Narrative:

I was just given this radar/tape review form from my flm for a class B violation that occurred. The qa department informed my flm from random audits that I had not advised air carrier X that he was exiting or re-entering the class B airspace as I descended him for a visual approach to runway 35 approximately 30 miles south of msp from 10;000 to 7;000 ft. I asked to review the tape with audio and a class B map. We reviewed the information at which time we noted that air carrier X was given a 020 heading off of the delzy arrival and descended to 7;000 ft. He was then told to join the localizer on the 020 heading in a timely manner of which he correctly read back. He subsequently went through the localizer at 8;400 ft which was approximately 1/2 mile outside the class B airspace on the east side of the runway 35 localizer which was all of his own accord. The information that was relayed to me stated incorrect information concerning this event and I was not informed of the exact rule in the 7110.65 that I actually violated. Upon my own review; the 7110.65 para 7-9-3 b. States 'vector aircraft to remain in class B airspace after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and reentering class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the flight path outside class B airspace for spacing.' this is a misinterpretation of the class B rule that they are saying I violated when in essence; the pilot went through the localizer when instructed to join and went outside the class B on his own so therefore he did not do as he was instructed. The class B airspace at msp has been in the process of being revised for several years. We have had many class B violations in our facility due to the new interpretation set forth regarding the 'unsafe' events from the descending outside of the class B airspace at msp. As per the 7110.65 para 7-9-3 b. As previously stated; these are not class B violations; they are misinterpretations of the rules. In addition; we must utilize two transmissions to inform the pilot that they are exiting and re-entering the class B airspace which ties up the frequency and many times the pilots question what we are saying so we need to repeat our transmissions or even explain the advisory at times. The push to stay in the class B airspace has also resulted in the delaying of aircraft due to the threatening manner at which we are being approached with this task i.e. Possible removal for violating the class B. The case of the pilot going through the localizer by 1/2 mile and rejoining and thus being outside the class B airspace is out of my control as I cannot fly the plane. The same applies for when a pilot descends below the class B airspace when they have been issued a visual approach clearance. We as controllers have to uphold the rules but where does the responsibility lie on the pilots? That should also be a violation for them if they are not adhering to the rules.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller described an alleged Class B exit event discovered in during a RADAR/tape review by Quality Assurance; the reporter claims controller responsibilities were completed in accordance with statutes.

Narrative: I was just given this RADAR/tape review form from my FLM for a Class B violation that occurred. The QA department informed my FLM from random audits that I had not advised ACR X that he was exiting or re-entering the Class B airspace as I descended him for a Visual Approach to Runway 35 approximately 30 miles South of MSP from 10;000 to 7;000 FT. I asked to review the tape with audio and a Class B map. We reviewed the information at which time we noted that ACR X was given a 020 heading off of the DELZY arrival and descended to 7;000 FT. He was then told to join the localizer on the 020 heading in a timely manner of which he correctly read back. He subsequently went through the localizer at 8;400 FT which was approximately 1/2 mile outside the Class B airspace on the East side of the Runway 35 localizer which was all of his own accord. The information that was relayed to me stated incorrect information concerning this event and I was not informed of the exact rule in the 7110.65 that I actually violated. Upon my own review; the 7110.65 para 7-9-3 b. states 'Vector aircraft to remain in Class B airspace after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and reentering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for spacing.' This is a misinterpretation of the Class B rule that they are saying I violated when in essence; the pilot went through the localizer when instructed to join and went outside the Class B on his own so therefore he did not do as he was instructed. The Class B airspace at MSP has been in the process of being revised for several years. We have had many Class B violations in our facility due to the new interpretation set forth regarding the 'unsafe' events from the descending outside of the Class B airspace at MSP. As per the 7110.65 para 7-9-3 b. as previously stated; these are not Class B violations; they are misinterpretations of the rules. In addition; we must utilize two transmissions to inform the pilot that they are exiting and re-entering the Class B airspace which ties up the frequency and many times the pilots question what we are saying so we need to repeat our transmissions or even explain the advisory at times. The push to stay in the Class B airspace has also resulted in the delaying of aircraft due to the threatening manner at which we are being approached with this task i.e. possible removal for violating the Class B. The case of the pilot going through the localizer by 1/2 mile and rejoining and thus being outside the Class B airspace is out of my control as I cannot fly the plane. The same applies for when a pilot descends below the Class B airspace when they have been issued a visual approach clearance. We as controllers have to uphold the rules but where does the responsibility lie on the pilots? That should also be a violation for them if they are not adhering to the rules.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.