200 kts relief

Captain

Captain

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
8,002
Location
NOYB
Display Name
Display name:
First Officer
Seriously. Can we band together and get some relief from this stupid 200 kts below class B thing when IFR? It is a major pain in my arse to try and figure out when it applies to me and I have a moving map on my iPad!

At the very least ATC should have to tell you they are descending you below the Bravo. It's not fair. Either abolish the rule for IFR (after all, your radar contact and talking...if they need a speed then just assign it) or require ATC to report you leaving the class B.

With ForeFlight I can figure it out...but I have to go heads down and fiddle with an iPad for a good 10 to 20 seconds and it seems to me it would be safer to be heads up.

[/rant]
 
So you want higher closure rates in the busiest chunks of airspace on the planet?
 
denverpilot said:
So you want higher closure rates in the busiest chunks of airspace on the planet?
Click to expand...

Put yourself in my shoes. I'm IFR going to any Class B airport. I do not have sectionals onboard. Neither does Delta, American or United...or any other airline. We all have to obey the 200 kts below bravo thing.

How am I supposed to know when I'm below the Bravo? It's not a function of do I think I should be able to go fast in busy airspace. It's a function of I don't have the spare time to divert my attention to ensure compliance. None of us do. Most class B approaches expect you to keep your speed up. Slow from 250 to 200 all on your own and you will be yelled at. But if you drop below...then you're expected to just know it and slow.

What kind of structure is that? Don't slow down unless your told except you MUST slow down if you descend below the charted Bravo that you don't have the chart. Super.

My iPad is my thing. Truth be told our POI doesn't even want us to have a moving map on it...yet that is my ONLY indication of where I am in relation to the class B.

It's an F'ed up situation. That's all I can say about it. Impossible regs to comply with. And trying to comply distracts from safety. Would it be that hard to simply exempt IFR and just have them fly assigned speed? Or at least require approach to notify you you are descending below the bravo? After all, it's their bravo and they descended you..l
 
Last edited:
Maybe a hybrid. You are exempt if you have TCAS (mode C veil ensures you will have TA/RA protection) and if your TCAS is out then ATC must advise leaving the bravo?

Win/Win.
 
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:
 
Sometimes it gets you when you aren't even working the Class B TRACON. Like departing KCNO routed over POM. You're in the Ontaio Class C but screwed by the Los Angeles Class B. Same at KSNA and KLCB.
 
Just what we need to enhance safety, higher closure speeds with aircraft legally operating VFR below Class B. It wouldn't be pretty around KBOS.

I agree that ATC should never clear the high speed aircraft below the Class B, unless specifically announced and/or restrict the speed to less than 200kts.
 
The accident which most immediately led to the creation of Terminal Control Areas (now Class B airspace) was a DC-9 running over a Cherokee 140 from behind at 3000 feet 30 miles out from its destination of Indianapolis. The whole idea of TCA's was to keep the fast movers up high until they got close, then drop them in over the top of the slow movers, and if they want to fly down in the slow mover airspace, they have to slow down so they don't run over anyone. I've seen nothing in the 40 years since TCA's were created to suggest that concept wasn't a good one which shouldn't be tinkered with.
 
Sorry to inconveniece you, Captain. If you're really put-out, you can use flaps.

The eye has only about 10 seconds to detect the collison. I'm not in favor of that being reduced to eight.
 
bbchien said:
Sorry to inconveniece you, Captain. If you're really put-out, you can use flaps.

The eye has only about 10 seconds to detect the collison. I'm not in favor of that being reduced to eight.
Click to expand...

What about when the operation is in Class C beneath Class B?
 
Captain said:
Maybe a hybrid. You are exempt if you have TCAS (mode C veil ensures you will have TA/RA protection) and if your TCAS is out then ATC must advise leaving the bravo?

Win/Win.
Click to expand...

Not all aircraft flying within the mode c veil are required to have transponders.
 
If you are arriving into a Class B airport you should be stepped down thru the Class B tiers. I have been told before that "You are leaving the Class B!" when we were vectored out of the tier. Now if you are flying to airport under class B then that is a different story, but that is not the situation that you gave. Otherwise don't sweat it. 250 to the marker:wink2: (unless otherwise assigned of course).

Cheers
 
aterpster said:
What about when the operation is in Class C beneath Class B?
Click to expand...
How does that change the ten second time from when the target subtends 2.5 degrees of the Visual field to collsion? Having Stephen or his ilk "watching" out for me does not always workout. It helps, but hey if he mucks up, I die, he gets retraining.

What is being asked here, is "Hey, I want the speed limit in my residential subdivision RAISED?" Think about that.

One thing that always works against us as a whole is pilots not wanting to share well. 200 kts is "sharing". So you carry a little more fuel. So do we flivver operators when routed 40-70 nm in circumference around the Bravos. It's called, "SHARE". Surely we all recall that from Kindergarden.

I never blasted a P3 through a shelf (to Whidbey) at 310 knots, for sure....we were taught to be "gentlemanly" with the civilian traffic.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious, how often does this happen? I would think that the controllers would want to keep the big fast IFR planes in Bravo where it will be a whole lot easier to maintain separation. Why would they send you down where I am mindlessly tooling around VFR, super slow, possibly not talking to anyone and perhaps not looking out for you? It sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
 
Gubbins said:
I'm curious, how often does this happen? I would think that the controllers would want to keep the big fast IFR planes in Bravo where it will be a whole lot easier to maintain separation. Why would they send you down where I am mindlessly tooling around VFR, super slow, possibly not talking to anyone and perhaps not looking out for you? It sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Probably fairly often. Jets flying IFR doesn't necessarily mean that they're going in to the Class B primary airport. As a matter of fact, I'd venture a guess that most bizjets flying in Class B are not flying to the primary airport. (but that's just a guess based on what I would assume would be an easier time transitioning to/from ground based transportation and proximity to meeting/recreation destinations.)
 
jason said:
Probably fairly often. Jets flying IFR doesn't necessarily mean that they're going in to the Class B primary airport. As a matter of fact, I'd venture a guess that most bizjets flying in Class B are not flying to the primary airport. (but that's just a guess based on what I would assume would be an easier time transitioning to/from ground based transportation and proximity to meeting/recreation destinations.)
Click to expand...
That was a good guess. In many cases ATC keeps the traffic going to the satellite airports below the traffic going to the main airport in Class B.
 
Rules is rules......for a reason. In a perfect world we would all get "direct to" and "cleared straight in number 1 for landing" every day. Sure the chances of a conflict dropping out of the Bravo at 250 or 300 might not be increased that much....but the consequences suck.
 
Ah... I'm of the opinion that if your destination is not IN the Bravo, then you have no business not knowing when you're out of the Bravo.

The only "surprise" should be if your destination is IN the Bravo surface area and ATC descends you out of the bravo and back in, and I think in that case they're supposed to tell you.
 
I can't recall ever having been told when we are entering or leaving Bravo airspace. Then again, I've never heard anyone being chastised for breaking the speed limit, at least not in that situation.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
jason said:
Not all aircraft flying within the mode c veil are required to have transponders.
Click to expand...


99.99% have a transponder. I'll take my 'big sky' chances with that. Plus, we are looking for each other too right?
 
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. Are you getting vectored out and back in again? If that's the case I would keep my speed and point at the controller for taking me there outside best practice.
 
Captain said:
99.99% have a transponder. I'll take my 'big sky' chances with that. Plus, we are looking for each other too right?
Click to expand...
I doubt the percentage is that high. I didn't have a transponder last weekend when I was operating in the veil of the Minneapolis Bravo.
 
Captain, how much do you like your Chief Pilot?

Sounds like a great "problem" for him/her to solve.

"I don't have the necessary tools to fly underneath Class Bravo airspace legally, since I can't determine where the edges are with the provided charts and tools, could you look into that?"

Bet they'd realize they've created a SNAFU not providing you appropriate charts (or avionics with the ability to tell you).
 
I don't know. Id bet 1 in 10,000 operating in the veil without a transponder is closer to the mark than 1 in 1,000. That the difference between 99.9% and my 99.99%.

Either way, big sky applies. Even if I conceded 99.9% thats still only 1 plane in a thousand that don't have a transponder in an over 2,800 square mile area. Side point though...
 
denverpilot said:
Captain, how much do you like your Chief Pilot?

Sounds like a great "problem" for him/her to solve.

"I don't have the necessary tools to fly underneath Class Bravo airspace legally, since I can't determine where the edges are with the provided charts and tools, could you look into that?"

Bet they'd realize they've created a SNAFU not providing you appropriate charts (or avionics with the ability to tell you).
Click to expand...


I don't know of any jet operator that carries VFR charts for their entire area of operations.

I'm gonna stay with the rule just needs tweaking as that's the easier fix.
 
Captain said:
I don't know of any jet operator that carries VFR charts for their entire area of operations.

I'm gonna stay with the rule just needs tweaking as that's the easier fix.
Click to expand...
The Class Bravo is depicted on Low Altitude IFR charts too, though not on the High Altitude charts. Do you not have the Low Altitude en route charts either? (Referring to what you're "legal" to use; I know that you have them all on the iPad).
 
gprellwitz said:
The Class Bravo is depicted on Low Altitude IFR charts too, though not on the High Altitude charts. Do you not have the Low Altitude en route charts either? (Referring to what you're "legal" to use; I know that you have them all on the iPad).
Click to expand...

Yes, we have lows. But its not depicted on the lows in granular enough detail to really be useful for determining if you're beneath a shelf or not. More of an overall boundary. Lateral limits are easy, it's the vertical limits that cause the problem.
 
Captain said:
Yes, we have lows. But its not depicted on the lows in granular enough detail to really be useful for determining if you're beneath a shelf or not. More of an overall boundary. Lateral limits are easy, it's the vertical limits that cause the problem.
Click to expand...

Well then aren't you in violation of not having all the information required for that flight? What solution do you perceive is your best option?
 
There was a fair amount of discussion at the last ATPAC meeting on exiting and reentering the Class B and the waiver that is in place at PHL. The waiver at PHL allows them to put information on the ATIS noting where to expect that during peak times aircraft may be exiting and re-entering the Class B. This is caused by insufficient space to contain traffic inside the Class B. An updated Class B design is in the works, but the waiver is used in the meantime. Controllers at PHL stated that they use a maximum speed of 190 Kts inside the downwind legs of the Class B so that aircraft that exit when the legs are extended outside the Class B will not be over 200 Kts. Several other waivers are being pursued at other Class B locations. It was also noted that airline pilots did not have a graphic available in the cockpit indicating when they were exiting the class B and they needed to know in advance so that speed could be adjusted to not violate the 200 Kt restriction. Several crews had been violated for busting the 200 Kt restriction and it was recommended that if this is a possibility, ATC should keep traffic at or below 190 Kts. There is an upcoming meeting at the beginning of October. For GA pilots, if you provide me a write-up on the problem as you see it, I can bring it with me to the meeting. Make sure you include the type of aircraft that you fly. Airlines are well represented, but if you are an AOPA member or NBAA member, you should make it known to your representative. I can forward your comments to them if you send it to me.
 
TMetzinger said:
I thought they were now required to tell you when they were putting you out of the Bravo?
Click to expand...

I went missed in ORD once..go vectored outside the B and they did advise that.
 
bbchien said:
How does that change the ten second time from when the target subtends 2.5 degrees of the Visual field to collsion? Having Stephen or his ilk "watching" out for me does not always workout. It helps, but hey if he mucks up, I die, he gets retraining.

What is being asked here, is "Hey, I want the speed limit in my residential subdivision RAISED?" Think about that.

One thing that always works against us as a whole is pilots not wanting to share well. 200 kts is "sharing". So you carry a little more fuel. So do we flivver operators when routed 40-70 nm in circumference around the Bravos. It's called, "SHARE". Surely we all recall that from Kindergarden.

I never blasted a P3 through a shelf (to Whidbey) at 310 knots, for sure....we were taught to be "gentlemanly" with the civilian traffic.
Click to expand...

I think what you are saying is that Class C is useless. But, keep in mind in my Ontario and Santa Ana example folks that are not beneath the overlying Class C are doing 250 all the time.

Check Skyvector for KCNO departing to the southwest or north to POM. Although in Class C you're limited to 200 knots. But departing KONT or even KCNO turning east to PDZ, then 250 is fine.
 
Captain said:
Seriously...

With ForeFlight I can figure it out...but I have to go heads down and fiddle with an iPad for a good 10 to 20 seconds and it seems to me it would be safer to be heads up.
Click to expand...
Seriously? I think you better keep your eyes outside and refer to the 10-1B chart (used to be a TCA Chart), like I did before moving maps and iPads:
TCA chart.JPG​

dtuuri
 
Maybe solve it with SOP...200kts below 3000AGL unless otherwise assigned? or something like that
 
aterpster said:
I think what you are saying is that Class C is useless. But, keep in mind in my Ontario and Santa Ana example folks that are not beneath the overlying Class C are doing 250 all the time.

Check Skyvector for KCNO departing to the southwest or north to POM. Although in Class C you're limited to 200 knots. But departing KONT or even KCNO turning east to PDZ, then 250 is fine.
Click to expand...

Not true. Only within 4 miles and 2,500 AGL. That leaves a whole bunch of class C where 250 is fine.
 
taters said:
Maybe solve it with SOP...200kts below 3000AGL unless otherwise assigned? or something like that
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. 250 below 3,000 isn't exactly fuel efficient anyway.
 
John Collins said:
There was a fair amount of discussion at the last ATPAC meeting on exiting and reentering the Class B and the waiver that is in place at PHL. The waiver at PHL allows them to put information on the ATIS noting where to expect that during peak times aircraft may be exiting and re-entering the Class B. This is caused by insufficient space to contain traffic inside the Class B. An updated Class B design is in the works, but the waiver is used in the meantime. Controllers at PHL stated that they use a maximum speed of 190 Kts inside the downwind legs of the Class B so that aircraft that exit when the legs are extended outside the Class B will not be over 200 Kts. Several other waivers are being pursued at other Class B locations. It was also noted that airline pilots did not have a graphic available in the cockpit indicating when they were exiting the class B and they needed to know in advance so that speed could be adjusted to not violate the 200 Kt restriction. Several crews had been violated for busting the 200 Kt restriction and it was recommended that if this is a possibility, ATC should keep traffic at or below 190 Kts. There is an upcoming meeting at the beginning of October. For GA pilots, if you provide me a write-up on the problem as you see it, I can bring it with me to the meeting. Make sure you include the type of aircraft that you fly. Airlines are well represented, but if you are an AOPA member or NBAA member, you should make it known to your representative. I can forward your comments to them if you send it to me.
Click to expand...


Well there ya go. I guess I'm not the only one with this problem. Pilots violated, committees formed and waivers issued. Sounds like this is a problem.

Think anyone's going to take back snarky comments? Doubt it...it's Captain after all. Screw that guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top