Page 1 of 2

"Restricted" airports

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:22 pm
by arsindelve
In Canada it's supposedly well understood that one cannot, under virtually any circumstances, fly a C-172 into Toronto YYZ. I think this is the only airport in Canada like this. I've personally flown into Ottawa, London (Ontario) and Hamilton, VFR in a 172, with no issue.

Can anyone else confirm this restriction? I can't say I've ever really looked into it, I've just been hearing it for so long that I've accepted it as gospel.

Anyway, my real question is this: Are there any airports like this in the PE coverage area? Can I, in real life or in PE, fly a 172 VFR into LAX, SFO or LAS? Assuming I follow all the proper procedures along the way, how much grief would I get, if any, for trying this?

Thanks!

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:20 pm
by Peter Grey
Hello,

There are no such restrictions to any civilian public airport in the United States. You can fly a C172 into any airport you want. Note that in the real world there are various reasons you wouldn't want to (landing fees and lack of AVGAS are an example), but it's legal.

You'll get no grief on PE for flying into these airports.

Internationally some airports are in Class A airspace, this effectively restricts who can use the airport. The only 1 I am sure of is London Heathrow, within Canada I have no idea.

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:37 pm
by Talan2000
Great question. I had the same one as far as PE was concerned.

What's PE stance on military airfields ? In a forgone era I landed. C172 ahead of a p3 on final at Moffett but only because I was a member of the base aero club ....

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 8:22 pm
by Peter Grey
What's PE stance on military airfields ?
We treat pure military airports (such as KEDW or KSLI) as uncontrolled at PilotEdge. This means that we won't provide any inbound services and if you call up on a military frequency you will not get a reply from a controller.

Joint use airports such as KRIV and KNYL where civilian pilots can land without prior permission are treated as active airports with ATC services provided. We do not provide military type procedures at these airports however. This means we can't do GCA approaches and we won't use any sort of military style ATC phraseology.

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:35 pm
by jtek
I've flown cherokees into KLAS twice. Piece of cake. I've also flown into KSAN and KPHX (not in the PE coverage area but I just wanted to brag). I don't think I would attempt flight into KLAX or KSFO, though. They're just way too busy (and KLAX doesn't even sell Avgas, in case you needed any hints that lowly pistons are not welcome).

Actually I think KSFO would be do-able, but there are better options in the bay area (I've done both KHWD and KSQL) so why bother?

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:57 pm
by Keith Smith
Josh, I think you're confused. KSAN is absolutely in the coverage area.

Edit: disregard, apparently I was confused :)

So far I've visited MSP, DFW, PHL, ATL and JFK in a single engine piston (albeit a fast one). It's pretty much a non-event each time. I'd have zero qualms about flying into LAX, either for the experience, or if there was an operational advantage to it.

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:08 pm
by Jeff N
KLAX appears to be surprisingly doable for a light GA single, landing fees and lack of avgas notwithstanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jnB7ZUbiOc

Edit: LAX evidently doesn't have a landing fee, though I think I've heard of a significant "facility fee" at the FBOs.

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:34 pm
by Ryan B
Keith Smith wrote:Josh, I think you're confused. KSAN is absolutely in the coverage area.

So far I've visited MSP, DFW, PHL, ATL and JFK in a single engine piston (albeit a fast one). It's pretty much a non-event each time. I'd have zero qualms about flying into LAX, either for the experience, or if there was an operational advantage to it.
I'm guessing he meant KPHX only (but yeah darn English language would read he meant both)

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:02 am
by Jorge Rojas
Jeff N wrote:KLAX appears to be surprisingly doable for a light GA single, landing fees and lack of avgas notwithstanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jnB7ZUbiOc

Edit: LAX evidently doesn't have a landing fee, though I think I've heard of a significant "facility fee" at the FBOs.
Where LAX gets you is that if you land you must taxi to an FBO (and pay their fee). No touch and go's or taxi back to the end of the runway. I think it is currently $100.

Re: "Restricted" airports

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:59 am
by jtek
Ryan B wrote: I'm guessing he meant KPHX only
This guy gets it.