poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
That sounds consistent with what the NTSB wrote in Ellis.
When do you really have permission to enter Bravo airspace?
- Thread starter EdFred
- Start date
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I am with Grant on this one. I never hear it when IFR even in and around Chicago. As has been discussed when IFR those words are not required if you get a clearance from ATC to go a certain way then it is ATC's job to work out the clearances with the airspace. If they can't then you get a new route. Often times coming into the Chicago area I will have been given a clearance that will take me into the bravo. But as I get close I will be given a new clearance that keeps me out of the bravo. Since I fly to the east a lot this is South Bend App that will amend my clearance. if they tell me nothing new then I stick with what I had been given.I've never heard it while IFR. I've certainly gotten the re-route frequently around Chicago, but when flying directly into ORD or through other class B airspace I've not heard it. I had always been taught that while on an IFR flight plan you're cleared to go wherever ATC sends you with your clearance. Now, whether that would hold if they vectored you over the White House, I wouldn't count on. In that case, you can bet your bippy that I'm getting on the horn to clarify!
Flyparrothead
Pre-Flight
Had a friend get busted because he established two way communication with Class B, thought he had a clearance and got busted. Only if you hear the magical words, NXXXXX cleared through class Bravo.
Or alternatively, if you hear the IFR magic words, "Cleared to [clearance limit]..." etc.
Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but as I was departing the SF Bay Area yesterday, I was monitoring Norcal Approach, and overheard a controller giving a pilot quite a tongue lashing for violating class B airspace. The pilot thought he was cleared into the class B because the controller had cleared him to resume VFR navigation at a heading and altitude that eventually took him unto the class B. The controller explained that that did not constitute a class B clearance. I immediately thought of the above interpretation.
The last I heard of the exchange was when the pilot said he had misunderstood, and that seemed to conclude the conversation for the time being. I needed to change frequencies to open my flight plan, so I didn't hear whether a number to call or a pilot deviation was mentioned.
By the way, the above URL is no longer valid, so here is an updated version:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...10/doremire - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
Captain
Final Approach
The two are similar in that both pilots were being pretty dumb.
This planet is a ball. Every heading eventually takes you into some Bravo somewhere and the OP didn't understand a clearance to an airport via a route is also a clearance through the airspace too.
This planet is a ball. Every heading eventually takes you into some Bravo somewhere and the OP didn't understand a clearance to an airport via a route is also a clearance through the airspace too.
Interesting thread, but I LOL'd that anyone would think an aircraft operating on an IFR clearance should ask explicit permission to enter class B airspace. Ever listened to New York or Socal Approach? Do you really think they have time to needlessly say "cleared into class bravo" hundreds of times per hour? Fly your clearance like all the other IFR aircraft do.
Resume own nav is NOT the same as being vectored.
New Rule: When both of these people have posted to a single thread more than three times, each must retreat to a corner without keyboard or any other form of post-based communications and remain there for the duration of the thread.
Seriously guys, you're each much more knowledgeable than most other posters and we all get a lot of value from each of you. Please stop waving your epenises at each other, trying to one-up the other -- especially when based on simple wording differences. When you sink to that level you pull down the value of the thread. If you can't just get along, that's fair enough, but there's nothing to be gained by continuously trying to prove the other wrong and you only discredit yourself in the attempt.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Does anyone else find it somewhat disconcerting, that the answer to a question (which seems pretty simple and straight forward and something I think we are all taught in PPL training) sent to the chief counsel required not only an attorney to answer but also two teams of people. I just find this overkill, and somewhat a waste of our tax dollars which could be utilized in better ways.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
Last month I was trying to work a Class B clearance to transition the LAS class B, south to north. After about 3 frequency changes with accompanying heading changes, still outside the Class B, I was given, "heading and altitude at your discretion", I asked about the Class B and got the same response, "heading and altitude your discretion".
So I'm at 4500MSL under a 5000MSL class b floor and heading towards 3500MSL terrain. Another freq change and I got the STANDARD LAS TRACON RESPONSE, "Remain Clear Of the CLASS B". They had shuttled me across the final approach to the west side of the valley while still outside and below the class b, to then circumnavigate the west side on my own.
I discussed the "heading and altitude at pilots discretion" with no specific Class B information either cleared in or remain clear, with the TRACON airspace manager at the next FAASTeam meeting. That was an invite for a novice pilot to get a class b penetration violation.
So I'm at 4500MSL under a 5000MSL class b floor and heading towards 3500MSL terrain. Another freq change and I got the STANDARD LAS TRACON RESPONSE, "Remain Clear Of the CLASS B". They had shuttled me across the final approach to the west side of the valley while still outside and below the class b, to then circumnavigate the west side on my own.
I discussed the "heading and altitude at pilots discretion" with no specific Class B information either cleared in or remain clear, with the TRACON airspace manager at the next FAASTeam meeting. That was an invite for a novice pilot to get a class b penetration violation.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
I flew to Creve Coeur (1H0) a few week ago, it's under the innermost shelf of KSTL's class bravo. The floor of the class bravo at 1H0 is 1700MSL, 1300(ish)AGL. Coming in from the south, the class bravo floor floor steps down as you near 1H0, roughly mimicking the descent slope.
As I was coming in, I contacted STL approach, was given a code and was instructed to proceed direct to 1H0 and "maintain VFR". I didn't hear those magic words, "cleared into class bravo", so I stayed below the benches as they stepped down.
Departing later in the day, I contacted departure, was given a code, and was cleared to climb to 5,500', my requested altitude. Again, I didn't hear those magic words, "cleared into class bravo", so I made a shallow climb that kept me under the benches as they stepped back up.
It wasn't a big deal for me to remain clear of class bravo and I ASSUMED I was cleared into it when I was cleared to climb to 5,500'. But since I didn't hear those magic words, and he was quite busy so I didn't find a chance to ask, I just avoided the possible issue.
As I was coming in, I contacted STL approach, was given a code and was instructed to proceed direct to 1H0 and "maintain VFR". I didn't hear those magic words, "cleared into class bravo", so I stayed below the benches as they stepped down.
Departing later in the day, I contacted departure, was given a code, and was cleared to climb to 5,500', my requested altitude. Again, I didn't hear those magic words, "cleared into class bravo", so I made a shallow climb that kept me under the benches as they stepped back up.
It wasn't a big deal for me to remain clear of class bravo and I ASSUMED I was cleared into it when I was cleared to climb to 5,500'. But since I didn't hear those magic words, and he was quite busy so I didn't find a chance to ask, I just avoided the possible issue.
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Exactly. If the TRACON controller instructs me to fly X heading and Y altitude, and that will take me into the Class B airspace s/he controls, that's one thing (although IAW 91.123, I'm going to obtain confirmation of that entry approval). OTOH, if the controller just says "resume own nav to [wherever]," I'm not sticking my beak in that Class B airspace between where I am now and [wherever] on the basis of that alone.
Last edited:
Of course, in Chicago, they won't send you through or anywhere NEAR the class B unless you're landing at one of their airports.
Remain clear of the class B and Remain VFR are just what you're expected to do anyhow. I always find it amusing when I'm told to remain VFR on a day with unlimited visibility and not a cloud I could fly into if I tried. I usually respond "I'll try" to such.
Remain clear of the class B and Remain VFR are just what you're expected to do anyhow. I always find it amusing when I'm told to remain VFR on a day with unlimited visibility and not a cloud I could fly into if I tried. I usually respond "I'll try" to such.
Bill Watson
En-Route
VFR, I'm asking for explicit permission to entry in both cases or otherwise remaining clear independent of any vectors given.
IFR of course, I simply proceed asking for clarification if something seems exceptionally strange.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I would note that the Chief Counsel has created a bit of a conundrum here. IAW with the 2010 Doremire interpretation, an explicit Class B clearance is always required. OTOH, the recent Karas interpretation earlier this year says VFR pilots in controlled airspace must obey any ATC instruction given. So, what happens when the two conflict, i.e., when the instructed heading/altitude will send you into B-space without a B-space clearance?
In that situation, 91.123 requires that you obtain immediate clarification of the controller's intent as soon as you realize the conflict exists. But what if you can't get a word in edgewise? I think that pretty much drops you into a 91.3(b) "do what you think is safest" situation, and there's no telling in advance what that is going to be. What they won't forgive is muddling along without at least trying to ask the controller which s/he really wants you to do (obey the instruction or stay out of the B-space)and then either barging into the B-space or disobeying the instruction, and either way causing a problem that could have been prevented by you asking for clarification in a timely manner.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
QFT!!
(even though their exchange was years old)
And after an extended period of time putting up with their epenises you'll find that it helps to simply block them both.
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
Why do you find it humorous? FAR 91.131 is not found among the Visual Flight Rules, it's a General rule. There's nothing in it that limits it to VFR operations and it does state the clearance to enter the Class B airspace area is to be obtained "from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area".
denverpilot
Tied Down
dell30rb
Final Approach
Ditto what greg said about what jason said.
Edit: I had no idea this thread started in 2010 and went for 8 pages when I replied.
Because it's obvious to anyone who has spent any decent amount of time in the national airspace system that TRACONs don't clog the frequency with unnecessary confirmation of class B clearances that IFR aircraft may have picked up from clearance delivery on the other side of the country. (Or even a different country. Listen to clearance delivery at any international airport and you'll hear aircraft being cleared to airports in a different country all the time.)
Do you think airline pilots ask to reconfirm their class A clearance every time they change centers in cruise? LOL again.
If you don't know how the system works find an instructor who does and learn how to operate in the system. GA pilots who don't know how to operate in the system just make it harder for those who do.
comanchepilot
En-Route
VFR? Then what others have said. . . .
IFR? Then follow your clearance. . .
There is no other way . . .
You cannot get clearance into Class B airspace from Clearance Delivery when it is not the same Class B airspace controller as the class B airspace . . . at least I would not accept one -
Last edited:
comanchepilot
En-Route
So when you file and are cleared direct expecting to get "SCAPE -> HRG -> MRB -> direct" along the way, do you set up the GPS flight plan for what you filed or what you expect?.
It depends . . .
if its someplace I know and have been before and 'know' what I can expect to fly - then I WRITE down the Clearance and make a note [physical and mental] to expect a reroute . . .
Here in SoCal, example for the TEC clearance between POC and CRQ is 26 Departure procedure - PRADO - PDZ V168 HAILE V66 MZB CRQ - you NEVER fly the entire route - you get vectors to ESCON from before ROBNN.
So I program the box with PRADO PDZ TANNR ROBNN and the select the ILS24 as the approach all the while keeping the clearance in the back of my kind . . .
Someplace I've never been I deal with it . . . . program the clearance fly what you get - and deal with it.
Captain
Final Approach
It's a generally accepted good practice to make the box match your clearance. When I get my clearance on the ground I enter the whole thing in there. In flight and I get a re-route I enter the first fix to get us on our way and then enter the whole thing in there.
I do not preload approaches until I get the ATIS and know what's available and in use. If I get a clearance limit enroute I build a hold on the fix to A. Remind me I've got the limit, B. make the plane stop at the limit, C. Make the box reflect the clearance.
I can't think of a reason or situation where the clearance should be different than what's in the box. By doing this I don't have to fly around with anything in the back of my mind. What ATC wants is what the box is going to do and I make sure it stays that way from taxi out to taxi in.
I do not preload approaches until I get the ATIS and know what's available and in use. If I get a clearance limit enroute I build a hold on the fix to A. Remind me I've got the limit, B. make the plane stop at the limit, C. Make the box reflect the clearance.
I can't think of a reason or situation where the clearance should be different than what's in the box. By doing this I don't have to fly around with anything in the back of my mind. What ATC wants is what the box is going to do and I make sure it stays that way from taxi out to taxi in.
So "Sorry for dredging up an old thread" was not enough of a clue? :wink2:
JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
I used to think that if you were IFR you flew your clearance, in and out of whatever class of airspace they cleared you through. That's why when I fly to Dallas or Houston I always file IFR, VFR into class B just seemed too complicated.
But after reading this thread I realize that flying in the national airspace system is just not permitted. Follow or don't follow ATC instructions, airspace rules, or anything else. It doesn't matter.
You will violate a rule, law, rumor, letter, sign in the administrator's private restroom stall, or NTSB post-it note.
And even if you somehow aren't arrested on landing it's pretty certain that the logbook police will bust you for logging PIC for those 5 minutes your buddy held the controls while you reset your iPad.
And in the extremely unlikely event that the logbook police don't haul you away, the travel voucher police will certainly arrest you for conducting an illegle 135 flight because you had a job on the day you made the flight.
Don't believe me? Just write a letter to the Chief Counsel's intern describing your last flight. She'll write a letter explaining all the ways you broke a rule established by a typo in the remarks contained in the draft of the rule that she has in the notebook in the Chief Counsel's janitor's closet.
But after reading this thread I realize that flying in the national airspace system is just not permitted. Follow or don't follow ATC instructions, airspace rules, or anything else. It doesn't matter.
You will violate a rule, law, rumor, letter, sign in the administrator's private restroom stall, or NTSB post-it note.
And even if you somehow aren't arrested on landing it's pretty certain that the logbook police will bust you for logging PIC for those 5 minutes your buddy held the controls while you reset your iPad.
And in the extremely unlikely event that the logbook police don't haul you away, the travel voucher police will certainly arrest you for conducting an illegle 135 flight because you had a job on the day you made the flight.
Don't believe me? Just write a letter to the Chief Counsel's intern describing your last flight. She'll write a letter explaining all the ways you broke a rule established by a typo in the remarks contained in the draft of the rule that she has in the notebook in the Chief Counsel's janitor's closet.
If you're IFR and your route that you were cleared for takes you through you're automatically cleared in, that's the beauty of IFR. If you're VFR not until "Cleared into class B airspace".
I won't fly SoCal VFR for that reason... just waaaay easier IFR.
I won't fly SoCal VFR for that reason... just waaaay easier IFR.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Does anyone find it somewhat disconcerting that in this letter the Office of the Chief Counsel states a vector for traffic from ATC is not an instruction?
roncachamp
Final Approach
roncachamp
Final Approach
But in the Doremire letter the Office of the Chief Counsel states a vector for traffic from ATC is not an instruction, so there's no conflict.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Yes, most entry of Class B airspace is made without following the requirements of FAR 91.131, that was the point.
Bad analogy.
I've found instructors to be poor sources of information on these matters.
roncachamp
Final Approach
In practice that's true, but it's not consistent with FAR 91.131.
§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.
(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with § 91.129 and the following rules:
(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.
Captain
Final Approach
Every time I've flown into a Class B airport I've been handed off to approach control prior to entering the airspace. Would not the vectors or clearance to a fix inside the Class B be considered clearance into the the airspace 'from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area'?
I suppose it matters where it says you need SPECIFIC clearance into the Class B. Does that not only apply to VFR? I'm thinking AIM here but could be wrong.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
If they say "vector for traffic," then yes, you are correct, although you'd better not create a collision hazard if you deviate from that vector. However, there are a lot of other reasons why a controller might issue a heading/altitude to VFR traffic, and in those cases, it's an instruction and the conflict can arise.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
IFR? Yes. VFR? No -- read the Doremire letter.
Where is the phrase "specific clearance" used other than in a VFR context?
Captain
Final Approach
Yes, I'm only referring to IFR.
VFR context: Isn't that what this is about? My understanding is specific clearance is required VFR and not required IFR as clearance into the Class B is implied when you got your initial clearance or revised clearance.
Then roncachamp quoted the reg and it doesn't seem to differentiate VFR from IFR so I asked where it's written down that specific clearance is required and does THAT reference VFR?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Correct.
VFR doesn't get a "clearance" other than Class B or SVFR (the trivial case of being "cleared for takeoff" notwithstanding -- they ain't gonna clear you for takeoff inside Class B without a Class B clearance already arranged), so outside of the unusual case of SVFR in Class B (generally prohibited at the larger Class B airports), the question of a "specific" clearance is moot for VFR aircraft. The conflict I described above involves a VFR aircraft being instructed (not "cleared") in a manner which will take it into B-space without being given a clearance into that B-space.
Captain
Final Approach
To the underlined portion:
Further, it could be argued that when an IFR aircraft is given an initial clearance they are getting implied clearance from the destination Class B...the controlling ATC. I say this because the destination field has the ability to issue flow control. They can shut their airspace down BEFORE or DURING your flight. So, if you make it to approach and get vectored into the Class B are are simply allowed to continue into Class B then you HAVE received specific clearance into the Class B in the form of not being denied entry and operating on your clearance satisfies the 'specific clearance' requirement.
Specific applies as your tail number (callsign) was given and you were given a destination and routing.
Of course, all of this applies to IFR only.
comanchepilot
En-Route
No. Read Ron's reg. does not tater if you are told to go to a fix because Obama is arriving or there was a crash or you'd better take a vector or you'll hit a 737 full of school kids . . . No means no
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
The issue is not the regulation itself, but the Chief Counsel's interpretation of that regulation (actually, interpretations of two regulations -- 91.123 and 91.131), which has created a conflict between the two regulations.
That said, for a VFR aircraft, a "clearance" from Potomac Approach to a fix inside Class B (if so worded, i.e., "Cleared to the Baltimore Airport, fly heading 270, maintain 3000) with the controller neglecting to say "into Class B airspace" seems to me to meet the pilot's 91.131(a)(1) requirement for "an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area", which does not specify the language that FAA Order 7110.65 tells the controllers to use. Even if the Potomac controller's response to my request to go VFR to BWI is something like, "22RL, maintain 3000, fly heading 270, vectors to BWI," my response would probably be "3000, 270, into the Bravo, 22RL", and if the controller doesn't say anything to the contrary, I'll do just what that controller said and motor on into the B-space.
OTOH, if Potomac Approach merely instructs a VFR aircraft to "Fly heading 270, maintain 3000", where that heading/altitude will take it into the Class B, that creates for the pilot a conflict between the two regulations -- 91.123 requiring VFR aircraft in controlled airspace to comply with any ATC instruction issued, versus 91.131 requiring a clearance to enter the B-space. FWIW, when I find myself in an in-flight situation where two Part 91 regulations conflict, and I cannot obtain clarification fast enough, I let 91.3(b) be my guide, and do whatever seems safest at that point -- and there's no way to say in advance what that will be.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the pilot being smarter'n a box o'rocks. If you get instructed to do something which doesn't seem right, let the controller know that in your initial response to the instruction. If it takes a while for you to figure out that it ain't right, say something as soon as you can after you figure that out. Nobody's going to bust you unless you just sit there and let something dumb happen merely because "the controller said to fly that heading."
Last edited: