![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |