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 ) T h e A l a s k a p e n i n s u l a w e s t o f l o n g i t u d e 1 6 0 ° 0 0 ′ 0 0 ′′ W

. ; a n d

(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