Just because its legal, doesn't make it safe
 

I posted this on other aviation forums, but felt sharing here was appropiate, even if this forum caters more to the European/International side of aviation.

I have no experience flying in NY, but my aircraft is based in the LA basin and I regularly fly in the very heavy traffic here, with multiple shelves of B airspace both above me and beside me. I also used to fly in London where there's an equally complex airspace, but even more restrictive. I understand both sides of the coin, and when I transfer the B from my home airport to go to HHR to my mechanic right next to LAX, I make sure I'm 500ft below the 2000ft floor of the B for the LAX approaches. A slight brain fart about a year ago put me at 2200ft (I wasn't thinking right) and I busted the B. I immediately dived out of it, fessed up to SoCal App and told them of my mistake. They let me off with a verbal warning which I'm grateful for. Stupid mistake on my part, but it can happen.

But ultimately, the airspace is designed with a certain amount of padding by committees comprising of professionals with years of experience. The 2000ft shelf goes to the ground closer to LAX, and all the approaches are well above that. Why design an airspace system that way if it can't safely accommodate traffic that might make small errors?

The danger is when there becomes this divide between "professional traffic" and GA, like it is in London. London has class A to the ground, so as to exclude all VFR traffic so they don't have to deal with it. This may sound like a great idea and enhance safety, but what it has led to is this huge divide between professional traffic and GA - as well as an impossibility to transit the greater London area for anything but IFR traffic. They frequently say they couldn't possibly accomodate GA traffic as they have so much traffic to deal with but when I quietly point to JFK, O'Hare and LAX, who shuffle a lot more traffic than London ever does and can include VFR transitions into their system, they go silent. They have no answer to that one. It's all a bit overstating their importance, if you ask me.

The main reason, I suspect, is why many pilots don't call up for B transition is because it's been denied in the past. About 50% of the time I get denied B penetration, and it's not even a transition at an awkward altitude or close to the approach. Just a week ago I was departing Seattle Boeing Field and he wouldn't let me climb from the floor of 2000ft up to the next 3500ft at the outskirts of B to the west. It was at night and I had telecom masts, bridges and whatnot scraping my belly. I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna stay 500ft below his floor just to give him breathing room at night with unseen dangers below me.

As you know, GA isn't just clueless sunday pleasure drivers, it's everything, including the next airline pilots, medevac, police, fire etc. It's become an us vs them scenario in London and in many parts of Europe, and this is the main reason there is almost no GA left there. The controllers, the legislators, the CAA all listen to the big boys and do everything possible to eradicate the smaller operators or users. Every year the airspace gets more restrictive for anybody but the ones "they" want. Unless you drive an A340 on an IFR flight plan and have 4 stripes and earn $30K/month, you're just not considered worthy. This is a huge problem and one of the great things about America and the airspace here is that it's not exclusive in that way. All aircraft are considered equals and can get access to all airspace (except A).

Make it remain so.

I hope I didn't sound too one sided. I agree that pilots flying close to a B environment should have a good margin and show good judgement. But also there should be a better way of incorporating that traffic into the airspace so they don't fear calling you up and informing you of their intentions. And if the B regularly puts arriving traffic at risk, then it needs to be re-designed.

How can we best achieve all goals?

I fully understand the concern from an ATC point of view, however, it's illegal not to fly at MSA when you're IFR outside the controlled airspace, even if flying under someone's "stub" or TMA.

There are a number of major airports in UK where flying 100 feet below controlled airspace (including almost the entire London TMA, i.e. Class A airspace) is the only practical & legal thing to do when the weather goes below VFR limits, due to the relationship between MSA and the airspace above.

This seems to have been "designed in" by the ATCer's themselves!

Not sure if you're interested or not, but the control zone at Heathrow is likely to change from Class A airspace in the not-too-distant future. There are, of course, already much less restrictive control zones for VFR flights at the other London airports...

I couldn't agree more. If only the legislators and regulators would understand this, the future would be brighter for all...

Bet check that again mate it isn't illegal you just need to be sight of ground.

Thanks, although you are possibly missing the point of my comment. Are you also forgetting the requirement for 1500 metres visibility for VFR?

The only reason I fly IFR under the London TMA (or any other) is when I'm obliged to because VFR isn't possible due weather i.e. there's no other option to get from A to B due to low cloud. The airspace is from 2,500 feet up and the MSA is 2400 feet for much of the region we operate over. If the cloud is low you have no other way of operating legally.

I do operate iaw with the 1,000 feet above the tallest obstacle within 5nm of track, rather than taking the sector altitude, which in some areas gives a bit of leeway and if it's there I take advantage of the extra altitude buffer, unless other traffic is an issue.

Obviously, the 1,000 foot (low flying) rule must also be taken into account. Either way, sometimes it's necessary to tuck right up under the airspace. The London controllers are quite used to this because that is the way the airspace was designed.

your getting your rules muddled up.

If you are IFR and below 3000ft and below MSA you only need 800m in flight visibility and visual with the surface.

Just because you are below the MSA doesn't mean you automatically change to VFR.

MJ, I think after getting on for almost four decade in the business and being required to change form VFR to IFR and back again in Class G, often a number of times on one flight, I know the rules well enough. I think we're talking at crossed purposes, or you don't understand them.

An in-flight visibility of 1500 metres is required for VFR (rules for RW changed about six years or so). If I cannot maintain that required visibility due to a lowering cloud base, I could perhaps descend in an attempt to find better vis, but this will possibly result in busting Rule 5, depending on ground elevation. Or, I turn back, or change to IFR. In which case the 1,000 foot above rule comes into play. You can't just declare IFR and operate in 800 metres visibility instead of the 1500 metres for VFR if you don't comply with the latter.

Yes you can in class G

From the ANO.

To be honest I thought that they wrote it that way just for helicopters. I can't see many fixed wing pilots having the balls to do it. And also it gives us hassels in relation to approach bans which can be got round using a none instrument runway. And EU-OPS makes it unusable for commercial flights.

ShyTorque, methinks some humble pie is in order. From something called The ANO: ;)

Now, I would agree that there is a difference between the law and common sense. Personally, I wouldn't be doing the 800m bit at 140kts with various pointy things sticking-up out of the ground.

MJ and CGB, I know exactly what you are both saying BUT the point you perhaps both miss is the "clear of cloud" part. Pilots must comply with both requirements. This is a separate issue from the 800 metres visibility limit for the IFR "easement/alternative" below 3,000 feet, or from the 1500 metres required for VFR.

The relevant limit of visibility can prevail without the presence of any cloud. In this case there would be no advantage in climbing to the base of airspace, it's just poor visibility, possibly so all the way to the ground.

However, if operating in these low vis conditions, in some areas it may still be necessary to climb close to the base of airspace above in order to comply with the low flying rules (i.e. over congested areas on high ground).

There was originally no limit of visibility specified for RW, the requirement for an in flight visibility of 1500 metres for VFR came in only a few years ago.

No I am quite happy with the clear of cloud bit.

Although once the viz is down to 800m quite how you know if your in a cloud or not is up for debate.

That was the statement I was replying to.

And for VFR you also have to be outside cloud. So if your viz does drop below 1500m there is nothing stopping (apart from not being suicidal and common sense) you declaring IFR and continuing until it goes below 800m.

Yes, agreed so we're all on the same hymn sheet but in fact I meant without complying with the rest of the requirement, i.e. Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface!

Which is why I wrote it with the caveat at the end of that sentence you quoted.

Well at 1499m your not complying with VFR.

Mind you in this great day of rules of the air not really having anything to do with ATC service nobody has a clue what you are doing be it VFR, IFR or VFR so you don't have to pay route charges but actually flying IFR.

Ah, you mean the "free air tax". They did finally invent a way of charging for its use, we said they probably would.

However, the OP's question was actually about the altitude that pilots sometimes choose to fly under controlled airspace and why. I had hoped to explain in simple terms why sometimes pilots fly close to the base of it, rather than get drawn into an argument about who knows the UK VFR/IFR rules best.

That's all. I'll leave it there, now thanks. :cool:

Used to fly in SoCal and enjoyed the freedom of flying in America. In Europe the mentality seem to be; we keep it safe by keeping 'em all on the ground. America quite the opposite, and I do agree that keeping the airspace so open and free comes with risks. Where do you draw the line?

As much as I agree with common sense - if all these incidents occurred 'legally' isn't the airspace constructed with too small margins? How about all the VFR Citations, King Airs etc. transiting above the Bravo VFR between 10k and 18k?