Overflying class D

[ghogue]

This is a Letter of Interpretation from the Chief Counsels office. The question asked and answered pertained to Class C. The communication requirements for FAR 91.129 (Class D) and 91.130 (Class C) are the same, so based on that, I believe, had the question addressed Class D, the CC's answer would have been the same. However, that's only my opinion, and it may have been something else. Take a look if you're interested and form your own opinion. At least it gives us an idea about how the CC views this topic.

 

[roncachamp]

If you are VFR and receiving advisories, you are the low man on the totem pole and priority list for ATC. If you are just bepopping around, ATC will coordinate things IF traffic permits -

Well, IF the radar controller doesn't coordinate the transition, he's in violation of JO 7110.65.

ever heard 'unable to effect handoff, contact the next controller on xxx.xx'. Around high volume IFR airspace (Boston for example), that is quite common.

Yes, but one only hears it uttered by a poor controller.

My point was trying to clear up a misconception that alot of pilots have that Sac Arrow mentioned. Just because you are talking to a controller, doesn't mean you can't bust airspace. As pilots, we need to know where we are, and where we are going at ALL times from startup to shutdown. Talking to a controller does not shift the burden of responsibility from the pilot.

It does when the issue is coordinating the transition of Class D airspace when receiving radar traffic advisories.

 

[roncachamp]

Even in low traffic areas this happens. I've flown VFR with students from Ohio east towards the Pitt Class B and more often than not 20 nm or so from Pitt you'll hear, "Radar services terminated, squawk 1200. You can try Pittsburgh approach on 119.35..."

That's a different issue.

 

[roncachamp]

I've never been on flight following and not been given an assigned altitude and asked to report any deviations.

You should not be given an altitude assignment when operating VFR outside of Class B or Class C airspace (including the Outer Area) or a TRSA.

I've been cleared on FF through Delta, Charlie, and Bravo airspaces. Indeed, if you are actively receiving radar advisories, you would have to request a frequency change (or closely monitor two at once) just to make the transit request.

You don't have to request a frequency change where you're not required to be on frequency.

 

[steingar]

You should not be given an altitude assignment when operating VFR outside of Class B or Class C airspace (including the Outer Area) or a TRSA.

A mistake on my part. I am not assigned altitudes, but I am frequently requested to maintain altitude or report any changes.

You don't have to request a frequency change where you're not required to be on frequency.

Good point, but radar advisories don't do you much good if you're not listening. I still frame it as a request, to be nice. Hopefully the controller will be more agreeable to helping the next guy.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It does when the issue is coordinating the transition of Class D airspace when receiving radar traffic advisories.

You have obviously missed my point - a controller cannot be held responsible for every stupid thing a pilot might do.

Also, judging by your comments, you obviuously haven't flown around New England (and I'm talking Boston, Providence, Manchester and New York)- everything you claim 'should not happen' does....routinely.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is a Letter of Interpretation from the Chief Counsels office. The question asked and answered pertained to Class C. The communication requirements for FAR 91.129 (Class D) and 91.130 (Class C) are the same, so based on that, I believe, had the question addressed Class D, the CC's answer would have been the same. However, that's only my opinion, and it may have been something else. Take a look if you're interested and form your own opinion. At least it gives us an idea about how the CC views this topic.

That letter is irrelevant to this discussion. The question was what happens if you are receiving flight following and your path takes you into Class C/D airspace. If you deviate from the path you told the controller you would follow without coordinating with the controllers from whom you are receiving service, there's no coordination. If you go through C-space while receiving service from Center, you've deviated from your path to the extent of having left their airspace (probably by at least 4000 feet vertically), because there's no C-space controlled by Center, C-space normally goes up only to 4000 AGL or so, and Center airspace over TRACONs normally starts above 8000 AGL or so. If you descend into C-space while talking with the TRACON, without telling them you were going to descend, you have deviated from the path you told them you would follow, and there is no coordination. With D-space, the deviation must have been even greater, since the top normally only goes to 2500 AGL. However, if you fly the path you told the controller providing the service, both course and altitude, either coordination is provided or the controller lets you know so you can choose another option.

 

[poadeleted20]

You should not be given an altitude assignment when operating VFR outside of Class B or Class C airspace (including the Outer Area) or a TRSA.

I won't argue the "shoulds" of this with roncachamp, but it happens all the time. Deviate from such an "ATC instruction" at your own risk.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you are VFR and receiving advisories, you are the low man on the totem pole and priority list for ATC. If you are just bepopping around, ATC will coordinate things IF traffic permits - ever heard 'unable to effect handoff, contact the next controller on xxx.xx'. Around high volume IFR airspace (Boston for example), that is quite common.

But, in that case, you know that you are now responsible for your own contact with the next facility. If they *didn't* say that, then the prudent pilot should speak up prior to entering a different airspace.

Just because you are talking to a controller, doesn't mean you can't bust airspace. As pilots, we need to know where we are, and where we are going at ALL times from startup to shutdown. Talking to a controller does not shift the burden of responsibility from the pilot.

Amen.

Yes, the 7110.65 says that the controller should coordinate - And they should - But the Granby interpretation makes it clear that the pilot will be busted even if the controller screws up. Like I said before, in this situation, it's everyone's fault. The controller didn't do their job, but neither did the pilot.

Even in low traffic areas this happens. I've flown VFR with students from Ohio east towards the Pitt Class B and more often than not 20 nm or so from Pitt you'll hear, "Radar services terminated, squawk 1200. You can try Pittsburgh approach on 119.35..."

Sometimes there's an LoA stating that they do such as standard practice. For example, Milwaukee Approach will NOT take VFR handoffs from Madison approach (and maybe not anywhere else either, I'm not sure - But I bet Steven knows). But, that's not a matter of coordinating between the pilot and ATC, that's a matter of how the ATC facilities have decided to work with each other.

Indeed, if you are actively receiving radar advisories, you would have to request a frequency change (or closely monitor two at once) just to make the transit request.

No, if the "previous" controller (the one you're receiving advisories from) does not hand you off early enough to keep you comfortable (say, 5nm in an average spam-can - Enough to get a word in and see what is going on), then you should speak up and ask what's going on, not try to coordinate on your own!

Say I'm flying from Dubuque to Sheboygan (KDBQ-KSBM) at 3500 feet and I pick up VFR FF from Chicago Center - If I'm getting near Madison's class C and I still haven't been handed off, I'm going to pipe up: "Chicago Center, Bugsmasher 1234A, can we expect a handoff to Madison?" What I should hear in response is either "Bugsmasher 34A, contact Madison Approach 135.45" or "Bugsmasher 34A, radar services terminated, squawk VFR, you can try Madison Approach on 135.45 for further advisories."

NEVER should I try to contact Madison directly and still try to stay on with Chicago Center too. If I can't get a word in edgewise with Chicago Center, I would simply squawk VFR on my own and make the call to Madison approach and be assigned a new squawk.

 

[poadeleted20]

But the Granby interpretation makes it clear that the pilot will be busted even if the controller screws up.

That is not what Granby says. Read it again!

 

[ghogue]

That letter is irrelevant to this discussion. The question was what happens if you are receiving flight following and your path takes you into Class C/D airspace. If you deviate from the path you told the controller you would follow without coordinating with the controllers from whom you are receiving service, there's no coordination. If you go through C-space while receiving service from Center, you've deviated from your path to the extent of having left their airspace (probably by at least 4000 feet vertically), because there's no C-space controlled by Center, C-space normally goes up only to 4000 AGL or so, and Center airspace over TRACONs normally starts above 8000 AGL or so. If you descend into C-space while talking with the TRACON, without telling them you were going to descend, you have deviated from the path you told them you would follow, and there is no coordination. With D-space, the deviation must have been even greater, since the top normally only goes to 2500 AGL. However, if you fly the path you told the controller providing the service, both course and altitude, either coordination is provided or the controller lets you know so you can choose another option.

Ron,
I'm having a little difficulty understanding what you're getting at here. To start, I understand that the letter is not very relevant to the OP, but as the thread has progressed, general discussion shifted from "do I need to call tower if I'm overflying Class D" to "can someone besides tower clear me through Class D?". It's my opinion that the letter is relevant in this situation, but you are entitled to feel otherwise.

Where I'm a bit confused is, was your explanations of altitude and course deviations in your quote above in regards to the Granby letter, or to the OP? In the LOI, Granby asked a straight forward question about whether or not contact with Center constituted communication as required by 91.130. The response from the CC sure looks to me like he's saying, no, it's not what's required, gotta call Approach. No mention of any type of deviation (altitude or course, or otherwise), hence my confusion about the explanations you provided. I'm not disagreeing with them, just don't see where it is relevant to what is being discussed.:wink2:

I just posted the letter for those who might find it interesting or educational. For some, it is, for others, not so much.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But the Granby interpretation makes it clear that the pilot will be busted even if the controller screws up.

That is not what Granby says. Read it again!

Ummm... How is this paragraph NOT saying that the pilot will still be busted?

The operator of the aircraft would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) in the hypothetical that you present. Under section 91.3, the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. The receipt of traffic advisories from a Center or any other ATC facility does not relieve the pilot of the responsibilities of section 91.3.

Emphasis mine - But it seems pretty clear to me that the pilot is still gonna get it.

 

[dmccormack]

Sometimes there's an LoA stating that they do such as standard practice. For example, Milwaukee Approach will NOT take VFR handoffs from Madison approach (and maybe not anywhere else either, I'm not sure - But I bet Steven knows). But, that's not a matter of coordinating between the pilot and ATC, that's a matter of how the ATC facilities have decided to work with each other.

In the example I gave, it's been both ways.

 

[Gary F]

Yes, the 7110.65 says that the controller should coordinate - And they should - But the Granby interpretation makes it clear that the pilot will be busted even if the controller screws up. Like I said before, in this situation, it's everyone's fault. The controller didn't do their job, but neither did the pilot.

The letter suggests that it is not the responsibility of the controller to coordinate so as far as the FAA is concerned the controller is not screwing up if they let you fly into controlled airspace.

 

[roncachamp]

You have obviously missed my point - a controller cannot be held responsible for every stupid thing a pilot might do.

Then you need to do a better job of making your point, I can only respond to what you actually write.

Also, judging by your comments, you obviuously haven't flown around New England (and I'm talking Boston, Providence, Manchester and New York)- everything you claim 'should not happen' does....routinely.

No, I haven't flown around New England. If the point you're trying to make is that controllers in that region are generally less competent than in other areas of the US I'm not in a position to dispute it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ummm... How is this paragraph NOT saying that the pilot will still be busted?



Emphasis mine - But it seems pretty clear to me that the pilot is still gonna get it.

The situation under discussion is, as I explained above, totally different than the hypothetical situations in the Granby letter. But if you want to bug the controllers anyway, go ahead.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm having a little difficulty understanding what you're getting at here. To start, I understand that the letter is not very relevant to the OP,

OK so far.

but as the thread has progressed, general discussion shifted from "do I need to call tower if I'm overflying Class D" to "can someone besides tower clear me through Class D?". It's my opinion that the letter is relevant in this situation, but you are entitled to feel otherwise.

The letter addresses two very specific hypothetical situations in which the pilot does something other than what was coordinated with the controller providing the flight following. The point the letter makes is that just because you're receiving flight following doesn't mean you can suddenly change course or altitude without coordinating that with the controller providing that servie and expect the controller to coordinate your passage through a different chunk of airspace.

Where I'm a bit confused is, was your explanations of altitude and course deviations in your quote above in regards to the Granby letter, or to the OP? In the LOI, Granby asked a straight forward question about whether or not contact with Center constituted communication as required by 91.130. The response from the CC sure looks to me like he's saying, no, it's not what's required, gotta call Approach. No mention of any type of deviation (altitude or course, or otherwise), hence my confusion about the explanations you provided. I'm not disagreeing with them, just don't see where it is relevant to what is being discussed.:wink2:

My point is that if you are receiving flight following from Center, you cannot possibly be entering Class C airspace unless you deviate significantly from the course or altitude you gave Center, because the limits of C-space are many miles laterally and thousands of feet vertically from the breakpoint between Center-controlled airspace and the TRACON's airspace. Before you entered C-space while receiving flight following from Center, you would long ago have left the Center's airspace, and Center should have either terminated your service or coordinated a handoff to the TRACON whose airspace you were entering. If the former, the question is moot. If the latter, you're covered by the letter of the law on C-space, and by the requirement in JO 7110.65 for D-space (again, as long as you fly the course/altitude you told the controller you would fly).

BTW, there's no such thing as a "clearance" for VFR aircraft to enter C or D airspace, so if the real question was "can someone besides tower clear me through Class D?," the answer is "Not only 'No,' but not even Tower can 'clear' you through D-space. All you need with Tower is two-way communications, not a 'clearance,' and all the TRACON/Center can do is coordinate your transit with Tower."

 

[poadeleted20]

The letter suggests that it is not the responsibility of the controller to coordinate so as far as the FAA is concerned the controller is not screwing up if they let you fly into controlled airspace.

Not only is that not what the Granby letter says, but that is contrary to FAA Order 7110.65's directions to controllers, which makes it their responsibility to coordinate certain transits through other controller's airspace, even for VFR traffic. However, as discussed above, there are limits to this, and if you do something other than what you told the controller you were going to do, you're on your own and the controller is off the hook.

 

[roncachamp]

Good point, but radar advisories don't do you much good if you're not listening.

Of course, but if you're requesting to leave the frequency are you still interested in radar advisories?

I still frame it as a request, to be nice. Hopefully the controller will be more agreeable to helping the next guy.

"Metropolis center, Waco 34 alpha is terminating flight following, have a nice day" seems plenty nice to me.

 

[roncachamp]

That letter is irrelevant to this discussion. The question was what happens if you are receiving flight following and your path takes you into Class C/D airspace. If you deviate from the path you told the controller you would follow without coordinating with the controllers from whom you are receiving service, there's no coordination. If you go through C-space while receiving service from Center, you've deviated from your path to the extent of having left their airspace (probably by at least 4000 feet vertically), because there's no C-space controlled by Center, C-space normally goes up only to 4000 AGL or so, and Center airspace over TRACONs normally starts above 8000 AGL or so. If you descend into C-space while talking with the TRACON, without telling them you were going to descend, you have deviated from the path you told them you would follow, and there is no coordination. With D-space, the deviation must have been even greater, since the top normally only goes to 2500 AGL. However, if you fly the path you told the controller providing the service, both course and altitude, either coordination is provided or the controller lets you know so you can choose another option.

No, the question and the letter referred only to Class C airspace, and that's why that letter is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[roncachamp]

I won't argue the "shoulds" of this with roncachamp, but it happens all the time. Deviate from such an "ATC instruction" at your own risk.

Deviate from only such an "ATC instruction" at your own risk, or from any "ATC instruction"?

 

[Fearless Tower]

No, I haven't flown around New England. If the point you're trying to make is that controllers in that region are generally less competent than in other areas of the US I'm not in a position to dispute it.

Well you are clearly rather full of yourself. Seeing as you're in WI and 90 percent of my flying has been in SoCal, PHX and New England, I'd say that using your interpretations and my experiences, the majority of controllers in those airspaces must be incompetent!

I personally don't believe that is true - just monitoring frequencies while flying I'd say that there are far more incompetent pilots in the air than controllers.

 

[roncachamp]

Yes, the 7110.65 says that the controller should coordinate - And they should - But the Granby interpretation makes it clear that the pilot will be busted even if the controller screws up. Like I said before, in this situation, it's everyone's fault. The controller didn't do their job, but neither did the pilot.

But the 7110.65 does not say that the controller should coordinate the transition. “Should” means a procedure is recommended, that word does not appear in the 7110.65 paragraph on transition of surface areas. The radar controller is required to coordinate the transition with the tower.

The Granby letter applies only to Class C airspace, an entirely different animal than a Class D surface area. A Class D surface area is generally about nine miles in diameter and the controlled airspace outside of it is usually assigned to a single Center or TRACON sector. It makes sense for the radar controller to coordinate the transition and keep the aircraft on frequency rather than have the aircraft change frequencies to the tower for a few minutes then return, so 7110.65 covers that scenario. But the controlled airspace outside of Class C airspace belongs to the same facility responsible for the Class C airspace, the TRACON, and the Class C boundary is probably thirty miles or so from the ARTCC boundary. It just doesn't make sense for the ARTCC to coordinate an approximately 80 mile trip through TRACON airspace.

Sometimes there's an LoA stating that they do such as standard practice. For example, Milwaukee Approach will NOT take VFR handoffs from Madison approach (and maybe not anywhere else either, I'm not sure - But I bet Steven knows). But, that's not a matter of coordinating between the pilot and ATC, that's a matter of how the ATC facilities have decided to work with each other.

Here is all the MKE/MSN LoA has to say about VFR flights:

7. VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) AUTOMATED HANDOFFS

a. VFR aircraft that will be handed off to the other facility via an inter-facility VFR STARS/ARTS automated handoff shall have, as a minimum, a three-digit aircraft identification in the STARS/ARTS full data block prefixed by the letter "X".​

b. VFR automated radar handoffs that have not been accepted by the receiving facility prior to the airspace boundary shall be recalled and terminated by the initiating facility. The handoff codes to be used are:​

(1) From MSN TRACON to MKE TRACON:​

MKT0 is to RIPON Low (65 and below).

MKT1 is to RIPON High (70 and above).
MKT2 is to MKE West Departure (65 and below).
MKT3 is to MKE West Arrival (70 and above).​

(2) From MKE TRACON to MSN TRACON:​

MST0 is to MSN East Satellite (55 and below).​

MST1 is to MSN East Arrival (60 and above).​

 

[roncachamp]

Well you are clearly rather full of yourself.

What do you base that on?

Seeing as you're in WI and 90 percent of my flying has been in SoCal, PHX and New England, I'd say that using your interpretations and my experiences, the majority of controllers in those airspaces must be incompetent!

My interpretations of what? JO 7110.65? I don't see what's open to interpretation, the order is very clear on this matter. If we accept your experience as being representative, that this requirement is violated by controllers in New England more so than in the rest of the US, then how can we not conclude that controllers in that region are generally less competent than in other areas of the US?

I personally don't believe that is true - just monitoring frequencies while flying I'd say that there are far more incompetent pilots in the air than controllers.

Agreed!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The letter suggests that it is not the responsibility of the controller to coordinate so as far as the FAA is concerned the controller is not screwing up if they let you fly into controlled airspace.

I disagree with what you've said, but I think it's an issue of your frame of reference - You're thinking only in pilot terms.

It *IS* the responsibility of the controller to coordinate. That is spelled out in the 7110.65, and I'm sure a controller who fails to coordinate is going to get at least a talking-to if not some additional training.

However, it is *ALSO* the pilot's responsibility to meet the requirements spelled out in the FAR's prior to entering a particular class of airspace, plus their 91.3 responsibility for everything. The pilot must maintain situational awareness and make sure that the requirements are met prior to entering the airspace, and that means that if you're approaching some airspace and not talking to the particular facility that's in control of that airspace, you'd better speak up.

If an airplane flies right into the airspace while talking to a controller at the wrong facility, the controller has erred in not following the rules spelled out in the 7110.65, AND the pilot has erred in not following the rules spelled out in the FARs. That's why I say "It's everyone's fault." BOTH the pilot and the controller are responsible.

It's this kind of redundancy that makes the system safe. There is no place in aviation for a scapegoat. Everyone must work together and back each other up.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The situation under discussion is, as I explained above, totally different than the hypothetical situations in the Granby letter.

How so?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But the 7110.65 does not say that the controller should coordinate the transition. “Should” means a procedure is recommended, that word does not appear in the 7110.65 paragraph on transition of surface areas. The radar controller is required to coordinate the transition with the tower.

Agreed - The reason I chose "should" instead of the more technically correct "shall" is that while the controller "shall" coordinate, we're talking about the situation that happens if that does not happen, thus I thought "shall" could be misleading from a pilot's perspective.

Here is all the MKE/MSN LoA has to say about VFR flights:

Interesting. Maybe it's this part that trips them up:

b. VFR automated radar handoffs that have not been accepted by the receiving facility prior to the airspace boundary shall be recalled and terminated by the initiating facility.

IME, it's not a problem going into the area that used to be handled by Chicago Center (the RIPON sector, presumably). It's when you would be talking to the folks handling Mitchell that it becomes a pain. They won't take the handoff, and it's the only place I've been where instructing pilots to "remain clear of class Charlie airspace" is routine.

I was going to ask what your experience was with handing VFR bugsmashers off to Milwaukee was, but like I said it generally doesn't seem to be a problem in the RIPON sector that you border with (I don't think).

 

[poadeleted20]

How so?

For the last time...

Exactly as I explained above.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

For the last time...

Exactly as I explained above.

Sigh.

Clearly, I'm missing something and hoping you can clarify. As best I can tell, you're talking about your "explanation" in post #47:

That letter is irrelevant to this discussion. The question was what happens if you are receiving flight following and your path takes you into Class C/D airspace. If you deviate from the path you told the controller you would follow without coordinating with the controllers from whom you are receiving service, there's no coordination.

But I don't think we're talking about "deviating from the path you told the controller you would follow." We're talking about remaining on a path that takes you through another facility's airspace.

If you think I'm talking about "deviating" then I agree, that's all on the pilot. But that's not what I'm talking about, so I still fail to see how Granby is irrelevant or how the pilot won't get busted (as well as the controller).

If that's not what you're talking about can you at least point me to which post in this thread you're referring to with your "explained above" comments?

 

[poadeleted20]

But I don't think we're talking about "deviating from the path you told the controller you would follow." We're talking about remaining on a path that takes you through another facility's airspace.

Right, and that's why the Granby letter doesn't apply -- the two scenarios in it require deviating from that path.

 

[Gary F]

Not only is that not what the Granby letter says, but that is contrary to FAA Order 7110.65's directions to controllers, which makes it their responsibility to coordinate certain transits through other controller's airspace, even for VFR traffic. However, as discussed above, there are limits to this, and if you do something other than what you told the controller you were going to do, you're on your own and the controller is off the hook.

OK. It appears that I am a little too dense to understand, not the first time this has happened. I am just trying to learn something here but am apparently ****ing off one or more of the authorities in this forum. Sorry.

From the Granby letter:
The receipt of traffic advisories from a Center or any other ATC facility does not relieve the pilot of the responsibilities of section 91.3. Advisory services such as flight following are furnished to VFR traffic as a courtesy when workloads permit. By providing this courtesy, the Center does not obligate itself to advise pilots operating under of their geographic position nor of their obligations under section 91.130(c)(1) or any other sections of 14 CFR.

Is anybody here implying that you are not allowed to change course when you are receiving flight following services? I inform ATC of changes in path or altitude as a courtesy but did not know that I am obligated to do so. I have always been handed over to approach control or have had flight following terminated before getting anywhere near Class B or C airspace so this has not been an issue for me.

I disagree with what you've said, but I think it's an issue of your frame of reference - You're thinking only in pilot terms.

This was not giving my opinion, just my take on how it appears that the FAA interprets this issue.

 

[roncachamp]

I disagree with what you've said, but I think it's an issue of your frame of reference - You're thinking only in pilot terms.

It *IS* the responsibility of the controller to coordinate. That is spelled out in the 7110.65, and I'm sure a controller who fails to coordinate is going to get at least a talking-to if not some additional training.

However, it is *ALSO* the pilot's responsibility to meet the requirements spelled out in the FAR's prior to entering a particular class of airspace, plus their 91.3 responsibility for everything. The pilot must maintain situational awareness and make sure that the requirements are met prior to entering the airspace, and that means that if you're approaching some airspace and not talking to the particular facility that's in control of that airspace, you'd better speak up.

If an airplane flies right into the airspace while talking to a controller at the wrong facility, the controller has erred in not following the rules spelled out in the 7110.65, AND the pilot has erred in not following the rules spelled out in the FARs. That's why I say "It's everyone's fault." BOTH the pilot and the controller are responsible.

It's this kind of redundancy that makes the system safe. There is no place in aviation for a scapegoat. Everyone must work together and back each other up.

Again, to clarify, it is the responsibility of a radar controller to coordinate the transition of a surface area with a nonapproach control tower. It is not the responsibility of an ARTCC controller to coordinate the transition of Class C airspace with an approach control facility.

 

[ghogue]

BTW, there's no such thing as a "clearance" for VFR aircraft to enter C or D airspace, so if the real question was "can someone besides tower clear me through Class D?," the answer is "Not only 'No,' but not even Tower can 'clear' you through D-space. All you need with Tower is two-way communications, not a 'clearance,' and all the TRACON/Center can do is coordinate your transit with Tower."

You're correct, no "clearance" through Class C or D. I know this and it was a bad choice of words on my part. In the paragraph below that I made sure not to use "clear" in regards to Class C, i.e., "constituted communication as required by 91.130". Just didn't catch that I used "clear" in the previous paragraph. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is anybody here implying that you are not allowed to change course when you are receiving flight following services?

No, but if you do so without telling the controller providing that service, and you enter some other controller's airspace as a result, coordination with that other controller becomes your responsibility.

Let's say you're with Approach at 2000 AGL, and the course you told the controller you'd fly will take you past a Tower's D-space five miles outside that D-space. As you go by, you turn hard into the D-space without warning. At that point, the bust is yours not the Approach controller's.

OTOH, let's say you're with Approach at 2000 AGL and your course will take you straight through the D-space in front of you. In this case, the controller is responsible for coordinating your transit with Tower (or telling you that you need to change course to avoid it).

Bottom line: Controllers are not mind-readers. They will coordinate transits of included Tower-controlled airspace if they know you're going in there, but if you surprise them by changing course or altitude so you pop in without warning, the failure to coordinate with Tower is your fault, not the controller's.

 

[poadeleted20]

Again, to clarify, it is the responsibility of a radar controller to coordinate the transition of a surface area with a nonapproach control tower.

But, per Granby, only if the controller knows you're going that way. If you fake out the controller providing that service, you're on your own.

It is not the responsibility of an ARTCC controller to coordinate the transition of Class C airspace with an approach control facility.

Right -- because you'll leave that Center controller's airspace and enter the TRACON's airspace long before you reach the vertical or horizontal limits of the C-space, which is entirely contained within the TRACON's airspace. Once you leave Center's airspace, Center is supposed to either hand you to Approach (in which case you've met the requirement to enter C-space) or cut you loose (in which case you're not talking to anyone and do not qualify to enter C-space).

 

[Aztec Driver]

Sigh.

Clearly, I'm missing something and hoping you can clarify. As best I can tell, you're talking about your "explanation" in post #47:



But I don't think we're talking about "deviating from the path you told the controller you would follow." We're talking about remaining on a path that takes you through another facility's airspace.

If you think I'm talking about "deviating" then I agree, that's all on the pilot. But that's not what I'm talking about, so I still fail to see how Granby is irrelevant or how the pilot won't get busted (as well as the controller).

If that's not what you're talking about can you at least point me to which post in this thread you're referring to with your "explained above" comments?

I believe the problem lies in the distinction between "approach control" and "center". Center controllers control the airspace at a higher altitude, generally, than the surface areas of C or D go up to. If you are receiving VFR advisories from center, you are usually at a higher altitude and could not penetrate either C or D space without significantly altering your altitude, causing the center to either coordinate a handoff to the approach control in that area, or drop your services and bid you farewell. If you are receiving VFR advisories at an altitude at which you could penetrate C or D airspace, you are already talking to the appropriate approach controllers.

 

[roncachamp]

But, per Granby, only if the controller knows you're going that way. If you fake out the controller providing that service, you're on your own.

No, the Granby letter says nothing about nonapproach control towers.

 

[roncachamp]

Agreed - The reason I chose "should" instead of the more technically correct "shall" is that while the controller "shall" coordinate, we're talking about the situation that happens if that does not happen, thus I thought "shall" could be misleading from a pilot's perspective.

The situation where the controller "shall" coordinate is not covered by the Granby letter.

IME, it's not a problem going into the area that used to be handled by Chicago Center (the RIPON sector, presumably). It's when you would be talking to the folks handling Mitchell that it becomes a pain. They won't take the handoff, and it's the only place I've been where instructing pilots to "remain clear of class Charlie airspace" is routine.

MKE approach has long been known for poor ATC service.

 

[gismo]

Right, and that's why the Granby letter doesn't apply -- the two scenarios in it require deviating from that path.

Ron, do you have access to the specific question that Granby submitted? That hasn't been posted to this thread AFaIK and this might be why many of us can't see where you're coming from. I didn't find anything in the FAA's response that said anything about deviating.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Right, and that's why the Granby letter doesn't apply -- the two scenarios in it require deviating from that path.

Where in the Granby letter do you see anything about the pilot deviating from a path? I don't see any such thing. It looks to me to apply to a straight-through scenario.