Class D airspace violation

[MooneyMitch]

Recently a fellow Mooney pilot flew to Phoenix-Mesa Gateway [KIWA] Gateway using flight following radar service.  ATC flight following lead him directly down into KIWA airspace, within 2 miles of the airport.  At that point, ATC directed the Mooney pilot to "contact tower".   The pilot immediately contacted tower and was informed by the controller that he [the Mooney pilot] had violated their Class D airspace.

Once on the ground, the pilot was instructed to call the tower, which he did.  What followed were unfortunate heated discussion between the controller, the controller's supervisor and the pilot.  The controller supervisor told the pilot that he would be written up via a formal violation procedure.

After further discussions via phone, and an overnight cooling period, the ATC folks decided to drop the issue completely and told the pilot they [ATC] would not file the violation.  The Mooney pilot did however, file the NASA form, just in case. 

Here is the conflicting information:

1]    Under the Air Traffic Manual, 7110.65, paragraph 2-1-16, it states that "The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility."

2]   FAR 91.129[1] states "(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace."

In discussions with a couple of CFII's along with discussions with our own local tower personnel, I've received conflicting opinions.   Your opinions please! 

[jlunseth]

I am not a CFI nor an FAA lawyer, but I don't see a conflict with those two provisions you cite.  The FAR provision does not create a conflict, because when you are on with VFR flight following, you are on with ATC.  I was taught that the tower already knows you are coming, i.e. that ATC has arranged to clear you into the airspace.  If they have not cleared you, they will say "remain outside 'x' airspace."  That said, it always makes me nervous to be directed into airspace I know I need a clearance for (in this case, just establishment of two-way radio communication), and I have not expressly received that clearance, so I will always ask ATC if I have the clearance while I am on VFR flight following.  You want to hear "Cleared to enter 'x' airspace" from someone. 

ATC makes mistakes.  Obviously they neglected to contact the tower and tell them you were coming.  You would think the tower would get that you were under the control of a radar facility, because you would have been squawking the discrete code ATC gave you, and that code would show up on the tower's screen along with your incoming radar blip.

[Guest Anonymous]

This statement was part of an AOPA communication couse last year that is part of the WINGS program.  They claim it is in section 5 of the AIM, but I couldn't find it.

"The radar controller as part of FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control paragraph 2-16b is required to coordinate with other ATC facilities such as a tower your passage through their areas. You are not expected to obtain your own authorization since it would detract from your ability to maintain radio contact with your primary facility. However, if you have a specific need to contact a facility such as flight watch, FSS, or tower it is appropriate to request a 30-second frequency change for such contact. You must report back on frequency when through."

RFB

[piperpainter]

I have to agree with SagemGuy. I recall being at a seminar last year with Seattle Approach/Center and they mentioned that they are required to hand you off if your transitioning that airspace. If they cancel you can contact the tower its cause they are most likely being lazy or don't have the time to work you in. But they shouldn't clear you through the airspace/put you in it then have you cancel and call in to the tower. If your landing there they should hand you off well before 2nm from the field.

[hansel]

This is unfortunate, and I would guess it happens quite a bit with VFR traffic (IFR traffic is likely protected in the rules by the last issued clearance).

I agree that it looks as if the ATC folks didn’t follow the guidance of section 2-1-16( in the ATC controller manual, which is probably why they conceded in not pushing a violation. But with respect to pilot deviations, I wouldn’t rely on ATC’s controller manual, but rather the Laws/Rules (and their interpretations) intended for airmen as the final word (and I think the FAA/courts would rely on them as well). The ATC controller manual supports this by also stating:

 

“NOTE- Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable

regulations regardless of the application of any procedure

or minima in this order.”

 

So, sadly, I think it’s soley the pilots responsibility to follow FAR 91.129[1], which now makes me upset. Filing IFR sometimes makes life easier i guess.

[Larry]

Even though ATC is tasked with coordinating airspace prior to the pilot entering, that is in conflict with the AIM and potentially the FARs.  If you read the AIM paragraph 3-2-1 it says:

"VFR Requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR Part 91.)"

While this is in conflict with the 7110.65 (ATC handbook), I would hate to be arguing the fact in front of a judge or NTSB appeal board.

The approach controller may have terminated the pilot at 5 miles, by the time he dialed in the tower frequency and contacted the tower, it may have been much closer, considering how fast our steeds are.

Larry

 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Mitch

Once on the ground, the pilot was instructed to call the tower, which he did.  What followed were unfortunate heated discussion between the controller, the controller's supervisor and the pilot.  The controller supervisor told the pilot that he would be written up via a formal violation procedure.

[Cruiser]

I would like to know more about the reason the tower and supervisor wanted to issue a violation? What was the tower expecting when the pilot informed them he was in communication with ATC? Was the pilot operating under his own navigation? The OP said "ATC flight following lead him directly down into KIWA airspace" was he given vectors? A route to fly? The reason I ask is if ATC was providing guidance they are responsibile and the pilot is already communicating with the appropriate ATC facility therefore meeting both FAR and AIM requirements of Class C and Class D airspace. (you still need clearance for Class

[Guest Anonymous]

Quote: Cruiser

I would like to know more about the reason the tower and supervisor wanted to issue a violation? What was the tower expecting when the pilot informed them he was in communication with ATC? Was the pilot operating under his own navigation? The OP said "ATC flight following lead him directly down into KIWA airspace" was he given vectors? A route to fly? The reason I ask is if ATC was providing guidance they are responsibile and the pilot is already communicating with the appropriate ATC facility therefore meeting both FAR and AIM requirements of Class C and Class D airspace. (you still need clearance for Class

[Cruiser]

In order to get flight following the VFR aircraft must be in radar contact. Once ATC issues a discrete transponder code the aircraft is essentially on a VFR flight plan. If the ATC facility cannot continue to offer flight following services the aircraft will be contacted and informed that radar service are terminated and squawk VFR

[flyguy241]

Somthing similar happened to my uncle and I as we flew into Chandler in the Phoenix area a few years back.  He was in contact with Phoenix approach (VFR) when they handed him off to the tower, upon landing at Chandler, the Chandler tower informed him he had violated class D airspace (I believe Phoenix Mesa Gateway).  They asked who cleared him across that airspace and he indicated Phoenix approach and they dropped the issue.  I just wonder if you ask approach the question "am I cleared into class delta airspace" and they indicate "yes"  are you then absolved of any discrepancies between the two controling entities? 

[MooneyMitch]

This indeed is a very interesting topic and all the responses are indicating so.   For ourselves personally, normally our tactic under these circumstances is;

On flight follow [VFR] as we approach our destination Class D airspace, if we have not been directed to contact tower prior to entering the Class D zone, we state "field in sight" and that prompts the controller to then announce to us "contact tower".   So far, so good.

[LuvFlying]

Very interesting discussion. I always thought this was very clear cut. I guess I've learned that it's not!

I was always under the impression that I was responsible for getting my clearance. I was NOT automatically cleared via any space using flight following.  Therefore about 10 miles out or so, I always ask "am I cleared".

If we feel that's repetitive, unnecessary, so be it.

[MooneyMitch]

Roger that, what ever works, eh?

[Guest Anonymous]

I think there is enough discussion here that I am going to raise this issue (respectfully, of course) at an upcoming FAAST saftey meeting scheduled here locally early next month.  I emailed a request to get on the agenda, so we will see what happens.

RFB

[MooneyMitch]

My Mooney friend that actually had the situation is brining the subject up at his next FAAST meething as well.   Definately worth discussion. 

[KLRDMD]

Quote: Mitch

My Mooney friend that actually had the situation is brining the subject up at his next FAAST meething as well.   Definately worth discussion. 

[MooneyMitch]

No not in AZ.  He was just visiting that area.  He is located in CA San Francisco bay area.  His FAAST meeting is coming up and he's trying to get this on the agenda. 

Just a suggestion..........Sign up for your topic as soon as possible.  Take both documents along for discussion too.   Please let us all know how all goes. 

[Guest Anonymous]

Quote: KLRDMD

Is he in AZ ? Which meeting ? I'm a FAASTeam member through the SDL FSDO and will be speaking at the February 13 meeting but I think that's a CFI workshop.

[MooneyMitch]

Quote: SagemGuy

Is he in AZ ? Which meeting ? I'm a FAASTeam member through the SDL FSDO and will be speaking at the February 13 meeting but I think that's a CFI workshop.

[Guest Anonymous]

Quote: SagemGuy

I think there is enough discussion here that I am going to raise this issue (respectfully, of course) at an upcoming FAAST saftey meeting scheduled here locally early next month.  I emailed a request to get on the agenda, so we will see what happens.

RFB

[Flybeech21]

Quote: Cruiser

I would like to know more about the reason the tower and supervisor wanted to issue a violation? What was the tower expecting when the pilot informed them he was in communication with ATC? Was the pilot operating under his own navigation? The OP said "ATC flight following lead him directly down into KIWA airspace" was he given vectors? A route to fly? The reason I ask is if ATC was providing guidance they are responsibile and the pilot is already communicating with the appropriate ATC facility therefore meeting both FAR and AIM requirements of Class C and Class D airspace. (you still need clearance for Class

[KJATCt]

As an Air Traffic Controller (I work at an approach control) I would tell you that the approach controller should have obtained a class d "clearance" from the tower for you. They can get out of this by terminating radar service prior to you hitting the delta. How far out side the delta and if you have time to call the tower is another matter. If in doubt about any clearance IFR or VFR ask. "Approach am I cleared into/through the delta airspace?" that will clear it up. The guys at IWA are contractors that work for SERCO not FAA. I had a friend who worked there and said those guys were hard on pilots. When I go to the PHX area I land falcon (FFZ) never have had a bad attitude there.

When in a conflict with controllers keep it professional, if you did wrong own up to it and 9 times out of 10 it will be dropped.

 

Hope this helps,

James

[MooneyMitch]

Thank you James.  Your personal experience is valuable.  I agree with having the proper attitude too.  I suppose that can be on a case by case basis, depending on how one is approached by the tower folks or ATC when a situation arrised.   regardless, keep your cool though if at all possible.   With the NASA report filed on this incident, hopefully there will be some invesigation into a bad situation at KIWA with their rapport with approach control. 

We have a contractor tower at SMX and they are superb in everyway.

[PilotBob]

Pilot Bob here, I’m the person who Mitch wrote about regarding the class D airspace violation. I’m sorry for not responding sooner but I needed to do more research on this matter. I also apologize for the lengthiness of this narrative.

 

I was flying from Big Bear, CA (L35) to Phoenix, AZ, Mesa Gateway (KIWA) with flight following. When I was handed off to Phoenix Approach I told the controller I would descend and remain clear of Class Bravo for landing Gateway. He acknowledged and never said another word to me till I was about 2 miles inside of Class D Gateway. His call to me was “remain on present squawk code, contact tower”. I contacted Gateway tower and was told to “turn right and exit their airspace”. As I cleared their airspace they called and asked “what were my intentions” and I replied “to land”. The controller told me I had violated their airspace by not being in radio contact with them prior to entering their airspace and they were in the middle of an emergency. I told them I was handed off by Phoenix approach. They asked me if I was IFR or VFR and I responded VFR. They then told me we’ll take care of this on the ground.

 

On the ground I called tower and right away they had an attitude, was rude and wouldn’t give me a chance to say anything. When I finally got a word in the person I was talking with said he was thru with me and he was turning me over to his supervisor and I was going to be written up. When the supervisor came on at least he was a lot calmer and more polite. This allowed for a two-way conversation about this situation. Even though I kept insisting it was not my fault, that I considered it a hand off he was adamant that I was wrong. He warned me that they had written up many pilots in the past for this same situation, that Phoenix Approach had done this to them in the past. I asked, don’t you think then that you have a problem with Phoenix Approach? He then volunteered that since it was an emergency they were going to talk with them. He said they would not write me up and at that point I thought it best to just shut up and get out of there.

 

The next morning I decided I wanted to talk with Phoenix Approach and since the only phone # I had was Gateway tower I called to ask for Approach’s #. The person answering the phone was the supervisor I talked with the night before. He said he was just about to call me, that they had talked with Phoenix approach and he told me I was not wrong. I thanked him but I still wanted the phone # as I wanted to talk with and file a complaint with Quality Assurance. He assured me that they were going to continue to pursue this because of the emergency that was going on when I called in. I was fine with that and just dropped the matter.

 

Thinking about this whole thing I really felt like it was entrapment at it’s best. How in the world could a controller allow me to enter class D airspace without letting the tower know I was there. If the controller had done his job he would have known they were having an emergency and vectored me away till it was over.

 

Thanks to Mitch, he talked with his friends in his tower and they also told him I was not wrong and gave him a reference to the Controller Information Manuel #7110.65, paragraph 2-1-16 ( and especially the NOTE following. In the interest of space I’ll not quote it but if your interested I found it on the web by doing a search of the Manuel #.

 

I have since attended a FAAST meeting where we (local pilots) met with the tower and approach personnel. I presented what happened and they also agreed I was not wrong. However, they had some interesting things to say. Yes, they do make mistakes and they felt the controller had forgotten me. They also said to never be afraid to query a controller, don’t be afraid to clarify a situation. You can be sure that in the future I will be doing this. They also told me that Gateway was a contract tower and their personnel are not trained as well as an FAA tower and, they have a reputation for being hard and rude to pilots.

I also filed a NASA form the next day.