PilotEdge Forums

Pilots,

Another uneventful and enjoyable hop over the mountains. Not so much. I so so wanted to label this Alphabet Challenge Leg 22 KVNY-KWTF, but I am bigger than that. Really, I am...

Context: Lookout! There are mountains up north. Really really close mountains. KVNY is about 800MSL. KWJF is behind some 5-6000 footers. KVNY has a ODP that the IFR rated pilots in the pilots lounge were talking about and that I may have looked at even though, I'm not rated and this was a VFR/VMC flight. It says you better get high quick. So I planned on getting high quick. Heading NW to TWINS intersection with a cruising altitude of 7500 (NE cruise direction). Before heading direct to KWJF using its retro cool ADF beacon. All of which I did in fact do.

http://peaware.pilotedge.net/flight.cfm?id=87437

Ok, so where to start? In short, there is a regulatory dispute/disagreement between PE ATC and me. Sounds pretty ominous, and we know what happens when you fight city hall. Let me preface this by saying I make tons and tons of mistakes on PE. But I am adamant that this isn't one of them...I don't even think it's a Grey area, but it is of course a Peter Grey area.

So what the heck am I talking about?

Situation:
Shortly after departing VFR from KVNY I was told to by KVNY tower to "have a safe flight" and contact SOCAL.
At this moment, the replay shows I was at 4800MSL/130KIAS climbing ~1800 FPM and abeam the numbers of 16R 1.5 miles west
I contacted SOCAL reporting "5500 for 7500."
I was informed, "It is important that I inform you that you have violated the ENTIRETY of the Class C airspace....you did not establish two way communications with the controlling authority flight following does not constitute two way communications..."
After a bit of back and forth which you can listen to if so inclined, I issued a "Roger, we'll talk about this on the ground. Cancel flight following" and motored on to an uneventful landing at KWJF.

Let's Review:
- AGREED: Class Charlie requires two way communication be established with the controlling authority prior to entry.

SOCAL's Point of View:
- SOCAL Asserts that my Assigned Squawk Code and concomitant Flight Following approval do NOT constitute "two way communications with the controlling authority"
- SOCAL maintains there is a difference between a flight following squawk code assigned to you from the principal airport inside a a Class C and a satellite airport under the shelf of the Charlie.
- SOCAL maintains that flight following squawk and uninterrupted comms with Tower through handoff to SOCAL does not constitute "permission" to enter the C.

N3298S Point of View:
No violation occurred. Two way comms were established and maintained. KVNY tower and SOCAL failed to coordinate flight following.

I maintain that, certainly on the ground, ATC is ATC:
If ATC assigns me flight following and a squawk that constitutes 2 way comms for the purposes of entering the C upon departure. I don't differentiate the flight following I get assigned prior to departure at KBUR vs KVNY. That squawk and FF are KEY here.

IF I didn't have flight following (and tower handoff to boot), then I wouldn't have had prior two way comms for the Charlie. I get that Tower only owns the D up to 2999.9999.

But TOWER Gave me a squawk ACTING as SOCAL's agent on the ground. Otherwise, every pilot departing KVNY better call up SOCAL on the ground to request Flight Following DIRECTLY. (Insane)

I had (1) ATC Assigned Squawk Code given to me on the ground by ATC, (2) ATC Assigned Flight Following and an (3) ATC approved(acknowledged/coordinated?) Departure Altitude (7500) provided me by CLEARANCE DELIVERY and (4) ATC Assigned Departure Procedure assigned by Tower -- Left Downwind Departure to the NW (5) Tower kept me on Frequency from 0AGL to 4800MSL abeam the numbers on 16R. Only abeam the numbers to 16R at 4800MSL was I told to contact SOCAL.

If you assert that an ATC Squawk/Flight Following assignment + seamless comms with TOWER is NOT two way communication with ATC then you have to simultaneously assert that that the flight following I was assigned is valid for the "Entirety of the Class D" airspace only. Not particularly valuable no? And, to be consistent, that I would have to request ANOTHER squawk before entering the Charlie above it, no?

AND

You have to assert that Tower handing me off directly to SOCAL somehow constitutes a loss of two way communication - already established. It's a seamless handoff.

FURTHER

Lets take another example to illustrate the point: Let's say I had wanted to go to DARTS, informed Clr Delivery, gotten assigned a squawk, and cleared for a Left Turnout approved.By SOCALs logic my Squawk code doesn't constitute two ways comms "with the controlling agency." So what exactly am I supposed to do as I climb out above the sepulveda flood control basin 1 NM west of the SFC/4800 shell of the C? Tell tower I'm going to orbit the field below 3000 for a bit so I can call SOCAL? Insanity.

In SUM:

ATC Failed to Coordinate between tower and SOCAL. A pilot in my circumstances has EVERY reasonable expectation that ATC will coordinate when they give you a squawk and tell you to switch to SOCAL.

- Even failing this coordination, Tower could have done other things on the departure they assigned me -- restricted my altitude below 300 - remain clear of the Charlie, Contact SOCAL prior to the Charlie, if I wasn't "in 2 way communication". I had zero expectation that anything was amiss but it would have been easy to stay below 3000. Point is I should not have had to.

Finally to get some perspective - Let's look at the timeline. I hit 3000 MSL within 90 seconds minute of liftoff. I was turning upwind at 3000. I was at 4800 abeam the numbers 60 seconds later. The "entirety of my alleged Class Charlie violation" lasted 60 seconds and 1NM.
Lessons Learned:

To be determined.

Pilots,

Nevermind.

Fully fired up I dug out the AIM and found this nugget...ok ok Peter Grey sent it to me directly to spare me the shame of a public humiliation...

AIM 3-2-4 f 3

"3. Aircraft departing secondary controlled airports will not receive Class C services until they have been radar identified and two-way communications have been established with the Class C airspace facility."

I think this is total bogusness as it makes a squawk code from KVNY worth absolutely nothing on the ground, but I cannot dispute it's regulatory accuracy. I will be circulating a petition in a few moments to send to the FAA and or your local Congressman to rectify this insanity.

I did indeed violate the ENTIRETY of the Class Charlie airspace one mile west of KVNY beween 3000 and 4800 msl. And for that I am unspeakably embarrassed and ashamed.

I am sewing a MAGENTA C into all my clothing now.

Todd and I have been talking about this one via PM for a while. I'm going to post my reply to his post (that was previously sent via PM) just for my POV on this one.

Regarding the communication requirement I'm going to refer you to AIM 3-2-4 f 3. I start with that as I'll refer to it as I go through this.

3. Aircraft departing secondary controlled airports will not receive Class C services until they have been radar identified and two-way communications have been established with the Class C airspace facility.

FACTS:
I had an (1) ATC Assigned Squawk Code, (2) ATC Assigned Flight Following and an (3) ATC approved Departure Altitude (7500) provided me by CLEARANCE DELIVERY and (4) ATC Assigned Departure Procedure assigned by Tower -- Left Downwind Departure to the NW (5) Tower kept me on Frequency from 0AGL to 4800MSL abeam the numbers on 16R. Only abeam the numbers to 16R at 4800MSL was I told to contact SOCAL.

Should the tower have handed you off in enough time to ensure compliance with the rules yes, I'm guessing the controller simply forgot about you due to other traffic. However that lapse doesn't give you a pass into Class C airspace. The best thing to do in that case is ask the tower for the handoff and/or level off below 3000'.

However, I'm not sure where you get the approved departure altitude and assigned departure procedure. ATC asked your planned cruise altitude (to pass onto SOCAL) but did not approve it in any way. ATC doesn't normally assign altitudes to VFR departures from Class D airports.

On departure you were told to make a right downwind departure. That isn't a departure procedure but a pattern exit instruction. It doesn't give any special permissions in any way.

If you assert that an ATC Squawk/Flight Following assignment + seamless comms with TOWER is NOT two way communication with ATC then you have to simultaneously assert that that flight following is for the "Entirety of the Class D" airspace only. Not particularly valuable no? And, to be consistent, that I would have to request ANOTHER squawk before entering the Charlie above it, no?

It does meet the two way comm requirement of the regulation, it does not meet the "controlling ATC agency" part of it which the AIM section above clarifies. You don't have to request another squawk as the purpose of the squawk is to reduce the communications required once you get to SOCAL.

The other examples don't change anything, you can't enter the class C airspace without being in contact with the controlling agency (SOCAL approach or Burbank Tower), if this requires a circle it requires a circle, I doubt our controllers would issue a "left turnout approved" as you're correct, that's asking for trouble.

A right downwind doesn't in my view as you have to take positive action to enter the Class C airspace (climb) and a climb is easy to stop. You can also fly a wide downwind that takes you outside the airspace laterally (really wide).

We can discuss if VNY tower should make that more clear (I see your point there), but it doesn't change the fact that you entered class C airspace without being in 2 way comms with the controlling agency.

ATC Failed to Coordinate between tower and SOCAL. A pilot in my circumstances has EVERY reasonable expectation that ATC will coordinate when they give you a squawk and tell you to switch to SOCAL.

The AIM section above makes it clear that this is not the case. No Class C services until radar identified and in comms with the Class C facility.

That's all I have regarding it. I know from past discussions on this topic that the statement's I've posted match the consensus of the pilot group . See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2512 for a discussion about an identical case with another pilot.

Todd,

We have been patient as you have learned the ropes. Several of us have provided hours of support via forum posts. Please keep in mind before going on another tirade. You state opinions as though they are hard facts, and it is becoming exhausting. I would think we would have earned more respect and trust at this point, particularly Peter who you chose to call out in your post.

The squawk code you received was not useless. It would have reduced the coordination of establishing passage through the Charlie.

We are happy to answer questions all day long but we are not a punching bag. This is a cringe-worthy step in the wrong direction and isn't in keeping with the spirit of this forum. Look at the productive nature of past discussions versus this one and note the pronounced differences.

Keith,

I read your response to this posting and I was truly shocked and saddened -- especially by the thought that my posting was read as in any way offering disrespect to Peter Grey. I hold Peter and his truly impressive, almost encyclopedic, mastery of the FAR/AIM regulations in the highest regard.

Interacting with you and your colleagues on Pilot Edge has been a wonderful learning experience that has rekindled my love of aviation and has helped me enormously improve my years-dormant aviation knowledge and skills.

If I have in any way made you feel like a "punching bag," "called you out," or given offense with this or any other posting, I am truly sorry.

Alas, it is not in my nature to unquestioningly obey higher authority, and I have tried to politely express disagreement where disagreement or confusion exists, and even to do so with a bit of humor. The tenor of your post illustrates that, certainly in this case at least, I have failed in those efforts. Any offense given has been wholly unintentional, and I am very sorry to have offended you.

In the future, as I continue my aviation refresher course on PilotEdge, and come across other areas of ambiguity or regulatory misunderstanding, I will do my best to ensure that I raise them in an unambiguously respectful manner.

Todd Payne

So I pulled the chart and looked at how I would fly this. Assuming VFR, I'd say this is pretty simple on paper but a workload in real life. My opinion only:

1. The Class C belongs to Burbank and Van Nuys is a citizen airport. So Van Nuys wouldn't be able to speak for Burbank.
2. Call up Van Nuys ground to get taxi and VFR to the east.
3. If the departure instructions were straight out, then after takeoff and wheels up, I'd request a freq change to SoCal
4. Request a Charlie transition and report an on course heading (for the PMD VOR).

Hangar talk here:

Since I'm VFR, I'm responsible for thinking for myself in all matters, so I would assume that ATC will only do what I ask and no more. Tower can't grant flight following, so getting a squawk wouldn't mean anything toward that officially. In my mind, if I didn't call SoCal for FF then I don't have it.

Alternate:

1. Call ground and request a downwind departure.
2. Get established in the downwind leg and request a freq change to SoCal
3. Get FF established with SoCal
4. SoCal gives me the info plus "resume own nav and maintain appropriate VFR alt"
5. I do a right turn to the PMD VOR and climb to 7500.

My approach for these flights is a structure to learn. I'm learning from these posts you write Todd, and so far, the biggest thing I've learned is to brief all legs of the flight before starting the airplane. In this specific case, time and workload of the controller permitting, I would probably have called clearance and asked them how to handle it or just filed IFR and cancelled at PMD.

I read this thread and found a couple of things surprising/interesting.

First, I have got to hand it to Keith. Fair but firm. An expertly delivered "tough love" smack.

However, this thread points out why PE is such a great learning platform. What if this same flight were done in real life? What would likely be the out come to the Pilot's career if the same sequence of events occurred in real life? At best only a verbal ATC warning? Maybe a Pilot deviation perhaps?

For my own part, I hope at some point in the future to get my real ticket. So I want the environment at PE to be as real as possible. Of course it can't be so real that the "student" is totally over whelmed. To that end, I currently fly almost exclusively IFR. I have attempted a few VFR flights and the few that I attempted were done with FF. In the back of my mind, I would have been thinking just like the OP. That having a squawk and FF would insulate you from some of the nuances of transitioning the various air spaces.

So in that regard, this thread was a learning opportunity for me. Just when you think you are getting some understanding HOW to read a chart, smack. Something like this comes along.

Just so that I fully understand the correct way to depart VFR in this case, stay below 3,000 feet until in contact with the departure controller. Once in contract with the departure controller, THEN VFR climb.

To the OP, personally when I read the original post I thought it was a little "I'm right and here's why". What follows is IMO and applies to myself as well. I'm reminded of something called, "Four stages of competence".

1-Unconscious incompetence
The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.

2-Conscious incompetence
Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.

3-Conscious competence
The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.

4-Unconscious competence
The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

I consider myself somewhere between stage 1 and 2. On some tasks solidly in stage 1. On some tasks, closer to 2. However, the take away from this should be the importance of "making mistakes" in getting through stage 2.

Again this is my opinion. This is one of the reasons why I left Vatsim. I got the impression that a greater percentage were stuck in stage 1. IE, the pilot that knew enough to program a flight into an FMC but the knowledge stopped there. Vatsim just didn't have the an environment close enough to reality or enough resources to allow training towards a real world ticket.

Final thought regarding this thread. To the OP, I have enjoyed reading your threads on the alphabet challenge. You deserve a pat on the back for taking the time to put them together. I do have to admit to being jealous that I couldn't possibly keep up with you. Please don't let this little dose of "tough love" discourage you.

Thanks, Todd. It seems as though the reference to PG was a misunderstanding on my part so I'll retract that part completely. Your post could've been read in a number of tones. Based on the anti-authority message throughout much of it, I read that portion in that same tone, however I'm more than happy to be wrong on that one.

It's a wonderful thing that this is helping you get back in the saddle and reignite your passion for aviation. We have seen this many times within the community, and it's something we absolutely encourage.

A quick example of a great way to raise this issue would be: "I was really surprised and frustrated by what happened. I thought that by talking to the tower, and by them issuing a squawk, I could enter the Charlie. If that's not the case, then I'm struggling to understand the value of having the squawk code in advance." That is a lot different from, statements about the code being useless, ATC failing to coordinate, the resulting implications being insane, a petition to the FAA to change the rules. In this, and some of the other posts, your arguments are based on assumptions which you haven't taken the time to validate either through self-study or by asking questions first to verify that your perception of the rules are correct. You then build arguments upon those incorrect assumptions and it just keeps rolling forward.

I'm not suggesting that you can't express disappointment or frustration, we don't want to sweep anything under the rug. Hopefully this all makes sense.

I'm glad to see people coming out in support of your posts. The effort you put into the debriefs is great, and I hope you keep it up. Yes, it's tough love, but hopefully not so much that it stops you from pursuing your goals on the network. The community here is a huge part of what the service is all about. And yes, I'm also partially jealous that nobody is likely to catch you, although I did think about firing up the F4 Phantom.

For the record I chuckled at the reference to me.

I don't have anything to add to this part of the discussion beyond what I've already expressed to Todd in other communications.

Just so that I fully understand the correct way to depart VFR in this case, stay below 3,000 feet until in contact with the departure controller. Once in contract with the departure controller, THEN VFR climb.

Correct, or fly a wide enough downwind to be west of the entire Class C airspace area (what I most likely would have done to avoid terrain issues north of VNY).

A related item:

Listening to PE at work via the receiver, a C152 took off VFR from Van Nuys direct to Burbank. They made a left turn off the runway and at 1,500 feet about 20 seconds after liftoff, they called Burbank Tower with intentions to land. Burbank Tower got them the squawk and ident done, and then a quick landing clearance for runway 8.

Two questions:

1. Burbank tower would be the ATC authority for the Class C - correct?
2. I'd say that technically the pilot busted the Charlie before this was completed because they entered the 48-SFC section of the cake before the radar contact was done.

Boy, this is a doozy. I'm going to log into liveatc.net and listen to their towers and see what some real world is like.

EDIT: Just caught a helicopter doing the same thing this morning in real life. Got take off clearance, requested frequency change (VNY tower handed off to BUR tower) and called up Burbank. Got squawk and radar contact and "5 miles west of the Burbank airport, one thousand three hundred...say request." That was right at the SFC section boundary. I didn't get logged into the stream quick enough to get the call in from the helicopter.