ATA-09-352-P 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

AIRSPACE USERS WORKING 

GROUP Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0427 

 

for an amendment to § 93.95(d) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

By letter dated July 25, 2009, Mr. Jack Kenton, Co-Chairman, Southern California Airspace 

Users Working Group (SCAUWG), 835 Dune Street, El Segundo, CA 90245, petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of aircraft operators who have a need to 

transit the Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA), for rulemaking to amend 

§ 93.95(d) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The rulemaking would permit 

operators to operate between the shoreline and the 405 freeway, instead of on the Santa 

Monica (SMO) very high frequency (VHF) omni-directional range (VOR) 132° radial. 

The petitioner requests an amendment to following regulation:

Section 93.95(d) prescribes that unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no 

person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in 

§ 93.93 unless the operation is conducted in accordance with the following procedures: 

(d) The pilot shall operate on the Santa Monica very high frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) 132° radial. 
2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

In denying the original petition for rulemaking, the petitioner contends the FAA erred in its 

statement of the “intent” of the navigation requirements under § 93.95, and the FAA did not 

consider the issue of safe air operations required in today’s airspace. 

The petitioner argues that its request would reduce the probability of a mid-air collision in the 

airspace over Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The petitioner requests that 

§ 93.95(d) be amended to require the pilot to operate between the shoreline and the I-405 

freeway, and that the SMO VOR 132° radial may be used as a guide to visual navigation. 

After the Cerritos accident in August of 1986, a time when visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft 

could not fly across LAX, the Administrator created an ad hoc advisory panel to provide 

guidance for a route across LAX. The route was created as a Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) and subsequently codified in part 93 subpart G as a SFRA. 

The petitioner points out that the visual meteorological conditions (VMC)/VFR nature of the 

procedure was designed to enable flight without reference to instruments and to provide a 

greater level of safety than the original "corridor." The latter was accomplished with altitude 

separation to avoid head-on traffic. Section 93.95(a) requires the flight be conducted under 

VFR and in compliance with § 91.155(a), and § 93.95(b) requires that an aircraft be 

transponder equipped per § 91.215(b). 

The petitioner states that requiring everyone to operate on a single radial when there is so 

wide a defined space unnecessarily raises the statistical probability of an aircraft collision. 

According to the petitioner, statistics show that there are more midair collisions in VMC than 

there are in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and weather with poor visibility. 

The petitioner argues that the LAX SFRA is not an airport destination as in most of the midair 

statistics, but it is similar in that, instead of maneuvering to enter a downwind leg, aircraft 

will be maneuvering to join a specific radial. 

The petitioner also states that while most aircraft flying in this area have a VOR navigation 

receiver, there is no regulatory requirement that an aircraft flying VFR through the LAX 

SFRA to have a VOR receiver. The petitioner further states that the rule provides that the 

pilot must be VFR, a condition in which pilotage is the primary method of navigation. 

The petitioner believes that no one is aware of an operational benefit to having every aircraft 

on the 132° radial. The SCAUWG believes that the current requirement confuses neophyte 

pilots and increases the risk of midair collision. The petitioner contends the collision risk is 

significantly mitigated by laterally spreading the transiting aircraft (i.e., by removing the 

requirement for all pilots to be on a single radial). 

Lastly, the petitioner encloses with this request for reconsideration letters from three persons 

who were intimately involved in the creation of the original Los Angeles SFAR. Each of 
3

them stated that the concept of using a radial of the SMO VOR was suggested as a guide 

rather than as a requirement. The advisory committee planned for a visual operation. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has reconsidered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials for an 

amendment to § 93.95(d). The petitioner contends the FAA made an important factual error in 

denying the original petition by misstating the intent of the navigation requirements under § 

93.95.1

 

In the final rule for SFAR 51-1, the FAA responded to comments and recommendations 

regarding reopening a VFR corridor. The FAA disagreed with reopening a VFR corridor but 

“developed an alternative to the VFR corridor that it believes will be safer than the corridor 

and will meet the needs of the users for a convenient north/south route.”2

 The FAA intended 

to limit VFR operations to the SMO 132° radial when the SFRA was established after 

consideration and rejection of the recommendation for a wider corridor. 

The purpose of establishing the SFRA was to create a corridor for “low/slow” VFR aircraft to 

transit the Class B airspace without having to obtain an air traffic control (ATC) clearance or 

authorization. In addition to the requirement to operate on the SMO 132° radial, operators 

may not exceed a maximum indicated airspeed of 140 knots. The requirements maintain an 

appropriate level of safety for all aircraft operating within this area. 

The requirement for operators to navigate using the SMO 132° radial results in ATC 

receiving precise navigation information. While operating via the SMO 132o radial, aircraft 

remain within the center of the corridor and do not fly a random route through the corridor. 

This is critical for ATC, as the controllers use the adjacent SMO 125o radial for routing 

instrument flight rules traffic in the vicinity of the SFRA corridor. Furthermore, ATC uses 

the SMO 132° radial as a reference for establishing and maintaining separation. Having 

aircraft fly a random route through the corridor would adversely impact ATC operations in 

the immediately adjacent area. 

Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with the petitioner’s contention that there is no requirement 

for aircraft to be equipped with VOR navigation equipment. Because § 93.95(d) requires 

navigation on the SMO 132o radial if operating within the SFRA, there is an implicit 

requirement to be equipped for such navigation even though the FAA does not stipulate the 

type of navigation equipment required. 

For these reasons, the FAA concludes that accepting the petitioner’s proposed amendment 

would undermine the safety objectives accomplished by the § 93.95 requirements. 

 

1 See 14 CFR § 11.101(b).

2

 53 FR 3910, 3810-11 (Feb. 9, 1988). 
4

The FAA’s Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I decline to initiate a rulemaking to amend § 93.95(d). 

Therefore, in accordance with § 11.101 and pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 

§§ 106(f), 40103, and 40113, the petition for reconsideration by the Southern California 

Airspace Users Working Group is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 6, 2016. 

/s/ 

Michael P. Huerta 

Administrator