VFR - cleared into Bravo at or below

roncachamp said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Because of vertical separation rules is what he was trying to say.

I have flown 20 feet below a shelf once. CFI sitting right seat advised against it, but stated that it's on my ticket. I also noted the Mode C transponder was indicating 200 feet below MSL.
 
roncachamp said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Also note that I am not saying 2900 is illegal though 3100 is, just relaying what the controller would like to see.

It might have nothing to do with separation but more to do with how closely the controller has to watch you.
 
Last edited:
I was taught to stay at least 500 feet below class B for wake turbulence avoidance.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Because of vertical separation rules is what he was trying to say.

I have flown 20 feet below a shelf once. CFI sitting right seat advised against it, but stated that it's on my ticket. I also noted the Mode C transponder was indicating 200 feet below MSL.
Click to expand...

I didn't know submarines had transponders :D

Oh, and it is the CFI's ticket, also.
 
alfadog said:
Also note that I am not saying 2900 is illegal though 3100 is, just relaying what the controller would like to see.
Click to expand...

You're also not saying why you believe the controller would like to see that.

It might have nothing to do with separation but more to do with how closely the controller has to watch you.
Click to expand...

Why would the controller have to watch an unknown VFR target showing 2900' any more closely than one showing 2500' or 2000'?
 
roncachamp said:
You're also not saying why you believe the controller would like to see that.

Why would the controller have to watch an unknown VFR target showing 2900' any more closely than one showing 2500' or 2000'?
Click to expand...


Call your local TRACON and ask them. I am just relaying what was told to me.
 
alfadog said:
I didn't know submarines had transponders :D
Click to expand...

I've observed displayed altitudes below sea level several times. I thought it odd that the system was given the ability to show negative numbers.
 
alfadog said:
Call your local TRACON and ask them. I am just relaying what was told to me.
Click to expand...

I'm writing this from my local TRACON. I'm quite confident there's nobody here that can explain why you believe the things you do.
 
roncachamp said:
I'm writing this from my local TRACON. I'm quite confident there's nobody here that can explain why you believe the things you do.
Click to expand...

Then call MIA TRACON and ask why they told me that.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Because of vertical separation rules is what he was trying to say.

I have flown 20 feet below a shelf once. CFI sitting right seat advised against it, but stated that it's on my ticket. I also noted the Mode C transponder was indicating 200 feet below MSL.
Click to expand...

Correction: Mode C was 200 feet below Indicated Altitude
 
Jaybird180 said:
Correction: Mode C was 200 feet below Indicated Altitude
Click to expand...

The Mode C was simply displaying pressure altitude, i.e. without any altimeter correction. Keep in mind that the radar displays ATC sees DO correct for non-standard pressure. So, if your altimeter was reading 2900 and the transponder was flashing 2700, your radar track was probably still displaying 2900.

edit - I can't tell if you already knew this. It sounded like you were relying on that as an extra 200 feet of cushion which wasn't really there...
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
Then call MIA TRACON and ask why they told me that.
Click to expand...

The question was why you believed that's what controllers wanted. Apparently the answer is "because a controller at MIA TRACON told me so." That's swell, but you should understand it's just one controller's preference.
 
dukeblue219 said:
The Mode C was simply displaying pressure altitude, i.e. without any altimeter correction. Keep in mind that the radar displays ATC sees DO correct for non-standard pressure. So, if your altimeter was reading 2900 and the transponder was flashing 2700, your radar track was probably still displaying 2900.

edit - I can't tell if you already knew this. It sounded like you were relying on that as an extra 200 feet of cushion which wasn't really there...
Click to expand...

I knew but didn't put 2 and 2 together. I wasn't relying on PA, but was not aware that their screen includes the corrected value. Now I understand better this question:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40928&highlight=altimeter
 
roncachamp said:
The question was why you believed that's what controllers wanted. Apparently the answer is "because a controller at MIA TRACON told me so." That's swell, but you should understand it's just one controller's preference.
Click to expand...

OK, and I guess that makes [what] you [say] just another controller's preference.:D [edited]

This was not over beer at the bar. I called the TRACON and asked for a briefing on how they would like me, as a VFR PPL, to interact with the Class Bravo; what routes through or around are preferred, etc. That was one of the points brought up.

edit: And supporting what I was told is the routine directions given by ATC when transiting VFR under the 3000' shelf to the west: "Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet. Remain clear of Class Bravo." It is clear to me that that is what Miami Bravo wants.
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
Call your local TRACON and ask them. I am just relaying what was told to me.
Click to expand...

By whom? I have never heard any such thing from ATC and I slide through 500' slots between airspace while talking to ATC all the time, they don't complain. "Stay Clear of the Bravo, suggest heading of...""No sir, if you were gonna drive me around you could have given me that vector 200 miles ago, I'm just going to drop down between the B & C and scoot through there. What are you showing my current altitude?" and they'll tell me. Once I'm on altitude and closing I check altitude again and zip on through. Nobody has ever gotten worked up about it and I stay in the top 100' next to the Bravo.

Having the G-500 is really nice for airspace but I noticed one thing I didn't get (maybe if I had XM:dunno:) was the expanded P-40, and I was heading for it. So I pointed where I thought would take me west and called up, "Approach, 9SA, if I hold this heading here, am I gonna be good for not being met by F-18s?" "Come 5 more right and we'll keep the F-18s off ya""5 right".
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
By whom? I have never heard any such thing from ATC and I slide through 500' slots between airspace while talking to ATC all the time, they don't complain. "Stay Clear of the Bravo, suggest heading of...""No sir, if you were gonna drive me around you could have given me that vector 200 miles ago, I'm just going to drop down between the B & C and scoot through there. What are you showing my current altitude?" and they'll tell me. Once I'm on altitude and closing I check altitude again and zip on through. Nobody has ever gotten worked up about it and I stay in the top 100' next to the Bravo.

Having the G-500 is really nice for airspace but I noticed one thing I didn't get (maybe if I had XM:dunno:) was the expanded P-40, and I was heading for it. So I pointed where I thought would take me west and called up, "Approach, 9SA, if hold hold this heading here, am I gonna be good for not being met by F-18s?" "Come 5 more right and we'll keep the F-18s off ya""5 right".
Click to expand...

Coming in to KFXE anywhere from the north in the 500' between Delta and Bravo is not an issue for MIA.
 
roncachamp said:
The question was why you believed that's what controllers wanted. Apparently the answer is "because a controller at MIA TRACON told me so." That's swell, but you should understand it's just one controller's preference.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, maybe this goes a bit beyond "just one controller's preference".

Let's take a look at the ILS for RWY 9 at MIA (the longest runway on the field and sure to get used by the biggest jets. Also, in Miami, we usually land to the east.):

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1204/00257IL9.PDF

Notice the GRITT intersection. Notice the altitude at GRITT, 3000'.

Now we would not want some VFR pilot flying through GRITT at 2980', would we? That would be a bad idea. Might be something for Miami TRACON to be concerned about. Not to worry, though, surely the Bravo airspace is designed so that there is plenty of separation and that can not happen. Right, Henning? Right?

Wrong.

Let's see where GRITT lies:

Click for Skyvector

Well, golly, as Gomer Pyle would say, someone put GRITT, where big airplanes are coming down at 3000' right there in the area of the 3000' base shelf where folks like me should be flying along according to some folks here. Right next to those visual fixes, too, that VFR pilots like me like so much.

So yeah, maybe it's not "just one controller's preference".

Show that to the folks at your "local TRACON. I'm quite confident there's nobody here somebody there that can explain why you I believe the things you I do."

[end sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
Well, golly, as Gomer Pyle would say, someone put GRITT, where big airplanes are coming down at 3000' right there in the area of the 3000' base shelf where folks like me should be flying along according to some folks here. Right next to those visual fixes, too, that VFR pilots like me like so much.
Click to expand...

That surprised me, too. Maybe what you're missing is that in order for a VFR pilot to fly 2980 in the class E right below the B, he would need VFR cloud clearances and visibilities, most importantly 500' cloud clearance above him. That would put both him and any conflicting IFR traffic in VMC, where they should both be able to see and avoid. The IFR traffic is not relieved of see-and-avoid duties just because he's IFR on an ILS. So, ATC can separate him from any IFR traffic and participating VFR traffic in the B, but I'm not sure they have any regulatory duty to separate him from the VFR traffic 20 feet below in the E.
 
alfadog said:
OK, and I guess that makes you just another controller's preference.:D
Click to expand...

Can you rephrase that to something that makes sense?

This was not over beer at the bar. I called the TRACON and asked for a briefing on how they would like me, as a VFR PPL, to interact with the Class Bravo; what routes through or around are preferred, etc. That was one of the points brought up.
Click to expand...

Even if that point of view is universal among Miami approach controllers it is still just the preference of one ATC facility.

edit: And supporting what I was told is the routine directions given by ATC when transiting VFR under the 3000' shelf to the west: "Maintain VFR at or below 2000 feet. Remain clear of Class Bravo." It is clear to me that that is what Miami Bravo wants.
Click to expand...

Miami approach has no authority to assign headings to VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace.
 
alfadog said:
Hmmm, maybe this goes a bit beyond "just one controller's preference".

Let's take a look at the ILS for RWY 9 at MIA (the longest runway on the field and sure to get used by the biggest jets. Also, in Miami, we usually land to the east.):

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1204/00257IL9.PDF

Notice the GRITT intersection. Notice the altitude at GRITT, 3000'.

Now we would not want some VFR pilot flying through GRITT at 2980', would we? That would be a bad idea. Might be something for Miami TRACON to be concerned about. Not to worry, though, surely the Bravo airspace is designed so that there is plenty of separation and that can not happen. Right, Henning? Right?

Wrong.

Let's see where GRITT lies:

Click for Skyvector

Well, golly, as Gomer Pyle would say, someone put GRITT, where big airplanes are coming down at 3000' right there in the area of the 3000' base shelf where folks like me should be flying along according to some folks here. Right next to those visual fixes, too, that VFR pilots like me like so much.

So yeah, maybe it's not "just one controller's preference".

Show that to the folks at your "local TRACON. I'm quite confident there's nobody here somebody there that can explain why you I believe the things you I do."

[end sarcasm]
Click to expand...

You believe the things you do because you choose to. Have a nice day.
 
roncachamp said:
Should have been, " Miami approach has no authority to assign routes, headings or altitudes to VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace."
Click to expand...

So in Class E controlled airspace, I am free to say simply "No, I don't want to" in response to an ATC direction and when they say "Why not?", I can just say "Because I don't feel like it?"

In other words, let us say I have FF. The above exchange takes place. They say "FF terminated" and that is the end of it?
 
alfadog said:
No, it makes sense as-is.
Click to expand...

Would "I guess that makes your opinion just another controller's preference" be a satisfactory representation of what you were trying to say?
 
roncachamp said:
Should have been, " Miami approach has no authority to assign routes, headings or altitudes to VFR aircraft outside of Class B airspace."
Click to expand...

§91.123 – Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

How is Class Echo not "an area in which air traffic control is exercised"? Sure, not necessarily exercised but definitely exercised.

IMHO, if you have FF and are issued an instruiction, you have to comply. Or do what I do and skip the FF and just file a VFR flight plan. But show me the ref if I am wrong, I am here to learn. :yesnod:
 
alfadog said:
§91.123 – Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

IMHO, if you have FF and are issued an instruction, you have to comply. Or do what I do and skip the FF and just file a VFR flight plan. But show me the ref if I am wrong, I am here to learn. :yesnod:
Click to expand...

It comes back to the illegal order quandary. Steven's point if I get it correctly is that the instruction is not permitted for the controller to give. In the Army you don't have to obey an illegal order either, the person giving the order will be the one in trouble.
 
alfadog said:
Hmmm, maybe this goes a bit beyond "just one controller's preference".

Let's take a look at the ILS for RWY 9 at MIA (the longest runway on the field and sure to get used by the biggest jets. Also, in Miami, we usually land to the east.):

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1204/00257IL9.PDF

Notice the GRITT intersection. Notice the altitude at GRITT, 3000'.

Now we would not want some VFR pilot flying through GRITT at 2980', would we? That would be a bad idea. Might be something for Miami TRACON to be concerned about. Not to worry, though, surely the Bravo airspace is designed so that there is plenty of separation and that can not happen. Right, Henning? Right?

Wrong.

Let's see where GRITT lies:

Click for Skyvector

Well, golly, as Gomer Pyle would say, someone put GRITT, where big airplanes are coming down at 3000' right there in the area of the 3000' base shelf where folks like me should be flying along according to some folks here. Right next to those visual fixes, too, that VFR pilots like me like so much.

So yeah, maybe it's not "just one controller's preference".

Show that to the folks at your "local TRACON. I'm quite confident there's nobody here somebody there that can explain why you I believe the things you I do."

[end sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Personally I can see Johns point.. The bravo floor is at the same altitude as the passing altitude at GRITT.... :yikes: ..

You can rattle Approachs cage by flying a plane that has a current sign off and damn accurate transponder/encoder. Fly to that area and call approach for FF, when they say " remain clear of the Bravo" say "roger"... Head to that intersection and circle at 2980 or so during the rush hour of incoming jets... You are practicing turns about a point, right;);) The heavys TCAS will alert them of your presence and since you are clear of the Bravo my guess is approach will "suggest" to the jets to fly higher.... Of course the FAA will try to bust your chops for screwing up their system....:(...

You do point out a catch 22 scenerio though..:yesnod:
 
Sounds like they just need to fix the Bravo. I feel an extension coming. ;)
 
N801BH said:
Personally I can see Johns point.. The bravo floor is at the same altitude as the passing altitude at GRITT.... :yikes: ..

You can rattle Approachs cage by flying a plane that has a current sign off and damn accurate transponder/encoder. Fly to that area and call approach for FF, when they say " remain clear of the Bravo" say "roger"... Head to that intersection and circle at 2980 or so during the rush hour of incoming jets... You are practicing turns about a point, right;);) The heavys TCAS will alert them of your presence and since you are clear of the Bravo my guess is approach will "suggest" to the jets to fly higher.... Of course the FAA will try to bust your chops for screwing up their system....:(...

You do point out a catch 22 scenerio though..:yesnod:
Click to expand...

My problem is I am the idiot that calls the TRACON and asks about VFR ops near the Bravo. :yikes:

That is because I learned to fly in 1975/76 when things were simpler. I stopped then and took it up again in 2010 right under Bravo airspace.

If I have learned one thing it is that we are all just people. The majority of us are helpful and only a few are a-holes. And even they are usually helpful, they just make you work. :D So if I have a question about anything at all, I make a call. Start talking, make a friend, learn somethng.

Miami TRACON said they do not like people up near the bottom of thier shelf. Back when I made the call, I was green and did not really understand why or think to ask if that was the norm for Class Bravo. Apparently, it is not the norm but is because of the issue with the ILS. They try to keep VFR traffic at 2000 and below west of MIA.
 
alfadog said:
So in Class E controlled airspace, I am free to say simply "No, I don't want to" in response to an ATC direction and when they say "Why not?", I can just say "Because I don't feel like it?"
Click to expand...

Depends on the instruction.

In other words, let us say I have FF. The above exchange takes place. They say "FF terminated" and that is the end of it?
Click to expand...

If you're receiving only flight following, there is essentially nothing that ATC can require you to do. If a controller does try to require you to do something, such as assign a heading or altitude, it should immediately tell you that you're not working with the sharpest spoon in the drawer. Declining those instructions and then having services terminated is not much of a loss. After all, if the controller was competent he wouldn't have issued the heading or altitude! You don't have to fear a violation of any FAR, the FAA does not violate pilots that decline instructions it does not want controllers to issue to them.
 
alfadog said:
§91.123 – Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

How is Class Echo not "an area in which air traffic control is exercised"? Sure, not necessarily exercised but definitely exercised.

IMHO, if you have FF and are issued an instruiction, you have to comply. Or do what I do and skip the FF and just file a VFR flight plan. But show me the ref if I am wrong, I am here to learn. :yesnod:
Click to expand...

How much thought did you put into forming that opinion? Do you believe it was intended to apply to all ATC instructions, even those the FAA does not allow controllers to issue?
 
Henning said:
It comes back to the illegal order quandary. Steven's point if I get it correctly is that the instruction is not permitted for the controller to give. In the Army you don't have to obey an illegal order either, the person giving the order will be the one in trouble.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Not many safety seminars out there showing people what an illegal instruction sounds like or how to determine one. Same phraseology, over a different spot in the map. And you need to be VFR in that spot but have willingly asked for advisories.

Makes them pretty hard to spot.

Conversely, tons of repetition of the "ZOMG!... follow all ATC instructions to the letter or you will die!!!" throughout most training syllabi.

Okay I'm obviously exaggerating that last part, but the training emphasis is so far over into the "comply" end of the spectrum of possible responses, it's like pushing a rock uphill to say, "maybe you should ignore that controller, he doesn't have the authority to tell you to do anything".

Definitely not a strongly taught concept in flight training beyond the obvious, "unless the controller asks you to do something dangerous."

The implication in-flight is always that something more dangerous than usual will happen if a controller gives an instruction.

A gaping hole in flight training or an appropriate emphasis on the regulation worded strongly toward complying -- which doesn't contain any loopholes at face-value.

Convincing people to ignore commands when they're VFR in airspace where they don't have to participate, or even decide to just stop participating, after decades of initiatives to get pilots to participate -- is not going to be easy.
 
roncachamp said:
How much thought did you put into forming that opinion? Do you believe it was intended to apply to all ATC instructions, even those the FAA does not allow controllers to issue?
Click to expand...

It goes back to the old saying.... "when a pilot makes a mistake, pilots die... When a controller makes a mistake, pilots die.....

Pick your poison.:(
 
roncachamp said:
Depends on the instruction.

If you're receiving only flight following, there is essentially nothing that ATC can require you to do. If a controller does try to require you to do something, such as assign a heading or altitude, it should immediately tell you that you're not working with the sharpest spoon in the drawer. Declining those instructions and then having services terminated is not much of a loss. After all, if the controller was competent he wouldn't have issued the heading or altitude! You don't have to fear a violation of any FAR, the FAA does not violate pilots that decline instructions it does not want controllers to issue to them.
Click to expand...

You are kinda contradicting yourself here. One the one hand you say that under the FF scenario I put forth, I have to comply "Depends on the instruction" and on the other you say that " If a controller does try to require you to do something, such as assign a heading or altitude, it should immediately tell you that you're not working with the sharpest spoon in the drawer."

So which is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top