Keep me from writing a Chief Councils Letter for interpretation...

[Brad Z]

The words say "the ATC facility ... providing air traffic services", not "a ATC facility ... providing air traffic services". Reading this with my fake lawyer glasses, I predict that the non aviation lawyers in the Chief Counsel's office would say that this indicates you must be in contact with the Class-D tower controlling that airspace. They would not consider an understanding between agencies (LOA) to be sufficient to relieve the pilot of the duties required of him by the rules.

Why do you think they would not consider an LOA to be sufficient? An LOA is a legal agreement between facilities to provide ATC services. For example, class D airspace may go up to 2500msl, but an LOA specifies that the TRACON controls airspace above 2000. In that case, the tower controller is required to coordinate with the TRACON for controlled traffic that is still technically within class D airspace.

One must never forget that most (all?) of the lawyers in the CC's office have little direct experience with aviation. Playing mother-may-I with them is a Bad Idea (tm)

No true actually, I know of at least three AGC attorneys in DC who are pilots; one who was a pilot for a regional who decided to go to law school and is still an active flight instructor. Even the attorneys who are not pilots live and breath this stuff, and work with SMEs who know this stuff as well.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

I talked to KAEG tower 2 years ago and they said approach is required to coordinate all arrivals and they said they did have a landline to approach.

If approach failed to do their job, then it’s on them and not you.

Albuquerque May have fixed their problem but it appears the bigger problem hasn’t been addressed or this topic wouldn’t be coming back up over and over again

 

[denverpilot]

Albuquerque May have fixed their problem but it appears the bigger problem hasn’t been addressed or this topic wouldn’t be coming back up over and over again

Their “bigger problem” is as likely to be a snit between contract tower and FAA approach as it is likely to be a real operational problem. Isn’t KAEG contract?

You are talkin’ ABQ which is mostly a “government town” in culture. Many places in NM would dry up and blow away if it weren’t for Los Alamos and other stuff there.

Not saying it as gospel truth, but there’s a definite feel of that sort of thing in NM. It’s not a hotbed of private capital.

 

[ejensen]

My favorite story on the subject is one in which flight following was not being used. A student and I were southbound just west of Denver's Class B. We were going to pass through KBJC's Class D, so my student called the Tower and asked for a transition. "Contact Denver Approach on 125.1 for transition" was the immediate reply.

I had a similar contact. I believe the LOA cedes the upper part of BJC to the TRACON. No radar display in tower at the time

 

[midlifeflyer]

I had a similar contact. I believe the LOA cedes the upper part of BJC to the TRACON. No radar display in tower at the time

Yes, that's right.

 

[denverpilot]

I had a similar contact. I believe the LOA cedes the upper part of BJC to the TRACON. No radar display in tower at the time

BJC has been that way for “forever”. But I do understand the oddity of calling up who you think controls the airspace and getting told to call somebody else.

LOAs are strange that way. I get why they’re needed, but they make the chart and reality not match.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'd imagine they have an agreement that PAO can approve transits of the Moffett Class D for the purpose of keeping their pattern orderly.

When doing pattern work, being told to extend downwind into Moffett's airspace without being handed off is an everyday occurrence. I'm sure there is some communication between the towers, but when and how often that is required, I don't know. It's evident that they have a cooperative relationship.

In contrast to pattern work, when I'm given a through transition of Moffett's airspace during a VFR departure, Palo Alto Tower hands me off to Moffett Tower (and does so way early, usually shortly after I make the crosswind-to-downwind turn).

 

[Palmpilot]

This subject has been brought up many times before, but it needs to be. Because it keeps coming up and it’s a problem. I think a letter is warranted because this apparently happens often and if frustrating for all parties

Part of the problem is that 91.123(b) requires us to follow controller instructions absent an emergency, and if an approach controller gives a pilot an instruction that makes it difficult or impossible to comply with 91.129(c), then the pilot may have to choose which regulation to violate. I'm having a hard time imagining what a legal interpretation letter could say that would resolve that, given the way the regulations are currently written, and the fact that information about which controller has jurisdiction over which portion of some class Ds is not readily available to the pilot.

 

[N1120A]

Now going into double eagle airport once (KAEG) the ABQ Approach Controller (not center, approach) dropped me after I had entered the class D extension. The tower blasted me. He said that he does not have a line to the APP controller and I shouldn’t have entered his airspace. “How is a transient pilot supposed to know that? It wasn’t a surprise I was landing there. Controller connections aren’t posted ANYWHERE for pilots to view. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that isn’t their responsibility. On the other hand, you go to reidhillview in San Jose and the nor cal controller sometimes will hold you all the way to short final. Doesn’t make sense

This subject has been brought up many times before, but it needs to be. Because it keeps coming up and it’s a problem. I think a letter is warranted because this apparently happens often and if frustrating for all parties

RHV is likely because it lies under the SJC Class C. For some reason, NorCal seems exceptionally concerned about separating GA from SJC's departures, even where they are unlikely to conflict. I've been vectored around the SJC class C when headed to OAK for exactly that reason. They vector you around a lot more than SoCal does around SNA or BUR.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

RHV is likely because it lies under the SJC Class C. For some reason, NorCal seems exceptionally concerned about separating GA from SJC's departures, even where they are unlikely to conflict. I've been vectored around the SJC class C when headed to OAK for exactly that reason. They vector you around a lot more than SoCal does around SNA or BUR.

That is true. I have wondered the same thing. If they push small aircraft around for jets too much nobody is going to want to talk to them. Then they’ll have a handful of small aircraft crossing over their airspace at 4500-5500. It’s not our job to save the airlines money. At least for now...

They may want to protect the departures at SJC because there isn’t a whole lot of room for them to deviate . When landing West the SJC departures slip beneath and around San Francisco and Oakland arrivals and those are both on tight schedules, one stray SJC departure interfering with one of those flows could possibly cause an airline sky backup like you get on the freeway when a dog crosses the road and a car brakes then there is an imaginary stop and go road hazard for the next couple hours

 

[luvflyin]

Why do you think they would not consider an LOA to be sufficient? An LOA is a legal agreement between facilities to provide ATC services. For example, class D airspace may go up to 2500msl, but an LOA specifies that the TRACON controls airspace above 2000. In that case, the tower controller is required to coordinate with the TRACON for controlled traffic that is still technically within class D airspace.



No true actually, I know of at least three AGC attorneys in DC who are pilots; one who was a pilot for a regional who decided to go to law school and is still an active flight instructor. Even the attorneys who are not pilots live and breath this stuff, and work with SMEs who know this stuff as well.

SME ???

 

[Fearless Tower]

SME ???

Subject Matter Expert

 

[luvflyin]

That is true. I have wondered the same thing. If they push small aircraft around for jets too much nobody is going to want to talk to them. Then they’ll have a handful of small aircraft crossing over their airspace at 4500-5500. It’s not our job to save the airlines money. At least for now...

They may want to protect the departures at SJC because there isn’t a whole lot of room for them to deviate . When landing West the SJC departures slip beneath and around San Francisco and Oakland arrivals and those are both on tight schedules, one stray SJC departure interfering with one of those flows could possibly cause an airline sky backup like you get on the freeway when a dog crosses the road and a car brakes then there is an imaginary stop and go road hazard for the next couple hours

Good description. During heavy traffic times at the busy joints it doesn’t take much to affect things way back up the road.

 

[bflynn]

I’ve passed through D airspace lots of times when departing another nearby airport and talking to departure/approach. They never hand me off to the D tower controller as I pass through.

The reason for the ambiguity is because the word "the" implies singular, but in reality multiple exist. The grammar of the rule does not match actual practice.

So, again...please do not write a letter because there's a good chance the word bound lawyers are going to focus on there being only one and enforce that we pilots must comply with talking to the singular most important facility (tower) or be in violation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The reason for the ambiguity is because the word "the" implies singular, but in reality multiple exist. The grammar of the rule does not match actual practice.

So, again...please do not write a letter because there's a good chance the word bound lawyers are going to focus on there being only one and enforce that we pilots must comply with talking to the singular most important facility (tower) or be in violation.

My working definition of letters which should not be written includes: asking about a common operational practice which has not been an enforcement issue.

So far anyway, I've read about "concerns" in this thread, but no enforcement actions against pilots.