January 16, 2013

Mr. Dennis Roberts

Director, ATO Airspace Services, AJV-1

Orville Wright Bldg. (FOB10A)

800 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Mr. Roberts,

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF NBAA’S PETITION FOR

CLASS E AIRSPACE – DOCKET NO. FAA-2011-0858

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 11.101, the National Business Aviation Association

(NBAA) respectfully requests that you reconsider your denial of our Petition for

Rulemaking, dated December 7, 2012.

Because of an internal coordination problem that existed when NBAA originally filed its

petition for rulemaking, we failed to state the substantial procedural and safety problems

that exist because of the continued existence of large areas of uncontrolled (Class G)

but navigable airspace that exist in the United States. We now offer the following as

rationale for reconsideration:

1. The expanding conversion of airports from VFR to IFR in areas where Class G

airspace exists above 1,200, above ground level (AGL) to as high as 14,449’

mean sea level (MSL) creates a substantial rule-making burden on FAA

airspace specialists. This fact often results in a delay in the issuance of

otherwise certified and flight inspected terminal instrument procedures. U55 and

KBCE, both in Utah, are recent examples of this. In other cases terminal

instrument flight procedures at new IFR airports are issued but the FAA makes

errors by failing to designate sufficient Class E airspace; KCFT in Arizona is a

current example of this. Presently, revised terminal instrument procedures had

to be cancelled at KLKV in Oregon because of the FAA’s failure to designate

Class E airspace for new terminal procedure holding patterns. There are more

instances of similar issues for which the FAA has records at its various airspace

rule-making offices. Both of these types of circumstances adversely affect safety

of flight; in one case delaying the issuance of safer access to IFR airports, and in

the other case unwittingly causing IFR flights in instrument meteorological

conditions to operate without ATC separation from other aircraft.

2. ARTCC minimum instrument altitudes (MIAs) must have minimum operational

altitudes of not less than 14,500’ MSL, in those large swaths of Class G areas

that exist up to 14,449’ MSL (per FAA Order JO 7210.37G). If such airspace

were Class E airspace to 1,200’ AGL, MIAs in controlled airspace could be

substantially lower, in some cases by well over 10,000 feet. These unduly high

MIAs can be unsafe at times when an IFR aircraft (especially one in IMC) must

descend because of pressurization or airframe icing problems. It is unsafe and

unreasonable for the FAA to force an IFR aircraft to depart en route controlled

airspace because the operator encounters icing or pressurization problems that

require a descent to a safer navigable altitude.
3. One component of the NextGen program is random RNAV navigation in airspace

suitable for IFR navigation. However, by maintaining the large Class G airspace

areas that are more than 1,200, agl, the FAA compromises its own modernization

initiative and places an undue burden on operators who wish to navigate

randomly under IFR in mid-level airspace. This lack of airspace action by the

FAA causes a procedural compromise to the NextGen Program.

4. The ATC handbook does not require controllers to advise RNAV equipped IFR

aircraft when they will be entering uncontrolled (Class G) airspace while IFR. If

an operator files random routing the controller handbook states this is an implicit

request to operate in en route uncontrolled airspace. (See FAA Order 7110.65,

Para 4-4-5, Note 1.) This lack of clarity on the part of the 7110.65 has adverse

safety implications for both the FAA at the policy level and for operators. In effect

the FAA is tacitly encouraging IFR en route operations in Class G airspace.

5. This NBAA effort is supported by FAA ATO AJE-31, Safety and Operations

Support. That group has had many discussions internally and with FAA Western

facilities concerning the issue of how to handle Class G airspace. Their position

is Class G airspace gives them a range of regulatory problems and their desire is

to see it replaced with Class E as is in the Eastern U.S.

6. The December 7, 2012 denial letter sets forth three criterion the FAA uses in

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a

petition for rulemaking:

a. The immediacy of the safety or security concerns the petition raises,

b. The priority of other FAA issues, and

c. The resources you have available to address these issues.

We firmly believe we have substantially met the “immediacy of safety or security” criteria.

This issue is of the utmost immediacy because the status quo is unwittingly causing

increased exposure to mid-air collisions for IFR/IMC aircraft operating on NextGen

RNAV random routing while en route at mid or lower altitudes. No issue should receive

any higher priority by the FAA then to assure that IFR operations are contained in

controlled airspace so that ATC separation services will be provided. Separation by

ATC is not provided in Class G en route airspace. The FAA is currently spending

significantly more resources with its present piecemeal program of establishing Class E

airspace for new terminal instrument procedures. Recently, a major piecemeal

implementation of Class E en route airspace was enacted in the Coaldale, Nevada area

at the request of Oakland Center (Docket No. FAA-2012-0705, dated October 23, 2012,

Federal Register November 15, 2012). That one airspace action alone could have,

instead, brought all remaining Class G airspace throughout the United States down to

1,200’ AGL, at the same cost as Docket FAA-2012-0705 and thus prevented the future

expenditure of resources by the FAA to establish new Class E airspace on a periodic

and piecemeal basis.

The regulatory change that NBAA is seeking, and which will satisfy the safety and

procedural issues we have raised in this petition for reconsideration is as follow (our

proposed changes are shown in red).
Enactment of Class E 700-foot agl and surface areas will remain unchanged.

Enactment of Class D, C, and B airspace will remain unchanged by our petition and will

continue to supersede Class E airspace while effective.

14 CFR change proposal:

§ 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 1,200 feet above ground level up to, but not including 18,000 feet MSL, and the

airspace above FL600, excluding—

(1) The Alaska peninsula west of longitude 160°00′00′′ W.; and

(2) The airspace below 1,200 feet above the surface of the earth.

End of 14 CFR 71 language change proposal.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Lamond, Jr

Director, Air Traffic Services & Infrastructure

cc: Ms. Elizabeth Ray, VP Mission Support Services