TRSA and /X

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Do you know that such a beast is impossible, even if it doesn't exist now?


No. Why do you ask?

No. Why do you ask?

I ask because your question:

Do you know of a TRSA which does not have
Class D airspace in the middle?

in response to Ron's parenthetical comment

...although there's almost always a class D
tower in the middle of a TRSA

implies that
1: there isn't any TRSA without a D, and more to the point
2: Ron should know this, Stephen does, nyah nyah nyah.

You phrase it as a snipe, which comes off as if you are being smug and
superior. Even if you were asking a neutral question because you were
curious, your posting history makes it easy to interpret as a snipe, and
snipes get tiresome, especially when the fine point they are based on
is incorrect or misleading.

Ron's remark ("almost always") remains true even if there are =no= cases
of Dless TRSAs. It implies that there =might= be, but not that there
=are=. So as a snipe at Ron, it misses.

But now I am curious as to your implication that they are impossible.
(Were they actually impossible, Ron's "almost" would be unnecessary,
though not incorrect). Your snipe implies that you know so and want to
belittle him who doesn't, by not telling and instead asking
rhetorically. (If you didn't know, a more pleasant neutral question
would definately be in order.)

Given the earlier discussion about the independence between towers and
class D airspace, I'm curious as to whether these things are in fact
independent, or (as you appeared to imply) not.

And yes, I phrased it as a snipe myself. Sauce for the goose and all.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

No. Why do you ask?


I ask because your question:

Do you know of a TRSA which does not have
Class D airspace in the middle?

in response to Ron's parenthetical comment

...although there's almost always a class D
tower in the middle of a TRSA

implies that
1: there isn't any TRSA without a D, and more to the point
2: Ron should know this, Stephen does, nyah nyah nyah.

You phrase it as a snipe, which comes off as if you are being smug and
superior. Even if you were asking a neutral question because you were
curious, your posting history makes it easy to interpret as a snipe, and
snipes get tiresome, especially when the fine point they are based on
is incorrect or misleading.

Ron's remark ("almost always") remains true even if there are =no= cases
of Dless TRSAs. It implies that there =might= be, but not that there
=are=. So as a snipe at Ron, it misses.

But now I am curious as to your implication that they are impossible.
(Were they actually impossible, Ron's "almost" would be unnecessary,
though not incorrect). Your snipe implies that you know so and want to
belittle him who doesn't, by not telling and instead asking
rhetorically. (If you didn't know, a more pleasant neutral question
would definately be in order.)

Given the earlier discussion about the independence between towers and
class D airspace, I'm curious as to whether these things are in fact
independent, or (as you appeared to imply) not.

And yes, I phrased it as a snipe myself. Sauce for the goose and all.

TRSAs can and do exist in Class G airspace.

Jessica Taylor wrote:


TRSAs can and do exist in Class G airspace.

Such as where?

Dave

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
news

TRSAs can and do exist in Class G airspace.


Which TRSAs exist in Class G airspace?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
news
TRSAs can and do exist in Class G airspace.



Which TRSAs exist in Class G airspace?

RME (Griffis NY) is an airport in Class G airspace (ceiling 700ft). An
overlying TRSA goes down to the surface at this airport. (Another
nearby airport is in Class D airspace, which also has the TRSA going
down to the surface).

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

RME (Griffis NY) is an airport in Class G airspace (ceiling 700ft). An
overlying TRSA goes down to the surface at this airport. (Another nearby
airport is in Class D airspace, which also has the TRSA going down to the
surface).


Well, this is certainly very interesting! I have a 1987 New York sectional,
Griffiss AFB was still open then. At that time Griffiss had a full-time
Control Zone and a control tower, what we now call Class D airspace. What's
really interesting is that there've been no changes at all in the
configuration of the TRSA. None! The boundaries and altitudes of the
various areas are all the same. Notice the semicircle cutout ESE of UCA
where the floor of the TRSA is at 2000'? That was to accommodate Riverside
Airport. The airport is gone but the cutout remains. There's a small,
almost rectangular area northeast of RME where the floor of the TRSA is also
2000'. That was part of the Griffiss Control Zone, so the floor of the TRSA
was about 1500' above the floor of controlled airspace in that area.

I have to wonder if it's an oversight. When the TRSA was established
Griffiss had a SAC bomb wing and a TAC interceptor squadron, one assumes the
TRSA was configured to accommodate them. Their departure would seem to
warrant some changes in the configuration. Having a TRSA extend to the
surface beneath a Class E 700 area serves no useful purpose. ATC cannot
assign an altitude to any aircraft and can only vector VFR aircraft and only
upon pilot request.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

I ask because your question:

Do you know of a TRSA which does not have
Class D airspace in the middle?

in response to Ron's parenthetical comment

...although there's almost always a class D
tower in the middle of a TRSA

implies that
1: there isn't any TRSA without a D, and more to the point
2: Ron should know this, Stephen does, nyah nyah nyah.


I didn't realize my question implied that. I thought Ron's statement,
"although there's almost always a class D tower in the middle of a TRSA",
suggested he knew of at least one TRSA that did not have Class D airspace
at it's center. How would I phrase an interrogative to clarify that without
implying there isn't any TRSA without Class D airspace, and more to the
point, that Ron should know this, Steven does, nyah nyah nyah?



You phrase it as a snipe, which comes off as if you are being smug and
superior. Even if you were asking a neutral question because you were
curious, your posting history makes it easy to interpret as a snipe, and
snipes get tiresome, especially when the fine point they are based on is
incorrect or misleading.


Gee, I thought it was pretty neutral. It's a pretty simple yes or no
question.



Ron's remark ("almost always") remains true even if there are =no= cases
of Dless TRSAs. It implies that there =might= be, but not that there
=are=. So as a snipe at Ron, it misses.

But now I am curious as to your implication that they are impossible.
(Were they actually impossible, Ron's "almost" would be unnecessary,
though not incorrect). Your snipe implies that you know so and want to
belittle him who doesn't, by not telling and instead asking rhetorically.
(If you didn't know, a more pleasant neutral question would definately be
in order.)

Given the earlier discussion about the independence between towers and
class D airspace, I'm curious as to whether these things are in fact
independent, or (as you appeared to imply) not.

And yes, I phrased it as a snipe myself. Sauce for the goose and all.


You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there. I don't
know why some people insist on doing that. My question to Ron was meant to
ascertain whether he knew of any TRSAs that did not include Class D
airspace, nothing beyond that. I asked because it seems odd that such a
thing would exist. But just because it's odd doesn't mean it's impossible.
For example, I know of two examples of Class D airspace without towered
airports.

I didn't realize my question implied that. [...]
You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there.
I don't know why some people insist on doing that.

That explains a lot. You are too helpful on the group to be consistant
with a rude personality, but your posts sometimes come off that way. I
suspect it may be because you tend to post the minimum information
possible that responds to a point, and that point is often taken out of
context, so what you post may be true, but frustratingly just miss the
mark as far as the discussion goes. (The sky is blue. No, it's cloudy.
No, it's blue.) (one talking about light scattering, the other talking
about the weather conditions)

I thought Ron's statement,
"although there's almost always a class D tower in the middle of a TRSA",
suggested he knew of at least one TRSA that did not have Class D airspace
at it's center.

I take "almost always" as implying that he =doesn't= know that there is
none (although it is consistant with his knowing that there is at least
one).

How would I phrase an interrogative to clarify that without
implying there isn't any TRSA without Class D airspace, and more to the
point, that Ron should know this, Steven does, nyah nyah nyah?

You could prepend "Just curious..." for example. That implies that you
don't know and would like to.

Gee, I thought it was pretty neutral. It's a pretty simple yes or no
question. [...]
You're obviously reading things into messages that are not there.
I don't know why some people insist on doing that.

Yes, you are right. It is neutral at face value. However, questions in
a thread are in a context, and when a thread becomes nitpicky, it tends
to take on a slightly combative feel. (I'm right - no you're wrong -
yes I'm right...) and that influences whether a question is then
interpreted at face value.

I've learned a lot from your posts, often when you are slicing hairs.
But supplying a bit more background information (as you sometimes do) or
context (as it sometimes changes in a discussion) will make it clearer
which hair you are slicing, and confusion over which hair is under the
chopper can lead to more acrimony than clarity.

Thanks for asking, I hope this is helpful.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

That explains a lot. You are too helpful on the group to be consistant
with a rude personality, but your posts sometimes come off that way.

Because you're reading things into my messages that are not there.



You could prepend "Just curious..." for example. That implies that you
don't know and would like to.


I think asking if he knows of any implies that I don't know and would like
to.



Yes, you are right. It is neutral at face value.


Yes, you should take it at face value.