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

Shawn said:
"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"?
Click to expand...

One other thing. It says 'the' ATC facility providing service. Not 'an' ATC facility. I think the spirit and intent is clear. But yeah, you have a point you can push. I'm gonna get tarred, feathered and run outta town on a rail for this, but go ahead, write the Letter
 
I think you guys ought to complain to AOPA about this and get it fixed.
 
I will say that today has been enlightening. This conversation is going in here, Red Board and a Facebook group and the consensus is there is a lot of misunderstanding and even ambiguity among both pilots and controllers which is why I keep poking holes in the points being made to flush out how the regulations actually apply here.

Hate to say it, but there is a case to be made for the letter since while the regulations are identical for C and D, application of the two is dramatically different which does create confusion and conflict among us pilots that are striving to play by the rules...or at least understand how the rules are applied in each scenario.
 
luvflyin said:
One other thing. It says 'the' ATC facility providing service. Not 'an' ATC facility.
Click to expand...

Point taken but that is another example of inequality in interpretation of the meaning of the word. In context of C that refers to tower AND approach, but D apparently just tower...and nowhere is that distinction made apparent or evident.
 
Shawn said:
Point taken but that is another example of inequality in interpretation of the meaning of the word. In context of C that refers to tower AND approach, but D just tower.
Click to expand...

Edited: so you are calling the tower to enter Class C? That is not the proper procedure.
 
This is an interesting thread. Just last week I asked approach if it was ok to enter the delta as I was getting real close, and they haughtily informed me that all I need for delta is 2 way comm which was currently occurring. He didn’t switch me until I was well inside the delta and the delta tower was ready for me and didn’t seem bothered.

This delta lies under a busy bravo, and I’m pretty sure has radar.
 
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.
 
Salty said:
This is an interesting thread. Just last week I asked approach if it was ok to enter the delta as I was getting real close, and they haughtily informed me that all I need for delta is 2 way comm which was currently occurring. He didn’t switch me until I was well inside the delta and the delta tower was ready for me and didn’t seem bothered.

This delta lies under a busy bravo, and I’m pretty sure has radar.
Click to expand...

What makes you pretty sure of that?
 
Never had an issue with this that I can recall, but...

From the wording...

“(1)Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility...providing ATC traffic services prior to entering that airspace...”

I find the wording of the bolded part significant - if they meant just the appropriate tower, they could have just said so.
 
Shawn said:
Hate to say it, but there is a case to be made for the letter since while the regulations are identical for C and D, application of the two is dramatically different which does create confusion and conflict among us pilots that are striving to play by the rules...or at least understand how the rules are applied in each scenario.
Click to expand...
Don't do it. They'll just write this.
 
There is no ambiguity because it doesn’t say to contact the tower in the FARs. If it did, then the pilots of the 1,500 plus GCAs that I gave were in violation. They weren’t because I was “providing air traffic control services prior to entering that airspace.” They can enter because as RFC, I coordinated verbally (landline) or visually (VISCOM) prior to entry into the D.

The Granby Letter doesn’t apply because like RC said, that’s a different situation. It’s splitting hairs but if you are up center during normal working hours for the class C, you are NOT up the facility providing air traffic control service. I’d bet anything that if you did penetrate as in the Granby letter, neither facility would file an Operational Deviation on it. Airspace violations happen on a daily basis in the US and I assure you, most of the controllers aren’t filing it on one another if aircraft vs aircraft separation isn’t lost. Even if they do file it, it’s kept on the ATC side and the pilot would never know.

Now, should a pilot under FF be switched to tower prior to entry? “Ordinarily that occurs at 5 miles” but with prior coordination, the switch can be anywhere as long as as it gives tower “sufficient distance to properly sequence the aircraft.”
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
(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.
Click to expand...

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.

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)
 
midlifeflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

By “‘immediate’ reply” do you mean they didn’t include your call sign?
 
The definition of Class D has the word ‘tower’ in It. An argument could be made that that’s the “the ATC facility” being talked about in 91.126 (c).

4. CLASS D− Generally, that airspace from the
surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation
(charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that
have an operational control tower..........
 
Pilots fault, but I can't imagine anyone would make a deal of it unless they really had a burr up their six.
 
Ask yourself this question, if you enter a D while on FF without calling the tower and something happens, who do you think is going to found at fault?
 
Clip4 said:
Ask yourself this question, if you enter a D while on FF without calling the tower and something happens, who do you think is going to found at fault?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that's the question that's being asked in the OP, if you boil it down.
 
For what it's worth, this has been debated among pilots for years. The ATC Handbook says one thing, Part 91 implies something different. My suggestion is that it is always the pilot's responsibility to receive proper authorization to operate in any airspace. If you're not sure, ask (kind of like procedure turns).
 
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.
 
Lando said:
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.
Click to expand...


That is because JO 7110.65 clearly states that the pilot is not expected to obtain his own authorization when transitioning Delta...yet he IS apparently expected to obtain that authorization for arrivals.
 
Shawn said:
That is because JO 7110.65 clearly states that the pilot is not expected to obtain his own authorization when transitioning Delta...yet he IS apparently expected to obtain that authorization for arrivals.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you arrive at an airport without first transitioning through their airspace?
 
When I fly in to KCPS from the northwest via direct overflight of KSTL, I'm gonna keep staying with Approach until he says contact tower. Much more important to not be eaten by the SWA737 just above me than not annoy the tower controller.

Sure, the regulation should say "an ATC facility providing services" instead of "the" because there are more than one, but obvious approach provides traffic separation services.

Also, if you want to be all anally semantic, once you enter the class D, you are no longer on flight following because ATC traffic separation is now a required service, not optional.
 
keen9 said:
When I fly in to KCPS from the northwest via direct overflight of KSTL, I'm gonna keep staying with Approach until he says contact tower. Much more important to not be eaten by the SWA737 just above me than not annoy the tower controller.

Sure, the regulation should say "an ATC facility providing services" instead of "the" because there are more than one, but obvious approach provides traffic separation services.

Also, if you want to be all anally semantic, once you enter the class D, you are no longer on flight following because ATC traffic separation is now a required service, not optional.
Click to expand...

Outside of SVFR vs IFR, there is no separation for VFR aircraft flying in a class D.
 
It doesn’t matter if 91.129 C 1 uses “the” or “an” in the wording. It doesn’t say “tower”. Just like it doesn’t say on departures to contact the “ATC facility providing air traffic services.” The only facility providing service on initial contact on the ground at a D, is the tower. While on FF the facility providing ATC service of FF or “basic radar services” is the TRACON, not the class D tower. Even with a certified tower radar display (CTRD) a class D “VFR” tower is not authorized to perform basic radar services. Ds (approach combo) Cs, Bs with a CTRD CAN through specific LOAs which allow local controllers that are also qualified approach controllers, to provide FF.

Just like the GCA example. You are up the controller providing the ATC service. Local can’t, ground can’t and the tower coordinator can’t do a GCA. Only the radar final controller can. In order to do that you must be up their freq. If they do not do the appropriate coordination, it’s on them. If you lose sep with another IFR aircraft on GCA, it’s on them. If you have a near miss with a tower VFR aircraft because no traffic was issued, it’s on them. If you collide with another aircraft whether coordinated or not, it won’t matter anyway.

Now, if you’re arriving, whether it be FF, ILS, GCA, etc and you land without a clearance, that’s on both of you...mostly you though.
 
Last edited:
Lando said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just a few days ago, Palo Alto Tower had me extend my downwind so far that not only was I inside the Moffett class D, but I was actually over Moffett's runway before they told me to turn base. The Palo Alto Tower frequency gets so busy that if every pilot who was directed into Moffet's delta queried the tower about it, the situation would become unworkable in as hurry!
 
If approach controls are routinely doing this, you have to imagine there is some sort of agreement in place.

Velocity173 said:
Outside of SVFR vs IFR, there is no separation for VFR aircraft flying in a class D.
Click to expand...

Well, there is separation, just it happens to be in the sequence to the runway.

Palmpilot said:
Just a few days ago, Palo Alto Tower had me extend my downwind so far that not only was I inside the Moffett class D, but I was actually over Moffett's runway before they told me to turn base. The Palo Alto Tower frequency gets so busy that if every pilot who was directed into Moffet's delta queried the tower about it, the situation would become unworkable in as hurry!
Click to expand...

Moffett also has a relatively high Class D shelf, relative to the terrain, so I'm guessing that PAO has an agreement with them to clear transits into airspace. In fact, Delta transits are pretty unambiguously allowed by other facilities.
 
N1120A said:
Moffett also has a relatively high Class D shelf, relative to the terrain, so I'm guessing that PAO has an agreement with them to clear transits into airspace. In fact, Delta transits are pretty unambiguously allowed by other facilities.
Click to expand...

When I learned to fly in 1991, my instructor told me that it wasn't necessary to ask Palo Alto Tower if they had "extensions into Moffett," because it was routine. I haven't seen any evidence that this has changed since then. I suspect that Moffett is currently being even more cooperative with PAO than usual, since partial closure of the latter's single parallel taxiway is posing quite a challenge in handling the high volume of traffic.

BTW, what do you mean by "Class D shelf"?
 
I’ve been dumped into Deltas twice in a couple of decades. I usually catch it but one time I didn’t and apologized that I was talking to approach and they forgot about me, and the tower was cool with it.

The other time the approach controller specifically gave the instruction to “stay with him” to deconflict me with a departing jet out of KAEG and I did and the tower guy was irate because HE wanted to talk to me to deconflict us.

So he had held onto the jet for too long and ticked off the approach controller at ABQ and ABQ had held on to me too long and ticked off the contract tower guy.

I had to put on the “don’t sass me, I was following the approach controller’s specific instructions” voice with the KAEG controller because he decided to launch into a rant after I had already said it once. He probably went over to the land line and ranted at the approach controller instead after that. He seemed much more polite when he was also the ground controller and told me nicely to taxi to parking and remain with him. LOL.

Sometimes... sometimes... you can just tell the controllers are having a bad day and miscommunicating and you have to make it clear their mistakes are not your problem to fix.

“I can’t make your buddy hand me off when he says remain with me...”

I’d have had PLENTY to stand on if that second one had turned into “Possible Pilot Deviation”... okay sure... archive the audio and have the FSDO call me. I’ll happily have that chat and be really nice about it when they call, too. Try me.

The other one, I filed an ASRS form on myself just for good measure. Brain fart not to catch being forgotten.

Any other time it’s “Request switch to Tower” as in NOW please. Nicely. And I will teach that, too.

Cover your ass and pay attention to where you are and you can’t be dumped in. Or you’ll at least have the recording to back up that you were told not to switch.

Must follow controller instructions is also in the regs and would probably save your butt in 99.9999% of the cases where a controller incorrectly refused to hand you off.

Having an on air argument is stupid and almost always he wrong answer but in the case of KAEG it was me, the jet, and one ultralight so I was willing to do that conversation on air and not just tell cranky boy I’d call him on the phone after we finished doing this aviating stuff.
 
Radar Contact said:
If there is separation in the air in a class D between VFR aircraft, what is the minimum allowed?
Click to expand...
Making sure aircraft are off the runway before the next landing takes place, particularly without a line up and wait waiver.

Palmpilot said:
When I learned to fly in 1991, my instructor told me that it wasn't necessary to ask Palo Alto Tower if they had "extensions into Moffett," because it was routine. I haven't seen any evidence that this has changed since then. I suspect that Moffett is currently being even more cooperative with PAO than usual, since partial closure of the latter's single parallel taxiway is posing quite a challenge in handling the high volume of traffic.

BTW, what do you mean by "Class D shelf"?
Click to expand...

I meant airspace altitude. Moffett is -25, while PAO is 20 and they aren't nice little circles with little squared off areas. 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.
 
Last edited:
N1120A said:
Making sure aircraft are off the runway before the next landing takes place, particularly without a line up and wait waiver.



I meant airspace altitude. Moffett is -25, while PAO is 20 and they aren't nice little circles with little squared off areas. 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.
Click to expand...


That’s runway separation, the comment was made in reference to FF being mandatory in a D. There is no prescribed seperation for VFR aircraft receiving basic radar services outside (G / E) or inside of a D.

You don’t need to have the aircraft clear of the runway to land another behind it either. Has nothing to do with line up and wait.
 
Velocity173 said:
That’s runway separation, the comment was made in reference to FF being mandatory in a D. There is no prescribed seperation for VFR aircraft receiving basic radar services outside (G / E) or inside of a D.

You don’t need to have the aircraft clear of the runway to land another behind it either. Has nothing to do with line up and wait.
Click to expand...

There are some cases where aircraft have to be ‘clear of runway.’ At PAO that would be all cases. The runway is less than 3000’ long.
 
Radar Contact said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TheGolfPilot said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top