need to call if VFR in Class E airspace?

[Alex Bailey 969331]

Hey mike,

 

I respect your ideas a lot you are training me to be a controller. I was in the boat of saying both were wrong here, but it has been brought to my attention that this baboon (controller) went around and posted this on several different forums. That is lower then Whale _ _ _ _ <- FOUR LETTER WORD. If you have a problem, be a man and talk to the guy. This in my mind, was a planned attack on VFR aircraft, by this one controller, who I believe should have a re-evaluation. If you are an I1 and you can't conduct yourself in a professional manner, you need to get the boot. If I called out a p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]enger on the corporate jet I fly, would I have a job when I landed? Hell no. The only thing I faulted the pilots for was the lack of first discussing the situation in a professional manner, but I really don't think they have a chance. They were attacked from first message. The case is closed now, but someone needs to take a serious look at who is controlling their airspace if they are a ATM / DATM / TA. I think we need to have a yearly recurrent training or something on each position you are qualified for, because this is just going way over the top.

 

One last example before I go.

 

Holding over the PHTO airport a Delta at 9500, I get booted for being in his airspace. His airspace goes to 2600' in that delta. I get booted because I am VFR in his CONTROL SPACE for IFR airplanes. Get a life, and get retrained.

 

If there was a way to set my mood for this post it would Pissed, and fed up!

 

Before taking shots at the controller involved and violating VATSIM CoC in the process, think about what you are going to say. You don't know the entire story, and you don't know what has happened for the past year before this occurance, where this very pilot and others were involved with a SUP for busting Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace.

 

Stick to the discussion at hand and don't bring the latest incident into it.

 

Alex I don't think its so much a matter of who the pilots were or what ARTCC they are from or what rating they held why would I care as a controller anyway. It doesn't matter if Elvis is flying the plane around it's a radar target regardless of who's flying. What should matter is that they were untracked VFR targets flying underneath the bravo airspace all he should be getting is an altitude readout and groundspeed (keep in mind altitude encoding not required if your outside the mode c vail depicted on the sectional). The callsign is not even availble until a controller inputs it after the pilot provides it (real life). It starts to seem like a witch-hunt if he has the time to check vatsim stats ratings hours etc and which ARTC Center they are a member of all while working a position during an event.

 

You can use whatever radar mode in VRC you want to use, making it very possible to find out who the pilot was. Seeing as he has busted the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B before, and it has been docomeented on multiple occasions, and he has been party to others who have done it on purpose and have had SUP action taken, then he would be discriminated in this manner. I don't know if he busted or not, but he has done it before while I was controlling with a student. It wouldn't surprise me if it happened again, but the rules are the rules and if he didn't bust it then he isn't in the wrong, except for his chat exchange where I believe both could be subject to DCRM procedures.

 

It isn't a matter of the controller knowing the airspace or not. He used to be the TA in Miami, and I hired him when I was the ATM. He is fully competent, which leads me to believe that the airspace was busted or you guys were acting in a provoking manner. Ring riding is one thing, but trying to cause close calls and conflicts is another. I really could care less about the details of what happened because it brings up an important point. A lot of us are not real world controllers and some may not have the ability to control real world levels of traffic and separation. VATSIM controllers do not go through months of real world training.

 

Remember that this is a hobby and should be fun for all. Drop the grudges and conflicts and go enjoy the network.

[Stephen Sculley-Beaman]

I think the primary concern in the entire incident was the pilots' handling of the ATC's request. To be honest, it turned into a childish battle of the egos. Don't know bout you guys, but I'm not here to butt heads with some guys who'd rather have a fit about being "right." I'm here to enjoy myself while flying and controlling. Drop the e-drama please?

[Andrew Podner 994055]

This is precisely why the controllers I mentor start with VFR traffic in the sweatbox before they ever give an IFR clearance. Why ATCs want to create more work for themselves by contact aircraft that they do not need to deal with is beyond rational thought. The only time I will PM a VFR is if he is violating A, B, C, or D airspace. Otherwise there is no need to contact them. I fly VFR quite a bit at 16,500 and 17,500 specifically so that I don't have to deal with ATC if I am not in the mood. If I am in the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A, as soon as my altitude is below 18,000....."cancel IFR", and then recontact ATC when transitioning the C or B, simple.

 

The reason that many controllers get frustrated with VFR is lack of training and experience with it. It doesn't matter what your rating is or how many hours you have logged, there is always time to learn something new. The 2 most common VFR airspace violations I get are 1) trying to fly VFR in the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A 2) Altimeter set wrong and the violation is inadvertent. I really do not know how ATCs and pilots get in fights.

 

It takes two to argue. for me, if a pilot is being uncooperative, I just drop tag on them and separate other aircraft away from them using the term, "Traffic is Uncrontrolled/Nonresponsive Aircraft at your 2 oclock, 7 miles report in sight" and go on with my life. When they reach the next controller's airspace, I send them a PM to contact that ATC and PM the ATC and let them know that I was not able to control them. No details, no mudslinging, just drop it and move on.

 

I have on one occasion been called to the carpet by an ATC during a VFR flight, I asked him to confirm my position as XX miles from the primary airport, then I stated that my altimeter was set at XXXX, my indicated altitude was XXXX and my chart showed the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B floor was XXXXX. Guess what happened? He said, "oh that is weird, I am showing your altitude....oh nevermind, that is your cruise and you are below it, sorry, good day." My reply was to the effect of "Hey I am happy to do whatever makes it easy on you, If you need me to climb and establish contact, no problem."

 

If you are a pilot or an ATC who lives to catch people slipping, I really feel sorry for you. You are missing the best part of this whole thing which is having fun. If you want to come and bust my chops at DFW, hang around outside the B, or whatever, you are more than welcome. IFR traffic flies above the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B floor, and if you are going to ride the limit, you know what I'll do?.........................keep my IFRs a little higher until they are in the SFC core area.

 

Have a great day everyone.

[Pete Holske 833650]

Something tells me that the above isn't the entire story. I don't think a SUP would just disconnect you (i.e. booted) on request of a controller without at least a discussion with you. Perhaps you should bring this up offline with VATGOV11.

 

Out of curiosity, when you do your "independent controller training flights", do you ever provide detailed feedback to the ARTCC training staff?

 

I don't do "independent controller training" and I never said I did. I do westport pilot training, and that in turn gives Controllers new realistic scenarios to think about. If in your mind that consists of training controllers, thank you very much! I do give feed back and everything is always handled well by the TAs. I was giving incidents where there have been controller mess ups too. Did you see me post the private message all over the forum? Thats why I am upset Dan, it wasn't very cool. Nine times out of ten in this situation, you explain your situation to the controller and they understand and say I am sorry and you say no problem case closed. The night I mentioned, you are right i didn't divulge everything, I had to take a bathroom break so I set up a hold out of airspaces, and was going to continue when I got back from my extended bathroom break if you know what i mean. To about 13 private messages, when I was holding out of the airspace. It was handled and life went on. No FORUM post. See where I am going with this? Thats all I have been upset about.

 

Before taking shots at the controller involved and violating VATSIM CoC in the process, think about what you are going to say. You don't know the entire story, and you don't know what has happened for the past year before this occurance, where this very pilot and others were involved with a SUP for busting Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace.

 

Now because in the past a pilot has busted airspace so we will single him out? Good idea! Pilots training real life situations should not be penalized because someone is heated, because they practice these procedures. That is my only opinion and I am sticking to that. I was not involved you are right, but this gentleman made everyone involved by posting a private situation over about 6 different forums. That does anger me, as it should. Even if he screwed up ( the pilot ) should he be put out like that? If thats a case VATSIM needs to put a new discussion topic. This hours screw ups, and we will all just blast each other all the time! Don't single people out for practicing VFR procedures, its bad enough the government wants to get rid of GA, VATSIM doesn't need to also!

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

The End

 

If you want to discuss this more, my email is [email protected] .

 

P.S. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS EVENT, WHICH I'M THINKING PEOPLE THINK I WAS. MYSELF AND MY VA WERE NOT EVEN IN ATTENDANCE, WE DID ONE IFR FLIGHT INTO TPA, BY MYSELF AND WE ALL AGREED THAT THE FLY IN WASN'T BUILT TOWARDS A VA LIKE WESTPORT. SO DON'T GO THINKING I DID THIS AND CAUSED TROUBLE. MY MAIN PROBLEM WITH THIS WHOLE THING IS A PRIVATE MATTER GOT MADE PUBLIC. ITS NOT RIGHT.

[Bernardo De Carvalho 97126]

Is E the airspace where you don't even need to establish radio comms? You don't even need a clearance if you are VFR...I believe this is only used in sections where traffic volume is very low almost no factor!

 

This is why I like Eurocontrol and their harmonization of airspace cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ification...In Portugal and other European countries we only have cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C and G! Easier than this is impossible...

 

Regards,

[Ryan Guffey 956726]

Is E the airspace where you don't even need to establish radio comms? You don't even need a clearance if you are VFR...I believe this is only used in sections where traffic volume is very low almost no factor!

 

The only time you have to talk to ATC in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E (controlled airspace) is when WX is below VFR mims, that is why we have Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E to the surface at some airports.

[Bernardo De Carvalho 97126]

Yes understood...if you are below VFR minima...you are not VFR, you are SVFR

[Ryan Guffey 956726]

Yes understood...if you are below VFR minima...you are not VFR, you are SVFR

 

only if you ask. and receive, your never just "svfr"

[Bernardo De Carvalho 97126]

Yes thats true...yesterday I landed below VFR minimums with my instructor...and I was VFR...couldn't be SVFR even if I had requested...the Cherokee didn't have no artificial horizon or any kind of radio aids receiver...and the thing was complicated!

 

As one of my instructors says...if you fly VFR within IMC conditions...you'll be flying to eternity!!!

[Joe Caban 844086]

Why can't ppl take responsibility for getting it wrong?

 

If we remove the argumentative tone of the controller and the pilots and take out any personal bickering; Peter and the others are right, this should never happen but happens 99% of the time. I have been kicked by a SUP for flying VFR at 300 feet underneathe a CHARLIE. I have received contact me's at every facility I have tried to fly VFR (including the old ZTL) except ZLA, ZAB, ZNY, and ZAU. (I haven't flown every center so I'm not saying those are the only places that do it correctly...)

 

Why don't we all get past the finger pointing and mudslinging and acknowledge what is really important here?

 

This common discrepancy causes grief for both pilots and controllers but is EASILY correctable and it is up to us to correct it.

We can easily expend the energy we use typing forum replies to advertise and publicize the correct way to handle VFR in an informative and educational manner for everyone. I think that is what Keith was trying to do here but apparently we've missed the hint.

[Keith Smith]

Ok, we've established that skirting the bravo happens every day in real life, and with good reason. It also appears that there is no support for creating a wide berth around the bravo on VATSIM, so I can only imagine, then, that controllers who reach for the 'contact me' button have failed to understand the basic airspace rules regarding comms and separation.

 

One other possibility is that they're descending their IFR aircraft too low, BELOW the outer shelves of the Bravo. Those shelves are there for that exact reason. Keep the IFR guys inside the Bravo shelves, ignore the sea of VFR aircraft (it really shouldn't matter if there are 3 or 30 of them) below the Bravo, and you're golden. This, of course, requires that you know the altitude of your Bravo shelves as a controller, or that they're clearly depicted on the scope (both are good).

 

The only area that is a bit dicey is separation of IFR and VFR in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E airspace (ie. well before they get to the Bravo), typically on STARs. If VFR pilots wanna be particularly cruel, they can loiter around STAR fixes at the expected crossing altitudes. TECHNICALLY, the controller doesn't have to do a thing, as ATC does not separate VFR and IFR outside of B/C airspace. If those VFR guys are loitering on the STAR, it's because the weather is VFR, and they can do it. Under such conditions, IFR pilots are required to be looking out the window, maintaining a watch for non-participating VFR traffic.

 

On VATSIM, IFR pilots are going to scream blue murder if a VFR guy is loitering on the STAR, and yell at ATC for not doing something about it (that's the dicey bit) because _many_ VATSIM IFR pilots aren't aware of their responsibilities in that regard. _Workload permitting_, ATC should inform an IFR target about a potential VFR conflict, but honestly, it would be low on my list during a busy event.

 

Besides, if the guy loitering on the STAR is truly VFR, he's going to see that oncoming plane and avoid it, right? It's one thing to go up there and enjoy the view and to 'prove a point' to ATC that they shouldn't sweat it...but those pilots should take a leaf from their own book, and do the right thing by getting out of the way when the 747 comes right at 'em (like that guy jumping out of the tower in Airplane..."he's comin' right at us!!")

 

If you're a controller who doesn't often handle a lot of VFR traffic, and this thread has you firing up VRC or a sectional chart, then FANTASTIC, you're on the right track. If you're a controller who thinks that VFR aircraft need to stay 'well away' from your Bravo or Charlie airspace, then we have a problem and this issue will continue.

[Owen Catherwood 903683]

Keith,

 

I'd say it's also a matter of trust with regards to VFR around/under the bravo. I've had countless aircraft depart VFR, then once below the shelf and/or out from the underlying Delta and sent on their way to unicom, do an immediate climb and bust the Bravo. It almost becomes habitual to send the 'contact me' early, because you just KNOW he's going to bust it.

 

The topic of busting airspace is very big now in the RW, where pilots with a GPS can skirt verrrry close to the point that ATC's radar claims they're in, but the GPS claims the pilot isn't.

[Keith Smith]

Owen,

 

That's completely understandable. Sending the contactme if you believe there's likely to be a bust is not the end of the world (particularly if there's other traffic in the bravo). However, if from that point on the pilot claims to be aware of the bravo and commits to remain outside of it, there is no logical basis for issuing altitude restrictions beyond the bounds of the bravo.

 

When I'm controlling, if I see a guy skirting the bravo (ie. flying parallel to the boundary of a shelf), I usually smile and think "good for you," and ignore him. If I see someone heading right towards the boundary, I get ready to hit The Button.

[David Baker 1004102]

I read today that two-way radio contact was required for cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E if it's a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E surface area attached to a Delta.

 

You know the notches that look like keyholes around Delta airports.

 

Anyone know if this is true or not?

[David Baker 1004102]

Also out of curiosity, what post is everybody referring to as being controversial?

 

I must have missed it.

[Keith Smith]

David,

 

The closest thing I can think of is a non-towered satellite field situated within the Delta airspace [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with a nearby towered airport. In such a case, you're required to establish comms as soon as practicable after takeoff. In that case, though, you are in honest to goodness Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D airspace on wheels up (hence the need to call asap).

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Agree with Keith, and to add further, even if the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E is an extension of B, C, D, whatever airspace, if you are VFR, you do not need to establish contact with ATC. If you are entering the other airspace(s), then yes, you do. But VFR in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E airspace does not require ATC comms.

[Bernardo De Carvalho 97126]

Thank God...at least in LPPC FIR we only have Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C and G...

 

Regards,

[Andrew Doubleday]

All too much do I see the problem of ATC vectoring aircraft for approaches below the Bravo on VATSIM, putting themselves into a bind when VFR traffic comes skirting along... You're also supposed to inform IFR traffic to "expect vectors outside the Bravo" when you're going to do that. I've been put on 20 mile downwinds to major fields at +-3000 AGL numerous times for no apparent reason other than the controller simply has little experience in what they are doing - well outside of controlled airspace.

 

I was having a conversation with Peter Holske (WPC Virtual CEO) about these issues the other evening and laughing about how much of an issue this seems to be. We came to the conclusion that VFR is such a misunderstood concept (For both pilots and controllers) on VATSIM, it seems. I really don't know what the solution would be other than exposing ATC to more VFR traffic... and I must say that I agreed with Peter's frequent VFR flights around and under Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B that he will do with his VA from time to time as a learning experience... there really isn't a better way to go about teaching how to do it properly (especially with his experience in the matter real world). However, it falls on the training staff at these facilities in question to teach their controllers about the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C/B shelves and how to appropriately vector their traffic for approaches and know and understand the rules [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with the airspace they are working.

 

All relavant to my previous posts regarding the "realism spectrum" and that this network will always remain divided in some form or fashion because some like it more realistic than others... not really an easy way to find solid ground to see eye to eye with each other - and, as Keith states, this very issue will continue to present itself as a problem...

 

My solution is simple - stay clear of those facilities notorious for these problems if you're not happy as a pilot... I'm not out to cause problems, but I certainly don't enjoy getting rediculous vectors or instructions either... so you'll only catch me flying in a select few airspaces regularly because of this - something I might suggest to those having similar issues - stick to where you're happy.

 

-AJ

[David Baker 1004102]

David,

 

The closest thing I can think of is a non-towered satellite field situated within the Delta airspace [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with a nearby towered airport. In such a case, you're required to establish comms as soon as practicable after takeoff. In that case, though, you are in honest to goodness Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D airspace on wheels up (hence the need to call asap).

 

Keith Check out KARR on skyvector.com to see what I'm talking about. To the NE of the D there's a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E Surface area extension to contain an instrument approach in IMC.

 

I did find this though:

 

AIM:

 

Chapter 3-2-6 Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E Airspace

 

2. Extension to a surface area. There are Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E airspace areas that serve as extensions to Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C, and Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D surface areas designated for an airport. Such airspace provides controlled airspace to contain standard instrument approach procedures without imposing a communications requirement on pilots operating under VFR.

 

This type of airspace is apparently restricted to some sort of operations like powered paragliders and aerobatic practice.

 

I've read about some confusion as to whether or not a tower at an D with a surface E extension that is in IMC can deny access to the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E extention to a VFR pilot if he is in comms with the tower. Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E is controlled airspace, and while you don't need to be in comms with a tower to be in it, what if you are in comms with the tower and they tell you remain clear of the E surface area? Do they have that right?

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

Not only can you fly beneath the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B,C, or D,,,You can fly above it VFR without contacting. For example, you can fly directly across the top of Atlanta VFR at 13,5000. Safe? Maybe not, Legal? Yes.

 

D

[Keith Smith]

No, they can not. They can ask you to remain outside of the Delta, but not outside of the Echo.

 

ATC does not separate aircraft in uncontrolled (Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G) airspace. By making that extension (Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E in that portion instead of Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G), they are allowed to control IFR aircraft in that patch of sky.

 

The extension ensures that the aircraft will remain in controlled airspace through the entirety of the instrument approach.

 

Recall that if a non-participating VFR guy were to fly be flying around the echo extension, ATC is NOT under obligation to separate the IFR guy from him.

[David Baker 1004102]

Keith, I'm inclined to agree as are most pilots that have debated this subject.

 

I've found interesting stuff on the web though about Palomar airport. The tower there is apparently under the impression that they have control of VFR aircraft inside the E surface extension:

 

I fly near an airport in the San Diego area (Palomar Airport in Carlsbad) which has a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E surface area extension (to the ground). One extension to the east, one to the northwest. If the airport goes IMC, they are under the impression that the extension is now under their control and can deny entry to any aircraft operating in the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E extension even if those aircraft are able to maintain VMC conditions. I have found nothing definitive in the FARs, only a section of the AIM which reads:

 

"(2). Extension to a Surface Area - There are Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E airspace areas that serve as extensions to Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D, and Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E surface areas designated for an airport. Such airspace provides controlled airspace to contain standard instrument approach procedures without imposing a communications requirement on pilots operating under VFR."

 

Source:http://en.allexperts.com/q/Aviation-Flying-1651/Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]-E-extension.htm

 

 

 

 

Ok you guys, here's what we have. There's an airport in San Diego County (Palomar) that is of the impression that they have the right to deny access to the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E surface area extension to VFR aircraft in VMC when the airport is calling the wx IMC.

 

The story goes like this. If the marine layer (no that's not the nasty chick that screws jarheads) rolls in from the coast like it always does, it will cover the airport long before the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E which is much further inland. The Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E can remain CAVU to the hilt yet they think they have the right to deny access.

 

There is no wording in the AIM/FAR or the controller's handbook which says anything about them being able to do this. As far as I can tell, there isn't even a comms requirement in any Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E anywhere if operating VFR.

 

If anybody has knowledge to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

 

Additionally, I am trying to get a good FAA contact (without going through my local FSDO). Anybody have good contact info for somebody in the FAA that has a clue?

 

Cheers

 

Just got an e-mail from an AOPA liason to the FAA. For now, it seems the FAA isn't dealing with their LOA. However, check out this e-mail:

 

Scott:

Thank you for the follow up. We did receive a reply from the FAA last week. They found that the tower does have the authority to keep aircraft out of the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E extension when the airport is IFR. I did some further research on the issue and discussed it with one of our consultants. According to him, if you initiate communications with the tower prior to entering the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E, the tower can restrict you from entering the airspace, but if you do not contact the tower, you can fly into the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E extension so long as you maintain VFR in accordance with the regulations.

It's a bit convoluted, but unfortunately is the way these regulations are sometimes understood. If the airport is IFR, I would strongly recommend, despite the possibility of being denied access, that you do communicate with the tower. If they are running conducting real-world approaches, it could compromise safety to have an aircraft in the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E extension.

 

From the Palomar LOA:

 

Let me quote a few sections of the LOA which I just pulled out of my files.

 

"Tower is responsible for and shall:

 

(4) Control VFR aircraft within the Tower Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D Surface Area and Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E Arrival Extension."

 

Here's another.

 

"PALOMAR ATCT DELEGATED AIRSPACE

 

b. Echo airspace. Palomar has two Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] echo extensions. During the time the ATCT is operational, and the reported weather is below basic VFR minimums, the Palomar Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Echo extensions become part of the Palomar surface area. The extension to the northwest provides protection for the Palomar VOR-A approach and the extension to the east provides protection for the Palomar ILS RWY 24 approach."

 

Source:http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139332

 

While not the most credible of sources, it seems palomar is at least under the impression that when the weather there is reported IMC the E surface extension becomes part of the airports surface area and is under ATCT control.

 

While you are not obligated to contact the tower, if you are in contact with the tower they may control you or tell you remain clear.

 

While VFR seperation is not provided in a Delta, the tower may give a "remain clear" instruction can it not?

 

Interesting.

[Roy Evans 1061333]

AIM 3-2-6 (e) (2)

 

2. Extension to a surface area. There are Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E airspace areas that serve as extensions to Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C, and Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D surface areas designated for an airport. Such airspace provides controlled airspace to contain standard instrument approach procedures without imposing a communications requirement on pilots operating under VFR.

 

Clear as mud?

 

I know this was posted before, just want to reiterate the idea VFR aircraft are NOT REQUIRED to contact anyone when operating VFR IAW VFR weather requirements within any cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E surface extensions to B, C, or D airspace.

[David Baker 1004102]

I agree no communications are required, but what if you are already in communications?

What then?