Flying at the Upper Vertical Limit of Restricted Airspace

[JustPlaneMad]

G'day,

A quick air law interpretation questions for all the gurus out there...

I am trying to get a clear answer (and reference) as far as operating at the upper vertical limit of active Restrictive Airspace.


Question:
Let assume your VFR and which the plan with an Altitude as low as possible direct through Restrictive Airspace (which is active between SFC-2500). The above airspace is G airspace (i.e. clearance not req).

Can I fly through this restricted airspace at 2500ft?
What about 2499ft?
What about 2501ft?


The point I am trying to make is what is the lowest altitude, and are there any buffers to consider?



I have searched this topic and referenced the Jepps, all that I have been able to find so-far is the following Jepp Reference ATC-204 4.2.4:

The promulgated vertical limits of prohibited and restricted areas include all the buffers necessary for the protection of aicraft operating outside these areas. Therefore, the promulgated levels may be used by aicraft avoiding the areas, except where the vertical limit abuts controlled airspace, in which case, a clearance is required

My take is that you can transit AT+ABOVE 2500ft, NOT BELOW (i.e. not at 2499ft!) As long as the above airspace does not require clearance ie. controlled or additional restricted airspace.

Thoughts and applicable references? Cheers

[VH-XXX]

SFC to 2,500 ft, you fly at 2,500 ft and you are NOT in the airspace below.

At 8,500 ft with class E airspace being listed at 8,500 ft you are NOT in it.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

SFC to 2,500 ft, you fly at 2,500 ft and you are NOT in the airspace below.
At 8,500 ft with class E airspace being listed at 8,500 ft you are NOT in it.

That is how I have always interpreted it!

Dr :8

[FGD135]

JustPlaneMad,

I would agree that your take is correct for this particular example.

If however, there was another restricted area above (based at 2,500) and it was also active, and controlled by the same authority, then no, you would not be able to fly through at A025.

But if the controlling authority was different, I believe you would be able to fly through at A025.

I don't believe the above is documented anywhere in the current procedures. I remember reading this from somewhere years ago.

[VH-XXX]

If however, there was another restricted area above (based at 2,500) and it was also active, and controlled by the same authority, then no, you would not be able to fly through at A025.


Another good clarificaiton point on this would be Moorabbin Class D. Goes up to 4,500ft and on top of that is Class C from 4,500ft upwards. You can't sneak between the two :)

Probably the best way to decribe the documented airspace level is that they are "not inclusive." So therefore, 2,500ft is not included in the airspace and hence 8,500 ft is not included either.

[mcgrath50]

I can't remember where the reference is but when airspace sits atop each other, eg; At Avalon where E is over D (at say 4,500), if you fly at 4,500 you use the rules for the least restrictive airspace. In this case Class E.

Would this be the same for a restricted area? Ie; It's the most restrictive so if you are at 4,500 in pretty much any other airspace (bar Prohibited) you aren't in the R?

[jetstar1]

I can't remember where the reference is

AIP ENR 1.4 - 1.1.7
When ATS airspaces adjoin vertically (one above the other), flights at the common level must comply with the requirements of, and will be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class C airspace is considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class D airspace is considered less restrictive than Class C airspace, etc.

Would this be the same for a restricted area?

Yes - the Class G airspace is less restrictive than the PRD airspace.

j:ok:1

[cficare]

Can I fly through this restricted airspace at 2500ft?
What about 2499ft?
What about 2501ft?

Answer:
Yes
NO!
Yes, of course u can!!

[topdrop]

Can I fly through this restricted airspace at 2500ft?
What about 2499ft?

Yes
No, but if you happen to be at 2499 when your intended level is 2500, then you are legal, as the tolerances of flying at a level are included in the buffers of the restricted area.

[dodo whirlygig]

If it says SFC- 2500ft, then that is what is encompasses. If you say 2500ft (in this example) doesn't include the restricted airspace it's sort of like saying working Monday to Friday doesn't include Friday 'cos it's "to" Friday. And what of the lower level (SFC) - are you able to fly around at surface level and not be in the restricted area? I think not.


AIP ENR 1.4 - 1.1.7
When ATS airspaces adjoin vertically (one above the other), flights at the common level must comply with the requirements of, and will be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace.


OK, if you get the lower level of services in these circumstance, are you not in that airspace and the differentiation is just that, the level of services? If being at the upper (common) level of the vertically adjoining airspace didn't have you in the lower one, then you would logically get the level of services applicable to the one you were in, i.e. the upper one. Note they refer to a "common" level, not immediately adjacent nor abutting levels.

[mcgrath50]

Since when did Aviation regulations have to comply with usual english grammar :P

My reading of it is, you are flying in both (at 2,500ft you are both in the airspace and in G) and you are given the services of the least restrictive, ie; G. SFC is down to ground level, you can taxi your plane through the restricted area and ATC won't give a crap (cops on the other hand...)

[down3gr33ns]

It's simple, a limit is just that. So, if it says the vertical limit is xxxx feet, then that is inclusive.

By way of analogy, speed limit of 80kmh allows you to drive at that speed and you are not over the limit if you drive at such. You are not limited to 79kmh (similar to the contention that the 2500ft restricted area limit finishes at 2499ft). A limit is finite - simple.


Since when did Aviation regulations have to comply with usual english grammar :P

Gen Y, are we?

[glekichi]

That's right 3greens, and you approach the "limit" from the less restrictive side. If the restricted area is sfc-2500 you CAN fly at 2500ft which is your limit. Buffers are allowed for too, so no need to brown your undies if you descend to 2480ft over the restricted airspace.
That's also exactly why one must stay not below 500' above the lower limit of controlled airspace when cleared a visual approach.

[mcgrath50]

Gen Y, are we?

Sure am, and despite the stereotype I have had the patience to sit down, study and understand my AIP.

My point was yes, in casual English a limit is assumed inclusive. In aviation we all have our own technical definitions for words. The technical definition of an upper limit is:
When ATS airspaces adjoin vertically (one above the other), flights at the common level must comply with the requirements of, and will be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class C airspace is considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class D airspace is considered less restrictive than Class C airspace, etc.


As already stated, so therefore you can fly at 2,500ft legally.

[zanzibar]

In aviation we all have our own technical definitions for words.

Careful there, not appropriate to have your own definitions when there are correct ones ..................

From the Concise Oxford:-

limit n. & v.
-n.
1. a point, line, or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
2. the boundary of an area.
3. the greatest or smallest amount permissible or possible (upper limit; lower limit) (my bolding)

So, in this context if it does not or may not extend or pass beyond a point, line or level, it stands to reason that it is at that point, line or level at its greatest. It then follows that it is inclusive and, in this debate, results in an upper limit consequently being part of the restricted airspace.


Since when did Aviation regulations have to comply with usual english grammar

I'd suggest, forever.

[Super Cecil]

This is what prune does best, pedantic's...............:8

[glekichi]

Pedantic's that don't know the rules. Aviation seems to be full of them, especially here in oz.

[VH-XXX]

If you don't like it glekichi, then go back to NZ and free up a job for an Aussie.

[glekichi]

So, xxx, do you like having people who don't know the rules here running around getting all pedantic at people with their misinterpretations? Are you one of them, perhaps?

Come to think of it, xxx, I can think of a number of occasions where you have asked questions that show a real lack of knowledge (good on you for asking though), whilst at the same time in another threads made assumptions about other people's operations and criticized the hell out of them, when in fact, you have absolutely no idea about the details.

P.s - I was born here, grew up here, and work here now, so I think I have a right to want things to be better here. If things continue to slide though, I might just move to NZ.

[VH-XXX]

I deleted what I wrote, not going to lower myself to your level.

[ringbinder]

This is what prune does best, pedantic's...............

You'd mean pedantics, wouldn't you? LOL. :D

Seriously, though, you have an incident etc that gets investigated by CASA, then it will be pedantics over and over and not a bush lawyer's definition that decides the outcome.

[glekichi]

Jetstar1 has already posted the reference that should be enough to conclude this debate.

I was noting how there were some people being pedantic, who seem blissfully unaware of that rule that Jetstar1 quoted, and that there seem to be too many of these people in Australia. Personally, I blame the near complete lack of proper theory training in Australian schools, but that is just opinion and I know you aren't interested.

Do you disagree, though? Do you think there aren't enough people misinterpreting the rules pedantically pushing that misinterpretation?

Now for the other stuff. I am not going to start a thread, but do you seriously think you don't have a habit of jumping on threads and criticizing people?
What did you just do to me today?

The thread a while back in which you criticized a flight of mine has been deleted, so I cannot link to it. Lets just say CASA did a thorough investigation thanks to "public concerns" (possibly yours), but did not find that we had done anything wrong.

I do not think I "know so much".
That is why I don't go around criticizing others on a regular basis!

[VH-XXX]

Lets just say CASA did a thorough investigation thanks to "public concerns" (possibly yours), but did not find that we had done anything wrong.


So I called CASA about some flight you stuffed up apparently? Which flight was this and what you did you or didn't you do wrong? PM me if you want.

[down3gr33ns]

"Pedantic's that don't know the rules."

It seems, glekichi, that you didn't read that post of Zanzibar's thoroughly as in it his comments are qualified - i.e. he wrote "in this context" which would seem to distance his comments from being those of the rules to those regarding correct grammar and proper definitions as against "our own technical definitions".

You have an opinion which you are entitled to air but you seem to have difficulty extending that right to others.

[notaplanegeek]

Question:
Let assume your VFR and which the plan with an Altitude as low as possible direct through Restrictive Airspace (which is active between SFC-2500). The above airspace is G airspace (i.e. clearance not req).

Can I fly through this restricted airspace at 2500ft?
What about 2499ft?
What about 2501ft?

Sounds like an ASL question :p

[glekichi]

Down3greens,

I have read zanzibar's and your posts over and over, and both still read as to say that at the level that is the upper limit of the airspace IS restricted.

If that is not what you were saying then I apologise.

It does not, however, change the fact there are too many people who don't know the rules in this industry. I find most of the time the ones who don't know the rules are the ones telling you you CANT do something.

I try to only criticize someone after they have criticized another. I read your Gen Y crack as offensive (and I'm not Gen Y) and the tone of zanzibar's post similar.

XXX,

No I don't suspect you called CASA; you were amongst the critics in a thread about a subject that CASA later got involved in. Acutally, looking back if you had refrained from racist remarks you were actually being reasonably fair, just asking a lot of questions because you had a moral objection to the flight.

The issue though, is that you made offensive remarks and continually do so.

[Woodwork]

The answers provided so far - flying at 2500 puts you over, and not in, a piece of PRD airspace that is active SFC-2500 - are correct, but the supporting AIP reference isn't all you need.

By default, Restricted airspace is considered Class C below FL285 and Class A above that, "unless specified otherwise". In practice, unless it is associated with a military ATS unit, no control service is provided within most active restricted areas.

The answer you need is in MATS:
Delineate adjacent airspace as follows:
a. When one of the airspaces is controlled airspace, add the buffer to the navigation tolerances of air routes and contain within CTA.
b. When one of the airspaces is uncontrolled airspace, contain the buffer in the restricted area.

Aircraft operating at the vertical limits of prohibited areas and Restricted Areas/Airspaces are separated from activities within those airspaces.

There's also 2-30-590, which after a lengthy spiel about calculating buffer heights, concludes:
The promulgated vertical limits of Prohibited and Restricted Areas and Restricted Airspaces shown in AIP, FLIP and NOTAM contain these buffers.

Note that this is different to Danger Areas, where flying "on the limit" puts you in the Danger zone:
The vertical limits of Danger Areas are the upper and lower limits of the activities within the airspace.

A similar distinction applies to the lateral limits of PRD areas:
The lateral limits of:
a. Prohibited and Restricted Areas/Airspaces encompass the activities of the administering authority.
b. Danger Areas are the extent to which activities may take place within the area.

[zanzibar]

I read your Gen Y crack as offensive (and I'm not Gen Y) and the tone of zanzibar's post similar.


My, my - we are a sensitive little princess, aren't we?

You have an opinion which you are entitled to air but you seem to have difficulty extending that right to others.

Yes, Gr33ns, seems to be the case.

[glekichi]

So Zanzibar, is 2500ft in this case restricted or not?

Incorrect, pedantic, and now with childish name calling.

[zanzibar]

- i.e. he wrote "in this context" which would seem to distance his comments from being those of the rules to being those regarding correct grammar and proper definitions as against "our own technical definitions".


It seems some can understand what I was saying .......................

[glekichi]

So, in this context if it does not or may not extend or pass beyond a point, line or level, it stands to reason that it is at that point, line or level at its greatest. It then follows that it is inclusive and, in this debate, results in an upper limit consequently being part of the restricted airspace.

This your way of saying that your stance in this debate is that the restricted airspace does not apply at 2500'?

[mcgrath50]

Seeing as i started this grammar fight, I was simply making a joke about how seemingly cryptic some of the regs are and that they don't follow (what to me would be) obvious plain English. Lighten up, move on, it wasn't the main thrust of the argument. Although, thanks to those of you defending my Gen Y grammar!



Is MATS the ATC version of the AIP (give or take)? Can we find it online?

If pilots aren't required to know the MATS, then how are we meant to know these things woodwork has used to back up his point. Or is the line in the AIP previously quoted good enough to use as the reference in an exam etc.?

[witwiw]

Debates usually require two opposing views, a bit boring otherwise.


No, g, I think z is saying the opposite to what you state/ask in your last post:

.... follows that it is inclusive ......... results in an upper limit consequently being part of the restricted airspace


I'm with you Mc50, let's move on and get a definitive answer to this poser.

[Kharon]

Really children. The aviation world is coming apart faster than you can imagine.

Still, even now, you all persist with trying to unbutton the unique Australian regulations.

What about applying the same amount of energy toward the sinister proposed part 91. Jesus wept !!. Look about you lads; look about.

"Do you question me, as an honest man should do, for
my simple true judgment; or would you have me speak
after my custom, as being a professed tyrant to their sex?".


Courtesy of the Man. W.S. Even 600 years (bloody years) ago, they had more sense. :ugh:




Selah.

[witwiw]

well, that ended that debate effectively, didn't it?

[No Further Requirements]

I teach this very thing just about every day. The promulgated upper limit is available for use. It contains all buffers for the activity, be it aviation or non-aviation. In this example, you are able to transit above the area at the upper limit of 2500ft. Although MATS is the defining document for ATCs, the quoted AIP reference also indicates the same answer. This reference is AIP ENR 1.4-10 Para 5.4.2.

Cheers,

NFR.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr woodwork,

Not many of us 'mere mortals' would have access to MATS (Well, not NOW anyway...):cool:

Dem is your instructions for YOUR workplace.

For the payluts in dis industry, we all rely on dem dere AIP stuff an' all....

Anyway the argument is now 'academic', as NFR and others have so simply stated.;)

Cheers:ok:

[mcgrath50]

Gen Y, are we?

Shocking that someone from Gen Y provided the right answer some 20 posts ago using his knowledge of that AIP thing that only the older sky gods seem to bother with these days... :ok: