Narrative:

Elp is located 3.1 NM north of the mexican border. Cjs is 5 NM southwest of the united states border, and approximately 10 NM south of elp. ICAO rules say that IFR aircraft shall remain at least 3 mi from an international border in a radar environment, and 5 mi in a non-radar environment. For more than 30 yrs, both airports largely ignored those rules, since observing them could completely curtail operations at either airport because of prevailing winds, runway layouts, terrain, and the proximity of the international border. (See attached map.) in apr/xx/94, elp tower was cited as not following ICAO airspace regulations during a facility evaluation. Further discussion resulted in the problem being assigned to the FAA's southwest region for resolution because it would require negotiations with seneam in mexico. Elp tower currently has an LOA with cjs tower which allows us to use a small portion of mexican airspace for short periods of time, usually not to exceed 2 hours. This allows aircraft to legally depart runways 22 and 26 at elp IFR. Cjs tower can similarly request use of a small portion of united states airspace so they can depart runway 3 or arrive runway 21. I have never seen them ask for this airspace. Also, whenever elp tower has use of mexican airspace (zone a), cjs tower is supposed to coordinate with elp approach any IFR traffic departing or arriving cjs. They seldom do so. This means that elp still occasionally violates mexican airspace and cjs routinely violates united states airspace. In addition, since cjs is a non-radar facility, and communications between the 2 facilities is sometimes unreliable, we have had continuing problems regarding timely coordination and transfer of control of IFR aircraft crossing the border. The only solution we have been able to come up with locally is to make cjs a radar facility and negotiate an LOA which allows both facilities to share the airspace. In fact, we have offered cjs a position in our TRACON and a d-brite in their tower cabin attendant as well. Elp would absorb all the equipment costs and provide training. All mexico need do is staff radar position at elp. They have so far refused. The primary reasons are politics and money. Meanwhile, more than 2 yrs have passed since the problem was officially noted, and no corrective action has occurred. Negotiations with mexico are both time-consuming and frustrating. Mexico city, which is far removed from the problem, seems primarily interested in maintaining the 'integrity' of their airspace, while ignoring the integrity of united states airspace. Radar service can only serve to greatly increase safety for flts in the cjs terminal area and along our common border. The FAA needs to place this issue on the front burner, and bring all the diplomatic weight possible to bear on the problem. There is a solution, it just needs to be implemented. So far, negotiations have seemed to center on minor wording changes to the existing agreement. This is somewhat similar to putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. I defy anyone to design an LOA which allows IFR operations in the airspace between these 2 airports using non-radar separation standards. It is impossible. It has been tried over and over again. Since relocating both airports farther from the border is out of the question, it is imperative that the united states and mexico agree to a joint radar facility. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that a new LOA which had been faxed to seneam (mexican FAA) for signature after a year and a half of development, had been returned in an altered state from the agreed to language. The LOA would have permitted operations up to the border. The changes made by the mexican auths, effectively made the LOA unusable. Reporter stated that the proposal to have 4 controllers assigned to the TRACON from cjs had the approval of the ft worth regional office, but was turned down by mexico. Reporter feels the state department should be involved in order to handle the problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CLAIMS ICAO INTL AIRSPACE BOUNDARIES HAVE LARGELY BEEN IGNORED. CJS CTLRS, A NON-RADAR FACILITY, SELDOM COORDINATE FOR AIRSPACE AND FOR ACFT OPS AS AGREED TO IN THE JOINT LOA. RPTR RECOMMENDS A JOINT RADAR FACILITY.

Narrative: ELP IS LOCATED 3.1 NM N OF THE MEXICAN BORDER. CJS IS 5 NM SW OF THE UNITED STATES BORDER, AND APPROX 10 NM S OF ELP. ICAO RULES SAY THAT IFR ACFT SHALL REMAIN AT LEAST 3 MI FROM AN INTL BORDER IN A RADAR ENVIRONMENT, AND 5 MI IN A NON-RADAR ENVIRONMENT. FOR MORE THAN 30 YRS, BOTH ARPTS LARGELY IGNORED THOSE RULES, SINCE OBSERVING THEM COULD COMPLETELY CURTAIL OPS AT EITHER ARPT BECAUSE OF PREVAILING WINDS, RWY LAYOUTS, TERRAIN, AND THE PROX OF THE INTL BORDER. (SEE ATTACHED MAP.) IN APR/XX/94, ELP TWR WAS CITED AS NOT FOLLOWING ICAO AIRSPACE REGS DURING A FACILITY EVALUATION. FURTHER DISCUSSION RESULTED IN THE PROB BEING ASSIGNED TO THE FAA'S SW REGION FOR RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE NEGOTIATIONS WITH SENEAM IN MEXICO. ELP TWR CURRENTLY HAS AN LOA WITH CJS TWR WHICH ALLOWS US TO USE A SMALL PORTION OF MEXICAN AIRSPACE FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME, USUALLY NOT TO EXCEED 2 HRS. THIS ALLOWS ACFT TO LEGALLY DEPART RWYS 22 AND 26 AT ELP IFR. CJS TWR CAN SIMILARLY REQUEST USE OF A SMALL PORTION OF UNITED STATES AIRSPACE SO THEY CAN DEPART RWY 3 OR ARRIVE RWY 21. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM ASK FOR THIS AIRSPACE. ALSO, WHENEVER ELP TWR HAS USE OF MEXICAN AIRSPACE (ZONE A), CJS TWR IS SUPPOSED TO COORDINATE WITH ELP APCH ANY IFR TFC DEPARTING OR ARRIVING CJS. THEY SELDOM DO SO. THIS MEANS THAT ELP STILL OCCASIONALLY VIOLATES MEXICAN AIRSPACE AND CJS ROUTINELY VIOLATES UNITED STATES AIRSPACE. IN ADDITION, SINCE CJS IS A NON-RADAR FACILITY, AND COMS BTWN THE 2 FACILITIES IS SOMETIMES UNRELIABLE, WE HAVE HAD CONTINUING PROBS REGARDING TIMELY COORD AND TRANSFER OF CTL OF IFR ACFT XING THE BORDER. THE ONLY SOLUTION WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH LOCALLY IS TO MAKE CJS A RADAR FACILITY AND NEGOTIATE AN LOA WHICH ALLOWS BOTH FACILITIES TO SHARE THE AIRSPACE. IN FACT, WE HAVE OFFERED CJS A POS IN OUR TRACON AND A D-BRITE IN THEIR TWR CAB AS WELL. ELP WOULD ABSORB ALL THE EQUIP COSTS AND PROVIDE TRAINING. ALL MEXICO NEED DO IS STAFF RADAR POS AT ELP. THEY HAVE SO FAR REFUSED. THE PRIMARY REASONS ARE POLITICS AND MONEY. MEANWHILE, MORE THAN 2 YRS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE PROB WAS OFFICIALLY NOTED, AND NO CORRECTIVE ACTION HAS OCCURRED. NEGOTIATIONS WITH MEXICO ARE BOTH TIME-CONSUMING AND FRUSTRATING. MEXICO CITY, WHICH IS FAR REMOVED FROM THE PROB, SEEMS PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN MAINTAINING THE 'INTEGRITY' OF THEIR AIRSPACE, WHILE IGNORING THE INTEGRITY OF UNITED STATES AIRSPACE. RADAR SVC CAN ONLY SERVE TO GREATLY INCREASE SAFETY FOR FLTS IN THE CJS TERMINAL AREA AND ALONG OUR COMMON BORDER. THE FAA NEEDS TO PLACE THIS ISSUE ON THE FRONT BURNER, AND BRING ALL THE DIPLOMATIC WEIGHT POSSIBLE TO BEAR ON THE PROB. THERE IS A SOLUTION, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED. SO FAR, NEGOTIATIONS HAVE SEEMED TO CTR ON MINOR WORDING CHANGES TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT. THIS IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO PUTTING A BAND-AID ON A BULLET WOUND. I DEFY ANYONE TO DESIGN AN LOA WHICH ALLOWS IFR OPS IN THE AIRSPACE BTWN THESE 2 ARPTS USING NON-RADAR SEPARATION STANDARDS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. IT HAS BEEN TRIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SINCE RELOCATING BOTH ARPTS FARTHER FROM THE BORDER IS OUT OF THE QUESTION, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO AGREE TO A JOINT RADAR FACILITY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT A NEW LOA WHICH HAD BEEN FAXED TO SENEAM (MEXICAN FAA) FOR SIGNATURE AFTER A YEAR AND A HALF OF DEVELOPMENT, HAD BEEN RETURNED IN AN ALTERED STATE FROM THE AGREED TO LANGUAGE. THE LOA WOULD HAVE PERMITTED OPS UP TO THE BORDER. THE CHANGES MADE BY THE MEXICAN AUTHS, EFFECTIVELY MADE THE LOA UNUSABLE. RPTR STATED THAT THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE 4 CTLRS ASSIGNED TO THE TRACON FROM CJS HAD THE APPROVAL OF THE FT WORTH REGIONAL OFFICE, BUT WAS TURNED DOWN BY MEXICO. RPTR FEELS THE STATE DEPT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN ORDER TO HANDLE THE PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.