Burbank Class C - Brain Cramp

[lwilliams]

Burbank Bravo.jpg (333.81 KiB) Viewed 7898 times

I am on a 82° radial at 2950' with correct altimeter to the POM VOR and am advised I was about to crash the Burbank Class C airspace by ATC. For the life of me, I don't know why.

Any help would be appreciated.

[julio.elizalde]

If you look at a real sectional chart, you'll see that the blue line that indicates the LAX class B slightly south of your 082 degree heading, also doubles as the end of the BUR class C. In this case, you were operating directly under the 3000-4800 outer shelf of the Class C. If you had climbed above 3000 without contacting Socal Approach, that would be a bust of the BUR class C.

[Andrew Doubleday]

Hey Lee, your track that you were flying definitely had you well north of what this planned route is showing, by about 2 miles or so directly into the surface area. I'm not sure, maybe a miscalculation in regards to when that eastbound turn was supposed to start? Problem was I had a jet off runway 15 at BUR cranking to a 210 heading so you guys would have T-boned within the surface area.

[kullery]

Using the flight analysis page on MyFlightRoute (http://www.myflightroute.com/routeplot.php), the below link is a plot of your flight based on the data in PEaware.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.205891,-118 ... :A.K2.KBNG

[Andrew Doubleday]

I turned him back out to about a 150 heading or so to avoid cutting through the surface area once I noticed it was going to be a problem with the departing BUR traffic, there was an initial eastbound turn though that was taking him directly into it and across the BUR departure corridor.

[lwilliams]

Great feedback, thanks....still baffled as I was centerline with that 82° radial on my instruments.

I am going to try again using Foreflight overlaying the sectional.

I still don't see how that could have happened unless it was an aircraft instrument bug.


Once again, thanks for the feedback.

[julio.elizalde]

I would also suggest keeping a good vertical clearance from the Class C. You don't know that there isn't a Southwest 737 descending from 4000 to 3000 and will level off right above you. 50 feet below a Boeing 737 wouldn't be such a pleasant experience for either pilot.

[Keith Smith]

Lee,

The magnetic course (082) being calculated by Skyvector doesn't match the 262 radial to POM.

Case in point. ask Skyvector to show you the magnetic course from AMTRA to POM, it gives you an answer of 076 (equates to the 256 radial from POM, you would think). Actually, AMTRA to POM is a victor away defined by the 254 radial from POM (2 degrees different).

If you follow a line along the 262 radial on the sectional chart from POM to the west, you'll see it does indeed cut through the surface Charlie of BUR. So, if you set your OBS to 082 (which is the 262 radial inbound) and tracked it perfectly, you'd go right through the Charlie.

[Rick Stratman]

I would also suggest keeping a good vertical clearance from the Class C. You don't know that there isn't a Southwest 737 descending from 4000 to 3000 and will level off right above you. 50 feet below a Boeing 737 wouldn't be such a pleasant experience for either pilot.

Julio - would a good rule of thumb be a minimal of 500 ft buffer from the publish airspace levels?

[julio.elizalde]

Yes, 500ft would be a good vertical space to keep. That's why we have that rule for IFR vs. VFR cruise altitudes. Flying near SFO, you often have to transition below SFO arrivals to get into to San Carlos which is just a few miles south. Last time I did that with a few friends, we were at 500 feet below a B737 and B757 and I'll tell you, getting that close makes you feel like you're living on the edge if something bad happens to the big boys above you. Always best to plan ahead when playing games with airspace!