Class C Airspace New Legal Interpertation

Stache

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
381
Location
Yamagata, Japan
Display Name

Display name:
Stache
The FAA has released some new legal interpertations this one is kind of interesting for pilots talking to ATC when flying into class C airspace. Who is responsible ATC or the pilot?

In a letter dated February 10, 2006, you asked us about the meaning and application of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) section 91.130(c)(1) which addresses arrival or through flight in Class C airspace. 14 CFR § 91.130(c)(1) states in relevant part:

Each person operating an aircraft in Class C airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements: Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the [emphasis supplied] ATC (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.

In your letter, you inquired whether use of the definite article "the", which is italicized above, indicates a requirement to contact the air traffic control (ATC) facility charged with managing the specific Class C airspace or whether contact with any ATC facility would suffice. The answer is that the regulation requires that the operator contact the specific ATC facility responsible for the Class C airspace in question. In the case of Class C airspace, that facility is the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON).

Also in your letter you posited a situation in which a pilot operating under visual flight rules (VFR) is communicating with an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC or Center) while approaching the boundary of Class C airspace. In your hypothetical, you inquired whether a pilot would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) if he enters the Class C airspace while in two-way communication with the Center and not the TRACON. You further inquired if the Center's "failure to hand him off" would relieve the pilot of the responsibility to establish two-way communication with the TRACON prior to entering their Class C airspace.

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.

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 VFR of their geographic position nor of their obligations under section 91.130(c)(1) or any other sections of 14 CFR . However, the FAA does recognize that there could be circumstances that mitigate the violation depending on the actual contents of the two-way communication between the pilot and the Center.

If you have any further questions please contact xxx xxxx of my staff at (202) 267-3073.

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations
 
This will drive pilots away from Flight Following, imho.

Way to go, Ass. Chief Counsel Regulations.
 
Well, that certainly negates all responsibility for handoffs and coordination. By extension, it would also apply to Class D airspace. So, center gives a vector toward the Class C, is the pilot bound to follow it, or not?
 
Lately..The more I talk to controllers the more I end up having to go way the hell out of my way...Not only that some of them have an attitude.. Seems easier just to skirt around their airspace.
 
That opinion just sucks. Big time. I don't know what the FAA is thinking here as this kind of attitude can only hurt overall safety.
 
Note, however, that if you do fry, you won't fry alone, because the ATC Handbook requires the controller to either coordinate your passage, hand you off, or release you to contact the TRACON before you hit the boundary. IOW, the basic regulations do not make the controller responsible for this, but the FAA Order by which that controller operates does. For that reason, I wouldn't worry too much about this interpretation, since it assumes a situation in which the controller has already erred.
 
couldnt there be some sort of blanket agreement between a center controller and a class C tower guy? Say the two controllers talk and the tower guy says, yea, send em all thru at this altitude and east of the freeway and they wont need to talk to me. Seems thats the way they do it in LA Airspace.
 
couldnt there be some sort of blanket agreement between a center controller and a class C tower guy?

Yes there could. If you look at the MDW CCA it is listed as going up to the base of the ORD CBA either 30, or 36 depending on where you are. However, by Letter of Agreement (LOA) MDW delegates all airspace above either 20, or 25 depending on circumstances. So, you could be talking to C90, overflying MDW below the CBA and within the CCA and without C90 or MDW expecting you to call MDW.
 
Michael said:
couldnt there be some sort of blanket agreement between a center controller and a class C tower guy? Say the two controllers talk and the tower guy says, yea, send em all thru at this altitude and east of the freeway and they wont need to talk to me. Seems thats the way they do it in LA Airspace.
That would be established in an LOA (Letter of Agreement) although many times the coordination occurs in the form of a pointout and it happens all the time if no such blanket statement is established in an LOA between the facilities. It allows a controller to keep an aircraft on the same sector's frequency while it (the aircraft) transits/clips a small portion of another controller's area of jurisdiction (airspace) with the verbal coordination/permission from the controller whose area of jurisdiction will be used during the pointout. This all varies with every facility since each individual one may have very different letters of agreement (LOAs) with adjacent facilities.

In the case of the Center controller, he could try to coordinate with the TRACON and get the approach controller to approve the pointout, but the TRACON will most likely want to be talking with the aircraft and will therefore deny the pointout, but will accept a handoff.

Like Ron said though, even though you are responsible for contacting the controlling agency for the airspace to transit (TRACON in class C airspace), the controller is required to either coordinate (pointout), hand you off, or release you to contact the TRACON before you hit the airspace boundry.

Here's what the FAAO 7110.65R says specifically:
FAAO 7110.65R Chapter 5 said:
c. The provisions of subparas a and b do not apply to VFR aircraft being provided Class B, Class C, or TRSA services. Ensure that the targets of these aircraft do not touch the boundary of adjacent airspace.

d. VFR aircraft approaching Class B, Class C, Class D, or TRSA airspace which is under the control jurisdiction of another air traffic control facility should either be provided with a radar handoff or be advised that radar service is terminated, given their position in relation to the Class B, Class C, Class D, or TRSA airspace, and the ATC frequency, if known, for the airspace to be entered. These actions should be accomplished in sufficient time for the pilot to obtain the required ATC approval prior to entering the airspace involved, or to avoid the airspace.​
Jason

P.S. Thanks for posting this new Class C Airspace Legal Interpretation, Stache. It was well worth the short read and I thank you for it. [Edit] I agree with what Dave just posted below me as well, I wouldn't get too wrapped up about the new interpretation. As Ron also pointed out, the controller has his/her own set of responsibilities with this issue and being PIC, you should be aware of your location and adjacent airspace at all times (if at all possible) to avoid such a situation. If you practice and retain those skills, it's almost a non-issue.
 
Last edited:
In all practicality all the vfr pilot will have to do, is 'remind' the artcc guy you are approaching class c. (In most cases pilots are going to be aware they are projected to enter cca or cda -- unless you are 'mrmacgooing' around!)

' ... center looks like N..... will be entering ........'s airspace in 10 miles, do you have a new frequency for us?"

I wouldnt get too wrapped around the axle by this 'new' interpretation, I think we get too worked up by the legal nuances.
 
I don't understand the hullabaloo about this since the pertinent regs do, and have, spell out the pilot's actions. Nothing new there.

It doesn't matter what the pilot is doing or who he is doing it with, the regs haven't changed, nor have the interpretations thereof.
 
It's a non-issue until a controller forgets you, which has happened to me on both vfr and ifr flight plans. Ifr the next controller already has a heads up, vfr you are being set up, imho. If pilots don't see an advantage to flight following they won't use it, atc's job will be easier, and separation will be run a higher risk of compromise. There's more to this scenario than a few words of legalese. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose, since it is a big sky.
 
Has happened to me too, both VFR and IFR. Still, it's down to PIC. So what's new? It's not ignorance is bliss, more like expect the unexpected and be prepared to do whatever it takes. In my case, each time it means calling in the blind, switching to last known freq, or switching to next expected freq.

Let them get mad - and they have - but it's my ass and those of my pax. AFAIK, I just prevented the next link in the chain. We'll sort it out on the ground.
 
wsuffa said:
By extension, it would also apply to Class D airspace.
Not necessarily. The ATC Handbook gets even more specific when in comes to transiting surface areas, even going so far as to say

(para 2-1-16)
==============================
NOTE-The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility.
==============================
 
I'd like to know a real-life example where an ARTCC sector ("center") provides VFR advisory service down to 4000' AGL (the standard Class C ceiling) so close to a Class C surface area. Remember, even though only a 10 nm radius is charted for Class C, the Outer Area goes out 20 nm, and most such approach controls have airspace extending 30-40 miles from the primary airport. It's highly unlikely a Center will cover you so long that this would be an issue at normal GA speeds.

Jon
 
I should add a little history that may explain the opinion. When the predecessor of today's Class C airspace came about in the mid 80's, in many places it was a nightmare for pilots. I was flying in New England at the time, and the worst of the worst was the Long Island ARSA. On the current NY chart (or your GPS map, for those who prefer...), you can see it's possible to fly over the shoreline and be outside the Class C, but then, the restricted airspace extended out over the ocean and the sound, so that there was no way to cross east-to-west or vice-versa below 4500 without talking to ATC. And ATC, in that extremely congested airspace, did not have anything close to the capacity to handle the added traffic. Hence, a phrase not envisioned in the regulations was created by NY Approach: "Stand-by. Remain clear of the ARSA."

Now this phrase is accepted in common usage today (using "Class C" terminology), but at the time it came out of nowhere, and there were debates about whether ATC had the aurthority to do that, since communication was all that was required. Could they forbid you to do something that you had already fulfilled the requirements for doing by establishing communication? The short answer is yes, and we all now know that a response with anything other than your specific call sign does not establish communications for the purposes of entering Class C.

Those New York pilots were an enterprising lot, and some read the reg. literally. All it said was to establish communications with ATC...it originally did not specify which ATC. So some pilots called the tower, or the Flight Service Station on the field, and once they had established communications, then they were permitted to enter the ARSA.

It didn't take long for the FAA to get wise to this and change the regulation to its present form, requiring contact with the speific ATC facility for the airspace in question.

That, I think, is the question the counsel thought he was answering, that you can't call an unrelated ATC facility and barge into someone else's airspace. I can't imagine the scenario as described being a real-life problem.

Jon
 
4CornerFlyer said:
I'd like to know a real-life example where an ARTCC sector ("center") provides VFR advisory service down to 4000' AGL (the standard Class C ceiling) so close to a Class C surface area. Remember, even though only a 10 nm radius is charted for Class C, the Outer Area goes out 20 nm, and most such approach controls have airspace extending 30-40 miles from the primary airport. It's highly unlikely a Center will cover you so long that this would be an issue at normal GA speeds.
They got busy and forgot to hand you off - workload permitting, remember. But I agree that the is a bit unlikely from a practical standpoint.
 
Back
Top