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

[Shawn]

Probably covered a million times but here is the scenario:

VFR established and maintaining communications and on Radar Services with TRACON on a discrete squawk for either a full stop arrival or IFR practice approach while VFR into a Delta airport in VMC. ATC is late with the handoff to tower and you enter Delta...is it an actionable airspace bust since you have not contacted Tower?

I have a 15 year ATC Delta controller telling me on another forum:

"If your intent is to land at the airport and you aren’t switched in time you are expected to remain clear or request a switch."

and

"A late handoff is a bust by Approach. Violating class D or C airspace is a bust by YOU. I said that you could fight it and the controller that didn’t switch you in time may be reprimanded but you are STILL required to establish two way communications prior to entering the airspace."

Yet JO 7110.65 ATC STATES:

2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

• 
  a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach control tower on an individual aircraft basis before issuing a clearance which would require flight within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility unless otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.

• 
  b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that will enter another facility's airspace.
  NOTE-

• 
  The pilot is not expected to obtain his own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility.

• 
  c. Transfer communications to the appropriate facility, if required, prior to operation within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility.

So if Approach fails at 2-1-16 C is it a bust on the pilot?

While enforcement is agreed unlikely, I am looking for legal clarification in regard to regulations where responsibility lies with ATC vs the pilot to ensure legal entry into Delta as it has reportedly let to confrontation in the air between Tower and pilots and a lot of misunderstanding since nowhere it is published what ATC facilities provide ATC services for a Delta beyond Tower:

91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(c)Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
(1)Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.

I maintain that by being on FF heading into that destination Delta airport as part of your flight plan, you HAVE established and are maintaining communication thereby giving you permission to enter Delta even if the handoff to tower has not happened prior to the Delta boundary. Anyone have any legal clarification?

...and we are not taking being in contact with any ATC giving you permission to enter any C/D at will...specifically with Approach headed into a Delta airport as part of your flight plan while on Flight Following.

 

[dmspilot]

Please do not write a letter.

 

[mscard88]

Yeah approach screwed up. Tower should know you're coming, and as you quoted, approach is responsible for coordinating and switching you. But....a query by you is advisable if you are about to enter and haven't been switched over.

 

[jordane93]

NY approach does this all the one coming into FRG from the west. I always ask for an early hand off or once I get the field in sight, they descend me to pattern altitude so I can get out of their airspace. We’ve had a few people get late handoffs and bust the delta.

 

[Shawn]

Yeah approach screwed up. Tower should know you're coming, and as you quoted, approach is responsible for coordinating and switching you. But....a query by you is advisable if you are about to enter and haven't been switched over.

So that is the question...is a query REQUIRED prior to entry of the Delta and is that solely on the pilot? I have been with approach well inside Deltas due to traffic conflicts or other reasons and I have queried ATC with "filed in sight" when getting close but never from a perspective that I was unsure if I can enter the Delta...otherwise the regulation should read "in communication with Tower"

This is the ultimately the statement by the controller that I am seeking clarification on:

"If your intent is to land at the airport and you aren’t switched in time you are expected to remain clear or request a switch."

which is counter to:

The pilot is not expected to obtain his own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility.

 

[ejensen]

Happened to me with Denver Approach. They kept me on until I was right over Centennial KAPA before they let me switch. I even asked and they said stay with me a bit longer. I was in the class B over the D.

 

[mscard88]

So that is the question...is a query REQUIRED prior to entry of the Delta and is that solely on the pilot? I have been with approach well inside Deltas due to traffic conflicts or other reasons and I have queried ATC with "filed in sight" but never from a perspective that I was unsure if I can enter the Delta...otherwise the regulation should read "in communication with Tower"

No where that I know of that it's required of you. But you should be aware of your location and speak up if they haven't switched you. But again, approach is responsible as previously mentioned.

 

[jordane93]

Another thing you can do is call the facility. If they are constantly giving you late handoffs, it should be addressed because most likely other pilots are getting late handoffs as well.

 

[SkyDog58]

Why not just cancel flight following before you get too close to the delta? A quick call to ATC to say “Cessna N12345 cancelling flight following switching to Podunk tower” should suffice. Yes? No?

 

[Radar Contact]

I maintain that by being on FF heading into that destination Delta airport as part of your flight plan, you HAVE established and are maintaining communication thereby giving you permission to enter Delta even if the handoff to tower has not happened prior to the Delta boundary. Anyone have any legal clarification?

This is only worth what one guy typed on the internet.

I have been a controller for over 16 years and a pilot for a little over 18 (not to say I'm not wrong here, just you mentioned what a 15 yr Delta controller told you so I thought I'd give you my experience). My understanding from the pilot side with the FAR's and my ATC side (having controlled multiple tower D's, tower B and a TRACON controller that has B, C and D's) with the 7110.65, is that you were clean to enter the Delta. You established 2-way comm's with an ATC facility that provides ATC service to the airport prior to entry. The fault is on the TRACON controller for not switching you earlier or coordinating the late transfer with the tower (this violates the .65 and likely their LOA/SOP. As the pilot, I would suggest requesting the change or canceling about 7-8 miles out to avoid all this. Sometimes due to freq congestion things happen.

Again, I don't work for the FSDO so take this for what it's worth...one guys opinion.

 

[Shawn]

Another thing you can do is call the facility. If they are constantly giving you late handoffs, it should be addressed because most likely other pilots are getting late handoffs as well.

Not specifically but rather looking for regulatory clarification based on on past experiences and interpretations. I always operated with the understanding that being in communication with the approach controller for a destination airport fulfilled the requirements of establishing and maintaining communications in order to enter Delta airspace regardless of when the tower handoff happened or what LOA is in place.

I have a tower controller telling me otherwise and he alone controls that contact requirement.

Why not just cancel flight following before you get too close to the delta? A quick call to ATC to say “Cessna N12345 cancelling flight following switching to Podunk tower” should suffice. Yes? No?

Then you are no longer maintaining communication allowing you to enter Delta vs a handoff which should be seamless regardless of airspace boundaries.

 

[SkyDog58]

Then you are no longer maintaining communication allowing you to enter Delta vs a handoff which should be seamless regardless of airspace boundaries.

That’s why you cancel early enough to switch to tower and get acknowledged.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I gave this answer to your question on the Red Board:

I don't think you will find a straight regulatory answer.

As you point out, the ATC Handbook says "The pilot is not expected to obtain his own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility," but that applies to a transit through Class D.

If you want to figure out an answer for yourself, best bet is to read two Chief Counsel Interpretations:

• The 2006 Granby letter places the burden squarely on the pilot when the issue is talking to Center in Class E but heading into Class C.
• The 2011 Bacon letter says, based on the ATC Handbook, that a pilot who is taking to the satellite Tower when departing from a towered satellite airport meets the communication requirement.

Personal opinion: I have no problem sticking exclsively with TRACON when transiting Class above the pattern. It makes sense to me. Pilots have no way of knowing what kinds of letters of agreement there are between TRACON and the Class Ds under them. OTOH, while I think it would likely be a pass, I am less secure when landing at the Class D and will prompt TRACON for a handoff when approaching Class D to land if I don't get it in a reasonable time before entry.

BTW, I think there may be an unwarranted assumption in the question, that it has to be either ATC's or the pilot's responsibility. It could be both.

 

[jordane93]

Not specifically but rather looking for regulatory clarification based on on past experiences and interpretations. I always operated with the understanding that being in communication with the approach controller for a destination airport fulfilled the requirements of establishing and maintaining communications in order to enter Delta airspace regardless of when the tower handoff happened.

I have a tower controller telling me otherwise and he alone controls that contact requirement.

I’ve always understood it as you still need to have two way radio comms with tower before their airspace otherwise it’s a bust. Like I said in my other post, NY tends to hand us off about a mile outside of FRG’s airspace so I either have to get a word in quickly or I turn right 90 degrees so I don’t bust the airspace.

 

[Shawn]

BTW, I think there may be an unwarranted assumption in the question, that it has to be either ATC's or the pilot's responsibility. It could be both.

Which is why I am seeking clarification. Assumptions lead to conflict and misunderstandings which is prevalent around this one question. If you are on a VFR Practice Approach and not given a handoff for whatever reason prior to the Delta boundary, are you expected to break off and remain clear of Delta just because you are not talking specifically to tower yet because you have not been handed off from Approach Controller or are you allowed to proceed having fulfilled the regulation requirements of Delta entry?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Which is why I am seeking clarification. If you are on a VFR Practice Approach and not given a handoff for whatever reason, are you expected to break off and remain clear of Delta just because you are not talking specifically to tower yet?

I think you are expected to bring it to Approach's attention. Hand-offs from TRACON to Tower typically take place once you cross the final approach fix. TRACON has nothing to do with you at that point until the missed. There are (always) exceptions, but unless ATC says something, I am going with what happens generally. If I don't get the hand-off shortly after crossing the FAF, I will prompt ATC. [Edit: I just noticed how close this pararaph is to @Radar Contact's post from the controller side]

I guess I'll give some context for my answer. I've told this story before. I'm convinced that at one time,Denver Approach used to screw with KAPA Tower, purposely delaying VFR hand-offs until inside the Class D. AFAIK, nothing has ever happened to the pilot, but it was the impetus for my prompting SOP. Once there was a bunch of us heading from a flyin at KDEN back to KAPA. VFR. Approaching the Class D boundary, still no hand-off. I keyed the mike, "Denver, 4X looking for a hand-off to Tower." You could hear the sigh as they switched me.

 

[Radar Contact]

If you want to figure out an answer for yourself, best bet is to read two Chief Counsel Interpretations:

• The 2006 Granby letter places the burden squarely on the pilot when the issue is talking to Center in Class E but heading into Class C.
• The 2011 Bacon letter says, based on the ATC Handbook, that a pilot who is taking to the satellite Tower when departing from a towered satellite airport meets the communication requirement.

While both of these are relevant, the scenario the OP mentioned is different than both. I fully understand the Granby letter as the Center doesn't provide ATC service to the class C. They state that talking to the TRACON is enough to penetrate the class C. It doesn't differentiate the outer ring of the class C or the surface area. Therefor it seems to me they are saying talking to the TRACON it is okay to enter the surface area (tower's ring for lack of a better term). In the OP's case he was talking to the TRACON and the TRACON does provide ATC service to the class D (tower's ring).

Without a specific Chief Counsel Interpretation that addresses this exactly I'm still thinking this is a TRACON bust with the pilot not helping by at least asking for a change prior to entering.

Again, just one dude's opinion.

 

[midlifeflyer]

While both of these are relevant, the scenario the OP mentioned is different than both.

It is, which is why I said they were aids in figuring out one's own answer.

 

[Shawn]

I guess I'll give some context for my answer. I've told this story before. I'm convinced that at one time,Denver Approach used to screw with KAPA Tower, purposely delaying VFR hand-offs until inside the Class D. AFAIK, nothing has ever happened to the pilot, but it was the impetus for my prompting SOP. Once there was a bunch of us heading from a flyin at KDEN back to KAPA. VFR. Approaching the Class D boundary, still no hand-off. I keyed the mike, "Denver, 4X looking for a hand-off to Tower." You could hear the sigh as they switched me.

No question that there are complex issues and SOP/LOA happening on the back end to make it all happen, but that is not transparent to the pilot nor should it be.

I just wanna know if I am getting reprimanded by Tower am I getting reprimanded for something that I did regulatory wrong?

So far the answer is that it is pretty clear to Charlie but for Delta there is a lot of ambiguity even though they both have the same regulatory requirements for entry.

Hate to say it, but a letter may be in order.

 

[mscard88]

Why not just query the approach controller to switch? I don't think you'll find what you're trying to find, a cut and dried rule.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No question that there are complex issues and SOP/LOA happening on the back end to make it all happen, but that is not transparent to the pilot nor should it be.

I just wanna know if I am getting reprimanded by Tower am I getting reprimanded for something that I did regulatory wrong?

Not necessarily. "Getting reprimanded by the Tower" and "doing something wrong" don't always coincide

 

[arnoha]

...
BTW, I think there may be an unwarranted assumption in the question, that it has to be either ATC's or the pilot's responsibility. It could be both.

I don't have the experience of some here on the board, but this was also my understanding of this issue. BOTH the pilot and ATC have a responsibility here. It is indeed possible for ATC to screw up and the pilot to screw up at the same moment the aircraft enters the Delta with intent to land.

I've been caught out on this one a couple times, too. Not quite the same, as they were both transits that are clearer.

Recently, I was low through Sunol ducking under a cloud layer. That's a pretty unusual place for me to be. I was under the layer, but dodging hills while on FF. Down that low (~2000'), radio coverage to NORCAL was spotty, and there was an unintelligible transmission. Well, what it was is that she was trying to warn me that I was about to fly right into the side of the Livermore Delta. That one would have been all on me: I wasn't in two-way communication if I knew that I wasn't receiving NORCAL well. I got lucky...good radio coverage happened before I hit the airspace and her warning turned me away from the Delta. My fault for being task-saturated and having not realized I'd have to come that close to Livermore to avoid hills and clouds.

The second was probably on the controller. Was talking to SOCAL, transiting the coast low (again avoiding clouds) south to John Wayne and ended up forgetting that Torrance's airspace extends over the water. I entered it from the top as I was descending for a layer. I guess it's a transition, so on the controller, but, at the same time, the controller couldn't know that I'd be descending at that moment. Once again, task-saturation was the culprit and a lesson was learned. I realized my mistake when I took a peek left and noted the end of the runway MUCH too close.

Neither time was I called out by the controllers.

 

[Timbeck2]

Tracon gives you a late handoff to a contract tower in Delta airspace? When you tell the tower you got a late hand off what happens? Is someone trying to get you in trouble for something?

 

[Shawn]

Why not just query the approach controller to switch?

That is my question. Is that query and switch from Approach to Tower a REQUIREMENT to happen prior to Delta boundary needed to legally enter Delta per the regulations?...or does the communication with Approach into the delta as a destination fulfill that requirement?

Tracon gives you a late handoff to a contract tower in Delta airspace? When you tell the tower you got a late hand off what happens? Is someone trying to get you in trouble for something?

This is a common occurrence for me. Although I have never been called out I have read several reports of other pilots being called out for the same situation which led to my seeking of clarification of who was correct in procedures and not.

It was the controller response of ""If your intent is to land at the airport and you aren’t switched in time you are expected to remain clear or request a switch." that is counter to how I understand the regulations as written and have been operating even in the busy airspace of SoCal.

Now arguably I am playing a bit of Devil's Advocate in what is pretty much NBD in the real world in an attempt to seek clarification...but that is in a quest to better understand the regulations and requirements for what is an ambiguous regulation yet common scenario as both pilots and controllers seem to have different expectations in regards to their interpretations which can and has led to conflicts.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Hate to say it, but a letter may be in order.

I'm not convinced that the Chief Counsel's office understands ATC well enough to give an appropriate answer.

 

[Velocity173]

What RC said. 91.129 doesn’t mention tower for arrival or thru flight. Tower is only mentioned on departure and for good reason. You have to contact tower on departure because you’re starting in their airspace. On arrival or thru flight, you only need to be up the ATC facility providing the service. In this case, that service is FF and being provided by the TRACON.

I always use radar approaches as an example. The radar final controller is the controller providing the ATC service IAW 91.129. You are coordinated by them to enter the class D without talking to the tower. Just like the TRACON coordinates your arrival under FF. That communication transfer by the TRACON can be done late with coordination with the tower (2-1-17). Without TRACON telling me to expect a late transfer (not necessarily a handoff) I will prompt but it’s still in their hands if they don’t get it done prior to entry.

 

[bobmrg]

Which is why I am seeking clarification. Assumptions lead to conflict and misunderstandings which is prevalent around this one question. If you are on a VFR Practice Approach and not given a handoff for whatever reason prior to the Delta boundary, are you expected to break off and remain clear of Delta just because you are not talking specifically to tower yet because you have not been handed off from Approach Controller or are you allowed to proceed having fulfilled the regulation requirements of Delta entry?

I just tell the approach controller "Buzzbomb 34X is going to the tower." "Frequency change approved" is the usual response.

Bob

 

[timwinters]

So, at a Class C, TRACON (approach) will often keep me on their frequency until I'm on a long final, they then turn me over to tower and I'm cleared to land.

But at a Class D, I can't even enter the airspace without TRACON first handing me to tower? If true, that's really f'ed up.

I thought as a general rule, approach owns the air, tower owns the ground.

 

[Velocity173]

So, at a Class C, TRACON (approach) will often keep me on their frequency until I'm on a long final, they then turn me over to tower and I'm cleared to land.

But at a Class D, I can't even enter the airspace without TRACON first handing me to tower? If true, that's really f'ed up.

I thought as a general rule, approach owns the air, tower owns the ground.

TRACON & ARTCC don’t own a D. They are still required to coordinate an arrival / transition with the D and also required to transfer communications prior to entry...unless otherwise coordinated.

 

[timwinters]

TRACON & ARTCC don’t own a D. They are still required to coordinate an arrival / transition with the D and also required to transfer communications prior to entry...unless otherwise coordinated.

Per the A/FD: St. Joseph, MO (KSTJ) has an appr/dep frequency specifically for that class D airport (120.35j. It's distinct and separate from the Kansas City Appr/dep frequency for that quadrant (124.7). STJ appr wouldn't own the Class D airspace just as KC appr owns the Class B?

Again, if not, that's really inconsistent.

Same goes for Columbia, MO (KCOU), they have their own appr/dep frequencies.

Cape Girardeau, MO (KCGI), OTOH has no approach. Kansas City Center Controls the surroundinf airspace. In that case, I could see the need to contact tower before entering the D. Especially since they have no radar in the cab. But, still, if you're on FF or flying an instrument plan, then I would think that KC should be coordinating behind the scenes w/ them.

 

[Velocity173]

Per the A/FD: St. Joseph, MO (KSTJ) has an appr/dep frequency specifically for that class D airport (120.35j. It's distinct and separate from the Kansas City Appr/dep frequency for that quadrant (124.7). STJ appr wouldn't own the Class D airspace just as KC appr owns the Class B?

Again, if not, that's really inconsistent.

Same goes for Columbia, MO (KCOU), they have their own appr/dep frequencies.

Cape Girardeau, MO (KCGI), OTOH has no approach. Kansas City Center Controls the surroundinf airspace. In that case, I could see the need to contact tower before entering the D. Especially since they have no radar in the cab. But, still, if you're on FF or flying an instrument plan, then I would think that KC should be coordinating behind the scenes w/ them.

STJ tower is responsible for the surface area. I’d be willing to bet their LOA states that it goes back to approach during IFR but that’s a whole other issue. At any rate, approach, even while based at STJ, is required to transfer comms prior to entering. That’s required by 2-1-17 of the .65. 7-6-8 of the .65 also specifies a control transfer to the tower for aircraft receiving basic radar services (FF). This point is generally at least 5 miles but can be reduced...which goes back to 2-1-17.

You’d be surprised about the LOAs with class Cs as well. Where my brother works (Abilene) approach has to handoff or “flash” any arrivals or transitions to the local control or get permission for a “point out” for any aircraft penetrating the surface area of the C. Chattanooga Class C uses the same procedure. The surface area of the C is looked upon as the tower’s (local controller) area of jurisdiction.

 

[Clip4]

Probably covered a million times but here is the scenario:

VFR established and maintaining communications and on Radar Services with TRACON on a discrete squawk for either a full stop arrival or IFR practice approach while VFR into a Delta airport in VMC. ATC is late with the handoff to tower and you enter Delta...is it an actionable airspace bust since you have not contacted Tower?

I have a 15 year ATC Delta controller telling me on another forum:

"If your aintent is to land at the airport and you aren’t switched in time you are expected to remain clear or request a switch."

and

"A late handoff is a bust by Approach. Violating class D or C airspace is a bust by YOU. I said that you could fight it and the controller that didn’t switch you in time may be reprimanded but you are STILL required to establish two way communications prior to entering the airspace."

Yet JO 7110.65 ATC STATES:

2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

• 
  a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach control tower on an individual aircraft basis before issuing a clearance which would require flight within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility unless otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.

• 
  b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that will enter another facility's airspace.
  NOTE-

• 
  The pilot is not expected to obtain his own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility.

• 
  c. Transfer communications to the appropriate facility, if required, prior to operation within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility.

So if Approach fails at 2-1-16 C is it a bust on the pilot?

While enforcement is agreed unlikely, I am looking for legal clarification in regard to regulations where responsibility lies with ATC vs the pilot to ensure legal entry into Delta as it has reportedly let to confrontation in the air between Tower and pilots and a lot of misunderstanding since nowhere it is published what ATC facilities provide ATC services for a Delta beyond Tower:

91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(c)Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
(1)Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.

I maintain that by being on FF heading into that destination Delta airport as part of your flight plan, you HAVE established and are maintaining communication thereby giving you permission to enter Delta even if the handoff to tower has not happened prior to the Delta boundary. Anyone have any legal clarification?

...and we are not taking being in contact with any ATC giving you permission to enter any C/D at will...specifically with Approach headed into a Delta airport as part of your flight plan while on Flight Following.

Ok Perry Mason, let’s address some of your facts in evidence.

You maintain that by being on FF heading into that destination Delta airport as part of your flight plan, you HAVE established and are maintaining communication thereby giving you permission to enter Delta even if the handoff to tower has not happened prior to the Delta boundary.

A VFR flight plan is for search and rescue and gives you no authority to enter any airspace. FF is an ATC traffic service provided to VFR aircraft on a work load permitting basis. If the controller gets busy, his responsibility Is to IFR aircraft.

§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.



§91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area, each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must comply with the applicable provisions of this section. In addition, each person must comply with §§91.126 and 91.127. For the purpose of this section, the primary airport is the airport for which the Class D airspace area is designated. A satellite airport is any other airport within the Class D airspace area.

The ATC facility having jurisdiction over Delta airspace area is the tower, not Tracon.

c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.

The pilot is required to establish comm with the tower prior to entering. This is a clearly written reg.


§91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

You are not authorized to violate regulations while under ATC instructions.

AIM 4-3-21. Practice Instrument Approaches

A. Various air traffic incidents have indicated the

necessity for adoption of measures to achieve more

organized and controlled operations where practice

instrument approaches are conducted. Practice

instrument approaches are considered to be instru-

ment approaches made by either a VFR aircraft not on

an IFR flight plan or an aircraft on an IFR flight plan.

To achieve this and thereby enhance air safety, it is

Air Traffic’s policy to provide for separation of such

operations at locations where approach control

facilities are located and, as resources permit, at

certain other locations served by ARTCCs or parent

approach control facilities. Pilot requests to practice

instrument approaches may be approved by ATC

subject to traffic and workload conditions. Pilots

should anticipate that in some instances the controller

may find it necessary to deny approval or withdraw

previous approval when traffic conditions warrant. It

must be clearly understood, however, that even

though the controller may be providing separation,

pilots on VFR flight plans are required to comply with

basic VFR weather minimums (14 CFR Sec-

tion 91.155). Application of ATC procedures or any

action taken by the controller to avoid traffic

conflictions does not relieve IFR and VFR pilots of.....




H. When granting approval for a practice

instrument approach, the controller will usually ask

the pilot to report to the tower prior to or over the final

approach fix inbound (nonprecision approaches) or

over the outer marker or fix used in lieu of the outer

marker inbound (precision approaches).

Calling the tower prior to entering D is your resonsibility and required under the regs.

 

[Shawn]

A VFR flight plan is for search and rescue and gives you no authority to enter any airspace. FF is an ATC traffic service provided to VFR aircraft on a work load permitting basis. If the controller gets busy, his responsibility Is to IFR aircraft.

I used the term "flight plan" loosely expecting someone would associate that with a FSS VFR Flight Plan when I was trying to convey the known destination airport that they enter into the flight strip for VFR Flight Following

The ATC facility having jurisdiction over Delta airspace area is the tower, not Tracon.

This is where some of the ambiguity lies. C and D have the exact same regulatory requirements for entry in regards to communication and Approach provides radars services to both IFR and participating VFR aircraft providing air traffic services to the Delta yet the argument is that communication requirements somehow WOULD be different for Delta as communication with approach does satisfy that entry requirement for Charlie.

It is clear that there is a lot of LOA/SOP and back end coordination, but how is that evident, available or known to the pilot when the regulations are the same for both?

The pilot is required to establish comm with the tower prior to entering. This is a clearly written reg.

That is clear as day in regards to a cold call but does not address when already in communication with ATC that is the approach controller for the Delta on FF.

When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

While I get the essence of the point entry in to D is not a clearance, only a set of conditions need to be met which are identical for C and D in regulation yet apparently different in authorization. If it is clearly on ATC to coordinate transitions as noted above and pilots are NOT expected to obtain his own authorization when in contact with a radar facility...why would that not be applicable to arrivals as well?

 

[Clip4]

I used the term "flight plan" loosely expecting someone would associate that with a FSS VFR Flight Plan when I was trying to convey the known destination airport that they enter into the flight strip for VFR Flight Following



This is where some of the ambiguity lies. C and D have the exact same regulatory requirements for entry in regards to communication and Approach provides radars services to both IFR and participating VFR aircraft providing air traffic services to the Delta yet the argument is that communication requirements somehow WOULD be different for Delta as communication with approach does satisfy that entry requirement for Charlie.

It is clear that there is a lot of LOA/SOP and back end coordination, but how is that evident, available or known to the pilot when the regulations are the same for both?



That is clear as day in regards to a cold call but does not address when already in communication with ATC that is the approach controller for the Delta on FF.



While I get the essence of the point entry in to D is not a clearance, only a set of conditions need to be met which are identical for C and D in regulation yet apparently different in authorization. If it is clearly on ATC to coordinate transitions as noted above and pilots are NOT expected to obtain his own authorization when in contact with a radar facility...why would that not be applicable to arrivals as well?

There is no ambiguity here. Tracon is in charge of B and C. Class D is controlled by the Class D tower.

Because all Class C towers have radar with all the aircraft having transponders. All aircraft departing Class C are sequenced to avoid conflicts. The outer ring on a C is 10 NM from the airport.

Most Class D towers are a guy looking out the windows without radar handling planes as they come into view. Tracon has no knowledge or control of VFR arrivals and departures from D. Big difference.

 

[luvflyin]

91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(c)Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
(1)Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.

91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(c)Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
(1)Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.

That airspace. The Class D airspace. The airspace that 91.129 is talking about. So yeah, regulatorilly (is that a word), you gotta do it. The 7110.65 is telling controllers to not make life difficult for pilots and to cooridinate with the freakin Tower and ship them over in time so that they don't have to stress out over complying with 91.129 (c).

 

[Shawn]

"Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering"

That statement is true for entry into both Charlie and Delta and identical in both.

So Tracon providing radar services into Charlie IS an ATC facility providing air traffic services to that airspace but Tracon providing radar service into Delta is somehow NOT providing ATC service to THAT airspace.

See the rub?...Especially when which ATC facility providing service to whomever is not information available to pilots.

Why then is the regulation for Delta entry not worded "Each person must establish two-way radio communications with Tower Controller"?

 

[Clip4]

"Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering"

So Tracon providing radar services into Charlie IS an ATC facility providing air traffic services to that airspace but Tracon providing radar service into Delta is somehow NOT providing ATC service to THAT airspace.

See the rub?...Especially when which ATC facility providing service to whomever is not information available to pilots.

Why then is the regulation for Delta entry not worded "Each person must establish two-way radio communications with Tower Controller"?

How do you think has authority over the Class D?

What if you have a tower outside a Tracon? The only radar is ARTCC and the Class D is far enough from the radar antenna that ARTCC can only display planes 5000 agl above the airport? Does that effect your reasoning?

The system is what it is. You either understand it and play accordingly or risk being violated.

 

[luvflyin]

"Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering"

That statement is true for entry into both Charlie and Delta

So Tracon providing radar services into Charlie IS an ATC facility providing air traffic services to that airspace but Tracon providing radar service into Delta is somehow NOT providing ATC service to THAT airspace.

See the rub?...Especially when which ATC facility providing service to whomever is not information available to pilots.

Why then is the regulation for Delta entry not worded "Each person must establish two-way radio communications with Tower Controller"?

Yeah. I see that. You got a point you can push. Don't forget to at least get a landing clearance from Approach before you touchdown

 

[Clip4]

Yeah. I see that. You got a point you can push. Don't forget to at least get a landing clearance from Approach before you touchdown

And have a lot of fuel,while you are waiting on said landing clearance.

 

[Shawn]

What if you have a tower outside a Tracon? The only radar is ARTCC and the Class D is far enough from the radar antenna that ARTCC can only display planes 5000 agl above the airport? Does that effect your reasoning?

No, because while I understand the limitations of Delta radar capabilities and the roles each party plays, radar is not a regulatory requirement to enter Delta for a pilot...only communication is.

And the context of the question at hand is still approach controller that is providing radar services into a Delta as the destination, not a myriad of other hypotheticals.