FAR 91.130 and the Definite Article

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...

The pilot is complying with 91.130 if he's talking to Center.


Negative. FAR 91.130 requires the pilot to establish communications with
approach control.



I don't see where the FARs nor the AIM specifies that "ATC" is defined as
the
Class C ATC facility.


You'll find it in FAR 91.130(c)(1).

"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote in message
...

Does ATC even *do* VFR hand-offs to a Class D tower from flight following?

Yes. When ever I fly to the Twin Cities MSP TRACON always coordinates
with Anoka County(ANE). My normal flightpath would take me about one
mile outside of Crystal's class D but I usually go inside it to see if
Approach says anything about it. They never do. They always tell me to
contact the tower 5-7 miles out, works real good in that area.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

My recollection, which may be incorrect, is that this was a change from
the original wording specifically designed to ensure that the entering
pilot would be talking with the ATC facility actually controlling the
Class C
airspace.

In the original proposal establishing CCA, I don't believe that
requirement was present -- only that the pilot be talking with ATC.


Your recollection is correct. This was addressed in responses to comments
received when ARSA/Class C airspace was in the test period. The FAA
addressed it as follows:

"Specifically, aircraft arriving at any airport in an ARSA, and overflying
aircraft, prior to entering the ARSA must: (1) Establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the area; and,
(2) while in the ARSA, maintain two-way radio communication with that ATC
facility."

But when it came time to implement ARSAs nationwide and incorporate them in
the FARs they didn't include that nice, clear language. The original
regulation was:


§ 91.88 Airport Radar Service Areas.

(c) Arrivals and Overflights. No person may operate an aircraft in an
airport radar service area unless two-way radio communication is established
with ATC prior to entering the area and is thereafter maintained with ATC
while within that area.


This language was corrected, I believe during airspace reclassification back
in 1993, to make it clear that contact with any ATC facility did not permit
entry into ARSA/Class C airspace, it had to be with the ATC facility having
jurisdiction over the area.

"John Clonts" wrote in message
oups.com...

It means the ATC facility controlling the Class C airspace. Airspace
delegated to approach control facilities tends to be significantly
larger
than the Class C airspace contained within it. While Class C airspace
has a
radius of ten miles around the airport the airspace "owned" by the
TRACON is
probably at least thirty miles radius. If you're still on Center
frequency
as you approach a Class C boundary it's because Center forgot about you
or
you missed a frequency change
quote

But would he be in violation of 91.130(c)(1) in that scenario?


No, he wouldn't be in violation of FAR 91.130(c)(1) if he was still on
Center frequency as he approached a Class C boundary, he'd be in violation
if he crossed the Class C boundary without first establishing two-way radio
communications with the TRACON.

("Newps" wrote)
Yes. When ever I fly to the Twin Cities MSP TRACON always coordinates
with Anoka County(ANE). My normal flightpath would take me about one mile
outside of Crystal's class D but I usually go inside it to see if Approach
says anything about it. They never do. They always tell me to contact
the tower 5-7 miles out, works real good in that area.


http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../060201mn.html
Minneapolis Class B airspace redesign to take effect February 16
AOPA seeks to have VFR flyways added


Montblack

Jay Honeck wrote:

snip

Then Madison cut us off without handing us off to Milwaukee. Very odd,
indeed -- it's usually a seamless thing between all but Milwaukee, who
apparently never accept hand-offs from anyone.

Returning to Waukesha from Iron Mountain last fall Chicago center ASKED me
if I wanted to be handed off to Milwaukee. I was so surprised I almost
didn't know how to answer. I was even more amazed when it actually
happened!

--
Frank....H

In article .net,
says...



"G Farris" wrote in message
...

I've done that too - I would certainly not enter a Class C under the
pretext that I was talking to Center. However I've never had the
unpleasant surprise of not getting handed off in time. If I did, I would
tell Center something like "remaining clear of class charlie until
established with approach" or something like that, while drawing circles
in the sky.


Why tell Center anything? Just leave his frequency and call approach.


Because of this:
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#4-1-14
Once you're with them they don't expect you to "just leave".

"G Farris" wrote in message
...

Because of this:
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#4-1-14
Once you're with them they don't expect you to "just leave".


They've forgotten about you. If they knew you were still with them they'd
have either terminated radar services or transferred communications before
you were so far inside approach control airspace.

What controller's failure to comply with .65?

The one that JG is alleging, and which I am accepting for the sake of
argument.

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

The one that JG is alleging, and which I am accepting for the sake of
argument.


JG? Something is missing. The message in which you state:

"I guess the question is whether a controller's failure to comply with .65
in any way effects a VFR pilot's reponsbility to comply with 91.130."

Appears as a response to a message from Newps, not JG. It's impossible to
tell what you were referring to since you included no quoted material.