ATC and Airspace question

[cale42]

Alright.. I got a question that I am looking for some input on, either from people that have been in a similar situation or in this case from some active controllers.

I fly out of a class D that abuts very closely to the surface space of a Class B.. PWK specifically for those familiar with Chicago. We have about 2 miles from the south tip of our runway to the surface space.

I'm coming in with a student yesterday, VFR to the runway that is closest the the Bravo surface and am told to extend my downwind and tower would call my base. About a half mile from where I know the surface of the Bravo starts I ask if we can turn base yet, and I'm advised by tower that I need to go another mile. I respond that I will be unable to go another mile due to the surface space. At which point tower goes off on me that they know where I am and that once I accept an extended downwind with tower calling my base I am absolved of responsibility for avoiding the bravo. Now this is of course I radar environment and I know they can see, but I don't buy this.. I do a little super slow flight to stay out the bravo in this instance and make my turn when called. Then when I get on the ground, I get another lecture from the tower, on the open tower frequency, that once I accept them calling base the bravo airspace is their responsibility, not mine, and I need to abide by their clearance.

So thats the situation, my issues are this. The regs state very clearly that to enter the bravo you have to have explicit clearance from the controlling agency. In this case, I received no explicit clearance, and even if I had PWK tower doesn't control that airspace, Chicago approach does, so they don't even have the right to give me that clearance. If this is somehow going to waived in this situation I want to see it in writing.. b/c it's going to be my ticket, not the controllers on the line when I violate airspace.

Just wanted some thoughts on this perhaps from more experienced pilots familiar with PWK or controllers that know something I don't...

thanks,
cale

 

[kaj837]

I don't know the answer, even though I spent some time up that way a while ago. I would think that without a specific clearance into the Bravo space and probably a squawk code, you can't enter regardless of what the twx says. Maybe, just maybe they were coordinating that with ORD, or maybe they have an agreement to that effect, but certainly he should have passed that information on to you. I suspect that if they had an agreement, it would be common knowledge around the airport.

 

[kaj837]

Correction: twr

 

[gkrangers]

Are you questioning the GND up to 10,000 Class B immediately surrounding ORD?

Pretty long downwind...(not as long as I originally thought, but still long)

 

[cale42]

gkrangers,

Yes that is what I'm questioning.. the surface level airspace. Definitely a long downwind, but when they are trying to get IFR departures out it isn't unusual to be asked to extend out that far...

 

[gkrangers]

gkrangers,

Yes that is what I'm questioning.. the surface level airspace. Definitely a long downwind, but when they are trying to get IFR departures out it isn't unusual to be asked to extend out that far...

Here is a question...does the Class Delta surface override the Class B surface or the other way around?

 

[mar]

It's worth a visit.

Cale42--You're correct about the explicit clearance into Class B airspace. It would sound like, "November 123 Alpha Bravo is cleared in to Class Bravo via radar vectors (or direct to ABC VOR) (or via some VFR corridor)..."

I'm not familiar with your airport and there may very well be a letter of agreement between the tower and the TRACON but the only way to find out is to ask.

As for gettin' chewed out on the tower freq...pretty rude. I hate it when controllers try to make an example out of us with a public lashing.

But think of this little story (so many of us are asked to call the tower): One day I heard a new tower controller (obviously training) lose total control of the traffic pattern. One of the local 135 operators got so upset, after he landed and cleared the runway he said to tower, "Grab a pencil because I want *you* to call *me* when I get inside the office!"

So there!

It's worth a visit to the tower.

 

[minitour]

Here is a question...does the Class Delta surface override the Class B surface or the other way around?

Other way around.

§ 71.9 Overlapping airspace designations.

(a) When overlapping airspace designations apply to the same airspace, the operating rules associated with the more restrictive airspace designation apply.
(b) For the purpose of this section—
(1) Class A airspace is more restrictive than Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
(2) Class B airspace is more restrictive than Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
(3) Class C airspace is more restrictive than Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
(4) Class D airspace is more restrictive than Class E or Class G airspace; and
(5) Class E is more restrictive than Class G airspace.


-mini

 

[gkrangers]

Thats what I figured. I don't have a FARAIM here, and didn't know exactly where to look.

I would guess they have a LOA with Chicago...but thats just a guess...call the tower and ask, good idea in areas where things look complex.

 

[minitour]

I would guess they have a LOA with Chicago...but thats just a guess...call the tower and ask, good idea in areas where things look complex.

We've got a similar situation with BKL and CLE up here...I don't like the LOA thing.

I really really want to hear "Cleared into the Bravo" on the tapes...from the controlling agency. But I'm just paranoid.

-mini

 

[FN FAL]

I would guess they have a LOA with Chicago...but thats just a guess...

I would bet that's the deal as well. It's not like either one of those airspaces was built yesterday.

 

[cale42]

You all have hit the nail on the head with the concept that their may be an LOA authorizing the tower to send me into the Bravo surface space. However without a copy of that in my hand that I can point to it really doesn't help protect me. While in no way claiming this makes me a veteran I have about 600 hours flying out of PWK and 4 checkrides with local examiners and no one has been able to clear this up which makes me question it. Also a call to the local FSDO basically brought up nothing about an LOA and tended to side with me.

The fact(sad as it may be) with the FAA is that if you can't prove it, it doesn't matter. So until someone can show me this for sure, I feel I'm not allowed into the Bravo.

I'm really not mad about the incident with tower... while unfortunate, this is the fourth or fifth time I've gotten into it with them on this issue. I just finally want some resolution, I'm sick of dealing with it every couple of months.

cale

 

[minitour]

Next time you get reamed on freq, ask for their initials and the phone number...tell them you'll do 360s until they can clear you for the base and to land. When you get on the ground, call and talk to the supervisor...just explain that you'd like to know what's going on. If you need to, pull out the FAR/AIM and quote the reg that says you need cleared into the bravo by the controlling agency (in this case, Chicago Approach).

Hopefully it won't come to that. Honestly, if it were me...I'd probably call and ask for the supervisor now before it happens again.

Just be tactful and explain that you don't want anyone (them or yourself) to have any issues and explain your concerns about busting the Bravo. I'm sure he or she will be more than happy to talk to you about it.

But definitely if you get a reaming, get initials and a phone number...maybe have them mark the tape.

And remember, you're the PIC. If they give you a clearance that could cause you to bust a reg, it's your responsibility to do what you did "unable". Maybe next time give them an option "Tower, cessna 123 unable downwind due to airspace, I can give you (R or L) 360s or turn base now."

Good luck...drop me a PM with how it all ends up (if you don't post it on here).

-mini

 

[smellthejeta]

cale,

I side with you on this one. Yeah, you're right... the approximate wording of the applicable reg(s) reads that you must receive the clearance/maintain contact with the facility that provides radar service in the airspace in which you are flying. That means that maintaining two way radio contact with Chicago Approach can satisfy the requirements of transiting PWK's airspace, but communication with PWK cannot get you into Chicago's airspace. And you still need a clearance, which begins with "cleared..."

The other technical problem with the words "clear" and "VFR" is that the only thing a Class D tower controller can do is clear you to land and takeoff. His job is to maintain runway separation, and all he does for VFR's airborne is provide sequencing. At least that's my interpretation of the rules.

I'd say go visit the tower and talk to a supervisor. Just as a controller is not responsible for knowing Parts 91, 135, and 121, you are not responsible for knowing what's in the 7110.65 or what the applicable LOA's are.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Even with a LOA, I think you should hear "Cleared into Class Bravo" from the Tower controller. At this point the best bet would be to call the Tower, speak with a Supervisor and clear the issue.

In the air, in stead of "unable" in response to the extension, I would probably say, "Confirm N1234X is cleared into Class Bravo for the downwind."

 

[PC800]

PWK tower doesn't control that airspace, Chicago approach does

Actually, O'Hare Tower does-- they've been delegated the surface to 3000' within a 5nm radius of the center of O'Hare. There is a LOA with PWK, of course, but it does not allow PWK traffic to enter ORD airspace in the situation given.

In short, PWK controllers do not have the authority to clear VFR traffic into the ORD Class B. However, they know precisely how far they can go without infringing on that airspace. It's probable that you were not quite as close to the Class B as you thought you were, and the tower controller knew it. That's no excuse for chewing you out on the frequency, however, and I'd follow up on that with the manager at PWK.

It's also possible that you were that close, in which case the tower screwed up. You have two unpleasant choices in such a situation: follow the instruction, request that the tape be preserved, and be prepared to argue that you were in the Class B due to a controller operational deviation (as opposed to a pilot deviation). You will most likely prevail in such a case, particularly since you questioned the controller about your proximity to the Class B and he reiterated the instruction.

The other option is to refuse the instruction and stay out of the Class B, citing your emergency authority. That's a harder case to make, since avoiding a citation for violation of the Class B might not be seen as a safety issue, particularly if the course you choose puts you closer to other aircraft than straying into the Class B would have.

 

[cezzna]

I think you're getting worked up about nothing. With or without an LOA both sides of the fence probably know precisely what they are doing. I'm sure these controllers have to fly by the seat of their pants sometimes. If you get too close to O'Hare the PWK controller is going to get reamed a new one. I don't think you would be dragged into it. The PWK controllers know how to CYA in these situations. This crap goes on there minute by minute all the time. They know what they can do to work things efficiently and safely with or without an LOA. Nobody wants to make a mess out of something and start a paper trail including the controllers. I'd make a point to visit them and talk to them about the situation. Show that you're interested in how it all works and they'll probably really appreciate a pilot taking interest in their side of the work. I get the feeling controllers don't feel appreciated for the work they do, and these guys have a tough job. The whole Chicagoland airspace and airport design is a clusterf*ck at best. Wait til they make O'Hare bigger, PWK will probably be a one way airport.

 

[GravityHater]

This exact same thing happened in Dallas in the last 6 months I heard. Because I was just a listener on the conversation and not really paying attention I don't know all the details but it was a smaller airport on the edge of DFWs class B.
The D controllers kept putting people into the B space and there was a regular furball on frequency so the pilots from that airport asked for and received a meeting with the atc group in question. I'm not sure how it was resolved but I know the FAA did not amend the regulation to say a class D controller can use class B space at will so I suspect the pilots got an official reading of the LOA to take home and were told you will not be busted for breaking the reg that requires a class B clearance.

 

[mcjohn]

No big deal! Just do it if you're only nipping the edge. The evidence is there that the tower made you do it. If you feel like your goin deep into class B then definitely quiery. Tying to pick the controllers brain seems to always end up in a crap talking session on the radio that's just not worth it.
I suffer a similar situation frequently departing a sattelite airport into class C above. Maybe someone can give me some advice.
Me: AVL approach, C--97B, c152 just off from Hendersonville Airport request flight following to HKY airport 5500'
AVL: 97B squawk ---
AVL: 97B radar contact -----
10 mins later,
AVL: 97B frequency change approved squawk 1200
Now maybe it's just me but, that is not the flight following I'm used to.
I'd expect to be handed to Atlanta Center and be given the freq.
A while back I queiried the controller when this happened:
ME: Avl approach verify 97B has flight following to HKY 5500'
AVL: c97B radar contact 5500', traffic at 9:00, freq. change appoved, squawk VFR, good day.
I'm like Whaaaaa?
I just play along and call Atlanta center on my own for flight following. But I know it took more effort for him to say all that crap then:
c97B contact Atlanta center on 128.5.
So, I,ve learned not to pick the controllers brain but I plan to go to the tower and find out "what I may be doing wrong!"

 

[gkrangers]

In order for him to continue flight following to Atlanta Center...he/she has to coordinate a handoff...that requires work on his/her part and both parties having room to accomodate you. If they are too busy, you won't get flight following.

 

[mcjohn]

In order for him to continue flight following to Atlanta Center...he/she has to coordinate a handoff...that requires work on his/her part and both parties having room to accomodate you. If they are too busy, you won't get flight following.

I know it's only on a work load permitting basis but
why doesn't the controller state something like:
97B, negative on flight following
or
for flight following contact Atl. center ( i hear that one a lot)

Is "freq. change appoved squawk VFR" the appropriate way of denying flight following?

 

[FlyingFisherman]

Zoom your GPS in and watch your airplane and the rings around it. When in this world you can buy a usable aviaiton GPS for $200 that can get you -D-> airports it's a silly thing not to have on board if your airplane isn't already equipped.

If it is equipped...use it! Direct KPWK and monitor your progress. This is one of the first things my students learned when we flew from an airport underlying Charlie airspace and something I use regularly to keep legal when getting around in the Cleveland, Cincy and Pittsburgh areas.

Good luck and happy thanksgiving! :beer:

 

[405]

Maybe the PWK controller initiated a pointout with ORD. If ORD approved the pointout, the PWK controller could legally let you fly into ORD airspace and still have keep you on his frequency without all of the Class B entry requirements.

Here's a link to the definition:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0504.html#5-4-2

Then again, I may be completely wrong. I don't even fly airplanes. I'm just an old ex-ATCer that doesn't know shat. HAHAHAHA.

 

[VAPOR]

Don't mess with Class B

I spent a lot of time flight training and instructing at PWK. You need a clearance from Chicago Approach to enter Class B.

I would definitely not trust that any of the controllers know "precisely what they are doing" (above). I've seen them screw up there plenty of times, especially when it's busy. And I know they certainly don't care about excess paperwork; if they're in a bad mood or you upset them they will violate you in a moment regardless of what the workload is.

One thing that may assist your cause is to file an ASRS (NASA) report every time this happens. It will bring attention to the situation and may prevent you from being violated. File one every day if you have to:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/forms/PDF_Files/general.pdf

 

[smellthejeta]

Maybe the PWK controller initiated a pointout with ORD. If ORD approved the pointout, the PWK controller could legally let you fly into ORD airspace and still have keep you on his frequency without all of the Class B entry requirements.

Here's a link to the definition:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0504.html#5-4-2

Then again, I may be completely wrong. I don't even fly airplanes. I'm just an old ex-ATCer that doesn't know shat. HAHAHAHA.

405,

The rules are different for IFR and VFR. When you're on an IFR flight plan, you already have the required clearance to operate in any airspace that ATC assigns you to operate in. Now, if they put you on a vector that sends you straight through P-56 (White House/Capitol) I'd question it, but generally speaking, if airspace entry requires specific authorization from a controlling agency, your IFR routing is your clearance and entry authorization.

When flying VFR, the onus is on the pilot to comply with all applicable rules and regulations. (For instance, VFR, if I get a vector into a cloud, I have to inform you that I cannot accept it) The "point out" is what gives you authority to have another aircraft operate in another sector's airspace without having to hand him off. It's a transparent transaction on behalf of the pilot, separate from the airspace entry requirements for pilots in Class B, C, and D airspace. Class B entry requires a specifc clearance to operate in that airspace (a little more than the "two way radio contact" required for C and D entry), which means flight following or services from another controlling authority, absent the specific clearance, don't authorize entry.

Now, if the PWK TWR actually does have authorization to allow their aircraft to operate in the nearby Class B airspace, that *is* information that must be communicated to the pilots, such as by NOTAM, published in the A/FD, or on the corresponding navigational charts.

 

[405]

405,

The rules are different for IFR and VFR. When you're on an IFR flight plan, you already have the required clearance to operate in any airspace that ATC assigns you to operate in. Now, if they put you on a vector that sends you straight through P-56 (White House/Capitol) I'd question it, but generally speaking, if airspace entry requires specific authorization from a controlling agency, your IFR routing is your clearance and entry authorization.

When flying VFR, the onus is on the pilot to comply with all applicable rules and regulations. (For instance, VFR, if I get a vector into a cloud, I have to inform you that I cannot accept it) The "point out" is what gives you authority to have another aircraft operate in another sector's airspace without having to hand him off. It's a transparent transaction on behalf of the pilot, separate from the airspace entry requirements for pilots in Class B, C, and D airspace. Class B entry requires a specifc clearance to operate in that airspace (a little more than the "two way radio contact" required for C and D entry), which means flight following or services from another controlling authority, absent the specific clearance, don't authorize entry.

Now, if the PWK TWR actually does have authorization to allow their aircraft to operate in the nearby Class B airspace, that *is* information that must be communicated to the pilots, such as by NOTAM, published in the A/FD, or on the corresponding navigational charts.

I put a disclaimer in the bottom of my post that explicitly said "I may be completely wrong". I was just putting in my $0.02, man.

 

[PC800]

I would definitely not trust that any of the controllers know "precisely what they are doing" (above).

If you're going to quote from a previous post, please do so accurately. I didn't say that the controllers know "precisely what they are doing". Trust me, I'm well aware that controllers, in general, screw up on a daily basis.

I said "they know precisely how far they can go without infringing on that airspace"-- which they do. If the PWK controller was actively monitoring the airplane in question, as it appears he was in the case at hand, chances that he allowed the airplane to enter the Class B are extremely slim.

As far as a point out goes, PWK never coordinates directly with O'Hare Tower, unless something extremely unusual happens. Ie, if they lost radio contact with an airplane on downwind for 16 that was going to enter the ORD airspace, they'd call, but under normal conditions they never do. Ever. ORD controllers are busy enough without having to help work PWK traffic.

 

[VAPOR]

Exact quote - read carefully

I think you're getting worked up about nothing. With or without an LOA both sides of the fence probably know precisely what they are doing.[\quote]

If you're going to quote from a previous post, please do so accurately. I didn't say that the controllers know "precisely what they are doing".[\quote]

Yes, I totally agree. Read "cezzna's" previous post. I quoted it accurately and exactly. My advice to you Mr. PC800 is "If you're going to criticize a previous post, please make sure you read carefully and know what you are talking about."

 

[PC800]

My advice to you Mr. PC800 is "If you're going to criticize a previous post, please make sure you read carefully..."

I apologize, your post didn't make clear whom you were quoting and I didn't realize that another poster had used wording so similar to mine.

Since you were kind enough to offer me unsolicited advice on how to read, allow me to give you some on how to write: we wouldn't be arguing about quotes if you'd learn to use the quote function correctly. You apparently tried on that last post, but still fell a bit short of the mark.

 

[Gutenberg]

The LOA has nothing to do with VFR procedures. It is an agreement between satellite airport towers and Chicago that specifies altitudes and routings between each of these smaller airports like Waukegan, Lake in the Hills, Palwaukee, Gary, Du Page, Aurora, etc.

As far as turning base to 34 at PWK, you can go to the landfill- all the way to the very edge of it. I used to get scared getting that close, and they will forget about you out there sometimes, but it is your ass if you bust Bravo.