Wasilla’s Airspace Hi-jack

[djfraudman]

Attention; Mat-Su Pilots and Airstrip owners


Wasilla is attempting to modify the airspace in a 5nm circle around its airport from uncontrolled Class G to Class E airspace beginning at the surface and to establish a precision approach. This is allegedly being done because of greater demand of use and services at the airport. (See attached letter from the City)

There are over 30 private air strips within the proposed Class E airspace and everyone using one of those strips or transiting the area will be affected because you will no longer be able to enter or leave Wasilla’s airspace unless the visibility of more than 3 miles and the ceiling is 1000 foot or above. If the visibility and/or ceiling is less, then you will need to get a Special VFR clearance.

Since most of the people impacted by this proposal are not Wasilla’s residents I doubt the city will be responsive to their concerns and I have been told by people who called the author of the city’s letter that he didn’t appear to be interested in what they had to say. A friend contacted the FAA concerning Wasilla's letter and was advised that Wasilla has not yet formally presented their proposal. If and when that happens the people affected may have an opportunity to be heard by the FAA.

I’m sure there are Supercub.org readers who have thoughts about why Wasilla is on this boondoggle and will share their knowledge.

My suggestion, if you are concerned, would be to contact Borough, State and Federal elected officials and express your feelings about Wasilla’s push for an “approach to nowhere”.

 

[aktango58]

Not to get out of wack, but would an IFR approach require a class D airspace? That would make the 'Special VFR' requirement.

 

[Richgj3]

My home airport, KHWV has an ILS and a number of other approaches. It is Class G. We are on LI, NY. Ten miles from a class C airport and 50 miles from JFK and LGA. Probably a little busier than your place. Tell them to look at our charts and that if we don't need class E, you don't either.

Rich

 

[Clay Hammond]

When I look at the sectional for Long Island it shows Class E from MacArthur all the way out to Block Island.

http://vfrmap.com/

Class D or "higher" not required for ILS, it only has to be contained by controlled airspace...i.e. Class E. And Special VFR is not restricted to Class D or "higher". Its any controlled airspace:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0404.html

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/91-special-vfr-weather-minimums-19562335

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...e_units/systemops/fs/alaskan/alaska/fai/svfr/

 

[gpepperd]

Wasilla does not really need an ILS approach. This is all about money ( Your tax $$$$$ as some form of grant) and what the City of Wasilla will get to administrate it. It is truely an approach to nowhere which should not be allowed to grab our airspace. My $.02 worth. G Pepperd/Wasilla

 

[J Pyle]

My neighborhood private strip will be within this circle and it was also a topic at our meeting earlier this month. We (our assoc.) will be trying to keep our $0.02 in the mix also. Any information, help, or direction will be much appreciated!

It also sounded like to me that they (Wasilla) are trying spend our money. I heard they wanted a float plane trench also. :evil:

 

[Little_Cub]

gpepperd You are right, in the name of 'safety' they will fix what isn't broken and tap more fed money so Wasilla can have folks to repeat the ASOS automated weather.

Rising gas prices must be causing a lot more demand!

 

[Richgj3]

Clay

The original poster was talking about class E to the surface. The class E in the area you reference is class E to 700 feet. Below that is class G. KHWV and KHTO and KMTP are all ClassG airports. Now, 700 feet may effectively be the surface, but one can fly down the beach at 500 feet legally with one mile clear of clouds and not be over any populated area. If those airports were class E to the surface, that would not be legal within the limits of the class E to the surface.

Rich

 

[HydroCub]

In the past, the FAA has typically not controlled airspace to the surface unless there is commercial scheduled passenger service into the airport. In that case, the "controlled to surface" airspace was seldom for 24 hours. Also, approved weather reporting is required for this condition.

As discussed previously, the outlying airports are only restricted to special VFR if "their" weather is below 1000' ceiling and 3 miles visibility, regardless of what the primary airport's weather is reported as.

If you can prove a lack of substantial IFR traffic into the airport when the weather is below 700' and 1 you might have a good argument to get the FAA to not designate controlled to the surface.

 

[mvivion]

In the past, the FAA has typically not controlled airspace to the surface unless there is commercial scheduled passenger service into the airport. In that case, the "controlled to surface" airspace was seldom for 24 hours. Also, approved weather reporting is required for this condition.

As discussed previously, the outlying airports are only restricted to special VFR if "their" weather is below 1000' ceiling and 3 miles visibility, regardless of what the primary airport's weather is reported as.

Actually, S2D and I have had a lively discussion on this very issue. A prominent aviation attorney informs me that what you posted is only true IF you do not have to fly UNDER the ceiling to get to the outlying airport. Apparently, there is still some debate on this subject, and I would be VERY careful with it.

MTV

 

[mvivion]

Not to get out of wack, but would an IFR approach require a class D airspace? That would make the 'Special VFR' requirement.

George,

Study up on your sectional. I'll bet you'll find LOTS of class E surface areas around your area, and those all require a special vfr clearance to fly to the primary airport when the primary airport is reporting below basic VFR.

As noted, these surface areas are TYPICALLY established where there is commercial air service. I'd be surprised if Wasilla would qualify, particularly if people in the area raise a red flag.

MTV

 

[HydroCub]

Actually, S2D and I have had a lively discussion on this very issue. A prominent aviation attorney informs me that what you posted is only true IF you do not have to fly UNDER the ceiling to get to the outlying airport. Apparently, there is still some debate on this subject, and I would be VERY careful with it.

MTV

Realistically, the weather would be 1500' overcast and 3 miles or greater..... allowing an aircraft to meet the "500 ft below the clouds in controlled airspace" requirement and also to easily meet the 1000 ft above any populated/obstacle area while in transit.

I've had my share of IFR break outs to face an aircraft with their tail almost slicing the clouds at 600' or 1100' agl...... just below the floor of controlled airspace where they are legal with 1 mile and clear of clouds. I'm not trying to promote this type of activity, but just to point out that done properly, it is not against the FARs.

 

[articfox]

Hi. Here is my two cents as well. I'm just guessing that Wasilla ILS drivers are really wanting that ILS to increase traffic from Anchorage. Here's the real gig as I have seen this exact argument before. I think every airport should have a ILS with a normal class e ring around it like it has now. No, e to the ground. Thats easy. But, that is not the real problem here. The real issue is how it will be used in the Wasilla case. 1st lets say that Palmer is a large and always has been a large airplane base. It needs a ILS for forrest fighting planes and commercial traffic that already exists. That is where a lot of the large aircraft going there for touch and go's and the airport surface is rated for it. Simply, a ILS needs to be there. The community is already used to large aircraft in Palmer. Been that way since the war.

Wasilla on the other hand was put there because the one behind the city center was too close to town. Now, that it has gained popularity with the small not-so much taxed airplane traffic, some guys go together and wanted to see how much expansion could take place. I'm all for that. So, the runway was improved and so on. What comes next, is better approaches for training and commercial traffic. Thats where this particular problem starts. And the problem is not where you think it might be. Who will use the ILS and who pays for it.

First, being a large airplane pilot (at least i think so), i can say that no large passenger aircraft are going to land there as a alternate. They will land at Keni or Fairbanks. The cargo guys will not land there until there is ample amounts of FBO, ramp space and cheap gas. The little cargo/pax guys will land only if there is no other option. So, your landing ILS traffic will be from general aviation from that particular airport and from dudes trying to get under the overcast to land at Wolf lake and the like. Thats nice.
So, whats the problem with a high class e ring with a ILS in Wasilla?? Training aircraft. Aircraft that won't land but will use the ILS for certification and training needs. Can you imagine this? Keni is the ILS King training ground right now. But, Keni also has a large percentage of landing traffic. So, everyone and I mean everyone and their sister will be shooting ILS approaches to minns. then missing over Wasilla. I mean, cessna 152, 172 from my school, Anchorge, Keni, Talkeetna, Kings, etc. Then, twin engine training like ACE, Frontier, Pen-air and so on. They will all be doing it on one engine. Then the heavy guys like Everetts in the DC-6, Lynden, Me with the 737 all shooting that ILS. The military will astound you with how much they can use a ILS like that. 100 approaches a day or, I can see it now. All these guys will be "missing" on one engine over Wasilla and going home without ever touching the ground enough to stop. I gotta tell you, Im all for expansion but that blue house just to the South of the Airport? He doesn't know about it and he is going to have a tough time keeping his little kids asleep when this is going on at 4am. The repairs on the runway will astound the city and next you have landing fees to pay for that. Yay, what a way to go for the guys that just park there to get out of the wind.

Now, I operate there to. I am for a ILS on every runway for safety and the like. But the state should step in and think about how it affects all the residences. Maybe put one in at Palmer also where we are already set up as a large aircraft training ground and a diversion airport. (Im always pushing my intrests on that one, keep that in mind.) But, all of Wasilla will feel the effect of having one of three ILS approaches outside of Anchorage, and the closest to Anchorage.

 

[Lasater]

Somebody help a Texan understand IFR in Alaska. I assumed that due to the ever present danger of airframe icing that IFR is not a very useful option for aircraft without de-icing equipment? Is there that much single engine IFR flown in Alaska?

I know this is a little off of the subject, but I was curious.

 

[N5126H]

I just sent a nice letter to Mayor Verne Rupright of Wasilla reminding him that political donations can be made by anyone, not just residents of the City of Wasilla and that I did not support the change in airspace.

cityofwasilla@ci.wasilla.ak.us

 

[articfox]

Somebody help a Texan understand IFR in Alaska. I assumed that due to the ever present danger of airframe icing that IFR is not a very useful option for aircraft without de-icing equipment? Is there that much single engine IFR flown in Alaska?

I know this is a little off of the subject, but I was curious.

The short answer is no. Very little. Not like in the states. We do a little but mainly training. There are a number of guys that go back and forth to Fairbanks, Keni but otherwise it is just training or Mexifr. GPS gets us there without all the hassle.
Most cessna and piper equipment will take a 1/4 inch with no problem so we just land. (Just kidding).

 

[mvivion]

I seriously doubt that the FAA will install an ILS at Wasilla. Have they proposed a full ILS? Remember, however, that now with a Garmin 430W or equivalent, a pilot can fly an LPV approach, which will get you down to as low as 250 agl, nearly as low as an ILS.

BUT, there need now be a precision approach to establish Class E airspace to the surface. Look at Fort Yukon, which has had E Surface area since they first started establishing them, originally based on a VOR approach.

I would also bet that the heaviest use of a precision approach, or any approach at Wasilla will be training.

 

[AK-HUNT]

I seriously doubt that the FAA will install an ILS at Wasilla. Have they proposed a full ILS? Remember, however, that now with a Garmin 430W or equivalent, a pilot can fly an LPV approach, which will get you down to as low as 250 agl, nearly as low as an ILS.
.

Did you read the letter prior to making these statements?

 

[mvivion]

Did you read the letter prior to making these statements?

Yes, I did. Point is, however, that a precision approach is not necessary to justify Echo airspace to the surface. I'd strongly suggest that pilots in the area who object to Echo Surface area start writing to the FAA. The FAA does listen to the using public in these cases, but if the only letter they get is from the city....

MTV

 

[mike mcs repair]

more airport stuff

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2011/06/10/local_news/doc4df1ad08af238929739559.txt

Wasilla Airport projects take shape

BY ANDREW WELLNER
Frontiersman
Published on Thursday, June 9, 2011 10:38 PM AKDT
WASILLA — A million dollars is heading for the airport with the potential for $3 million more.

Alaska’s delegation to U.S. Congress announced last week that $1.06 million in Federal Aviation Administration money had been earmarked for the airport. Wasilla Public Works Director Archie Giddings said the money may be used to expand the apron at the airport. According to a city ordinance, the project will add more tie-downs to meet growing demand.

Giddings said that though the money is on its way, the city has already put the project out to bid and decided on a contractor.

More than $1 million in Federal Aviation Administration money has been earmarked for the Wasilla Airport and may be used to expand the apron at the facility and add more tie-downs to meet growing demand. (ROBERT DeBERRY/Frontiersman)


“That’s the way the FAA works, they let you know there’s money available and then you have to bid it,” Giddings said, adding that the federal government wants to know an exact dollar amount up front.

“It’s like a million dollars worth of work and Bristol Construction will be doing that work for us,” Giddings said.

Of course, that means work can begin relatively quickly.

The other chunk of money is still, as of press time, included in the state’s capital budget. But Gov. Sean Parnell hasn’t wielded his veto pen yet so nothing is definite in that budget.

Still, the $3.1 million line item is for a project Mayor Verne Rupright has been talking about for quite some time. It would build a road between the airport and the city’s sports complex.

Rupright said the Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center is the city’s designated spot for coordinating disaster response and the airport is its main drop-off point for emergency supplies. Currently, if a disaster happened, responders would be wasting a lot of time on the roads.

“The cops are going to have to drive a mile and a half out of the city and a mile and a half back into the city to get to the airport,” Rupright said. But the two facilities are actually much closer as the crow flies.

“It’s nine-tenths of the mile,” the mayor said.

The city has already roughed in what it calls a “pioneer road” along the route.

“You can’t miss it. It’s 80-feet wide,” Rupright said. “When these politicians come out here I can point to it and say, ‘it’s right there.’”

The state money would make it a road anyone can use. Right now, it’s not something really anyone can drive on.

“Hopefully this year, even without any further monies, we can get that brushed in and at least useable,” Rupright said.

Contact Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.

 

[OLDCROWE]

Wow they used the dreaded "earmark" word, pretty good trick in a zero mark year+ the next three! Sounds like local pundits taking credit for a typical FAA facilities grant.

 

[mike mcs repair]

Wow they used the dreaded "earmark" word, pretty good trick in a zero mark year+ the next three! Sounds like local pundits taking credit for a typical FAA facilities grant.

oh they already snuck the earmarks back in,its in one of the other bills, its just not called earmarks now.....

 

[aktango58]

Is it now a 'district favor', or directed funding?

 

[OLDCROWE]

Mike,

Working in this realm I can tell you they don't have marks back in, if they did I would have 20+ engineers working on a critical public works/economic development project that has been working the federal path for 7 years now, It was authorized (making it not a true ear mark) in debated enabling legislation (WRDA 07), received new start funding and one that has 100% of the local matching money available…but I would be curious to know what bill this "non-mark" was identified in if any of the local press listed it.

My guess is it came out of CR (continueing resolution) funding for the FAA or since it came so quickly likely as a standby project replacing one that failed for some reason. But if it really was a "Mark", "Ask", "Directed Funds" or whatever clever name they want to call it I sure would like proof.

2 1/2 wars is sucking the financial life blood right out of us!

Kirby

 

[mike mcs repair]

Mike,

Working in this realm I can tell you they don't have marks back in, if they did I would have 20+ engineers working on a critical public works/economic development project that has been working the federal path for 7 years now, It was authorized (making it not a true ear mark) in debated enabling legislation (WRDA 07), received new start funding and one that has 100% of the local matching money available…but I would be curious to know what bill this "non-mark" was identified in if any of the local press listed it.

My guess is it came out of CR (continueing resolution) funding for the FAA or since it came so quickly likely as a standby project replacing one that failed for some reason. But if it really was a "Mark", "Ask", "Directed Funds" or whatever clever name they want to call it I sure would like proof.

2 1/2 wars is sucking the financial life blood right out of us!

Kirby

just what i read in paper..... ymmv

 

[OLDCROWE]

Mike I'm not doubting you and sorry if I came off testy...I'm looking for ammo to try and get an authorized project funded to a logical point so we dont waste a 3 or 4 million already spent...

 

[mike mcs repair]

Mike I'm not doubting you and sorry if I came off testy...I'm looking for ammo to try and get an authorized project funded to a logical point so we dont waste a 3 or 4 million already spent...

no problem...

google stuff about the defense bill....

not sure how final version ended up, but remember reading stuff like this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...nse-spending-earmarks-mckaskill_n_867769.html

........the Missouri senator claims the proposed bill "has obviously been structured to circumvent the earmark ban adopted by the House of Representatives."..........

.......slush fund" called the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund, that would take money cut from other programs and consolidate it in the fund to pay for the "pet projects" inserted into the House defense policy bill.