Flight following / Class B clearance

[genot]

Originally Posted by XcalibeR

I've been meaning to ask about that one. Good to know. In the same vein, though, what about "APPROVED AS REQUESTED" or "PROCEED AS REQUESTED" instead of "cleared"? I get both of those a lot.

I'd be amazed if a controller meant something other than cleared as requested by either statement. I'll typically say approved as requested as a blanket approval / clearance. Sometimes you get deviation requests of say "can I get either 15 to the left or 30 to the right?" with nobody within 20 miles of them, a GA guy asking if they can proceed to an intermediate fix followed by a crossing altitude request / inbound radial to join / proceedure turn inbound (what I call a build your own practice approach) or an obligatory hey can I give direct from another controller. Approved as requested works just fine in all instances for me. I probably would use a blanket proceed as requested except it isn't in the book as far as I know for use on the landline.

[USRaven]

Originally Posted by drunkenbeagle

TPA Approach is kind of lax about this, get used to it.

You NEED to have a clearance to enter the Bravo airspace. Period. A vector that takes you into the Bravo is NOT sufficient if you are VFR. (It is if you are IFR).

They CAN vector you into Sarasota's Charlie, or MacDill, PIE, and SPG's Delta's without any explicit clearance. Just talking to them is enough to transit those airspaces.

If you are getting near the Bravo, just say "N12345, verify clearance into the Bravo." Do a 360 if you can't get them on the radio (TPA approach isn't that busy, you'll almost always be able to get a word in)

Around Tampa, just get in the habit of saying "Request clearance through the Bravo" when you call them initially. Something like "Skyhawk 1234, 10 North East of SRQ, 6500, request flight following to KZPH and clearance into the Bravo." Even if you don't think you need the clearance, ask for it anyway, since there is a good chance they might vector you in for traffic.

That sounds like a plan! I will be making this call a LOT more often. I fly to CAP twice a month, flight following is mandatory; so I will have some practice. Thanks for the input.

[XcalibeR]

Originally Posted by genot

I'd be amazed if a controller meant something other than cleared as requested by either statement. I'll typically say approved as requested as a blanket approval / clearance. Sometimes you get deviation requests of say "can I get either 15 to the left or 30 to the right?" with nobody within 20 miles of them, a GA guy asking if they can proceed to an intermediate fix followed by a crossing altitude request / inbound radial to join / proceedure turn inbound (what I call a build your own practice approach) or an obligatory hey can I give direct from another controller. Approved as requested works just fine in all instances for me. I probably would use a blanket proceed as requested except it isn't in the book as far as I know for use on the landline.

Oh, I know exactly what they mean. We do a lot of coordinating with ATC at my job, calling them up before taking off, faxing maps, once in the air describing exactly what we're going to do, how far into their airspace we'll be going, etc. So if we get a blanket "Approved as requested", it's pretty obvious that we're allowed in the B, if our lines take us in there. I'm just wondering how that will hold up in legal proceedings. As long as I remember to, I'll ask for B verification anyways, though, just in case.

[drunkenbeagle]

Originally Posted by USRaven

That sounds like a plan! I will be making this call a LOT more often. I fly to CAP twice a month, flight following is mandatory; so I will have some practice. Thanks for the input.

Or file IFR and cancel as soon as you are clear of the bravo.

Makes your life easier - you have a clearance into the bravo before you taxi.
Makes the controller's life easier - they know you are coming.
Keeps you from reading and reading back a long clearance on a busy approach frequency.

BTW, how can flight following be "mandatory?" ATC can say no or terminate it any time they like.

[granlistillo]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

What's good enough for you isn't the issue, the question is what is good enough for the FAA. And a heading and altitude is good enough, according to the NTSB, and that's as it should be. Given that the FAA has never specified what the clearance should consist of, any unambiguous instruction from ATC that takes you into the Class B should be reasonably construed to be an implicit clearance. That's only fair and reasonable and, however improbably, the NTSB came down on the side of fairness and reason.

And the FAA is always consistent? If you got violated for any reason, I would say this is poor headwork. Why parse words? Just because there is a precedent from 1990, is no reason not to do what the regs say to do, obtain a clearance. When you are IFR, every instruction they give is a clearance. VFR, I would say no. While this precedent may be useful if you have to hire a lawyer to represent you before a NTSB admin law judge, why risk it?

[granlistillo]

Originally Posted by USRaven

That sounds like a plan! I will be making this call a LOT more often. I fly to CAP twice a month, flight following is mandatory; so I will have some practice. Thanks for the input.

Originally Posted by drunkenbeagle

BTW, how can flight following be "mandatory?" ATC can say no or terminate it any time they like.

Company policy? I think some schools mandate FF for xcountry. You are correct though, they can and do drop you for controller work load.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by granlistillo

And the FAA is always consistent? If you got violated for any reason, I would say this is poor headwork.

True, the FAA isn't but a court of law is; a precedent has been set.