Controller-Pilot Question, legally able to do something and being smart about your safety.

RABIRZA69

RABIRZA69

Penalty vectorer
This is a question from a controllers perspective.

Flying outside what some may call the busiest class B in the world not talking to anyone. The confines of the BRAVO go up to 7000ft. so It is quite easy for any single engine to get up above it and putz around on a 1200 code.. Now if you do in fact do this do you think to yourself... self Im gonna fly right above the busiest airspace in the world where I know there are large jets with hundreds of people on board going every which direction at every altitude and Im gonna be perfectly fine. There was a situation the other day where there were numerous unverfied targets (1200 codes) flying above the bravo creating difficult situations for the controllers. the confines of the airpsace are very restricting to allow vectoring around the target to allow positive seperation.

so heres the question
- If you are legally able to do something according to the FARS does it make it easier to justify possibly jeopardizing your safety and or that of others flying around you?
- Does this seem like something where a pilot does not find it to be a safety issue because they are following all the rules?
- From a pilots perspective do you most of the time find yourself aware of the "bigger picture" of whats going on around you?

This is not a bash of any GA pilots out there just a topic I would like to discuss and see the other side of. on a side note if any airline pilots want to chime in and tell me your perspective on this feel free.
 
I think a lot of pilots myself included figure that if the airspace needed to be controlled for safe operations it would be. I fly around lax airspace all the time and hadn't really given much thought to messing up the big guys. I am usually preoccupied with all the other little GA aircraft. Especially in and around KAJO. I do try to monitor SoCal when I am around the busier airspaces but sometimes it is difficult to keep your ear on SoCal while trying to figure out where the plane is that barely speaks English and doesn't answer your questions.
Mike
 
RABIRZA69 said:
This is a question from a controllers perspective.

Flying outside what some may call the busiest class B in the world not talking to anyone. The confines of the BRAVO go up to 7000ft. so It is quite easy for any single engine to get up above it and putz around on a 1200 code.. Now if you do in fact do this do you think to yourself... self Im gonna fly right above the busiest airspace in the world where I know there are large jets with hundreds of people on board going every which direction at every altitude and Im gonna be perfectly fine. There was a situation the other day where there were numerous unverfied targets (1200 codes) flying above the bravo creating difficult situations for the controllers. the confines of the airpsace are very restricting to allow vectoring around the target to allow positive seperation.
Click to expand...
Very recently a GA guy who had to do rather precise mapping in rather congested areas; now an airline pilot. All I can really say is, I hope their Mode C is working. Also, it doesn't really matter how many seats the various aircraft have, because the net result is pretty much the same most time there's a midair (someone's probably going to die). I don't want to hit or be hit by anyone, ever.

By the way, you guys essentially accept an unverified Mode C as verified most of the time, especially if you exclude VFR targets by altitude stratum on your scopes.

- If you are legally able to do something according to the FARS does it make it easier to justify possibly jeopardizing your safety and or that of others flying around you?
Click to expand...
No. Just because a proposed operation is legal does not make it safe, or even a Good Idea.

However, the operation that you propose can be conducted safely. There are enough "layers" (airliners have TCAS onboard which is arguably there to respond to an air traffic control failure to separate aircraft to minimum standards) present that I think it COULD be done. I personally would get flight following. I'd rather be a participating aircraft.

I would consider not having flight following in the situation you describe to be failure to use all available resources. I'd rather be on a code and talking to someone if I'm operating that close in.

- Does this seem like something where a pilot does not find it to be a safety issue because they are following all the rules?
Click to expand...
Operations like that are high threat environments, which means additional vigilance.

Safety means the reduction or acceptance of risk, not the absence of risk.

- From a pilots perspective do you most of the time find yourself aware of the "bigger picture" of whats going on around you?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
What I am usually thinking?

ATC: "Radar service terminated, squawk VFR"
Self: "well, I guess we are climbing over the Bravo.

I spend hours at a time circling 1 mile from or 100' below a busy Bravo airspace, with no transponder (in a glider - this is somehow legal). I am usually more preoccupied with the non mode-c meat missiles zipping past, or the Air Force heavy that thinks it is fine to zip through a Bravo at 400 kts 3000 MSL...
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I spend hours at a time circling 1 mile from or 100' below a busy Bravo airspace, with no transponder (in a glider - this is somehow legal). I am usually more preoccupied with the non mode-c meat missiles zipping past, or the Air Force heavy that thinks it is fine to zip through a Bravo at 400 kts 3000 MSL...
Click to expand...
Specific to the Air Force heavy: legal, versus safe... :)
 
I vividly remember a helicopter pilot flying across the top of a Class B and then doing steep descent into his destination on the other side. ATC called and told him he was violating the regulations. His response was "bring it on". He was the kind of personality who would have been more than happy to cross swords.

Vice versa, I've heard pilots calling as they cross over Class B and ATC talked to them like they were idiots for calling outside of Class B.

So, in general, before I'd point a finger at a pilot, I'd try to get some kind of consistent response from ATC.
 
Sometime you have to be VFR and 1200. If the airspace needed controlling that badly, it would be B, not E. I don't think you understand how most arrivals to airports work if you think 1200 over top B is an issue.

You get a lot of - Remain clear of B sometimes... which means 1200 - SEE YA! and over we go. Or in survey, Hey XX app I'd like flight following, I'm going to be 100 feet below the shelf and right below the approach to your active runway. XX app - unable, I can't have you there. Me - well you see, we need to get this done, and if we work with each other it'll make it easier for both of us. XX app - unable, remain clear of C/B. Me - Uh... ok. 1200 it is, I'll ruin you're whole day I guess.
 
I've known several pilots who simply hate dealing with ATC and will do anything to avoid it, including using extra fuel and time to go around a relatively quiet class C rather than talk to a controller for 5 seconds to pass through.

Maybe in the past they've talked with the B controllers and got pushed around the sky and dont want to deal with them?
 
Legal isn't always necessarily "prudent" and I think the definition of prudent depends on the actual pilot.

Personally, today? I wouldn't do it, but that's after a few years of experience and feeling the wrath of wake turbulence.

Back in the day, I wouldn't have had a second thought about it and assumed legal=prudent.

One day, during a "Bay Tour", under ATC control, approaching SFO...
 
z987k said:
You get a lot of - Remain clear of B sometimes... which means 1200 - SEE YA! and over we go. Or in survey, Hey XX app I'd like flight following, I'm going to be 100 feet below the shelf and right below the approach to your active runway. XX app - unable, I can't have you there. Me - well you see, we need to get this done, and if we work with each other it'll make it easier for both of us. XX app - unable, remain clear of C/B. Me - Uh... ok. 1200 it is, I'll ruin you're whole day I guess.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, if the airspace is controlled (E), you are operating contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised if you do that—even if you terminate flight following, you were told to not be there. Just to be an argumentative person.

I don't remember where the transition area class E airspace starts in most of, say, SoCal, but I'm pretty sure most of the area is the fuzzy side of the blue.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Strictly speaking, if the airspace is controlled (E), you are operating contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised if you do that—even if you terminate flight following, you were told to not be there. Just to be an argumentative person.
Click to expand...

I read it as they are unable to provide flight following there; it didn't sound like a command to not be there. Are you saying ATC can tell you to remain clear of Echo?
 
mat said:
I read it as they are unable to provide flight following there; it didn't sound like a command to not be there. Are you saying ATC can tell you to remain clear of Echo?
Click to expand...
I've heard that before waiting for a SVFR clearance, "Stationair 12345, remain clear of the Aniak class echo surface area, inbound IFR traffic."
 
ppragman said:
I've heard that before waiting for a SVFR clearance, "Stationair 12345, remain clear of the Aniak class echo surface area, inbound IFR traffic."
Click to expand...

I've heard that too. Has to do with the "one in, one out rule" that applies to IFR traffic operating from uncontrolled Class E surface area airports when weather drops below the VFR minimums for Class E... and I believe if ATC accepts your SVFR request they have to apply the same IFR separation standards to you. (Of course you already know that being a freight dog and dealing with this stuff on a daily basis, just saying in case anyone else was confused.) I don't think that applies in this case, since we're talking about ATC selectively closing some parts of Class E they don't want you in and not others. Yet if z987k hadn't contacted ATC to begin with he never would have received that instruction. While I agree it's better to work with them (and if I was in that position I would do everything possible to) but I don't think you can close Class E without a TFR. Temporary TFRs are pretty easy to get too, since they put them up over wildfires at pretty short notice.

Along the same lines, you could rent a GA plane and go practice holding patterns on a navaid just outside Class B used by a busy STAR, at the crossing restriction altitude on that STAR, and be legal. But you'd be a D-bag, you'd increase ATC's workload by an incredible amount, probably set off some TCAS alerts, and everyone would hate you (and I'm sure the FAA would find a way to bust you anyway). So don't...
 
This kind of reminds me of the "flying VFR through an active MOA" discussion. What is legal vs. smart.

In the GA pilot's defense, I have friend who is an inexperienced, VFR only pilot with his own little plane. He always tries to do the right thing to get through the class B airspace near where he flies, but has always been treated badly by the controllers, so he just goes over the top by a few feet without the flight following he requested.
 
ppragman said:
I've heard that before waiting for a SVFR clearance, "Stationair 12345, remain clear of the Aniak class echo surface area, inbound IFR traffic."
Click to expand...
Yep. The words "I can't have you there" don't appear in the P/CG, I suppose, but "remain clear of the Class Echo" is something I've heard before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top