Two too close for comfort.

JohnnyR said:

Spread the word!

We’re all in this together.

Click to expand...

Johnny,

Here is the pertinent REGULATION:

§93.61 General rules: Lake Hood segment.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft at an altitude between 1,200 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL
in that portion of this segment lying north of the midchannel of Knik Arm.
(b) Each person operating an airplane within this segment (except that part described in para*
graph (a) of this section) shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 600 feet MSL until
maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent

What you are citing is not “regulatory”. The AFD, in this case the Alaska Supplement, is non regulatory, except for information therein which is specifically formalized in regulation. These are “recommended” procedures. The admonition to depart at 2200 feet is a “recommendation” to try to deconfliction inbound and outbound traffic. But there is no legal requirement to follow that guidance.

The airspace parameters, on the other hand are described in regulation.

Now, if you hit someone while not following that guidance, and hit someone, the NTSB is going to say you weren’t following “Good Practice”

MTV

The added 200’ to allow clearance between me and the descending F-22s? I’ll take it.

Not long ago the outbound altitude was 700’. No wheel guys I know used that. We all used to use the boat hull in and out, too. Now we use the boat or Pt MacKenzie for separation. It’s still a rodeo on busy days. To the east is more limited. But until today I didn’t know the Peanut Farm arrival was no longer. Things change.

That's an ineffectual distinction, Mike. Regulatory or not - you are to fly it as published. When contacting Anchorage Approach or Lake Hood, you are typically told "Expect X arrival or departure" and that is what they expect you to fly upon approach or departure. Call up the FSDO and tell them you intend to fly at 1,000 inbound from now on regardless of assigned procedure because it's your right based off the regs and see where that gets you. You don't get to reinvent the procedure because the regs don't specify it to as specific of an altitude.

A gentleman inadvertently posted some incorrect info ("Inbound for the water or the strip, when you enter the north edge of Lake Hood segment until mid channel your supposed to be below 1200 or above 2000"). We're not supposed to be below 1,200; we're supposed to be right at 1,200' with our altimeter already set to Lake Hood's reading (we did note the ATIS info and reported having that when we contacted Lake Hood ATC, correct? Can't tell you how many times someone calls in with, he says in his best pilot voice, "I've got the numbers." What the rest of us hear is "I didn't actually listen to and note my altimeter setting," which is why the immediate response from ATC is "Confirm you have information X?"

Lack of adherence to that seemingly minor point of being at 1,200' with the proper altimeter setting can whittle away at an already small buffer separating us from a loud noise and death.

And that's what this is about.

I've been wondering that all afternoon, do the FAR's trump the supplement when they aren't in agreement.

You guys are mixing arguments. North of the north shore below 1400’ is uncontrolled. That’s where Hood and Merrill traffic mix. That’s different than heading east since you’re in controlled airspace until past Muldoon. Johnny’s story happened in controlled airspace while the near miss in the original post is outside of controlled airspace. Different problems. I hear guys transition through Hood to the east and I’ve never heard a controller tell them to use 900’. That’s kind of interesting in itself.

JohnnyR said:

That's an ineffectual distinction, Mike. Regulatory or not - you are to fly it as published. When contacting Anchorage Approach or Lake Hood, you are typically told "Expect X arrival or departure" and that is what they expect you to fly upon approach or departure. Call up the FSDO and tell them you intend to fly at 1,000 inbound from now on regardless of assigned procedure because it's your right based off the regs and see where that gets you. You don't get to reinvent the procedure because the regs don't specify it to as specific of an altitude.

A gentleman inadvertently posted some incorrect info ("Inbound for the water or the strip, when you enter the north edge of Lake Hood segment until mid channel your supposed to be below 1200 or above 2000"). We're not supposed to be below 1,200; we're supposed to be right at 1,200' with our altimeter already set to Lake Hood's reading (we did note the ATIS info and reported having that when we contacted Lake Hood ATC, correct? Can't tell you how many times someone calls in with, he says in his best pilot voice, "I've got the numbers." What the rest of us hear is "I didn't actually listen to and note my altimeter setting," which is why the immediate response from ATC is "Confirm you have information X?"

Lack of adherence to that seemingly minor point of being at 1,200' with the proper altimeter setting can whittle away at an already small buffer separating us from a loud noise and death.

And that's what this is about.

Click to expand...

Jonny,

Now you’re mixing metaphors. ATC clearances ALWAYS have the force of regulation. But the SUPPLEMENT “supplements” the information provided in the Airman’s Information Manual, which is NOT regulatory.

But, you are absolutely correct, if an ATC Specialist gives you a clearance, you’re expected to abide by it, unless you have a compelling reason not to.

MTV

I'm talking about the whole deal. Let's keep tracking on safety.

A typical Lake Hood ops scenario nowadays goes like this: Upon contact of the 24-hrs ATC serving Lake Hood's 24-hrs tower for both departure and arrival, one of the Alaska Chart Supplement (ACS) procedures is usually referenced and, if the pilot accepts, it's then assigned by ATC. There is then a "contract" between the controllers and the pilot.
You don't have to accept the procedure when queried or directed, but then you are typically walked in or out by the controllers who subsequently use the same altitudes and landmarks as published in the procedures in the ACS. Either way there are set and expected altitudes and positions.

The issue of it being "regulatory" or not shouldn't be the issue here. Most of the close calls in that airspace are a result of folks deviating from expected altitudes or positions that were detailed in the ACS procedures. Why wouldn't you want to be safer going in or out of there?

In my case, the offending pilot was assigned and accepted the "Tudor Overpass Departure," and then during his departure abruptly left both the assigned altitude and positioning, putting him in direct conflict with me.

In the other example, which was discussing "West Route" arrivals, the issue is that "below 1,200" as StalledOut rightfully cited from the FAR's, could mean anything - it could be 1,000', or 900', or 800', etc. My intent on bringing that example to light is to prevent a pilot from reading this thread and deciding that arriving "below 1,200" (per the regs but potentially in conflict with an accepted and more detailed ACS procedure) allowed them pick 900'. They'd then be flying right at departing traffic - most of whom would be following the procedure to fly outbound at 900' and would be expecting the inbound pilots to be at 1,200' (not somewhere "below").

Deconflicting these types of set-ups in all of the Lake Hood sectors and making the ATC-pilot exchange more efficient is primarily why the ACS procedures were written.
Hold up! What are we arguing about?

I fly out of Merrill and you hear ATC chewing out people all the time for not flying the “x” departure or arrival correctly or not being where their supposed to be. (Does this happen at LHD often cause this thread makes it sound like it’s a free for all.) It ain’t just the student pilots getting corrected either. More than once that gal in Merrill tower has been heard telling folks “ You specifically asked for the xx departure so I assumed you read the SUPPLEMENT to correctly fly it. I shouldn’t have to talk you through it.” I personally avoid Lake Hood, but once everyone clears either the Merrill or Hood segment and frequency change( to whatever the hell frequency you choose) is approved is where I get nervous. That powerline bend area can be a rats nest.

ANC/MRI/LHD has almost triple the traffic volume of many class B terminal areas in the L48. I agree, we all need to tighten up and keep an eye out, because it sure would be annoying to deal with class B up here (it would probably take a midair involving a 121 pax carrier or cargo widebody for that to happen, let's hope it doesn't).

stewartb said:

But until today I didn’t know the Peanut Farm arrival was no longer. Things change.

Click to expand...

Wait, what?! Man, when I was a 21 year old, that approach was the only reason I knew what the Peanut Farm was.

I did my training with Tom Wardleigh flying out of ANC International. On my first flight we took off across the inlet. We talked through the altitude limitations in our preflight discussion, but come on - as a first-flight pilot my mind and eyes were all over the place - except out the window. About 30 seconds into the flight, Tom slammed the yoke forward and I looked up as we descended to see an F-15 right above me. I'm sure we had a few hundred feet of separation, but that moment was a serious eye opener regarding the importance of airspace rules.

And honestly, now that I primarily fly in the backcountry and am based in Birchwood, I mostly just avoid Anchorage airspace at all costs. If I'm flying to Homer, I divert through Ship Creek to Indian just to skip Anchorage. I'd rather add 10 minutes to my flight than deal with the airspace that I am no longer familiar with. If I need to fly into Merrill for some reason, I'll review the procedures, but mostly I'll just go around, thank you very much.

stewartb said:

The added 200’ to allow clearance between me and the descending F-22s? I’ll take it.

Not long ago the outbound altitude was 700’. No wheel guys I know used that. We all used to use the boat hull in and out, too. Now we use the boat or Pt MacKenzie for separation. It’s still a rodeo on busy days. To the east is more limited. But until today I didn’t know the Peanut Farm arrival was no longer. Things change.

Click to expand...

The Peanut Farm Arrival was my introduction to Part 93. I worked in Kodiak, which is a different universe actually. I had to take a Cub on floats to ANC. ANC weather was bad, but Kodiak and the Barrens were good, so I launched, planning to spend a night on the Kenai if need be. Turned out ANC was IFR the next day. Day three, the vis was good but really low ceilings. I headed north.
it turned out that the brand new Part 91 rules had gone into effect the day before. Word of that didn’t reach Kodiak, or I just missed it (most likely).

So, at the Forelands, I called Approach inbound, at 500 feet. ANC had just gone VFR. Controller instructed “N720, Roger, fly the Peanut Farm Arrival.” Silence on my part…..”Umm, Approach, I’m not familiar with the Peanut Farm Arrival.”

Approach: “N720, are you familiar with The Peanut Farm?” “Umm, no” (And feeling really dumb about then.).
”Roger that, the Peanut Farm is a bar, near the corner of the New Seward Highway and…..”. A pause, then: “N720, do you know where Lake Hood is?”. “Affirmative”. “N720, proceed direct Lake Hood….I don’t know what I’m doing…you’re the only VFR traffic in the Basin.”

I did get a copy of 93 and read it before I went home, though.

MTV

StalledOut’s query and your declaration made me go back to the regs. Am I reading this correctly in that Part 93 spells it out clearly and the ACS pub procedures might be considered compulsory? First time I noticed this section!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/93.57

§ 93.57 General rules: All segments. (b) Each person operating an airplane within the Anchorage, Alaska Terminal Area shall conform to the flow of traffic depicted on the appropriate aeronautical charts.

mvivion said:

Johnny,

Here is the pertinent REGULATION:

§93.61 General rules: Lake Hood segment.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft at an altitude between 1,200 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL
in that portion of this segment lying north of the midchannel of Knik Arm.
(b) Each person operating an airplane within this segment (except that part described in para*
graph (a) of this section) shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 600 feet MSL until
maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent

What you are citing is not “regulatory”. The AFD, in this case the Alaska Supplement, is non regulatory, except for information therein which is specifically formalized in regulation. These are “recommended” procedures. The admonition to depart at 2200 feet is a “recommendation” to try to deconfliction inbound and outbound traffic. But there is no legal requirement to follow that guidance.

The airspace parameters, on the other hand are described in regulation.

Now, if you hit someone while not following that guidance, and hit someone, the NTSB is going to say you weren’t following “Good Practice”

MTV

Click to expand...

I have some questions regarding Merrill and the Bryant Segment:

If you want to depart Merrill runway 25/7 and cross the inlet below 600 feet because altitude deviations are denied (no not the safest choice, but a calculated risk like many others), what departure do you fly? I have noticed Merrill controllers issuing the "ship creek departure" to fixed wing aircraft but according to the chart supplement, it is a "helicopter route". I guess that's allowed? I've also had them offer the "shoreline departure" when I express my desire to cross below 600 ft but the shoreline departure plate makes no allowances for that. Chester creek is the only VFR departure procedure that appears to accomodate crossing the inlet below 600 ft, but it's only for runway 16 and 23. There are many many days when the ceiling isn't sufficient to cross the inlet VFR at 2200-2500 ft and they're not allowing altitude deviations either. Maybe this is by design to dissuade people from crossing the inlet at low altitude? If the weather is good, I just fly the Inlet departure if shoreline departure with altitude deviation is denied (the aircraft I fly cannot reliably climb to 2100 feet AGL in 3 miles).

Lastly, what's the take on the Bryant Segment (that little 1/2 mile strip of Bryant's airspace that is southeast of the Glen Highway, but isn't actually in their Class D)?

§ 93.67 General rules: Bryant segment.

(a) Each person operating an airplane to or from the Bryant Airport shall conform to the flow of traffic shown on the appropriate aeronautical charts, and while in the traffic pattern, shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet MSL until maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent.

(b) Each person operating an aircraft within the Bryant segment should self-announce intentions on the Bryant Airport CTAF.

Click to expand...

There are some days when it might be necessary to fly thorugh the bryant segment for weather or traffic. All it says is that you "should" self anounce on Bryant CTAF. I flew in and out of Bryant a lot and never once heard anyone do that, and am pretty sure there was plenty of traffic in there. I was talking to tower obviously because I was operating at that airport. Additionally, 122.9 seems to be the designated CTAF for that area, although Bryant CTAF would be their tower frequency, 127.2. Personally I just try to avoid that strip of part 93 airspace as much as possible.

Had an informative and pleasant meeting with ANC FSDO inspector a few weeks back regarding recent risk factors at Lake Hood. I can’t post all his reflections but summary is that controllers do expect us to follow published procedures to the letter, and pilots could use reminders of that plus actual altitudes issued to pilots with clearances, time permitting. The FSDO powers that be were already planning to discuss with tower personnel some enhancements to help pilot adherence to altitudes and positions. Hopefully safety will increase as a result, but it’s a big bureaucracy…