KPHX Class B change?

[Ross Carlson]

Personally speaking, I don't care if the bravo boundaries are defined by non-GPS navaids or not. I can see the boundary on the chart, and the chart has numerous visual references plotted on it, so as a VFR pilot, I can determine a proper course to fly in order to stay out of the bravo. If my intended course is going to come close to the lateral boundaries of the bravo, you can be sure I'll be flying above or below the vertical boundaries of that shelf, so there's no ambiguity. I would argue that if your intended course takes you so close to the bravo that you need to be watching your DME gauge like a hawk, you should probably find a better course to take, OR request bravo entry clearance. In the latter case, using only a sectional, you can certainly determine a suitable point at which to request bravo clearance, regardless of whether the bravo boundaries are defined by VOR radials and DME or by GPS fixes alone. Just look at the myriad visual references on the chart.

 

All that being said, I can understand why certain people might be against having bravo boundaries defined only by GPS, because it creates the possibility of a pilot not being able to tell by looking at his panel whether or not he's in the bravo. But to my mind, a VFR pilot should never allow himself to be so close to a bravo that he must use his instruments to remain just outside the airspace. Either steer clear, stay above or below, or request bravo entry.

[Nate Johns]

To expand on your touching on not being able to see the airspace on your GPS...

 

Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace is basically designed to segregate VFR from IFR traffic. VFR, with emphasis on the V, is a visual mode of flight that, plain and simple, shouldn't require extensive or fancy equipment to navigate around with. Since VFRs need to stay out, they should be able to "see" the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B when looking out the window to the maximum extent possible, albeit only in a lateral sense.

 

Yah, I know GPS has come down in price. Ya, I know someone who owns a Piper Cub probably has enough money to afford a VFR GPS. But still, it's a travesty that this FAA has decided to poo all over the experience of hundreds of thousands of pilots (via AOPA's input), along with those of a more local flavor (Arizona Pilot's [Mod - Happy Thoughts]n.), and unilaterally implemented airspace, disregarding virtually all input from the GA end, of whom the airspace change really affects more than your typical airline pilot.

 

Sounds an awful lot like how the FAA treated its controllers in contract negotiations... strange.

 

~Nate

[Owen Catherwood 903683]

What I find funny is how the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B now pokes out of the Mode C veil. How are they going to tell if a VFR with no transponder 30 miles out busts the Bravo when radar doesn't see him?

[Edward McCoy 904185]

What I find funny is how the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B now pokes out of the Mode C veil. How are they going to tell if a VFR with no transponder 30 miles out busts the Bravo when radar doesn't see him?

 

I noticed the same as well. It pops out farther just where the arrival corridors are. Which I can understand especially with the use of the RNAVs and fast drop of the arrivals off the BUNTR/EAGUL.

[Nate Johns]

What I find funny is how the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B now pokes out of the Mode C veil. How are they going to tell if a VFR with no transponder 30 miles out busts the Bravo when radar doesn't see him?

 

Well, there are a lot of instances where Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace "busts" outside the 30 NM Mode C Veil.

 

Many Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B's are, at least at points, 30 NM in diameter from the reference point. Unless the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B and the 30 NM Veil reference points are identical, then you will often see small sections of the B outside that veil.

 

ATC's job isn't to bust pilots. It is to provide separation and safety alerts. ATC will turn a pilot in if they 1.) Directly interfere with their traffic and are not in ATC contact or 2.) They significantly bust airspace (dependant on the mood of the controller at the time).

 

If there's a primary only floating at the edge of the 30 NM Veil, and tempting fate, ATC will call the primary traffic to any aircraft that approach him/her, and give vectors around if requested by the pilot. It's the pilot's responsibility to avoid the airspace, of course. However, if that traffic is somehow interfering with traffic and is suspected (say by a pilot report or a TCAS resolution) to be within the bravo, ATC can track that plane up unlike VATSIM software, and even though no altitude is shown, and possibly no beacon at all, they can see where that plane is flying in a general / directional sense. Notify the FSDO, and there may well be a FAA inspector waiting where they land for a ramp check

 

Obvsiouly it's not a common occurence, otherwise there would probably be changes made to either Mode C Veils, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B dimensions, or both.

 

~Nate

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

Do you honestly need a GPS to show you what your eyes are already seeing?

 

Yes, because the only thing on the chart now is a blue line, with no charted landmarks or references that allow you to accurately place that blue line in the real-world airspace. So you see a straight, slanty line that seems to be aimed at KSDL, but KSDL has no navaid that you can tune, and it's not clear where the other end of the line stops. How do you know if you're crossing the line?

 

In a GA-friendly airspace, you have a navaid and a radial or DME distance you can look at to know whether you're clear or not. If it's not on an arc or a radial, it's usually a very long straight line that you can relate to a landmark at some point.

 

Why wonder about whether you need GPS for something you're going to be flying visually anyway?

 

You can't see the blue lines in the sky visually. It's bad enough when you have to take your eyes away from the windows to peer at a tiny GPS screen; if you have to peer at a paper chart that doesn't actually show where you are in relation to chart features, it's ten times worse.

 

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.

 

That's just it: the second part no longer works. Previously "20 DME from PXR" worked, and you could use your instruments to see if you were inside or outside the Bravo. Now, there is no DME or abeam; it's no longer clear from the chart how you are supposed to know if you are inside or out, and if you don't have a moving-map GPS, you're in trouble.

 

The chart tells you what you need to know …

 

The chart doesn't tell you everything you need to know. In particular, it doesn't tell you where you are. And if there isn't enough information on the chart for you to determine where you are by pilotage or with the use of navaids, you don't know where you are in real life, and you can sail right into Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace without realizing it, no matter how diligent you are. The only solution is a GPS, which means that if you don't have a GPS, you're not welcome in the airspace. That's what the pilot [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociations are ranting about, and I agree.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

Personally speaking, I don't care if the bravo boundaries are defined by non-GPS navaids or not. I can see the boundary on the chart, and the chart has numerous visual references plotted on it, so as a VFR pilot, I can determine a proper course to fly in order to stay out of the bravo.

 

So, if you're at Hangar Haciendas, does the Bravo start at 3000 or 5000 above you? The line that divides the two is 1000 feet wide, and it isn't aligned with anything, and in fact it isn't even really straight. So how do you know, just from the chart?

 

Charts alone are too imprecise to be used to find airspace boundaries, unless they contain textual information that allows you to locate those boundaries independently (radials, landmarks, etc.). Trying to navigate airspace with only a chart is rather like trying to fly an ILS with only the plate.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Charts alone are too imprecise to be used to find airspace boundaries, unless they contain textual information that allows you to locate those boundaries independently (radials, landmarks, etc.). Trying to navigate airspace with only a chart is rather like trying to fly an ILS with only the plate.

 

You have had several real world pilots now tell you they can use the maps to move through the PHX Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B under VFR. You, a non real world pilot, say you can't. Whom shall this audience believe?

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

You have had several real world pilots now tell you they can use the maps to move through the PHX Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B under VFR. You, a non real world pilot, say you can't. Whom shall this audience believe?

 

People who think in terms of facts rather than personalities should have no trouble reaching a conclusion. And those who don't can still consider that the AOPA and APA agree with me, and they're both chock-full of experienced pilots.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

We all agree it is more difficult today than it was before the change. Where we depart is that I know I can still use a map to get through that airspace and you can't.

[Ross Carlson]

So, if you're at Hangar Haciendas, does the Bravo start at 3000 or 5000 above you? The line that divides the two is 1000 feet wide, and it isn't aligned with anything, and in fact it isn't even really straight. So how do you know, just from the chart?

 

You missed my point entirely. If there's any ambiguity, I will err on the side of caution. To use your Hangar Haciendas example, if I don't know if I'm under the 3000 shelf or the 5000 shelf, you can be sure I'll [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume I'm under the 3000 shelf and act accordingly.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

Interested parties ("real" pilots or not) can consult some of the arguments for and against in the Federal Register of February 12, 2007 (Number 28 of Volume 72), and similar arguments plus the FAA's final decision (including definitions of the airspace in text) in the Federal Register of August 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 152).

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

We all agree it is more difficult today than it was before the change. Where we depart is that I know I can still use a map to get through that airspace and you can't.

 

Where we depart is that I concentrate on the topic, whereas you concentrate on me. Please return to the topic, on which, by your own admission, we all apparently agree (although I'm not so sure that there is a total consensus).

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Once again you demonstrate your excellent abilities in searching for info on the internet and your dismal ability to apply that information to real world or FS situations.

 

You are the most dangerous kind of poster, Anthony. You lack any real world experience to base your opinions on and try to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] your views off as informed, when in fact, you're not. I suspect this forum isn't the first place this has been presented to you, is it?

 

In the words of Jimmy Buffett, "Don't try to describe the ocean if you've never seen it."

[Keith Smith]

So, if you're at Hangar Haciendas, does the Bravo start at 3000 or 5000 above you? The line that divides the two is 1000 feet wide, and it isn't aligned with anything, and in fact it isn't even really straight. So how do you know, just from the chart?

 

Charts alone are too imprecise to be used to find airspace boundaries, unless they contain textual information that allows you to locate those boundaries independently (radials, landmarks, etc.).

 

I'll regret this...I know I'll regret this even as I type this, but this question is TOO easy to answer without letting it slide. A _5 second_ glance at the chart tells me everything I need to know about the shelves around that little private airport...

 

NE-SE: 5k

SW-N: 3k

 

travel north of the road which is just north of the field, it's SFC.

 

As for the boundary itself, it's a straight line between the airport, and KPHX. You can also back it up (approximately) with a radial from PXR VOR.

 

If you need to know the location of the boundary TO THE FOOT, you're not flying responsibly to begin with. As Ross said, err on the side of caution.

 

Even if it WERE based on a radial, the (legal) inaccuracy that may be present in your VOR receiver is going to mean that you'd do just about as well utilizing the visual reference points in this case. The roads, antenna, and proximity to that giant PXR field make it very clear as to where the boundaries are for that case.

 

And there I was thinking someone woud post a really difficult one.

Edited February 6, 2008 at 05:48 PM by Guest

[Norman Blackburn]

Where we depart is that I concentrate on the topic, whereas you concentrate on me. Please return to the topic, on which, by your own admission, we all apparently agree (although I'm not so sure that there is a total consensus).

 

Anthony,

 

I have nothing to add to the subject - I know nothing about the airspace to which you refer. Like many other posters here I too am a long time licensed pilot and as such would err on the side of caution.

 

In regard to a total concensus, that is never going to happen. Ask 10 pilots and invariably you will get 10 differing answers.

 

The other part of your post I have quoted above however is something you really need to work on. This forum, as outlined to you recently, is not another place for you to feel you can run rampant around. Kyle, from what I can see continues to answer in regard to the topic.

 

Think long and carefully how your next and subsequent posts are formulated. Access here is not a given right.

[Keith Smith]

Anthony,

 

If it helps, I think you might be approaching the situation with a goal that isn't realistic. If your goal is to fly within 500ft (laterally) of each bravo shelf, then you are RIGHT...it would be really hard to do for 100% of the blue lines on the chart.

 

However, take any TYPICAL flight that a pilot would undertake in or out of the Phoenix area, and I submit that it is NOT THAT HARD to remain clear of the bravo shelves, without GPS. It might mean taking an extra mile or two here and there to get yourself across the virtual fence with some certainty, but I think that's ok.

 

It appears that there's plenty of landmarks, lakes, rivers, major roads and mountains to infer your position at any time. Note, you don't have to directly overfly a landmark to use it. "I'm going to keep that mountain on my right as I p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] it" is just as useful as "I'm going to overfly that peak."

 

My experience here is relevant, because I am relatively new to the New York area, and have undertaken many flights where I needed to know my position relative to the bravo shelves, all without GPS OR even DME. Studying the chart and utilizing landmarks goes a long way, and I think it applies equally well to the new PHX Bravo. As Kyle said, it might be harder than the previous iteration of the bravo, but it's not unworkable.

 

I sincerely hope this helps you in understanding the perspective of some of these posts. In short, it sounds like you are making a point based on a goal that has no purpose (flying the blue lines).

Edited February 6, 2008 at 07:06 PM by Guest

[Gary Millsaps 830104]

An additional point to Keith's superbly simple (and effective) explanation...as a VFR pilot, relying on your abilities to use visual landmarks, a careful check of the KPHX TAC shows a landmark feature called the Western Canal that roughly follows the boundary line between the 30/90 shelf to the W/NW and the 50/90 shelf to the E/SE. One could safely say that as long as one remained either W/NW or E/SE of that canal, one could safely determine what altitude would be appropriate to remain below the shelf. Note the boundary line to the SW ends at the Gila River - another easily identified visual landmark.

 

To preclude an additional "cherry-picking" expedition, the SFC/90 area boundary due north coincides with a roadway and could also be determined using the scale that is printed at the bottom of all charts and knowledgable use of a plotter/ruler.

 

That's why it's called Visual Flight Rules!