Class E surface area extension to airport

[xnvyflyer]

Looks like great minds think alike. Although you all seem knowledgeable, you can see there is no clean answer. It's my humble opinion that the FAA is failing us on this.

As HH-60H said, "However, I notice a conspicuous absence of information covering operations in Class E airspace." I agree.

What I don't get is why this is any different than if the field is calling the wx VMC? If the wx in the Class E surface area is still great, the see and avoid should still apply. Just because an aircraft is on an instrument approach to a place several miles away where the wx is IMC, they are not relieved of "see and avoid" while in VMC.

Oh, to add insult to injury, Palomar Tower has a Letter of Agreement with SOCAL TRACON which says that they own the Class E Surface Area Extension when the field is under IFR. I have no idea, and they can't explain it to be, how the average Joe flying around is supposed to know anything about this LOA, but that's a whole different can of worms. It looks to be unenforceable. Like me writing you a speeding ticket but never pulling you over and giving it to you yet expecting you to show up in court.

Just got an e-mail from an AOPA liason to the FAA. For now, it seems the FAA isn't dealing with their LOA. However, check out this e-mail:

Scott:​

​

Thank you for the follow up. We did receive a reply from the FAA last week. They found that the tower does have the authority to keep aircraft out of the Class E extension when the airport is IFR. I did some further research on the issue and discussed it with one of our consultants. According to him, if you initiate communications with the tower prior to entering the Class E, the tower can restrict you from entering the airspace, but if you do not contact the tower, you can fly into the Class E extension so long as you maintain VFR in accordance with the regulations.​

​

It's a bit convoluted, but unfortunately is the way these regulations are sometimes understood. If the airport is IFR, I would strongly recommend, despite the possibility of being denied access, that you do communicate with the tower. If they are running conducting real-world approaches, it could compromise safety to have an aircraft in the Class E extension.

WTF over? If that's the case, make it Class D airspace!!!

Anybody feeling my pain? Ahh, the federal government.
​

If I get closure from the FAA before I turn 90 I'll be sure to let you guys know.

 

[nugget81]

This is a very interesting situation. I agree that Palomar Tower should not have authority over the Class E airspace adjacent to the Class D airspace during IFR operations. I emailed a friend who's a controller at LAX Tower to see if she can shed some light or provide some better contacts. I'll let you know what I hear....

 

[bobbybrock]

What about 91.155 and 91.157

 

[xnvyflyer]

This is a very interesting situation. I agree that Palomar Tower should not have authority over the Class E airspace adjacent to the Class D airspace during IFR operations. I emailed a friend who's a controller at LAX Tower to see if she can shed some light or provide some better contacts. I'll let you know what I hear....

Very much appreciated. This is insane.

I replied to the guy at AOPA but he is pretty slow at responding. This has been dragging on for way too long.

I don't imagine your controller friend will have a differing opinion from ours but I would love to get any FAA contact information. It's almost like they are this entity that really can't be contacted other than the local guys that have no say.

Thanks again.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Again this is an interpretation of these parts. None of these specifically address xnvyflyr's problem. Although I do believe this a correct interpretation.

Yeah, and that's the problem with any legal documents, but taken in the most literal form, that's my interpretation.

None of the parts you listed address this at all.

I said IMC, not IFR. Xnavy's example said the extension area is VMC, so accordingly in E airspace, a VFR aircraft only has to follow VFR weather mins. That is implied by .127 but stated explicitly in 91.155. The only problem I can see is if somewhere in the FAR's says a class D tower/airfield has control over an extension area when the field is IFR. I've yet to find it, but I'm still looking.

Taken by itself, this is not true, VFR aircraft are required to communicate in Class B, C, and D, airspace (as described in Parts .129, .130. and .131). Even if you mean only in Class E and G, no part says this specifically, it just ISN'T said anywhere (that I can find)

.126 through .131 all talk about that, under the Communications with Control Towers section.

Also, under .129.c.1, it says that the pilot must have approval from the controlling facility, which, if the field is IFR, would be the appropriate approach control for approaches into that airport. Tower would just clear them to land.

Here's an example, say there's a well defined fog bank, something like what might happen on the Monterey Bay. If the whole airspace was class E, a pilot flying through the fog bank would have to be on an IFR clearance, talking to someone, but a VFR aircraft 1 mile laterally away can be fat, dumb and happy and not talking to anyone as long as he doesn't penetrate the fog bank and maintains VFR wx mins.

I agree, but where does it say that?

I dunno, but am looking for it.




I guess Xnavy's email puts some emphasis on the control tower having jurisdiction, but to me that doesn't make sense. A tower doesn't have control over all airspace, just that in the immediate vicinity of their field. ATC is who controls the rest. The reason for my opinion is it isn't a tower who clears a pilot for an approach, approach control does that. If the field is IFR and the pilot is on an IFR flight plan, then approach would be coordinating clearance for an approach to a field with that pilot. When the pilot is switched over to tower's freq, tower clears that guy to land.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that the way I read it ATC should have control over the extension area, not the tower. Now, the question is, where the hell is the FAR for that?!?

 

[HH-60H]

I suppose what I'm getting at is that the way I read it ATC should have control over the extension area, not the tower. Now, the question is, where the hell is the FAR for that?!?

I agree with this statement and everything else you have said. Your last question is my main point, and xnvyflyr's main question, we have only inferred the answer to it, but that's probably not good enough for him to fight KCRQ. Especially if they have this magical LOA that gives them extra authority.

 

[Fly Navy]

I'm pretty sure the LOA is something many in GA don't know about... I'm willing to bet most of us military fliers know about them, but that's because we have all the special requests, etc.

And the FAA giveth and taketh away... sometimes 3 times within a 30 minute CAS vul...

 

[HH-60H]

I'm pretty sure the LOA is something many in GA don't know about... I'm willing to bet most of us military fliers know about them, but that's because we have all the special requests, etc.

And the FAA giveth and taketh away... sometimes 3 times within a 30 minute CAS vul...

Obviously, I am familiar with them and what they are, but how would anyone, military or civilian, flying through that airspace be aware of that specific one? It's not NOTAMed (I checked).

 

[HH-60H]

Let's forget the LOA for the moment and assume that the airspace still belonged to approach/SoCal TRACON. Where do they derive the authority to deny access to Class E airspace to VFR aircraft? For practical matters, how could they deny access, if the aircraft is not in radio contact? We fall back to the same set of questions as before.

 

[Flying Low]

I dunno, but am looking for it.

I would think it is implied in the fact that there is no separation for VFR aircraft in Delta airspace.

Another issue is how is someone calling Echo airspace IFR. What about operations SVFR? An extension to a Delta has to be at least 2 NM. Otherwise it is included as part of the Delta. I just don't see how tower can try to control the Echo airspace. I understand it is an extension to an airport. But it is still Echo airspace. Whether it is an extension area or an airway. It doesn't matter. They are both Echo airspace. They have the same cloud clearances and entry requirements. Can Tower control the other echo airspace around it?

 

[Fly Navy]

Obviously, I am familiar with them and what they are, but how would anyone, military or civilian, flying through that airspace be aware of that specific one? It's not NOTAMed (I checked).

I agree... just stating a point.

 

[Gatordev]

Obviously, I am familiar with them and what they are, but how would anyone, military or civilian, flying through that airspace be aware of that specific one? It's not NOTAMed (I checked).

Not saying this is the answer, but it seems to me that the LOA is the smoking gun. Just because someone doesn't know about it doesn't mean it isn't a valid rule. I have no FAR to back up my statement, but anecdotally, an example here is ops w/ the restricted area and South Field. There's two LOAs, specifically that deals w/ them and us. One allows ATC to use the airspace if available but it can be rescinded w/in a moments notice. The second allows us to fly approaches when we're closer than the standard TERPS allowance to the restricted area. Everyone does it day in and day out, but the only time you really even know about the LOAs, even as military, is if you go ask for them or the annual IGS brief that E6B mentioned.

Again, I know my examples are anecdotal and HH, I understand what you're saying about the letter of the law, but just putting it out there that LOAs don't seem to necessarily be that public unless you know to go ask for them.

 

[HH-60H]

Can Tower control the other echo airspace around it?

Apparently the magical LOA with SoCal TRACON gives them that authority.

 

[HH-60H]

Not saying this is the answer, but it seems to me that the LOA is the smoking gun. Just because someone doesn't know about it doesn't mean it isn't a valid rule. I have no FAR to back up my statement, but anecdotally, an example here is ops w/ the restricted area and South Field. There's two LOAs, specifically that deals w/ them and us. One allows ATC to use the airspace if available but it can be rescinded w/in a moments notice. The second allows us to fly approaches when we're closer than the standard TERPS allowance to the restricted area. Everyone does it day in and day out, but the only time you really even know about the LOAs, even as military, is if you go ask for them or the annual IGS brief that E6B mentioned.

Again, I know my examples are anecdotal and HH, I understand what you're saying about the letter of the law, but just putting it out there that LOAs don't seem to necessarily be that public unless you know to go ask for them.

Ok, I hear you, but let's assume the LOA didn't exist. Where does TRACON get the authority the deny entry into Class E airspace?

 

[Gatordev]

Ok, I hear you, but let's assume the LOA didn't exist. Where does TRACON get the authority the deny entry into Class E airspace?

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.