Is VFR participation by a non transponder equipped aircraft
encouraged/permitted in a TRSA?

Thanks.

AIM 3-5-6 says that participation by VFR pilots is voluntary...and for IFR
pilots, TRSA's don't even exist in Part 71.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
> Is VFR participation by a non transponder equipped aircraft
> encouraged/permitted in a TRSA?
>
> Thanks.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Is VFR participation by a non transponder equipped aircraft
> encouraged/permitted in a TRSA?
>

Yes, but it may not be possible.

Something I've always wondered... why do TRSAs even exist? Seems like a
dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the concept of
a voluntary controlled airspace? Why not a Class C (their closest
cousin as far as I can tell)?

--
Guy Elden Jr.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> AIM 3-5-6 says that participation by VFR pilots is voluntary...and for IFR
> pilots, TRSA's don't even exist in Part 71.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Is VFR participation by a non transponder equipped aircraft
> > encouraged/permitted in a TRSA?
> >
> > Thanks.

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Something I've always wondered... why do TRSAs even exist? Seems like a
> dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the concept of
> a voluntary controlled airspace? Why not a Class C (their closest
> cousin as far as I can tell)?

They are left-over from when Class C airspace was called an ARSA. The main
difference between an ARSA and a TRSA was that the former required
participation, while the latter did not. Then, and now, the TRSA is sort of
"in-between" Class C (mandatory radar services) and Class D (no radar
services).

As for why participation is optional, well that's sort of like asking why
participation in radar services is optional in Class E airspace. Do you ask
that question? I suppose you (or someone else) might, but I don't.

The bottom line here is that TRSAs exist where there's a terminal radar
facility (approach/departure control), but where there's not enough traffic
to justify mandatory participation (as is the case for Class C, or Class B
for that matter). It's really just Class E airspace, where radar services
are being provided by a terminal controller rather than a center (enroute)
controller (that's a bit of an oversimplification too, but it's the basic
idea).

The boundaries show you where the terminal controller provides the radar
services rather than the center controller. The only difference in radar
services is who is providing them; it's still just your run-of-the-mill
Class E services, which are optional wherever you are.

I suppose you might ask why, if there's not that much traffic, there's a
terminal radar facility. Usually the answer to that question has to do with
the type of aircraft using the airspace (and usually an airport within that
airspace). But I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to that question does
vary with facility (and no, I don't know the answer for every situation).

Pete

The explanation is in the AIM reference.

Bob

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Something I've always wondered... why do TRSAs even exist? Seems like a
> dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the concept of
> a voluntary controlled airspace? Why not a Class C (their closest
> cousin as far as I can tell)?
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> AIM 3-5-6 says that participation by VFR pilots is voluntary...and for
>> IFR
>> pilots, TRSA's don't even exist in Part 71.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Is VFR participation by a non transponder equipped aircraft
>> > encouraged/permitted in a TRSA?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Something I've always wondered... why do TRSAs even exist? Seems like a
>>dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the concept of
>>a voluntary controlled airspace? Why not a Class C (their closest
>>cousin as far as I can tell)?
>
>
> They are left-over from when Class C airspace was called an ARSA.

The predate ARSA's. TRSA's existed when there were only TCA's nad the
FAA hadn't invented ARSA's.

TRSA's are NOT controlled airspace in themselves. Just wannabe radar
service zones.

> The main
> difference between an ARSA and a TRSA was that the former required
> participation, while the latter did not. Then, and now, the TRSA is sort of
> "in-between" Class C (mandatory radar services) and Class D (no radar
> services).

It's not an inbetween anything. It's not a class of controlled
airspace. Just a charted area where you could get radar services
(which isn't limitted to TRSA's by the way, we have some airports
in the area with approach controls in their class D's that bear
at most a telltale R in their sectioanl data bock).

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> The predate ARSA's. TRSA's existed when there were only TCA's nad the
> FAA hadn't invented ARSA's.

They both predate, and are left-over from, the relevant time periods.

> TRSA's are NOT controlled airspace in themselves. Just wannabe radar
> service zones.

I don't understand your statement. I've never heard of a TRSA existing in
Class G airspace. All of the ones I've seen have been in Class E airspace,
which certainly is controlled airspace.

> It's not an inbetween anything.

You are welcome to that opinion. I happen to disagree. It provides a
higher level of service than that offered by most towers in Class D
airspace, and a lower level of service than that offered by radar facilities
in Class C airspace.

To me, that's exactly what "in-between" means

> It's not a class of controlled airspace.

It is a region within Class E airspace where a slightly different type of
radar service is offered from that normally found in Class E airspace. I
would be amazed if there was a TRSA outside of controlled airspace.

> Just a charted area where you could get radar services
> (which isn't limitted to TRSA's by the way, we have some airports
> in the area with approach controls in their class D's that bear
> at most a telltale R in their sectioanl data bock).

I certainly don't disagree with your last sentence. That doesn't mean a
TRSA isn't in controlled airspace though.

Pete

Yea.. but the simplified explanation is:

A TRSA is an approach control type radar service into an area that is
not serving a Class C or Class B field. As others have said, it is
non-regulatory. The airspace within a TRSA is either Class D or Class E.
I have yet to see a TRSA encompass class G airspace (other than the
presumption that ground to 700 feet is included) but from a logical
standpoint it seems counterintuitive to provide "control" to traffic in
"uncontrolled" airspace.

The difference between center and approach class radars is significant:
closer in vectors to final, faster update rates, etc.

While participation by VFR's within TRSA's are voluntary, my "local"
TRSA at Beaumont, TX (KBPT) advises aircraft inbound to KBPT to contact
approach first, who will then hand you off to the tower... so by
practice, going into the primary airport at THAT TRSA is defacto a
mandatory participation

Dave Staten

Bob Gardner wrote:
> The explanation is in the AIM reference.
>
> Bob
>
> "Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Something I've always wondered... why do TRSAs even exist? Seems like a
>>dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the concept of
>>a voluntary controlled airspace? Why not a Class C (their closest
>>cousin as far as I can tell)?
>>
>>--
>>Guy Elden Jr.
>>
>>Bob Gardner wrote:
>>
>>>AIM 3-5-6 says that participation by VFR pilots is voluntary...and for
>>>IFR
>>>pilots, TRSA's don't even exist in Part 71.
>>>
>>>Bob Gardner
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Is VFR participation by a non transponder equipped aircraft
>>>>encouraged/permitted in a TRSA?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>
>
>

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Something I've always wondered... why do TRSAs even exist?
>

Good question. Nobody seems to know the answer.


>
> Seems like a dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the
> concept of a voluntary controlled airspace?
>

What seems dangerous about it? TRSAs exist in Class D and Class E airspace
but are not in themselves controlled airspace.


>
> Why not a Class C (their closest
> cousin as far as I can tell)?
>

Part of the Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA) plan was to eventually replace
all TRSAs with ARSAs, which are nor Class C airspace. But not all TRSAs met
ARSA requirements.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> They are left-over from when Class C airspace was called an ARSA.
>

Actually, they're left over from an even earlier time.


>
> The main difference between an ARSA and a TRSA was that the former
> required participation, while the latter did not. Then, and now, the TRSA
> is sort of "in-between" Class C (mandatory radar services) and Class D
> (no radar services).
>

TRSAs provide a service in-between Class C service and Basic Radar service.
There are some terminal radar facilities that do not have Class B or Class C
airspace and are not TRSAs, these facilities provide Basic Radar service.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R22812C3B


>
> The bottom line here is that TRSAs exist where there's a terminal radar
> facility (approach/departure control), but where there's not enough
> traffic to justify mandatory participation (as is the case for Class C, or
> Class B for that matter).
>

But TRSAs do not exist at all such locations. Facilities that provide Basic
Radar service are identified on sectional charts by a small blue circle with
an R in it near the airport name.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E722C3B


>
> It's really just Class E airspace, where radar
> services are being provided by a terminal controller rather than a center
> (enroute) controller (that's a bit of an oversimplification too, but it's
> the basic idea).
>

It's Class D and Class E airspace.


>
> The boundaries show you where the terminal controller provides the radar
> services rather than the center controller. The only difference in radar
> services is who is providing them; it's still just your run-of-the-mill
> Class E services, which are optional wherever you are.
>

That's not correct. The charted TRSA boundary is well within the
center/approach boundary. The terminal facility provides services on both
sides of the TRSA boundary, probably by the same controller as well.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> It's not an inbetween anything. It's not a class of controlled airspace.

They're not a class of controlled airspace, that's certainly true, but TRSA
services are definitely in-between Basic Radar services and Class C
services.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't understand your statement. I've never heard of a TRSA existing in
> Class G airspace. All of the ones I've seen have been in Class E
> airspace, which certainly is controlled airspace.
>

TRSAs exist in Class D and Class E airspace, but are not a type of
controlled airspace.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> I have yet to see a TRSA encompass class G airspace (other than the
> presumption that ground to 700 feet is included) but from a logical
> standpoint it seems counterintuitive to provide "control" to traffic in
> "uncontrolled" airspace.
>

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

Thanks. I was aware of the voluntary nature of TRSA's,
which is why I specified VFR and asked if participation was
encouraged/permitted, not required. Let me ask the same
question in a more practical setting.

If you were flying XC VFR /X and your direct route took you
through a TRSA would you make a call and try to participate,
descend to fly under/alter course to avoid, or just fly on
through?

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

>AIM 3-5-6 says that participation by VFR pilots is voluntary...and for IFR
>pilots, TRSA's don't even exist in Part 71.
>
>Bob Gardner
>
> wrote in message
...
>> Is VFR participation by a non transponder equipped aircraft
>> encouraged/permitted in a TRSA?
>>
>> Thanks.
>

wrote:
> Thanks. I was aware of the voluntary nature of TRSA's,
> which is why I specified VFR and asked if participation was
> encouraged/permitted, not required. Let me ask the same
> question in a more practical setting.
>
> If you were flying XC VFR /X and your direct route took you
> through a TRSA would you make a call and try to participate,
> descend to fly under/alter course to avoid, or just fly on
> through?

I'd vote for making a call and and trying to participate. Worst that can happen
is "unable VFR advisories". I don't think there's any right answer.

wrote:
> If you were flying XC VFR /X and your direct route took you
> through a TRSA would you make a call and try to participate,
> descend to fly under/alter course to avoid, or just fly on
> through?

If it were me, I would just punch up the TRSA frequency and
monitor it, keeping up a good visual lookout while flying on
through (and avoiding the Class D). Based on I was hearing on
the frequency I may or may not want to check in with them.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks. I was aware of the voluntary nature of TRSA's,
> which is why I specified VFR and asked if participation was
> encouraged/permitted, not required. Let me ask the same
> question in a more practical setting.
>
> If you were flying XC VFR /X and your direct route took you
> through a TRSA would you make a call and try to participate,
> descend to fly under/alter course to avoid, or just fly on
> through?
>

I'd make a call and try to participate. ATC may or may not be able to
provide services, it all depends on whether they can see an adequate primary
radar target. I wouldn't alter my course or altitude in any case.

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.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> They are left-over from when Class C airspace was called an ARSA.
>>
>
> Actually, they're left over from an even earlier time.
>
>
>>
>> The main difference between an ARSA and a TRSA was that the former
>> required participation, while the latter did not. Then, and now, the
>> TRSA
>> is sort of "in-between" Class C (mandatory radar services) and Class D
>> (no radar services).
>>
>
> TRSAs provide a service in-between Class C service and Basic Radar
> service.
> There are some terminal radar facilities that do not have Class B or Class
> C
> airspace and are not TRSAs, these facilities provide Basic Radar service.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R22812C3B
>
>
>>
>> The bottom line here is that TRSAs exist where there's a terminal radar
>> facility (approach/departure control), but where there's not enough
>> traffic to justify mandatory participation (as is the case for Class C,
>> or
>> Class B for that matter).
>>
>
> But TRSAs do not exist at all such locations. Facilities that provide
> Basic
> Radar service are identified on sectional charts by a small blue circle
> with
> an R in it near the airport name.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E722C3B
>
>
>>
>> It's really just Class E airspace, where radar
>> services are being provided by a terminal controller rather than a center
>> (enroute) controller (that's a bit of an oversimplification too, but it's
>> the basic idea).
>>
>
> It's Class D and Class E airspace.
>
>
>>
>> The boundaries show you where the terminal controller provides the radar
>> services rather than the center controller. The only difference in radar
>> services is who is providing them; it's still just your run-of-the-mill
>> Class E services, which are optional wherever you are.
>>
>
> That's not correct. The charted TRSA boundary is well within the
> center/approach boundary. The terminal facility provides services on both
> sides of the TRSA boundary, probably by the same controller as well.
>

"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.

"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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Something I've always wondered... why do TRSAs even exist?
>>
>
>
> Good question. Nobody seems to know the answer.

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. AIM language: TRSA do not meet the ARSA criteria for
conversion to a Part-71 defined airspace. These criteria are relatively
stingent.

>
>
>
>>Seems like a dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the
>>concept of a voluntary controlled airspace?
>>
>
>
> What seems dangerous about it? TRSAs exist in Class D and Class E airspace
> but are not in themselves controlled airspace.
It is a place to get flight following and approach control
>
>
>
>>Why not a Class C (their closest
>>cousin as far as I can tell)?

See above
>>
>
>
> Part of the Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA) plan was to eventually replace
> all TRSAs with ARSAs, which are nor Class C airspace. But not all TRSAs met
> ARSA requirements.

True
>
>


--
--------------------
Scott F. Migaldi
CP-ASEL-IA
MI-150972

Join the PADI Instructor Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PADI-Instructors/

--------------------

> > Seems like a dangerous proposition to choose some airports as having the
> > concept of a voluntary controlled airspace?
> >
>
> What seems dangerous about it? TRSAs exist in Class D and Class E airspace
> but are not in themselves controlled airspace.

Ah, that's where I made my mistake - thinking that it's controlled
airspace (as in Class B). I just remember my instructor telling me to
always participate when flying into a TRSA, but never really
understanding why it was voluntary in the first place. Thanks for all
the replies everyone!

--
Guy

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ah, that's where I made my mistake - thinking that it's controlled
> airspace (as in Class B). I just remember my instructor telling me to
> always participate when flying into a TRSA, but never really
> understanding why it was voluntary in the first place.
>

If it was not voluntary it would have the properties of Class B airspace.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> TRSAs exist in Class D and Class E airspace, but are not a type of
> controlled airspace.

I never said they were.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never said they were.

Try to follow the thread, Peter.

Guy Elden Jr wrote:

> Ah, that's where I made my mistake - thinking that it's controlled
> airspace (as in Class B).

So here's a followup question: We know the TRSA space coexists with the
class E airspace. Does it also coexist with the class D airspace "in" the
TRSA airspace? Or are TRSA and class D mutually exclusive?

Does the answer to this question make any practical difference?

- Andrew

"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.
>

Do they? How does the traffic count at airports with Class D airspace and
TRSAs compare with the traffic count at Class D airports with TRACONs that
do not have TRSAs?

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>The predate ARSA's. TRSA's existed when there were only TCA's nad the
>>FAA hadn't invented ARSA's.
>
>
> They both predate, and are left-over from, the relevant time periods.
>
I don't know what above means, but the original statement is still
correct. TRSA's existed long before ARSA's were "invented."
>
>>TRSA's are NOT controlled airspace in themselves. Just wannabe radar
>>service zones.
>
>
> I don't understand your statement. I've never heard of a TRSA existing in
> Class G airspace. All of the ones I've seen have been in Class E airspace,
> which certainly is controlled airspace.
>
But they are not controlled airspace in themselves. It's entirely
analogous to the old airport traffic areas. They were NOT controlled
airspace. A TRSA is just a bunch of lines on the chart that says
"radar services available here."

>
> You are welcome to that opinion. I happen to disagree. It provides a
> higher level of service than that offered by most towers in Class D
> airspace, and a lower level of service than that offered by radar facilities
> in Class C airspace.

It provides different service. A TRSA provides radar service when
class D does not (generally, although there's almost always a class D
tower in the middle of a TRSA). However some class D's provide
radar services without being TRSA's. TRSA's have the side effect of
not necessarily having all the aircraft within it participate, which
makes it inferior to class D and C.

>
> It is a region within Class E airspace where a slightly different type of
> radar service is offered from that normally found in Class E airspace. I
> would be amazed if there was a TRSA outside of controlled airspace.

It's not always class E.

> I certainly don't disagree with your last sentence. That doesn't mean a
> TRSA isn't in controlled airspace though.

It's NOT controlled airspace. There are 5 kinds of controlled airspace
in the US: A, B, C, D, and E. They do not overlap. A TRSA may overlap
controlled airspace, but it's jut another concept like a RESTRICTED AREA
etc...

>

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:54:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>TRSAs exist in Class D and Class E airspace, but are not a type of
>controlled airspace.

So then is it correct, that if the TRSA controller issues an
instruction to you as a participatory flight, you are only obliged to
follow that instruction if you choose? Or are participating flights
required to follow TRSA controllers' instructions or cancel Stage
Three participation?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So then is it correct, that if the TRSA controller issues an
> instruction to you as a participatory flight, you are only obliged to
> follow that instruction if you choose?
>

You chose to follow it when you elected to participate.

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> So here's a followup question: We know the TRSA space coexists with the
> class E airspace. Does it also coexist with the class D airspace "in" the
> TRSA airspace?
>

Yes.


>
> Or are TRSA and class D mutually exclusive?
>

No.


>
> Does the answer to this question make any practical difference?
>

Difference with what?

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> But they are not controlled airspace in themselves.

I never said they were. You are correcting a statement that was never made.

> [...]
> It provides different service. A TRSA provides radar service when
> class D does not (generally, although there's almost always a class D
> tower in the middle of a TRSA).

So I said.

> However some class D's provide
> radar services without being TRSA's.

So I said. My statement "It provides a higher level of service than that
offered by most towers in Class D airspace" implies just that, and was
intended to.

> TRSA's have the side effect of
> not necessarily having all the aircraft within it participate, which
> makes it inferior to class D and C.

"Inferior" is in the eye of the beholder. Class D airspace without radar
provides NO separation services. A TRSA provides better separation services
than any non-radar Class D.

> It's not always class E.

It's always within controlled airspace, and the only exception to the Class
E is when it intersects with Class D. None of that contradicts what I wrote
earlier.

> It's NOT controlled airspace.

Again (since you seem to be having a hard time comprehending this): I never
said it was.

Pete

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> It provides different service. A TRSA provides radar service when
> class D does not (generally, although there's almost always a class D
> tower in the middle of a TRSA).
>

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


>
> However some class D's provide
> radar services without being TRSA's. TRSA's have the side effect of
> not necessarily having all the aircraft within it participate, which
> makes it inferior to class D and C.
>

But all of the aircraft in the Class D portion of the TRSA are
participating, just as they are in Class C and other Class D airspace.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>>
>> However some class D's provide
>> radar services without being TRSA's.
>>
>
> So I said. My statement "It provides a higher level of service than that
> offered by most towers in Class D airspace" implies just that, and was
> intended to.
>

That statement does not imply that some Class D's provide radar services
without being TRSA's.


>
> "Inferior" is in the eye of the beholder. Class D airspace without radar
> provides NO separation services.
>

That's not correct, separation is provided between IFR aircraft in Class D
airspace.


>
> It's always within controlled airspace, and the only exception to the
> Class E is when it intersects with Class D. None of that contradicts what
> I wrote earlier.
>

Earlier you said it was only Class E.

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

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

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

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

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

Yes, I do. The Utica TRSA in central NY, home of Griffiss Approach, at one
time had Griffiss Air Force B-52 airbase as its main airport in the middle
of the airspace. When the Air Force closed the airbase several years ago,
the airport became an uncontrolled airport (with a single 11,800 foot
runway).

However, the TRSA remains, presumably, for Oneida Cty airport. If you look
at the sectional you will note that this class D airport is south of the
"middle" of the TRSA, properly satisfying the criteria of your question.

--
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 =----

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I don't understand your statement. I've never heard of a TRSA existing in
>>Class G airspace. All of the ones I've seen have been in Class E
>>airspace, which certainly is controlled airspace.
>>
>
>
> TRSAs exist in Class D and Class E airspace, but are not a type of
> controlled airspace.

TRSAs also exist in Class G airspace as well.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>But they are not controlled airspace in themselves.
>
>
> I never said they were. You are correcting a statement that was never made.
>
>
>>[...]
>>It provides different service. A TRSA provides radar service when
>>class D does not (generally, although there's almost always a class D
>>tower in the middle of a TRSA).
>
>
> So I said.
>
>
>>However some class D's provide
>>radar services without being TRSA's.
>
>
> So I said. My statement "It provides a higher level of service than that
> offered by most towers in Class D airspace" implies just that, and was
> intended to.
>
>
>>TRSA's have the side effect of
>>not necessarily having all the aircraft within it participate, which
>>makes it inferior to class D and C.
>
>
> "Inferior" is in the eye of the beholder. Class D airspace without radar
> provides NO separation services. A TRSA provides better separation services
> than any non-radar Class D.

Doesn't class D airspace provide separation adjacent to the runway to
prevent collisions?


>
>
>>It's not always class E.
>
>
> It's always within controlled airspace, and the only exception to the Class
> E is when it intersects with Class D. None of that contradicts what I wrote
> earlier.
>
>
>>It's NOT controlled airspace.
>
>
> Again (since you seem to be having a hard time comprehending this): I never
> said it was.
>
> Pete
>
>

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

"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.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I do. The Utica TRSA in central NY, home of Griffiss Approach, at
> one time had Griffiss Air Force B-52 airbase as its main airport in the
> middle of the airspace. When the Air Force closed the airbase several
> years ago,
> the airport became an uncontrolled airport (with a single 11,800 foot
> runway).
>
> However, the TRSA remains, presumably, for Oneida Cty airport. If you
> look at the sectional you will note that this class D airport is south of
> the
> "middle" of the TRSA, properly satisfying the criteria of your question.
>

"Middle" came from Ron's statement. I'm sure he meant a TRSA without Class
D airspace, as did I.

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> TRSAs also exist in Class G airspace as well.
>

Which TRSAs exist in Class G airspace?

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Doesn't class D airspace provide separation adjacent to the runway to
> prevent collisions?
>

All towers provide runway separation, that has nothing to do with airspace
classification.

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> TRSAs can and do exist in Class G airspace.
>

Which TRSAs exist in Class G airspace?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Middle" came from Ron's statement. I'm sure he meant a TRSA without Class
> D airspace, as did I.

I realize what he meant, but since you have quite the reputation in these
groups to literally interpret posts and respond accordingly, I thought I
would have a little fun with you. :)

--
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 =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> I realize what he meant, but since you have quite the reputation in these
> groups to literally interpret posts and respond accordingly, I thought I
> would have a little fun with you. :)
>

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

> 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.

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

It can also come off as a challenge, which is offputting.

I do try to take all you say solely at face value. But much of verbal
communication occurs outside the words. This is how misunderstandings
happen, and is the driving force of statesmanship and politics, sales
and advertising, puns and humor, love and poetry, frustrates good
language translation, and is also the font of endless riches for lawyers.

You would probably appreciate Doug Hofstadter's book "Metamagical
Themas: questing for the essecnce of mind and pattern", which has quite
a few chapters that deal with the duality of pattern and ground in
language. I highly reccomend it (and all of Hofstadter's books
actually), and think you especially will enjoy his musings.

Some people just have a harder time with this than others. If you don't
see it, I can't show it to you, but I assure you it's there.

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
. ..
>
> It can also come off as a challenge, which is offputting.
>

Only if you read things into it.


>
> I do try to take all you say solely at face value.

You obviously didn't do that here.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> Only if you read things into it.

> You obviously didn't do that here.

I'll put this bluntly, so you don't have to worry about reading anything
into it.

Why do you have to be such an ass all of the time?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll put this bluntly, so you don't have to worry about reading anything
> into it.
>
> Why do you have to be such an ass all of the time?
>

In what way do you feel I'm being an ass?

> "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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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).

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>TRSAs also exist in Class G airspace as well.
>>
>
>
> Which TRSAs exist in Class G airspace?

You asked this question in another post, but the TRSA at RME airport is
in Class G airspace below 700 feet agl.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>> I have yet to see a TRSA encompass class G airspace (other than the
>>presumption that ground to 700 feet is included) but from a logical
>>standpoint it seems counterintuitive to provide "control" to traffic in
>>"uncontrolled" airspace.
>>
>
>
> 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.

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

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are those airportless Class D examples heliports (e.g. Sikorski, near
> Bridgeport CT)?
>

No, they are Class D airspace without any towered airport, heliport, or
seaplane base. At least they were, it seems some of them no longer have
Class D airspace.

One of them was Pearson Field in Vancouver, WA, about seven miles northeast
of Portland International. Pearson had Class D airspace from the surface
to the overlying Portland Class C airspace. Vancouver had no control tower
and was the only airport in the Class D surface area. Vancouver now has a
Class E surface area.


Another one is adjacent to the Seattle Class B surface area on the west
side. This one still exists, you can view it at the following link:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F27B2314B



A third one was south of the El Toro MCAS which is now closed, the Class D
airspace apparently was dropped when the base closed. Part of this one
didn't even touch the surface. I have old charts which depict this area, I
can post some images if you're interested.

Why do TRSA's exist?

FAA funding and staffing requirements.

Reason was funding. Extra staff for TRSA. Doesn't qualify for Class C.

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Why do TRSA's exist?
>
> FAA funding and staffing requirements.
>

How do TRSAs affect those?

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Reason was funding. Extra staff for TRSA. Doesn't qualify for Class C.
>

Why would a TRSA require more staff than a TRACON with just Class D
airspace?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Reason was funding. Extra staff for TRSA. Doesn't qualify for Class C.
> >
>
> Why would a TRSA require more staff than a TRACON with just Class D
> airspace?

Answering the latter question alone, some TRSAless Class D radar facilities
have the radar position(s) in the tower cab, which probably reduces the
personnel required compared to a separate room or facility which might
require separate supervisors, etc.

For example at KRDG, the same controller may operate both local and approach
(departure) during off-peak times. Not sure if radar control in the tower
cab qualifies as a "TRACON" though or if there is another acronym for the
setup.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "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.

Since "Cape Approach" serves Class D at Otis ANGB, Hyannis, Nantucket, and
Martha's Grapes you can add those airports to the list. Especially Otis (FMH)
where the TRACON is located along with an approach radar antenna and Nantucket
(ACK) which has approach radar antenna as well.

Cape TRACON will probably eventually move up to Merrimack, New Hampshire, where
it will join Boston TRACON, which moved there last year and consolidated with
(formerly known as) Manchester approach when it moved in too.

Newps wrote:

> Jessica Taylor wrote:
>
> >
> > Answering the latter question alone, some TRSAless Class D radar facilities
> > have the radar position(s) in the tower cab, which probably reduces the
> > personnel required compared to a separate room or facility which might
> > require separate supervisors, etc.
>
> It does not affect staffing.

So if a controller is operating both the local and radar approach positions, he is
the same amount of staffing as a tower cab staffed with a local position, plus a
radar approach position operating at a different location (or room or building
etc.)


>
>
> >
> > For example at KRDG, the same controller may operate both local and approach
> > (departure) during off-peak times. Not sure if radar control in the tower
> > cab qualifies as a "TRACON" though or if there is another acronym for the
> > setup.
>
> If radar is worked in the cab it's called a TRACAB.

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Answering the latter question alone, some TRSAless Class D radar
> facilities have the radar position(s) in the tower cab, which probably
> reduces
> the personnel required compared to a separate room or facility which might
> require separate supervisors, etc.
>

Why would the physical location of the radar scope(s) affect the number of
personnel required to staff them?


>
> For example at KRDG, the same controller may operate both local and
> approach (departure) during off-peak times. Not sure if radar control in
> the tower
> cab qualifies as a "TRACON" though or if there is another acronym for the
> setup.
>

That setup is known as a TRACAB. I've never been in one, but I assume such
facilities have only one radar position. But many TRACONs with multiple
radar positions combine them at times to one radar position in the radar
room or in the tower cab or even one controller working all TRACON and tower
positions.

It was stated here that a TRSA requires additional staff. I don't see why
that would be, everything else being equal. RFD and RDG have about the same
level of traffic, RFD has a TRSA but RDG does not. I see no reason why RDG
would require greater staffing to work the same traffic.

Jessica Taylor wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Jessica Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Answering the latter question alone, some TRSAless Class D radar facilities
>>>have the radar position(s) in the tower cab, which probably reduces the
>>>personnel required compared to a separate room or facility which might
>>>require separate supervisors, etc.
>>
>>It does not affect staffing.
>
>
> So if a controller is operating both the local and radar approach positions, he is
> the same amount of staffing as a tower cab staffed with a local position, plus a
> radar approach position operating at a different location (or room or building
> etc.)

We're talking about one facility that provides approach control service.
It does not matter if the approach controller is sitting downstairs in
the TRACON or upstairs in the tower. The number of controllers required
is the same. All of these facilities will combine the radar controller
and the local controller into one position at times when it is not busy.
At my facility that's every day from 10pm-6am, plus or minus an hour
or so depending on some variables.

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if a controller is operating both the local and radar approach
> positions, he is the same amount of staffing as a tower cab staffed
> with a local position, plus a radar approach position operating at a
> different location (or room or building etc.)
>

No. If a controller is operating both the local and radar approach
positions he represents half the staffing as required to operate local
control in the tower and approach control in a TRACON. He also represents
half the staffing as required to operate separate local control and approach
control positions in a TRACAB. Two controllers operating local and approach
control in a TRACAB is the same as two controllers operating local control
in the tower and approach control in a TRACON.

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since "Cape Approach" serves Class D at Otis ANGB, Hyannis, Nantucket,
> and Martha's Grapes you can add those airports to the list. Especially
> Otis
> (FMH) where the TRACON is located along with an approach radar antenna
> and Nantucket (ACK) which has approach radar antenna as well.
>

We can add Otis to the list as it has a radar approach control and just
Class D airspace like the others previously mentioned, but not the others
you cited.