chumley wrote:

Does anybody remember the public shower in T2? I don't recall when it went away exactly, but it was adjacent to where the men's room is now at the top of the ramp between check-in/baggage claim and the main hall/security. It was a coin-operated door, and I believe was 50¢ to access the shower room. I never used it, but always thought it was a unique feature. Definitely still there in the late 90s. Not sure how far into the 2000s it lasted.

And Gate C ... boarding a 12:55a UA to ORD flight and having to walk outside on the breezeway to that double-wide building they called a gate!! Aaaah. T2 memories!

Ahh gate C, I remember that one, certainly unique. Flew on a couple different UA flights out of that gate over the years, also remember seeing Air Canada parked there a few times in the 90s. They eventually removed the jetway that was there, and then only used that gate for ground boarding CRJ flights.

There was also gate "D" next door, that Great Lakes operated from with the Beech 1900 for awhile.

Now that you brought it up I do remember the shower in T2. I never used it but always kind of wondered if anyone used it. I never saw anyone in that shower. I also remember the Airplane tiles in the bathroom. Damn I think I am getting old! I also remember T1.

chumley wrote:

777PHX wrote:

I'm guessing no one here has ever parked at east economy and taken the Skytrain in? Takes about 30 seconds. Or if I'm picking up, I'd rather avoid the airport entirely and have them ride the Skytrain to the 44th street station and pick them up there.

While Sky Train is convenient, you might have to wait 5 minutes just for it to arrive. Add some escalators and long hallway treks too. Plus the travel time on the train from East Economy to T4 is a little more than 30 seconds. Minor details though. Beats the old shuttle bus days for sure.

I will often park in West Economy, because I can walk to T2 in a matter of minutes. No traffic, no trains, no busses, no BS!

In fact, since West Economy is only $7/day, and East Economy is $12/day, I will even park in West and walk to T3 to take that 30-second Sky Train to T4 when I'm flying WN or AA. $15 saved on a 3-day trip.

So T2 isn't just more convenient, it's more affordable too. I'll definitely miss it.

Ah yes much better than shuttle buses. I remember waiting well over a half hour late / early morning for it at times. Almost fell asleep waiting too. Sky Train is nice and fun to ride because of the great views of the airport


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bryancsnider wrote:

Ah yes much better than shuttle buses. I remember waiting well over a half hour late / early morning for it at times.

I choose to forget those days. I was on a bus that got lost and ended up over in Tempe once.

I remember those things being so crowded at the garage on Monday mornings that you couldn't get a spot and having to wait for a seemingly random amount of time before the next bus. Some times it was right around the corner, others it really took 20 or 30 minutes.

I always park in east economy (same spot in the garage too!) and Skytrain in. If it's crowded, I'll use the 44th St Skytrain station for uber pickups. Sometimes that knocks the surge out too!

alasizon wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Didn't notice it posted here but a new airline, Advanced AIr operating King Airs has won the EAS for Silver City from Boutique and will be a new carrier to PHX. I'm guessing they'll move into T2 with Contour and Boutique. I wonder what accomodations they'll have to make for these carriers in the T3 expansion or if there's an existing place that they'll transform to be a suitable place for ground-board aircraft (Contour, with their ERJ's can use a normal gate, but I'm not aware of anywhere they fly where they actually do - maybe BWI?).

F11-F13 are on the north side of the new T3S which will be used for the commuter aircraft eventually. My understanding is it will be a combo of jetway gates and ground boarding stairs so that regardless of the equipment used for the small markets they will be supported on those gates.

I got a "sneak peek" of T3S last week while doing an active shooter drill.

F11-13 have no jetways and are set up for ground boarding. The podiums are on the same level as the rest of the gates (but tucked behind a corner), and then pax proceed down a set of stairs (or an elevator) to ramp level.

Someone also mentioned gates C and D: they are directly across from F11-13. Fun fact: former gates E and F are now used as office space for the badging department (which along with the main building used to house US Customs before the T4 FIS was built in the early 90s).

Maverick623 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

F11-F13 are on the north side of the new T3S which will be used for the commuter aircraft eventually. My understanding is it will be a combo of jetway gates and ground boarding stairs so that regardless of the equipment used for the small markets they will be supported on those gates.

I got a "sneak peek" of T3S last week while doing an active shooter drill.

F11-13 have no jetways and are set up for ground boarding. The podiums are on the same level as the rest of the gates (but tucked behind a corner), and then pax proceed down a set of stairs (or an elevator) to ramp level.

Someone also mentioned gates C and D: they are directly across from F11-13. Fun fact: former gates E and F are now used as office space for the badging department (which along with the main building used to house US Customs before the T4 FIS was built in the early 90s).

Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't driven over to T3S in about two months, but didn't at least one or two of those gates have doors concourse level where jetways would hypothetically be mounted in the future? I know in the initial plan it was planned for them all to have jetways in addition to a master set of stairs (similar to the QX setup in LAX at T6 or in SEA on N).

There is a VI An-124 coming in tonight. Anyone know how long it will be here?

For anyone interested, an An-124 is scheduled to arrive @ 0100 local time.

alasizon wrote:

Maverick623 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

F11-F13 are on the north side of the new T3S which will be used for the commuter aircraft eventually. My understanding is it will be a combo of jetway gates and ground boarding stairs so that regardless of the equipment used for the small markets they will be supported on those gates.

I got a "sneak peek" of T3S last week while doing an active shooter drill.

F11-13 have no jetways and are set up for ground boarding. The podiums are on the same level as the rest of the gates (but tucked behind a corner), and then pax proceed down a set of stairs (or an elevator) to ramp level.

Someone also mentioned gates C and D: they are directly across from F11-13. Fun fact: former gates E and F are now used as office space for the badging department (which along with the main building used to house US Customs before the T4 FIS was built in the early 90s).

Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't driven over to T3S in about two months, but didn't at least one or two of those gates have doors concourse level where jetways would hypothetically be mounted in the future? I know in the initial plan it was planned for them all to have jetways in addition to a master set of stairs (similar to the QX setup in LAX at T6 or in SEA on N).

There are two on the west side that are slated to become gates once T2 is demolished.

Did anyone see a light grey a330 with no obvious civilian markings at around 11:30. I was driving in Tempe when I saw it so I was not able to catch what it was but I know for sure it was not a US carrier.

SierraPacific wrote:

Did anyone see a light grey a330 with no obvious civilian markings at around 11:30. I was driving in Tempe when I saw it so I was not able to catch what it was but I know for sure it was not a US carrier.

Most likely an A330 MRTT. Apparently there was an Australian RAF A330 there about six or eight weeks ago, but the RAF and Luftwaffe also operate them to various points in the US fairly often.

atcsundevil wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Did anyone see a light grey a330 with no obvious civilian markings at around 11:30. I was driving in Tempe when I saw it so I was not able to catch what it was but I know for sure it was not a US carrier.

Most likely an A330 MRTT. Apparently there was an Australian RAF A330 there about six or eight weeks ago, but the RAF and Luftwaffe also operate them to various points in the US fairly often.

It looked like the Royal Australian Air Force A330..I saw it parked at Cutter yesterday.

An El Al 763 just flew into GYR at 1136. Saw it from our house, thought it looked like LY, checked on Flight Aware and sure enough. Came in from Bangor after an overnite there after flying to BGR from TLV on Thurs. Wonder if it's days are over or if this is a lease-return & somebody else is taking it.

Kind of curious on any stats for California Pacific and Swoop at AZA? I know it was just announced that Flair will be in strike and they are scheduled to start service on 12/15. California Pacific is having fleet issues (4 out of 5 of its planes are undergoing maintenance apparently).

BA744PHX wrote:

Kind of curious on any stats for California Pacific and Swoop at AZA? I know it was just announced that Flair will be in strike and they are scheduled to start service on 12/15. California Pacific is having fleet issues (4 out of 5 of its planes are undergoing maintenance apparently).

Holy cow - 80% of their fleet down? The silver lining I suppose is that if the flights were really light that they aren’t paying the costs of operating them while at the same time not losing much revenue.

Pretty sure 4A only has 4 ERJs...and 3 are out of service. Currently, the airplane serving CRQ is out; nothing has run there since Tuesday.

910A wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Did anyone see a light grey a330 with no obvious civilian markings at around 11:30. I was driving in Tempe when I saw it so I was not able to catch what it was but I know for sure it was not a US carrier.

Most likely an A330 MRTT. Apparently there was an Australian RAF A330 there about six or eight weeks ago, but the RAF and Luftwaffe also operate them to various points in the US fairly often.

It looked like the Royal Australian Air Force A330..I saw it parked at Cutter yesterday.

Close, it's actually from the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

Been parked at Cutter for a couple of weeks now.

MO11 wrote:

Pretty sure 4A only has 4 ERJs...and 3 are out of service. Currently, the airplane serving CRQ is out; nothing has run there since Tuesday.

Thanks for that piece of info. Was going to post that I drove up (from Baja AZ) to check out IWA today and saw a sign at the CalPac counter saying that their 12/7 flight was cancelled. Lady at the Swoop counter next door said that today's flight was cancelled as well. Thanks for providing the reason, but still not a good omen for the start-up carrier. On a side note, the fog in the SE Valley this morning was unreal! Very heavy in east Mesa and Gilbert. Wonder if it affected IWA's operations, especially early in the AM.

I am all for additional options out of the valley like CalPac or Swoop but this is the problem with a small start up. You take your chances on whether or not the flight is going to operate. This only makes the Airline look bad and reduces bookings. I hope they get their act together. Swoop looks interesting and the prices are good. I booked a dummy seat for 164.00 one way to YEG and that included the bag fee and more legroom seat. I live on the West side of the valley and would have to have a really good deal to drive 57 miles one way to the Airport in the horrible I-10/US 60 traffic.

mga707 wrote:

Thanks for that piece of info. Was going to post that I drove up (from Baja AZ) to check out IWA today and saw a sign at the CalPac counter saying that their 12/7 flight was cancelled. Lady at the Swoop counter next door said that today's flight was cancelled as well. Thanks for providing the reason, but still not a good omen for the start-up carrier. On a side note, the fog in the SE Valley this morning was unreal! Very heavy in east Mesa and Gilbert. Wonder if it affected IWA's operations, especially early in the AM.

You are not kidding about the fog. For a while the ceiling at IWA was listed at 0 which is unreal. We were grounded all morning at CHD and finally just cancelled all of our plans. Not often we have to worry with such things here.

910A wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Did anyone see a light grey a330 with no obvious civilian markings at around 11:30. I was driving in Tempe when I saw it so I was not able to catch what it was but I know for sure it was not a US carrier.

Most likely an A330 MRTT. Apparently there was an Australian RAF A330 there about six or eight weeks ago, but the RAF and Luftwaffe also operate them to various points in the US fairly often.

It looked like the Royal Australian Air Force A330..I saw it parked at Cutter yesterday.

It was RAAF. It was here to drag home Australia's first two F35s.

777PHX wrote:

910A wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Most likely an A330 MRTT. Apparently there was an Australian RAF A330 there about six or eight weeks ago, but the RAF and Luftwaffe also operate them to various points in the US fairly often.

It looked like the Royal Australian Air Force A330..I saw it parked at Cutter yesterday.

It was RAAF. It was here to drag home Australia's first two F35s.

Im assuming they probably went to Hawaii from PHX. More than likely hit the tanker once maybe twice

IWA is seeking an $18m federal grant to construct a new control tower. The current tower was constructed by the Air Force in the 70s, and is extremely outdated for the modern needs of the airport. Anyone who has been in that tower cab knows things are pretty tight up there. The airport requires a larger, taller tower for future needs. It wasn't previously eligible for federal grants prior to the recent FAA reauthorization; changes were promoted by Arizona congressional members on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/ ... 069778002/

It also raises an interesting discussion that's been brewing for years. IWA is a Federal Contract Tower (staffed by controllers from a private company contracted by the FAA), but given how large the airport's commercial ops have grown, it will likely necessitate reverting to FAA controllers and potentially 24 hour staffing at some point. The only FAA staffed facilities in the valley are PHX, P50, FFZ, and SDL. To my knowledge, no procedures exist to revert an FCT to FAA, only FAA to FCT, and I'm not aware of it ever having been done before.

There are also some longstanding airspace issues, as it may eventually necessitate becoming a Class C airspace — I don't believe new Class C airspace has been created in many years. The issue has been put on the back burner for a while now, because there will be significant legal resistance from AOPA, nearby residents, and others. With growing commercial ops, maintaining Class D airspace will eventually become insufficient, and may pose a safety risk between commercial aircraft and nonparticipating aircraft.

wxtech wrote:

Isn't DVT FAA TWR?

Yes! Forgot that one. CHD and IWA are the two noteworthy FCTs. They traded back and forth for years for being the busiest FCTs in the nation, IIRC.

atcsundevil wrote:

IWA is seeking an $18m federal grant to construct a new control tower. The current tower was constructed by the Air Force in the 70s, and is extremely outdated for the modern needs of the airport. Anyone who has been in that tower cab knows things are pretty tight up there. The airport requires a larger, taller tower for future needs. It wasn't previously eligible for federal grants prior to the recent FAA reauthorization; changes were promoted by Arizona congressional members on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/ ... 069778002/

It also raises an interesting discussion that's been brewing for years. IWA is a Federal Contract Tower (staffed by controllers from a private company contracted by the FAA), but given how large the airport's commercial ops have grown, it will likely necessitate reverting to FAA controllers and potentially 24 hour staffing at some point. The only FAA staffed facilities in the valley are PHX, P50, FFZ, and SDL. To my knowledge, no procedures exist to revert an FCT to FAA, only FAA to FCT, and I'm not aware of it ever having been done before.

There are also some longstanding airspace issues, as it may eventually necessitate becoming a Class C airspace — I don't believe new Class C airspace has been created in many years. The issue has been put on the back burner for a while now, because there will be significant legal resistance from AOPA, nearby residents, and others. With growing commercial ops, maintaining Class D airspace will eventually become insufficient, and may pose a safety risk between commercial aircraft and nonparticipating aircraft.

Thanks for the info ATC. Information like this is why I stay on A.Net. It is getting hard to deal with some of the threads but this actually imparts good info that impacts us in the PHX area. . Again Thanks!

travaz wrote:

I am all for additional options out of the valley like CalPac or Swoop but this is the problem with a small start up. You take your chances on whether or not the flight is going to operate. This only makes the Airline look bad and reduces bookings. I hope they get their act together. Swoop looks interesting and the prices are good. I booked a dummy seat for 164.00 one way to YEG and that included the bag fee and more legroom seat. I live on the West side of the valley and would have to have a really good deal to drive 57 miles one way to the Airport in the horrible I-10/US 60 traffic.

That good ole fashion Phoenician sprawl. For a while in college I lived in Queen Creek and had family in Peoria. That was almost an 1.5 hr drive all in the city.

I got my pvt at IWA with ASU. I remember when G4 just started ramping up ops there. Their MD80s used to wake me up when I was at the dorms there. Crazy how much things have changed and how much it’s grown.

77H

travaz wrote:

Thanks for the info ATC. Information like this is why I stay on A.Net. It is getting hard to deal with some of the threads but this actually imparts good info that impacts us in the PHX area. . Again Thanks!

I try to impart some knowledge from time to time

IWA does make for an interesting discussion though. It's great to see the increased success over the years, but some changes will need to happen at some point to accommodate.

77H wrote:

That good ole fashion Phoenician sprawl. For a while in college I lived in Queen Creek and had family in Peoria. That was almost an 1.5 hr drive all in the city.

I got my pvt at IWA with ASU. I remember when G4 just started ramping up ops there. Their MD80s used to wake me up when I was at the dorms there. Crazy how much things have changed and how much it’s grown.

77H

I was at ASU back then too for ATC. It was a big deal when G4 started up, I think around October 2007? The reversers going off at midnight pretty much got everyone...those Mad Dogs make a real ruckus. Although I think everyone slept better after Silver State (the helo company...I think that's what they were called?) went bankrupt. I got pretty tired of having helos circle over my house in South Desert Village at 6am.

INFINITI329 wrote:

777PHX wrote:

910A wrote:

It looked like the Royal Australian Air Force A330..I saw it parked at Cutter yesterday.

It was RAAF. It was here to drag home Australia's first two F35s.

Im assuming they probably went to Hawaii from PHX. More than likely hit the tanker once maybe twice

Aye, they did go to Hawaii as a stopover, I'm not sure where specifically though. They have to maintain enough fuel onboard so that they can reach a diversion airport should something go wrong with the tanker, so I'm sure they refueled at least a few times. The F35s arrived home in OZ yesterday.

atcsundevil wrote:

travaz wrote:

Thanks for the info ATC. Information like this is why I stay on A.Net. It is getting hard to deal with some of the threads but this actually imparts good info that impacts us in the PHX area. . Again Thanks!

I try to impart some knowledge from time to time

IWA does make for an interesting discussion though. It's great to see the increased success over the years, but some changes will need to happen at some point to accommodate.

77H wrote:

That good ole fashion Phoenician sprawl. For a while in college I lived in Queen Creek and had family in Peoria. That was almost an 1.5 hr drive all in the city.

I got my pvt at IWA with ASU. I remember when G4 just started ramping up ops there. Their MD80s used to wake me up when I was at the dorms there. Crazy how much things have changed and how much it’s grown.

77H

I was at ASU back then too for ATC. It was a big deal when G4 started up, I think around October 2007? The reversers going off at midnight pretty much got everyone...those Mad Dogs make a real ruckus. Although I think everyone slept better after Silver State (the helo company...I think that's what they were called?) went bankrupt. I got pretty tired of having helos circle over my house in South Desert Village at 6am.

I believe you are correct, G4 did start ops at IWA around October 2007. I flew out of there in November on an MD-87 IWA-BIL, and they hadn't been operating too long yet. G4 only had two MD-87s based there in the beginning, but it didn't take long for the MD-82/83s to show up.

atcsundevil wrote:

IWA is seeking an $18m federal grant to construct a new control tower. The current tower was constructed by the Air Force in the 70s, and is extremely outdated for the modern needs of the airport. Anyone who has been in that tower cab knows things are pretty tight up there. The airport requires a larger, taller tower for future needs. It wasn't previously eligible for federal grants prior to the recent FAA reauthorization; changes were promoted by Arizona congressional members on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/ ... 069778002/

It also raises an interesting discussion that's been brewing for years. IWA is a Federal Contract Tower (staffed by controllers from a private company contracted by the FAA), but given how large the airport's commercial ops have grown, it will likely necessitate reverting to FAA controllers and potentially 24 hour staffing at some point. The only FAA staffed facilities in the valley are PHX, P50, FFZ, and SDL. To my knowledge, no procedures exist to revert an FCT to FAA, only FAA to FCT, and I'm not aware of it ever having been done before.

There are also some longstanding airspace issues, as it may eventually necessitate becoming a Class C airspace — I don't believe new Class C airspace has been created in many years. The issue has been put on the back burner for a while now, because there will be significant legal resistance from AOPA, nearby residents, and others. With growing commercial ops, maintaining Class D airspace will eventually become insufficient, and may pose a safety risk between commercial aircraft and nonparticipating aircraft.

Thank you for the insight couple of questions.
- What are the pros & cons of converting IWA from Class D to Class C? Why would their be resistance to such a change?
- Who it would it be to get the FAA to go from a FCT to a FAA tower? Would it be the Arizona Congressional Delegation or the FAA themselves seeing that they have the numbers in front of them?

777PHX wrote:

Aye, they did go to Hawaii as a stopover, I'm not sure where specifically though. They have to maintain enough fuel onboard so that they can reach a diversion airport should something go wrong with the tanker, so I'm sure they refueled at least a few times. The F35s arrived home in OZ yesterday.

ahh...I didn't even consider the diversion factors.. so you are right definitely a few times

INFINITI329 wrote:

Thank you for the insight couple of questions.
- What are the pros & cons of converting IWA from Class D to Class C? Why would their be resistance to such a change

Well, it depends on who you ask, and I'll preface this by saying that I'm not an expert, so I'll speak to the best of my abilities. From an ATC perspective, Class C provides increased safety, particularly for approach controllers. Class C doesn't have the same entry requirements as a Class B, but it requires pilots to at least be acknowledged by ATC prior to entering the airspace. Class D allows nonparticipating to transit the airspace, thus, no communications with ATC. This can be detrimental for obvious reasons, particularly with commercial carriers involved. Several years ago, IWA had a massive amount of TCAS RAs (most due to the Fighter Combat guys), and several were caused by nonparticipating aircraft. I seem to recall G4 having 60+ RAs in the span of a couple of months, which was troubling, to say the least. Some procedures were changed and things improved significantly, but an airspace redesign is the more definitive long-term solution.

The cons are mostly from the perspective of the private pilot. Some pilots simply don't want to talk to ATC, even for simple VFR flight following. Just about any changes to airspace results in a lawsuit from AOPA, particularly if the change expands controlled airspace. It can result in a very lengthy process that can take years. Nearby residents and sometimes municipalities will often challenge changes in court out of fear of increased noise. All of that ends up being a con from the FAA's perspective, because litigating these challenges is extremely expensive and very time-consuming.

INFINITI329 wrote:

- Who it would it be to get the FAA to go from a FCT to a FAA tower? Would it be the Arizona Congressional Delegation or the FAA themselves seeing that they have the numbers in front of them?

I'm honestly not sure, and I don't think very many people know the answer to that question. Theoretically, the FAA could simply fail to extend SERCO's contract, but the problem is the lack of allocated funding for FAA controllers to staff the facility. It isn't an impossible solution, but as of a few years ago, it seemed that very few people wanted to take on the issue (I suspect nothing has changed). It isn't that the SERCO controllers are substandard, but at some point, it seems to me that it's the FAA's responsibility to staff busier terminal facilities to ensure high standards. I believe that's also what the flying public expects. Ultimately it's a political issue, but whether it requires congressional action or not seems unclear.

atcsundevil wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Thank you for the insight couple of questions.
- What are the pros & cons of converting IWA from Class D to Class C? Why would their be resistance to such a change

Well, it depends on who you ask, and I'll preface this by saying that I'm not an expert, so I'll speak to the best of my abilities. From an ATC perspective, Class C provides increased safety, particularly for approach controllers. Class C doesn't have the same entry requirements as a Class B, but it requires pilots to at least be acknowledged by ATC prior to entering the airspace. Class D allows nonparticipating to transit the airspace, thus, no communications with ATC. This can be detrimental for obvious reasons, particularly with commercial carriers involved. Several years ago, IWA had a massive amount of TCAS RAs (most due to the Fighter Combat guys), and several were caused by nonparticipating aircraft. I seem to recall G4 having 60+ RAs in the span of a couple of months, which was troubling, to say the least. Some procedures were changed and things improved significantly, but an airspace redesign is the more definitive long-term solution.

The cons are mostly from the perspective of the private pilot. Some pilots simply don't want to talk to ATC, even for simple VFR flight following. Just about any changes to airspace results in a lawsuit from AOPA, particularly if the change expands controlled airspace. It can result in a very lengthy process that can take years. Nearby residents and sometimes municipalities will often challenge changes in court out of fear of increased noise. All of that ends up being a con from the FAA's perspective, because litigating these challenges is extremely expensive and very time-consuming.

INFINITI329 wrote:

- Who it would it be to get the FAA to go from a FCT to a FAA tower? Would it be the Arizona Congressional Delegation or the FAA themselves seeing that they have the numbers in front of them?

I'm honestly not sure, and I don't think very many people know the answer to that question. Theoretically, the FAA could simply fail to extend SERCO's contract, but the problem is the lack of allocated funding for FAA controllers to staff the facility. It isn't an impossible solution, but as of a few years ago, it seemed that very few people wanted to take on the issue (I suspect nothing has changed). It isn't that the SERCO controllers are substandard, but at some point, it seems to me that it's the FAA's responsibility to staff busier terminal facilities to ensure high standards. I believe that's also what the flying public expects. Ultimately it's a political issue, but whether it requires congressional action or not seems unclear.

Very interesting, thank you for sharing!

I understand the need as Gateway gets busier to possibly to address the class change. However, ops at Falcon and especially Chandler would be impacted in a negative way I would suppose. I’m not a controller,but fly for a 121 carrier, have an aircraft at Chandler and also a former sun devil (forks up). Wouldn’t a change to gateway also cause a change to the Phx bravo? The current sids out of gateway aren’t the best for aircraft departing in certain directions, however that is due to Phx stars and sids. Could one look at the LA basin and the multiple airports as an example? It’s not just the tower transition, or the upgagued to class C...wouldn’t PHX have to be on board as well?

93Sierra wrote:

I understand the need as Gateway gets busier to possibly to address the class change. However, ops at Falcon and especially Chandler would be impacted in a negative way I would suppose. I’m not a controller,but fly for a 121 carrier, have an aircraft at Chandler and also a former sun devil (forks up). Wouldn’t a change to gateway also cause a change to the Phx bravo? The current sids out of gateway aren’t the best for aircraft departing in certain directions, however that is due to Phx stars and sids. Could one look at the LA basin and the multiple airports as an example? It’s not just the tower transition, or the upgagued to class C...wouldn’t PHX have to be on board as well?

Class C at a secondary airport isn't going to trump (sorry) Class B airspace at a primary airport. Check out how the Class C at MDW looks vs. the Class B at ORD. (You can look at BUR and LAX, too, but that's less dramatic). And yes, the outer area which typically starts at 1200' AFL will interfere with the Class D airspace at both CHD and FFZ.

Yes, departures off runway 30 at IWA are turned east due to traffic at PHX. But STARS and IDPs are independent of airspace class. At least with Class C, if you do turn east, there shouldn't be that beehive of 1200 codes out there.

93Sierra wrote:

I understand the need as Gateway gets busier to possibly to address the class change. However, ops at Falcon and especially Chandler would be impacted in a negative way I would suppose. I’m not a controller,but fly for a 121 carrier, have an aircraft at Chandler and also a former sun devil (forks up). Wouldn’t a change to gateway also cause a change to the Phx bravo? The current sids out of gateway aren’t the best for aircraft departing in certain directions, however that is due to Phx stars and sids. Could one look at the LA basin and the multiple airports as an example? It’s not just the tower transition, or the upgagued to class C...wouldn’t PHX have to be on board as well?

There would most likely be changes to the Bravo, but it would all be controlled by P50, so it wouldn't make too much of a difference from an ATC perspective, apart from new sectors and procedures. Phoenix TRACON is a consolidated approach control, so it is designed to control more than the PHX terminal area. They also control Prescott, and they were intended to take over Tucson about ten years ago, but politics intervened. It would make the valley airspace more complicated, particularly with the adjacent Deltas, but it wouldn't be anything too crazy...not compared to elsewhere in the country, anyway.

All of that work is done out of the Airspace and Procedures Office at the TRACON, so by default everyone is on board. Obviously any proposed changes would have to run up the chain to the district office, headquarters, and various work groups, so it certainly wouldn't be a unilateral change done by the staff support specialists at P50. If/when it happens, it would be the culmination of a lot of years of work and planning.

No but a class b should be in conversation with a class d covo c

All superb info and well explained, ATCSUNDEVIL you really know your stuff, but please...when referring to TCAS, what is a RA? And what is P50 you've mentioned a few times. Not all of us know these codes/acronyms. Thanks.

cathay747 wrote:

All superb info and well explained, ATCSUNDEVIL you really know your stuff, but please...when referring to TCAS, what is a RA? And what is P50 you've mentioned a few times. Not all of us know these codes/acronyms. Thanks.

Sorry! I shouldn't make assumptions!

A TCAS RA is a Resolution Advisory. When the TCAS projects traffic will potentially be in conflict with the aircraft, it will turn into a Resolution Advisory and instruct the pilot to climb or descend. The RA instructions take priority over an ATC clearance, and the pilot is required to follow the prompt. It can sometimes result in injuries due to higher than normal climb/decent rates. It doesn't necessarily mean ATC screwed up — TCAS will project the climb/decent rates of other aircraft, and even though they may be separated visually or through an ATC clearance, the system can sometimes panic and initiate an RA. This happened a lot with the Fighter Combat aircraft (I think they're Extras?) at IWA several years ago, because TCAS would recognize the extreme vertical rates and project a conflict, even though the aircraft were never actually in conflict. Those types of maneuvers are typically done by the military in protected airspace for a reason.

P50 is Phoenix TRACON. That's the radar approach control facility for the valley. It's located in the building at the base of the control tower.

atcsundevil wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

All superb info and well explained, ATCSUNDEVIL you really know your stuff, but please...when referring to TCAS, what is a RA? And what is P50 you've mentioned a few times. Not all of us know these codes/acronyms. Thanks.

Sorry! I shouldn't make assumptions!

A TCAS RA is a Resolution Advisory. When the TCAS projects traffic will potentially be in conflict with the aircraft, it will turn into a Resolution Advisory and instruct the pilot to climb or descend. The RA instructions take priority over an ATC clearance, and the pilot is required to follow the prompt. It can sometimes result in injuries due to higher than normal climb/decent rates. It doesn't necessarily mean ATC screwed up — TCAS will project the climb/decent rates of other aircraft, and even though they may be separated visually or through an ATC clearance, the system can sometimes panic and initiate an RA. This happened a lot with the Fighter Combat aircraft (I think they're Extras?) at IWA several years ago, because TCAS would recognize the extreme vertical rates and project a conflict, even though the aircraft were never actually in conflict. Those types of maneuvers are typically done by the military in protected airspace for a reason.

P50 is Phoenix TRACON. That's the radar approach control facility for the valley. It's located in the building at the base of the control tower.

Ah...OK...resolution advisory! thanks...and also for decoding P50, now I know it's the TRACON and not an airfield!! Did I see you post sometime in the past that you work at Potomac TRACON? Damn that's gotta be one busy place!

The amount of ASU people on this thread is annoying. Bear Down.

atcsundevil wrote:

They also control Prescott, and they were intended to take over Tucson about ten years ago, but politics intervened.

I thought Tucson was already controlled by PHX? Does TUS have its own TRACON facility in the tower there?

93Sierra wrote:

I understand the need as Gateway gets busier to possibly to address the class change. However, ops at Falcon and especially Chandler would be impacted in a negative way I would suppose. I’m not a controller,but fly for a 121 carrier, have an aircraft at Chandler and also a former sun devil (forks up). Wouldn’t a change to gateway also cause a change to the Phx bravo? The current sids out of gateway aren’t the best for aircraft departing in certain directions, however that is due to Phx stars and sids. Could one look at the LA basin and the multiple airports as an example? It’s not just the tower transition, or the upgauged to class C...wouldn’t PHX have to be on board as well?

My bird is also at Chandler and for years there was a close eye kept on IWA to make sure everyone was ready to protest when the Class C chants started. The flight schools and FBOs felt having a Charlie overlay with a Bravo overlay was too complicated and would cut back on visiting traffic. While I do not like the idea of talking to 5 different controllers if coming from north of the valley, we would all get used to it.

I transition Gateway all the time and I stay high and directly center as I have encountered Allegiant go-arounds, trainer twins with gear issues, confused students, etc etc. If it ever does go Charlie I think you will see a reduction in the ridiculous number of stop and go's (those are looooong runways) and a less congested flight area. To be honest, the most dangerous area is just south of the Class D. For those of you not familiar, the west area of the San Tan mountains is an aerobatic zone so you have planes doing flips, rolls, dives, etc and then east of that you have the approach path for Gateway which is fully unprotected and has given me several unnerving traffic alerts and then east of that you have a restricted zone for the national guard so everyone is turning north or south to avoid that. A lot going on when you just departed Chandler and have only a few minutes to make decisions.

Like everything else it has pros and cons. If CVG is still Bravo (which is ridiculous) then you can certainly make the argument that IWA needs to be Charlie for additional protection.

chrisair wrote:

The amount of ASU people on this thread is annoying. Bear Down.

chrisair wrote:

I thought Tucson was already controlled by PHX? Does TUS have its own TRACON facility in the tower there?

Tucson has always had its own approach control (U90). It's actually located on Davis-Monthan. When the new Phoenix Consolidated TRACON was built around 2008 (P50), it was intended to absorb U90 and eventually provide approach control service for PRC. The powers that be prevented U90 from moving, although I would anticipate it happening someday. PRC was added to P50 around 2014 or 2015, which added something like two sectors to P50.

skyharborshome wrote:

My bird is also at Chandler and for years there was a close eye kept on IWA to make sure everyone was ready to protest when the Class C chants started. The flight schools and FBOs felt having a Charlie overlay with a Bravo overlay was too complicated and would cut back on visiting traffic. While I do not like the idea of talking to 5 different controllers if coming from north of the valley, we would all get used to it.

I transition Gateway all the time and I stay high and directly center as I have encountered Allegiant go-arounds, trainer twins with gear issues, confused students, etc etc. If it ever does go Charlie I think you will see a reduction in the ridiculous number of stop and go's (those are looooong runways) and a less congested flight area. To be honest, the most dangerous area is just south of the Class D. For those of you not familiar, the west area of the San Tan mountains is an aerobatic zone so you have planes doing flips, rolls, dives, etc and then east of that you have the approach path for Gateway which is fully unprotected and has given me several unnerving traffic alerts and then east of that you have a restricted zone for the national guard so everyone is turning north or south to avoid that. A lot going on when you just departed Chandler and have only a few minutes to make decisions.

Like everything else it has pros and cons. If CVG is still Bravo (which is ridiculous) then you can certainly make the argument that IWA needs to be Charlie for additional protection.

Come to the east coast and we can talk about complicated airspace lol. I get it though — airspace changes cause a lot of confusion and angst, particularly among non-commercial pilots. However, that's not really the best reason to delay or prevent a redesign to improve safety and efficiency for everyone, not just the big guys. As you said, people would eventually get used to it. Things are always changing in aviation, so despite the protests, things pretty much always work out for the better. I would understand the anger if it involved expanding the Bravo or something, but creating a Charlie shouldn't be too big of a deal when it only requires basic acknowledgement from ATC. I fully realize that a very vocal minority wouldn't give in that easily though!

atcsundevil wrote:

Tucson has always had its own approach control (U90). It's actually located on Davis-Monthan. When the new Phoenix Consolidated TRACON was built around 2008 (P50), it was intended to absorb U90 and eventually provide approach control service for PRC. The powers that be prevented U90 from moving, although I would anticipate it happening someday. PRC was added to P50 around 2014 or 2015, which added something like two sectors to P50.

Las Vegas was in the mix, but that plan also also dissolved.

atcsundevil wrote:

I would understand the anger if it involved expanding the Bravo or something, but creating a Charlie shouldn't be too big of a deal when it only requires basic acknowledgement from ATC. I fully realize that a very vocal minority wouldn't give in that easily though!

If IWA gets C airspace, then every itinerant VFR arrival will need to be sequenced by approach control; all VFR departures also get radar service, even if they want to terminate at the edge of Class C. Willie Sector will be even more fun. Also, the tops of CHD and FFZ class D areas will be lopped off to accommodate Class C. VFR traffic landing at those airports will have to go down and/or around if they don't want to get approach control approval.

If you look at KSFB it went from a Class D to Class C below the MCO B. This was very needed. KSFB was incredibly busy with all the flight training and a huge uptick in commercial air service including European heavies including 747s.

I did a lot of flight training out of what was Delta Connection Academy in 2004/05. At the time is was only a class D airport. This made for some interesting departures/arrivals into the airport. We didn't have TCAS at the time, so lots of radio communications and very talented tower controllers. I can't think of many D airports that had more than one tower frequencies and 3 parallel runways. Heck, we even taxied on some taxiways two ways. Aka "Connection 502 taxi via Bravo right side. I also remember coming into the airport where the tower would say circle over a certain landmark or something like that. I really think IWAS will become a C, especially with its air-carrier growth.

If you look at KSFB it went from a Class D to Class C below the MCO B a few years ago. This was very needed. KSFB was incredibly busy with all the flight training and a huge uptick in commercial air service including European heavies including 747s.

I did a lot of flight training out of what was Delta Connection Academy in 2004/05. At this time it was only a D. This made for some interesting departures/arrivals into the airport. We didn't have TCAS at the time, so lots of radio communications and very talented tower controllers. I can't think of many D airports that had more than one tower frequencies and 3 parallel runways. Heck, we even taxied on some taxiways two ways. Aka "Connection 502 taxi via Bravo right side. I also remember coming into the airport where the tower would say circle over a certain landmark or something like that.

Anyways... I really think IWAS will become a C, especially with its air-carrier growth. In the long run, it's safer which brings me to my next point.

I had the privilege of having an air traffic controller for my PPL, and a part of my Instrument rating before I went to Florida. He took the fear away from me when it came to talking to ATC and getting flight following. I thankful for this, and an ATC system in which you can file a flight plan for free (no user fees). Ultimately it saved my life.

On a bright clear cloudless day, I was making a routine flight in my Piper Arrow from SGF to MCI. I had done this flight several times. On this day I almost flew completely VFR, however, I went ahead and filed the IFR plan because I felt it kept me sharper as a pilot. I'm glad I did. Upon arrival into MCI (just outside the mode C ring) TRACON often times descended you down to about 3000ft, even on an IFR flight plan. Even though by now I was inside the MODE c ring, I was well below the floor of the Class B. Within minutes TRACON advises me, "91Y traffic 2 o'clock 2,000 feet, moving right to left, & appears to be descending rapidly." I quickly spot the aircraft and reported him in site. As I switched my POV looking for him to pass under me on the left side, I never saw him. A few seconds passed and I still didn't see him. Next thing you know it occurs to me that if I'm not seeing him, it's because he's going straight up or straight down. By this point my wife (who had flown with me many times kept tapping my shoulder in a panic). I knew it wasn't a good tap. Out of instinct, I bank hard left into a 60-degree turn. Not knowing where he was was scary. Next thing you know the stunt plane of some sort shoots straight up within about 5 to 10 feet of my right wing. He completes his hammerhead and heads straight down.

This guy was within feet of ending my life, my wife, and his.

Technically he didn't bust any airspace because he was in uncontrolled E below the B. While this was perfectly legal it was stupid to do aerobatics below the floor of a B without more communication.
- He could have called a FSS and requested a block of airspace for aerobatics. This would have issued NOTAMs for both pilots and ATC. I would have been vectored around him.
Technically he had his mode C on, but would it have hurt to call up TRACON and tell them what the heck he was doing?

Long story short (maybe wondering what my point is), even when IWA becomes a C, they are still enough people out there like "weekend warriors" that no amount of airspace can keep them from flying recklessly and stupid. Figured I'd share that and encourage people to not be afraid to talk to ATC. We are blessed to have a user-fee free system!

American will be adding daily service between PHX and RDU beginning May 3 with an A320.

Now AA just needs to add BNA and MSY which are the two biggest remaining holes IMO!

Article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/american-unveils-new-summer-service-for-2019-454399/

cm642 wrote:

American will be adding daily service between PHX and RDU beginning May 3 with an A320.

Now AA just needs to add BNA and MSY which are the two biggest remaining holes IMO!

Article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/american-unveils-new-summer-service-for-2019-454399/

I agree that the lack of AA PHX-BNA and PHX-MSY are two of the biggest remaining holes, but there are other nonstop routes such as PHX-CVG and PHX-TUL that could be added by AA. AA also has the option of adding American Eagle nonstop service to CVG, BNA, MSY, and TUL from PHX since CVG, BNA, MSY, and TUL are all within the range of regional jets from PHX.

jplatts wrote:

I agree that the lack of AA PHX-BNA and PHX-MSY are two of the biggest remaining holes, but there are other nonstop routes such as PHX-CVG and PHX-TUL that could be added by AA. AA also has the option of adding American Eagle nonstop service to CVG, BNA, MSY, and TUL from PHX since CVG, BNA, MSY, and TUL are all within the range of regional jets from PHX.

Neither CVG or BNA are within realistic range of the CR7/CR9 year-round. The year-round range drops off at around 1300 miles for an effective payload. BNA might be marginable with the CR7 but no way that CVG is. Not to mention, that is a long distance in the smaller CRJ cabin and there are no current E175s based in PHX (nor are there plans to be).

alasizon wrote:

Neither CVG or BNA are within realistic range of the CR7/CR9 year-round. The year-round range drops off at around 1300 miles for an effective payload. BNA might be marginable with the CR7 but no way that CVG is. Not to mention, that is a long distance in the smaller CRJ cabin and there are no current E175s based in PHX (nor are there plans to be).

Both AS and DL previously operated regional jets on the SEA-MKE nonstop route, which is longer than the PHX-BNA and PHX-CVG nonstop routes, but both AS and DL have since upgauged their SEA-MKE nonstop flights to mainline aircraft.

There are a few nonstop routes longer than PHX-CVG that are operated on regional jets, including SEA-DAL on AS, PDX-DAL on AS, SFO-MSN on UA, and SFO-STL on UA.

American Eagle currently operates a few nonstop routes that are longer than PHX-BNA on regional jets such as DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP.