CLASS D "extensions?"

Pilawt said:
Here's the text from the A/FD Sectional Chart Bulletin effective 20 August 2015:
Click to expand...
Got it. That made it easier then what I read in The Federal Register. It's all Class D until when it's not and then it's all Class E. Times will obviously coincide with the Towers hours of operation.
 
Pilawt said:
I got that image from an OPA Facebook post. I'd cropped the image some, but the whole image shows it's from one of the flight planning apps.

Here's how Foreflight depicts the Class D now. The sectional chart hasn't been revised yet and still shows the old boundary, but click on it and FF depicts the new boundary.

At that same Facebook link above, OPA quotes the "Official Explanation" from Diane Fuller of FAA Renton:
Quote:
Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the recent airspace modifications to the Class D and E airspace around McNary Field (SLE) in Salem, Oregon. As background, the decommissioning of the ARTTY Fan Marker required Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP) to be amended at SLE. During the development of these amendments, it was discovered that a modification to the existing airspace was required to contain the IFPs. During our Safety Risk Management process, a need was identified to create a 1.2 mile cutout from Class D and E airspace to assist ingress and egress at Independence State Airport (7S5). With this modification, the airspace action was processed through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register with no comments being received. The airspace action became effective on August 20, 2015.
(emphasis added)
(emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Now I am really having trouble getting my head wrapped around that there were NO comments on that NPRM. It has a huge effect on not only the flying community down there, but the community in general. One must wonder not only how much effort was put into getting the word out that this change was in the works but if there was some behind the scenes stuff being done to kinda try and keep it as hush hush as possible. One must ask the question, why Class D in areas where maybe Surface Area is needed but Class E will suffice. Does the Surface Area really need to go out that far? I've verified that it is about DP's, the "Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP)" Ms. Fuller refers to. Based on my limited knowledge of TERPS and minimum climb gradients used to plot this stuff out, I'm not seeing it. Now for the grand prize question. Do you suppose a conversation like this may have taken place, "Hey Bert, lets see if we can squeeze this through as big as possible and make it Class D. They'll have call the Tower more often just to transition the airspace and we'll get the Traffic Count up."
 
Last edited:
I believe the notices of proposed rule making are published in the Federal Register, but if no one with an interest in the subject happens to see it, that could explain why there was a lack of comments.
 
Palmpilot said:
I believe the notices of proposed rule making are published in the Federal Register, but if no one with an interest in the subject happens to see it, that could explain why there was a lack of comments.
Click to expand...

You'd think "they" would have some kind of requirement to notify the local community. If not I guess it's gotten down to "if ya wanna know whats going on, read the Federal Register everyday."
 
Pilawt said:
I only read it for the comics.

:p
Click to expand...

LOL. As it turns out it looks like The Oregon Department of Aviation doesn't even get the word about that NPRM. Something is real wrong with the system. It'll be interesting to find out if not notifying anybody and just publishing in the Federal Register is business as usual, or did they just not notify anyone this time. Something is wrong up there. Whether it's just plain old incompetance, or maybe something a little fraudulent, time will tell.
 
Here is the final rule as it appeared in the federal register.
 

Attachments

  • Rule.pdf
    218.9 KB · Views: 6
luvflyin said:
LOL. As it turns out it looks like The Oregon Department of Aviation doesn't even get the word about that NPRM. Something is real wrong with the system. It'll be interesting to find out if not notifying anybody and just publishing in the Federal Register is business as usual, or did they just not notify anyone this time. Something is wrong up there. Whether it's just plain old incompetance, or maybe something a little fraudulent, time will tell.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that publication in the Federal Register is legally considered to be notification. Unfortunately, that buries things in with a lot of unrelated stuff. I guess there isn't anyone who is tasked with segregating that huge mass of information into all the different subjects that may be of interest to specific interest groups.
 
roncachamp said:
From FAA Order JO 7400.2K Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, paragraph 17-2-7 ARRIVAL EXTENSION, subparagraph d.:

"If all arrival extensions are 2 NM or less, they will remain part of the basic Class D area. However, if any extension is greater than 2 NM, then all extensions will be Class E airspace."
Click to expand...

Thanks. The whole thing turns out not to be about arrival extensions but the other Surface Area criteria tells the story. Verifying that the minimum climb gradient is 200' per mile will tell just how big a grab beyond what was probably necessary was made. I didn't see anything in there that justified taking Class D out that far. Some extra Surface Area may have been needed but Class E has it covered beyond normal Class D dimensions. A lot of what justifies Surface Area for departures seems to be just about Diverse Vector areas. I'm still trying to find out if that is the case down there. The Center runs it and there is an Antennae close enough but I don't know yet if it's a single source to that sector which should be needed for a Diverse area. I'm kinda winging it here based on some experience thats over 10 years old. Anything else you can come up with would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks again.
 
aterpster said:
Here is the final rule as it appeared in the federal register.
Click to expand...

Thanks. First time I've seen that. Everything else I had seen was the descriptions in the NPRM. They really dropped the ball on ".....is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments..."

A Congressman got involved. As near as I can tell the whole thing is going to be opened up for a new NPRM and won't be kept all hush hush this time. Thanks again for the time you put in, really appreciated.
 
Does publishing it in the publicly accessible Federal Register really qualify as keeping it "hush hush"?

What is the normal way for interested parties to find out about NPRMs?
 
luvflyin said:
Thanks. The whole thing turns out not to be about arrival extensions but the other Surface Area criteria tells the story. Verifying that the minimum climb gradient is 200' per mile will tell just how big a grab beyond what was probably necessary was made. I didn't see anything in there that justified taking Class D out that far. Some extra Surface Area may have been needed but Class E has it covered beyond normal Class D dimensions. A lot of what justifies Surface Area for departures seems to be just about Diverse Vector areas. I'm still trying to find out if that is the case down there. The Center runs it and there is an Antennae close enough but I don't know yet if it's a single source to that sector which should be needed for a Diverse area. I'm kinda winging it here based on some experience thats over 10 years old. Anything else you can come up with would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

It appears you unknowingly made a poor choice for thread title.

The only thing that would justify a larger core surface area than the standard 3.5 NM plus the distance from ARP to EOR is rising terrain. Rising terrain pushes up the Class E 700 area adjacent to the surface area. The goal is to have departing aircraft continuously in controlled airspace from takeoff to MIA. Unfortunately, as a victim of blatant age discrimination, I no longer have the tools that make the needed analysis quick and easy and do not care to do it the old fashioned way.
 
Palmpilot said:
My understanding is that publication in the Federal Register is legally considered to be notification. Unfortunately, that buries things in with a lot of unrelated stuff. I guess there isn't anyone who is tasked with segregating that huge mass of information into all the different subjects that may be of interest to specific interest groups.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Letters, envelopes and postage use to cover this. I get it that that is a waste of paper and money most of the time. This incident has become kinda a big deal. A Congressman has gotten involved. It looks like The Oregon Department of Aviation who owns the effected airport doesn't even get the word until after it's already been done. Hopefully some learning will take place and some sane solutions will be found. Or it will all just be damage control and CYA. Time will tell.
 
roncachamp said:
A Class D or Class E surface area is supposed to be 3.5 miles in diameter, plus the distance from the Airport Reference Point to the end of the outermost runway, rounded up to the next tenth of a mile. There may be some adjustments due to sloping terrain.
Click to expand...

Is it 3.5 nm diameter, or radius?
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. Letters, envelopes and postage use to cover this. I get it that that is a waste of paper and money most of the time. This incident has become kinda a big deal. A Congressman has gotten involved. It looks like The Oregon Department of Aviation who owns the effected airport doesn't even get the word until after it's already been done. Hopefully some learning will take place and some sane solutions will be found. Or it will all just be damage control and CYA. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I'm just not sure that the system of notification currently in place is adequate.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. Letters, envelopes and postage use to cover this. I get it that that is a waste of paper and money most of the time. This incident has become kinda a big deal. A Congressman has gotten involved. It looks like The Oregon Department of Aviation who owns the effected airport doesn't even get the word until after it's already been done. Hopefully some learning will take place and some sane solutions will be found. Or it will all just be damage control and CYA. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to subscribe to federal register notices that pertain only to the FAA. An airport manager's office and a state aeronautical department worth their paycheck would have seen this NPRM the day it came up. But, apparently not, and I am not surprised.

I recall having seen the SLE NPRM within a few days of its publication. But. I didn't open it because it didn't pertain to the work I do.

The GPO folks have made it very, very easy to comment (provided you have the NPRM). It can all be done at regulations.gov and they even provide you with a receipt.

EDIT: When the NPRM came out one of the responsible offices would have to have someone on staff with basic GIS skills to plot the proposed airspace so it was in graphical format.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I'm just not sure that the system of notification currently in place is adequate.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to be. I've seen other problems caused by Letters To Airmen about important stuff not getting to the Airmen. It's easy to say "it's all available at this web site". But navigating the menus is tedious a lot of the time. I think an additional layer between old fashioned just mail everyone everything and just stick it all somewhere on some website is needed
 
aterpster said:
It's very easy to subscribe to federal register notices that pertain only to the FAA. An airport manager's office and a state aeronautical department worth their paycheck would have seen this NPRM the day it came up. But, apparently not, and I am not surprised.

I recall having seen the SLE NPRM within a few days of its publication. But. I didn't open it because it didn't pertain to the work I do.

The GPO folks have made it very, very easy to comment (provided you have the NPRM). It can all be done at regulations.gov and they even provide you with a receipt.

EDIT: When the NPRM came out one of the responsible offices would have to have someone on staff with basic GIS skills to plot the proposed airspace so it was in graphical format.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess there is a responsibility on the users part.
 
Palmpilot said:
Does publishing it in the publicly accessible Federal Register really qualify as keeping it "hush hush"?

What is the normal way for interested parties to find out about NPRMs?
Click to expand...

No. Not the best choice of words on my part. They did classify it as a no negative impact and comment expected though. I haven't looked into the details yet but it looks like they take a little more action if there is enough impact to expect negative comments. For someone to have thought this change wouldn't get a few people excited is not realistic. By hush hush I meant they took the no negative comments expected route instead of the negative comments expected route.
 
luvflyin said:
Thanks. First time I've seen that. Everything else I had seen was the descriptions in the NPRM. They really dropped the ball on ".....is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments..."

A Congressman got involved. As near as I can tell the whole thing is going to be opened up for a new NPRM and won't be kept all hush hush this time. Thanks again for the time you put in, really appreciated.
Click to expand...

With a Congressman involved, the FAA might re-open it. Having said that it was not "hush hush" before. It was normal rule-making.

Original Class B proposals are sent "further up the flag-pole" because of their profound effect.

In the case of KSLE, as I said before, both the airport manger and the Oregon aviation department were asleep at the switch. Surely, the Salem tower manager knew about it. Apparently, he/she did not have an effective relationship with the airport manager, and vice versa.
 
aterpster said:
With a Congressman involved, the FAA might re-open it. Having said that it was not "hush hush" before. It was normal rule-making.

Original Class B proposals are sent "further up the flag-pole" because of their profound effect.

In the case of KSLE, as I said before, both the airport manger and the Oregon aviation department were asleep at the switch. Surely, the Salem tower manager knew about it. Apparently, he/she did not have an effective relationship with the airport manager, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I wasn't even thinking before how the Tower Manager figured into all this. The plot thickens.
 
KSLE-based pilot here...

KSLE's tower is visual-only. They've been trying for years to get a BRITE feed from ZSE's center radar(s), but are still on the waiting list.

The hills that run clockwise from South through Northwest of the airport block a lot of low-level radio communications except through the gap at Eola (the bend in the river near the "D" in "NOTAMS/Directory" on the sectional). The area on the far side of the hills North of a line between SLE and 7S5 is very popular with local instructors for doing ground reference maneuvers and other basic lower-level air work, not to mention VFR pilots cruising through the countryside at 1000-1500' AGL, Christmas Tree harvesters, and crop dusters.

From talking with a fellow pilot who works for a company based on the field, even the tower controllers didn't know about it. Their chief pilot called the tower on the day it went to effect to see how to coordinate operations in the expanded area - The controllers on duty had no clue. They've added a NOTAM to the ATIS telling pilots to "read the federal register" for details about the airspace change.
 
FAA has done some fast backpedaling on the Salem issue. This just in:
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
EFFECTIVE: Sept 17th, 2015
SUBJECT: Independence State Airport (7S5) Egress and Ingress with regards to McNary Field (KSLE) Class D or E Surface Areas
1. PURPOSE: To establish procedures for VFR flight operations into KSLE Class D Airspace or Class E Airspace for the purpose of landing and departing 7S5.
2. SCOPE: The procedures contained herein are designated for the sole use of aircraft landing and departing 7S5.
3. CANCELLATION: This agreement is terminated upon completion of the Amendment of McNary Field Airport Class D and E Airspace, Docket 15-ANM-20 / FAA-2015-3751, or upon notification of one signatory to the others.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES:
a. The Air Traffic Managers must ensure that the personnel providing air traffic services within the scope of this agreement are knowledgeable of, and comply with, the provisions of this agreement.
b. Operators of aircraft utilizing this agreement must ensure that they are familiar, understand, and comply with the provisions of this agreement.
5. PROCEDURES:
a. When weather at KSLE is reported VFR, aircraft west of KSLE between the KSLE 180° magnetic bearing from the airport clockwise to the KSLE 290° magnetic bearing from the airport that are landing or departing 7S5 may operate outside a 5 nautical mile arc of KSLE without contacting KSLE to request Class D Airspace clearance (See attachment).
b. If weather at KSLE is reported below VFR minima, aircraft landing or departing 7S5 must request Class D Airspace clearance prior to entering KSLE Class D Airspace.
NOTE: KSLE ATIS available on frequency 124.55, or ASOS weather available at 503-371-1062.
c. If weather at KSLE is reported below VFR minima and Salem FCT is closed, aircraft landing or departing 7S5 must request class E Surface Area clearance prior to entering KSLE Class E Surface Area.
Click to expand...
A friend e-mailed this morning:
I flew down the valley last weekend just to see how handling would work and also was greeted with "check the Federal Register" on the ATIS. OK, quick quiz,......Q1: how many GA pilots know what the Federal Register is?, Q2: How many GA pilots carry a current copy of the Federal Register on board? Q3: Assuming the unlikely event of Q1 and Q2 being yes, (or a water landing), how many GA pilots will be able to read and interpret the following text while in the cockpit 3-4 miles AFTER they have busted an uncharted D airspace?
"This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E surface area airspace as an extension at McNary Field, Salem, OR. A review of the airspace revealed an increase and reconfiguration of the airspace is needed for IFR operations due to cancellation of the Turno non-directional radio beacon (NDB ) and cancellation of the NDB approach. Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace extends upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet within a 4-mile radius northeast of McNary Field, within a 6.2-mile radius southeast of the airport, and within an 8.1-mile radius southeast to northwest of the airport, excluding airspace within 1.2 miles of Independence State Airport, OR. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within a 6.5-mile radius northeast of McNary Field, within an 8.2-mile radius southeast of the airport, and within a 9.1-mile radius southeast to northwest of the airport, excluding airspace within 1.2 miles of Independence State Airport, OR. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS."

​
:mad2: :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-09-16 at 7.23.14 AM copy.jpg
    Screen Shot 2015-09-16 at 7.23.14 AM copy.jpg
    315.7 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
I can hear the back pedaling chains spinning on the sprockets from here. This is a start.
 
I'd hate to be a CFI trying to explain airspace rules to a primary student in the Salem area. It's not as if Salem, Oregon, is a beehive of air traffic. I'm even surprised that KSLE has the traffic count to warrant a control tow ...

... Oh, wait! :idea:
 
Looks like it's charted as of 9/17/15.

open



Have to say that one funky looking Class D...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    206 KB · Views: 18
PilotOwen said:
.........even the tower controllers didn't know about it. Their chief pilot called the tower on the day it went to effect to see how to coordinate operations in the expanded area - The controllers on duty had no clue. They've added a NOTAM to the ATIS telling pilots to "read the federal register" for details about the airspace change.
Click to expand...

What we got here is "failure to communicate." I'm gonna grab a bag of popcorn and watch Cool Hand Luke
 
Pilawt said:
It's been in effect since 8/20/15. But this has greater impact on VFR pilots, and it won't be on the sectional chart until December 10.
Click to expand...

It will carried in the A/FD "back pages" until the sectional is revised. Not easy, but it has been the FAA way for many years. Nothing unique to KSLE.
 

Attachments

  • SLE AFD Back Pages AUG 20.pdf
    59.2 KB · Views: 21
Pilawt said:
FAA has done some fast backpedaling on the Salem issue. This just in:
A friend e-mailed this morning:
I flew down the valley last weekend just to see how handling would work and also was greeted with "check the Federal Register" on the ATIS. OK, quick quiz,......Q1: how many GA pilots know what the Federal Register is?, Q2: How many GA pilots carry a current copy of the Federal Register on board? Q3: Assuming the unlikely event of Q1 and Q2 being yes, (or a water landing), how many GA pilots will be able to read and interpret the following text while in the cockpit 3-4 miles AFTER they have busted an uncharted D airspace?
"This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E surface area airspace as an extension at McNary Field, Salem, OR. A review of the airspace revealed an increase and reconfiguration of the airspace is needed for IFR operations due to cancellation of the Turno non-directional radio beacon (NDB ) and cancellation of the NDB approach. Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace extends upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet within a 4-mile radius northeast of McNary Field, within a 6.2-mile radius southeast of the airport, and within an 8.1-mile radius southeast to northwest of the airport, excluding airspace within 1.2 miles of Independence State Airport, OR. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within a 6.5-mile radius northeast of McNary Field, within an 8.2-mile radius southeast of the airport, and within a 9.1-mile radius southeast to northwest of the airport, excluding airspace within 1.2 miles of Independence State Airport, OR. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS."

​
:mad2: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Tower Chief will get buried by his/her chiefs in Washington if they get wind of that ATIS announcement. The federal register is not notice to airman, per se, but the A/FD is. Washington's view is that pilots are responsible for all information pertinent to their destination during preflight. That includes the A/FD. The tower shouldn't be saying anything on the ATIS of that nature.
 
aterpster said:
It will carried in the A/FD "back pages" until the sectional is revised. Not easy, but it has been the FAA way for many years. Nothing unique to KSLE.
Click to expand...

Oops.

Aug 20 2015Revise PASCO, WA Class D:......... This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
Revise PASCO, WA Class E.......... This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory
 
luvflyin said:
Oops.

Aug 20 2015Revise PASCO, WA Class D:......... This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
Revise PASCO, WA Class E.......... This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory
Click to expand...

The context should get you through that one. The FAA is working to be an error-free workplace. :D
 
aterpster said:
The Tower Chief will get buried by his/her chiefs in Washington if they get wind of that ATIS announcement. The federal register is not notice to airman, per se, but the A/FD is. Washington's view is that pilots are responsible for all information pertinent to their destination during preflight. That includes the A/FD. The tower shouldn't be saying anything on the ATIS of that nature.
Click to expand...

I think his chiefs are in Reston, VA. It's a contract tower run by SERCO. I googled SERCO and the first hit had a Salem, OR address. ?????

Some heads are probably going to roll by the time this is over. Those in the FAA will probably roll uphill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top