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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message
... You say "By turning early, I created an inconvenience for you, and I was on your frequency. By not turning early, I'd create an inconvenience for an unknown entity with whom I was not in communication." Avoiding the incursion is apparently what the FAA expects you to do (despite the ambiguity in the FARs), so you shouldn't have to make any argument at all about who's more inconvenienced. In particular, there's no need to invent an "emergency" where none exists. --Gary |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: wrote in message ... An emergency is not limited to the aircraft having a mechanical or similar such problem. Violating Class B airspace has unknown ramifactions, such as perhaps approach control seeing the intrustion and declaring an emergency on your flight because of loss of separation, etc., etc. It's true that a controller *might*, for additional reasons, deem a Class B incursion to be an emergency. But I doubt that a slight breach of Class B, with good visibility and no conflicting traffic, would *by itself* constitute an emergency. So I don't think 91.3b would necessarily come into play. Again, I don't dispute that you should avoid the incursion, even if you have to violate 91.123b. I just wish the FARs weren't contradictory on that point. --Gary I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then that's your judgment. You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement hearing if you remain clear of the Class B. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote: wrote: whatever action you have to take to avoid the Class B should be reasonable and prudent so as to not unnecessarily create an unsafe condition for the local controller working your flight. I can't imagine anything you could do to create an unsafe condition for the local controller short of crashing into the tower. I didn't mean him personally as to his physical well-being. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote: According to my SEA Class B chart, if you are at 800 feet and turn before you get to I-405, you will not enter Class B. Something to check before takeoff. The Boeing controller has no authority in the SEA Class B. You should have spoken up before reaching 405. The airspace there is so complex with not only the Class B but the Renton Class D. If I were going to land at BFI as an out-of-towner, it would be IFR or I wouldn't get near any of it. I don't think I would even accept a visual approach to BFI. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then that's your judgment. But 91.3a merely says that the PIC has final responsibility and authority. That *doesn't* mean that the PIC is at liberty (except in emergencies) to violate the FARs, though! And what's under discussion here is whether rejecting an ATC instruction (except in an emergency) violates the FARs (specifically, 91.123b, which requires compliance with ATC instructions, except in emergencies). There's nothing in 91.3a that addresses that question. You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement hearing if you remain clear of the Class B. Sure, I've never disputed that. I'm just disputing that the FARs make that clear. --Gary |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: wrote in message ... I cited both 91 (a) and (b). If just (a) fits in your judgment, then that's your judgment. But 91.3a merely says that the PIC has final responsibility and authority. That *doesn't* mean that the PIC is at liberty (except in emergencies) to violate the FARs, though! And what's under discussion here is whether rejecting an ATC instruction (except in an emergency) violates the FARs (specifically, 91.123b, which requires compliance with ATC instructions, except in emergencies). There's nothing in 91.3a that addresses that question. You will have a far greater chance of avoiding the enforcement hearing if you remain clear of the Class B. Sure, I've never disputed that. I'm just disputing that the FARs make that clear. Well, this isn't the only case where FARs are not clear. In some cases, they are downright misleading; in some cases they are quite clear, and then there is the great middle: basic regulatory guidance that is suspended on a vast web of "advisory" guidance and policy statements from the FAA over the years. This one is fairly simple in that context: no Class B clearance, no enter the Class B. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Antoņio" wrote in message
oups.com... Today I flew into KBFI (Boeing field) which is class D and has extentions that underlie the Class B that require close attention to altitudes and headings so as to stay clear. Today the winds were favoring 31L (and 31R) and I came in from the west on the Vashon approach--the most common approach from the west. I was on a left downwind for 31L and the tower told me I was number three following an Arrow on about a 2 mile straight in final (Valley approach?). I acknowledged the traffic, and was waiting for it to come up on my 9 o'clock before turning base so as to allow enough spacing. The controller suddenly told me that I was too far south and said either that I had busted into surface B or was about to. (I never did clearly hear which). Unless one turns a fairly close in base here--within about a half mile or less--you end up in class B surface. My questions: 1.Assuming I busted B; who is reponsible if the controller asks me to follow an aircraft that is too far out on a straight in? I mean, I can reduce speed, s-turn, and the like but I can't turn base until the aircraft on final is a safe distance away, right? 2.Is the controller supposed to arrange things so that I *can* turn base and not be in conflict with other aircraft? 3.How would you resolve the problem if it were happening to you ? Any thoughts would be appreciated... Antonio If you're VFR, as we are assuming you were, you are responsible for following the tower controllers instructions up to the point that they cause a potential for collision. ATC in class D is responsible for separating IFR from IFR traffic only. If an instruction sends you towards another aircraft, you'd deviate as necessary. That wasn't an emergency, it was see-and-avoid. You'd notify ATC that you'd deviated, and why, and because no metal hit and no loss of separation occurred, no harm, no foul. The controller may be ****ed that the traffic flow is now messed up...oh well. Now if you proceed into class B airspace, you're entering an area of positive separation of everyone from everyone...that's why you need a clearance. Bust class B without a clearance and you could very well cause a loss of separation...bet your butt you'll get a call about that. Here's the thing: the tower controller knows you're not cleared into class B and is expecting you'll avoid it on your own. If the aircraft you're following does something unexpectly (i.e. extending downwind too long) than the controller expects you'll do whatever's necessary to 1) avoid hitting other airplanes, 2) avoid busting class B. His instruction was provided to sequence aircraft, not to keep from hitting each other. If this thread was on rec.aviation.piloting, Jay Honeck would probably chime in at this point mentioning how much class D airspace sucks. It's fine as long as all pilots in the airspace understand the roles and responsibilities of ATC and themselves. Then again, maybe Jay has a point. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
This one is fairly simple in that context: no Class B clearance, no enter the Class B. Yes, that's simple and unambiguous. There's no doubt that it violates the FARs to enter Class B without a clearance, even if so instructed by ATC. That was never the issue. Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another *whether you comply or not*. You and I agree about how the FAA wants us to resolve that conflict in the FARs. My point is just that the conflict there does exist. --Gary |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Rather, the issue is that as the FARs are written, it violates 91.123b to
disobey an ATC instruction, except in an emergency. So if you're instructed to enter Class B without a clearance, you violate one FAR or another *whether you comply or not*. How is this different from "refusing" to obey an ATC instruction that would be impossible to follow? There is no stated exception for impossible things either, but somehow nobody gets busted for that. Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Carrying flight gear on the airlines | Peter MacPherson | Piloting | 20 | November 25th 04 12:29 AM |
World Class: Recent Great News | Charles Yeates | Soaring | 58 | March 19th 04 06:58 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
One Design viability? | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 41 | December 10th 03 03:27 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |