Yet Another Bravo Question

[eetrojan]

The other day, I had flight following while flying south along the coast, down to San Diego. I told SoCal Approach that I wanted to request a low coastal transition from Lindbergh Tower (the blue arrow below).

At some point while I was flying at 3500 feet (red arrow below), SoCal explicitly cleared me into the Bravo.

In preparation to get down to the 500 feet needed for the transition, I made an initial descent to about 1500 (orange arrow), and then dropped some more altitude from there (black arrow).

At about that point, SoCal said something like, "You're outside the Bravo. Squawk VFR, contact Lindbergh Tower and request your transition directly from them." Maybe I misconstrued it, but the controller's tone made it seem like I did something wrong. My memory may be off as to what was said, but that's what I recall.

It all worked out fine when I called Tower, but left me wondering if I did something unexpected.

Should I have tried to remain higher, longer, to stay in the Bravo shelves while I was with SoCal? Did I get too low and drop of their display? Is it just normal?

 

[poadeleted20]

When you received that Bravo clearance, exactly what did the controller say? If that controller said "Cleared into the Class Bravo airspace, maintain 3500," then you definitely did something wrong. If not, then we'd have to know what s/he really did say. However, once you depart the bottom of the B-space, it's entirely within the controller's prerogative to terminate radar service. Note that they are only required to coordinate transit with the Tower if you are remaining under their jurisdiction. Otherwise, as long as you're far enough out to have time to do it, they can terminate radar service, approve a frequency change to Tower, and let you call Tower on your own.

 

[frfly172]

It's common for ATC to turn you over to tower,when your in the towers airspace. Are you sure you where cleared into the Bravo? They usually give you an altitude to maintain while in the Bravo.

 

[MAKG1]

The confusing part here is that there are TWO Class B's in San Diego. You were cleared through Miramar. You left that Class B (and would have, even if you maintained 3500), and then needed a new clearance into San Diego Class B.

When leaving Class B at low altitude, particularly if you drop through the floor, it is VERY common to get dropped from flight following, as the radar coverage may not be complete. You might have prevented that by remaining at a higher altitude. I'll also suggest adding "intending low VFR transition of SAN" to each handoff.

I've gotten dropped many times leaving Oakland Class C to the north, even when they knew I was about to head back in through San Francisco Class B. The issue is radar coverage at or below 2000. They really want you at 2500 or higher there. And I have had them clear me into the overlying Class B northbound when I asked what I needed to do to keep flight following.

 

[eetrojan]

It's common for ATC to turn you over to tower,when your in the towers airspace. Are you sure you where cleared into the Bravo? They usually give you an altitude to maintain while in the Bravo.

I'm sure, but only because SoCal didn't utter those words when I flew this route several months ago. Back then, I just descended when they told me to call SAN, making sure per their admonition that I stay out of the bravo, and I got the transition from SAN. Back then, SoCal also had me keep my squawk.

This time, it was all the opposite. It surprised me when they said "cleared into the bravo" when I was so far away and since I needed to get low anyway, and it surprised me when they dumped me and told me to squawk VFR.

 

[eetrojan]

The confusing part here is that there are TWO Class B's in San Diego. You were cleared through Miramar. You left that Class B (and would have, even if you maintained 3500), and then needed a new clearance into San Diego Class B.

When leaving Class B at low altitude, particularly if you drop through the floor, it is VERY common to get dropped from flight following, as the radar coverage may not be complete. You might have prevented that by remaining at a higher altitude. I'll also suggest adding "intending low VFR transition of SAN" to each handoff.

I've gotten dropped many times leaving Oakland Class C to the north, even when they knew I was about to head back in through San Francisco Class B. The issue is radar coverage at or below 2000. They really want you at 2500 or higher there. And I have had them clear me into the overlying Class B northbound when I asked what I needed to do to keep flight following.

Hmm. Nope. I definitely wasn't conscious of that detail.

Looking at the TAC, how would you tell which segments belong to Miramar and which belong to SAN?

http://goo.gl/n99upu

 

[eetrojan]

When you received that Bravo clearance, exactly what did the controller say? If that controller said "Cleared into the Class Bravo airspace, maintain 3500," then you definitely did something wrong. If not, then we'd have to know what s/he really did say. However, once you depart the bottom of the B-space, it's entirely within the controller's prerogative to terminate radar service. Note that they are only required to coordinate transit with the Tower if you are remaining under their jurisdiction. Otherwise, as long as you're far enough out to have time to do it, they can terminate radar service, approve a frequency change to Tower, and let you call Tower on your own.

Sorry, no way to know for sure "exactly" what was said as I didn't record it. Is this phase of flight available on LiveATC?

Definitely wasn't under an altitude restriction at the time of descent. In fact, I recall telling SoCal that I was planning to descend before doing so.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry, unless I could find it on LiveATC or something, no way to know for sure as I didn't record it.

Then I guess you won't know for sure what the answer to your original question is.

 

[eetrojan]

Then I guess you won't know for sure what the answer to your original question is.

Perhaps.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmm. Nope. I definitely wasn't conscious of that detail.

Looking at the TAC, how would you tell which segments belong to Miramar and which belong to SAN?

http://goo.gl/n99upu

It's not really accurate to say there are "TWO Class B's in San Diego." There is one Class B - the "San Diego Class B" Airspace (what the FAA calls it), with a single Mode C veil. It just happens to have two "primary airports" (the "New York Class B" has three primary airports).

As far as the AFD shows, in all cases you are talking to "SoCal Approach."

As a pilot, I have no problem assuming the Socal Approach controller who clears me into the San Diego Class B has the authority to clear me into the San Diego Class B, not just a little piece of it.

I don't see any need to confuse yourself.

 

[MAKG1]

Hmm. Nope. I definitely wasn't conscious of that detail.

Looking at the TAC, how would you tell which segments belong to Miramar and which belong to SAN?

http://goo.gl/n99upu

At high altitudes, it's SoCal anyway, so it doesn't matter.

At low altitudes, there is a 4800 foot shelf between Miramar and SAN, and you flew right below it. Just to the north of it, there are two sectors that have two different sets of floors/ceilings. The upper one is SAN, the lower is Miramar.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Perhaps.

I think Ron is just saying that unless you know whether or not you were given an altitude restriction while in the Class B (which is typical) or told at some point "altitude at your discretion", we won't know whether you did anything unexpected (your original question) when you descended.

There isn't anything else I see in your story that would be improper or unexpected.

 

[MAKG1]

Well, there is something unexpected.

The SAN TAC describes a single VFR corridor. It's not the route chosen, but rather right over SAN (southbound) at 3300-4700.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah but the VFR corridors in this case don't require ATC communication or a Class B clearance and the advisory is to use a discrete frequency for pilot to communicate among themselves.

If he received a Class B clearance I would expect it to be outside the corridor. We're still stuck with the question of what instructions were given in addition to the "magic words."

 

[MAKG1]

As a pilot, I have no problem assuming the Socal Approach controller who clears me into the San Diego Class B has the authority to clear me into the San Diego Class B, not just a little piece of it.

I don't see any need to confuse yourself.

The confusing part is that you do need to be cleared twice below 4800. The same thing happens if you descend out of a traditional wedding cake Class B and then need to reenter it (that happens routinely for VFR practice approaches at Half Moon Bay, as both the IAF and missed approach are in Class B, but the MAP isn't). The frequencies are not the same for the two airports' approaches, even if both are called SoCal. See the blue boxes and the A/FD.

Just be prepared for a handoff if you contact the wrong one. Not a big deal, but you do need to have the time for it.

 

[MAKG1]

Yeah but the VFR corridors in this case don't require ATC communication or a Class B clearance and the advisory is to use a discrete frequency for pilot to communicate among themselves.

If he received a Class B clearance I would expect it to be outside the corridor. We're still stuck with the question of what instructions were given in addition to the "magic words."

He received a Class B clearance, transited Class B, and then left it. He now needs another Class B clearance to transit SAN outside the corridor. Given the very low altitude, it would almost certainly come from SAN Tower, and not Approach. That detail depends upon letters of agreement, but it seems rather common that Approach is not in charge of the lowest altitudes in Class B/C/D surface areas.

Maybe it's commonly done, but I wouldn't expect anyone to ask for a transition at 500 feet. That's barely consistent with 14 CFR 91.119 and doesn't leave a whole lot of options aside from a very quick and very cold swim if something goes wrong.

I see something similar if I try to cross SFO or San Jose below 2000. A call to Approach yields an instant handoff to Tower. When transiting LAX, I had to contact LAX Tower at 2500 on the Mini Route. Not SoCal. But it was SoCal on the Coastal Route at 5500. Despite what the magenta boxes say, Oakland transitions are all done with Tower (except in the shelf). There are no high altitudes in that Class C, at least on the Bay side.

 

[eetrojan]

Well, there is something unexpected.

The SAN TAC describes a single VFR corridor. It's not the route chosen, but rather right over SAN (southbound) at 3300-4700.

We asked for this offshore transition in order to talk to North Island tower and fly a bay tour (the purple line above, except that we actually flew around Pt. Loma, not over it as shown). The transition is low, but it's doesn't take much time.

 

[MikeELP]

Maybe it's commonly done, but I wouldn't expect anyone to ask for a transition at 500 feet. That's barely consistent with 14 CFR 91.119 and doesn't leave a whole lot of options aside from a very quick and very cold swim if something goes wrong.
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnSLlw9tOJc

Me and a friend did the same thing a few years back but going northbound. 500 feet offshore transition.

 

[eetrojan]

Maybe it's commonly done, but I wouldn't expect anyone to ask for a transition at 500 feet. That's barely consistent with 14 CFR 91.119 and doesn't leave a whole lot of options aside from a very quick and very cold swim if something goes wrong.

FYI, I didn't ask for a transition at 500, I just asked for a low offshore transition. The 500 is just what they assign to keep you below the departing aircraft.

Also, since it's flown over "open water," I'm pretty sure it's entirely consistent with FAR 91.119(c) regardless of altitude.

 

[Palmpilot]

FYI, I didn't ask for a transition at 500, I just asked for a low offshore transition. The 500 is just what they assign to keep you below the departing aircraft.

Also, since it's flown over "open water," I'm pretty sure it's entirely consistent with FAR 91.119(c) regardless of altitude.

Unless you get closer than 500 feet from a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless you get closer than 500 feet from a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

If you're closer than 500 feet to one of those, you're not at your assigned altitude of 500 feet. That's why the floor of the B-space by JFK along the Rockaway beaches is "+05" rather than "05" -- so at exactly 500 you're below the floor but above the 91.119(c) 500-foot bubble and thus technically legal (although nobody's out there with a laser rangefinder to check that you're not at 501 or 499).

 

[eetrojan]

If you're closer than 500 feet to one of those, you're not at your assigned altitude of 500 feet. That's why the floor of the B-space by JFK along the Rockaway beaches is "+05" rather than "05" -- so at exactly 500 you're below the floor but above the 91.119(c) 500-foot bubble and thus technically legal (although nobody's out there with a laser rangefinder to check that you're not at 501 or 499).

Plus, remembering our former nemesis the Pythagorean theorem, you can add plenty of extra margin by simply not directly over-flying anybody :

 

[Palmpilot]

If you're closer than 500 feet to one of those, you're not at your assigned altitude of 500 feet.

He said "Also, since it's flown over 'open water,' I'm pretty sure it's entirely consistent with FAR 91.119(c) regardless of altitude." [emphasis added]

It's also not valid to assume that the listed objects have a height of zero feet.

 

[eetrojan]

He said "Also, since it's flown over 'open water,' I'm pretty sure it's entirely consistent with FAR 91.119(c) regardless of altitude." [emphasis added]

My off the cuff statement was admittedly incomplete because, as you helpfully pointed out, it didn't include the requirement of being no closer than 500 feet away from a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." However, I still think it's correct to understand that you can in fact legally fly lower than 500 feet.

While I personally wouldn't do it, this scenario is legal, right?

 

[Palmpilot]

My off the cuff statement was admittedly incomplete because, as you helpfully pointed out, it didn't include the requirement of being no closer than 500 feet away from a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." However, I still think it's correct to understand that you can in fact legally fly lower than 500 feet.

While I personally wouldn't do it, this scenario is legal, right?

I agree, and I note that your diagram also shows you far enough from the beach to be the required distance from sunbathers and swimmers, but I'm still a relative novice at dealing with the complexities of SoCal airspace. Is the number of boats and oil rigs out there small enough so you can count on deviating around them all?

I'm not saying that the FAA enforces this.

By the way, if you want to see me bust an altitude or heading assignment in short order, just give me a simple arithmetic problem to solve, let alone geometry!

 

[eetrojan]

Is the number of boats and oil rigs out there small enough so you can count on deviating around them all?

I don't think you need to worry about deviating around them if you're holding it level at 500 feet.

No oil rigs to worry about. If you were inclined to fly lower, say at 200 as shown above, it still wouldn't be much of an issue due to boats, unless it was a summer weekend and there were lots of boats sailing near shore.

We made this flight on a weekday afternoon, in February, and there weren't any boats out.

There are two piers at the beginning and end of the transition that SAN tower wants to use as visual reporting points. I make it a point to be away from shore so that I don't overfly them.

 

[noahfong]

It's not really accurate to say there are "TWO Class B's in San Diego." There is one Class B - the "San Diego Class B" Airspace (what the FAA calls it), with a single Mode C veil. It just happens to have two "primary airports" (the "New York Class B" has three primary airports).

I agree. The statement about there being two Bravo airspaces is kinda weird and not true. There are two class B airports within the class B airspace.

Also, I know of nothing that says a bravo clearance automatically becomes void once someone leaves bravo airspace. I agree with Ron in that the OP descended below Bravo, had enough time to contact SAN, the controller saw an opportunity to cancel the clearance and did it. I don't think the OP did anything wrong. A nicer controller at a less busy time may have handed him off to SAN.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Also, I know of nothing that says a bravo clearance automatically becomes void once someone leaves bravo airspace...

The regulation states that you need a clearance to ENTER class B airspace. Once you've left it, the only way to get back in is to enter it again.

 

[Clark1961]

The regulation states that you need a clearance to ENTER class B airspace. Once you've left it, the only way to get back in is to enter it again.

This little detail actually came up as a practical matter on my instrument checkride...flying out of a little airport with airspace carved from the primary's surface area will keep one alert to such things...

 

[midlifeflyer]

This little detail actually came up as a practical matter on my instrument checkride...flying out of a little airport with airspace carved from the primary's surface area will keep one alert to such things...

Why would it come up as a "practical" matter on an instrument checkride? Theoretical matter, sure, as in what happens after you cancel IFR. On a VFR checkride, definitely. But "practical" when you are always on a clearance anyway?

Edit:
Or, was it involving a VFR departure to pick up IFR in the air? That would be a practical question on a departure from a little non-towered airport below a Class B floor.

 

[Clark1961]

Why would it come up as a "practical" matter on an instrument checkride? Theoretical matter, sure, as in what happens after you cancel IFR. On a VFR checkride, definitely. But "practical" when you are always on a clearance anyway?

Edit:
Or, was it involving a VFR departure to pick up IFR in the air? That would be a practical question on a departure from a little non-towered airport below a Class B floor.

Canceled the clearance early in the checkride, just the way the DPE liked to do it...

The practical part was a circle to land at FTG after we had been cleared into the Bravo for the NDB approach. Things got a little tight with traffic on the left downwind to 8 and I joked that it was okay to extend the downwind since we had been cleared into the Bravo. I made it very obvious that it was a joke and got a chuckle out of the DPE.

For those not familiar with FTG, it's in a cut-out of the ten-mile DEN surface area. There isn't much room to extend the pattern to the west or the north so ya gotta plan things just a little bit. It's not much of a problem with the 'kota but people with airplanes that have to go faster can have a bit of a problem. Jets usually come in from the south or the east and depart in those same directions.

 

[noahfong]

The regulation states that you need a clearance to ENTER class B airspace.

Of course. No argument here.

Once you've left it, the only way to get back in is to enter it again.

Is this the proper interpretation? Is there something in the regs that provide clarity? Can't one argue that unless the clearance is cancelled via, "you are leaving bravo airspace, radar services terminated, squawk VFR, freq change approved", the original bravo clearance is still good and one can re-enter on that basis?

 

[poadeleted20]

Is this the proper interpretation? Is there something in the regs that provide clarity? Can't one argue that unless the clearance is cancelled via, "you are leaving bravo airspace, radar services terminated, squawk VFR, freq change approved", the original bravo clearance is still good and one can re-enter on that basis?

Not if the original clearance was phrase as directed by FAA Order 7110.65 (the controller's handbook).

PHRASEOLOGY​

​

​

​

−​

CLEARED THROUGH/TO ENTER/OUT OF BRAVO​

AIRSPACE,​

and as appropriate,​

VIA (route). MAINTAIN (altitude) WHILE IN BRAVO​

AIRSPACE.​

or​

CLEARED AS REQUESTED.

"Cleared through" doesn't mean "cleared to go through it, then out, and then come back in." Likewise, "cleared to enter" doesn't mean "cleared to enter now, and then again later". So, under VFR, once you depart the B-space, you need a new clearance to enter again. The exception would be if your original Bravo clearance explicitly authorized departure from and subsequent re-entry to the B-space.

 

[Palmpilot]

Is this the proper interpretation? Is there something in the regs that provide clarity? Can't one argue that unless the clearance is cancelled via, "you are leaving bravo airspace, radar services terminated, squawk VFR, freq change approved", the original bravo clearance is still good and one can re-enter on that basis?

After you've entered, your clearance to enter can't be canceled without inventing a time machine. I don't know of anything explicit that says the number of clearances must equal the number of entries, but I prefer to play it safe by not assuming that a clearance is good for multiple entries.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Canceled the clearance early in the checkride, just the way the DPE liked to do it...

The practical part was a circle to land at FTG after we had been cleared into the Bravo for the NDB approach. Things got a little tight with traffic on the left downwind to 8 and I joked that it was okay to extend the downwind since we had been cleared into the Bravo. I made it very obvious that it was a joke and got a chuckle out of the DPE.

For those not familiar with FTG, it's in a cut-out of the ten-mile DEN surface area. There isn't much room to extend the pattern to the west or the north so ya gotta plan things just a little bit. It's not much of a problem with the 'kota but people with airplanes that have to go faster can have a bit of a problem. Jets usually come in from the south or the east and depart in those same directions.

Well, there is that little house...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is this the proper interpretation? Is there something in the regs that provide clarity? Can't one argue that unless the clearance is cancelled via, "you are leaving bravo airspace, radar services terminated, squawk VFR, freq change approved", the original bravo clearance is still good and one can re-enter on that basis?

No, there isn't although a number of folks have suggested language to say it is. I agree with them.

But let's be real. Once you leave the Bravo, what reason does ATC have to expect a pilot to come back in? They will sequence the traffic based on the pilot not being there.

So the pilot who believes in the reasonableness of the argument you are making is left with the age-old dilemma that's always involved in every "assumed clearance" discussion:

Is it better to (1) "assume" one is authorized to re-enter the airspace and perhaps argue your position in an enforcement hearing where the FAA has all the cards or (2) be certain with a quick simple radio transmission?

 

[Clark1961]

Well, there is that little house...

yup, the house to the north and the road on the west side