Class B airspace notation

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Airbus writes:

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

Point me to an example.



Why? You don't fly, fjukkwit.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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?


It's moldy..



Bertie

On Dec 18, 8:36 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
On Dec 18, 2:41 am, wrote:
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?

My point is that you would not normally fly within 100' of an airspace
boundary unless told that by ATC in which case you have clearance and
won't accidently bust into airspace?

I've done that many times. I just gave one reason you might want to do
that. Here's another: you might otherwise be too low to abide by the
relevant obstance-clearance regulations. (As for Class B clearance,
you might not be able to get it. You might not even have a radio.)

In addition the cruising
altitudes are Xthousand plus or minus 500, and I think. Or have I
missed something?

Yes. You're forgetting that those cruise-altitude rules only apply
above 3000' AGL.

So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
if anyone knows.

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.

On Dec 19, 3:30 pm, wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:36 pm, WingFlaps wrote:



On Dec 18, 2:41 am, wrote:
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?

My point is that you would not normally fly within 100' of an airspace
boundary unless told that by ATC in which case you have clearance and
won't accidently bust into airspace?

I've done that many times. I just gave one reason you might want to do
that. Here's another: you might otherwise be too low to abide by the
relevant obstance-clearance regulations. (As for Class B clearance,
you might not be able to get it. You might not even have a radio.)

I don't follow the relevance of your reason to the suggestion/idea
that you might want to fly within a few feet of an airspace bounday.
Flying 100' off the boundary is common, 50' and less is pushing it -
your altimeter had better be right.
As I said, why fly _within_ 100' and if you really need that extra
1000' glide I'd suggest you are probably too low... Why not just get
clearance -it's only a radio call.


In addition the cruising
altitudes are Xthousand plus or minus 500, and I think. Or have I
missed something?

Yes. You're forgetting that those cruise-altitude rules only apply
above 3000' AGL.


No, I did not forget that. I was trying to point out that if the top
of airspace was 3000' then you wouldn't want to cruise at X+(0-400)
or X-(0-400) anyway.

So far, no one has proposed an explanation for the +X segments I
mentioned for EWR's Class B. I'm curious to understand the rationale,
if anyone knows.

Well, I've not seen such (yet) and the rationale for +X escapes me
(too) so far... Maybe a bean counter was involved?

;-)

Cheers

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. . .

In article ,
says...


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.


What's left to prove?
You've walked away from your whole argument. This whole fuzzy thing about
ambiguity zones and psyhchotic loopholes - that's all history and we're on
to your favorite topic of everyone else's incompetence!!




Your whole fuzzy argument debunked.

What was fuzzy about it?

You're right! Slimy is closer. . .



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.


Help is available. I don't know how old you are, but you have the rest of your
life to live. You already have the number written down. Call it! It's urgent!

In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

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

Point me to an example.

Every sectional chart is an example - but you must take a couple of hours to
learn how to read it - which you will never do. . .



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.



This one is really funny. A classic in the annals of documented psychosis.
Take note, fellow pilots - Class E has now been abolished below 14,500 feet
and most of the US is exempt!!


Other than that, it is duly noted that Class E that starts at 700 feet, or
starts at the surface, or that starts at Class C above it for the Class D and
50/27+ up to 5000 adjacent to Class G is explicitly delimited. So if you see
any marking implies an exceptional floor of 1200 to Class G, or that starts at
some other altitude between 2701 feet and 2799 feet, it's Class E. Although it
nominally starts at 700 feet, or starts at the surface, or that starts at [27]
for the Class D 1200 feet _and_ is adjacent to Class G and Class E and A above,
in that order it may be 1200 feet.