Just because its legal, doesn't make it safe

[killbilly]

inigo88 said it the way I wanted to and should have.

 

[N90-EWR]

You have to understand that average pilot training extensively stipulates that there is some rhyme or reason to airspace design which intelligently allocates appropriate margins of safety. Class G airspace extends up to at least 1200 ft AGL even over mountainous terrain, airways are 8 nm wide, IFR MEAs, MOCAs and MSAs all assure a certain amount of terrain clearance, etc.

So naturally when looking at Class B airspace, we expect it to be designed in such a way as to contain participating aircraft on instrument approaches with an acceptable amount of altitude clearance between each of the step-down fixes on the approach and the corresponding floors of the shelves of the Bravo.

If that is not the case, then this is clearly an airspace design issue, and no pilot in their right mind would fight it. I really don't think AOPA is the evil monster standing in the way of progress you make it out to be (Meigs was bulldozed and we frequently lose local airports all around the country that are never coming back - General Aviation is shrinking and AOPA isn't doing enough to save it IMHO).

I would highly recommend taking a more educational approach to this issue. Why not compare the approach in question with the floors of the Class B in that area and explain how close pilots are actually getting to your air carrier traffic. Show us some ASRS reports. You sound pretty jaded by having to deal with this so much, but I can guarantee most of the VFR pilots in question are probably not doing this out of any nefarious intent (we just assume that surely the airspace is designed properly!). I would be very interested to learn where and why this happens the most, and what safer alternatives there are.

Good post, and I agree with most of what you said. Unfortunately the NY class B was designed long time ago, and does not include extensions to protect for the final approach course for the TEB ILS RWY19, or the TEB VOR RWY24, or the MMU ILS RWY23, or the MMU RNAV RWY5 (to name the ones in my area that are affected). Yes, I am somewhat jaded because it has been an ongoing issue for a long time, and unfortunately is really hard to get airspace changes done, specially one involving the NY Bravo. I'd be willing to follow through with that sugestion to a more educational approach, and make myself available to participate in user meetings, etc.

 

[inigo88]

Good post, and I agree with most of what you said. Unfortunately the NY class B was designed long time ago, and does not include extensions to protect for the final approach course for the TEB ILS RWY19, or the TEB VOR RWY24, or the MMU ILS RWY23, or the MMU RNAV RWY5 (to name the ones in my area that are affected). Yes, I am somewhat jaded because it has been an ongoing issue for a long time, and unfortunately is really hard to get airspace changes done, specially one involving the NY Bravo. I'd be willing to follow through with that sugestion to a more educational approach, and make myself available to participate in user meetings, etc.

Thanks! I don't even fly on the east coast, and I'm genuinely concerned and interested in the issue. Would you say the biggest problem in your area is the vertical separation between EWR arrivals and the VFR guys beneath the bravo shelves, or conflicts between those TEB and MMU approaches and non-participating VFR? While it might be difficult to modify the bravo dimensions to accommodate TEB, I think TEB has been long overdue to become a Class C! Just looking at number of aircraft movements in the port authority reports hovering around 150,000-200,000, that seems like more than enough. For comparison, Santa Barbara (SBA, class B here in southern California) only has 180,000 movements annually. I can see how lobbying the FAA to make such a drastic change can seem insurmountable (especially at the rate they move), but the numbers seem to be there... and I'm pretty sure all the part 91 corporate guys flying in there would probably appreciate less near misses as well.

 

[N90-EWR]

Thanks! I don't even fly on the east coast, and I'm genuinely concerned and interested in the issue. Would you say the biggest problem in your area is the vertical separation between EWR arrivals and the VFR guys beneath the bravo shelves, or conflicts between those TEB and MMU approaches and non-participating VFR? While it might be difficult to modify the bravo dimensions to accommodate TEB, I think TEB has been long overdue to become a Class C! Just looking at number of aircraft movements in the port authority reports hovering around 150,000-200,000, that seems like more than enough. For comparison, Santa Barbara (SBA, class B here in southern California) only has 180,000 movements annually. I can see how lobbying the FAA to make such a drastic change can seem insurmountable (especially at the rate they move), but the numbers seem to be there... and I'm pretty sure all the part 91 corporate guys flying in there would probably appreciate less near misses as well.

TEB is already under the NY class B. Approaches to runway 6 and runway 1 are covered, and never have that issue. Its the other side of the operation when we're landing runway 19 or 24 that we have an issue with 1200 VFR's crossing the finals at low alt under the bravo. MMU has similar issues, though their traffic volume is a bit lower, and probably wont get much attention. With EWR the problem is less frequent, but when they happen they're usually pretty scary because of a heavy jet involved going over the top of a small GA.

 

[z987k]

As long as the jet carrying passengers is ok, no one really cares. If someone wants to go trail a 757 in a 152 at 1nm, well it's their funeral. Pt 91 is regulated just enough to keep the general public generally safe. But you have a TON of latitude to go kill yourself in an airplane.

 

[JustinS]

If it becomes a big enough issue they should just make airports Class A, and lower the shelves like they do in Europe at large busy airports like Heathrow. IFR traffic only.

 

[N90-EWR]

If it becomes a big enough issue they should just make airports Class A, and lower the shelves like they do in Europe at large busy airports like Heathrow. IFR traffic only.

That would be going to the total opposite extreme, and unnecessary. I feel extending the outter class bravo boundary by 5 miles, and lowering the floor of the bravo to 1500 would eliminate all the current conflict areas, and still provide the GA users with a way in and out.

 

[JustinS]

That would be going to the total opposite extreme, and unnecessary. I feel extending the outter class bravo boundary by 5 miles, and lowering the floor of the bravo to 1500 would eliminate all the current conflict areas, and still provide the GA users with a way in and out.

I agree, GA is huge here in American and AOPA fights hard for us, but it seems that some stricter air space rules in one way or another need to be implemented in such congested environments.

 

[ljg]

I have some pretty extensive experience with TEB and I would really be uncomfortable if they lowered the Bravo to 1,500'. There are some 700'-800' tall structures and Part 91 requires 1,000' above the tallest obstalces in congested areas. I'd have to check but I believe the floor of the Bravo is 1,800'. It's been a little while since I've flown out of there.

When I did, I agree there is a serious issue with traversing traffic across TUGGZ. Aircraft should be able to be VFR at 2,500 or 1,500 if they are 7-8 miles off the final, and remain clear of the Bravo. I've seen it many times. We hardly ever were sequenced for the VOR 24 at TEB, so I can't speak to that as being as much of an issue. I've also gone missed off of RWY 19 (yeah, missed in freight - can you believe) and caught the wake of EWR arrivals a few hundred feet above me - not a ragingly fun experience in the soup.

I have left TEB VFR numerous times when the TRACON runs individual releases out of TEB, and I was chasing a deadline. I hated doing it every. single. time.

 

[derg]

There were parachute drops over CCC at 12000 today.

What the... Really?

 

[RABIRZA69]

N90 EWR I've brought this same issue up in the past http://forums.jetcareers.com/thread...ing-and-being-smart-about-your-safety.143167/. I'm in the LGA area

 

[derg]

N90 EWR I've brought this same issue up in the past http://forums.jetcareers.com/thread...ing-and-being-smart-about-your-safety.143167/. I'm in the LGA area

If you hear "210" tonight, say hi!

 

[N90-EWR]

N90 EWR I've brought this same issue up in the past http://forums.jetcareers.com/thread...ing-and-being-smart-about-your-safety.143167/. I'm in the LGA area

I just noticed your thread. If I had seen it before I would had just added this there. BTW...No need to say what area you work in...there's only one "Rabbi" in the Tracon!

 

[rframe]

As long as the jet carrying passengers is ok, no one really cares. If someone wants to go trail a 757 in a 152 at 1nm, well it's their funeral. Pt 91 is regulated just enough to keep the general public generally safe. But you have a TON of latitude to go kill yourself in an airplane.

By design and I personally think that's a good thing. As an FAA inspector told me "we really dont care if you want to go kill yourself in an airplane, just dont hurt anybody else while you do it".

 

[drunkenbeagle]

There were parachute drops over CCC at 12000 today.

What the... Really?

ORL.LZARD5 into TPA goes straight through a drop zone that is pretty much always active to 13500, with a ton of gliders (sans transponders) at 5000. That's all outside the Bravo, and thankfully that arrival isn't all that busy.

 

[NovemberEcho]

Old thread I know but I notice a lot of the Ga pilots with the "right to be there" argument aren't noting the VFR guy on a1200 code is at a hard altitude, not 1500 or 2500. If they would just climb or descend 500ft they wouldn't be the issue they are and still clear of the bravo.

 

[LISRAREF]

Theres another parachute operation that drops right over one of the NY Metro stars.... We have told the jump operation what they are doing is unsafe numerous times.... They drop from 2000 ft above the crossing altitude of arrivals and we have had numerous incidents of jumpers or the jump aircraft being spotted or setting off RA's........ We kept refusing to allow the flight up but he would cancel and go up anyway, just advising right before jumping...... Well the jump plane got seriously close to an arrival one day and now the operator wants to work with us to figure a solution out........... Once again, just because its legal doesn't mean we should do it...... We need to use common sense sometimes and apply that into all operations for the safety of the NAS as a whole.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

I've posted this on several other aviation forums, and felt it was appropiate to share it here as well.

One of the biggest concerns that I have always had as an air traffic controller with 2 decades+ worth of working at the NY Tracon is VFR aircraft floating around just a hair under the class bravo, and not talking to anyone. This last week alone I witnessed 3 different very close calls that thankfully didn't end in tragedy. This latest 3 incidents involved one aircraft going at 2900 right in front, and directly below a heavy A340 coming in for landing at EWR. Now, I realize that GA aircraft need to have a way to go in, and out of all the different airports in our area, but come on..... have some common sense, and know where you are flying. If you know you're going to fly under the final of one of the busiest International airports in the NE, don't do it 100 feet under the Bravo just "because its legal"

The 2 other incidents involved aircraft flying at 2000 right across the TEB ILS RWY 19 localizer at 6 to 7 miles out, so they were under the NY Bravo, and outside the TEB delta. Perfectly legal, yet if you ask the 2 arrivals that had the misfortune of being at 2000 on the localizer right in direct conflict with them, they'll tell a different story. One of the arrivals had to abort landing because the conflict happened just outside of TUGGZ (FAF), and the TCAS resolution advisory took him to 2500 (which btw resulted in an almost loss of separation with a EWR arrival at 3000 above).

I have no idea how we have avoided a real tragedy involving something like this up to this point, but I fear that someday fate will put 2 together. Why does it have to take an actual tragedy, and have blood spilled before potential safety hazards get fixed? An obvious solution would be to extend the Bravo airspace out another 5 miles or so, and maybe lower the floor to 1500, so that there is less of a chance to have those close calls with traffic on the ILS 19 loc, but still give the GA flying public a way in and out of the local airports.

When the Bravo was designed, they only considered the "big 3", and TEB, MMU final approach courses were left out of the equation. Even the EWR final has issues with that 3000 feet floor sometimes.

For those of you that fly in and out of this area, and are familiar with the airspace, how do you feel about this? have any of you ever experienced a close call with one of those 1200 VFR's while coming in for landing at EWR, TEB, MMU, CDW, LDJ, or N07? What do you think of expanding the Bravo a bit farther out, and lower? Does anyone have any other ideas that could fix this safety issue?​

I've gotten to fly up the Hudson twice and at the advice of @Van_Hoolio I decided to avoid the VFR corridor and instead contact NY approach and ask to be cleared in 100ft above the bottom of the B. Both times they were extremely helpful and we got an awesome view of the city. It was really nice having the extra set of eyes and to know that we weren't on anyone's way.