ATIS Directs You to Get FF Prior to Arrival, Legal Requirem?

[Talan2000]

Hi All,

At Addison airport, KADS, near my home in McKinney (KTKI) the ATIS informs pilots to contact regional approach inbound for landing. The implication is that one "needs" to get Flight Following, presumably to facilitate sequencing into KADS which is a fairly busy airport in a fairly dense urban area. Many instructors and pilots in the area will tell you that you "have to have flight following" to go to Addison. (I've heard instructors complain of having to turn circles in the air trying to contact Regional outside of Addison airspace). Fortunately, and recently KTKI will get FF on the ground for departures direct to KADS (a mere 18NM away) and this is a nice solution to the challenge of trying to switch to Regional in 3-5 mins after airborne...one also wonders what you are "supposed" to do trying to get into Air Park Dallas (F69) due north? Get Flight Following from regional, Switch to KADS Tower, Then inform them you are going to Air Park CTAF. What a headache! Especially inbound from McKinney!

I nod when I hear folks say that FF is mandatory into KADS, and I will be 99.9% likely to contact Regional and/or get FF departing KTKI, but I'm also 99.9% certain that this is not a legal requirement for arriving at Addison.

1) KADS is a Delta not a Charlie and has no authority outside 5 SM whatever it may say on the ATIS
1.5) KADS ATIS doesn't actually state "get flight following" (at least not the time or two I dialed it up) - just contact Regional Approach prior to arrival (but the intent is pretty clear). And perhaps they assume you will be penetrating the Bravo not creeping along below it...
2) FF is an optional service and might not even be available from ATC.

KTKI-KADS.JPG (416.59 KiB) Viewed 5405 times

It seems that this is a situation where "local practice/local knowledge" is creating a new regulatory hurdle for arrivals at the airport.

So -- Is it common for airports to have this type of extra requirement? And what's the FAA regulatory perspective on this - mandatory or advisory?

PS OH - and as an aside -- Take a look at the KADS DELTA -- [-30] right? so no big deal - up to but not including 3000MSL. EXCEPT - look in the NW Quadrant -- the bravo goes from 110/25! So - if you believe the chart this is a class Delta Airspace with a cap at 2999 AND 2499!? The airspace can't be both a Bravo and a Delta. Is it a charting error? Should the 110/25 be OUTSIDE the segmented circle for KADS Delta? Of course it drops down to 20 just west of KADS but that is clearly just Bravo Airspace. It's kinda ugly


Thanks!

Todd

PPS Well, looking at Asad's recent related post, It clearly IS A CHARTING ERROR on the Sectional! On the Terminal Area Chart the Bravo nw of KADS starting at 110/25 is OUTSIDE the KADS Delta - not INSIDE as it is depicted on the Sectional.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.12351150376...3:A.K4.F69

[Keith Smith]

There are other Deltas I've encountered who do this, some for historical reasons, others for very valid reasons. My guess is that they have a very good reason for doing it in this case.

It's very congested airspace there with a lot of Class D fields. It's likely that they want to get you sequenced for your airport, AND to have a shot at keeping you in once piece with all of the other arriving and departing traffic in the terminal area.

Why is it that you're so resistant to the idea of calling the approach controller to receive sequencing and radar service into the field? I wouldn't fight it, I'd be happy that you have another set of eyes that are keeping an eye out for you in some pretty hair airspace.

[Peter Grey]

This is an interesting one.

Pre-Discussion caveat - I agree with KS in that there is no harm to contacting approach in this situation. Purposefully going against it isn't going to help anything.

Now for a discussion regarding the "legality" of it.

First off to get some terminology correct this wouldn't be Flight Following (technically known as radar traffic information service), but "basic radar services" a minor distinction but one relevant to the conversation.

Per AIM 4-1-18 basic radar service is:

a. Basic Radar Service:
1. In addition to the use of radar for the control
of IFR aircraft, all commissioned radar facilities
provide the following basic radar services for VFR
aircraft:
(a) Safety alerts.
(b) Traffic advisories.
(c) Limited radar vectoring (on a workload
permitting basis).
(d) Sequencing at locations where procedures
have been established for this purpose and/or
when covered by a Letter of Agreement.

And honestly the answer to your question is in this same section:

Pilot participation is urged
but is not mandatory. Traffic information is provided
on a workload permitting basis. Standard radar
separation between VFR or between VFR and IFR
aircraft is not provided.

So no, you don't have to participate, but there really isn't a downside to doing it.

PS OH - and as an aside -- Take a look at the KADS DELTA -- [-30] right? so no big deal - up to but not including 3000MSL. EXCEPT - look in the NW Quadrant -- the bravo goes from 110/25! So - if you believe the chart this is a class Delta Airspace with a cap at 2999 AND 2499!? The airspace can't be both a Bravo and a Delta. Is it a charting error? Should the 110/25 be OUTSIDE the segmented circle for KADS Delta? Of course it drops down to 20 just west of KADS but that is clearly just Bravo Airspace. It's kinda ugly

FAR 71.9 covers this situation (overlapping airspace). It is not a charting error.

(a) When overlapping airspace designations apply to the same airspace, the operating rules associated with the more restrictive airspace designation apply.

(b) For the purpose of this section—

(1) Class A airspace is more restrictive than Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;

(2) Class B airspace is more restrictive than Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;

(3) Class C airspace is more restrictive than Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;

(4) Class D airspace is more restrictive than Class E or Class G airspace; and

(5) Class E is more restrictive than Class G airspace.

[Keith Smith]

Regarding KTKI to F69, I'd coordinate the radar service while on the ground at KTKI. I would also expect that Regional Approach would coordinate your entry into the KADS Delta. It would be surprising to me if you did end up speaking with KADS tower on a flight like that.

Alternatively, you could skip the radar service entirely and call ADS tower to tell them you're landing at F69.

Those are the two most practical options in my mind. The case you describe of going from TKI tower to Regional Approach to ADS tower then to the F69 CTAF seems overly complex.

[asad112]

OK, I will answer some of these questions solely based on my experience so far operating in this airspace, with the caveat that I could be doing it completely wrong.

I nod when I hear folks say that FF is mandatory into KADS, and I will be 99.9% likely to contact Regional and/or get FF departing KTKI, but I'm also 99.9% certain that this is not a legal requirement for arriving at Addison.

I often depart from F69 and head north to do my manuever practice. Once inbound back to F69, I contact KADS tower directly. I have never had an issue with it. Now, I have never gone into Addison directly, so perhaps there may be an exception for Airpark. That, or the Tower controller just can't be bothered to waste time and ask why you did not contact Approach. Though, I have flown from KHQZ (southeast of KADS) to F69 on several occasions. About half the times I was able to pick up FF, the other half my transmissions were outright ignored by the Approach controller. Not even a courtesy "aircraft calling, unable flight following," just ignored. It is kind of an uneasy feeling, because it lead me to believe that there was something going on with my radios. I eventually just gave up and contacted KADS when about 5 miles out of their airspace. Interestingly enough, the only time I requested FF on the ground was at KHQZ. The ground controller just told me to contact Approach when airborne. That also happened to be one of the times where I was ignored by Approach.

Now here is an interesting example of how TRACON has no real authority over the Class D airspace. Usually when I approach from the north while on FF, I am asked to report Airpark (F69) insight. As soon as I report it, I am advised to contact Addison tower. So when I check my call is usually, "Addison Tower, Cessna 19947 at 2000 with Airpark in sight," to which I immediately get, "Cessna 19947, Addison Tower, remain east of the Addison extended centerline, squawk VFR, change to advisory frequency is approved." It goes to show how the TRACON controller cannot clear you into the Class D. The 10 second exchange between you and the Tower still has to occur. Weird, huh?

So the TLDR version is: Never been chewed out as of yet for not contacting approach prior to entering the KADS Class D. And my rate of success in obtaining FF when operating locally is only about 50%. I think I sound competent enough of the radio, so I am not quite sure why this is happening. Bad luck perhaps?

Now as far as the last 500 to feet of the KADS Class D, I have been personally told by a controller there that they have an operating agreement with DFW TRACON and have ceded the last 500 or 1000 feet (can't remember which) to DFW TRACON. And I have heard KADS Tower instruct VFR pilots who are not on FF to maintain no higher than 2000 feet. It is very common to see 737s and A320s inbound to Love Field cross directly overhead F69 or KADS at 2500.

Anyways, nice to see another North Texasite on PE!

[Talan2000]

Peter,

1. That's an interesting reference you site re: overlapping airspace. I wonder if it doesn't better apply to things such as the 200 KT limitation in or under a Bravo. That more restrictive requirement would cascade down onto the E and D airspace beneath the B. Totally agree. I'm not so sure that it means an airspace can be two airspaces at once though. I'm pretty sure they are mutually exclusive by definition, otherwise there would be no need for [-30] nomenclature in a Delta, [30] would be fine, as an example.

And, I'm pretty sure it is a charting error because the Terminal Area Chart depicts the 25/110 B wedge outside the KADS Delta and the more compressed Sectional image depicts the 25/110 B wedge inside the KADS Delta. They should move the 25/110 or put an arrow pointing to the area outside the delta on the Sectional. It's not a huge deal at all of course, more of a visual anomaly on the chart and one had better be talking to KADS at that point regardless.

KADS Tac2.JPG (236.4 KiB) Viewed 5373 times

2. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not fighting flight following (or basic radar services if that is technically more accurate), but I am striving for simplicity. In the real world (in the recent past) it was entirely possible, if not likely, that a VFR popup flight from KTKI to KADS wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise with Regional approach in the 6 minutes between KTKI and KADS. They realized this and getting/offering FF/Advisories on the ground became the SOP out of McKinney. Out of McKinney PRE-Armed with FF, I'd certainly take advantage of it -- much easier to just check in rather then have to give your life story to Regional as a VFR popup enroute. So no disagreement at all.

3. However, what if we shift the departure from KTKI 10 miles west or so to Aero Country (T31), an uncontrolled field, I have same six or eight minutes enroute or so to get a word in on the crowded freq,"VFR popup, enroute Addison, IDENT," etc etc. If I can't get in on the frequency I am still going in at 2500-2800 MSL, under the Bravo, under the arrivals, perfectly legally and safely (as Asad alludes to in his post written as I type this). If I can't get in on the frequency, there is no safety enhancement because of course I'm not getting any advisories as I motor along at 2500-2800 fixated on radio calls. I could of course do other things like orbit T31 patiently and hopefully, waiting to be able to contact Regional Approach, but to me in the real world it would seem far simpler to just contact Addison tower "ten miles north with Bravo, inbound for landing" .

And I wanted to tap into the wealth of knowledge here on PE to see if perhaps I was misinterpreting any regulation that would preclude me from doing so if in my judgement I wouldn't be able to establish comms with Regional in the short time I was enroute.

Of course - if I were coming in from 30-50 Miles out or from a towered field, I'd be sure to get FF/contact Regional, even ask for a Bravo clearance for that matter. But taking off from a close in NON-Towered airport might be a time I skipped the regional approach attempt.

[Peter Grey]

Overlapping airsapce is actually pretty common for a variety of reasons.

So if we really want to drill down into airspace we need to take a look at FAA Order 7400.9Y which is the official definitions of every airspace zone in the country (and is defined as such in FAR 71).

Per that order the KADS Class D airspace is formally defined as:

That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet MSL within a
4.4-mile radius of Addison Airport excluding that portion within the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX,
Class B airspace area. This Class D airspace area will be effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Based on that I'm not sure why they charted it the way they did, but because 71.9 defines how to handle this situation (if it was defined in such a way to make 2 airspaces be in 1) it's a moot point. I agree the charting is weird (they should have a [-025] in the 25/110 Class B area to be 100% accurate.

Note that it is 100% possible to have overlapping airspace however, for example look at KICT and KAFB (in KS). Usually this is due to the "higher" level airspace not being open 100% of the time and the lower level airspace then takes over when the higher airspace closes.

[Talan2000]

Peter.

Always am I amaZed by your ability to find key regulatory references. Wow.

I think we are in agreement that air spaces can overlap but they cannot be both things at one time. In your example only when one airspace expires does the other exist - much as ktki delta reverts to E when the tower closes.

And yes if they want the western edge of KADS to start at [25] then they need to indicate that on the chart. But have you ever seen such a bifurcated delta? Otherwise it seems to
Me - looking at the TAC chart that the chart says the delta goes up to the [-30] level in the entire semi circle.

Hard to be sure. Maybe I won't fly into Addison after all

Thanks for the info. T

[Peter Grey]

I think we are in agreement that air spaces can overlap but they cannot be both things at one time. In your example only when one airspace expires does the other exist - much as ktki delta reverts to E when the tower closes

Correct, Far 71.9 is the reg that officially makes that happen. If FAA Order 7400.9y defines 2 airspaces for the same point FAR 71.9 says the most restrictive one (lowest letter) applies.

But have you ever seen such a bifurcated delta?

Actually no, which most likely explains it. The charting convention must be to never depict a Class D with 2 altitudes knowing that FAR 71.9 takes care of the "issue" that lack of charting creates. KCMH is a good example of it (there are 3 deltas that encroach on the Class C) and KCMH operates 24/7.

[Talan2000]

Thanks again. I will of course now have to go to KADS at my earliest opportunity now that I fully grok every aspect of its airspace and the little known Fars which make it so.

T