Why do some airports with an instrument approach (e.g. HIE) lack a surface
Class E to protect the approach? HIE LOC 10 has Class G below 700' AGL, but
the MDA is well below that height. A plane can legally fly VFR just below a
700' ceiling along the final approach course, with no way for it to see and
avoid an approaching IFR plane, or vice versa.

--Gary

In article <p_ySc.132920$eM2.100919@attbi_s51>,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> Why do some airports with an instrument approach (e.g. HIE) lack a surface
> Class E to protect the approach?

It's a regulatory thing. In order to have controlled airspace to the
surface (what's known as a "surface area"), you need to have approved
weather reporting. Interestingly enough, HIE has an ASOS, which I
thought would have counted as "approved weather reporting", but maybe
not?

> HIE LOC 10 has Class G below 700' AGL, but
> the MDA is well below that height. A plane can legally fly VFR just below a
> 700' ceiling along the final approach course, with no way for it to see and
> avoid an approaching IFR plane, or vice versa.

Yup. Big sky, small plane. If that sort of stuff scares you, stick to
places with surface areas. Of course, there's nothing to prevent
somebody from flying IMC illegally without a clearance, even when there
is a surface area.

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:p_ySc.132920$eM2.100919@attbi_s51...
>
> Why do some airports with an instrument approach (e.g. HIE) lack a
> surface Class E to protect the approach? HIE LOC 10 has Class G
> below 700' AGL, but the MDA is well below that height. A plane can
> legally fly VFR just below a 700' ceiling along the final approach
> course, with no way for it to see and avoid an approaching IFR plane,
> or vice versa.
>

Controlled airspace at the surface requires surface weather observations and
radio communications capability with ATC down to the runway surface. If you
do not have both of those an airport with an SIAP will have Class G airspace
from the surface to 700' AGL.

That's just one of the gotchas in instrument flying...if you shoot an
approach into a field where controlled airspace stops at 700' agl you have
to be extra alert just in case. Odds are against anyone doing pattern work
in such conditions, but Murphy's Law always applies.

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:p_ySc.132920$eM2.100919@attbi_s51...
> Why do some airports with an instrument approach (e.g. HIE) lack a surface
> Class E to protect the approach? HIE LOC 10 has Class G below 700' AGL,
but
> the MDA is well below that height. A plane can legally fly VFR just below
a
> 700' ceiling along the final approach course, with no way for it to see
and
> avoid an approaching IFR plane, or vice versa.
>
> --Gary
>
>

> Why do some airports with an instrument approach (e.g. HIE) lack
> a surface Class E to protect the approach?

In fact this is the case for the great majority of non-towered airports.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Controlled airspace at the surface requires surface weather observations
> and
> radio communications capability with ATC down to the runway surface.

HIE has both ASOS and a clearance deliveray frequency. I guess they just
want to be able to do pattern work or scud-running under a 700' ceiling.

--Gary

"Barry" > wrote in message ...
>> Why do some airports with an instrument approach (e.g. HIE) lack
>> a surface Class E to protect the approach?
>
> In fact this is the case for the great majority of non-towered airports.

Often, though, the only available approaches have an MDA that's still within
Class E. In that case, there's no problem seeing and avoiding VFR aircraft
in the uncontrolled space underneath. Not so at HIE, however.

--Gary

> Often, though, the only available approaches have an MDA that's still within
> Class E. In that case, there's no problem seeing and avoiding VFR aircraft
> in the uncontrolled space underneath. Not so at HIE, however.

Pilots should be aware that HIE is not at all unusual in this regard - it's
very common to have an MDA below 700 AGL with no surface Class E. There are
also ILS approaches with DH at or near 200 and no surface Class E.

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Controlled airspace at the surface requires surface weather observations
> > and
> > radio communications capability with ATC down to the runway surface.
>
> HIE has both ASOS and a clearance deliveray frequency. I guess they just
> want to be able to do pattern work or scud-running under a 700' ceiling.
>
> --Gary

As Steve said, not only does the airport have to have approved weather
reporting service and communications, the regional FAA office has to determine
a need for a Class E surface area. AOPA fights these tooth and nail as an
"airspace grab," so the FAA policy is to not establish them except under
certain circumstances. The regional FAA Flight Procedures Office is in the
best position to explain that policy to you.

> wrote in message ...
> As Steve said, not only does the airport have to have approved weather
> reporting service and communications, the regional FAA office has to
> determine
> a need for a Class E surface area. AOPA fights these tooth and nail as an
> "airspace grab," so the FAA policy is to not establish them except under
> certain circumstances. The regional FAA Flight Procedures Office is in
> the
> best position to explain that policy to you.

Thanks, perhaps I'll ask them. So far all of my IMC approaches have been to
Class B, C, or D airports, so I haven't been very concerned about this
issue. But it does seem to me that the safety of being in controlled
airspace during the approach until below the MDA would outweigh the
usefulness of being able to fly VFR under a 700' ceiling (especially at HIE,
surrounded by hills and mountains).

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> it does seem to me that the safety of being in controlled
> airspace during the approach until below the MDA would outweigh the
> usefulness of being able to fly VFR under a 700' ceiling (especially at HIE,
> surrounded by hills and mountains).

To the IFR pilot, I'm sure having protection from those annoying VFR
types seems more important. But, the VFR guy who wants to practice
touch-and-goes from a 500 AGL pattern (or maybe even makes a living
crop-dusting, or doing pipeline patrol, or flying a med-evac chopper)
might feel differently.

It all depends upon your point of view, I guess. Nobody's forcing you
to fly into that airport in weather conditions you feel are unsafe.
Nobody's forcing you to use the MDA that's published on the chart.
Break off the approach at 700 AGL if you don't see the ground by then.
Sure, you give up a bit of operational flexibility, but you gain safety.
The choice is yours.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message news:roy-
> To the IFR pilot, I'm sure having protection from those annoying VFR
> types seems more important.

Well, I'm a VFR type most of the time. But yes, I see your point.

--Gary

> But, the VFR guy who wants to practice
> touch-and-goes from a 500 AGL pattern (or maybe even makes a living
> crop-dusting, or doing pipeline patrol, or flying a med-evac chopper)
> might feel differently.
>
> It all depends upon your point of view, I guess. Nobody's forcing you
> to fly into that airport in weather conditions you feel are unsafe.
> Nobody's forcing you to use the MDA that's published on the chart.
> Break off the approach at 700 AGL if you don't see the ground by then.
> Sure, you give up a bit of operational flexibility, but you gain safety.
> The choice is yours.

"Barry" > wrote in message ...
> Pilots should be aware that HIE is not at all unusual in this regard -
> it's
> very common to have an MDA below 700 AGL with no surface Class E.

Yup. I think this would be useful to mention in the instrument-flying
curriculum. I don't recall my CFII ever bringing it up, nor seeing it in the
FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook or Jepp's Instrument/Commercial Manual. Of
course, it's deducible from a combination of approach plates, sectional
charts, and basic piloting knowledge--but it seems important enough and
unobvious enough to warrant an explicit warning.

On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:xzISc.134889$eM2.67516@attbi_s51...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Controlled airspace at the surface requires surface weather observations
> > and
> > radio communications capability with ATC down to the runway surface.
>
> HIE has both ASOS and a clearance deliveray frequency. I guess they just
> want to be able to do pattern work or scud-running under a 700' ceiling.
>

Apparently establishing a Class E surface area has not been deemed to be in
the public interest.

It's in my book, Gary. .

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:VFLSc.135572$eM2.22431@attbi_s51...
> "Barry" > wrote in message
...
> > Pilots should be aware that HIE is not at all unusual in this regard -
> > it's
> > very common to have an MDA below 700 AGL with no surface Class E.
>
> Yup. I think this would be useful to mention in the instrument-flying
> curriculum. I don't recall my CFII ever bringing it up, nor seeing it in
the
> FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook or Jepp's Instrument/Commercial Manual.
Of
> course, it's deducible from a combination of approach plates, sectional
> charts, and basic piloting knowledge--but it seems important enough and
> unobvious enough to warrant an explicit warning.
>
> On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
> below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.
>
> --Gary
>
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> It's in my book, Gary. .

Cool. :)

--Gary

> Bob Gardner
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:VFLSc.135572$eM2.22431@attbi_s51...
>> "Barry" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Pilots should be aware that HIE is not at all unusual in this regard -
>> > it's
>> > very common to have an MDA below 700 AGL with no surface Class E.
>>
>> Yup. I think this would be useful to mention in the instrument-flying
>> curriculum. I don't recall my CFII ever bringing it up, nor seeing it in
> the
>> FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook or Jepp's Instrument/Commercial Manual.
> Of
>> course, it's deducible from a combination of approach plates, sectional
>> charts, and basic piloting knowledge--but it seems important enough and
>> unobvious enough to warrant an explicit warning.
>>
>> On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
>> below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.
>>
>> --Gary

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:44:02 GMT, "Gary Drescher" >
wrote:

>Thanks, perhaps I'll ask them. So far all of my IMC approaches have been to
>Class B, C, or D airports, so I haven't been very concerned about this
>issue. But it does seem to me that the safety of being in controlled
>airspace during the approach until below the MDA would outweigh the
>usefulness of being able to fly VFR under a 700' ceiling (especially at HIE,
>surrounded by hills and mountains).

The majority of my instrument approaches during the past three or four
years have been to airports with MDA's in uncontrolled airspace.

As a matter of fact, yesterday I setting up for an approach into my home
base, with weather in this area no better than 900/2, and there was VFR
flight going on near an airport about twenty miles from my home base. It
happened to be a SAR mission at 500'.


--ron

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:<VFLSc.135572$eM2.22431@attbi_s51>...

> On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
> below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

My CFII did bring the topic up once. I asked how he dealt with it. He
basically said, forget about it, there's three dozen things that
actually stand a chance of killing you, and this ain't on the list.

-cwk.

(C Kingsbury) wrote
> > On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
> > below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.
>
> My CFII did bring the topic up once. I asked how he dealt with it. He
> basically said, forget about it, there's three dozen things that
> actually stand a chance of killing you, and this ain't on the list.

Yes - that was true as long as private IFR was a rare thing. Of
course by that logic, we don't really need to worry about collision in
IMC even without flight plans - and indeed that's about how it is in
the UK, and sure enough there haven't been any.

Now that we're encouraging everybody and his brother to get an
instrument rating and scud running has become a dirty word, this may
all change. I certainly warn my instrument students about the risk.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (C Kingsbury) wrote
> > > On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
> > > below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.
> >
> > My CFII did bring the topic up once. I asked how he dealt with it. He
> > basically said, forget about it, there's three dozen things that
> > actually stand a chance of killing you, and this ain't on the list.
>
> Yes - that was true as long as private IFR was a rare thing. Of
> course by that logic, we don't really need to worry about collision in
> IMC even without flight plans - and indeed that's about how it is in
> the UK, and sure enough there haven't been any.
>
> Now that we're encouraging everybody and his brother to get an
> instrument rating and scud running has become a dirty word, this may
> all change. I certainly warn my instrument students about the risk.

I think there's probably a very substantial geographic aspect to this
also.

My training and flying are all in the Northeast centered around
Boston, where local practices make this situation perhaps more
hypothetical than in other parts of the country. You just don't have
that many people flying 700', 500' patterns at fields with ILSs, and
odds are if you're trying to get somewhere and it's real soupy you'll
pick a field with an ILS, they're common enough out here that there's
usually one not too far away. And a lot of the time that'll be Class D
or C.

For that matter, GPS Direct sounds like a nice idea too, but out here
you fly airways if you're trying to get somewhere. Would be nice to
get a GX-50 so I could pitch that coffee grinder ADF contraption once
and for all, though.

The thing I find surprising is how many students take their tests with
< 10 hours of actual. I've got about 22 or so (out of 50ish hours
working on the ticket) and that's almost enough to make me comfortable
with the idea of "gentleman's IFR" where you've got maybe 1000-1500'
overcast and are on top at 2500-3000', which does actually describe
what we get a lot of the year. But I know when I do pass I will not be
going out on low days without you-know-who next to me. Maybe I'm just
lucky to have a CFII who enjoys working with students on low actual
days...

Best,
-cwk.

(C Kingsbury) wrote
> I think there's probably a very substantial geographic aspect to this
> also.

Sure. And of course my experience colors my opinion. On the other
hand, my students tend to live in the same area I do, so maybe this
isn't so bad.

> My training and flying are all in the Northeast centered around
> Boston, where local practices make this situation perhaps more
> hypothetical than in other parts of the country. You just don't have
> that many people flying 700', 500' patterns at fields with ILSs, and
> odds are if you're trying to get somewhere and it's real soupy you'll
> pick a field with an ILS, they're common enough out here that there's
> usually one not too far away. And a lot of the time that'll be Class D
> or C.

One of my most common trips (for business) is to GTU. The nearest
field with an ILS is AUS - which, depending on (ground) traffic
conditions, adds 40 to 90 minutes driving time to the trip. So I go
into GTU and shoot the NDB any time the weather allows. So far, I've
always made it in - but often by the skin of my teeth (as in - no
field in sight, and in another 30 seconds I will have to go missed -
oh, there it is). On two of those days, there was pattern traffic.
Yes, you got it right - it's IFR at mins, and there is VFR pattern
traffic. But they're at 600 AGL and they have a mile of vis, so
they're legal. So am I.

> For that matter, GPS Direct sounds like a nice idea too, but out here
> you fly airways if you're trying to get somewhere.

Yes, but that's because we HAVE enroute ATC. My point is that if we
eliminate it, I'm not sure we will have any accidents. I AM aure we
will get where we are going faster. Today was a very new experience
for me - I made it from NY to DC (actually HPN to GAI) without a
single reroute - just some shortcuts. First time ever.

> The thing I find surprising is how many students take their tests with
> < 10 hours of actual.

A lot of that is opportunity. I sent my last student to the ride with
less than 5 hours, and we took every possible opportunity to get
actual, up to and including changing schedules and plans and actually
going places to take advantage of flyable (no major embedded T-storms,
since he lacked sferics) IMC. Got him all I could. Funny thing,
though - I think he is prepared for the rough stuff.

> Maybe I'm just
> lucky to have a CFII who enjoys working with students on low actual
> days...

There are quite a few of us. I have to believe there are guys like
that in Arizona - but I'm sure their students graduate with no actual
at all.

Michael

On 17 Aug 2004 21:28:48 -0700, (C Kingsbury) wrote:

>My training and flying are all in the Northeast centered around
>Boston, where local practices make this situation perhaps more
>hypothetical than in other parts of the country. You just don't have
>that many people flying 700', 500' patterns at fields with ILSs, and
>odds are if you're trying to get somewhere and it's real soupy you'll
>pick a field with an ILS, they're common enough out here that there's
>usually one not too far away. And a lot of the time that'll be Class D
>or C.

You only need one to ruin your day.

It's not only folk flying in the pattern. Some years ago I flew (legal)
VFR into LCI (Laconia) -- a field with an ILS but no control zone. The
ceiling was under 1000' -- I can't recall if it was 900 or 700. The ILS
was certainly in use that day.

There are other fields in the NE with ILS's but in Class G surface to 700.
EEN (Keene) would be tougher to have legal VFR activity at low altitude;
but there's PVC (Provincetown), KRKD (Rockland), KSFM (Sanford). I'm sure
there are others, too, where IFR traffic needs to be careful, even with
ceilings below 1000'.




--ron