Class E surface area extension to airport

[HH-60H]

Are you talking in general or navyflier's case? Generally, I agree, it doesn't make sense, but w/ his example the LOA apparently does exist, so it's kind of academic. Or maybe that was your point.

I guess in xnvyflyr's case...

If I am creating an LOA, I can't create authority, I can only share or delegate authority that already exists. If authority could be created, then govt agencies could get together and expand their powers. Obviously, some do, but in this case it could/should easily get shot down if it wasn't approved by atleast big FAA.

 

[Gatordev]

Yeah, that makes sense. I see what you're saying.

Class E airspace: "Diplomatic immunity..."

 

[xnvyflyer]

Thanks boys for the input. Very much appreciated.

Let me quote a few sections of the LOA which I just pulled out of my files.

"Tower is responsible for and shall:

(4) Control VFR aircraft within the Tower Class D Surface Area and Class E Arrival Extension."

Here's another.

"PALOMAR ATCT DELEGATED AIRSPACE

b. Echo airspace. Palomar has two Class echo extensions. During the time the ATCT is operational, and the reported weather is below basic VFR minimums, the Palomar Class Echo extensions become part of the Palomar surface area. The extension to the northwest provides protection for the Palomar VOR-A approach and the extension to the east provides protection for the Palomar ILS RWY 24 approach."

What a crock. I have no idea if this was some "backdoor" LOA or what. Why this airport seems to think it needs this "protection" that ordinary FAA rules don't provide escapes me.

 

[gunfighter77]

I'm not a fan of magic LOAs unless they are in favor of helos. Contact Cheryl, she is the Marine liaison with the FAA in SOCAL. She is very nice and knowledgeable about the airspace in SOCAL. (858)-577-1637 cherlynn.jones@faa

 

[HH-60H]

The terms of the LOA sound pretty shady. Admittedly though, I am not an expert on any of this stuff.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Thanks boys for the input. Very much appreciated.

Let me quote a few sections of the LOA which I just pulled out of my files.

"Tower is responsible for and shall:

(4) Control VFR aircraft within the Tower Class D Surface Area and Class E Arrival Extension."

Here's another.

"PALOMAR ATCT DELEGATED AIRSPACE

b. Echo airspace. Palomar has two Class echo extensions. During the time the ATCT is operational, and the reported weather is below basic VFR minimums, the Palomar Class Echo extensions become part of the Palomar surface area. The extension to the northwest provides protection for the Palomar VOR-A approach and the extension to the east provides protection for the Palomar ILS RWY 24 approach."

What a crock. I have no idea if this was some "backdoor" LOA or what. Why this airport seems to think it needs this "protection" that ordinary FAA rules don't provide escapes me.

This is normal at many airports around the country. Class E is controlled airspace. IFR traffic has to be in controlled airspace. The protection is so that an aircraft in the clouds shooting an approach does not run into someone. It provides protection and allows for the separation of aircraft like IFR is supposed to do. There is no see and avoid in the clouds.

It's a logical thing. You can't expect a pilot shooting an approach in IMC to be looking at / trying to look through the clouds for other aircraft. And you can't expect an air traffic controller / tower operator to provide separation of aircraft effectively if he is not talking to and does not have control of all the aircraft in the approach airspace. If these extensions did not exist, you'd have aircraft being vectored off their approaches left and right.

When the weather is above VFR minimums, even IFR traffic is expected to have a good visual lookout so the protection is not necessary.

 

[insanebikerboy]

This is normal at many airports around the country. Class E is controlled airspace. IFR traffic has to be in controlled airspace. The protection is so that an aircraft in the clouds shooting an approach does not run into someone. It provides protection and allows for the separation of aircraft like IFR is supposed to do. There is no see and avoid in the clouds.

It's a logical thing. You can't expect a pilot shooting an approach in IMC to be looking at / trying to look through the clouds for other aircraft. And you can't expect an air traffic controller / tower operator to provide separation of aircraft effectively if he is not talking to and does not have control of all the aircraft in the approach airspace. If these extensions did not exist, you'd have aircraft being vectored off their approaches left and right.

When the weather is above VFR minimums, even IFR traffic is expected to have a good visual lookout so the protection is not necessary.

Yeah, but I think Xnavy is saying that the extension area is VMC, the airfield itself is IMC. If the extension area was IFR, I'd totally agree, but it still doesn't make sense to me that if the extension airspace is CAVU then why the need for the tower to control it. At that point, see and avoid is available for all traffic, IFR and VFR.

As the wording goes, extension areas are made for control of IFR traffic without needing to place a communications requirement on VFR traffic, so how can a VMC condition in E airspace have a communication requirement (not rhetorical, actual question). The LOA seems to cover that but if the unknowing, unfamiliar private pilot flies through he'd technically be violating the LOA but wouldn't have a clue about it, since according to the FAR/AIM, it's ok.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Yeah, but I think Xnavy is saying that the extension area is VMC, the airfield itself is IMC. If the extension area was IFR, I'd totally agree, but it still doesn't make sense to me that if the extension airspace is CAVU then why the need for the tower to control it. At that point, see and avoid is available for all traffic, IFR and VFR.

As the wording goes, extension areas are made for control of IFR traffic without needing to place a communications requirement on VFR traffic, so how can a VMC condition in E airspace have a communication requirement (not rhetorical, actual question). The LOA seems to cover that but if the unknowing, unfamiliar private pilot flies through he'd technically be violating the LOA but wouldn't have a clue about it, since according to the FAR/AIM, it's ok.

Have you shot many approaches in actual conditions? If I had a choice (and the safest way to do things) I'd be established on the approach and stabilized when I entered the goo at the airport. Vectoring around the sky and grabbing the localizer / gs at the last minute is not the way to do things. There is a reason the FAFs aren't on top of the runway.

If any part of the approach is IMC, then the whole approach is IMC.

 

[xnvyflyer]

I'm not a fan of magic LOAs unless they are in favor of helos. Contact Cheryl, she is the Marine liaison with the FAA in SOCAL. She is very nice and knowledgeable about the airspace in SOCAL. (858)-577-1637 cherlynn.jones@faa

As soon as I get back from the in-laws in Bakersfield (God help me) I'll be giving her a call.

Just to help me out though when I am talking with her, is she hot?

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Have you shot many approaches in actual conditions? If I had a choice (and the safest way to do things) I'd be established on the approach and stabilized when I entered the goo at the airport. Vectoring around the sky and grabbing the localizer / gs at the last minute is not the way to do things. There is a reason the FAFs aren't on top of the runway.

If any part of the approach is IMC, then the whole approach is IMC.

I haven't shot many, but I have shot a few and I totally agree about being established when going in. I guess that gives a good reason as to why the tower has control over the extension area, as having to intercept close to the runway is a pain. On the flip side though, if the tower has control, then why not just make it all class D instead of having it as an E extension area.

What I was getting at though was if a newly minted private pilot was flying around saw it on the chart and knew it was VFR would go flying right through. The only way he wouldn't would be if he had knowledge of the LOA, or was talking to approach/tower, which he doesn't necessarily have to do. As far as I've seen LOA's aren't notam'd or otherwise easily available.

 

[jamnww]

On the flip side though, if the tower has control, then why not just make it all class D instead of having it as an E extension area.

Because they don't need control of it all the time, only when the field is IMC.

What I was getting at though was if a newly minted private pilot was flying around saw it on the chart and knew it was VFR would go flying right through. The only way he wouldn't would be if he had knowledge of the LOA, or was talking to approach/tower, which he doesn't necessarily have to do. As far as I've seen LOA's aren't notam'd or otherwise easily available.

Its bad headwork to not talk to someone when flying around anyway, whether its approach or the nearest tower. If someone was to bust through without talking, as happens often in the Florida Panhandle then they adapt and adjust, case in point I was on final at the FAF and was told to do a 360 degree right turn because some private pilot busted through the airspace and they needed to get seperation. In order to minimize that they control everyone they can.

 

[HH-60H]

Its bad headwork to not talk to someone when flying around anyway, whether its approach or the nearest tower. If someone was to bust through without talking, as happens often in the Florida Panhandle then they adapt and adjust, case in point I was on final at the FAF and was told to do a 360 degree right turn because some private pilot busted through the airspace and they needed to get seperation. In order to minimize that they control everyone they can.

But that's just it, under the current rules pilots aren't required to talk to anyone in Class E. Bad headwork or not those are the rules and that is how it's taught in flight schools around the country. Heck, a plane could fly through there without a radio.

Why create new rules, the knowledge of which are not accessible to everybody? Why not turn that Class E into D? Or, better yet, change the FARs.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Just a simple question - how is the LOA depicted on the VFR sectional? Seems to me that they could quell the debate by having it as a combination of Class E Surface Area and Class D airspace on the sectional, with a note on the back...

 

[insanebikerboy]

Because they don't need control of it all the time, only when the field is IMC.

Right, but it's usually approach that clears someone for an approach, tower just clears people to land. In this case, it appears as if Palomar has received authority to clear people for an approach and to land, so that's why I wonder why the airspace shouldn't be D.

Its bad headwork to not talk to someone when flying around anyway, whether its approach or the nearest tower. If someone was to bust through without talking, as happens often in the Florida Panhandle then they adapt and adjust, case in point I was on final at the FAF and was told to do a 360 degree right turn because some private pilot busted through the airspace and they needed to get seperation. In order to minimize that they control everyone they can.

As HH-60H said, bad headwork or not, there is no legal requirement for a pilot to talk to anyone flying through the extension area when it is VFR. The AIM briefly talks about this in 4-3-16(a), but it only says "good judgment", it doesn't talk about anything being required. The AIM is only explanatory anyways, not regulatory like the FAR's.

Just a simple question - how is the LOA depicted on the VFR sectional? Seems to me that they could quell the debate by having it as a combination of Class E Surface Area and Class D airspace on the sectional, with a note on the back...

It's not, and that's what the problem is as I see it. The LOA apparently exists, but Notams/IFR Sup/VFR Sup don't list it as such. So, how is the average Joe supposed to find out about it?

http://skyvector.com/#30-24-3-3633-3081

 

[jamnww]

But that's just it, under the current rules pilots aren't required to talk to anyone in Class E. Bad headwork or not those are the rules and that is how it's taught in flight schools around the country. Heck, a plane could fly through there without a radio.

Why create new rules, the knowledge of which are not accessible to everybody? Why not turn that Class E into D? Or, better yet, change the FARs.

I guess my point is that I don't really think that the answer is more regulation or more paragraphs added to the FAR / AIM. If someone busts through the E extension while an aircraft is on an approach, no big deal they can get vectored seperation and do another one. If someone makes the right decision and calls only to be told to remain clear then take a slightly longer trip home no big deal.

As I see it its a matter of if they tell you to do it then its just common sense to follow the guidance as long as it doesn't put you at risk but if you don't talk to anyone you can squeeze through but you better hope you got good eyes and ATC does their job by assuring clearance for th IFR traffic.

We can't expect every private pilot to be familiar with or even have access to every LOA, especially since they change. And the answer isn't to make an encyclopedia type FAR that includes every possible situation.