VFR - cleared into Bravo at or below

Mike I said:
Where is the outer area for each Class C defined? I read in the P/CG:


How do we find out what the "variations based on site-specific requirements" are, and where are they charted?

If we're supposed to play the game of "ignoring a controller's instructions is OK when not in Class A, B, C, or Outer Area", then we need to know where the outer area is clearly defined, naturally.

I've only done some cursory searching and haven't come up with much, so I welcome an answer showing how to find the outer area on charts.
Click to expand...

It is on the sectional. Look at the Bravo for Tampa, for ex. It is all over the place.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Wait a minute, crap, I was near a class C airport when they started all this. But I was not in the shelf, I was below it or outside of it.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is the point. Air traffic controllers seem to think they are there to control air traffic and seem to be getting a bit ahead of themselves in the Bravo shelf thing. In other words, when you call an air traffic controller, you run the risk of getting air traffic controlled. Don't call them or tell them you aren't buying any.
 
alfadog said:
It is on the sectional. Look at the Bravo for Tampa, for ex. It is all over the place.
Click to expand...

I am looking... I'm looking for the 20nm ring around a Class C, not the shelf areas of a Class B. If you're talking about the Class C at KSRQ, I still don't see the Outer Area defined there.

I get that it's "usually", "normally", "typically" 20nm and that it may be clearly defined for each site in an obscure text.

However, for me the situation is clear as mud: pilots, flying VFR with following, are expected to be familiar with 7110.65 for what instructions they're obligated to follow, as well as be familiar with uncharted Outer Areas of Class C airports, knowing at all times exactly where they are in relation to a 20nm uncharted ring, for when controllers' instructions are valid? Am I missing something?
 
Mike I said:
I am looking... I'm looking for the 20nm ring around a Class C, not the shelf areas of a Class B. If you're talking about the Class C at KSRQ, I still don't see the Outer Area defined there.

I get that it's "usually", "normally", "typically" 20nm and that it may be clearly defined for each site in an obscure text.

However, for me the situation is clear as mud: pilots, flying VFR with following, are expected to be familiar with 7110.65 for what instructions they're obligated to follow, as well as be familiar with uncharted Outer Areas of Class C airports, knowing at all times exactly where they are in relation to a 20nm uncharted ring, for when controllers' instructions are valid? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

If you happen to be in this outer shelf, you are not in Class C airspace. You are just in an area where ATC will provide Class C service. If you are within 20NM of the primary airport and start receiving vectors then you are probably in that area. If you don't want the service just advise the controller,participation is voluntary .
 
Mike I said:
I am looking... I'm looking for the 20nm ring around a Class C, not the shelf areas of a Class B. If you're talking about the Class C at KSRQ, I still don't see the Outer Area defined there.

I get that it's "usually", "normally", "typically" 20nm and that it may be clearly defined for each site in an obscure text.

However, for me the situation is clear as mud: pilots, flying VFR with following, are expected to be familiar with 7110.65 for what instructions they're obligated to follow, as well as be familiar with uncharted Outer Areas of Class C airports, knowing at all times exactly where they are in relation to a 20nm uncharted ring, for when controllers' instructions are valid? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You are not expected to be familiar with the 7110.65. You can figure this stuff out just by reading part 91 of the FAR's and the AIM.

Most of these approach controls should be happy when you call and treat you right. When you call they tally a traffic count, and their pay is based on traffic count.
 
denverpilot said:
Not directly. Not even really indirectly.
Click to expand...

Traffic count is a major factor the FAA uses to determine the level of a facility. If a facility loses traffic count it can be downgraded to a lower level and the workforce loses money.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Wait a minute, crap, I was near a class C airport when they started all this. But I was not in the shelf, I was below it or outside of it.
Click to expand...

The shelf doesn't matter. If you were within 20 nm of the center of the class C and low enough to be in Norcal Approach airspace, but not actually in the charted class C, then you were probably in the outer area (except we don't know for sure because they vary).

But don't worry, even if you were in the outer area, you were fine because the controller ended up approving what you wanted to do.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
You can operate in the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace without talking to ATC. If you are talking to ATC the controller can and will assign altitudes or vectors as needed to separate you from IFR traffic.
Click to expand...

But isn't this the same thing as what were discussing re the Miami Bravo?
 
denverpilot said:
Not directly. Not even really indirectly.
Click to expand...

Don't know why you are saying this. Traffic count is such a contentious issue within the air traffic community that it is a real obstacle to airspace redesign. Try to take away traffic from one facility and give it to another and there will be a real battle.
 
alfadog said:
It is on the sectional. Look at the Bravo for Tampa, for ex. It is all over the place.
Click to expand...

Outer areas of class C are not shown on any sectional that I've ever seen. I don't see any on the Tampa chart.
 
Last edited:
Mike I said:
How do we find out what the "variations based on site-specific requirements" are, and where are they charted?
Click to expand...

They're not charted at all.

If we're supposed to play the game of "ignoring a controller's instructions is OK when not in Class A, B, C, or Outer Area", then we need to know where the outer area is clearly defined, naturally.
Click to expand...

You can ignore them in the Outer Area as well, all you have to do is say "terminating radar services", or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
 
alfadog said:
But isn't this the same thing as what were discussing re the Miami Bravo?
Click to expand...

Looking at your route of flight at your chart link from post #83, if the KFLL outer area is the normal size, then you were probably inside it when you were abeam KFLL, but you were probably outside it by the time you were abeam KMIA. No guarantees though!
 
alfadog said:
Yep, that is the point. Air traffic controllers seem to think they are there to control air traffic and seem to be getting a bit ahead of themselves in the Bravo shelf thing. In other words, when you call an air traffic controller, you run the risk of getting air traffic controlled. Don't call them or tell them you aren't buying any.
Click to expand...

Would a NASA form be the correct venue for addressing this? It is an issue with potential safety implications.
 
Everyone can make their own call on whether to contact ATC for FF or not. For over 20 years I would routinely get FF. I can't say I ever got a traffic call that saved me but I did do a lot of neck stretching searching for traffic that was never a factor.

For the past 5 years or so I only contact ATC when I have to. Flights are much more peaceful and enjoyable now.
 
roncachamp said:
They're not charted at all.

You can ignore them in the Outer Area as well, all you have to do is say "terminating radar services", or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Click to expand...

But if you're given an instruction in the Outer Area, you can't simply say "terminating radar services".... you must first COMPLY with the instruction first, correct?
 
Mike I said:
But if you're given an instruction in the Outer Area, you can't simply say "terminating radar services".... you must first COMPLY with the instruction first, correct?
Click to expand...
Nope. Just make your intentions clear and you are done. I do not know who came up with this idea of the outer shelf. The only thing I can think of is they wanted to expand the availability of service without actually expanding the service area.
 
Mike I said:
But if you're given an instruction in the Outer Area, you can't simply say "terminating radar services".... you must first COMPLY with the instruction first, correct?
Click to expand...
You are probably wondering why the outer shelf isn't charted. I don't really know the answer, but I think it is possible that class C service in the outer shelf isn't always being provided.
 
I do now have a vague recollection of something I read about the outer shelf, so take it for what it is worth.

Under certain conditions ATC will suspend class C service in the outer shelf. The only condition I can remember is that when approach is utilizing ARTCC radar and not their own radar, service in the outer shelf will be suspended.

So perhaps it is not charted so pilots are not expecting service that is not being provided. On the other hand pilots are being provided class C service and don't know it.

The government has done more confusing things than this before.
 
vintage cessna said:
I do now have a vague recollection of something I read about the outer shelf, so take it for what it is worth.

Under certain conditions ATC will suspend class C service in the outer shelf. The only condition I can remember is that when approach is utilizing ARTCC radar and not their own radar, service in the outer shelf will be suspended.

So perhaps it is not charted so pilots are not expecting service that is not being provided. On the other hand pilots are being provided class C service and don't know it.

The government has done more confusing things than this before.
Click to expand...

Here's my theory on that: What is charted is the area in which two-way communication is mandatory for all aircraft. Since communication is not mandatory for VFR aircraft in the outer area, showing it on the chart would require a different color, and make the chart more cluttered for little gain.
 
Mike I said:
But if you're given an instruction in the Outer Area, you can't simply say "terminating radar services".... you must first COMPLY with the instruction first, correct?
Click to expand...

No, if you don't need to enter the Class C airspace itself you can terminate service at any time. If service is properly provided you should have little desire to terminate service. IFR/VFR separation is only target resolution (radar targets can't touch, aka "green between") laterally, 500 feet vertical, or visual. Where separation minima is small the deviations needed to achieve it are also small.
 
vintage cessna said:
I do now have a vague recollection of something I read about the outer shelf, so take it for what it is worth.

Under certain conditions ATC will suspend class C service in the outer shelf. The only condition I can remember is that when approach is utilizing ARTCC radar and not their own radar, service in the outer shelf will be suspended.

So perhaps it is not charted so pilots are not expecting service that is not being provided. On the other hand pilots are being provided class C service and don't know it.

The government has done more confusing things than this before.
Click to expand...

When a radar outage occurs Class C services are not provided at all, see JO 7110.65 paragraph 7-8-2.e.
 
vintage cessna said:
Everyone can make their own call on whether to contact ATC for FF or not. For over 20 years I would routinely get FF. I can't say I ever got a traffic call that saved me but I did do a lot of neck stretching searching for traffic that was never a factor.

For the past 5 years or so I only contact ATC when I have to. Flights are much more peaceful and enjoyable now.
Click to expand...

That is also the conclusion I came to after about a year of FF. :D
 
roncachamp said:
Why is their happiness a concern to you? And why would they be any happier with a VFR target showing an unverified Mode C altitude of 2500' than one showing an unverified Mode C altitude of 2900'?
Click to expand...

roncachamp said:
By ignoring the questions directed to you.
Click to expand...

I thought my answer to that was implicit in my reply and counter-question to you and consistent with a number of posts I have already made but, OK, I will spell it out.

1. Their happiness is a concern to me partly because I consider air traffic controllers to be one of my partners in my GA thing. I have no problem helping out my partners just on that basis. But it goes beyond that. Their request seems logical and based on safety concerns like keeping me away from wake turbulence. I routinely fly directly under GRITT (see prior post) so that is a concern, especially if I am not talking to them.
2. I cannot speak for them beyond again saying that that is what I was briefed and that is what they practice. I have given the reason(s) I think it is so but I am not an air traffic controller. You are, you can easily pick up the phone and verify anything I say or ask them why they do it.

Does that answer your questions? Now, how about mine. Why??
 
alfadog said:
I thought my answer to that was implicit in my reply and counter-question to you and consistent with a number of posts I have already made but, OK, I will spell it out.

1. Their happiness is a concern to me partly because I consider air traffic controllers to be one of my partners in my GA thing. I have no problem helping out my partners just on that basis. But it goes beyond that. Their request seems logical and based on safety concerns like keeping me away from wake turbulence. I routinely fly directly under GRITT (see prior post) so that is a concern, especially if I am not talking to them.
2. I cannot speak for them beyond again saying that that is what I was briefed and that is what they practice. I have given the reason(s) I think it is so but I am not an air traffic controller. You are, you can easily pick up the phone and verify anything I say or ask them why they do it.

Does that answer your questions? Now, how about mine. Why??
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't answer my questions. You've lost track of the discussion, here's a refresher:
alfadog said:
Fair enough. Like I said, what I do now is not call and fly at 2500. I know they will be happy with that and it is no big deal to me.
Click to expand...
roncachamp said:
Why is their happiness a concern to you? And why would they be any happier with a VFR target showing an unverified Mode C altitude of 2500' than one showing an unverified Mode C altitude of 2900'?
Click to expand...
alfadog said:
Miami: We are concerned about the fact that the base of the Bravo shelf intersects the approach path for our longest runway. We would like y'all to stay a bit below that.

Me: Sure. I will do it even if I am not talking to you. No problem.

Someone else: Screw you, I will fly where I want and you can't tell me different

Another: Yeah, screw you. Tell Obama to spend some money and redefine the Bravo.

Why?? Really, why? To prove that you can **** further?
Click to expand...
roncachamp said:
It appears you're no longer interested in "a friendly collegial discussion".
Click to expand...
alfadog said:
How so? I am really trying understand why someone would not cooperate with what seems to me to be a logical request. Just because the FAR's do not spell out that they have the power to authoritatively require it? OK, so what? It really seems like a p*ssing contest and that is why I asked. If there is some other reason other that you want that 400' in case your engine fails. Or maybe, you want the two degrees cooler; it is Florida after all.
Click to expand...
roncachamp said:
By ignoring the questions directed to you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You're at 2500' and have not called ATC, ATC cannot request that you do anything if you don't call them. ("Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet" is not a request, BTW, a request would be something like "advise you remain at or below 2000 feet.") You can't get into a p*ssing contest with ATC when you're not communicating with ATC. So why do you believe ATC would be happier with an untracked VFR target showing an unverified altitude of 2500 feet, an aircraft they're not talking to and have no idea as to type or intentions, than one showing an altitude of 2900 feet? I ask because I don't see how that 400' difference in altitude would affect the controller's operation in any way.

Now as to your question, which I believe is, "Why?? Really, why? To prove that you can **** further?" You're going to have to rephrase it. Perhaps I'm just too dim, but I can't make any sense of it in context or standing alone.
 
roncachamp said:
No, that doesn't answer my questions. You've lost track of the discussion, here's a refresher:


You're at 2500' and have not called ATC, ATC cannot request that you do anything if you don't call them. ("Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet" is not a request, BTW, a request would be something like "advise you remain at or below 2000 feet.") You can't get into a p*ssing contest with ATC when you're not communicating with ATC. So why do you believe ATC would be happier with an untracked VFR target showing an unverified altitude of 2500 feet, an aircraft they're not talking to and have no idea as to type or intentions, than one showing an altitude of 2900 feet? I ask because I don't see how that 400' difference in altitude would affect the controller's operation in any way.

Now as to your question, which I believe is, "Why?? Really, why? To prove that you can **** further?" You're going to have to rephrase it. Perhaps I'm just too dim, but I can't make any sense of it in context or standing alone.
Click to expand...

OK.

1.Based on my original phone briefing with ATC and supported by numerous experiences where they tell you to stay down, they do not like pilots flying up against the bottom of the 3000' shelf. The controller I spoke on the phone used almost those exact words, like "We do not like to see someone on the scope at 2900 passing west of MIA." I have said that numerous times but there it is again. They do not like it. It makes them unhappy. If I talk to them they will put me at 2000. That will make them happy. If I do not talk to them then I will be either 2000 or 2500. I figure 2500 will make them happy enough.

2. Here is the rephrase. Why would you insist on flying at +2900' when ATC has asked you to stay at 2000' or below? Of, if not talking to them, assume that you have my experience of hearing what they want and having experienced the 2000' thing many many times. That is not too much of a reach, is it? Why would you insist on flying at +2900' in that case?
 
alfadog said:
1.Based on my original phone briefing with ATC and supported by numerous experiences where they tell you to stay down, they do not like pilots flying up against the bottom of the 3000' shelf. The controller I spoke on the phone used almost those exact words, like "We do not like to see someone on the scope at 2900 passing west of MIA." I have said that numerous times but there it is again. They do not like it. It makes them unhappy. If I talk to them they will put me at 2000. That will make them happy. If I do not talk to them then I will be either 2000 or 2500. I figure 2500 will make them happy enough.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for them to dislike seeing an untracked VFR target indicating 2900' any more than one indicating 2000' or 2500' as it has no effect on their operations.

2. Here is the rephrase. Why would you insist on flying at +2900' when ATC has asked you to stay at 2000' or below? Of, if not talking to them, assume that you have my experience of hearing what they want and having experienced the 2000' thing many many times. That is not too much of a reach, is it? Why would you insist on flying at +2900' in that case?
Click to expand...

Because I prefer 2900' and no controller that knows the job will have any issues with it.
 
roncachamp said:
There is no reason for them to dislike seeing an untracked VFR target indicating 2900' any more than one indicating 2000' or 2500' as it has no effect on their operations.



Because I prefer 2900' and no controller that knows the job will have any issues with it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so basically you are going to ignore what they want because you know better. Fair enough. I will comply with what they want even though I theoretically know that they cannot order me to comply because it is no skin off my back, as they say.
 
alfadog said:
Ok, so basically you are going to ignore what they want because you know better.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Fair enough. I will comply with what they want even though I theoretically know that they cannot order me to comply because it is no skin off my back, as they say.
Click to expand...

Would you do that if you knew better?
 
roncachamp said:
Yes.



Would you do that if you knew better?
Click to expand...

Well, I know now they cannot require it. I still have the fact that I know they prefer it. I really cannot see that 400 feet making so much difference to me that I will ignore what I perceive as a clearly communicated preference. So it goes beyond "knowing better". It seems to go to proving a point and that is why I first mentioned "p*ssing contest". In other words, not doing it because to do it would be to agree with the incompetent order of an unknowlegable controller. So I think I get your point but, for me, it become a "contest" at that point.
 
alfadog said:
Well, I know now they cannot require it. I still have the fact that I know they prefer it. I really cannot see that 400 feet making so much difference to me that I will ignore what I perceive as a clearly communicated preference. So it goes beyond "knowing better". It seems to go to proving a point and that is why I first mentioned "p*ssing contest". In other words, not doing it because to do it would be to agree with the incompetent order of an unknowlegable controller. So I think I get your point but, for me, it become a "contest" at that point.
Click to expand...

That 400' makes a difference to me, it puts me 400 more feet above the surface. That 400' makes no operational difference to ATC. It does not require them to handle any other traffic any differently than they would if I was at 2500' or 2000'.
 
roncachamp said:
That 400' makes a difference to me, it puts me 400 more feet above the surface. That 400' makes no operational difference to ATC. It does not require them to handle any other traffic any differently than they would if I was at 2500' or 2000'.
Click to expand...

OK, point taken.

Let me ask you something else. I did loose track a bit here relative to the Class C discussion. I am not that familiar with Class C as I rarely deal with it. How is the "outer band" different from being below the shelf of a Bravo as far as the authority of ATC?

And Miami is not the only Bravo that routinely provides "enhanced flight following" (LOL). Kim related what happened to her in CA. I know Tampa Bravo does it. Miami Center chastised me for leaving my "assigned altitude" of 8500' in Class Echo under FF. This seems to be the norm.
 
roncachamp said:
That 400' makes a difference to me, it puts me 400 more feet above the surface. That 400' makes no operational difference to ATC. It does not require them to handle any other traffic any differently than they would if I was at 2500' or 2000'.
Click to expand...

I find that statement to be inaccurate..... If a VFR plane was flying practice turns about a point directly below the GRITT location at 2980 MSL, they would be perfectly legal as they are REMAINING clear of the Bravo... The overflying IFR traffic at 3000 MSL would pass the VFR traffic with a 20 foot margin of clearance.... We all know that is inadaquate separation and as a FAA controller you are tasked to make sure IFR traffic passes safely past any and all other traffic... Is this a quirk in the Bravo.:dunno: You bet it is... Is Alfadog wanting to get FF to create the safest enviroment to fly in:dunno:.. You bet he is...Is, by ATC telling VFR traffic "FF not available because of workload and the remain clear of the Bravo" the safest way to address this unique situation:dunno:.. Not by a long shot.. IMHO.
 
alfadog said:
Let me ask you something else. I did loose track a bit here relative to the Class C discussion. I am not that familiar with Class C as I rarely deal with it. How is the "outer band" different from being below the shelf of a Bravo as far as the authority of ATC?
Click to expand...

Class C service is provided to participating traffic within the Outer Area. VFR aircraft can be there without calling ATC, those that do call become participating traffic. They are then provided separation from IFR traffic. The separation minimums are small; radar separation is just target resolution, the targets are not allowed to touch. Vertical separation is 500 feet and visual separation may also be used.

Below a Class B shelf no separation is provided to VFR aircraft, just traffic advisories and safety alerts.

And Miami is not the only Bravo that routinely provides "enhanced flight following" (LOL). Kim related what happened to her in CA. I know Tampa Bravo does it. Miami Center chastised me for leaving my "assigned altitude" of 8500' in Class Echo under FF. This seems to be the norm.
Click to expand...

It may appear to be the norm but it is not consistent with Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
 
roncachamp said:
Class C service is provided to participating traffic within the Outer Area. VFR aircraft can be there without calling ATC, those that do call become participating traffic. They are then provided separation from IFR traffic. The separation minimums are small; radar separation is just target resolution, the targets are not allowed to touch. Vertical separation is 500 feet and visual separation may also be used.

Below a Class B shelf no separation is provided to VFR aircraft, just traffic advisories and safety alerts.

It may appear to be the norm but it is not consistent with Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks.
 
N801BH said:
I find that statement to be inaccurate..... If a VFR plane was flying practice turns about a point directly below the GRITT location at 2980 MSL, they would be perfectly legal as they are REMAINING clear of the Bravo... The overflying IFR traffic at 3000 MSL would pass the VFR traffic with a 20 foot margin of clearance.... We all know that is inadaquate separation and as a FAA controller you are tasked to make sure IFR traffic passes safely past any and all other traffic... Is this a quirk in the Bravo.:dunno: You bet it is... Is Alfadog wanting to get FF to create the safest enviroment to fly in:dunno:.. You bet he is...Is, by ATC telling VFR traffic "FF not available because of workload and the remain clear of the Bravo" the safest way to address this unique situation:dunno:.. Not by a long shot.. IMHO.
Click to expand...

In that airspace I'd be tasked with providing that overflying IFR aircraft with traffic advisories of the observed target and a safety alert if warranted and that's what I would do. It doesn't matter if the VFR target is showing 3000, 2500, or 2000. The overflying IFR aircraft is going to get a traffic advisory because the Mode C display of the VFR target is unverified.

Do you still find my statement to be inaccurate?
 
roncachamp said:
In that airspace I'd be tasked with providing that overflying IFR aircraft with traffic advisories of the observed target and a safety alert if warranted and that's what I would do. It doesn't matter if the VFR target is showing 3000, 2500, or 2000. The overflying IFR aircraft is going to get a traffic advisory because the Mode C display of the VFR target is unverified.

Do you still find my statement to be inaccurate?
Click to expand...

And the reason the VFR traffic is "unverified" is because ATC didn't let the VFR traffic play in their sandbox...:yesnod::rolleyes2:..

My question is............... What is the minimum distance landing IFR traffic has to clear any surrounding traffic.:dunno::dunno::dunno:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top