Busting Class D Airspace
- Thread starter Joestructor
- Start date
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
I've long since forgotten what it's like to fly so low that you have to deal with "d" airspace around towers.
Even the Space Shuttle descends to land sometimes.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Other than that the Center-Class C situation isn't covered by the Radar Facility-Surface Area section of the Controller's Bible?
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
I don't see why some folks are getting their knickers in a knot. Pertinent to this thread, on multiple flights I've flown through Chino KCNO surface area without talking to TWR. That also applies at other D and even C airports.
Flying across different regions or even different ATC facilities within the same region, I've encountered what may be termed as a broad interpretation of TERPS. Some ATC want it this way, some want it that way. As a pilot, I just roll with it. It's not difficult.
Knowing the regs/rules goes far. If ATC wants me to do something in a manner contrary to that which I'm familiar, I do it as long as it doesn't violate the reg. But the pilot must know the regs first.
Flying across different regions or even different ATC facilities within the same region, I've encountered what may be termed as a broad interpretation of TERPS. Some ATC want it this way, some want it that way. As a pilot, I just roll with it. It's not difficult.
Knowing the regs/rules goes far. If ATC wants me to do something in a manner contrary to that which I'm familiar, I do it as long as it doesn't violate the reg. But the pilot must know the regs first.
tgrayson
New Member
I don't see the relevance of what the controller's handbook says. It's neither regulatory nor addressed to the pilot. More important than the situation addressed by the LOI is its reasoning, which includes
My inference is that the pilot's communication responsibilities are absolute and communication with Center doesn't relieve the pilot of them. Yes, this contradicts what the controller's handbook says, but I remember a previous LOI that I received that indicated that the General Counsel's office isn't moved by what is contained in an Order.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
Nah, we fly to a point ahead, and let the earth come up to us:crazy:
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
That's ok. What the Controller's Handbook says seems to me to work in practice and I'm personally satisfied with it and the protection it affords me as a pilot those times that I would be low enough to actuallly go through Class D on a flight (happens from time to time under the Denver Class B).
Of course, that's not legal advice for anyone else.
Definition of "non-regulatory" - something that appears in an FAA publication that one doesn't agree with, as in, "I don't like the idea that I can't use a handheld GPS for IFR navigation. The AIM says I can't. The AIM is non-regulatory"
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
The AIM is non-regulatory until something happens. We had a midair at my airport 2 years ago killing 5 people. The guy who started his crosswind turn before the altitude specified in the AIM was found at fault for the accident by the NTSB. Legal action is being taken against his estate now.Lawsuit filed over fatal Corona midair crash
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
You are correct, there is not a lot of good examples in your area. Once in awhile a tower will call radar contact, turn me on my way then hand me off to approach control. I have no ATC experience with a tower who was allowed to do that.
FM_Weasel
Well-Known Member
I wish someone had told me the 7110.65 was non regulatory... my job could have been so much easier up to this point. It is an FAA Order document. It's very regulatory for us.
We own two Class D surface areas within our approach control airspace. We coordinate the transition of any aircraft into or through those surfaces areas whether they are IFR or on flight following.
We own two Class D surface areas within our approach control airspace. We coordinate the transition of any aircraft into or through those surfaces areas whether they are IFR or on flight following.
tgrayson
New Member
Actually, I like what the ATC Handbook says on the matter, but I think it conflicts with more authoritative statements from the FAA, ones that I don't like. So I have accepted as closer to the truth something that I find unpleasant, which blows your theory. (It's called "intellectual integrity".)
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
The only example I can think of is an interpretation from the FAA stating that a CENTER controller providing traffic advisories was not sufficient to transit a Delta/Charlie/Bravo. In the case of the Bravo, obviously, you would need a clearance. For the Charlie or Delta, it is because Center probably isn't the correct "facility providing air traffic services".
But this cannot be the case for APPROACH. If it were, why bother having approach control for a Delta and Charlie airspaces in the first place? (There are Delta airspaces with their own approach controllers - FMH or NQX for example.)
In any case, it isn't the AIM, it is CFR 91.129(c)(1)
If the FAA meant you must be in contact with Tower, it would say Tower and not ATC facility.
Here's a question. If I do in fact need to contact tower prior to entering a Delta airspace, how is it possible for one to do a VFR practice approach? For example, let's say a flight cleared for a practice TACAN RWY 4 KMCF. That approach is largely in the KTPA Bravo and KSPG Delta. Is an additional clearance needed from KSPG to transit the Delta? Or how about a practice approach for the ILS 17L KPIE - does the VFR "approach clearance" imply a clearance through the KTPA Bravo?
tgrayson
New Member
No, Tower is an ATC facility. Were it not the case, no aircraft could ever enter class D without contacting Center.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
I have done this multiple times too, but it always makes me nervous, as there are different regs and LOIs contradicting each other. We get situations like this when controllers are told one thing, pilots are told another thing, and then the FAA issues a letter saying something else.
It is very similar to the situation where the controller does not expect a PT, but pilots are required to do it.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Approach is certainly an ATC facility too.
I think we can all agree Approach is the appropriate authority to clear VFR traffic into a Bravo.
And I think we can all agree Approach is the appropriate authority for VFR traffic to contact before entering Charlie.
Why is a Delta airspace with an approach controller any different? (The communication requirement FARs are identical for Charlie and Delta airspace).
91.129 also states that in a Charlie/Delta, one must maintain two way communication. I would read that to mean you shouldn't be changing frequency to contact Tower until instructed to do so (You aren't really maintaining communication while you are changing frequencies). And Approach may have a good reason for not handing you off immediately - they may need to maintain separation around other IFR traffic in that Delta.
A typical VFR flight for me here transits 2 or 3 Delta airspaces and a Bravo in less than 10 minutes. When being vectored by approach/departure, is it really the FAA's desire for me to initiate contact with those 3 towers individually?
When with approach, that controller will coordinate. I've been given a change to a tower freq well inside what would be a Class D area by the approach controller. He had pre-coordinated and the tower was expecting me when I contacted them. Shouldn't be a huge issue.
tgrayson
New Member
Because most Class D airports don't have an approach control.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
I don't think that's true. Can you list the ones you're thinking about?
tgrayson
New Member
Not referring to the local class B, C, TRSA, or Center that might provide approach services to IFR aircraft.