ATC Class Bravo Excursion Notification Requirement

kimberlyanne546

kimberlyanne546

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
7,726
Location
California
Display Name
Display name:
Kimberly
Did anyone else get this email from the FAA today?

Does it only apply to IFR pilots?

I fly around / through Bravo (SFO) frequently.

Thanks for your help, guys.


Here it is:


Subject: INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN - ATC Class Bravo Excursion Notification Requirement - FAASafety.gov

INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN - ATC Class Bravo Excursion Notification Requirement
Notice Number: NOTC3571

ATC Class Bravo Excursion Notification Requirement
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Subject: Air Traffic Control includes the requirement for controllers to “Vector aircraft to remain in Class B airspace after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and reentering the Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for spacing”.
Aircraft on an IFR Flight Plan will be informed when leaving Class B airspace and when reentering Class B airspace. An example of phraseology the crew may expect is, “aircraft ID, fly heading 120, descend and maintain 4000 feet, leaving Class B airspace” and “aircraft ID, fly heading 180, entering Class B airspace”.
IFR Pilots are reminded of the requirement in 14 CFR 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.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral limits of that area.
As an example, a large turbine powered aircraft landing at airports with Class B airspace, e.g., Cleveland, Minneapolis, or New Orleans Louis Armstrong International, should, unless directed by ATC, operate at an altitude that will allow them to remain in the protected airspace.
Normally, the glide slope angle and altitude for a given runway provides maximum safety from other aircraft operating just outside of Class B airspace. A visual approach clearance does not relieve pilots operating large turbine engine-powered aircraft of their responsibility to remain within the Class B airspace area.
If you have any questions, please contact:
Walter Tweedy, Team Manager FAA, ATO Central Service Center Operations Support Group, AJV-C21 Phone: 817-321-7711

This notice is being sent to you because you selected
"General Information" in your preferences on FAASafety.gov.
 
Only applies to pilots of large, turbine-powered aircraft.
 
All of us flying IFR will be affected (i.e., they'll have to tell us all when we're going outside the B-space), but only pilots of large turbine aircraft have to worry about being sent outside below the shelf.
 
pericynthion said:
91.131(a)(2)
Click to expand...

I wasn't directing towards the FAR but to the notice. They do give an example of a large turbine aircraft. To me it reads that if you are cleared into the class B, then they vector you outside of it, you will be advised of that fact.

I have had those advisories given to me only when IFR. DTW in a turbine aircraft and LAX and LAS in a turbine as well as a high performance recip.
 
And an excellent rule that is! I shudder to think about where we would be if 737's were scooting right along at 250 knots below the Bravo shelf while we're piddling along in our, um, more modest conveyances, hoping not to get in their way.
 
Last edited:
I have had advisories, while VFR, that I was leaving the SFO Bravo after having been cleared through it. Not sure if that is quite the same thing.
 
I thought if they ever give you an altitude, until they say something like "resume own navigation" or "altitude your discretion" you are to REMAIN at the last altitude they gave you.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I thought if they ever give you an altitude, until they say something like "resume own navigation" or "altitude your discretion" you are to REMAIN at the last altitude they gave you.
Click to expand...

Technically when VFR, they can only give you an altitude within the Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie airspaces. Once outside of those airspaces and while VFR, technically, all ATC can do is recommend or suggest an altitude or heading.
 
Clark1961 said:
Technically when VFR, they can only give you an altitude within the Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie airspaces. Once outside of those airspaces and while VFR, technically, all ATC can do is recommend or suggest an altitude or heading.
Click to expand...

I have been given altitudes in both, but, you are right, one was "recommended" the other was "forced" in Bravo.
 
LearDriver said:
I wasn't directing towards the FAR but to the notice. They do give an example of a large turbine aircraft. To me it reads that if you are cleared into the class B, then they vector you outside of it, you will be advised of that fact.
Click to expand...
You read it correctly. It's a "heads up" that you are no longer being provided positive separation from VFR aircraft.
 
pericynthion said:
I have had advisories, while VFR, that I was leaving the SFO Bravo after having been cleared through it. Not sure if that is quite the same thing.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't, although it's still letting you know you're no longer being provided positive separation from other aircraft. However, in addition to that, VFR aircraft need to know that they are no longer required to obtain permission to change altitude or heading (unless specifically advised otherwise), and that their cloud clearance minimums just went back up from "clear of clouds" to 500/1000/2000.
 
Clark1961 said:
Technically when VFR, they can only give you an altitude within the Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie airspaces. Once outside of those airspaces and while VFR, technically, all ATC can do is recommend or suggest an altitude or heading.
Click to expand...
The FAA and NTSB disagree. In their eyes, 91.123(b) applies in all controlled airspace, not just A/B/C, and if you're instructed to do something, compliance with that instruction is not optional. And yes, that has been tested before the NTSB, and the noncompliant pilot lost. There may be some question about whether or not controllers are authorized to give such instructions, but that's a matter between the controllers and FAA management -- if you're in controlled airspace, once they give you an instruction, you must comply with it. See Administrator v. Ellis.
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
Technically when VFR, they can only give you an altitude within the Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie airspaces. Once outside of those airspaces and while VFR, technically, all ATC can do is recommend or suggest an altitude or heading.
Click to expand...

Maybe technically. OTOH, I was VFR flight following just south of class B and cutting straight across the approach path of the active runway. My request to descend was denied with a tone of voice that would lead me to believe that bad things would happen if I did.
 
Old Geek said:
Maybe technically. OTOH, I was VFR flight following just south of class B and cutting straight across the approach path of the active runway. My request to descend was denied with a tone of voice that would lead me to believe that bad things would happen if I did.
Click to expand...
Wise choice. As the NTSB put it in Ellis...
What the respondent was not free to do was ignore or defy ATC’s instructions in favor of his own assessment that his aircraft should be accorded landing priority over one he could not find, but whose safety he should have appreciated could be seriously compromised if he did not allow ATC, which had both aircraft in sight, to manage the situation in accordance with its informed appraisal of how best to ensure safe operations within the controlled airspace it is charged with regulating.
Click to expand...
The critical words are highlighted.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA and NTSB disagree. In their eyes, 91.123(b) applies in all controlled airspace, not just A/B/C, and if you're instructed to do something, compliance with that instruction is not optional. And yes, that has been tested before the NTSB, and the noncompliant pilot lost. There may be some question about whether or not controllers are authorized to give such instructions, but that's a matter between the controllers and FAA management -- if you're in controlled airspace, once they give you an instruction, you must comply with it. See Administrator v. Ellis.
Click to expand...

Read what you wrote. Clarify the attribution and resubmit.

Also, don't stretch one situation to try to fit all. Remember, you are not a lawyer, you just play one on the internet.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I thought if they ever give you an altitude, until they say something like "resume own navigation" or "altitude your discretion" you are to REMAIN at the last altitude they gave you.
Click to expand...

Aircraft cleared for a visual approach have to monitor their altitude that they don't drop out of the bottom of the Class B in an outer ring before they get to an area where Class B goes to the ground. They have to stay in the class b.

ATC has always had to advise an IFR pilot if a vector or assigned altitude change would cause him to exit the Class B, this is nothing really new, just being re emphasized because there have been problems identified.
 
Clark1961 said:
Technically when VFR, they can only give you an altitude within the Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie airspaces. Once outside of those airspaces and while VFR, technically, all ATC can do is recommend or suggest an altitude or heading.
Click to expand...

That's the letter of the law, but it's rarely phrased that way.

I got a very distinct "Turn left heading 260, vectors for traffic..." from DEN TRACON Sunday.

It wasn't much of a "recommendation" as a demand.

Personally I was fine with it, even grateful. They were separating me from IFR traffic on the Visual to 35R at KAPA.

And I'm always okay with being "de-conflicted" like that. Whether it's legally a "recommendation" or a "command" is for lawyers to worry about on the ground.

In the air, a vector is a vector. You comply or say "unable" because you have a Really Good Reason(TM). ;)
 
Curious about someothing.

Once I took off from KOLV (under the MEM Class B .) , headed east, and was cleared into the Bravo (VFR).

As I climbed out, I clipped the edge of the 3,000' shelf (was probably in the Class B for about a minute), then emerged at the edge of that shelf. Later I climbed into the 5,000' shelf.

Was my one clearance into the Bravo good for both?
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
Read what you wrote. Clarify the attribution and resubmit.
Click to expand...
No need. You now know the law as interpreted by the FAA and accepted by the NTSB. You can disagree with what they think all you like, but deviate from it at your own risk. :bye:
 
BillTIZ said:
Aircraft cleared for a visual approach have to monitor their altitude that they don't drop out of the bottom of the Class B in an outer ring before they get to an area where Class B goes to the ground. They have to stay in the class b.
Click to expand...
If I read the notice and regs correctly, that's only true for large, turbine aircraft, or aircraft going faster than 200 knots (the speed limit below the floor).
 
JeffDG said:
Curious about someothing.

Once I took off from KOLV (under the MEM Class B .) , headed east, and was cleared into the Bravo (VFR).

As I climbed out, I clipped the edge of the 3,000' shelf (was probably in the Class B for about a minute), then emerged at the edge of that shelf. Later I climbed into the 5,000' shelf.

Was my one clearance into the Bravo good for both?
Click to expand...
By strict reading of the book, no, unless your original B-clearance included permission to re-enter -- otherwise, you'd need a second clearance to re-enter. However if you were with the same controller and on the same squawk, and the controller was already aware of your plans and flight path when the original clearance was issued, it's not going to become an issue.
 
Some class B airspace is too small for the current level of traffic and during peak times, the line of aircraft (typically on downwind) extends beyond the edge of the class B airspace. ATC is required to notify the pilot as they exit and re-enter the class B. The long term fix is to adjust the class B airspace to contain the anticipated traffic. In the mean time, during peak times, particularly at PHL, there is a lot of extra ATC communications as each plane in sequence exits and re-enters the class B. According to controllers, there is a lot of VFR traffic right at the edge of the class B airspace and the lack of containment is a real issue for positive traffic separation. There was a request to just put a message on the ATIS and allow the controllers to not have to issue the warnings, but this was fought by the airlines as they can't be expected to have a MFD display of their position relative to the class B boundaries. This bulletin reinforces the FAA position. It also warns pilots that the class B boundaries include separation for approaches at the primary airport but if the pilot is on a visual, they have to be aware of the boundaries and not exit the class B or fly at or above the glidepath.
 
As John mentions, this is an ongoing issue at PHL and redesign of the Class B has been proposed:
phl_class_b.gif
 
I know a few of our esteemed POA members attended a meeting on the PHL airspace change. I wonder where this stands?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top