Can a Class E Airport Require a Radio?

Chris Connor

Chris Connor

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
60
Location
Baltimore, MD
Display Name
Display name:
helopilot2be
Can an Airport Under Class E Airspace Require a Radio?

I was looking at Iowa City Municipal KIOW on Air nav and came across this comment:
"ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY DISCOURAGED-RDO RQRD" Does this mean Radio Required. And if so can they do that?
Thanks
 
Last edited:
What's a class E airport? :D ;)

Class E airspace does not require a radio in VMC.

KIOW appears however to have a radio requirement. I am not sure what there regulatory authority for that is. Could be a local law or a NOTAM.
 
Last edited:
That is the City requiring the radio. That would be to land. The airspace its self does not.

What the City is saying we do not like ultralights and we do not want you to land here. If you do you need to have a radio. More than likely some person on the airport committee does not like ultralights and this is their way of deterring them.

Dan
 
Chris Connor said:
I was looking at Iowa City Municipal KIOW on Air nav and came across this comment:
"ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY DISCOURAGED-RDO RQRD" Does this mean Radio Required. And if so can they do that?
Click to expand...

RDO is the contraction for radio, RQR is the contraction for require. You can draw your own conclusion.

Ultralight operations in a Class E surface area require authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. If they insist on a radio to obtain that authorization then a radio is required. But IOW does not have a Class E surface area.
 
KLAM has the requirement too. One of the only times I'll ever say that this requirement is positively a good idea.

Very rare to hear that from me.
 
Chris Connor said:
Not arguing, but why?
Click to expand...

To me, radios are an excellent thing, but the FARs are written for a specific reason, and I don't think certain airports should be able to write their own "regulations" in contrast to the regs.

I don't know about IOW, but if it was done to keep Ultralights away, then its an abuse, and that is a specific reason why I don't like it: It is the top of a slippery slope.
 
SkyHog said:
To me, radios are an excellent thing, but the FARs are written for a specific reason, and I don't think certain airports should be able to write their own "regulations" in contrast to the regs.

I don't know about IOW, but if it was done to keep Ultralights away, then its an abuse, and that is a specific reason why I don't like it: It is the top of a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of these statements. I guess I mistook your previous post to mean you agreed with KLAM having the radio requirement.
 
Chris Connor said:
I agree with both of these statements. I guess I mistook your previous post to mean you agreed with KLAM having the radio requirement.
Click to expand...

Ahh...yes, I do agree with KLAM's requirement, but I'd prefer if it were a bit softer....maybe "Strongly suggested" not "required." The reason is because it is a 1 way strip, with no alternative for go around other than to tightly turn to the right, away from both Mountains and the National Labs. Flying into KLAM is weird too, with reporting points along the way, a long ways out of eyesight range.
 
SkyHog said:
To me, radios are an excellent thing, but the FARs are written for a specific reason, and I don't think certain airports should be able to write their own "regulations" in contrast to the regs.

I don't know about IOW, but if it was done to keep Ultralights away, then its an abuse, and that is a specific reason why I don't like it: It is the top of a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

The FAA official I talked to said that the airport itself is not part of the FAA it is private or a municipality. If the Airport wants to say that you need a radio to taxi on our runway they can. The ulralight can fly all it wants with out a radio. At our airport we have similar problems (not with ulltralights) but with officials that overstep their power.

Dan
 
stingray said:
The FAA official I talked to said that the airport itself is not part of the FAA it is private or a municipality. If the Airport wants to say that you need a radio to taxi on our runway they can. The ulralight can fly all it wants with out a radio. At our airport we have similar problems (not with ulltralights) but with officials that overstep their power.

Dan
Click to expand...
OK, I got a radio. What am I supposed to say? When?

If there's no tower I can merely use my radio to say the town sucks.

What if Henry Kisor, who is deaf, lands there? He does have a radio but I don't think you're gonna his attention on it.
 
Last edited:
KPRB was having a problem with ultralights. Their activities were supposed to be limited to one rwy but that rule was sidestepped often enough that something had to be done. Keep in mind that there were many, more than several, UL pilots who did not know the regs.

The city owned aprt did consider a rdo requirement but dismissed it as a viable option. My perspective is that the RDO-RQRD is but one option towards achieving the goal of maintaining separation.

Personally, I don't mind sharing the airspace but I do expect an adherence to the rules of the road. I do know for fact that there have been several incidents which resulted in bent metal due to a UL, or in two cases, multiple ULs doing that which is outside the realm of even a hint of the expected intention of the flows on and around an airport.

Things got so bad that the city is on the verge of declaring the aprt off limits to all ultralights.
 
mikea said:
OK, I got a radio. What am I supposed to say? When?

If there's no tower I can merely use my radio to say the town sucks.

What if Henry Kisor, who is deaf, lands there? He does have a radio but I don't think you're gonna his attention on it.
Click to expand...

Just put an AM radio in your over-night bag and you're set. Or does it say the radio has to be air-band and turned on?
 
Richard said:
KPRB was having a problem with ultralights. Their activities were supposed to be limited to one rwy but that rule was sidestepped often enough that something had to be done. Keep in mind that there were many, more than several, UL pilots who did not know the regs.

The city owned aprt did consider a rdo requirement but dismissed it as a viable option. My perspective is that the RDO-RQRD is but one option towards achieving the goal of maintaining separation.

Personally, I don't mind sharing the airspace but I do expect an adherence to the rules of the road. I do know for fact that there have been several incidents which resulted in bent metal due to a UL, or in two cases, multiple ULs doing that which is outside the realm of even a hint of the expected intention of the flows on and around an airport.

Things got so bad that the city is on the verge of declaring the aprt off limits to all ultralights.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, and not being a PITA here, but can you point to some regulation in 14CFR103 that shows these regulations being broken? Remember, the regulations are very loose on Ultralights.
 
SkyHog said:
Just out of curiosity, and not being a PITA here, but can you point to some regulation in 14CFR103 that shows these regulations being broken? Remember, the regulations are very loose on Ultralights.
Click to expand...

If they didn't obtain prior authorization from Oakland ARTCC they'd be in violation of FAR 103.17.
 
roncachamp said:
If they didn't obtain prior authorization from Oakland ARTCC they'd be in violation of FAR 103.17.
Click to expand...
The point being that if there's E-to-the-surface, operation of an ultralight is already prohibited without specific ATC approval, radio or not. Paso Robles has it, Iowa City doesn't.
 
Richard said:
KPRB was having a problem with ultralights. Their activities were supposed to be limited to one rwy but that rule was sidestepped often enough that something had to be done. Keep in mind that there were many, more than several, UL pilots who did not know the regs.



Things got so bad that the city is on the verge of declaring the aprt off limits to all ultralights.
Click to expand...

Its not the Ultralight airplane that's the problem, it's the pilots flying them. Don't restrict the type of aircraft, restrict the pilot. I would word it something like " Ultralight aircraft must be operated by LSA pilots or above if operated from this airport"
 
SkyHog said:
Just out of curiosity, and not being a PITA here, but can you point to some regulation in 14CFR103 that shows these regulations being broken? Remember, the regulations are very loose on Ultralights.
Click to expand...

I'd put my money on the bet that these ultralights and their pilots are from the pre-LSA "anything goes and I hate rules" era.
 
SkyHog said:
Just out of curiosity, and not being a PITA here, but can you point to some regulation in 14CFR103 that shows these regulations being broken? Remember, the regulations are very loose on Ultralights.
Click to expand...
Pretty much Sub Prt B in it's entirety.
 
Dean said:
Its not the Ultralight airplane that's the problem, it's the pilots flying them. Don't restrict the type of aircraft, restrict the pilot. I would word it something like " Ultralight aircraft must be operated by LSA pilots or above if operated from this airport"
Click to expand...
Absolutely do I agree. But what is the airport owner to do? The preamble to Part 103 speaks of self-governing amongst the UL pilots. Lacking that self-policing, the city, agency, etc has to take some kind of action. What would you suggest when the UL pilots disagree with the LSA certification being extended to them?

It's a heavy handed approach whether through the city restricting access or the Feds requiring certification.
 
Ron Levy said:
The point being that if there's E-to-the-surface, operation of an ultralight is already prohibited without specific ATC approval, radio or not. Paso Robles has it, Iowa City doesn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I said all that.
 
It seems they are also restricting those aircraft that were certified without electrical systems or are they exempt as within Mode C?
 
From the A/FD entry for KAVX (Avalon/Santa Catalina Island, CA) -- a Class E surface area:
For public use, approval required through UNICOM prior to takeoff or ldg.
​
The airport is privately owned, so if you don't play by their rules you're trespassing. It's been that way at Catalina at least back to the 60's.
 
Pilawt said:
From the A/FD entry for KAVX (Avalon/Santa Catalina Island, CA) -- a Class E surface area:
For public use, approval required through UNICOM prior to takeoff or ldg.
​
The airport is privately owned, so if you don't play by their rules you're trespassing. It's been that way at Catalina at least back to the 60's.
Click to expand...

KAVX does not have a Class E surface area, the airspace is Class G from the surface to 700' AGL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top