? for controllers

js0305

js0305

Well-Known Member
I was instructing today in class D (under class B) on freq. with the local tower (tried to get on regional but they were too busy). I was at 2800', or 200' under the bravo airspace, and came pretty close to an airliner who appeared to be at 3000'. The tower came on and mentioned that regional thought I had violated Bravo airspace and I needed to call them on the ground. He stated that he NEVER saw me higher than 2800 on his direct feed from regional, and apologized a few times.

I called and explained where I was what I was doing and that I was level at 2800 the entire time (bravo is 3000'). He said that that is too close and I should stay at least 400' below in case my encoder was off, but he couldn't prove I was in bravo and that I may have been at 2800 so nothing could be done.

I was under the 3000' section 7NM from the 2500' shelf and 3NM from the 4000' shelf. I had my encoder checked upon returning and it proved to be right on.
I was very upset and was wondering if the controller should have kept the airliner at higher until he was closer to the next lower tier of bravo? What are the procedures for controllers to prevent such an event?

Thanks in advance.
 
To keep it brief, you're in the right and the suggestion you recieved about 400' isn't practical. Probably what happened was the airliner recieved a resolution advisory, took evasive action and reported it. Once that happens ATC has to investigate and do a report. The big however to all of this is, when you're skirting class B you do take a chance of something like this happening. Class B is designed to protect the arrivals and departures to the main airport and is designed as it is for a very good reason. Our procedures locally as controllers is largely predicated on the very design of our airspace. If you're 200 feet below it, there is always a chance you'll find yourserlf 200' below an arrival and at a lateral distance you might not be comfortable with.

Part of our job as approach controllers in class B airports is containing arrivals to the primary airport inside the Bravo as much as possible. Sometimes we do need to slam the arrivals to the floor of the B. There could be haze obscuring the airport until the arrivals are close to the floor and 7 or 8 miles out. There could be a situation where one on long final is being paired up with an airplane on downwind to a paralell. The aircraft on final needs to be as low as possible because the aircraft on downwind will turn base and have to stay 1,000 feet above until they see eachother. The extra 1,000 feet for the plane on base may very well mean that aircraft cannot get down and goes missed.

Another possibility to just keep in the back of your mind is when we issue a visual approach clearance, the pilot is supposed to remain within the Bravo. This doesn't always happen.

To sum it up, you're 100% correct. Just use this as a learning experience about being vigilant around Bravo.
 
let me put it this way just like a part 91 single engine departing ifr when the weather is 0/0 ,flying 1 foot below that bravo is also legal, but in aviation legal dosent always mean safe.

OG

P.S.
and its not my job to try to avoid every 1200 code on the scope .
 
queeno said:
let me put it this way just like a part 91 single engine departing ifr when the weather is 0/0 ,flying 1 foot below that bravo is also legal, but in aviation legal dosent always mean safe.

OG

P.S.
and its not my job to try to avoid every 1200 code on the scope .
Click to expand...

+1

I try and let pilots know this whenever I can as well. Class B airspaces' are generally designed to an ideal operational situation. A lot of times that ideal is non-existant wishful thinking. If you're not talking to ATC there is no way they can verify your altitude and being outside the Bravo they don't have a separation responsibility in reference to you. Hypothetically they could run B747 100' over your Skyhawk(or whatever small plane it was) and be completely legal. Now who do you think is going to be on the rough ride side of that completely legal on both sides operation? You were completely legal, however try and remember the Bravo boundary isn't a forcefield for the effects of close encounters with airliners. Personally I am always watching for those that like to run 1' under the Bravo simply because I don't like dealing with RA's (TCAS).
 
queeno said:
let me put it this way just like a part 91 single engine departing ifr when the weather is 0/0 ,flying 1 foot below that bravo is also legal, but in aviation legal dosent always mean safe.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of this. I obviously felt 200' was a safe and sufficient margin.



queeno said:
P.S.
and its not my job to try to avoid every 1200 code on the scope .
Click to expand...

Whose job is it? I Understand VFR rules of "see and avoid", however when I am in VMC outside bravo and I get a little close to another aircraft, I do not appreciate Regional accusing me of violating their airspace.
 
js0305 said:
I am well aware of this. I obviously felt 200' was a safe and sufficient margin.





Whose job is it? I Understand VFR rules of "see and avoid", however when I am in VMC outside bravo and I get a little close to another aircraft, I do not appreciate Regional accusing me of violating their airspace.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood him. First off, "regional" approach accusing you and giving you an instruction to maintain XXX below Bravo was IMO dumb. Like you said you felt where you were operating was safe, and it probably was/is. He(queeno) was just saying when there are 15 a/c on 1200 operating just below the floor under the final, he isn't going to be applying Class B separation standards to them. (Can't if their altitudes are unverified and they are not radar id'd) All that is being said is that although it is completely legal it might not always be completely smart depending on time/place/situation.
 
In multiple occasions I've found myself having to work immediately under or next to Bravo airspaces. Sometimes it could be as little as 200 feet. In those circumstances I always would get radar service even though I would occasionally have to remind approach that no I didn't have a choice being there and I was talking to them for their benefit. Also it is regular practice that I would have a controller for the sector I was in to send an airliner right by me even while I have been squawking with him for hours and they would say nothing about it. I had a guy do this with me handling Southwest midway inbounds. He did it so blatantly that two inbounds did receive and report RAs. The controller almost sounded like he could care less, he was not going to deviate from the 15 sw cross at xxx no matter what even though 20 miles would have fixed everybody's day just fine. This was all well outside of any airspace bravo or otherwise. At Midway it seemed the vast majority of arrivals penetrated the side of the cake rather than the top corner downwards as the book logic might imply.

My suggestion is when you can have some discretion on where you do your air work, look up the stars and try to stay away from those corridors. 5 miles could really mean a lot when it comes to having inbounds hitting that bravo floor right above you.

Unfortunately in my job I largely didn't have that luxury.
 
AHHHHHHHHHHH MDW is a class C airport not a class B airport so we dont have to enter from the top.
 
why didn't you simply move your training 3NM so you would be under the 4000' shelf making it safe for you to train at 2800 all day? it would seem to me knowingly training 200' under a location where commercial traffic is an issue isn't exactly a safe practice, especially considering vortex can and will blow you out of the sky.

A controller can and will use all available airspace he is assigned to maintain proper separation of a/c under his control. if you knowingly choose to squawk a dozen and encroach on that airspace and something happens, then their's no one to blame but yourself, after all you are flying VFR.
 
sparky said:
why didn't you simply move your training 3NM so you would be under the 4000' shelf making it safe for you to train at 2800 all day? it would seem to me knowingly training 200' under a location where commercial traffic is an issue isn't exactly a safe practice, especially considering vortex can and will blow you out of the sky.

A controller can and will use all available airspace he is assigned to maintain proper separation of a/c under his control. if you knowingly choose to squawk a dozen and encroach on that airspace and something happens, then their's no one to blame but yourself, after all you are flying VFR.
Click to expand...

I would have gladly taken the turn toward the 4000' shelf and requested it, however due to aircraft and helicopter activity the tower instructed me to turn left, which would keep me under the 3000' shelf.

I am not sure if people are understanding me correctly. I am not upset that I got close to an airliner. I fly this class B a lot and it is busy so it happens occasionally.
What I am upset with is that regional was accusing me of violating their airspace. My question here was to ask whether the controller made any mistakes in contacting his/her supervisor about the incident.
 
js0305 said:
My question here was to ask whether the controller made any mistakes in contacting his/her supervisor about the incident.
Click to expand...

The controller in question was required to report it to his supervisor do to the fact the commercial a/c most likely complained and you were within 200' vertical separation of an IFR a/c which isn't cool for everyone involved... You need to remember, approach or departure doesn't have a clue who you are or what your intentions are when your squawking a dozen...
 
sparky said:
The controller in question was required to report it to his supervisor do to the fact the commercial a/c most likely complained and you were within 200' vertical separation of an IFR a/c which isn't cool for everyone involved..
Click to expand...

I understand the need to report to supervisor, again what I am upset about is the accusation that I violated airspace when in fact I didn't. The tower who has a direct feed said he only saw 2800' and never higher, and yet approach says it was constant 2800' but a brief 3000' as the airliner passed. I don't buy this one bit.

As far as being 200' below. I find it to be a decent margin, and no a vortex wouldn't blow me through the bravo. I have a couple thousand hours in this airspace and have yet to hit a vortex that I couldn't keep altitude within 200'.

I appreciate all of the responses. Thank you again.
 
js0305 said:
As far as being 200' below. I find it to be a decent margin, and no a vortex wouldn't blow me through the bravo. I have a couple thousand hours in this airspace and have yet to hit a vortex that I couldn't keep altitude within 200'.
Click to expand...

Let me correctly phrase my response... you can have all the experience in the world nothing is going to help you with wake turbulence from a heavy with only 200' vertical separation... if you think your experience will save you, just look at the Lear who was inverted on final into SNA... if memory serves me correct the Lear encroached to within 8 miles of a heavy on final, only to be caught by wake turbulence causing it to invert, resulting with it crashing.. This happened mid-late eighties and the founder of In-n-Out burger was onboard... FYI, the approach controller did warn the Lear he was following a heavy and beware of wake turbulence... That was EIGHT MILES of separation, your bragging about 200' vertical separation and your vast experience. I don't mean to sound like a dick, but good luck...

Here's the rule you as an instructor should already know....
7-3-6 Vortex Avoidance Procedures b-9. En Route VFR (thousand-foot altitude plus 500 feet). Avoid flight below and behind a larger aircraft's path. If a larger aircraft is observed above on the same track (meeting or overtaking) adjust your position laterally, preferably up wind.

You might also want to review 7-3-9 so you as the cfi fully understand the required separation for wake turbulence.

The bottom line is, your VFR and responsible for your own separation, so if you feel lucky enough to be flying below commercial jets with only 200' of vertical separation that's your choice, but sooner or later something bad will happen... I guarantee it, because I've seen it before... I can also promise you it will take far less than a heavy to knock your training aircraft out of the sky...
 
Just a question for the OP, did this happen in the DFW metroplex? Or did the stars align in two different places? This sounds kind of familiar is all...
 
Yeah DFW. Like I have continued to say, the ONLY reason I am upset is the false accusation of a violation of the FAR's.

As far as the vortex issue for some reason I kept thinking you were talking about thermals, not wing vortices, and very sorry about the misunderstanding. I am not trying to say I am a great pilot or instructor and yes I do understand the dangers of vortices. But i cannot cancel my training every time approach is busy, nor is it practical to always be really far below bravo.

The area in question normally has airline traffic around 4000-5000, as it is 17NM from the primary airport. for some reason this md-80 happened to be near the bottom of bravo.

Thanks for the responses, and again sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
js0305 said:
Yeah DFW. Like I have continued to say, the ONLY reason I am upset is the false accusation of a violation of the FAR's.

As far as the vortex issue for some reason I kept thinking you were talking about thermals, not wing vortices, and very sorry about the misunderstanding. I am not trying to say I am a great pilot or instructor and yes I do understand the dangers of vortices. But i cannot cancel my training every time approach is busy, nor is it practical to always be really far below bravo.

The area in question normally has airline traffic around 4000-5000, as it is 17NM from the primary airport. for some reason this md-80 happened to be near the bottom of bravo.

Thanks for the responses, and again sorry for the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

If you feel the accusation is false, your recourse is to ask why the accusation is being made. I assure you, 100%, that if "regional" says you encroached the bravo they have a radar replay showing exactly that-despite what the tower controller says.

Although it's already been stated, the supervisor notification was made when the AAL RA'd. As part of the investigation, the radar is replayed.

In regards to aircraft "normally" being at 4-5000 feet in that area: 18R has been closed for almost a month. 18L is a departure runway. That means that 13R, that is "normally" an overflow, is absorbing all the traffic coming over both the NW and the SW cornerposts-as it is the only runway available for landing on the west side of the airport. That is why the traffic is lower (all the useable altitudes have to be occupied) and much higher in volume than normal.
 
I called (as requested) and the start of the conversation was "we feel you violated"..... and the end of the conversation he said "well you probably were at 2800 and we have no evidence that says otherwise".

and yes it was 13R. TONS of traffic skirting bravo in that area. Thanks again for the reply!
 
approach also told me via phone that this happens ALL the time and its just good practice to stay 400' or more below.

About the accusation, it comes from a controller telling his sup that he "may" have notice 3000' for a quick moment, but otherwise 2800'. Either way i have learned from the situation and appreciate all of the feedback.
 
Just to clarify on my response, when I stated if "regional" says they have it, they do-that is pertaining to the actual phone call being made to the facility.

In regards to what the controller told the supe, that's not exactly what was stated, but that is politics and another thread for another day.

That runway closure ends the 28th of August (hopefully) and the volume of traffic in that area will ease tremendously at that time. As far as it happening all the time, it does. We are fully aware you have every right to be there, but please understand that in this runway configuration we have no choice but to go there. Keep your eyes peeled :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top