Ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in “Disney” City.
Trouble with a capital “T”
And that rhymes with “P”
And that stands for … Politics!

Well, the song really said, “River City” and “P” rhymed with “Pool”; but Disney and Politics were substituted to make a point.

The Disney TFR problem is political because the problem starts with Congress!

Compare these current chart snippets…
 

What difference do you see?  

On the left is a current Jeppesen chart of the Southern California area that portrays the “permanent” TFR that surrounds Disneyland.  It is that circle on the north northwest corner of the Santa Ana Class C surface airspace. On the right is the FAA’s current LAX TAC chart; the Flight Planning side.  Note the best it does for Disneyland is portray the VPLDL visual identifier. There is NO reference to the Disney TFR! 

Nor, is this TFR noted on the Orlando TAC either; although it’s on the Jeppesen charts! 

Trouble with a capital “T”
And that rhymes with “P”
And that stands for … Politics!

The problem stems from the politics of how the Disney TFR’s came into being.  For a period of time in the late 1990’s, Disney had long sought to prevent general aviation aircraft – primarily aircraft towing advertising banners – from circling over the top of the Disney parks.  For whatever reason, the FAA was apparently reluctant to further restrict airspace; perhaps because if it created protected airspace for Disney, then it would be forced to provide protected airspace for every public gathering place in the country. 

Nobody foresaw the tragedy of 9/11 2001.  However, in the course the 12 to 18 months of Congressional over-reaction to that event, Congress made the Disney parks a national security protected area via Public Law 108-8 in February of 2003. Interestingly, the restriction took place immediately; with NO termination date.  It remains in effect today.  

But consider that “… restriction does not apply to aircraft authorized by ATC for operational or safety purposes, including aircraft arriving or departing from an airport….” 

Thus, for all practical purposes, the TFR’s provide no security whatsoever … since “pop-up” aircraft with no prior vetting can fly through the airspace; or a plane intending to land at a nearby airport.  Perhaps of greater importance is that any pilot with ill-intentions could easily target either park and get there long before any security interception could take place. 

It is unclear why Congress decided to remove the Disney airspace oversight from control of either the FAA or TSA.  It appears to be solely a political agenda.

As a result, the FAA has stated that it cannot print this “permanent” TFR on FAA charts because it is “temporary”; and could be canceled at anytime.  Can any of you imagine Congress acting so fast as to have a law changed so fast as to preclude the FAA from knowing it was going to happen in advance?  Right!  At least Jeppesen, a private charting company, has the awareness to publish the information.

But why is this important?  Safety!  Pilots attempting to navigate VFR in or around these “permanent” TFRs have no way to reference the TFR on the chart(s). Thus, pilots who have bothered to check the NOTAMs have the eyes on the ground or inside the cockpit … trying to figure out what the three-mile radius is around what particular part of the park; and/or how high they should be to be above the AGL restriction.  These pilots are NOT looking outside the cockpit for other planes.

Prior to the inclusion of the Disneyland TFR in Southern California, there was a VFR corridor that stretched from the uncontrolled Corona airport along the southern side of the Class B LAX and the northern side of the Santa Ana Class C airspace to the uncontrolled airport at Compton. The Disneyland TFR has virtually closed this airspace to aircraft without radios and transponders.  There are many that argue this may be better … but it still does not preclude VFR pilots navigating the area from being heads-down in the cockpit.

The area around Disneyworld borders the western edge of the Orlando Class B airspace; but with no surrounding Class C or Class D issues. This suggests that VFR pilots navigating north/south along the perimeter of the Orlando airspace are even less likely to be talking to ATC while they have their heads down in the cockpit or looking at the ground.

There a numerous additional reasons to get this airspace moved out from under its Congressional protection and under the FAA where it belongs.  But limited space in this column prevents a detailed list.  Still, pilots need to recognize that the Disney TFRs are, basically, an accident looking for a place (or time) to happen.  We pilots need to get our own political advocates – AOPA, EAA, NB AA, and travel media – working on getting the Disney TFR’s under the oversight of the FAA; reduced in size; and/or removed by Congressional action!

It is made complex by a combination of factors not found anyplace else in the U.S.; or in the world, for that matter. 

The Los Angeles Basin is geographically constrained by a ring of high mountains that surrounds an airspace region that serves between 13 and 15 million people; one of the largest population centers in the world.  The Basin runs northeast to southeast encapsulated by mountains that range to 11,000 feet … with four to five passes in those mountains ranging to 5,000 feet; and nothing to the west but ocean. 

The region’s year-round generally good-flying weather has generated one of the largest centers of aviation users in the country – from student pilots to commercial operators; emergency, police, fire and other general service aircraft to media reporting and charter operators; not to mention four major airports providing scheduled airline transportation services in support of the communities’ commercial, economic, and cargo needs. 

To serve the region, within the circle of high mountains, there are is the Class B positive control airspace that serves Los Angeles International (KLAX), the 5^th busiest airport in the world that reaches to 10,000 feet in the center of the Basin (approximating the height of the mountains that surround the region itself). 

There are four Class C airspace regions requiring positive identification and communications that climb to between 4,400 and 5,500 feet abutting or underlying the Class B airspace; one to the north, one to the south, and two to the east. There are 11 Class D airspace airports within the Basin’s mountain confines that require communication with the tower when transiting the airports airspace. 

Finally, there are 7 airports with no towers and requiring no communication capabilities … most of which are on the perimeter of the Basin but including Compton which is trapped between by Class B airspace to the north and overhead … and surrounded by 5 Class D airspace airports. Still, even the pilots based at the perimeter airports need to transit the Basin from time-to-time.

Further, there are another 11 areas of airspace that have been unofficially carved out of the region as training areas … where pilots are often head-down in the cockpit and may or may not be monitoring a radio frequency; let alone, monitoring the same frequency. 

And of course, there are the IFR arrival and departure routes that connect the higher en route airways with the various Class B, C, and D airport related sectors; providing high flows of mostly jet traffic descending or climbing 24 hours a day, whether the weather is IFR or VFR.  Finally, there are a series of lower mountains or hills that squeeze the bottoms of some of the Class B and C airspace sectors.  

The net of these constraints is multifaceted.  The various airspace sectors and land masses tend to channel VFR pilots along routes requiring the least amount of communication.  Like water flowing down a stream-bed, there are a number of natural-flowing routes that serve VFR pilots needing to travel through the area just as the arrival/departure routes marked on the charts serve IFR traffic.  Many time the natural-flow VFR flows coincide with the IFR arrival/departure routes; simply adding to the complexity need for alertness.

To the east, these natural-flow routes tend to work around or under the overlaying Class B airspace.  To the west, the VFR routes have become official transition routes – defined airspace routes that enable pilots to transit from the southern side of the Basin to the northern side (or vice versa).  Four of these VFR transition routes require communication with ATC while one, the Special VFR route, allows pilots to cross through the Class B airspace without talking to anybody (although a frequency is provided and recommended if the airplane has a radio on board). 

These transition routes, IFR arrival/departure routings used by ATC, and the “unofficial training” areas – have lead to identification of 10 serious “Hot Spots” around the LA Basin – areas where pilots need to pay special attention to avoid conflicting traffic.  These “Hot Spots” tend to reflect conflicts not just in traffic direction – but in the airplane’s mission goals; i.e. one airplane setting up for an approach while another is doing training maneuvers; or one plane is climbing out on an IFR departure route while the plane is practicing holding patterns or making an entry to a non-towered airport.

Much of this morass of overlapping and interlinked airspace is the result of compromise – compromise between the needs of the regularly scheduled air transport carriers and the needs of the general aviation community at the extreme; with the FAA acting as the initiator, arbitrator, controller, and enforcer.  The SCAUWG has played … and continues to play … an important role in ensuring that the various interests of the various aviation interests in the Basin are represented to the FAA in its multi-tasking role.

With that said, and without ignoring the issues that create the “Hot Spots” noted above,  the FAA is becoming increasingly frustrated with the increasing level of pilots violating the various airspace rules that have evolved to protect the interests of pilots, commercial interests, and the general public.  They are particularly concerned with those violations of the Class B airspace, as that is the area with the greatest density of commercial flights with the least amount of ability to respond to in-your-face traffic confrontations. 

As the air transport pilots report increasing TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) alerts and the violations of Class B airspace increase, there is increasing pressure to expand the controlled airspace over the Basin; further restricting the flexibility of general aviation to serve local community needs and/or transit the region in either direction. 

In an effort to ensure that general aviation will remain a viable solution within the Basin, the SCAUWG is embarking on an education program; initially reaching out to the area’s flight and ground instructors to work with pilots on issues specific to the LA Basin.  It is hoped that this emphasis in training and biennial reviews will bring renewed focus on the issues of flying in the LA Basin; and new insight with respect to the needs and skills necessary to safely fly in the region. 

Of course, if you’re here and reading this, it is likely that you are not a part of the problem.  But as you might imagine, some pilots don’t always gather all of the information that they need to know or apply to a given flight … either lacking the knowledge or training to do so; or thinking that they already know all they need to know.  If you’re here, I encourage you to review the PowerPoint slide presentation << LA_Basin_Airspace_Flight_Safety >> … and to pass along to your pilot friends the insight and guidelines it offers.  

The first portion of this PowerPoint presentation reviews “the rules” as defined by the FAA, while the second portion identifies the geographic, airspace, and traffic flow issues that confront pilots in the Basin; reviews the Class B transition routes; identifies the unofficial training areas; and pinpoints the 10 “Hot Spots”. 

Please let us here your comments in “Blog Talk”.  

Author: Richard Eastman

It is a committee of professionals from all segments of the Southern California aviation industry determined to effectively interact with each other to resolve airspace related problems and improve aviation safety, utility, and efficiency in the region.  The organization’s Charter specifies the following objectives …

1.      To maintain a forum that allows all facets of the aviation industry to provide input to the FAA in the areas of aviation safety, airspace design and utilization.

2.      To educate and inform the public, local and national elected officials, and media with respect to aviation safety and airspace utilization.

3.      The development of airspace design to more efficiently accommodate increases in air traffic capacity at the region’s airports.

4.      To improve access for VFR traffic into and out of the region’s airports in addition to VFR transition routes.

5.      To simplify airspace design and charting for the VFR user.

6.      To provide for the flexibility of helicopters and new technologies while enhancing compatible use of airspace.

7.      To develop recommendations to the FAA for improvements in aviation safety.

8.      To advise the Southern California Association of Governments on capacity issues for their systems study.

9.      To monitor ongoing FAA efforts with relationship to airspace design and activity.

10. To commit itself to cooperative action, including opposing views, and take the necessary steps to make a significant difference in the air transportation system.

Since its inception in the 1960’s, the SCAUWG has been instrumental in resolving many of the contentious issues that have confronted Southern California aviation.  Over the coming months, many of these achievements will be discussed in this BLOG as examples of past successes.  The SCAUWG has toiled largely unnoticed to the general aviation public; acting instead, behind-the-scenes amongst its participating member organizations. 

In today’s contemporary world of instant information, GPS navigation, new technology aircraft, and an ever-increasing demand on the aviation and airspace sectors within the Southern California region, the need to extend the objectives of the SCAUWG within the aviation community has resulted in the creation of this BLOG.  The BLOG will attempt to discuss ongoing relevant issues of concern on a regular basis; with postings originating from the different members of the SCAUWG Committee. 

Should sufficient interest evolve, this public BLOG may evolve into an open forum.  For the time being however, the intent is to inform and educate … and post in “Blog Talk”, responsible views representing contrary or concurring opinion.  SCAUWG currently maintains a digital forum for interactive dialog among its members, flight and ground instructors, and other aviation-related professionals.  Responsible contributions or responses to this BLOG will be concurrently introduced to the SCAUWG Committee for action via its internal forum. 

The intent of this BLOG is to inform, educate, and provide a platform for responsible interactive dialog on aviation and airspace issues of concern to the Southern California region and the Los Angeles Basin. 

Author: Richard Eastman