Why are people afraid of Class B?

[denverpilot]

IMSAFE doesn't mention class B operations. Neither did the PTS. Pretty sure the ACS doesn't, either.

It's a required skill.

ACS PA.I.E.S2
"The applicant demonstrates the ability to correctly identify airspace and operate in accordance with associated communication and equipment requirements."

 

[jordane93]

I usually combine the night XC with a class B transition with my students. We go to PNE, get some cheesesteaks and do the Hudson River corridor. It's a very enjoyable flight for then.

 

[denverpilot]

Well...obviously. I've never met a private pilot who didn't know how to get through class B.

But I've also never met a private certificate applicant who's had to demonstrate the ability to fly through a charted restricted area to a DPE. Again, not everyone is exposed to it, and it leads us back to that good ol' OP question. It's an opinionated topic.

You could also plan a flight from A to B, making sure you safely fly beneath a class B shelf in order to minimize exposure to high volume traffic areas and not only be demonstrating PA.I.E.S2, but also PA.I.E.R1

Yes, you could. And the examiner could say, "Let's ask for a Bravo clearance." If you flubbed it, they'd be well within their authority to flunk you on it.

Again, its a required skill. Whether tested or not. That's on the instructor to make sure the candidate has the skill set whether tested or not by the examiner.

If the skill set FADED over time, that's one thing. That's on the pilot as to whether they want to maintain the MINIMUM standard the day they took their checkride.

If it was never there, the training to the standard was inadequate, and that's on the instructor. "Not everyone is exposed to it" doesn't meet the minimum standard for the certificate. It's easy to simulate 90% of it throughout training in such a way that the student doesn't even realize they've been trained for it.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, you could. And the examiner could say, "Let's ask for a Bravo clearance." If you flubbed it, they'd be well within their authority to flunk you on it.

"Flubbed" is kind of vague. Can you be more specific?

I could see failing a checkride if the candidate entered the class B before receiving the clearance, failed to follow ATC instructions, or didn't know that a clearance was required before entering. Anything else?

 

[denverpilot]

"Flubbed" is kind of vague. Can you be more specific?

I could see failing a checkride if the candidate entered the class B before receiving the clearance, failed to follow ATC instructions, or didn't know that a clearance was required before entering. Anything else?

Not my call. My portion of this is to make sure a candidate can "operate" in the airspace. Therefore they'll be taught and checked that they know how to enter all airspace types with either the real deal or a simulation.

How an examiner decides to pass/fail that is up to them and FAA guidance.

My complete guess would be that no examiner would push it on any candidate, but they could ask the candidate, "Okay, if you had to go north of here right now due to weather coming in from the south, what would you do?" (With the Bravo north of the airplane.) Maybe even simulate the radio calls.

Or they could pull up a chart of any airport tucked under a Bravo and ask the candidate how they would go on a cross country out the other side of the Bravo during the oral.

Point is, a properly prepared candidate isn't going to have any trouble entering any airspace.

Delta, Charlie, Bravo... the minimum standard says they must demonstrate both knowledge and operate within whatever airspace they (or the examiner) choose fly in on the ride, and the CFI is supposed to deliver them to the exam ready for that.

I also can say if someone purposefully planned their route around a Bravo for their checkride XC, the examiner would probably be fine with that, but it's the open door to ask questions about how you'd handle it anyway, in an oral, right? Any choice you choose becomes a way to quiz you about the opposite choices.

"I see your route takes us around this Bravo. What if there's a thunderstorm right ... here... what would you do?"

That right there could easily lead to a half an hour of follow up questions. See how that works?

 

[denverpilot]

denverpilot, I think you're somehow still confusing capability with route preference. I don't know how else to explain it, sorry.

The requirement says "operate", not just "plan to operate", does it not?

The reality is, the examiner isn't likely to make anyone operate in a Bravo, but the requirement for the instructor is quite clear.

If I don't think you're capable of operation in all airspace you're allowed to be in within the privileges of your expected ticket, I must not sign you off for the ride.

 

[denverpilot]

Are you saying per the ACS, every student pilot in the United States needs to operate in Class B airspace?

They need to be capable of doing so, yes.

Put another way: Would you hire an instructor who didn't teach you how? Would an instructor who didn't be doing you any favors?

Besides, as Doc Bruce says, "Don't accept minimum standards." They're minimums for a reason. Everyone should strive to *beat* the minimum standard. Not just meet it.

Obviously, if you can exceed the standard, a checkride is almost a non-event.

Hold altitude within 200'? How about 100'? How about 50'? How about "Don't let the needle move."?

Land within 200'? How about land within 100' and hitting 200' on the ride will be a cakewalk?

But in this case, "operate in" is the *minimum* standard.

Everyone has stuff they're not great at. Instructor will easily be able to tell if you can handle yourself transiting a Bravo without ever needing to put you inside one. Same thing with the examiner.

Your radio work and ability to communicate effectively your intentions as well as copy clearances and follow those instructions should be old hat by the Private ride. That's the building block skillsets for operation in a Bravo, a Charlie, and a Delta so the skillset overlaps considerably. If you can handle one, you're 95% of the way to handling them all.

And even if you're flying out of Podunk Nowhere far from any of those, the instructor can (and should) simulate talking to you like ATC would, from day one. And be teaching what the phraseology means and how to copy it and follow it.

It's actually one of the easier things to teach and easy to reinforce. Just give the student a heading and an altitude to fly on takeoff just like a controller would, "cessna 123 cleared for takeoff at pilot's discretion, fly straight out, climb and maintain 3000". Student responds to instructor just like they would a controller.

And in the practice area, all turns, climbs, or descents are preceded with a "clearance". Not "let's turn right about thirty degrees", but "Cessna 123, turn right heading 260". Same readback.

When arriving to land, reinforce the "Are we cleared to land?" question even at an uncontrolled field. The landing "clearance" is assumed but the PIC still asks in his or her head and surveys the environment before giving themselves said "clearance". "Cessna 123, descend at pilot's discretion, cleared to land at pilots discretion..."

It's the instructor's job to make it real. See how easy that is?

Obviously once the student is comfy doing that with the instructor, all thats left is to tune the right frequency from the chart and push to talk and release to listen. (And yes, after nearly 20 years of teaching people on the ground to talk on two way radios, you have to say that second part. Otherwise one in five will leave the mic PTT button keyed after they talk. No kidding.)

 

[Goofy]

SFO and LAX are overlying multiple Charlie's. SAN, SEA and NY don't overlay any Charlie's.

I'm not sure that's a legitimate excuse. Flew jumps seat in a G-IV out of San Jose and they wouldn't let them do anything but circle climb to clear B before turning to BFI. Kinda stupid as we were over 6000' just past the end of the airport and we'll clear of any landing traffic, soon to be 12000' by mid Bay!

 

[Palmpilot]

Not my call. My portion of this is to make sure a candidate can "operate" in the airspace. Therefore they'll be taught and checked that they know how to enter all airspace types with either the real deal or a simulation.

How an examiner decides to pass/fail that is up to them and FAA guidance....

I wasn't asking you about what an examiner would do; I was asking for your opinion on what you think would be reasonable for an examiner to do, but I think the examples you have given address that and are reasonable.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Frankly, I just have a hard time keeping up with controllers commands. They talk too dang fast. I think I'm doing everybody else a favor by just going around or under.

#countrybumpkin

 

[denverpilot]

Frankly, I just have a hard time keeping up with controllers commands. They talk too dang fast. I think I'm doing everybody else a favor by just going around or under.

#countrybumpkin

You'd be amazed at how much they'll slow down to mimic you if you talk slowly and succinctly in a calm voice.

I've demoed that in classrooms before teaching two way radio technicians outside of aviation.

People tend to try to match speed and it gets out of hand and adds little to intelligibility or actual communications. Even the slowest speakers speak about 180 words/min, which is plenty fast for radio.

 

[asicer]

People tend to try to match speed and it gets out of hand and adds little to intelligibility or actual communications. Even the slowest speakers speak about 180 words/min, which is plenty fast for radio.

When it's safe to do so, it's kind of fun seeing how fast I can get 'em going.

 

[denverpilot]

When it's safe to do so, it's kind of fun seeing how fast I can get 'em going.

LOL. Naughty. But yes, it works.

We're wired to respond at the speed the other voice did. It's impressive how fast you can get a classroom of people "handling radio traffic" going and how bad their "copy" of the original message was.

It's the old "telephone game" on steroids.

 

[OkieFlyer]

You'd be amazed at how much they'll slow down to mimic you if you talk slowly and succinctly in a calm voice.

I've demoed that in classrooms before teaching two way radio technicians outside of aviation.

People tend to try to match speed and it gets out of hand and adds little to intelligibility or actual communications. Even the slowest speakers speak about 180 words/min, which is plenty fast for radio.

Yeah, I don't ever try to talk fast anymore. Some controllers slow down, some don't. Some get irritated and start talking like I'm a moron..... which is mostly true. I'd say they are pretty used to getting slow talking hicks on frequency around here and adjust accordingly. I'm sure dealing with me is much less difficult than trying to communicate with some of the foreigners. There are a couple university flight schools nearby, and some of those foreign students are super difficult to understand.

I was being mostly tongue in cheek, but there is an element of truth to it.