I guess my question would be why would the typical Average Joe need all the information in the LOA, for example Helo course rules in and out of MCAS Miramar? We have ATC to keep an eye out for us and keep IMC seperation, and VMC we should all be maintaining a good lookout anyway. If you talk to someone, whether it be SOCAL approach or a specific tower, and they tell you to remain clear for whatever reason what does it hurt to remain clear?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Class E surface area extension to airport
- Thread starter xnvyflyer
- Start date
I guess my question would be why would the typical Average Joe need all the information in the LOA, for example Helo course rules in and out of MCAS Miramar? We have ATC to keep an eye out for us and keep IMC seperation, and VMC we should all be maintaining a good lookout anyway. If you talk to someone, whether it be SOCAL approach or a specific tower, and they tell you to remain clear for whatever reason what does it hurt to remain clear?
Lots of good posts on this thread. I agree, if the class E airspace is IMC, then only people operating IFR will be in it. However, VFR aircraft can and will still operate in class E airspace with IFR aircraft. The VFR aircraft is responsible for his traffic separation, the controlling agency separates the IFR aircraft. Same with airways...class E. I fly through V-198 all the time VFR, but there are IFR aircraft operating there as well.
It appears that tower has a legitimate beef since they have a signed LOA. I would address this with all parties, including the tower supervisor first and then on up from there with the military liason. I have found that the FAA is sometimes reasonable when you address the problem in a professional manner.
And I think that's where the beef is coming from. I agree totally that it makes sense to keep clear, that if approach says stay clear, it's not unreasonable to fly 5 miles to the east. However, since it's E, the guy doesn't have to talk to approach so he wouldn't know of any traffic conflict other than see-and-avoid.
As for the LOA, the average Joe doesn't necessarily need to have the info, but say he is transiting by, calls Palomar tower just as an SA aid, and tower tells him to stay out of the E extension area or tries to vector him around it. The pilot doesn't have to follow that instruction since it is E in his eyes (and on the chart) and he doesn't know of the LOA giving tower control of the extension area. Would it be a good headwork to heed tower's advice? Probably, but it's not a legal requirement. Until you reply to ATC accepting a vector, i.e. turn right 150, you don't have to fly that vector. Once you roger up to it, you're expected to fly that heading (that's straight from the FAA mil guy at Tracon).
Now that is a very interesting question... What if, in this case, the VFR pilot chooses to ignore Palomar tower?
It hurts the officers/deputies/citizens on the ground if we can't help them when they need it. I am not in there tooling around on my weekend Cessna flight burning avgas. To keep us from doing our job in IMC Class D...fine. No problem. In VMC Class E...I have a problem with that.
I guess it depends on how old you like them. She has been working for the FAA for over 20 years. It will help if you imagine her as a young college student though.
The latest
Just got off the phone with a 20 year vet of the FAA, Cheryl Jones as recommended to me by Gunfighter 77 (see earlier post). She was awesome!! She is very knowledgeable and took time to talk to me from her home after getting back from a hectic work related trip.
Short story long, she agrees with my assertion that aircraft in the Class E operating in VMC have NO communications requirements with tower and can operate there all day long. Aircraft cannot be denied access by tower so long as they are operating VFR. If it gets below basic VFR, aircraft may request a SVFR to operate in the Class E.
Cheryl will be in touch with Palomar Tower and SOCAL tracon very soon to tell them they are incorrect and iron out the details. She said she'd get back to me after doing this to let me know how it went.
Thanks again to all for your input on this. You guys are a great sounding board.
Just got off the phone with a 20 year vet of the FAA, Cheryl Jones as recommended to me by Gunfighter 77 (see earlier post). She was awesome!! She is very knowledgeable and took time to talk to me from her home after getting back from a hectic work related trip.
Short story long, she agrees with my assertion that aircraft in the Class E operating in VMC have NO communications requirements with tower and can operate there all day long. Aircraft cannot be denied access by tower so long as they are operating VFR. If it gets below basic VFR, aircraft may request a SVFR to operate in the Class E.
Cheryl will be in touch with Palomar Tower and SOCAL tracon very soon to tell them they are incorrect and iron out the details. She said she'd get back to me after doing this to let me know how it went.
Thanks again to all for your input on this. You guys are a great sounding board.
rdneckhelopilot
New Member
Class E surface extension revisited
A little late on the discussion (a year and 8 months roughly), but could we bring back to life a dead horse? I had a student bring this issue up during table talk tonight, about needing a clearance to fly through a Class E surface extension. It threw me off so I promised to do some homework. That brought me here.
I spent over an hour reading through the discussion and the references. I ended up in the FAR's under 91.127 (c). It says that if a control tower is present, communication MUST be made prior to 4 nm. However it does not preclude you from making contact with them since they have jurisdiction of the airspace as stated previously in paragraph (a).
The catch is that if there is a LOA between the over-lying control agency and the tower that controls the airport, the tower now bases their control of the Class E from the fact that their airfield is IMC and they control the airspace up to 2500 AGL (usually).
As for the LOA, it is bull that it is not readily available and posted, but you can still get a speeding ticket when you don't know the speed limit. Bottom line the way I see it is that the FAR does give the exception for ATC jurisdiction in paragraph (a). So the airport does have the right to prevent you from passing through VFR, but only up to 2500 AGL.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I enjoy learning.
A little late on the discussion (a year and 8 months roughly), but could we bring back to life a dead horse? I had a student bring this issue up during table talk tonight, about needing a clearance to fly through a Class E surface extension. It threw me off so I promised to do some homework. That brought me here.
I spent over an hour reading through the discussion and the references. I ended up in the FAR's under 91.127 (c). It says that if a control tower is present, communication MUST be made prior to 4 nm. However it does not preclude you from making contact with them since they have jurisdiction of the airspace as stated previously in paragraph (a).
The catch is that if there is a LOA between the over-lying control agency and the tower that controls the airport, the tower now bases their control of the Class E from the fact that their airfield is IMC and they control the airspace up to 2500 AGL (usually).
As for the LOA, it is bull that it is not readily available and posted, but you can still get a speeding ticket when you don't know the speed limit. Bottom line the way I see it is that the FAR does give the exception for ATC jurisdiction in paragraph (a). So the airport does have the right to prevent you from passing through VFR, but only up to 2500 AGL.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I enjoy learning.
Hey Red, don't know what else I can say except what has already been posted. There is no comms requirement in a Class E for VFR pilots who remain in VMC conditions. That said, I know the controllers at this airport like to hear from me even on the clearest of days when I have no intention of operating in the Class D surface area at all, nevermind the Class E surface area when the airport is IMC. I just tell them where I am, they say thanks for the call and, workload permitting, call nearby traffic for me.
Remember also, I was talking specifically about a Class E surface area extension to a Class D airport.
The LOA was bogus and unenforceable. The airport in question knows that now and we work together much better now that we are all on the same sheet of music.
Let me know if I was helping or not.
X
Remember also, I was talking specifically about a Class E surface area extension to a Class D airport.
The LOA was bogus and unenforceable. The airport in question knows that now and we work together much better now that we are all on the same sheet of music.
Let me know if I was helping or not.
X
rdneckhelopilot
New Member
Class E extension
Thanks for the information. I guess I read the FAR a little different than most. As for the discussion with my student, my answer was the same as your answer. I will be remaining with no comms required in this situation for VFR traffic. Still a very strange situation though the way I read the FAR.
Thanks for the information. I guess I read the FAR a little different than most. As for the discussion with my student, my answer was the same as your answer. I will be remaining with no comms required in this situation for VFR traffic. Still a very strange situation though the way I read the FAR.
Couple more thoughts (and I had to look a lot of this stuff up to organize my thoughts), I interpret the 4nm/2500' AGL in 91.127c and 91.126d as intended for towered airports that are Class E or G from the surface but not a Class D like Palomar. As in, if the towered airport is a Class D or better then the Class D is tailored to the needs of that particular airport (backdoor LOAs notwithstanding...).
I just figured it was a relic from the pre-199? national airspace system. The only example of such an oddball towered airport not in Class D or higher I can point to is Hagler AAF:
http://skyvector.com/#30-34-3-1985-950
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSLJ
Which kinda goes back to the point that if you're gonna put a tower there and make guys talk to the tower, then just put Class D around it and put it on the chart. Which reminds me- why again do TRSAs still exist?
I just figured it was a relic from the pre-199? national airspace system. The only example of such an oddball towered airport not in Class D or higher I can point to is Hagler AAF:
http://skyvector.com/#30-34-3-1985-950
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSLJ
Which kinda goes back to the point that if you're gonna put a tower there and make guys talk to the tower, then just put Class D around it and put it on the chart. Which reminds me- why again do TRSAs still exist?
Not smart, sure, but still totally legal. Reminds me of one evening flying about 8 miles north of K-Bay. I don't remember our exact altitude, but I'm guessing it wasn't any higher than 500 feet. I knew we were crossing the FAC for the PAR, but WELL below the min altitude for the TERPS. There was a G IV on the PAR that we saw, and while we were going to get a good view, we were completely out of everyone's business. Sure enough, I get a guard call from tower wanting to tell me where I was. I'm guessing the G IV guys got nervous, but it irritated me because apparently no one knew the rules or how to utilize them.
As for the not smart part... If you ever fly at Whiting for Primary, you'll be spinning right next to the west gate for the terminal area of PNS. Kind of crazy when you see the radar tapes, but it's a normal daily occurrence. Just remember to squawk!