Flight following / Class B clearance

[USRaven]

New pilot... Easy question~ (positioned northeast of Sarasota class C, and south of Tampa class B)

I am on flight following in Class E approaching Class B. I am at 6,500'. I have been given vectors to avoid a fast mover departing from sarasota class C. The vectors I have been given will put me into CLASS B AIRSPACE. Do I request transition into the class B, or is it already assumed I am cleared because I have 2 way communication established?

I know that you must be CLEARED to enter class B, but only need to establish comm with class C and D... the reason I ask is that the controller was so nonchalant about it when giving me the vectors.

Thanks!

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by USRaven

New pilot... Easy question~ (positioned northeast of Sarasota class C, and south of Tampa class B)

I am on flight following in Class E approaching Class B. I am at 6,500'. I have been given vectors to avoid a fast mover departing from sarasota class C. The vectors I have been given will put me into CLASS B AIRSPACE. Do I request transition into the class B, or is it already assumed I am cleared because I have 2 way communication established?

I know that you must be CLEARED to enter class B, but only need to establish comm with class C and D... the reason I ask is that the controller was so nonchalant about it when giving me the vectors.

Thanks!

ATC should know where they're vectoring you, but should also inform you of same. If you're uncomfortable with it (or with anything ATC does), query them.

The REALLY interesting (and sad) thing is how many pilots wouldn't even know they were being vectored towards another airspace.....ie- once they get flight following, they sit fat/dumb/happy thinking that ATC will fully take care of them, akin to being IFR. That's even if they have SA on where their aircraft is in relation to other airspace in the first place!

[FM_Weasel]

Retracted. Seems there's more to this Class B thing than I'm aware of

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by USRaven

Do I request transition into the class B, or is it already assumed I am cleared because I have 2 way communication established?

The NTSB has ruled that if you have been assigned a heading and altitude that takes you into class B, then that constitutes an implied clearance. However, if they assign a heading only, no such clearance is implied and you can be violated for a Class B violation.

[ghogue]

In the interest of presenting pertinent info, see the attached Letter of Interpretation on this subject.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by ghogue

In the interest of presenting pertinent info, see the attached Letter of Interpretation on this subject.

Same thing I was saying. The PIC better know where his aircraft is at all times, and understand that VFR flight following isn't akin to IFR handling. ATC should coordinate for you if they're going to vector you towards airspace that would require a clearance, but if they don't, then the PIC must have the overall SA to inquire about it, knowing where his aircraft is at all times as well as where it's going.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by USRaven

I know that you must be CLEARED to enter class B, but only need to establish comm with class C and D... the reason I ask is that the controller was so nonchalant about it when giving me the vectors.

Thanks!

In my experience, I normally got an honest "thank you" from the controllers when ever I asked them "am I cleared into bravo?" after a vector or altitude that would take me into Bravo. Typically they would then follow that up with, "cleared into bravo...".

Once though he did come back with a new vector...

Be polite and query them, every time if you are still waiting for that clearance.

[TXTBOOK]

I would query them regardless. I don't want to enter Bravo unless I hear the words cleared, and I would rather the controller and I be on the same page (ie him not realizing he vectored me into bravo)

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by TXTBOOK

I would query them regardless. I don't want to enter Bravo unless I hear the words cleared, and I would rather the controller and I be on the same page (ie him not realizing he vectored me into bravo)

That is exactly what you should do. It is best to get that actual clearance on tape instead of just hoping the assumption is there. They can't bust you if they say "cleared through the bravo". I even ask for clearance though the bravo even though I may not quite enter the airspace. I have had a few flights where I passed about a mile or two from the bravo. I ask just in case as students will get off course.

[mshunter]

Originally Posted by Maurus

It is best to get that actual clearance on tape instead of just hoping the assumption is there.

Because assumption is the mother of all eff up's. right, Right!

[TXTBOOK]

Originally Posted by Maurus

That is exactly what you should do. It is best to get that actual clearance on tape instead of just hoping the assumption is there. They can't bust you if they say "cleared through the bravo". I even ask for clearance though the bravo even though I may not quite enter the airspace. I have had a few flights where I passed about a mile or two from the bravo. I ask just in case as students will get off course.

And not only to have it on the tapes to make sure you don't get in trouble, but I want to make sure the controller is also aware of the fact he vectored me into Bravo.

I can only imagine him seeing me in the bravo, not cleared, and is trying to figure out what happened while 2 other airplanes on the other side of his scope are in conflict.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

The NTSB has ruled that if you have been assigned a heading and altitude that takes you into class B, then that constitutes an implied clearance. However, if they assign a heading only, no such clearance is implied and you can be violated for a Class B violation.

Got a reference to that?

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by ghogue

In the interest of presenting pertinent info, see the attached Letter of Interpretation on this subject.

It's certainly somewhat related but why is an opinion regarding airspace with only a requirement to establish 2-way communications particularly pertinent to airspace which requires a specific clearance?

It's certainly conceivable to blunder into Class C while still yakking away on a Class D Tower that you are talking to, but there is no way I can think of that one would hear "cleared into the Class B at 3000'" from a Class D Tower (or Class C controller for that matter) unless that specific clearance was being relayed.

[ghogue]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

It's certainly somewhat related but why is an opinion regarding airspace with only a requirement to establish 2-way communications particularly pertinent to airspace which requires a specific clearance?

It's certainly conceivable to blunder into Class C while still yakking away on a Class D Tower that you are talking to, but there is no way I can think of that one would hear "cleared into the Class B at 3000'" from a Class D Tower (or Class C controller for that matter) unless that specific clearance was being relayed.

Mark,

I felt it was pertinent to the discussion because the OP mentioned being vectored to avoid an aircraft departing Class C. He stated he was in Class E, but apparently must have been fairly close to C to have received a vector to avoid departing aircraft.

I don't think the letter implied that the aircraft would have been talking to a Class D tower prior to entering Class C, but perhaps I misunderstood your statement. They were referring to being in contact to Center.

The letter only addresses Class C ops, but I think it is interesting to see what the CC says about being in contact with the ATC facility versus any ATC facility. It's the wording they use that I found interesting. Even though it was Class C, the same wording is found in 91.131.

(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.

I'm not saying the letter answers all the questions, but in a discussion of this type, I think it is of value to know, generally, how the CC views the regulations on this.

gary

[drunkenbeagle]

Originally Posted by USRaven

New pilot... Easy question~ (positioned northeast of Sarasota class C, and south of Tampa class B)

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.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Got a reference to that?

7 N.T.S.B. 649, NTSB ORDER NO. EA-3238



ADMINISTRATOR v.JAMES RYAN, RESPONDENT
Adopted: December 11, 1990


*649 OPINION AND ORDER

The Administrator has appealed from the initial decision that Administrative Law Judge Joyce Capps issued from the bench at the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing held on March 13, 1989. The law judge reversed an order of the Administrator that charged respondent with entry into the New York Terminal Control Area (TCA) without appropriate authorization from air traffic control (ATC) before doing so. The law judge found instead that respondent's entry into the TCA had been "constructively and tacitly" approved by a controller who gave him "a heading, an altitude instruction, that would take that pilot through a TCA." Although the law judge pointed out that a specific request to enter and a specific affirmative response would have been preferred, she determined on the basis of the evidence that respondent was legally in the TCA.

[…]
In the circumstances of this case, the law judge found that this handling by the controllers resulted in constructive or tacit permission to enter the TCA.

[…]
Respondent argued that, after leaving the Teterboro tower, he contacted an intermediate controller who instructed him to follow the course and altitude at which the TRACON departure controller found him. He believed that following the instructions from this intermediate controller amounted to an affirmative defense for his unauthorized entry into the TCA. The law judge found that "by giving a pilot a heading, an altitude instruction that would take that pilot through a TCA, that is tantamount to a clearance."

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

7 N.T.S.B. 649, NTSB ORDER NO. EA-3238



ADMINISTRATOR v.JAMES RYAN, RESPONDENT
Adopted: December 11, 1990


*649 OPINION AND ORDER

The Administrator has appealed from the initial decision that Administrative Law Judge Joyce Capps issued from the bench at the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing held on March 13, 1989. The law judge reversed an order of the Administrator that charged respondent with entry into the New York Terminal Control Area (TCA) without appropriate authorization from air traffic control (ATC) before doing so. The law judge found instead that respondent's entry into the TCA had been "constructively and tacitly" approved by a controller who gave him "a heading, an altitude instruction, that would take that pilot through a TCA." Although the law judge pointed out that a specific request to enter and a specific affirmative response would have been preferred, she determined on the basis of the evidence that respondent was legally in the TCA.

[…]
In the circumstances of this case, the law judge found that this handling by the controllers resulted in constructive or tacit permission to enter the TCA.

[…]
Respondent argued that, after leaving the Teterboro tower, he contacted an intermediate controller who instructed him to follow the course and altitude at which the TRACON departure controller found him. He believed that following the instructions from this intermediate controller amounted to an affirmative defense for his unauthorized entry into the TCA. The law judge found that "by giving a pilot a heading, an altitude instruction that would take that pilot through a TCA, that is tantamount to a clearance."

The problem with this ruling, IMO, is it allows the pilot to get into a mode of "just along for the ride" in regards to letting ATC drive him around; rather than maintaining the SA as to where his aircraft is now, and is going, at all times. THAT is a PICs responsibility, IMO. Whether or not an "implied" clearance was given by ATC issuing a heading and altitude; to me, it's a cop-out for a pilot to try and shoulder ATC with the blame for their own failure to exercise PIC responsibility.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MikeD

rather than maintaining the SA as to where his aircraft is now, and is going, at all times.

Rather tough for a /U aircraft.

Regardless, the FAA has never specified what form a Class B clearance should take.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Rather tough for a /U aircraft.

Regardless, the FAA has never specified what form a Class B clearance should take.

Tougher, yes, but not impossible. Especially VFR. True, the clearance form has never been specified, just that one have a clearance. In that realm, a PIC should have the forethought to know where his plane is headed, and for me at least, I'd query if I'm in fact cleared into a TCA based on where I know a certain heading/altitude is taking me. The reasoning for it being that I'd rather query, than make an airspace bust later when it could've been avoided on my end. And that's assuming it's a simple bust and not one that involves a near-miss or worse. I just believe that even with ATC helping us, we as PICs still have a responsibility to "trust but verify". Anything less is lazy at best, or the PIC being behind the aircraft at worst.

[drunkenbeagle]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Rather tough for a /U aircraft.

Regardless, the FAA has never specified what form a Class B clearance should take.

"Cleared into the Bravo" works for me. Or "XYZ transition through the Bravo approved." A heading isn't enough. The controller may have only wanted you on that heading for a minute to keep you clear of other traffic, or other airspace. While the FAA may not throw the book at you, it is certainly more desirable to always get a positive clearance into a Bravo.

I don't think being /U makes it impossible to know where you are. Look at the Terminal Area charts. It is the PICs job to know the airspace and especially the geography and landmarks if you are VFR.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by drunkenbeagle

"Cleared into the Bravo" works for me. Or "XYZ transition through the Bravo approved."

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.

I don't think being /U makes it impossible to know where you are.

Didn't say it was "impossible", I said "tough". I spent the last 13 years flying in and around a class B, so I'm very familiar with the challenges. If you're getting vectored around by ATC, getting cross radials or having your head down on a terminal area chart isn't the most productive use of your time.

When I'm shooting practice instrument approaches, if I don't hear the "cleared" word, I'll usually ask for it, but I may skip that if the frequency is busy and I get a firm heading and altitude assignment. The latter isn't guaranteed; sometimes they'll leave out an altitude assignment or just say "at or below", neither of which does me any good regarding an implicit Class B clearance.

[MikeD]

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.

Two separate issues going here. It may be fair and reasonable from a legal standpoint, but I still think (as a separate issue) it breeds pilots to over-rely on ATC "holding their hand" simply because they're getting flight following, when a PIC should be exercising good airmanship ala knowing where his plane is going at all times, and not depending on someone else to do it for him.

Didn't say it was "impossible", I said "tough". I spent the last 13 years flying in and around a class B, so I'm very familiar with the challenges. If you're getting vectored around by ATC, getting cross radials or having your head down on a terminal area chart isn't the most productive use of your time.

Here's where a little pre-planning goes a long way though. It can be tough I agree, or it can be made somewhat easier, depending on the pilot and what he does with pre-loading his SA bag of tricks. To me, so long as a guy isn't tooling along fat/dumb/happy and can at a minimum trust-but-verify with what ATC is giving him, then that's good airmanship. While it may very well be a "fair" interpertation from the NTSB regards a TCA bust, there's truly no excuse for it from the pilot standpoint insofar as not knowing that you were headed into the airspace. To me, this ties straight into the concept of 14 CFR 91.3(a).

[Beehive]

Bravo = IFR only unless VFR with a clearance, routing and altitude. Never leave ATC freq while in Bravo unless instructed to.
If you need help staying out of Bravo or any other airspace, ask for suggested headings, altitudes or routings.
Don't expect controllers to babysit your rights of being VFR around busy airports.

I respect the pilots (mostly old timers) who call because they're transitioning close to Bravo and would like the safeist and easiest route through or around without problems.

[Yank&BankmyRJ145]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Rather tough for a /U aircraft.

Regardless, the FAA has never specified what form a Class B clearance should take.

7-9-1. APPLICATION
Apply Class B services and procedures within the
designated Class B airspace.
a. No person may operate an aircraft within
Class􏰁B airspace unless:
1. The aircraft has an operable two‐way radio
capable of communications with ATC on appropriate
frequencies for that Class B airspace.
2. The aircraft is equipped with the applicable
operating transponder and automatic altitude report
ing equipment specified in para (a) of 14 CFR
Section􏰁91.215, except as provided in para (d) of that
section.
7-9-2. VFR AIRCRAFT IN CLASS B
AIRSPACE
a. VFR aircraft must obtain an ATC clearance to
operate in Class B airspace.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-18, Operational Requests.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-4-22, Airspace Classes.
PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED THROUGH/TO ENTER/OUT OF BRAVO
AIRSPACE,
and as appropriate,
VIA (route). MAINTAIN (altitude) WHILE IN BRAVO
AIRSPACE.
 
 or
CLEARED AS REQUESTED.
(Additional instructions, as necessary.)
REMAIN OUTSIDE BRAVO AIRSPACE. (When
necessary, reason and/or additional instructions.)
NOTE-
1. Assignment of radar headings, routes, or altitudes is
based on the provision that a pilot operating in accordance
with VFR is expected to advise ATC if compliance will
cause violation of any part of the CFR.
2. Separation and sequencing for VFR aircraft is
dependent upon radar. Efforts should be made to segregate
VFR traffic from IFR traffic flows when a radar outage
occurs.
b. Approve/deny requests from VFR aircraft to
operate in Class B airspace based on workload,
operational limitations and traffic conditions.
c. Inform the pilot when to expect further
clearance when VFR aircraft are held either inside or
outside Class B airspace.
d. Inform VFR aircraft when leaving Class B
airspace.
PHRASEOLOGY-
LEAVING (name) BRAVO AIRSPACE,
and as appropriate,
RESUME OWN NAVIGATION, REMAIN THIS
FREQUENCY FOR TRAFFIC ADVISORIES, RADAR
SERVICE TERMINATED, SQUAWK ONE TWO ZERO
ZERO.
7-9-3. METHODS
a. To the extent practical, clear large turbine
engine‐powered airplanes to/from the primary airport
using altitudes and routes that avoid VFR corridors
and airspace below the Class B airspace floor where
VFR aircraft are operating.
NOTE-
Pilots operating in accordance with VFR are expected to
advise ATC if compliance with assigned altitudes,
headings, or routes will cause violation of any part of the
CFR.
b. Vector aircraft to remain in Class B airspace
after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and
reentering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to
extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for
spacing.
NOTE-
14 CFR Section 91.131 states that “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.” Such
authorization should be the exception rather than the rule.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-1-10, Deviation Advisories.

[XcalibeR]

Originally Posted by Yank&BankmyRJ145

CLEARED AS REQUESTED

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.