kkoran
Pattern Altitude
I think you are conflating "federally commissioned" and "sponsored by the FAA." AWOS-3s can be commissioned and used to provide official WX observations.
Airspace Queston TME (Houston)
- Thread starter Warlock
- Start date
roncachamp
Final Approach
I think you may have ignored some pertinent portions of that subparagraph. The current version of Flight Procedures and Airspace is FAA Order 8260.19G. The portion of the current subparagraph 8-6-6.f. that you quoted is:
Last edited:
The normal two-way communications requirement in 91.126(d) goes up to and including 2500 MSL. I see that the document at that link waives this for aircraft transiting the TME area at or above 2000 MSL, as well as for aircraft operating at Sport Flyers Airport.
Last edited:
Doggtyred
En-Route
Would it be possible that the surface area has simply not progressed through the rule-making process yet and is due to happen in the future? or that the surface area would be an undue burden on nearby uncontrolled airports that pre-dated the relatively recent construction of TME?
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
It explicitly says that you have to establish 2 day UNLESS transiting the area at or above 2000'MSL. Where did you derive that interpretation? In addition, it exempts the cutout around 27XS.
Is this a NOTAM?
http://download.aopa.org/articlefiles/140929notam.pdf
FAA says 7711-1 is a "waiver".
It's an AOPA file. Anyone have a source from the FAA?
Is this really how the FAA is running out airspace now?
http://download.aopa.org/articlefiles/140929notam.pdf
FAA says 7711-1 is a "waiver".
It's an AOPA file. Anyone have a source from the FAA?
Is this really how the FAA is running out airspace now?
Last edited:
You're right, I screwed it up. I should have said that it waives the 2 way requirement when transiting above 2000 MSL (in addition to waiving it in the cutout), whereas the normal requirement in 91.126(d) goes up to 2500 AGL. I'll fix that.
Last edited:
kkoran
Pattern Altitude
Yes it does; but that has nothing to do with with its use.
Non-Federal means it is ownd and operated by someone other than the federal government. There are hundreds of AWOSs owned by state/local governments and companies. As long as it is an approved system and properly maintained under FAA oversight, it is usable.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
Yeah, you'd think there'd be some kind of documentation for something nonstandard, but nope. Haven't seen anything except the notam the first week...
This is how they are running the US airspace now? We have to look at obscure 7711-1 waivers to see where the airspace is because the charts no longer indicate where the boundries are? Come on man!
kkoran
Pattern Altitude
It makes no sense to issue a waiver to a pilot requirement to a control tower.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
But we need to know the dimensions of the comm area we're held to even though it's smaller than regulation. It would affect my planning significantly.
At least it waives airspace restrictions instead of adding them, so if you follow the regulations as written, you won't be violating anything.
roncachamp
Final Approach
It says Non-Federal AWOS are classified into seven types and that AWOS-3 is among those seven. It's not saying that AWOS-3 is exclusively Non-Federal.
roncachamp
Final Approach
roncachamp
Final Approach
No. There is no airspace boundary to consider here, this is not a controlled airspace issue.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Why not?
kkoran
Pattern Altitude
What does giving the control tower a waiver to 91.126(d) accomplish when the regulation deals with what pilots are required to do?
roncachamp
Final Approach
The waiver gives nothing to the control tower. It relieves pilots in specific areas of the communications requirements of FAR 91.126(d).
kkoran
Pattern Altitude
How does a waiver issued to the tower do that? How is a pilot to know he/she doesn't have to talk to the tower?
roncachamp
Final Approach
By reading and understanding the waiver. Note that those who do not read or understand the waiver and talk to the tower anyway will not incur any penalty for doing so.
I think the issue revolves around whether this waiver is published through the NOTAM system so that pilots are likely to become aware of it. If it's not, then its purpose would remain largely unfulfilled except for those few pilots who accidentally find out about it.
Last edited:
kenjr
Line Up and Wait
hmmm...i never said it was.
roncachamp
Final Approach
The belief that it is was implicit in your message.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
Except that they do want one and will likely get it.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I don't see a significant issue here at all. The waiver eliminates the communications requirement of FAR 91.126(d) for some operations. Some operators may not be aware of the waiver and contact the tower anyway. So what? There's no penalty for calling the tower when it's not required. Pilots often call control towers when passing above Class D airspace. I'm confident none of them has ever been penalized for it.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Who wants it and why? Are all users in agreement about it?
Last edited:
I agree that it's not a significant issue, but it seems like a waste of taxpayer-paid-for man hours to put out something that will not be seen by many of those who would benefit from seeing it.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
The airport. They're trying to cater to and receive more of the bizjet traffic. I missed the FAA townhall about it that was held last month, unfortunately.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Most of those who would benefit from seeing it are those who operate out of Sport Flyers Airport. I'm confident they've been made aware of it. Other than them, the only folks who would benefit from seeing it are those who are just passing by within four miles of Houston Executive Airport between 2000' MSL and 2500' AGL. That's probably not many and the benefit is just not having to key the mic and speak a few words.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
The airport users are, the surrounding community is not. The sport flyers airpark is about apoplectic against it. It does not seem to matter very much.
roncachamp
Final Approach
So what are the issues? What benefits do the airport users see and what are the objections of the surrounding community? Sport Flyers has a waiver of the present communications requirement. They should use that to argue for a cutout of the Class D surface area.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
I'm sure there are others closer to the situation with better info than me. Based on what I have seen and heard I would boil it down to two things, inconvenience and change. It also doesn't help that a local airport owner doesn't get along with anyone and opposes everything that he doesn't make money doing.
The cutout for Sport Flyers probably isn't big enough, but if they make it bigger, it will interfere with instrument approaches on 17 for KTME. So not much more they can do.
If you look closely at the chart, KTME is just outside the Bravo in the Houston area. If you don't want to talk with the KTME tower, you are climbing to get over the delta, then descending to get under the bravo shelf and you don't have a lot of area to do it. So, it's viewed as inconvenient. Is talking to the tower a big deal? Of course not. But the westside of Houston has always been kind of the rural free for all area, with a training ground for private pilots, and it's changing.
People don't like change.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
There is a cutout proposed that is rather large, fortunately.
I'm sure there are others closer to the situation with better info than me. Based on what I have seen and heard I would boil it down to two things, inconvenience and change. It also doesn't help that a local airport owner doesn't get along with anyone and opposes everything that he doesn't make money doing.
The cutout for Sport Flyers probably isn't big enough, but if they make it bigger, it will interfere with instrument approaches on 17 for KTME. So not much more they can do.
If you look closely at the chart, KTME is just outside the Bravo in the Houston area. If you don't want to talk with the KTME tower, you are climbing to get over the delta, then descending to get under the bravo shelf and you don't have a lot of area to do it. So, it's viewed as inconvenient. Is talking to the tower a big deal? Of course not. But the westside of Houston has always been kind of the rural free for all area, with a training ground for private pilots, and it's changing.
People don't like change.
I used to train just south of executive. It was always nice and quiet there. Executive doesn't see much traffic anyways. And I think I know who you're taking about regarding that local airport lol. The anti Delta petitions are all over that airport!
I've gotten used to climbing and descending above executive, but considering their low traffic count, it just seems like airspace for the sake of airspace. I just can't agree with regulation for the sake of regulation. A surface echo would give them what they want, too.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I'd say the tower was a bigger change than the airspace will be.
Maybe. VFR minima and separation requirements in Class D are the same as Class E. It's already Class E at 700' AGL and up and will remain so in any size cutout of the Class D surface area for Sport Flyers.
The standard for the upper limit of a Class D surface area is 2500' AGL. Field elevation at KTME is 166' MSL, if they stick with the standard it will be charted at 2700' MSL. The base of the Class B shelf is 3000' MSL to the northeast and 4000' to the east and southeast. Doesn't seem inconvenient to me.
Suppose they end up setting the top of class D airspace at 2,000 AGL. 91.129(a) says that "In addition, each person must comply with §§91.126 and 91.127." Would that require communications up to and including 2,500 AGL, even though the class D only went up to 2,000?
roncachamp
Final Approach
You should direct this question to the FAA chief counsel.
