Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:20 PM Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:20 PM Am I imagining things, or has the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B at KPHX changed in the vicinity of KSDL (just north of KSDL, to be precise)? The eastern segment has a funny radial that no longer seems to point to PXR, and the chart doesn't say what navaid it's based on (although it appears to point to KSDL, but that's not a navaid). Anyone know what it's aligned with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Littlejohn Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:35 PM Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:35 PM Am I imagining things, or has the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B at KPHX changed in the vicinity of KSDL (just north of KSDL, to be precise)? The eastern segment has a funny radial that no longer seems to point to PXR, and the chart doesn't say what navaid it's based on (although it appears to point to KSDL, but that's not a navaid). Anyone know what it's aligned with? Hmm.. Are you talking about the line running northeast of SDL that extends through the PXR 20nm arc and converges with the PXR R-019 (V95)? Or are you meaning the point from the PXR R-342 through V562 and east to Pinnacle Peak? It all looks pretty much normal from the last TAC that I remember seeing from the area. That area is pretty much Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B from 6000 to 9000, except for just east of Pinnacle Peak through V562 to the PXR R-342. Nate? Scott? Anything you've seen that looks different than before? BL. Brad Littlejohn ZLA Senior Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ogrodowski 876322 Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:47 PM Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:47 PM Could you take a screen shot of where you see the mystery radial? I looked over the chart (on Myairplane.com) just now and didn't see any unusual radials. All the ones I saw were directed to/from PXR. The only thing I actually see that literally points at SDL is the 359* that comes straight off PXR with an arrow...I looked in all directions from SDL and couldn't find it...maybe I'm not looking far enough? Steve Ogrodowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Morris 920567 Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:48 PM Posted January 30, 2008 at 08:48 PM Against the wishes of AOPA and many VFR pilots, a newly reshaped Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo went into effect at PHX recently. The new lines, in many cases, do not allow for any really easy methods of establishing the boundaries of the airspace. One must use a GPS, or some particular freeway interchanges/other visual queues to find the corners and lines of the airspace. An airspace shape proposed by AOPA that still allowed for easily figuring out where you were on the chart through use of the PXR radial was rejected by the FAA. The result is a hard to figure out shape, some boundaries of which are not related at all to a VOR or landmark, and much lower shelf floors in what were formerly heavily used uncontrolled VFR GA corridors. There is an article about it here: http://www.copperstate.org/New%20Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]%20B.pdf EDIT: Steve, I think MyAirplane's sectional is out of date actually. That looks like the old Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo. SkyVector.com has the new one up. http://www.execjetva.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted January 30, 2008 at 09:06 PM Author Posted January 30, 2008 at 09:06 PM Looks like myairplane.com has the old one, and skyvector has the new one, making it easy to compare. Reading the FAA series of "The FAA does not agree," I guess general aviation is effectively being told to take a hike, or at least to stay away from KPHX. Or GA aircraft can spend $30,000 on a moving-map GPS. In any case, the database in my GPS is now good for the dumpster as far as KPHX is concerned. I'll have to constantly peer at a map to fly through that airspace. I agree with the pilots' [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociation that this appears to be designed in a way that presumes that everyone is flying with a fancy GPS now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ogrodowski 876322 Posted January 30, 2008 at 10:01 PM Posted January 30, 2008 at 10:01 PM Looks like myairplane.com has the old one, and skyvector has the new one, making it easy to compare. Hehe that would be a substantial difference lol Yeah, it looks like it's (unfortunately) not on a radial but just the border line itself. I see what you're saying now, though. thanks. Steve Ogrodowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Mulhollan 929446 Posted January 31, 2008 at 03:12 AM Posted January 31, 2008 at 03:12 AM Yes the new PHX cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B went into effect October 26th, 2007. As far as navigation is concerned, it is impossible to navigate the new Bravo without a GPS. The FAA has a taken a approach that is highly unfriendly to GA, in an effort to please the airlines with whatever they wish. The FAA seems to forget that airlines are not the only users of the system, but Cessna's are also. At this rate, GA will be all but extinct in this country by the way the FAA is being run. Scott Mulhollan - ZAB Instructor ZAB Training Administrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Finney 997250 Posted January 31, 2008 at 04:00 AM Posted January 31, 2008 at 04:00 AM Interesting how the FAA takes such a hard line with GA folks, but wags its tail and rolls over for cities/developers who want to build new skys[Mod - lovely stuff]ers along a runway centerline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted January 31, 2008 at 04:27 AM Author Posted January 31, 2008 at 04:27 AM Money talks, and GA pilots aren't numerous enough to be able to invest the kind of money required to get the FAA to do what they want. Airlines and their allied interests, as well as commercial developers, have money to burn, despite their whining, and so they get what they want. What happens if GPS fails? It's easy to jam, and easy to spoof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted January 31, 2008 at 04:44 AM Author Posted January 31, 2008 at 04:44 AM Looking further at the chart, I'm even more confused: What happened to LUF? Isn't there a VORTAC by that name at Luke Air Force Base?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Mulhollan 929446 Posted January 31, 2008 at 05:01 AM Posted January 31, 2008 at 05:01 AM Looking further at the chart, I'm even more confused: What happened to LUF? Isn't there a VORTAC by that name at Luke Air Force Base?? VORTAC? At Luke? No I don't think so. And if GPS fails (for whatever reason), basically the whole aviation system (not just GA) will be kind of in a bad place. Scott Mulhollan - ZAB Instructor ZAB Training Administrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted January 31, 2008 at 12:27 PM Author Posted January 31, 2008 at 12:27 PM VORTAC? At Luke? No I don't think so. And if GPS fails (for whatever reason), basically the whole aviation system (not just GA) will be kind of in a bad place. SkyVector seems to know about the navaid. So do the GARMIN GPS units in my aircraft. And yet AirNav doesn't show a frequency for it now, only for the DME. It looks like something has changed. GPS is unlikely to fail per se, but it's very vulnerable to jamming and spoofing. The more dependent aviation becomes on GPS-only solutions, the more vulnerable it becomes to this type of manipulation by the bad guys. And it looks like Phoenix has decided to wear the red badge of courage by designing airspace that is virtually impossible to use without a fully-functioning GPS system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Johns Posted January 31, 2008 at 02:23 PM Posted January 31, 2008 at 02:23 PM SkyVector seems to know about the navaid. So do the GARMIN GPS units in my aircraft. And yet AirNav doesn't show a frequency for it now, only for the DME. It looks like something has changed. LUF has a TACAN. The DME equipment on a TACAN is operationally equivalent in the cockpit to a VOR-DME, such that if you tune the DME frequency (113.0 for LUF), your DME in the aircraft will show DME, but there will be no azimuth indication for your VOR or HSI equipment. LUF has never had a VORTAC to my knowledge. ~Nate Nate Johns "All things are difficult before they are easy." - Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Littlejohn Posted January 31, 2008 at 07:34 PM Posted January 31, 2008 at 07:34 PM SkyVector seems to know about the navaid. So do the GARMIN GPS units in my aircraft. And yet AirNav doesn't show a frequency for it now, only for the DME. It looks like something has changed. LUF has a TACAN. The DME equipment on a TACAN is operationally equivalent in the cockpit to a VOR-DME, such that if you tune the DME frequency (113.0 for LUF), your DME in the aircraft will show DME, but there will be no azimuth indication for your VOR or HSI equipment. LUF has never had a VORTAC to my knowledge. ~Nate Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it appears that just about every active AFB has a TACAN. This appears to hold true for LSV, BAB, OFF, TIK, SPS, and WRI (Those are the AFBs I've visited/worked at). BL. Brad Littlejohn ZLA Senior Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Johns Posted January 31, 2008 at 07:37 PM Posted January 31, 2008 at 07:37 PM Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it appears that just about every active AFB has a TACAN. This appears to hold true for LSV, BAB, OFF, TIK, SPS, and WRI (Those are the AFBs I've visited/worked at). BL. I can't think what AFB wouldn't have a TACAN or VORTAC either on or nearby the airbase. Certainly Holloman (HMN) and Cannon (CVS) have TACANs along with Luke (LUF) out here ZAB's way. ~Nate Nate Johns "All things are difficult before they are easy." - Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curley Bryant Posted February 5, 2008 at 02:36 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 02:36 PM I don't think you need a fancy GPS to navigate. Just use the ground and chart to reference. Curley Bryant VATSIM Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Klain 874106 Posted February 5, 2008 at 03:31 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 03:31 PM Actually Curley, that was one of AOPAs biggest arguements against the new airspace alignment. Numerous proposals were made that would tie the various Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B sectors to ground points making it easy for VFR pilots without GPS to identify where they were relative to the airspace. The FAA ignored that input and created a design in which several key areas are NOT identifiable relative to ground points or a VOR radial. There is no question this is the first-ever Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B or C airspace in the United States which has points which can only be easily defined by GPS or other RNAV capability. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted February 5, 2008 at 05:15 PM Author Posted February 5, 2008 at 05:15 PM Actually Curley, that was one of AOPAs biggest arguements against the new airspace alignment. Numerous proposals were made that would tie the various Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B sectors to ground points making it easy for VFR pilots without GPS to identify where they were relative to the airspace. The FAA ignored that input and created a design in which several key areas are NOT identifiable relative to ground points or a VOR radial. There is no question this is the first-ever Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B or C airspace in the United States which has points which can only be easily defined by GPS or other RNAV capability. Which essentially means that a VFR pilot not equipped with RNAV-compatible GPS is implicitly unwelcome in this airspace unless he gets a clearance into the Bravo, because he can't be sure that he isn't busting the airspace without that GPS. And since equipping his aircraft might be a very expensive proposition, it effectively creates a lower cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] of VFR pilots who are being shut out of the area. It looks like the start of a disturbing trend. That was what the AOPA et al. were worried about, but I also worry about something else: GPS failure. If the system is jammed or spoofed, all airspace boundaries defined only by GPS waypoints become fuzzy or disappear (not to mention RNAV-only airways, etc., although that was already an existing problem). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Stilling Posted February 5, 2008 at 06:42 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 06:42 PM I do not believe that spoofing or jamming any GPS signal is really going to cause the problem, the real problem will be the GA pilot that busts the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B and is nailed to the cross because he tried eveything in his power to do it right but failed because it is designed to fail, no matter how hard you look at the chart. I agree with a statement I saw here that said "money talks", and right now the airlines have money and are blaming their problems on GA. It seems that the FAA forgot its roots, and those roots are in GA. Ask almost every airline pilot and I am sure you will find that they fly GA also. It seems that the FAA does not care if GA dies, and that is a big shame, because they do not see the big picture. Look at the reason why the FAA wants to add a user fee for using FSS, and towered airporst. If they get that p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed, along with the 50 cents per gallon increase in avgas that will finish me off for flying. Well anyway that my 2 cents worth, unless the FAA tries to grab that too. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Littlejohn Posted February 5, 2008 at 07:17 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 07:17 PM On top of what Terry mentioned, and the justifications David (or was it Kyle) mentioned with his dealings with GPS and how hard it would be to spoof or jam it, I don't think that will be an issue. RNAV Airways? a VFR pilot won't be worrying about RNAV airways as those are used by those travelling long distances, where a VFR pilot won't even be concerning themselves with. But even if your GPS fails, apply simple logic. You are already in or approaching Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace. You're still going to call for clearance through it, and are going to tell ATC that your GPS failed. What is going to be more important: fixing your GPS so you can use it through your Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B transition midair and hope that it works, or get down on the ground so you can figure out your problem? Secondly, you're going to have your charts with you, as every pilot should. If you're in the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, use a transition route so you can safely get in and out of it, let alone one to get down to SDL or Deer Valley or Eagle so you can figure out what your GPS problem is. ATC is going to help you with getting in and out, especially if they cleared you IN to the airspace. So simple common sense should prevail here. Just like with any other situation involving GPS DIRECT. GPS is great, but your eyes and your charts will save your life. BL. Brad Littlejohn ZLA Senior Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:01 PM Author Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:01 PM GPS is great, but your eyes and your charts will save your life. The problem in this case is that, perhaps for the first time, the charts won't save you. If you don't have a working GPS with a valid database aboard, you won't be able to work out the exact boundaries of the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, period. And the FAA thinks that's just fine, since it helps discourage sniveling private pilots from encroaching on the exclusive turf of those airlines with all the money. Increasingly, the attitude is that, if you don't fly for a living for a corporate employer, you have no business flying at all. Of course, this isn't necessarily how airline pilots feel, for reasons already given, but the airlines and the FAA are not run by pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Littlejohn Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:18 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:18 PM GPS is great, but your eyes and your charts will save your life. The problem in this case is that, perhaps for the first time, the charts won't save you. If you don't have a working GPS with a valid database aboard, you won't be able to work out the exact boundaries of the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, period. Uhh... I don't believe that is true, as your very first post in this thread clearly shows, and shows why you need to keep the most updated charts with you. You had asked here if the PHX Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B had changed, because it looked different to you than what you had last seen on the TAC/Sectional. Do you honestly need a GPS to show you what your eyes are already seeing? Yes, the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B boundaries have changed, but you have them there in front of you with the new TAC. Why wonder about whether you need GPS for something you're going to be flying visually anyway? I just don't see where you're coming from. A chart was updated. You get the new chart. You compare the new chart to the old one. Find out where they are different, and adjust yourself accordingly. For example. If the old chart had the Bravo airspace ending 20DME from PXR on V16 between 8000ft and 9000ft, but now has it going out to 30DME, abeam Sacaton Peak, you know you should be calling ATC for clearance into the Bravo by the time you are abeam Sacaton Peak, if not before it. The chart tells you what you need to know. complaining about why the change was made doesn't alleviate you from knowing what those changes are, and how to comply with them. You noticed the chart. you read the chart. Where does Chart = working GPS? BL. Brad Littlejohn ZLA Senior Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Morris 920567 Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:34 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:34 PM I think the main problem here Brad, and perhaps it's not being stated very well, is that the new lines are often not based on a VOR *or* a visual reference at all. This makes it incredibly difficult for a non-plotting GPS (or no GPS) user to establish the boundaries of certain areas of the Bravo, which likely will result in more airspace busts, aircraft interceptions, and fines/tickets being pulled. http://www.execjetva.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Littlejohn Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:39 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:39 PM I think the main problem here Brad, and perhaps it's not being stated very well, is that the new lines are often not based on a VOR *or* a visual reference at all. This makes it incredibly difficult for a non-plotting GPS (or no GPS) user to establish the boundaries of certain areas of the Bravo, which likely will result in more airspace busts, aircraft interceptions, and fines/tickets being pulled. Hmm.. If this is the case, then I can see where the problem is. Now I know my next question is a case of pilot choice, but it still should be asked. Wouldn't flight following help in this case? If you're coming from outside the Bravo and have requested flight following, ATC will know where their boundaries end, and let you know who you should contact for clearance into the B. Yes, this may put the onus back on ATC, and give more work for pilots to do, but what's the the bigger risk: asking for the flight following, or busting Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B and getting fined/tickets pulled? BL. Brad Littlejohn ZLA Senior Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Smith Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:47 PM Posted February 5, 2008 at 08:47 PM Some ppl (not all) are awfully quick to say "well, since there's no fix or navaid reference for this line, I'm screwed without GPS". I reviewed the PHX TAC chart on skyvector and tried to picture how I'd identify the boundaries of each of the shelves. Some take more work than others, but unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem THAT bad. Every boundary I saw was either readily identified by an actual landmark, a DME arc, or was CLOSE ENOUGH to landmarks to be able to safely circomevent the airspace. In some places, I'd give it a wider berth than others, but it doesn't seem too painful to me. One caveat: I only spent 5-10 mins doing this, so I may have missed a shelf or two. Can someone describe a realistic route that would be too difficult to fly if you were aiming to remain clear of the bravo without GPS? (if that was the goal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts