Narrative:

While working the tower cab combined; moffett tower called to cancel downwind extensions to the amphitheater with no reason given. I had two aircraft flying the local VFR traffic pattern and made the advisory call that base turns needed to be kept with 1.5NM of palo alto (which is all the airspace pao is designated for on final to runway 31). Aircraft X was ahead of aircraft Y in the pattern and both were cleared for the option on runway 31. Aircraft X landed and rolled out to the end of runway 31. Aircraft Y who turned base tightly behind aircraft X to stay inside the pao class D had to go around because the traffic would not likely have been clear of the runway prior to them crossing the runway threshold. Palo alto has significantly more operations than moffett field does and needs more airspace on final for runway 31. Moffett regularly denies or takes away airspace based on their judgment on if they believe palo alto needs it (not based on operational needs at moffett). The airspace should be redistributed to reflect current state of traffic at each. Palo alto should be able to have the airspace to a 3NM final for runway 31. It would be fair to not have a full 3NM circle on the northeast side of the pao delta as to protect the extended centerline of nuq 32L/ 14R. But; that should still allow pao to have a right traffic pattern to runway 31 to a 3NM final without conflicting with moffett traffic. A 3NM ring on the south side of palo alto to a 3 NM final would likely not result in any impact to the operations at moffett. Such a redesign would significantly reduce required coordination and allow both facilities to safely work traffic around each other efficiently.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PAO Tower Controller reported problems associated with the close proximity of Moffett Tower airspace.

Narrative: While working the tower cab combined; Moffett Tower called to cancel downwind extensions to the amphitheater with no reason given. I had two aircraft flying the local VFR traffic pattern and made the advisory call that base turns needed to be kept with 1.5NM of Palo Alto (which is all the airspace PAO is designated for on final to Runway 31). Aircraft X was ahead of Aircraft Y in the pattern and both were cleared for the option on Runway 31. Aircraft X landed and rolled out to the end of Runway 31. Aircraft Y who turned base tightly behind Aircraft X to stay inside the PAO Class D had to go around because the traffic would not likely have been clear of the runway prior to them crossing the runway threshold. Palo Alto has significantly more operations than Moffett field does and needs more airspace on final for Runway 31. Moffett regularly denies or takes away airspace based on their judgment on if they believe Palo Alto needs it (not based on operational needs at Moffett). The airspace should be redistributed to reflect current state of traffic at each. Palo Alto should be able to have the airspace to a 3NM final for Runway 31. It would be fair to not have a full 3NM circle on the NE side of the PAO delta as to protect the extended centerline of NUQ 32L/ 14R. But; that should still allow PAO to have a right traffic pattern to Runway 31 to a 3NM final without conflicting with Moffett traffic. A 3NM ring on the south side of Palo Alto to a 3 NM final would likely not result in any impact to the operations at Moffett. Such a redesign would significantly reduce required coordination and allow both facilities to safely work traffic around each other efficiently.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.