200 kts relief

What snarky comments?

A snarky comment would be, "You professional guys probably should get your **** together, look at how many of you are violating a simple rule."

;) ;) ;)
 
Captain said:
Not true. Only within 4 miles and 2,500 AGL. That leaves a whole bunch of class C where 250 is fine.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. It is the overlying LAX Class B airspace the forces the 200 knot limit almost to POM when trying to get ready to outclimb the mountains while limited to 200 knots almost to POM VOR, way above and beyond and speed restriction imposed by the KCNO Class D airspace.
 
aterpster said:
You're missing the point. It is the overlying LAX Class B airspace the forces the 200 knot limit almost to POM when trying to get ready to outclimb the mountains while limited to 200 knots almost to POM VOR, way above and beyond and speed restriction imposed by the KCNO Class D airspace.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. You're right, I missed your point. I thought you referring to all C. I should have realized considering the source. My bad.
 
Skylane81E said:
More than I'd like. Sure the odds are low, but the cost of reducing those odds is also very low
Click to expand...

At some point we have to acknowledge that good enough is good enough. It is not possible to reduce the risk of mid-air collosions to zero.
 
Nobodys asking for a step back. Just make IFR traffic exempt from the rule and make ATC responsible for speed. They have easy access to the class b limits and can assign any speed they want. Its class B remember? There is radar and radios and stuff. An alternitive would be to simply make ATC advise IFR traffic if the vector or descent they issue results in leaving the B and subject to the speed limit.

"Falcon 24xx, descend and maintain 2,000. Class B floor 3,000" or something. As it is now most falcons will just go to 2,000 and stay at 250. That result is exactly what you guys are railing against. Im on your side btw. Those clousure rates are dangerous.
 
Captain said:
My complaint isn't really the 200 kts thing. I'm fine with 'sharing' as Dr. Bruce put it.

My complaint is that it is difficult for me to know when I'm leaving the shelf. I don't have sectionals. It is true that this most often happens when I'm going to or from and airport other than the primary class B airport, but not always.

What I do have is ForeFlight with GPS. But that's my personal thing and the FAA considers it a PED anyway so technically the one thing I have to tell me if I'm below the bravo is supposed to be turned off! (maybe this belongs in the peeve thread)

I'll comply with the 200 kts law. That's not the point. I just think IFR traffic should be assigned airspeed and that should trump the 200 kts rule. Short of that IFR traffic should at least be told when they are being vectored / descended out of a shelf so the pilot knows to slow.

I'm not trying to be whinny here. It really is difficult for me to know where I am in relation to the bravo and takes time away from my 'see and avoid'. So, I break the rules and use my ForeFlight in the interest of safety. Ideas?
Click to expand...
Huh... Doesn't your Jepp coverage (paper or electronic) include the Class B charts? I thought you're supposed to have either the Jepp Charts or the corresponding TACs? I guess I'm just surprised that your operation doesn't have this information in some form in the airplane.

Edit: I see that Dtuuri had already pointed out the Jepp Chart.
 
Last edited:
I run into this problem all the time in the C152 I fly. Boy, once I washed off those bugs and tuned up the 85 hp engine, that thing really screams through the sky!
 
I'm trying to figure out how to get ATC to develop a procedure to slow from Mach 3.3 to 0.8 while descending from 128,000 feet to 51,000 feet. They don't seem to want to touch it, even though it's clear of all J routes. (Well, there is this pesky little transition route for the LEESE arrival to Orlando that gets in the way.)
 
I don't think you'll get the speed limit changed for a variety of reasons, most of them already stated in this thread. ATC procedures are where you will need to get this resolved.

I suggest framing the issue as the practice of putting you below the floor of the class B, something which is discouraged by the regs, but not prohibited if authorized by ATC, rather than the speed. The whole purpose of the Class B is undermined when ATC puts you below it.

You can take this issue up your chain of command and see what happens. You can take it to the union or the union safety committee if applicable.

AND

File a NASA report every time you are put there, have your colleagues do the same. It is not unlawful for hem to put you below the floor of the B, but it certainly erodes the safety margin. NASA reports are for reporting unsafe conditions, not just CYA when a pilot or controller busts a reg.

Good Luck.
 
Henning said:
I don't understand, but I don't frequently fly IFR into Bs. My impression was that as long as you are on a published approach inside, you will remain within the B.
Click to expand...

That's not actually the case.
Which Bravo was it in California that aircrews were getting busted because at certain pressures the approach put them under legal altitude and outside the Bravo?
 
PilotAlan said:
That's not actually the case.
Which Bravo was it in California that aircrews were getting busted because at certain pressures the approach put them under legal altitude and outside the Bravo?
Click to expand...

I think it was one of the arrivals into LAX.
 
denverpilot said:
GPS is kinda useless without good underlying map data? Surely you jest.

Razors and razor blades... The money ain't all in the GPS hardware. ;)
Click to expand...

That was my point. GPS alone won't do it. I have a handheld GPS that I use to GeoCache. Gets me right to the spot. But a "glance at it" won't help at all to determine if I'm under a Class B or not. See my point? It takes more than a GPS
 
Captain said:
That was my point. GPS alone won't do it. I have a handheld GPS that I use to GeoCache. Gets me right to the spot. But a "glance at it" won't help at all to determine if I'm under a Class B or not. See my point? It takes more than a GPS
Click to expand...

Ok then it takes any GPS intended for aviation use that still has updates available. Why nitpick so much?
 
Captain said:
That was my point. GPS alone won't do it. I have a handheld GPS that I use to GeoCache. Gets me right to the spot. But a "glance at it" won't help at all to determine if I'm under a Class B or not. See my point? It takes more than a GPS
Click to expand...

I know. I was amplifying your statement. ;)

Take 'er easy there big guy. Whoa fella. Hehehe.

;)
 
jesse said:
Ok then it takes any GPS intended for aviation use that still has updates available. Why nitpick so much?
Click to expand...

Not a nitpick. I have never in my life flown a plane with airspace displayed to the pilot and yet every plane I've flown since before Y2K has had GPS. See the problem?

denverpilot said:
I know. I was amplifying your statement. ;)

Take 'er easy there big guy. Whoa fella. Hehehe.

;)
Click to expand...


I know you were. I was agreeing with you agreeing with me.
 
So buy a $300 handheld GPS and pretend you don't have it, problem solved :)
 
???

Instead I pretended to by NASA.

What's your point? None of the 121 carriers have displayed airspace either. Why single me out other than the fact that I'm here? If 10,000 121 guys came here they'd tell you the same.
 
Captain said:
???

Instead I pretended to by NASA.

What's your point? None of the 121 carriers have displayed airspace either. Why single me out other than the fact that I'm here? If 10,000 121 guys came here they'd tell you the same.
Click to expand...

I'm not singling you out -- I'm telling you a potential solution. Are you actually pursing solutions or are you mostly interested in complaining on a forum?

I understand you can't really have the portable GPS on when you need it on -- but I suspect you may also have other electronics on that you shouldn't have on either :)
 
Sorry, missed your meaning.

Yeah, I do that with foreflight. But that's not the point or the fix as technically the single source of info I have is classified as a PED by our government and therefore 'should' be secured below 10,000' AGL and therefore 'should' be off at the exact time I need it.

With foreflight closed I have nothing except the 10-1 page discussed befor and that's pretty weak.

Just seems to me a no brainer to make a very simple change to the reg...IFR in and around Class B just flies assigned speed. How's that hard? It's not and makes it easy. I'd say a full half the time I slow when dropping below the B based on my unauthorized PED ATC asks why I slowed. They don't want the reduction and would have kept me in the bravo if they knew ahead of time I'd slow to 200 kts.

Point is ATC mostly isn't even aware of the reg. it's just a 'gottcha' waiting for pilots who eventually stop caring and fly along until they hear, "say airspeed" and then have to write down a phone number and a few weeks later sign for mail.
 
Captain said:
They don't want the reduction and would have kept me in the bravo if they knew ahead of time I'd slow to 200 kts.

Point is ATC mostly isn't even aware of the reg. it's just a 'gottcha' waiting for pilots who eventually stop caring and fly along until they hear, "say airspeed" and then have to write down a phone number and a few weeks later sign for mail.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a 'teachable moment' for ATC. The rule is fine as it is, it's ATC making a mistake that's the root cause of your problem.
 
denverpilot said:
Sounds like a 'teachable moment' for ATC. The rule is fine as it is, it's ATC making a mistake that's the root cause of your problem.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that a rule I can't comply with without breaking yet another rule isn't exactly 'fine'.
 
Captain said:
I'd argue that a rule I can't comply with without breaking yet another rule isn't exactly 'fine'.
Click to expand...

I attended ATPAC today and this was a point of discussion that got somewhat intense without consensus being reached. A regulation change is being proposed where in 91.117 (c) to include wording similar to the wording in section (a) and (b), for example "unless approved by ATC, ...". It is also being researched if the justification for the 200 Kt restriction is necessary. If the regulation ends up being changed, the process is not a short one, so this will be with us for a while. Currently, ATC is required to notify the pilot when they exit and enter the containment of the class B. A question was asked, if there was traffic that was a threat, would you rather get the traffic call or the leaving class B call? Everyone would rather have the traffic call. It was also pointed out that ATC had a very low compliance with the required call outs for entering and exiting class B. Another person made it clear that if an airliner was found to be exceeding the speed limitation, that enforcement would ensue and that the burden was on the pilot. The airlines pointed out they had no way of knowing when they were exiting or entering the class B and there was no way to adjust speed if they were not already at or below the 200 limit. All agreed that unless the class B's affected could be updated to contain the traffic, this problem would persist.
 
Ding ding ding, I was right, I was right, I was right.

Whoopi. Whoo hooo!


Ding dong, linga dinga bing bong!

PARTY PARTY PARTY!!!
 
Geico266 said:
The Cheltons in my plane tell me at a glance ( GPS updated with my altitude and location) when I am in any controlled airspace. No charts for me.;)

Maybe update your panel with the latest technology? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Not super easy to do with a part 25 airplane.
 
PilotAlan said:
That's not actually the case.
Which Bravo was it in California that aircrews were getting busted because at certain pressures the approach put them under legal altitude and outside the Bravo?
Click to expand...
At the risk of appearing clueless, how would that happen?
 
Remember John and Martha King?

"When flying High to Low or Hot to Cold, Look out Below!"


Whhen the pressure / Temp change the air contracts. A plane indicating 1,500 feet will physically be at different altitudes based on temp and pressure. That's why we adjust the altimeter in our planes, to compensate for this. Ever adjust anything for temp?

Approaches with LPV minimums also have temperature limitations for this reason.
 
Captain said:
Remember John and Martha King?

"When flying High to Low or Hot to Cold, Look out Below!"


Whhen the pressure / Temp change the air contracts. A plane indicating 1,500 feet will physically be at different altitudes based on temp and pressure. That's why we adjust the altimeter in our planes, to compensate for this. Ever adjust anything for temp?

Approaches with LPV minimums also have temperature limitations for this reason.
Click to expand...

Folks may still be wondering "why does this matter, since indicated altitude will be whatever the dial says"... But I think that on the arrival in question, you're descending from the flight levels (at 29.92) and as you pass out of the class A airspace you may find yourself at a significantly different altitude than you expected depending on pressure (after you change the altimeter setting), and you might end up busting an altitude restriction.
 
I thought the issue was that pilots were following the glideslope thinking that since they were already cleared for the approach, they didn't have to worry about the stepdowns. The problem wasn't possibly running into something, but that the vertical airspace limits are defined in terms of barometric altitudes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top