FAR 91.130 and the Definite Article

[Mike Granby]

Concerening arrival and flight through Class C airspace...

91.130(c)(1) Each person must establish two-way radio communications
with the ATC facility [...] providing air traffic services prior to
entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those
communications while within that airspace.

Note the use of "THE" in reference to the ATC facility to which one has
to talk. Does this mean THE specific ATC facility controlling the Class
C airspace? Or just the ATC facility providing services to you at the
time? In other words, if you blunder into Class C while talking to
Center on VFR advisories, either perhaps because they forgot to hand
you off or because you wandered off altitude and they didn't notice,
would you be ok, or would you be busted?

[Larry Dighera]

On 8 Feb 2006 14:05:06 -0800, "Mike Granby" > wrote in
m>::

>Does this mean THE specific ATC facility controlling the Class
>C airspace?

The ATC facility in question would be that facility providing Approach
Control services.

>Or just the ATC facility providing services to you at the
>time? In other words, if you blunder into Class C while talking to
>Center on VFR advisories, either perhaps because they forgot to hand
>you off or because you wandered off altitude and they didn't notice,
>would you be ok, or would you be busted?

If the ARTTC is not providing Approach Control services to the airport
is probably not coordinating arrivals with the tower. (Of course,
this all presumes VFR operation.)

You're only busted if the controller files a Pilot Deviation form
against you.

[Roy Smith]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
>On 8 Feb 2006 14:05:06 -0800, "Mike Granby" > wrote in
m>::
>
>>Does this mean THE specific ATC facility controlling the Class
>>C airspace?
>
>The ATC facility in question would be that facility providing Approach
>Control services.

I had a bizarre experience a while ago along these lines. Had VFR
flight following from Bradley Approach into Hartford/Brainard.

Getting close to the edge of Hartford's Class D, I tried to get the
controller's attention to ask for a frequency change, but the freq was
busy and I couldn't break in. Eventually, I found a hole and he
turned me over to HFD tower, but by that time I was deep in the CDAS.

I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone. She
didn't seem interested that I was talking to BDL. I pointed out that
I couldn't just drop off BDL's freq without permission, and she asked
me if I had two radios in the plane, and said I should have called
them on the second one.

I let the HFD tower controller vent (and mostly restricted my
responses to "Yes, Ma'am"), and nothing more came of it. My guess is
the approach controller just forgot about me. I suppose I could have
done a 180, but I had no reason to believe anything was strange until
it was too late. I fly out of HPN, and I'm used to NY Approach
sometimes holding on to me until I'm inside HPN's CDAS; I didn't see
any reason why this should be any different.

[[email protected]]

Every time I've ever read or discussed this, the answer was that I had
to establish the communications with the Class C ATC. If it was not
established, do not enter.

With an instructor, I was leaving SSF (Stinson, Class D ) and going
back to SAT (San Antonio Class C) , and as was your situation we could
not get 2-way established due to traffic. The instructor has us do a
180 so as not to intrude on the Class C improperly.

That pretty much established the rules to me; I believe you could be
busted.

[Larry Dighera]

On 8 Feb 2006 18:32:15 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote in
>::

>Had VFR flight following from Bradley Approach into Hartford/Brainard.
>
>Getting close to the edge of Hartford's Class D, I tried to get the
>controller's attention to ask for a frequency change, but the freq was
>busy and I couldn't break in. Eventually, I found a hole and he
>turned me over to HFD tower, but by that time I was deep in the CDAS.
>
>I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
>not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
>tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone. She
>didn't seem interested that I was talking to BDL. I pointed out that
>I couldn't just drop off BDL's freq without permission, and she asked
>me if I had two radios in the plane, and said I should have called
>them on the second one.
>
>I let the HFD tower controller vent (and mostly restricted my
>responses to "Yes, Ma'am"), and nothing more came of it. My guess is
>the approach controller just forgot about me. I suppose I could have
>done a 180, but I had no reason to believe anything was strange until
>it was too late. I fly out of HPN, and I'm used to NY Approach
>sometimes holding on to me until I'm inside HPN's CDAS; I didn't see
>any reason why this should be any different.

I recall reading in FAA Order 7110.65, that it is the responsibility
of the air traffic controller providing Radar Traffic Advisory Service
to VFR aircraft to coordinate transition through Class B, C, D and E
surface area airspace, but I can't find it now:
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/


Perhaps I was thinking of this:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-16
2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach control tower on an
individual aircraft basis before issuing a clearance which would
require flight within a surface area for which the tower has
responsibility unless otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Letters of Agreement, Para 4-3-1.
14 CFR Section 91.127, Operating on or in the Vicinity of an Airport
in Class E Airspace.
P/CG Term- Surface Area.

b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit
authorization when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to
an aircraft that will enter another facility's airspace.

NOTE-
The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through
each area when in contact with a radar facility.

[Marco Leon]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
> not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
> tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone. She
> didn't seem interested that I was talking to BDL. I pointed out that
> I couldn't just drop off BDL's freq without permission, and she asked
> me if I had two radios in the plane, and said I should have called
> them on the second one.
>
> I let the HFD tower controller vent (and mostly restricted my
> responses to "Yes, Ma'am"), and nothing more came of it. My guess is
> the approach controller just forgot about me. I suppose I could have
> done a 180, but I had no reason to believe anything was strange until
> it was too late. I fly out of HPN, and I'm used to NY Approach
> sometimes holding on to me until I'm inside HPN's CDAS; I didn't see
> any reason why this should be any different.

I've heard this happen a number of times "nextdoor" to you at Republic. Each
time the pilot was very confused as to why they were being yelled at by the
tower. It seems to me an area that could use some improvement by the FAA. I
believe the proper phrase the Approach controller should use when not
handing off to a Class D tower is, "Radar service terminated, squawk VFR,
frequency change approved" as opposed to a straight "Contact Republic Tower
on 118.8." If Approach used the latter and the tower still had an issue, I
would think you have a valid point. Does ATC even *do* VFR hand-offs to a
Class D tower from flight following? I can't recall ever getting one.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Getting close to the edge of Hartford's Class D, I tried to get the
> controller's attention to ask for a frequency change, but the freq was
> busy and I couldn't break in. Eventually, I found a hole and he
> turned me over to HFD tower, but by that time I was deep in the CDAS.
>
> I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
> not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
> tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone.

We had this EXACT thing happen to us, flying into Class D Janesville (KJVL),
WI while utilizing Rockford Approach (KRFD) for VFR flight following.

I wrote about the incident here, and the conversation went on for weeks --
so don't expect a consensus view of this type of affair. It's the only time
Mary and I have felt the need to file a NASA report.

Now, when we fly into KJVL, we cut Rockford Approach off 15 miles out. When
coming into Class D (for DUMB) airspace, approach control has proven
themselves to be far more trouble than they're worth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roy Smith]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:
> Does ATC even *do* VFR hand-offs to a Class D tower from flight following?

They certainly do at HPN. You (pretty much) can't get into HPN (Class D)
without talking to NY Approach first and getting a squawk. Tower knows
you're coming before you even call them. If you call up HPN Tower cold,
they (usually) tell you to remain clear of the CDAS and contact NY Approach
for sequencing.

But, then again, HPN seems to operate in their own little universe of
procedures, unlike any other Class D I've ever been to.

[Gene Seibel]

I was approaching Rockford frome the north and apparently nicked the
very edge of Janeville Class D while talking to Rockford Approach the
whole time and Rockford jumped all over me about it. There is something
weird going on with those two.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[G Farris]

In article . com>,
says...

The instructor has us do a
>180 so as not to intrude on the Class C improperly.
>

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.

GF

[G Farris]

In article . com>,
says...


The instructor has us do a
>180 so as not to intrude on the Class C improperly.
>

BTW - Hope you did another 180 to get back, after establishing contact
- or did you just go back where you came from? :-)

GF

[B a r r y]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
> not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
> tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone. She
> didn't seem interested that I was talking to BDL.

Was that YOU last week? <G>

I heard someone going around and around with the HFD "Ice Queen" about
mid-day, one day last week.

The conversation started with the usual "Is there an instructor on
board?", and ended with a call the tower after landing request. The a/c
I heard made an initial call to HFD from 2 miles northwest of the field.

Barry

[B a r r y]

Marco Leon wrote:
Does ATC even *do* VFR hand-offs to a
> Class D tower from flight following?

I've been handed to HFD & BAF from BDL, EWB from PVD, and SWF from NYC
to name a few, but most of the time it's squawk VFR, frequency change
approved, and off you go.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
B a r r y > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
> > not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
> > tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone. She
> > didn't seem interested that I was talking to BDL.
>
> Was that YOU last week? <G>

No, this was a couple of months ago.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> I let the HFD tower controller vent (and mostly restricted my
> responses to "Yes, Ma'am"), and nothing more came of it.

Why can't I ever have this happen to me? I would let her go on for a
few minutes like you did and then tear her a new one. I know the rules
and I will tell her what paragraph to go look at in the .65.

[Newps]

wrote:


>
> That pretty much established the rules to me; I believe you could be
> busted.

No way.


>

[Newps]

Gene Seibel wrote:

> I was approaching Rockford frome the north and apparently nicked the
> very edge of Janeville Class D while talking to Rockford Approach the
> whole time and Rockford jumped all over me about it.

Then tell him what the rules are.

[Newps]

G Farris wrote:

> In article . com>,
> says...
>
> The instructor has us do a
>
>>180 so as not to intrude on the Class C improperly.
>>
>
>
> I've done that too - I would certainly not enter a Class C under the
> pretext that I was talking to Center.

But it would be legal. He has to either terminate you in time for you
to make contact with the class C or hand you off.

[Mike Granby]

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.

[Dave Stadt]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>On 8 Feb 2006 14:05:06 -0800, "Mike Granby" > wrote in
m>::
>>
>>>Does this mean THE specific ATC facility controlling the Class
>>>C airspace?
>>
>>The ATC facility in question would be that facility providing Approach
>>Control services.
>
> I had a bizarre experience a while ago along these lines. Had VFR
> flight following from Bradley Approach into Hartford/Brainard.
>
> Getting close to the edge of Hartford's Class D, I tried to get the
> controller's attention to ask for a frequency change, but the freq was
> busy and I couldn't break in. Eventually, I found a hole and he
> turned me over to HFD tower, but by that time I was deep in the CDAS.
>
> I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
> not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
> tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone. She
> didn't seem interested that I was talking to BDL. I pointed out that
> I couldn't just drop off BDL's freq without permission, and she asked
> me if I had two radios in the plane, and said I should have called
> them on the second one.

I didn't think one needed permission to change freqs (or anything else for
that matter) while receiving flight following.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:03:36 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>He has to either terminate you in time for you
>to make contact with the class C or hand you off.

Please cite the pertinent part of FAA Order 7110.65 that supports your
allegation with regard to ARTTC providing Radar Traffic Advisory
Services to VFR flight.


Would that be 2-1-16 or 2-1-17?

(FAAO 7110.65, 2.1.16 previously cited in Message-ID:
> of this message thread.)


Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-17. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFER

a. Transfer radio communications before an aircraft enters the
receiving controller's area of jurisdiction unless otherwise
coordinated or specified by a letter of agreement or a facility
directive.

b. Transfer radio communications by specifying the following:

NOTE -
Radio communications transfer procedures may be specified by a letter
of agreement or contained in the route description of an MTR as
published in the DOD Planning AP/1B (AP/3).

1. The facility name or location name and terminal function to be
contacted. TERMINAL: Omit the location name when transferring
communications to another controller within your facility; except when
instructing the aircraft to change frequency for final approach
guidance include the name of the facility.

2. Frequency to use except the following may be omitted:

(a) FSS frequency.

(b) Departure frequency if previously given or published on a DP chart
for the procedure issued.

(c) TERMINAL:

(1) Ground or local control frequency if in your opinion the pilot
knows which frequency is in use.

(2) The numbers preceding the decimal point if the ground control
frequency is in the 121 MHz bandwidth.

EXAMPLE -
``Contact Tower.''
``Contact Ground.''
``Contact Ground Point Seven.''
``Contact Ground, One Two Zero Point Eight.''
``Contact Huntington Radio.''
``Contact Departure.''
``Contact Los Angeles Center, One Two Three Point Four.''

3. Time, fix, altitude, or specifically when to contact a facility.
You may omit this when compliance is expected upon receipt.

NOTE -
AIM, para 5-3-1, ARTCC COMMUNICATIONS, informs pilots that they are
expected to maintain a listening watch on the transferring
controller's frequency until the time, fix, or altitude specified.


PHRASEOLOGY -
CONTACT (facility name or location name and terminal function),
(frequency).

If required,

AT (time, fix, or altitude).

c. In situations where an operational advantage will be gained, and
following coordination with the receiving controller, you may instruct
aircraft on the ground to monitor the receiving controller's
frequency.

EXAMPLE -
``Monitor Tower.''
``Monitor Ground.''
``Monitor Ground Point Seven.''
``Monitor Ground, One Two Zero Point Eight.''

d. In situations where a sector has multiple frequencies or when
sectors are combined using multiple frequencies and the aircraft will
remain under your jurisdiction, transfer radio communication by
specifying the following:

PHRASEOLOGY -
(Identification) CHANGE TO MY FREQUENCY (state frequency).

EXAMPLE -
``United two twenty-two change to my frequency one two three point
four.''

REFERENCE -
AIM, CONTACT PROCEDURES, Para 4-2-3.

e. Avoid issuing a frequency change to helicopters known to be
single-piloted during air-taxiing, hovering, or low-level flight.
Whenever possible, relay necessary control instructions until the
pilot is able to change frequency.

NOTE -
Most light helicopters are flown by one pilot and require the constant
use of both hands and feet to maintain control. Although Flight
Control Friction Devices assist the pilot, changing frequency near the
ground could result in inadvertent ground contact and consequent loss
of control. Pilots are expected to advise ATC of their single-pilot
status if unable to comply with a frequency change.

REFERENCE -
AIM, COMMUNICATIONS, Para 4-3-14.

f. In situations where the controller does not want the pilot to
change frequency but the pilot is expecting or may want a frequency
change, use the following phraseology.

PHRASEOLOGY -
REMAIN THIS FREQUENCY.

REFERENCE -
FAAO 7110.65, CLEARANCE INFORMATION, Para 4-7-1.
FAAO 7110.65, COMMUNICATION TRANSFER, Para 5-12-8.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:50:01 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>
>I didn't think one needed permission to change freqs (or anything else for
>that matter) while receiving flight following.
>


Aeronautical Information Manual
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#4-1-14
2. When receiving VFR radar advisory service, pilots should monitor
the assigned frequency at all times. This is to preclude controllers'
concern for radio failure or emergency assistance to aircraft under
the controller's jurisdiction. VFR radar advisory service does not
include vectors away from conflicting traffic unless requested by the
pilot. When advisory service is no longer desired, advise the
controller before changing frequencies and then change your
transponder code to 1200, if applicable. Pilots should also inform the
controller when changing VFR cruising altitude. Except in programs
where radar service is automatically terminated, the controller will
advise the aircraft when radar is terminated.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
"Mike Granby" > wrote:

> 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.

The pilot is complying with 91.130 if he's talking to Center. I don't
see where the FARs nor the AIM specifies that "ATC" is defined as the
Class C ATC facility.

The Centers "own" all of the airspace and delegate via LOA or other
arrangement to the facilities that make up Class B, C, D, etc. The real
question is how the LOAs are structured, and pilots cannot be expected
to know the details of the LOAs. Thus, the controllers are required to
do the hand-off or terminate. I hardly see how a pilot is in a position
to question whether ATC has the authority to give him the clearance or
instruction that ATC issues.



JKG

[Mike Granby]

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

The depends on whether you think the use of the definite article is
relevant or simply an accident of drafting.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article om>,
"Mike Granby" > wrote:

> > I don't see where the FARs nor the AIM specifies
> > that "ATC" is defined as the Class C ATC facility.
>
> The depends on whether you think the use of the definite article is
> relevant or simply an accident of drafting.

It's a stretch to interpret "the" as referring to something that isn't
stated.



JKG

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 8 Feb 2006 14:05:06 -0800, "Mike Granby" > wrote:

>
>Concerening arrival and flight through Class C airspace...
>
>91.130(c)(1) Each person must establish two-way radio communications
>with the ATC facility [...] providing air traffic services prior to
>entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those
>communications while within that airspace.
>
>Note the use of "THE" in reference to the ATC facility to which one has
>to talk. Does this mean THE specific ATC facility controlling the Class
>C airspace? Or just the ATC facility providing services to you at the
>time? In other words, if you blunder into Class C while talking to
>Center on VFR advisories, either perhaps because they forgot to hand
>you off or because you wandered off altitude and they didn't notice,
>would you be ok, or would you be busted?

Mike,

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.

I also seem to recall AOPA being against the change, feeling that if the
pilot was talking with any ATC facility, it should be the responsibility of
that facility to coordinate the CCA entry. AOPA lost that fight.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mike Granby]

Perhaps. I've written a letter to the FAA asking for clarification
which I shall mail tomorrow. I won't be holding my breath, though.

[Jay Honeck]

>I was approaching Rockford frome the north and apparently nicked the
> very edge of Janeville Class D while talking to Rockford Approach the
> whole time and Rockford jumped all over me about it. There is something
> weird going on with those two.

Yeah, there was something odd going on all over the upper Midwest that day.

Usually, each approach control seamlessly hands us off on our frequent
flights to Wisconsin. This time, Cedar Rapids cut us off as we approached
the Mississippi (this NEVER, ever happens with CID), and we had to ask for a
hand-off to Chicago Center. He cheerfully (they are always great at CID)
did this, but then Chicago Center handed us off to Rockford -- who wouldn't
hand us off to Madison.

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Concerening arrival and flight through Class C airspace...
>
> 91.130(c)(1) Each person must establish two-way radio communications
> with the ATC facility [...] providing air traffic services prior to
> entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those
> communications while within that airspace.
>
> Note the use of "THE" in reference to the ATC facility to which one has
> to talk. Does this mean THE specific ATC facility controlling the Class
> C airspace? Or just the ATC facility providing services to you at the
> time? In other words, if you blunder into Class C while talking to
> Center on VFR advisories, either perhaps because they forgot to hand
> you off or because you wandered off altitude and they didn't notice,
> would you be ok, or would you be busted?
>

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the ARTTC is not providing Approach Control services to the airport
> is probably not coordinating arrivals with the tower. (Of course,
> this all presumes VFR operation.)
>

Nor would the ARTCC be providing required Class C services; sequencing of
all aircraft to the primary airport and separation from IFR aircraft.

[John Clonts]

<quote>

> time? In other words, if you blunder into Class C while talking to
> Center on VFR advisories, either perhaps because they forgot to hand
> you off or because you wandered off altitude and they didn't notice,
> would you be ok, or would you be busted?

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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had a bizarre experience a while ago along these lines. Had VFR
> flight following from Bradley Approach into Hartford/Brainard.
>
> Getting close to the edge of Hartford's Class D, I tried to get the
> controller's attention to ask for a frequency change, but the freq was
> busy and I couldn't break in. Eventually, I found a hole and he
> turned me over to HFD tower, but by that time I was deep in the CDAS.
>
> I had (naively?) assumed he had coordinated with HFD, but apparantly
> not. I got the "call me when you land" deal, and when I called, the
> tower controller proceeded to rip me a new one on the phone. She
> didn't seem interested that I was talking to BDL. I pointed out that
> I couldn't just drop off BDL's freq without permission, and she asked
> me if I had two radios in the plane, and said I should have called
> them on the second one.
>

Whether you could or could not just drop off BDL's freq without permission
would depend upon where you were at the time. If you were approaching HFD
from within the Class C airspace then, no, you couldn't just leave the
frequency. But if you were not in Class C airspace as you were approaching
HFD you were free to leave the approach control frequency at any time.
There's a requirement to establish communications with ATC prior to entering
Class D airspace, there's no requirement to establish or maintain
communications with ATC when operating VFR in Class E or G airspace.


>
> I let the HFD tower controller vent (and mostly restricted my
> responses to "Yes, Ma'am"), and nothing more came of it. My guess is
> the approach controller just forgot about me.
>

If I had been approaching from within Class C airspace my response to her
would have been something like, "I was in communications with Bradley
Approach as is required by FAR 91.130(c), if you have a problem with that
take it up with them.", and that would have been the end of it. If I had
been approaching from outside of Class C airspace there'd have been no issue
with her as I would have left BDL's frequency about ten miles from HFD
whether or not I had been able to bid a hearty bye-bye to approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I recall reading in FAA Order 7110.65, that it is the responsibility
> of the air traffic controller providing Radar Traffic Advisory Service
> to VFR aircraft to coordinate transition through Class B, C, D and E
> surface area airspace, but I can't find it now:
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/
>
>
> Perhaps I was thinking of this:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-16
> 2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS
>
> a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach control tower on an
> individual aircraft basis before issuing a clearance which would
> require flight within a surface area for which the tower has
> responsibility unless otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7210.3, Letters of Agreement, Para 4-3-1.
> 14 CFR Section 91.127, Operating on or in the Vicinity of an Airport
> in Class E Airspace.
> P/CG Term- Surface Area.
>
> b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit
> authorization when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to
> an aircraft that will enter another facility's airspace.
>
> NOTE-
> The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through
> each area when in contact with a radar facility.
>

Yes, you were thinking of that, and erroneously expanding it to include
Class B and C airspace. Coordination of a flight through a Class D surface
area by the overlying radar facility is appropriate because the airspace is
small, the flight through it will take only a few minutes, it is typically
surrounded by airspace being worked by the same controller, and the tower
has no responsibility for separation of airborne traffic. Class B and C
airspace is probably at least sixty miles across and may be well over a
hundred, separation of VFR aircraft is required, and the controller at the
point of exit is probably a different person and may be in a different
facility.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Does ATC even *do* VFR hand-offs to a Class D tower from flight following?
>

There really isn't any reason to. The typical initial call from the
arriving VFR aircraft to the tower includes all the pertinent information
anyway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I was approaching Rockford frome the north and apparently nicked the
> very edge of Janeville Class D while talking to Rockford Approach the
> whole time and Rockford jumped all over me about it. There is something
> weird going on with those two.
>

The Rockford controller was in error. He was required to coordinate with
Janesville tower.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach control tower on an
individual aircraft basis before issuing a clearance which would require
flight within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility unless
otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Letters of Agreement, Para 4-3-1.
14 CFR Section 91.127, Operating on or in the Vicinity of an Airport in
Class E Airspace.
P/CG Term- Surface Area.

b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization
when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that
will enter another facility's airspace.

NOTE-
The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each
area when in contact with a radar facility.

c. Transfer communications to the appropriate facility, if required, prior
to operation within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Radio Communications Transfer, Para 2-1-17.
FAAO 7110.65, Surface Area Restrictions, Para 3-1-11.
FAAO 7110.65, Application, Para 7-6-1.
14 CFR Section 91.129, Operations in Class D Airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why can't I ever have this happen to me? I would let her go on for a few
> minutes like you did and then tear her a new one. I know the rules and I
> will tell her what paragraph to go look at in the .65.
>

What rule would that be? What paragraph in the .65 requires a radar
facility to coordinate the arrival of a VFR aircraft to a tower in Class D
airspace?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

What controller's failure to comply with .65?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> But it would be legal. He has to either terminate you in time for you to
> make contact with the class C or hand you off.
>

It wouldn't be legal. It would be a violation because FAR 91.130 requires
the pilot to establish communications with approach control before entering
Class C airspace. The Center controller should either handoff or terminate
services before the aircraft enters approach control airspace but there's no
specific requirement for him to do either.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I didn't think one needed permission to change freqs (or anything else for
> that matter) while receiving flight following.
>

You're right. If you can be there without talking to anyone you don't need
anyone's permission to leave the frequency.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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).

[Newps]

> "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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Montblack]

("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/newsitems/2006/060201mn.html
Minneapolis Class B airspace redesign to take effect February 16
AOPA seeks to have VFR flyways added


Montblack

[Frank]

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

[G Farris]

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".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Mike Granby]

> What controller's failure to comply with .65?

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Mike Granby]

Sorry -- a similar discussion is also occuring on a Piper owners' forum
and JKG is there, too, so I something forget who said what to whom
where!!! :)

[Jay Honeck]

>> 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.

I've switched frequencies away from Chicago Center, when I could no longer
receive them (due to low altitudes) -- and they responded by calling the
airport manager at home, and having the poor schmuck go out to the airport
we landed at, looking for us.

They really don't like to have pilots leave their freq without permission.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:52:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

Thanks for confirming my memory of how that unfolded.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Michael Ware]

Yes.

"B a r r y" > wrote in message
et...
> Marco Leon wrote:
> Does ATC even *do* VFR hand-offs to a
> > Class D tower from flight following?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:MBbHf.767954$_o.645510@attbi_s71...
>
> I've switched frequencies away from Chicago Center, when I could no longer
> receive them (due to low altitudes) -- and they responded by calling the
> airport manager at home, and having the poor schmuck go out to the airport
> we landed at, looking for us.
>
> They really don't like to have pilots leave their freq without permission.
>

All you know for certain is that just one doesn't like it.

[Jay Honeck]

>> I've switched frequencies away from Chicago Center, when I could no
>> longer receive them (due to low altitudes) -- and they responded by
>> calling the airport manager at home, and having the poor schmuck go out
>> to the airport we landed at, looking for us.
>>
>> They really don't like to have pilots leave their freq without
>> permission.
>>
>
> All you know for certain is that just one doesn't like it.

You really think that one controller in Chicago Center had the power and
authority to take it upon himself to call the airport manager at home and
drag his sorry heinie down to the airport, just because he was unhappy that
I lost radio contact with him?

The guy tracked me in to land at Rantoul, so he *knew* I was okay, which
eliminates the "he was concerned for my well-being" angle. So you think
this was just one guy with bean up his butt?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
>
> You really think that one controller in Chicago Center had the power and
> authority to take it upon himself to call the airport manager at home and
> drag his sorry heinie down to the airport, just because he was unhappy that
> I lost radio contact with him?
>
> The guy tracked me in to land at Rantoul, so he *knew* I was okay, which
> eliminates the "he was concerned for my well-being" angle. So you think
> this was just one guy with bean up his butt?


Of course not. There were several at the Center involved in this chain
of events.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1lmHf.549388$084.128499@attbi_s22...
>
> You really think that one controller in Chicago Center had the power and
> authority to take it upon himself to call the airport manager at home and
> drag his sorry heinie down to the airport, just because he was unhappy
> that I lost radio contact with him?
>

Sure. In Aurora it takes only one person to dial a telephone number. How
many are needed in Iowa City?


>
> The guy tracked me in to land at Rantoul, so he *knew* I was okay, which
> eliminates the "he was concerned for my well-being" angle. So you think
> this was just one guy with bean up his butt?
>

How did he *know* you were okay?

As I explained to you at that time, ATC is required to initiate a search
when there is an unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications
with any IFR or VFR aircraft. How do you know that was not what was being
done?