CLASS D "extensions?"

Anyway. Back to Surface Areas. I cannot find any justification to have taken Surface Area out that far to the West. Assuming that it was about Departures, which it seems to be, I find nothing that would justify plotting it out with anything more restrictive than a 200' per mile gradient. That's 3.5 miles to get to the surrounding Class E with a floor of 700' AGL. Suppose the 300' above the floor of controlled airspace analogy is used like when calculating Minimum Vectoring Altitudes, that would only take it out 5 miles.

I still can't find the justification to establish Surface Area for departures anyway. They were originally (as Control Zones) about protecting Instrument Arrivals descending out of the clouds from traffic flying Clear of Cloud with 1 mile visibility. What Surface Areas do is simply take controlled airspace to the surface.
 
luvflyin said:
Anyway. Back to Surface Areas. I cannot find any justification to have taken Surface Area out that far to the West. Assuming that it was about Departures, which it seems to be, I find nothing that would justify plotting it out with anything more restrictive than a 200' per mile gradient. That's 3.5 miles to get to the surrounding Class E with a floor of 700' AGL. Suppose the 300' above the floor of controlled airspace analogy is used like when calculating Minimum Vectoring Altitudes, that would only take it out 5 miles.
Click to expand...

There is no justification. Nor is there any benefit to any of the parties involved; pilots, Salem Tower, or Seattle Center.

I still can't find the justification to establish Surface Area for departures anyway. They were originally (as Control Zones) about protecting Instrument Arrivals descending out of the clouds from traffic flying Clear of Cloud with 1 mile visibility. What Surface Areas do is simply take controlled airspace to the surface.
Click to expand...
The justification for surface areas is the same as it was for control zones.
 
roncachamp said:
There is no justification. Nor is there any benefit to any of the parties involved; pilots, Salem Tower, or Seattle Center.

The justification for surface areas is the same as it was for control zones.
Click to expand...

There could be a lot of benefit for the Tower. I smell fraud, waste and abuse issues on the horizon.
 
Someone who is close to the situation tells me this was done in order to avoid updating the SLE3 radar departure. All they would have had to do, I'm told, would be to use the existing E surface area north and south of the airport and have departures fly runway heading to 2,700, rather than trying to give them early turnouts.
 
Pilawt said:
Someone who is close to the situation tells me this was done in order to avoid updating the SLE3 radar departure. All they would have had to do, I'm told, would be to use the existing E surface area north and south of the airport and have departures fly runway heading to 2,700, rather than trying to give them early turnouts.
Click to expand...

Expanding the Class D airspace has no effect on instrument departures.
 
Pilawt said:
Someone who is close to the situation tells me this was done in order to avoid updating the SLE3 radar departure. All they would have had to do, I'm told, would be to use the existing E surface area north and south of the airport and have departures fly runway heading to 2,700, rather than trying to give them early turnouts.
Click to expand...

Even that doesn't seem to justify it. Yes the SLE3 is a RADAR vector SID. Departure obstruction clearance is based on a 200' per mile gradient. There might be issues with the Centers rules on when they can begin vectoring in relation to controlled airspace. Taking controlled airspace to the surface beyond 3.5 miles in an area where the floor of controlled airspace is already 700 AGL solves nothing. Beyond that magenta 700 AGL area is blue 1200 AGL area. That would only require 6 miles. BUT, along with the Surface Area changes made, there was also 700 AGL Class E airspace added in that change. The whole issue can be based on the floor of controlled airspace being 700 AGL. Thinking they had to add Surface Area over 8 miles out passes neither the "regulation check" or the logic check.
 
luvflyin said:
It's walking like make em talk to us an get the traffic count up, it's quacking like make em talk to us and get the traffic count up.
Click to expand...

Unless procedures have changed significantly in the past few years the tower traffic count is airport operations; landings and takeoffs. Expanding the Class D airspace won't alter those numbers.
 
roncachamp said:
Unless procedures have changed significantly in the past few years the tower traffic count is airport operations; landings and takeoffs. Expanding the Class D airspace won't alter those numbers.
Click to expand...

Overflights. IFR and VFR operations performed by an aircraft that originates outside the towers' airspace and enters and exits the towers' or TRACON’s airspace without landing. This count also includes helicopter operations that land or depart from an airport non-movement area or from an off-airport location.

Tower Operations: Reports IFR and VFR itinerant operations (arrivals and departures), IFR and VFR overflights, and local operations worked by the tower.

Airport Operations: Reports IFR itinerant and VFR itinerant operations (arrivals and departures), and local operations at the airport as reported by Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs). It does not include overflights.
 
luvflyin said:
Overflights. IFR and VFR operations performed by an aircraft that originates outside the towers' airspace and enters and exits the towers' or TRACON’s airspace without landing. This count also includes helicopter operations that land or depart from an airport non-movement area or from an off-airport location.

Tower Operations: Reports IFR and VFR itinerant operations (arrivals and departures), IFR and VFR overflights, and local operations worked by the tower.

Airport Operations: Reports IFR itinerant and VFR itinerant operations (arrivals and departures), and local operations at the airport as reported by Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs). It does not include overflights.
Click to expand...

So ya think a contract tower finagled an expanded Class D surface area in order to capture overflight traffic count?
 
It seems unlikely, given that it seems to have taken tower personnel by surprise.
 
Palmpilot said:
It seems unlikely, given that it seems to have taken tower personnel by surprise.
Click to expand...

The NPRM states; "After a biennial review, the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport."

If that's sincere then the Airspace and Procedures Specialist who did the analysis is incompetent.
 
roncachamp said:
The NPRM states; "After a biennial review, the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport."

If that's sincere then the Airspace and Procedures Specialist who did the analysis is incompetent.
Click to expand...

There is a name and contact info on the NPRM. You could make an inquiry.
 
Major FAA backpedaling in progress.

From the Federal Register, for publication 9/21/2015:
This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at McNary Field, Salem, OR. After further review, the FAA found some airspace unnecessary for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Click to expand...
SLE_150921_zps50och0cu.jpg


:)
 
Last edited:
The worst screw-up that I was involved with was when El Toro Marine Base northeast of KSNA closed circa 2002-03. No one at the FAA figured out that the El Toro Class C disappeared, thus leaving KSNA with a loss of a good chunk of that El Toro Class C area that was used mostly for KSNA operations.

Because of the complexity of Class C rulemaking it took about one year to get that one corrected.
 
If the magenta line is 700 AGL Class E, this passes the logic test. If it's additional Surface Area it still seems excessive, but a whole lot more workable than before. Good Job Oregon Pilots Association for jumping right smack dab on top of this. Hopefully learning took place in Renton and their next project will be looked at a little more closely.
 
aterpster said:
The worst screw-up that I was involved with was when El Toro Marine Base northeast of KSNA closed circa 2002-03. No one at the FAA figured out that the El Toro Class C disappeared, thus leaving KSNA with a loss of a good chunk of that El Toro Class C area that was used mostly for KSNA operations.

Because of the complexity of Class C rulemaking it took about one year to get that one corrected.
Click to expand...

They actually went through the process to "decommission," or whatever it's called, NZJ's C and didn't build a new one??? I'm assuming the old one had C to the surface around SNA?? Was there no Class C there at all for a year?
 
luvflyin said:
If the magenta line is 700 AGL Class E, this passes the logic test. If it's additional Surface Area it still seems excessive, but a whole lot more workable than before. Good Job Oregon Pilots Association for jumping right smack dab on top of this. Hopefully learning took place in Renton and their next project will be looked at a little more closely.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, until someone (s) retires or transfers out and other bodies transfer in. Then, it just goes back to Square One or perhaps Square 2.6.
 
Re. aterpster's link to the FR:

The preamble sure doesn't seem to match the legal descriptions that follow. Poor proofreading combined with novice-level technical ability, maybe??
And,
With this being a contact tower, and no air carrier scheduled operations, along with a questionable value to "the public interest", there may not be a need for expansions to contain IFPs... (JO 7400.2 17-1-3 c.)
And,
If the calculations to contain departures were based upon the standard climb gradient of 200 ft/NM, then there is another reason to question the result, as the lowest climb gradient specified is 230 ft/NM
 
This is a great example of how inept the "stovepiped" FAA is. This should have been vetted thru a combined LOB examination, similar to the Regional Airspace Procedures Team (that, BTW, does not review airspace actions, no matter what the name implies)
 
okav8r said:
This is a great example of how inept the "stovepiped" FAA is. This should have been vetted thru a combined LOB examination, similar to the Regional Airspace Procedures Team (that, BTW, does not review airspace actions, no matter what the name implies)
Click to expand...

The RAPTs are not exactly sterling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top