Overview
Title
Proposed Establishment and Revocation of Class E Airspace; North Dakota, ND
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA wants to change some of the sky rules over North Dakota to make flying safer and better. They plan to add a new area for planes to fly and take away old ones where they don't need them anymore.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a new rule to establish and modify airspace over North Dakota. This would create a domestic airspace area at 1,200 feet above the state and remove existing airspace regions at Harvey and Linton to improve air traffic control and support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations. The proposed changes are in response to requests from air traffic control centers in Salt Lake and Minneapolis. Public comments on this proposal are open until April 9, 2021, and must be submitted following specific guidelines provided by the FAA.
Abstract
This action proposes to establish an enroute domestic airspace area over the State of North Dakota and remove the enroute domestic airspace areas at Harvey and Linton, ND. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of Salt Lake Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and Minneapolis ARTCC to improve air traffic control services and support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations over the state.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a proposed rule from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that aims to reorganize airspace over the state of North Dakota. Specifically, the proposal suggests creating a new enroute domestic airspace area over the entire state at 1,200 feet above the ground while simultaneously eliminating existing airspace designations at specific locations—Harvey and Linton. The changes are expected to improve air traffic control efficiency and better support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations, a necessity emphasized by the Salt Lake and Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Centers.
General Summary
In essence, this proposal is an administrative adjustment in airspace management, presumably designed to streamline and enhance air traffic operations in North Dakota. Although technical in nature, its primary goal is to optimize safety and efficiency for aircraft flying in the state by creating a continuous airspace zone rather than having fragmented sections.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the text. First, the document lacks a clear analysis of the potential financial implications for stakeholders. Establishing and removing segments of airspace might have costs that stakeholders such as airlines, airports, or local businesses may want to assess. Additionally, while the document claims the proposal is "non-controversial," it fails to provide data to support this statement, which could be a point of concern for those looking to understand the basis for this determination.
Furthermore, there is a mention of an environmental review as part of the procedural requirements, but there are no details or timelines regarding this analysis. This absence of information could cause uncertainty for those interested in the environmental impact of these changes. Lastly, the document contains references to regulatory policies and statutes, such as "Executive Order 12866," without clarifying their relevance, potentially confusing readers unfamiliar with these references.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this proposal is unlikely to have a direct impact, as it primarily deals with air traffic control operations at significant altitudes. However, the implications for air travel efficiency and safety could indirectly affect passengers traveling through North Dakota, leading to potentially smoother and more reliable flight experiences.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Airlines and pilots operating in the region may see positive outcomes from more coherent airspace management, resulting in potentially more efficient flight routings and fewer procedural burdens. For local airports, particularly those in Harvey and Linton, the removal of their specific airspace designations could be perceived negatively if it impacts operational procedures or local economic benefits derived from air traffic operations.
In conclusion, while the proposal appears generally aimed at technical improvements within air traffic operations, it leaves several questions open-ended that might concern affected parties. The extent to which these changes deliver benefits or challenges will depend significantly on the detailed implementation and evaluations that follow public commentary and regulatory scrutiny.
Issues
• The document does not specify the cost or budget impact of establishing and removing enroute domestic airspace areas, which may be relevant for stakeholders interested in potential financial implications.
• While the document indicates that the proposed action is "non-controversial," there is no supporting data to back this statement, which could be an issue if stakeholders are interested in understanding the basis for this claim.
• The proposal mentions that an environmental analysis will be conducted, but no details or timelines for this analysis are provided, potentially leaving uncertainty for stakeholders interested in environmental implications.
• Some regulatory and legal references (e.g., "Executive Order 12866" and "DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures") are mentioned without explaining their relevance, which may be confusing for readers who are not familiar with these regulations.
• The document's language includes technical terms and references (such as "FAA Order 7400.11E") which might be difficult for a layperson to understand without additional context or explanation.