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) om ni-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 navigati on 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 tim e 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 codifi ed in part 93 subpart G as a SFRA.

The petitioner points out that the visual meteor ological 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. Secti on 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 of3

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 di sagreed 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 navi gation 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 naviga tion 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