Little River Airport Advisory Committee Minutes of 2/28/98 meeting The new, officially appointed Little River Airport Advisory Committee held its third meeting from 8-10am at The Clubhouse at The Woods on 2/28/98. An agenda for the meeting had previously been posted at Little River Airport and the Little River Post Office on Monday 2/23/98 and circulated by email. Six members of the committee were present: Susan Winding, Joel Bornstein, Dave Brewer, Willow Trent, Tim Scully and Trey Loy. Dick Ahrens, Les Proctor, Richard Gallagher, Judith Barry and Grant Wheeler also participated in the meeting. approval of minutes ------------------- Tim Scully said that he had received two amendments to the rough draft minutes by email, from Joel Bornstein and Dave Brewer. He read these. A few additional corrections were provided by various committee members and the revised minutes of the 2/22/98 meeting were approved. Trey Loy asked if more people can get on the email list for minutes. Tim Scully said that was easy and much less expensive than paper mail. Just send email to tim.scully and ask to be added to the Airport Advisory Committee mailing list. communications -------------- Tim Scully reported that he emailed a draft letter to the FAA to Stan Townsend of DPW, who sent it on to the FAA. Stan Townsend in turn FAXed a replay from the FAA to Tim Scully. This was a very quick response. We agreed to discuss this during reports from subcommittees. [ see Appendix A for the text of the FAA response. ] discuss how to research the remaining GPS questions --------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully passed out copies of a spreadsheet of questions and the status of each question [see Appendix B]. Item 1] - Les should get a letter from the FAA confirming his verbal report Item 2] - survey has been mailed, 25 responses so far Item 3] - survey has been FAXed, 3 responses so far Item 4] - we review the 2/24/98 letter from the FAA Item 5] - waiting for responses from Jim Goodridge Item 6] - Les should get a letter from the FAA confirming his verbal report Item 7] - waiting for subcommittee to report (Les, Lee and Keith) Item 8] - Lee Edmundson is reported to have found statistics on LR on the internet Item 9] - Les Proctor has given an adequate explaination of this - he'll write it down Item 10] - Les Proctor will report Item 11] - possible letter to FAA, discuss since Trey's talk Item 12] - Les Proctor said he is providing the altimeter. He gives it by radio to pilots on request. If there is a GPS approach, he will be telephoned by Oakland Center when a pilot is approaching and Oakland Center will give the pilot the altimeter setting. All pilots flying IFR in this area must be talking to Oakland Center. Trey said that our report should explain what an AWOS is in the same section where the altimeter setting is idscussed. Tim Scully said that it is in the glossery of the June report. Item 13] - discussed today and last week Tim Scully explained that pilots flying VFR, if they have a radio, should be reporting on and monitoring the common traffic advisory frequency. If they are flying the GPS approach the Oakland controller will tell them to switch to this frequency. This allows all pilots flying near Little River to keep each other informed of their locations and intentions. Les Proctor said that some pilots start calling in as far as 20 miles from Little River. Dave Brewer said that this is a "party line" and that pilots still talk to each other when the airport is unattended. Item 14] - Les should get a letter from the FAA confirming his verbal report Item 15] - to be discussed, also Ls to include in letter from OAK FAA Item 16] - letter pending from Ukiah, Les Proctor to follow up Item 17] - (repeat of #3) survey has been FAXed, 3 responses so far Item 18] - (repeat of #2) survey has been mailed, 25 responses so far Item 19] - discuss after Trey's talk, possible letter to FAA Item 20] - Les is certified, review FAA letter of 2/24/98 Susan Winding raised a question about the language of AC 91-14D, section 5) which discusses "future systems". She wanted to know if AWOS systems will be mandated. Tim Scully explained that this advisory circular was written in 1979, when AWOS was in the future. AWOS has never been mandatory. Les Proctor said that AWOS systems are now being phased out and replaced with ASOS system, which are more reliable and more sophisticated (and more expensive). Trey Loy asked if this means that used AWOS system will be available cheaply. Les Proctor said that the AWOS in Ukiah is very expensive to maintain due to frequent failures. The more modern ASOS systems are more reliable and less expensive to maintain, although it does cost about $100,000 initially. Richard Gallagher asked for a clearer explaination of AWOS vs ASOS. Les Proctor explained that AWOS just reports real time raw data locally by radio, while the ASOS is "smarter", reporting things like when rain started and ended, it is more accurate at detecting snow, it auutomatically makes reports to the DUATS system and to air traffic control. Item 21] - duplicate of item 15 Item 22] - waiting for responses from Jim Goodridge Item 23] - Trey Loy will speak on this in a future meeting Tim Scully asked if this list was complete, a natural transition to the next agenda item. continue collecting questions regarding the proposed GPS approach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trey Loy said that he would like to know about "the list", considering that Ron Clenney's letter said he is not aware of a list. Trey Loy said that he would also like us to discuss several sections from the FAA's 2/19/98 letter, including section I. Eligibility, Section I. A. 2) Environmental Statements and section II B 3) Weather Information. Susan Winding said that she would like to discuss Section II B 1) b) regarding runway lighting, from the same letter. reports from subcommittees (part 1) ----------------------------------- We agreed to hear Trey Loy's report next, to allow him to speak while Les Proctor is present. [Les had to leave to go back to the airport around 9am]. Trey Loy gave his interpretation of the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) which affect airspace and scud running. He started with FAr 71.71a [see Appendix C]. Trey Loy drew a diagram showing class E airspace starting at 1500 feet. Joel Bornstein corrected him, explaining that around Little River Airport, class E airspace starts at 5500 MSL currently, and that the floor of class E airspace varies from place to place. Trey Loy went on to explain that if a GPS approach is approved, the floor of class E airspace will drop to 700 feet. Joel Bornstein interjected that the 5500 feet is MSL, above mean sea level, while the 700 feet is AGL, above ground level. Trey revised the 5500 feet to 4800 in an effort to convert it to AGL. Joel said it should be 4900 since the airport is about 600 feet above sea level. Trey Loy then directed our attention to FAR 91.119 [see Appendix D]. He drew our attention to the exception - "except as necessary for takeoff or landing". He explained that airplanes carry a limited amount of gas and eventually have to land somewhere. He referred to FAR 91.151 [see Appendix G]. The FAA rules set visibility limits and distances from clouds, but there is no cop there in the sky ready to say "you are flying a little too close". Trey Loy also said that he likes to go fast on the highway when there is no cop around. If pilots really need to land, they will do what they have to do to get safely on the ground. Some citizens want to punish pilots who fly too close to clouds or if they make too much noise. Trey Loy said that he is opposed to this and favors the neighborly approach. He also pointed out that the first sentence in this rule is open to many interpretations. Trey Loy pointed out 91.119 c) and said that although pilots are required to fly at least 1000 feet over urban areas, in sparsely populated areas, they are only required to stay 500 feet away from buildings and people. He said that the answers to several of our questions are right here in the rules and that our proposed questions to the FAA are not good. Next, Trey Loy turned to FAR 91.126 [see Appendix F] and said that when an airplane approaches and airport it enters a traffic pattern with all left turns. He said that we've seen this before during our discussions on noise abatement. He drew the traffic pattern on a whiteboard. He showed the fog coming in from the South and explained that when the fog is covering much of the runway, pilots will come in any way they can, not necessarily following the pattern, due to the fog. Home based pilots need to be able to get back home. Trey Loy also pointed out FAR 91.127 [see Appendix G] and said that there is little practical difference for VFR pilots between class E and class G airspace. Joel Bornstein commented that in most areas, class G airspace exists from 1200 AGL downward. Dave Brewer interjected, the required distance from clouds is different in Class E and Class G airspace. Trey Loy said, yes, but there is no cop in the sky measuring those distances and giving pilots tickets. Willow Trent said - so, when we were worried that the GPS approach might penalize VFR pilots, we were wrong. Trey Loy said, right, we were off track. Next Trey Loy pointed out FAR 91.153 regarding VFR flight plans and said that many pilots want people to know they are up there. Joel Bornstein agreed, but said that VFR pilots are generally not required to file flight plans. It is recommended but not required. VFR flight can be like getting into your car. You just get in an go. Tim Scully said that the most common use for VFR flight plans is on cross-country flights because the flight plan gives your planned route and time of arrival, so search and rescue will know where to look for you if something goes wrong. Trey Loy briefly discussed basic VFR minimums and repeated that there is no cop in the sky to enforce them. Tim Scully explained why these distances from clouds are necessary. Pilots flying IFR can be flying through the clouds. They are guaranteed safed separation from each other because they all file IFR flight plans and are getting instructions from a controller on the ground, who separates aircraft vertically or horizontally. If the controller can see the airplanes on radar, the controller can allow the airplanes to be closer than if he does not see them on radar. Without radar the controller has to allow a larger margin for pilot errors. In any case, IFR aircraft can come popping out of the clouds at any time, at high speed. The essence of VFR is see and avoid, VFR pilots don't have a controller on the ground separating them from other aircraft, so they have to keep their eyes open, see other aircraft and avoid them. If they are too close to clouds, they won't have time to see an IFR aircraft flying out of the clouds. Dave Brewer said that for VFR pilots, the 700 foot controlled airspace will make little difference, but it makes a big difference for IFR pilots. He drew a diagram on the whiteboard showing the airport and the Albion River valley. He drew in a cloud layer extending from 200 feet above the airport to 1200 feet above the ground, a common picture in the summertime. Dave Brewer explained that he is a new guy around here, but he has learned that local instrument pilots fly up the ravine and look to see if the runway is visible. If it is, they land, if not, Dave and most of the others will climb to "punch up" through the clouds into the clear air above. He said this isn't the smartest thing in the world since there is no contoller providing separation, but it is legal. Tim Scully said that local pilots let each other know by radio what they are doing. Dave Brewer went on to say that when the floor of controlled airspace is at 700 feet, there will no longer be a legal way for pilots to execute a miss by climbing up through the clouds - there is no way to get the required clearance from a controller. If the clouds are higher, say at 700 feet, there is no problem because there is plenty of room to maneuver. He said that guys with Les's experience can make a U-turn in the valley, but Dave doesn't feel safe doing this. Dave Brewer said that if the fog is in the tree tops, then it is 100 feet or lower, too low for scud running into Little River. Keith Paulson wrote a note on his pilot survey saying that the 700 foot Class E airspace change wouldn't affect IFR pilots, but we don't understand what Keith has in mind. Someone asked why some airports have a 1200 foot floor and other have a 700 foot floor. Tim Scully explained that often it has to do with the "minimums" for their instrument approach. In our case, we expect minimums of about 300 to 400 feet, so it makes sense to provide the protection of Class E airspace down as low as possible. Some approaches have higher minimums od 1000 feet or more, in which case the 1200 foot floor makes more sense. Joel Bornstein Members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee ------------------------------------------------------ Joel Bornstein pilot, flight instructor lives near airport Dave Brewer pilot, lives near airport Lee Edmundson non-pilot Trey Loy non-pilot, lives near airport Tim Scully pilot, computer programmer, lives near airport commutes by air to Oakland weekly Willow Trent airport neighbor, non-pilot Susan Winding airport neighbor, non-pilot, business owner ========================================================================== Appendix A letter to the FAA and reply from the FAA dated 2/24/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------- E.C. CALVERT DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 (707)463-4383 FAX (707) 463-5474 24 February1998 Barry D. Rosenberg, Manager Federal Aviation Administration Los Angeles Flight Procedure Office PO Box 92007, Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles CA 90009 RE: LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT POSSIBLE GPS INSTRUMENT APPROACH Dear Mr. Rosenberg: Mendocino County is in the final stages of researching a possible GPS approach for the Little River Airport. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors recently appointed an Airport Advisory Committee and has tasked the new committee with completing research on this topic, begun by an Ad Hoc Committee. The new committee has been ordered to produce a final report by early April. This leaves the committee little time for collecting solidly documented answers to concerns raised by airport neighbors. The committee has requested your quick written response to the following questions. While all of the answers sought by the committee may be available in one or more FAA Rule books, we will appreciate specific responses, based on your expertise with interpretation of the rules, rather than advise to simply "read the book". Several concerned citizens have pointed out that it is all too easy to cite one regulation out of context, missing another which substantially changes the picture. We need your help in providing an objective and well informed opinion on the questions outlined below. 1. Little River Airport is considering applying for a GPS approach. Our normal source of altimeter setting is from the airport supervisor, who only works during the daytime, but our initial report on the GPS suggests that pilots may be able to arrange for an alternate FAA approved altimeter setting source. The questions below are aimed at providing the Board of Supervisors with adequate information regarding their options for limiting GPS approach availability, should they choose to do so now or in the future. a. Does Mendocino County, the airport owner/operator, have legitimate authority to limit night GPS approaches to emergency flights? b. If so, how would such a limitation be put into place? c. Can such limitations be imposed at a later date, or do they have to be requested in the initial letter of concurrence? d. If Little River Airport ever obtains an AWOS, providing 24 hour altimeter setting data, can Mendocino County limit the hours of approved GPS approach operation? Or is it only able to limit the availability of the approach by limiting availability of the altimeter setting? e. How would any alternate altimeter setting source become "approved"? f. Is there any mechanism for assuring that Mendocino County is notified if anyone applies for approval of an alternate local altimeter source? g. If anyone applies for approval of an alternate local altimeter source, does Mendocino County have any say-so about its approval? Thank you for your prompt help with this urgent request. Sincerely, E.C.Calvert, Director of Transportation By: Stanley Townsend, Deputy Director of Public Works cc: Little River Airport Advisory Committee File 24-14A ========================== FAA LOS ANGELES FLIGHT PROCEDURES OFFICE LAX FPO SUBJECT: GPS Approach to Little River Airport TO: Stanley Townsend, Dep. Dir. of DPW @FAX/PHONE: 707-463-5474 FROM: Ron Clenney, LAX FPO DATE: 24 Feb ‘98 NO. OF PAGES including Cover Sheet: 5 LAX FPO FAX #310-643-5753 Voice Phone 310-725-7124 MESSAGE: Stanley, Here is a reply to your letter. Mr Rosenburg is convalesing from surgery & will be in next week. I have provided some words for you to consider. We can also design the procedure so that the missed approach point is 3000' back (SE) of Rwy 29 threshold -&- start turning the aircraft well before the town of Little River -&- Mendocino. Thanks, Ron C. U.S. Department of Transportation Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office LAX FPO P.O.Box 92007 Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009 Federal Aviation Administration February 24, 1998 Stanley Townsend, Dep. Director of Public Works Mendocino County DPW Ukiah, CA, 95482 Dear Mr Townsend: Our hi-tech age has brought about the advent of GPS which has afforded numerous airpors throughout the nation with the significant benefit of instrument approach procedures (IAP) that was heretofore unavailable to them. It is the local airport authority's decision to decide if it is to be an opportunity lost. An ALTMETER setting source is required for all instrument approach procedures. For the lowest minimums, a local (at the airport) Standard Altimeter Setting Indicator is most desirable, meeting the minimum technical requirements specified in Advisory Circular 91-14D, approved by your Flight Standards District Office. Another possibility is a remote altimeter setting source (RASS) that is available to you from far away Santa Rosa's Sonoma Co. However, a RASS penalty must be assessed based on the distance and elevation differential that the source is from your airport. In your case a RASS from Sonoma County would increase the approach minimums approximately 560 feet for the Little River Airport. When the airport is unattended and an altimeter is not obtained, then the IAP is not authorized. Instrument pilots know that they must proceed VFR, just as if no IAP exist, or proceed to their alternate airport. Little River is a public airport, with a MIRL lighting system, where VFR traffic is not presently restricted from night operations, It is puzzling why, the few and far between, IFR arrivals would be. The airport can place limitations on their airport by simply requesting your Airports District Office to publish thern in the Airport/Facilty Directory (the green book). Reference your current A/FD and see how La Verne-Brackett Field, and others, enter their airport remarks. Limitations can be published at a later date. The A/FD states that Little River is only attended Wed-Mon 1600-0100Z (8-5 PST), which means an IAP is already limited (NA between 5 pm and 8 am). Even with high minimums based on a RASS from Sonoma Co., the procedure would not be authorized between 11 pm and 5 am, and then only if the pilot could get their altimeter 65 miles away. It would most likely be provided by 0akland Center clearing the piIot for the approach. The primary objective of an ASOS is to provide 24 hour weather. Considering the exorbitant system costs to taxpayers of acquisition, installation, and finally getting it commissioned, why would you even think of restricting such capability? Especially in consideration of the remoteness of Little River. Please keep in mind that the objective of any IAP is to get aircraft safely landed out of weather. The Little River approach would be from the southeast to runway 29. There would be very few missed approaches. Remember the objective. We believe the GPS world be transparent from today's VFR. Again, a local altimeter setting source must be approved by your FSDO and be available to be transmitted on your CTAF/Unicom. frequency 122.7, when a pilot calls in for it. If an air carrier wanted to establish an their own altimeter setting source at the airport, it too, must also be approved in accordance with the AC above and be available on a company frequency. Except for Air Carrier/Commuter airports, where air carriers may have their own weather reporting on company frequencies, we can't recall a situation where someone at a general aviation airport applied for an alternate local altimeter setting source. We cou!d see, however, where an FBO has an operation paying rent on a public funded airport. and because the official atimeter is in the office of someone who is frequently out on business (airport, city, or county), the availability of the altimeter is unreliable, then that FBO may certainly want their own altimeter setting source, or move the airport's altimeter to the FBO by some type of agreement. We can't imagine anyone setting up their ovn weather/altimeter without a proactive airport rnanagers' knowledge. Please recognize that it is the pilots responsibility to obtain a current altimeter setting prior to initiating an IAP. Some of the sample notes on IAP"s are: "Obtain altimeter on CTAF; if not received, procedure is Not Authorized." or, "If local altimeter not received, use Santa Rosa Sonoma Co altimeter setting and increase MDA by 560 ft. If neither received, procedure NA." , or "When local altimeter setting not received, except for operators with approved weather reporting service, procedure is not authorized. We recognize that this can be a difficult process. We would like to make it as easy as possible. Still, it is the local airport operator/sponsor/authority's call. If you do not want a GPS IAP, please let us know and we will close the project. Please don't hesitate to contact me at (310) 725-7124, if you need assistance. Signed: Ronald H. Clenney Airspace Eval. Programs Splst. Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office, LAX FPO ========================================================================== Appendix B - spreadsheet of questions and status ------------------------------------------------ question | status ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1] Impact of radar sharing on Ukiah | verbal report from Les Proctor, airport - Lee's #1 | written data pending ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2] Survey of Little River pilots - Lee's | mailed out by Dave Brewer & #2 | Susan Winding ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3] Survey of other airports - Lee's #3 | FAXed by Lee Edmundson and | Tim Scully ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4] What's a properly trained substitute | FAXed q's to LA FPO for altimeter - Lee #4 | see FAA response letter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5] What are the dates for the weather | questions emailed to Grant Wheeler data in Appendix F - Lee #5 | for research by Jim Goodridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6] What is the proposed "holding | verbal report from Les Proctor, pattern" - Lee's #6 | written data pending ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7] What are the air safety statistics on | Keith Paulson, Lee Edmundson and IFR vs VFR, Day vs Night - Lee #7 | Joel Bornstein are searching the | internet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8] What is the current safety record of | Little River Airport - Lee #8 | Les Proctor will report ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9] Does IFR traffic have landing priority| over VFR traffic - Lee #9 | Les Proctor will report ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10] Will there be times when VFR pilots | can land and weather is below VFR? | Lee #10 | Les Proctor will report ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11] Is there an enforcement procedure | proposed letter to Oakland FAA currently in place for LR airport | discussion by Trey - Lee #11 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12] How will the altimeter setting be | given? Directly or via OAK? Susan's #a | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13] What happens if someone calls for GPS| clearance and no one answers (out |verbal answer from pilots & pumping gas). Pilot continues en route |Les Proctor to LRA. 2nd pilot calls and gets GPS | clearance. There are now two planes | landing at the same time. How does this | work? Susan #b | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14] Clarify with FAA, exactly how this | procedure will work sharing the air |verbal report from Les Proctor, space and time slots with Ukiah. (Ukiah |written data pending has been actively promoting their GPS and| their traffic has increased 10-20% to | date). Does anyone have precedence? | What are holding patterns? Where are | they located? (page 21) - Susan #c | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15] How will this 15 min. time slot | allocation affect take-offs? Will it | make them late into the evening? Susan #d| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16] Visit Ukiah Airport - Once FAA has | answered above questions, visit Ukiah to | be sure they understand ramifications | and to determine their concerns, if any, | and the impact on their airport, if any. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17] Survey all airports on the coast - | Especially those that are LR size and do |FAXed by Lee Edmundson and Tim not have any other type of instrument |Scully approach. In addition to questions on | page 74, add Do they have GPS & hours | of operation; if 24 hours, how are they | providing altimeter setting. If no GPS, | do they plan on getting it (Get list of | all airports and addresses - Trinidad, | Monterey, Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz, | etc) | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18] Survey all Pilots (home based and | transient). Do we have a list of names | mailed out by Dave Brewer & Susan anywhere? Airport Supervisor? Are you | Winding an instrument rated pilot? How often do | you fly into Little River? Is your | primary residence on the Mendocino | Coast? Second Home? Do you have a FAA | approved GPS currently installed? Do | you plan on installing an FAA approved | GPS? If so, when - 1 Yr., 3 Yr., | 5 Yr., When Precision GPS available? | Do you have a hangar at little River? | Would you want a hangar at Little | River? Explanation of how GPS will | change current procedures at the | airport: Do you currently scud run? | If a GPS system is installed, will you | continue to scud run during the hours | the GPS is in operation? Yes No. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19] Enforcement - How can we enforce the | GPS procedure to eliminate scud running | proposed letter to Oakland FAA and the possibility of 2 planes landing | presentation by Trey at the same time? (page 21 &22 - Legal to| scud run between 200 and 500 feet)? | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20] Is Les Procotor certified for reading|verbal response from Tim, Les altimeters? What is involved in getting |and Grant certified? | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21] Clarify ramifications of GPS for IFR | takeoffs | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22] Susan Winding said we need to find | out: how old are the weather data, |questions emailed to Grant where do they come from? How valid is it | Wheeler for research by Jim to use these data to judge the percentage| Goodridge of time GPS will be useful? Grant | Wheeler said that Jim is a | ""sensor guy"", and doesn't usually deal | in ceiling and visibility, which are | special aviation measurements. Lee | Edmundson said we should ask Jim if he | is qualified to comment on aviation | weather. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 23] What is the relationship between | Trey Loy will talk about this Little River Airport and offshore oil? | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================= Appendix C FAR 71.71 (from www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-71.txt) Subpart E--Class E Airspace Sec. 71.71 Class E airspace. Class E Airspace consists of: (a) The airspace of the United States, including that airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48 contiguous states and Alaska, extending upward from 14,500 feet MSL up to, but not including 18,000 feet MSL, and the airspace above FL600, excluding-- (1) The Alaska peninsula west of longitude 160 deg.00'00"W.; and (2) The airspace below 1,500 feet above the surface of the earth. (b) The airspace areas designated for an airport in subpart E of FAA Order 7400.9E (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 71.1) within which all aircraft operators are subject to the operating rules specified in part 91 of this chapter. (c) The airspace areas listed as domestic airspace areas in subpart E of FAA Order 7400.9E (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 71.1) which extend upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth when designated in conjunction with an airport for which an approved instrument approach procedure has been prescribed, or from 1,200 feet or more above the surface of the earth for the purpose of transitioning to or from the terminal or en route environment. When such areas are designated in conjunction with airways or routes, the extent of such designation has the lateral extent identical to that of a Federal airway and extends upward from 1,200 feet or higher. Unless otherwise specified, the airspace areas in the paragraph extend upward from 1,200 feet or higher above the surface to, but not including, 14,500 feet MSL. (d) The Federal airways described in subpart E of FAA Order 7400.9E (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 71.1). (e) The airspace areas listed as en route domestic airspace areas in subpart E of FAA Order 7400.9E (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 71.1). Unless otherwise specified, each airspace area has a lateral extent identical to that of a Federal airway and extends upward from 1,200 feet above the surface of the earth to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. (f) The airspace area listed as offshore airspace areas in subpart E of FAA Order 7400.9E (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 71.1) that are designated in international airspace within areas of domestic radio navigational signal or ATC radar coverage, and within which domestic ATC procedures are applied. Unless otherwise specified, each airspace area extends upward from a specified altitude up to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL. [Amdt. 71-14, 56 FR 65655, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 71-19, 58 FR 12137, Mar. 2, 1993; Amdt. 71-16, 58 FR 15259, Mar. 19, 1993; Amdt. 71-20, 58 FR 36299, July 6, 1993; Amdt. 71-21, 58 FR 44127, Aug. 19, 1993; Amdt. 71-23, 59 FR 43035, Aug. 22, 1994; Amdt. 71-26, 60 FR 47266, Sept. 12, 1995; Amdt. 71-28, 61 FR 48403, Sept. 13, 1996; Amdt. 71-29, 62 FR 52492, Oct. 8, 1997] ============================================================================= Appendix D FAR 91.119 (from www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-91.txt) Sec. 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. ============================================================================= Appendix E FAR 91.126 (from www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-91.txt) Sec. 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace. (a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section. (b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace-- (1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and (2) Each pilot of a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft. (c) Flap settings. Except when necessary for training or certification, the pilot in command of a civil turbojet-powered aircraft must use, as a final flap setting, the minimum certificated landing flap setting set forth in the approved performance information in the Airplane Flight Manual for the applicable conditions. However, each pilot in command has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the pilot's airplane, and may use a different flap setting for that airplane if the pilot determines that it is necessary in the interest of safety. (d) Communications with control towers. Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with Sec. 91.185. [Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65659, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-239, 59 FR 11693, Mar. 11, 1994] ***************************************************************************** Federal Register Note 59 FR 11692, No. 48, Mar. 11, 1994 SUMMARY: This action reinstates the requirement for pilots to establish and maintain two-way radio communications with an operating control tower in Class E and Class G airspace areas. This action also adds a paragraph to Sec. 91.130 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), for simplification and clarification, that allows an aircraft operator to deviate from any provision of Sec. 91.130 under the provisions of an air traffic control (ATC) authorization. This action is necessary to reinstate and clarify certain operating rules that existed prior to the Airspace Reclassification final rule, which became effective September 16, 1993. EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective on March 11, 1994. ============================================================================= Appendix F FAR 91.127 (from www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-91.txt) Sec. 91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace. (a) Unless otherwise required by part 93 of this chapter or unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class E airspace area, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class E airspace area must comply with the requirements of Sec. 91.126. (b) Departures. Each pilot of an aircraft must comply with any traffic patterns established for that airport in part 93 of this chapter. (c) Communications with control towers. Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with Sec. 91.185. [Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65659, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-239, 59 FR 11693, Mar. 11, 1994] ============================================================================= Appendix G FAR 91.151 (from www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-91.txt) Sec. 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. (a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed-- (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. (b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes. ============================================================================= Appendix H FAR 91.153 (from www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-91.txt) Sec. 91.153 VFR flight plan: Information required. (a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing a VFR flight plan shall include in it the following information: (1) The aircraft identification number and, if necessary, its radio call sign. (2) The type of the aircraft or, in the case of a formation flight, the type of each aircraft and the number of aircraft in the formation. (3) The full name and address of the pilot in command or, in the case of a formation flight, the formation commander. (4) The point and proposed time of departure. (5) The proposed route, cruising altitude (or flight level), and true airspeed at that altitude. (6) The point of first intended landing and the estimated elapsed time until over that point. (7) The amount of fuel on board (in hours). (8) The number of persons in the aircraft, except where that information is otherwise readily available to the FAA. (9) Any other information the pilot in command or ATC believes is necessary for ATC purposes. (b) Cancellation. When a flight plan has been activated, the pilot in command, upon canceling or completing the flight under the flight plan, shall notify an FAA Flight Service Station or ATC facility. Sec. 91.157 Special VFR weather minimums. (a) Except as provided in appendix D, section 3, of this part, special VFR operations may be conducted under the weather minimums and requirements of this section, instead of those contained in Sec. 91.155, below 10,000 feet MSL within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport. (b) Special VFR operations may only be conducted-- (1) With an ATC clearance; (2) Clear of clouds; (3) Except for helicopters, when flight visibility is at least 1 statute mile; and (4) Except for helicopters, between sunrise and sunset (or in Alaska, when the sun is 6 degrees or more below the horizon) unless-- (i) The person being granted the ATC clearance meets the applicable requirements for instrument flight under part 61 of this chapter; and (ii) The aircraft is equipped as required in Sec. 91.205(d). (c) No person may take off or land an aircraft (other than a helicopter) under special VFR-- (1) Unless ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile; or (2) If ground visibility is not reported, unless flight visibility is at least 1 statute mile. $Amdt. 91-235, 58 FR 51968, Oct. 5, 1993; 58 FR 57549, Oct. 26, 1993, as amended by Amdt. 91-247, 60 FR 66875, Dec. 27, 1995]