![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... It's called a typo. I know it's difficult to see where the "2" should have gone, so I'll give you a hint: put it right before the "5" in "500". Consider proofreading. As I assumed. That doesn't answer the question I asked though. You hadn't asked a question. When a tower controller tells me that I am no longer their problem but the chart tells me I'm still in their Class D airspace, does that mean I have to switch over to the approach facility and talk to them? What problem is there to be solved? What's the situation? Note that I'm not talking about a situation in which Class D overlaps with some other more restrictive airspace. I'm talking about the situation in which the ceiling of the Class D controlled by the tower has been lowered by some letter of agreement, but where there was already an area of Class E between the Class B and Class D. For example, a TIW I recently learned that the tower controller there only is responsible for traffic up to 2000' MSL, but the Class B doesn't start until 6000' MSL (3000' MSL north of the airport, but within the lateral limits of the Class D). The Class D as charted goes up to 2800' MSL. Since you say that controlled airspace is not altered by LOA, that implies that the airspace up to 2800' MSL is still Class D. But the TIW control tower has said they don't have responsibility for that portion of the Class D. Non-approach control towers don't have any actual control over the Class D airspace unless it is delegated to them by the overlying approach control or center. A letter of agreement may give them responsibility and authority for SVFR operations, or for silent departures of IFR aircraft, as examples. For VFR operations there's not much for them to be responsible for, as no separation is provided to VFR aircraft in Class D airspace. They may specify runway, direction of traffic, aircraft to follow, etc., for the purpose of providing runway separation. That and traffic advisories are about it for VFR operations. On the other hand, I was not given a handoff as I climbed through the top, and by the time I managed to actually get Seattle Approach on the radio with my particulars, I'd have flown out the side of the airspace. A handoff is a radar function, I believe you mean you were not directed to contact Seattle approach. Sounds like you were departing VFR, so there'd be no reason for tower to tell you to contact them. If you want radar services, you call them. If you don't want radar services, you don't call them. Am I really legally required to contact the approach facility given responsibility for that portion of the Class D airspace? No. If you're IFR you'll be told to contact them, if you're VFR there is nothing they are responsible for. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Duniho" wrote in message When a tower controller tells me that I am no longer their problem but the chart tells me I'm still in their Class D airspace, does that mean I have to switch over to the approach facility and talk to them? No. We will often terminate aircraft before they reach the boundary of class C airspace because the pilot asks to be terminated. If there's no traffic for you we'll let you go. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
Violating Airspace with GPS | John Bell | Piloting | 57 | November 5th 03 08:25 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |