Flying at the Upper Vertical Limit of Restricted Airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying at the Upper Vertical Limit of Restricted Airspace
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:
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
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
Thoughts and applicable references? Cheers
Last edited by JustPlaneMad; 11th Apr 2011 at 03:46. Reason: Typos
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.
At 8,500 ft with class E airspace being listed at 8,500 ft you are NOT in it.
Dr
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't remember where the reference 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.
Would this be the same for a restricted area?
j
1
Can I fly through this restricted airspace at 2500ft?
What about 2499ft?
What about 2499ft?
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: world capital of the world
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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...)
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.
Gen Y, are we?
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
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.
That's also exactly why one must stay not below 500' above the lower limit of controlled airspace when cleared a visual approach.
Gen Y, are we?
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In aviation we all have our own technical definitions for words.
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.2. the boundary of an area.
3. the greatest or smallest amount permissible or possible (upper limit; lower limit) (my bolding)
Since when did Aviation regulations have to comply with usual english grammar
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.
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.