TRSA and /X

Newps wrote:


"Scott Migaldi" wrote in message
...

Plain language: Because they do not have the trafic load required to be
Class C but much more traffic than what is being loaded into the class D
airports.


Has nothing to do with traffic levels. We were a TRSA here at BIL and
went right into class C when that all happened across the country. A
very few just stayed TRSA's. Class D is never an option for a facility
with a radar approach control.

Really? How do you explain KRDG, an airport in Class D airspace, which
has radar approach control? There is NO TRSA.

(The apprch frequency is also not on anywhere on or next to the chart,
so one needs to use a A/FD to find the frequency. I think the ATIS
includes the frequency, and the tower will direct you to switch to
approach frequency if you contact them first, although there is no
obligation to use approach if you decline it.)

Brad Zeigler wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Brad Zeigler" wrote in message
...

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but according to the AIM, TRSAs provide
separation between participating VFR aircraft. In class C airspace,
there is only separation between VFR & IFR aircraft. The AIM makes it
sound like TRSAs offer participating aircraft a higher level of
separation services than class C radar services.


I suppose that depends on what you consider a higher level of separation
services to be. In Class C airspace IFR aircraft are separated from all
other aircraft, but in TRSAs they're only separated from other
participating aircraft.


True. I was thinking along the lines of VFR to VFR separation. Manditory
participation in class C doesn't get you that...only Class B. It's
interesting that TRSAs offer VFR to VFR separation, even if only for those
who wish to play along. Perhaps this is an attribute of TRSAs that
differentiate themselves from Class Ds with approach radar services.

The use of approach radar services at (at least some) airports in Class
D with approach radar services (but no TRSA) is optional too. You can
decline them if you so desire e.g. at KRDG, although tower will point
you to the approach frequency if you don't explicitly decline it.

At KRDG the approach position is actually in the tower cab anyway. Off
peak, the same controller might be approach, tower, ground, and
clearance delivery simultaneously.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.

Are those airportless Class D examples heliports (e.g. Sikorski, near
Bridgeport CT)?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Well, if you find amusement in making yourself look foolish, then I'm glad I
could help.

ZING! We have a winna!

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Newps wrote:

Has nothing to do with traffic levels. We were a TRSA here at BIL and
went right into class C when that all happened across the country. A
very few just stayed TRSA's. Class D is never an option for a facility
with a radar approach control.

It may have been an option at one time. Not all TRSAs are leftover
from the old days. I recall that Fairbanks, AK had an approach control
and class D back in '99 (no TRSA). Looks like they've added a TRSA
since then.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

In article .com,
"John Galban" wrote:

Newps wrote:

Has nothing to do with traffic levels. We were a TRSA here at BIL and
went right into class C when that all happened across the country. A
very few just stayed TRSA's. Class D is never an option for a facility
with a radar approach control.

It may have been an option at one time. Not all TRSAs are leftover
from the old days. I recall that Fairbanks, AK had an approach control
and class D back in '99 (no TRSA). Looks like they've added a TRSA
since then.

Stockton (KSCK) in California was a Class D with its own approach
control until it was swallowed up by NorCal Approach a couple of years
ago.

Hamish

"Newps" wrote in message
...
[...] Class D is never an option for a facility
with a radar approach control.

Never say "never": KEUG

There are probably others.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Class D is never an option for a facility with a radar approach control.


Duluth International Airport on the beautiful shores of Lake Superior has a
radar approach control and just Class D airspace. So do Rochester
International, Waterloo Municipal, Reading Regional, Grand Forks AFB, Minot
AFB, etc., etc., etc. Those are just what I can remember, I'm sure a little
research would turn up many more.

"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.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

The only place TRSAs reach the surface is within the core Class D surface
area. The outer boundary of a TRSA does not extend below the base
altitude of Class E airspace.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B843C3B


Please take a look at KRME on a sectional chart and compare what you see
to your statement above. The TRSA is charted as descending to the surface
in the immediate vicinity of KRME, which is Class G airspace below 700'.
A nearby airport has Class D airspace, however RME is not in (or under)
the class D airspace.


I don't have a current New York sectional, but I did look at KRME on
Aeroplanner.com and I also examined an old sectional from when Griffiss AFB
was still open. Please see my comments about that in another message in
this thread. Please also compare my statement above to what the AIM has to
say about TRSAs.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B843C3B