pilots know how to read the charts. 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.

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.

In article ,
says...


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.


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



Pilots know how to read the charts.

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


The above proves the contrary.


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.

No it is not. Your case is unique in the annals of aviation history.

In article ,
says...


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.


Pretentious prick!
You've just been proven completely wrong. Your whole fuzzy argument debunked.
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. . .

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.



No, you don't.


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).

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?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.


Wrong again, fukkwit.

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.


No, you haven't.


You have to fly to read them, fjukkwit.

It's like saying you read music without playing any instrument.
Completely pointless and totally inaccurate.


Bertie