« first day (2673 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) » 

3:56 PM
@quietflyer operation tower = Class D, the example I found is Class D (when operational) surrounded by Class E
my advice, save the multiple questions somewhere, and ask them one by one, when one is answered, submit the next if questions remain open -- it is vote-to-closable but I'll leave it to others
 
I'm confused in two ways as to how this pertains to my question. First of all, do you agree that the surface-level airspace at KEYW reverts to G, not E, during the hours when the tower is not operational? The Chart Supplement is basically telling us that.
 
I agree to that, but your question, which you edited to emphasize, pertains to when D is active, when D is active, it's surrounded by E
does not KEYW answer the title question?: are there any active control towers located in Class E airspace?
 
So you are reading my use of the word "in" to mean "surrounded by", i.e. in every possible direction of travel we'll eventually run in to Class E airspace? It never occurred to me that someone might read it that way. (And ps that's not even the situation at KEYW if we are below 700' AGL.)
Do you think that's the meaning of "in" that the FAA had in mind re "§ 91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace." I don't--
 
I suggest: Are there any active control towers located in Class-E-to-surface airspace? -- that is, if I understood what you just wrote, you should be able to tell
but then again, why? the regs are not that specific in this issue
that's why I recommend splitting the questions, start with:
whatever is unclear in the regs wording, and take it from there
 
4:11 PM
It just never occurred to me that someone would ever read "in" to be describing the nature of the airspace some distance away (i.e. "encircled by") rather than right there at the airport.
But I'll make an edit
 
grammatically speaking, doesn't "in" include the way I understood it?
 
@ymb1 sure you could make that case but it would seem to be the least likely intention of whoever wrote the regs. Plus if you look at the airspace at ground (water) level up to 700' AGL, the case doesn't hold at KEYW. Well anyway I guess I see where you are coming from, it just seems like a very unlikely interpretation to me and I was truly baffled there for a while at the seeming disconnect in our communications--
 
@quietflyer I see your viewpoint as well now; I really really advise you truncate the question to just the meaning of that particular clause, without the 5 or so tangential questions
 
 
3 hours later…
7:28 PM
@Federico nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html. Also as explained in depth in comments that were deleted on Peter's answer. Truth isn't a popularity context, and I get it that blaming Boeing is more popular than noting that if the airlines had hired more experienced pilots and allowed them to maintain proficiency in hand-flying, the accidents wouldn't have happened. Fine. But from lots of experience in the from of 737's, I'm here to tell you that the planes were flyable, if only the pilots had maintained aircraft control and turned off the cutout switches. — Ralph J 24 mins ago
@RalphJ: I'm replying here in case comments get removed, since they aren't the right place. That very long NYTimes article (I'm say 25% through) is really good. And confirms Bianfable's answer. That is, blame isn't on one party only. Incompetence or lack of airmanship as the article shows is everywhere, inc. NA and Europe, "The problem exists for many American and European pilots, too."
It's something few airline pilots do admit. The issue with the heavily downvoted answer, unlike the final report in Bianfable's answer, and the NYT article, is it lays the blame solely on one party. Boeing, and Airbus, are well-aware of the lack of airmanship, without which they can't sell planes (a big percentage would flunk out if standards were higher everywhere), so Boeing too is too blame for the badly designed system, and its training curriculum . Just my 2c
 

« first day (2673 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) »