Did I bust Class C @ Burbank?

[dmspilot]

You do have to establish and maintain two way communication (that last part seems to be ignored here).

I routinely get "radar service terminated, squawk VFR, frequency change approved" while still in Class C.

 

[Shawn]

So, go ahead, make an entry or transition without talking to one of the service providers. Make my day, have a pen and paper handy.

Sorry, thread is NOT about transitions while not in communication. Thanks for playing.

 

[coloradobluesky]

I was handed off by SoCal approach to Class D Santa Monica tower and it was all handled correctly. Ive also been just "descended through" Denver Metro (KBJC) from B through D to E without talking to the Class D Metro tower.

But, its not fun to be ACCUSED of a mistake, even if you dont make it. So if youre not sure, ask. Like I said, the Class D tower might blame you even if Approach vectored you in and told you to contact the Class D. If you have a discreet squawk code, that should help, and no ATC shouldnt do that.

Maybe the word should be "Are you coordinating?" (pilot to ATC)

 

[Velocity173]

The OP was in contact with the ATC facility (SoCal) providing service to that airport prior to entering. The Transition requirement of 2-1-16 B applies because the OP was handed off to Burbank. 2-1-16 C also applies. This doesn't mean the OP has to stay clear because he was in contact with the ATC facility (SoCal) providing the service (91.130) prior to the outer ring penetration. The receiving controller (BUR) accepted the hand off therefore approval for the OP to enter his airspace. If that receiving controller couldn't allow the transition, then you don't accept the hand off. Period. Also, if there is any restriction to the transition, then that must be given to the transferring controller prior to hand off. In this case, there was none.

The wording of 91.129 / 91.130 doesn't mean you have to be up tower for that surface area. If you notice, it only specifically mentions contacting tower on departure. Arrival & through flight says you need to be in contact with the ATC facility providing the service. In this case, the ATC facility providing FF is SoCal as listed on the sectional. Just like if you were doing a GCA within a B / C / D. You're not taking to tower, you're talking to a radar final controller who has coordinated your arrival.

So, to the OP, BUR took your handoff, that's approval to enter his airspace, they didn't establish comms in a reasonable time, I'd keep trucking along. Also, a lot mentioned on hand off in this thread. A hand off is a transfer of radar ID and comms. Not all towers (Class D) have certified radar. In that case it's not a hand off but coordination. Semantics but there is a difference. The difference is between continuing radar service while in a B or C or automatic service termination by being switched to a D.

 

[docmirror]

Sorry, thread is NOT about transitions while not in communication. Thanks for playing.

Apology not needed(even though you didn't quote me fully), and you're welcome.

 

[alfadog]

...

So, back to the original question: if Approach tells a pilot to contact the Tower, does the pilot have to hear the Tower recite the plane's tail number in order to enter the Tower's airspace?

No. And there's a good chance you're already in the tower's airspace when approach gives you the hand-off. Just make your best efforts to contact the tower. I would also stay well above pattern altitude.

 

[eetrojan]

Sorry to be a bother my more experienced friends, but I want to resurface this other language from the ATC order.

What is the significance of radar service being "automatically terminated" when told to change to tower as described here? What circumstance(s) is this getting at?

Thanks Comanche.

Does this definition from the Pilot/Controller Glossary in the back of the same ATC Order quoted by Bob relate to this discussion?

It seems to suggest that radar service is "automatically terminated" (same as being canceled?) when a pilot is advised to change to tower, but it's poorly worded and difficult to follow:

 

[MAKG1]

It means you will no longer get traffic calls based on radar. Visual only. So, if Tower can't see you or the traffic, you won't get a call. Even if workload permits.

 

[Velocity173]

Sorry to be a bother my more experienced friends, but I want to resurface this other language from the ATC order.

What is the significance of radar service being "automatically terminated" when told to change to tower as described here? What circumstance(s) is this getting at?

It's not automatically terminated in this case because the OP is a transition and not landing.

Example, I transition a C on a regular basis and land at a hospital in the C's surface area. When approach switches me to tower (because I'm penetrating the surface area) that isn't a termination of radar service. The local controller (tower) has a certifified radar display (DBRITE) and based on his training (DBRITE qualified / approach qual) they continue to provide basic radar service (FF).

The OP never said his radar services were terminated because a radar hand off was completed.

 

[dmspilot]

seems to suggest that radar service is "automatically terminated" (same as being canceled?) when a pilot is advised to change to tower, but it's poorly worded and difficult to follow:

It states that the automatic termination occurs only for Class D towers when no TRSA exists and no radar sequencing is provided. It states that it is automatically terminated when you land if you're in B, C, or TRSA.

 

[azure]

Sorry to be a bother my more experienced friends, but I want to resurface this other language from the ATC order.

What is the significance of radar service being "automatically terminated" when told to change to tower as described here? What circumstance(s) is this getting at?

Read subparagraph c. again: it says *an arriving VFR aircraft*, meaning arriving at the airport serviced by the tower to which the pilot has been instructed to switch. The OP was not arriving at Burbank, so this handoff was just for the purpose of coordinating a transition. I'd expect Burbank tower to either hand him off back to SoCal Approach once he's NW of the field, or tell him directly to contact Whiteman tower.

As I said earlier, it's not uncommon for Flint Approach to have you switch to the tower when transiting their airspace if your flight path takes you directly, or nearly, over KFNT. That happened to me several times when flying from KVLL to 3DA, a small airpark under the FNT Charlie shelf. I'm pretty sure there's no implicit Radar Services Terminated when they do that, and they certainly never said it to me.

 

[eetrojan]

Read subparagraph c. again: it says *an arriving VFR aircraft*, meaning arriving at the airport serviced by the tower to which the pilot has been instructed to switch.

Ah. I totally see it now. Thanks!

 

[luvflyin]

PS: Andras - there are THREE Class B towers -technically Miramar is at the center of Class B airspace to the surface down there - even if its not technically class B.

Miramar doesn't meet the requirements to be a Class B, but it is. Look at the Mode C veil ring. The Seattle Class B got cleaned up a few years ago when local pilot groups called the FAA on treating Boeing Field as a Class B. It would be nice if they did the same in San Diego. They'd probably still protect the approach corridor as it is now, but Class B surface area there is excessive. Having to get a B clearance from Approach when NKX is closed is unnecessary.

 

[thebruce]

Sorry to resurrect a (moderately) old and somewhat contentious thread, but I am two days post PP-ASEL checkride and 1. feel "qualified" to more than just lurk here; and (2) plan to fly to KBUR in a couple weeks, so this thread came up during a search for info on the field.

I am lawyer (a prosecutor, actually, so a different flavor than the regulatory interpretation type), and I'm more than a little surprised that this can even still remain a somewhat grey area. How long have the current airspaces/requirements been in existence? And there is still no black and white regulatory language (or even A/FD notation) on what the proper procedure is here? Seems like an easy fix to a potentially dangerous situation.

Also, a less nebulous question: in this situation (or others) does the fact that contacting tower requires a frequency change "undo" the two-way communication that had previously been established?

Assume for the sake of argument that OP has the wrong tower freq, and switches from SoCal. Or that magic smoke leaks out of the transmission side of COM1 just as he switches to tower. I would have a tough time absolving myself of blame if I knew (or suspected) an error or failure on my part caused me to lose communications with the agency with which I had "established" two way radio communication. Granted, that's a different scenario than OP described here, and based on my experience (ha! couldn't resist), if I heard traffic that confirmed I was on the correct freq, I likely would have proceeded in a similar fashion as OP.

Thanks,
theBruce, FNG

 

[Shawn]

Also, a less nebulous question: in this situation (or others) does the fact that contacting tower requires a frequency change "undo" the two-way communication that had previously been established?

Negative...a "handoff" does not break that chain and you are in communication thus able to enter C airspace.

If ATC says "Radar services terminated, squawk VFR" and does NOT give you a handoff...then the chain is broken.

Most of the confusion comes for misunderstanding of the regulations...not the ambiguity of the regulations themselves.

 

[thebruce]

Most of the confusion comes for misunderstanding of the regulations...not the ambiguity of the regulations themselves.

Good to know. In my world, every term of significance is defined. In aviation, there's an actual regulation requiring a PIC to do certain things before a flight "not within the vicinity of an airport," and no definition of vicinity. I'm just trying to be a safe operator in busy SoCal airspace. I'm comfortable with the level of task saturation, but I don't want to get bit by an unknown unknown while thinking I'm doing everything correctly.

 

[coloradobluesky]

C'mon, there are grey areas of the law. There are grey areas in the FARs also. Point is, a LOT of pilots think they need to talk to Class D tower to transition Class D airspace. Not true, they need to talk to ATC (of some sort), approach, center or tower. And... in the past its been a bit ambiguous because the approach, or center didnt always "coordinate" the handoff with the tower and some tower guy got mad at some pilot that was vectored into the Class D by Center (or approach) and he shows up in his airspace unnanounced. Its pretty much straightened out now, but misunderstandings do happen. If in doubt ask Center or Approach if they are "coordinating". They should. Its a hassle for them sometimes they have to pick up the phone or something.....extra work.

 

[thebruce]

Thanks. With SoCal as the airspace overlord here and my habit of getting flight following on every cross country to date, that clarification is useful.

 

[denverpilot]

I am lawyer (a prosecutor, actually, so a different flavor than the regulatory interpretation type), and I'm more than a little surprised that this can even still remain a somewhat grey area. How long have the current airspaces/requirements been in existence? And there is still no black and white regulatory language (or even A/FD notation) on what the proper procedure is here? Seems like an easy fix to a potentially dangerous situation.

As someone pointed out, this one isn't particularly broken, but there are certainly FAA regs that meet your above criteria. Heh.

They have a tendency to let the Chief Counsel handle it with "interpretation letters" instead of just publishing better words.

For what reason, we pilots are too lowly to know or understand. Hahaha.

 

[mohamedpac]

This reminds me of a situation I barely avoided just a month ago. I've never been totally sure about the difference between FF and IFR Plan in terms of handing off to different authorities.

I was flying into Killeen for the first time, and the airport there is bordered by Ft. Hood Army Base, which has a MOA right over it, right next to the Killeen civilian airport. I was aware of the MOA, but unfamiliar with which parts are active and where the shelves of it are.

I requested FF way in advance, received a heading and altitude, and continued on, noticing that I would be flying straight through the MOA. When I got close and realized the controller (who wasn't busy) wasn't going to say anything, I asked if it was active, and to my surprise he said it was. He was going to allow me to fly right through it. I politely asked him to guide me around it and he did so, nice guy. I was close to not asking ATC for help but was very glad I did... wasn't planning on getting shot out of the sky that day.

I know for an IFR flight plan it is ATC's responsibility to ensure that the pilot doesn't enter restricted airspace, does this also apply to FF?

 

[N801BH]

This reminds me of a situation I barely avoided just a month ago. I've never been totally sure about the difference between FF and IFR Plan in terms of handing off to different authorities.

I was flying into Killeen for the first time, and the airport there is bordered by Ft. Hood Army Base, which has a MOA right over it, right next to the Killeen civilian airport. I was aware of the MOA, but unfamiliar with which parts are active and where the shelves of it are.

I requested FF way in advance, received a heading and altitude, and continued on, noticing that I would be flying straight through the MOA. When I got close and realized the controller (who wasn't busy) wasn't going to say anything, I asked if it was active, and to my surprise he said it was. He was going to allow me to fly right through it. I politely asked him to guide me around it and he did so, nice guy. I was close to not asking ATC for help but was very glad I did... wasn't planning on getting shot out of the sky that day.

I know for an IFR flight plan it is ATC's responsibility to ensure that the pilot doesn't enter restricted airspace, does this also apply to FF?

You can go into a MOA anytime.....At you own risk of course...

 

[Velocity173]

This reminds me of a situation I barely avoided just a month ago. I've never been totally sure about the difference between FF and IFR Plan in terms of handing off to different authorities.

I was flying into Killeen for the first time, and the airport there is bordered by Ft. Hood Army Base, which has a MOA right over it, right next to the Killeen civilian airport. I was aware of the MOA, but unfamiliar with which parts are active and where the shelves of it are.

I requested FF way in advance, received a heading and altitude, and continued on, noticing that I would be flying straight through the MOA. When I got close and realized the controller (who wasn't busy) wasn't going to say anything, I asked if it was active, and to my surprise he said it was. He was going to allow me to fly right through it. I politely asked him to guide me around it and he did so, nice guy. I was close to not asking ATC for help but was very glad I did... wasn't planning on getting shot out of the sky that day.

I know for an IFR flight plan it is ATC's responsibility to ensure that the pilot doesn't enter restricted airspace, does this also apply to FF?

There's nothing wrong with entering a MOA under FF. In fact, the AIM encourages VFR pilots to contact ATC for traffic advisories while transiting a MOA.

You won't get shot down in a MOA either. Restricted area? Possibility.

 

[tb813]

I requested FF way in advance, received a heading and altitude, and continued on, noticing that I would be flying straight through the MOA. When I got close and realized the controller (who wasn't busy) wasn't going to say anything, I asked if it was active, and to my surprise he said it was. He was going to allow me to fly right through it. I politely asked him to guide me around it and he did so, nice guy. I was close to not asking ATC for help but was very glad I did... wasn't planning on getting shot out of the sky that day.

MOAs are not restricted airspace, and I never plan to fly around them (but never attempt to go through without FF either). ATC can't prohibit you from entering MOAs, but they can recommend you not to enter. Happened to me once on a recent VFR flight over Georgia - I've been asked by the controller to avoid the active MOODY 2 MOA "if able", and he suggested a new route (VOR to fly to). The point is - be in contact with ATC, and they'll help you to go either through or around MOA.

 

[mohamedpac]

I apologize, I meant that it was a restricted area, not an MOA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PaulMillner]

I was on flight following with ATC from Big Bear to Whiteman. ATC handed me off to Burbank just as I crossed into their airspace.

It's SoCal Approach all the way from Big Bear through Burbank, so you were talking to the right facility...

Did you mean Burbank Tower? Then it's not a class C issue, but Class D...

Paul

 

[Velocity173]

It's SoCal Approach all the way from Big Bear through Burbank, so you were talking to the right facility...

Did you mean Burbank Tower? Then it's not a class C issue, but Class D...

Paul

Burbank is a C. Whitman is a D.

 

[Palmpilot]

As someone pointed out, this one isn't particularly broken, but there are certainly FAA regs that meet your above criteria. Heh.

They have a tendency to let the Chief Counsel handle it with "interpretation letters" instead of just publishing better words.

For what reason, we pilots are too lowly to know or understand. Hahaha.

[emphasis added]

I've heard that it typically takes several years to change an FAA regulation, so that probably has something to do with it.

And for the benefit of our new member, here is where those Chief Counsel interpretations can be found:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/

 

[mkosmo]

I apologize, I meant that it was a restricted area, not an MOA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he owned the r area, he could have authorized you through it.

 

[Shawn]

I know for an IFR flight plan it is ATC's responsibility to ensure that the pilot doesn't enter restricted airspace, does this also apply to FF?

I apologize, I meant that it was a restricted area, not an MOA.

Negative. Being on FF does not negate the pilot's responsibility to stay within ANY regulation...as well as traffic avoidance. They are an extra set of eyes...not your only set of eyes.

It is the pilot's responsibility even on FF to be sure that they remain clear of any active R airspace. The benefit of FF is that you can easily inquire if it is active or not and blow right through if not active.

A GOOD controller will advise you of any active restricted space along your route but it is no way required or even necessarily expected.

 

[mohamedpac]

Negative. Being on FF does not negate the pilot's responsibility to stay within ANY regulation...as well as traffic avoidance. They are an extra set of eyes...not your only set of eyes.

It is the pilot's responsibility even on FF to be sure that they remain clear of any active R airspace. The benefit of FF is that you can easily inquire if it is active or not and blow right through if not active.

A GOOD controller will advise you of any active restricted space along your route but it is no way required or even necessarily expected.

Thank you for this, that's what I thought.

However, if I'm on an IFR plan, and the controller accidentally directs me to go through an active restricted area (tells me to fly a certain heading and forgets about me) it would be ATC's fault, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Palmpilot]

It's SoCal Approach all the way from Big Bear through Burbank, so you were talking to the right facility...

Agreed. The ATC facility providing air traffic services in the Burbank class C airspace is SoCal Approach, and assuming that's who he was talking to when he entered the class C, he had already met the requirements for entry. Subsequent frequency change instructions don't reach back in time to alter the fact that the class C entry requirements were already met.

91.130(c)(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."​

Did you mean Burbank Tower? Then it's not a class C issue, but Class D...

According to the chart posted earlier in the thread, Burbank Tower is in class C airspace, not class D.

 

[Shawn]

However, if I'm on an IFR plan, and the controller accidentally directs me to go through an active restricted area (tells me to fly a certain heading and forgets about me) it would be ATC's fault, correct?

Unlike VFR FF, if you are flying IFR, you are on a "clearance". If your cleared routed takes you through R airspace, then you are cleared through that space active or not and not on you as the pilot to avoid it. The only "fault" would be if ATC cleared you through active R...but that is on them, not you.

The correct response anytime you believe your clearance may deviate from a regulation or put you in a position that you are not 100% clear on is to query ATC for clarification.

Just as the B airspace boundaries disappear IFR. If your cleared route takes you though Bravo, you do not need any further clearance to enter Bravo unlike VFR.

On maybe my second or third IFR flight ever post ticket, I was routed through R airspace that is typically never open to VFR traffic. I queried ACT to ask if that R was active...had a great controller that responded "Negative, R-XXXX is cold...and you are IFR so that is our problem, not yours to worry about"

 

[mohamedpac]

Unlike VFR FF, if you are flying IFR, you are on a "clearance". If your cleared routed takes you through R airspace, then you are cleared through that space active or not and not on you as the pilot to avoid it. The only "fault" would be if ATC cleared you through active R...but that is on them, not you.

The correct response anytime you believe your clearance may deviate from a regulation or put you in a position that you are not 100% clear on is to query ATC for clarification.

Just as the B airspace boundaries disappear IFR. If your cleared route takes you though Bravo, you do not need any further clearance to enter Bravo unlike VFR.

On maybe my second or third IFR flight ever post ticket, I was routed through R airspace that is typically never open to VFR traffic. I queried ACT to ask if that R was active...had a great controller that responded "Negative, R-XXXX is cold...and you are IFR so that is our problem, not yours to worry about"

Thank you for the clarification! Just got my IFR ticket in October and you can't ever be too safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Palmpilot]

On maybe my second or third IFR flight ever post ticket, I was routed through R airspace that is typically never open to VFR traffic. I queried ACT to ask if that R was active...had a great controller that responded "Negative, R-XXXX is cold...and you are IFR so that is our problem, not yours to worry about"

Bear in mind though, that if a controller mistakenly routed you through an active restricted area, depending on the type of activity going on there, you're the one who could die, not the controller.

 

[Shawn]

Bear in mind though, that if a controller mistakenly routed you through an active restricted area, depending on the type of activity going on there, you're the one who could die, not the controller.

Exactly, hence...

The correct response anytime you believe your clearance may deviate from a regulation or put you in a position that you are not 100% clear on is to query ATC for clarification.

 

[ghogue]

Here is a Chief Counsel LOI that may shed some light on the subject. It is not the exact situation, but I think it does contain some information could relate to the original post. Take what you will from it. I am just posting it to provide additional information.

Mike Granby
605 Holly Court
York, Pennsylvania 17406

Dear Mr. Granby:

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 Mr. Naveen Rao of my staff at (202) 267-3073. Thank you for your inquiry.


Sincerely,

Rebecca MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations

 

[Palmpilot]

Here is a Chief Counsel LOI that may shed some light on the subject. It is not the exact situation, but I think it does contain some information could relate to the original post. Take what you will from it. I am just posting it to provide additional information... [snip]

That one seems very applicable to this discussion, IMO.

 

[Velocity173]

The OPs situation is different than the CC letter. While the OP was up the TRACON responsible for the Class C, he was given a handoff to the tower of that class C. Therefore the comm requirement to be up that TRACON no longer applies and must communicate with the tower. Due to the fact that BUR accepted the handoff without any restrictions and failed to contact the OP because of traffic, there's really no choice but for the OP to continue on. OP did nothing wrong.

 

[N801BH]

The OPs situation is different than the CC letter. While the OP was up the TRACON responsible for the Class C, he was given a handoff to the tower of that class C. Therefore the comm requirement to be up that TRACON no longer applies and must communicate with the tower. Due to the fact that BUR accepted the handoff without any restrictions and failed to contact the OP because of traffic, there's really no choice but for the OP to continue on. OP did nothing wrong.

Agreed.....

 

[Palmpilot]

The OPs situation is different than the CC letter. While the OP was up the TRACON responsible for the Class C, he was given a handoff to the tower of that class C. Therefore the comm requirement to be up that TRACON no longer applies and must communicate with the tower. Due to the fact that BUR accepted the handoff without any restrictions and failed to contact the OP because of traffic, there's really no choice but for the OP to continue on. OP did nothing wrong.

The CC letter makes it clear that being in communication with the TRACON meets the communication requirement for class C airspace.

The part about ARTCC contact not meeting the requirement goes beyond the OP's question, but is useful information.