1
$\begingroup$

When did language like

NOTE: AIRSPACE SVC TIMES INCLUDE ALL ASSOCIATED ARRIVAL EXTENSIONS. Surface area arrival extensions for instrument approach procedures become part of the primary core surface area. These extensions may be either Class D or Class E airspace and are effective concurrent with....

(ital added)

or

NOTE: AIRSPACE SVC TIMES INCLUDE ALL ASSOCIATED ARRIVAL EXTENSIONS. Arrival extensions for instrument approach procedures become part of the primary core surface area. These extensions may be either Class D or Class E airspace and are effective concurrent with...

(ital added)

first appear in the "AIRSPACE" item of the Legend section near the front of the "Airport / Facilities Directory" (now "Chart Supplement") published semiannually by the FAA?

(For a current example of similar text, see page 26 of the January 27 2022 issue of the Chart Supplement for the "Northeast" region -- link to PDF here.)

Edit-- the intent is not simply to find language establishing that the effective times of the "extensions" are simultaneous with the effective times of the adjoined core surface area, but rather to find examples of statements that the extensions become part of the adjoined core surface area. Examples of this language from publications other than the Airport / Facilities Directory are also of interest, so long as they predate the earliest known example of this language in the Airport / Facilities Directory. Similar language appears in the Aeronautical Information Manual (section 3-6-(e)(2)), but wasn't added until the 2016 edition.

$\endgroup$
0

4 Answers 4

5
+1000
$\begingroup$

Earliest I could find is from the Chart Supplement Pacific, 17 May 2001. Section 22 "airspace" has the phrase you seek.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ @quietflyer Happy to help. What are you going to do with the info? It is kind of obscure.) $\endgroup$
    – Pilothead
    Jan 19 at 2:09
  • $\begingroup$ Needless to say this one is a couple of orders of magnitude better of an answer than mine :) $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Jan 19 at 10:33
2
$\begingroup$

This is a dismal answer, but:

Instrument Rating Test Prep 2004, published 2003, contains a paragraph closely matching the one mentioned in the question: "NOTE: AIRPSACE SVC "TIMES" INCLUDE ALL ASSOCIATED EXTENSIONS..."

The partial scan found on the page I linked above matches the formatting of official Airport/Facility Directory Legend -pages.

One can thus conclude that language in questions has been used at least since 2003, and even though the document I linked is not an Airport/Facility Directory, it clearly uses one as a source/example.

Instrument Rating Test Prep 2003, published 2002, does not cite either paragraph mentioned in the question, but although the whole book is most likely scanned into the Google library project, the search may not be able to find all contents reliably. So a definite conclusion cannot be drawn that such language was not used prior to 2002.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks-- examples from sources other than the A/F D would indeed be of some interest to me too, but I'm really seeking examples of language that states that the extensions "become part of" the adjoined core surface areas, not just that they are in effect at the same times. But I've got a hunch that this is the best answer we're going to see-- have also put out some inquiries to some other pilot communities; someone may have some old back issues of the A/F D stashed somewhere-- $\endgroup$ Jan 18 at 14:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sure some of the senior members of ASE have these documets stacked in their garages, just gotta lure them here 😃 $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Jan 18 at 18:59
1
$\begingroup$

Here is a source that establishes the use of the specific phrase you mention coincident with the 'airspace redesign'. It seems to clarify the timeframe you seek but is not in the publications you specify, so I put it here separately. The document deals with charting implications of the ambiguity you describe.

enter image description here

The front page of the document for reference.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Short version-- the document is a specific example of the usage of this phrase in printed materials, so that's definitely the sort of thing I'm looking for, but it doesn't happen down to narrow down the time window as to when this phrase or a similar phrase first appeared in the Chart Supplement /AFD (or any other printed material of any kind), compared to what previous answers (including your own) have already established. It appears to me that it can't be taken as evidence that the phrase was actually used in printed materials immediately after the Sept 16 1993 airspace re-designation. $\endgroup$ Jan 25 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @quietflyer Sorry I didn't read all your materials. I could delete this answer unless you want the comments seen. $\endgroup$
    – Pilothead
    Jan 25 at 14:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quietflyer The other answer is better as it is actually helpful.) I found this looking through the congressional record. $\endgroup$
    – Pilothead
    Jan 27 at 4:11
0
$\begingroup$

Content stating that the surface-level Class E (or D) extensions ("arrival extensions") "become part of" the adjoined core surface-level controlled airspace ("primary core surface area") whenever the core surface-level controlled airspace is in effect, first appeared in the issues of the Airport / Facilities Directory effective beginning May 25, 1995.

The exact text in the volume for the Northeastern region for this date reads "NOTE: AIRSPACE SVC EFF TIMES INCLUDE ALL ASSOCIATED EXTENSIONS. Arrival extensions for instrument approach procedures become part of the primary core surface area. These extensions may be either Class D or Class E airspace and are effective concurrent with the times of the primary core surface area. See CLASS AIRSPACE in the Airman's Information Manual for further details"

The last sentence apparently contains a typo (missing letter/s) and was likely intended to read "See CLASS E AIRSPACE..." or "See CLASS D/E AIRSPACE..." (Note that this apparent typo was still present as late as 2001 -- see https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/91352/34686 )

The previous volumes of the A/FD, effective beginning March 30, 1995, contain no content pertaining to these surface-level Class E (or D) "extensions".

Scans of the relevant pages of the Northeastern region volumes effective beginning March 30 1995 and May 25 1995 are attached below:

1Cover033095.jpg 2AirspaceLegend033095.jpg 3Cover052595.jpg 4AirspaceLegend052595.jpg

This resource may be viewed at the National Archives in College Park MD -- see https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2068505

The fact that this note appeared in the Airport/ Facility directory less than two years after the September 16 1993 "alphabet" airspace re-designation -- when the surface-level Class E "extensions" were first introduced-- would seem to shed some light on the FAA's original intentions as to whether any FARs should ever be considered to apply to the surface-level Class E "extensions" but not the core "surface areas", or vice versa. This would seem to have some bearing on the following ASE questions:

Does FAR 91.155c apply to class E surface extensions? (FAR 91.155c prohibits VFR operations below a 1000' cloud ceiling in certain airspace, unless conducted under a Special VFR (SVFR) clearance.)

Does an SVFR clearance extend to Echo surface extensions?

In the US, in actual practice, workload permitting, will ARTC facilities grant SVFR clearance for surface-level Class E "extensions" (E4 airspace)?

Which parts of class E airspace can an ultralight (part 103) fly in without prior ATC authorization?

What is the primary reason that the non-towered airports ACV, TVL, SGU, BIH, and SIT/PASI have E4 extensions to E2 airspace?

What indication has the FAA given that phrases like "surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" do or don't include E4 "extensions"?

This content in the AF/D (now Chart Supplement) would also appear to bear on the question of whether or not a Small Unmanned Aircraft System (e.g. model airplane, quadcopter, "drone") may be operated in the surface-level Class E "extensions" with no prior authorization, under the terms of either FAR Part 107 (specifically 107.41), or 49 U.S. Code § 44809 - "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft". Note that the "extensions" are not currently included in the "gridded airspace" indicating the areas where prior authorization is required for SUAS operations on the LAANC map for automated on-line authorization of SUAS operations. Several FAA issuances including the Gardner memo (scroll down to "Text of the FAA Memorandum Clarifying Class E Airspace"), and this power-point document from an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector, take the viewpoint that prior authorization is indeed not required to operate a SUAS in surface-level Class E "extensions", under the terms of either FAR Part 107 or the "Recreational Exception", even though such authorization is unquestionably required in the adjoined core Class E or Class D "surface areas" that include the airport itself. This would seem to be inconsistent with the note in the A/F D (now Chart Supplement) that is the subject of the present answer.

The best (and most widely accepted) interpretation of the regulations appears to be that whenever the "extensions" are in effect, then from a regulatory standpoint they should be treated just like a core Class E "surface area" that actually includes the airport for which it is designated. In the specific context of a Special VFR clearance, the most conservative approach would be to assume that FAR 91.155c's prohibition on flying VFR below a cloud ceiling that is lower than 1000' AGL (without a Special VFR clearance) does include surface-level Class E "extensions", but at the same time always get explicit confirmation from the issuing controller before assuming that any given Special VFR clearance should in fact be understood to include a surface-level Class E "extension".1

Footnotes:

  1. The lack of a universally shared viewpoint on this issue throughout the FAA, and the resulting need for pilots to clarify with the issuing controller or controlling agency whether or not a Special VFR clearance should be understood to include surface-level Class E "extensions", was emphasized by a high-level FAA staffer during a recent (October 2021) meeting of the FAA's Aeronautical Charting Group, in discussion around a peripherally-related agenda item. His comment included the statement "Pilots have failed checkrides due to the ambiguity around this issue."
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Potential new question: in what sense do the "extensions" become part of the "primary core surface area"? If the primary core surface area is Class D, surely no one would claim that the extensions also become Class D. But it in light of this content in the Chart Supplement, it would seem hard to argue that any FARs that refer to a "surface area" should not also include the "extensions" (as long as the FARs do not specify a Class D surface area.) $\endgroup$ Mar 28 at 20:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.