Another clearance into Bravo question

[igorek82]

Once when flying from KCDW through KTEB's airpsace with the intention of going down the Hudson river at 1500' in class Bravo we were "cleared into Bravo" by KTEB tower and shortly thereafter handed over to KEWR... the question is - does KTEB (class D) tower have the authority to clear anyone into Bravo ?

 

[sarangan]

Overlapping airspaces often have memorandums of understanding. From a pilots perspective, it should not matter which ATC is giving you the clearance. Happens all the time under IFR - when you get a clearance at departure, you are being cleared all the way to the destination through all intervening airspaces.

 

[Brad Z]

Once when flying from KCDW through KTEB's airpsace with the intention of going down the Hudson river at 1500' in class Bravo we were "cleared into Bravo" by KTEB tower and shortly thereafter handed over to KEWR... the question is - does KTEB (class D) tower have the authority to clear anyone into Bravo ?

Tower controllers are ATC, so yes, they have the authority to issue such clearances. As Andrew mentioned, they likely have a LOA with EWR, or at least coordinated the clearance from the EWR Hudson River controller.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Tower controllers are ATC, so yes, they have the authority to issue such clearances. As Andrew mentioned, they likely have a LOA with EWR, or at least coordinated the clearance from the EWR Hudson River controller.

Yes and no. Class B clearances need to be given by "the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area." In the absence of a LOI, that's not the Tower (I'll let Ron do the link to one of the cases about this since I don't have it handy).

Practically speaking though, I would expect any ATC facility that actually says the words, "Cleared into Class B" to have coordinated the clearance and have its authority to do so in place.

 

[Brad Z]

Yes and no. Class B clearances need to be given by "the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area." In the absence of a LOI, that's not the Tower (I'll let Ron do the link to one of the cases about this since I don't have it handy).

Practically speaking though, I would expect any ATC facility that actually says the words, "Cleared into Class B" to have coordinated the clearance and have its authority to do so in place.

Exactly. I do not believe it's reasonable for a pilot to be able to validate the authority of the controller to issue the clearance. Provided there are no obvious miscommunications and there is no reason to beleive that the controller doesn't know your relative position, your altitude, and your intended point of entry into bravo, then there is no reason to believe that the controller issuing the bravo clearance isn't authorized to do so.

I suspect this issue gets sticky when there is an implied clearance, based on an instruction by a controller that has no authority to issue a bravo clearance, such as a tower controller issuing a takeoff clearance to a VFR aircraft to fly runway heading toward a class B boundary. That is why we teach pilots that there is no such thing as an implied clearance into bravo.

 

[comanchepilot]

of course, if you stay at 1000 then you're not in the Bravo and its an academic discussion . . .

 

[Captain]

Yes and no. Class B clearances need to be given by "the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area." In the absence of a LOI, that's not the Tower (I'll let Ron do the link to one of the cases about this since I don't have it handy).

Practically speaking though, I would expect any ATC facility that actually says the words, "Cleared into Class B" to have coordinated the clearance and have its authority to do so in place.

That's not true. A pilot has no way of knowing what LOA's have been signed behind the scenes. Any and all ATC facilities constitutes clearance. If TEB tower cleared a pilot into the class B and the pilot flew the assigned vertical and lateral courses there is ZERO chance of the pilot being violated.

With that said; if'n you are VFR then you need to hear the words 'cleared into the class B'. If you don't hear those words ask to hear them. If you are IFR then you do not need to hear those words because your initial clearance is a clearance into any and all class B's that you may encounter along the way.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's not true.

Which part?

That the rule says "the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area."?

That a Tower controller doesn't have jurisdiction over Class B simply by being a Tower controller?

or

That we, as pilots should be able to expect any ATC facility that uses the "magic words" has arranged for that authority in some way?

 

[4CornerFlyer]

The NY airspace is unique in that the towers do provide radar and Class B services. Without knowing exactly where he was and was going, it's hard to say, but if you look at the NY Terminal chart, you'll see instructions to contact towers specifically. I think he was fine.

To Joe, I always preferred to be at 1500 over the Hudson--that way you get full ATC service. Below 1100' is unrestricted and can be a zoo.

Jon (many years in NY airspace in my former life)

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes and no. Class B clearances need to be given by "the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area." In the absence of a LOI, that's not the Tower (I'll let Ron do the link to one of the cases about this since I don't have it handy).

It could be the tower, if for example it was Baltimore Tower clearing you into the surface-based B-space around their airport from outside that zone below the overlying B-space, or when taking off from their airport. However, what Tower cannot do is clear you into B-space they do not control without having coordinated with the controlling facility which does have jurisdiction. For example, Martin State Tower generally cannot clear VFR aircraft into the BaltoWash "Tri-Area" B-space even though their airport lies below the floor of that B-space -- that clearance must come from Potomac Approach once you're airborne.

Where someone came to grief on this was at a tower-controlled airport near but not in surface-based B-space. The pilot of an aircraft on downwind was told to extend, and ended up penetrating the nearby B-space before the Tower told him to turn base. The key was that an instruction to "extend your downwind" is not a "clearance" to enter Class B airspace (see the Doremire interpretation for more discussion on this concept). However, this case did not make it to the NTSB, and so is not available on the internet.

Practically speaking though, I would expect any ATC facility that actually says the words, "Cleared into Class B" to have coordinated the clearance and have its authority to do so in place.

I would, too. I believe the operative legal phrase is "apparent authority" -- yes, Counselor?

 

[poadeleted20]

The NY airspace is unique in that the towers do provide radar and Class B services.

New York is not unique in this regard.

 

[igorek82]

The key was that an instruction to "extend your downwind" is not a "clearance" to enter Class B airspace (see the Doremire interpretation for more discussion on this concept). However, this case did not make it to the NTSB, and so is not available on the internet.
I would, too. I believe the operative legal phrase is "apparent authority" -- yes, Counselor?

Thank you Ron for the link! Excellent read!

 

[MAKG1]

New York is not unique in this regard.

Yup. San Francisco does it as well if you transition below 2000 (and one of the preferred routes is at 1500).

It gives a nice alternative if NorCal is swamped, and vice-versa. If SF Tower says remain clear, I can climb 2000 feet and contact NorCal, and often get a better answer.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would, too. I believe the operative legal phrase is "apparent authority" -- yes, Counselor?

Maybe. I'm not sure the "apparent authority" applies that easily to governmental authority as this wonderful case about a checkride suggests...

But that's the general idea.

And yes, one would expect the Tower for the Class B primary to have the authority to issue Class B clearances. Not just NY. Land at a Class B and my WAG (not really WAG) is that your takeoff clearance will be issued by Tower personnel and not TRACON.

(I actually always thought it humorous that SOP at Denver Clearance Delivery was to say "cleared into the Class Bravo" as part of VFR departure instructions. Good grief! If anything could ever be an implied clearance, "cleared for takeoff" from the surface of a Class B primary would be it!)

And Murphy might be able to verify this, but as I recall, before KFTG grew a tower, folks on the ground who wanted to head westerly would call Denver Tower from the ground (the center of the two airports being less than 3.5 NM apart - the runways are much close)

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe. I'm not sure the "apparent authority" applies that easily to governmental authority as this wonderful case about a checkride suggests...

I think that case back-doors what I was saying. While they did pull the pilot's improperly-issued ME rating, they apparently did not take any action for any flights he made in a twin between when the Inspector issued the Temporary and when he was ordered to give it back. In that regard, the Inspector's apparent authority to issue the rating was sufficient to immunize the pilot against any action for flying on its basis.

So, if a controller who lacked the authority to issue a clearance into some particular Class Bravo Airspace nevertheless told a pilot "cleared into the Class Bravo airspace", I suspect the FAA could not act against the pilot for violating 91.131 by entering that airspace. The idea of pilots arguing in flight with controllers over whether or not the controller has the authority to issue a particular clearance is too anarchic to contemplate.

And, BTW, I hope Mr. Beamer was able to sue Mr. Spych to recover all costs associated with that unauthorized practical test.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think that case back-doors what I was saying. While they did pull the pilot's improperly-issued ME rating, they apparently did not take any action for any flights he made in a twin between when the Inspector issued the Temporary and when he was ordered to give it back. In that regard, the Inspector's apparent authority to issue the rating was sufficient to immunize the pilot against any action for flying on its basis

My guess is more on the order of prosecutorial discretion (c'mon you're going to heap on a penalty to this?) than a legal determination of immunity.