Narrative:

This is not to report a specific occurrence, but rather a situation that exists that causes a repeating unsafe situation to occur. In my opinion, if the situation is not corrected, it will probably one day lead to an accident that could be blamed on FAA regulations. I would like to prevent this before it happens. I have already submitted the problem as an employee suggestion, filed a ucr but have not received a satisfactory response. Note: confidentiality is not required. Mt mckinley in alaska is about 20300 ft high. Class a positive control area begins at 18000 ft so the mountain is actually in the positive control area, except that the positive control area excludes all airspace within 1500 ft of terrain. IFR terrain separation requires 5 mi or 2000 ft from terrain. Zan has established an mia of 23000 ft over mt mckinley. This leaves an area that is more than 1500 ft, but less than 2000 ft, which is not usable VFR or IFR. There have been several instances where aircraft have been sightseeing at mt mckinley, and encountered severe turbulence within 1500 ft of the mountain. They request an IFR clearance to enter class a airspace but are unable to reach FL230, so the request is denied. This leaves the pilot to choose between violating class a airspace, or keep the aircraft in unsafe proximity to the mountain. A similar scenario that often occurs, that while not as dangerous, is still an inefficient use of airspace, is an IFR aircraft overflying the mountain at FL230 requests descent to VFR on top. The clearance cannot be issued because there is no way to get below class a airspace without first violating IFR terrain separation minima. My suggestion for a solution would be to redefine class a airspace to exclude any airspace below an established minimum IFR altitude. To me it is a contradiction to have positive control area below the mia. The response I have received so far is that we are not going to rewrite regulations to accommodate sightseeing. My counter is: it is not the FAA's business why someone is flying. It is our business to ensure that the flying they do is done safely, and we certainly should not have regulations that force them to do unsafe things, such as flying closer than they would like to, to a mountain that is well known to generate its own WX, including extreme turbulence, and vicious windshears and up and downdrafts.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAN CTLR CONCERNED WITH PERCEIVED WEAK FAR REGS CONCERNING SIGHTSEEING AROUND MT MCKINLEY, AK. CTLR HAS FILED A FACILITY UCR.

Narrative: THIS IS NOT TO RPT A SPECIFIC OCCURRENCE, BUT RATHER A SIT THAT EXISTS THAT CAUSES A REPEATING UNSAFE SIT TO OCCUR. IN MY OPINION, IF THE SIT IS NOT CORRECTED, IT WILL PROBABLY ONE DAY LEAD TO AN ACCIDENT THAT COULD BE BLAMED ON FAA REGS. I WOULD LIKE TO PREVENT THIS BEFORE IT HAPPENS. I HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED THE PROB AS AN EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION, FILED A UCR BUT HAVE NOT RECEIVED A SATISFACTORY RESPONSE. NOTE: CONFIDENTIALITY IS NOT REQUIRED. MT MCKINLEY IN ALASKA IS ABOUT 20300 FT HIGH. CLASS A PCA BEGINS AT 18000 FT SO THE MOUNTAIN IS ACTUALLY IN THE PCA, EXCEPT THAT THE PCA EXCLUDES ALL AIRSPACE WITHIN 1500 FT OF TERRAIN. IFR TERRAIN SEPARATION REQUIRES 5 MI OR 2000 FT FROM TERRAIN. ZAN HAS ESTABLISHED AN MIA OF 23000 FT OVER MT MCKINLEY. THIS LEAVES AN AREA THAT IS MORE THAN 1500 FT, BUT LESS THAN 2000 FT, WHICH IS NOT USABLE VFR OR IFR. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE ACFT HAVE BEEN SIGHTSEEING AT MT MCKINLEY, AND ENCOUNTERED SEVERE TURB WITHIN 1500 FT OF THE MOUNTAIN. THEY REQUEST AN IFR CLRNC TO ENTER CLASS A AIRSPACE BUT ARE UNABLE TO REACH FL230, SO THE REQUEST IS DENIED. THIS LEAVES THE PLT TO CHOOSE BTWN VIOLATING CLASS A AIRSPACE, OR KEEP THE ACFT IN UNSAFE PROX TO THE MOUNTAIN. A SIMILAR SCENARIO THAT OFTEN OCCURS, THAT WHILE NOT AS DANGEROUS, IS STILL AN INEFFICIENT USE OF AIRSPACE, IS AN IFR ACFT OVERFLYING THE MOUNTAIN AT FL230 REQUESTS DSCNT TO VFR ON TOP. THE CLRNC CANNOT BE ISSUED BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO GET BELOW CLASS A AIRSPACE WITHOUT FIRST VIOLATING IFR TERRAIN SEPARATION MINIMA. MY SUGGESTION FOR A SOLUTION WOULD BE TO REDEFINE CLASS A AIRSPACE TO EXCLUDE ANY AIRSPACE BELOW AN ESTABLISHED MINIMUM IFR ALT. TO ME IT IS A CONTRADICTION TO HAVE PCA BELOW THE MIA. THE RESPONSE I HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR IS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO REWRITE REGS TO ACCOMMODATE SIGHTSEEING. MY COUNTER IS: IT IS NOT THE FAA'S BUSINESS WHY SOMEONE IS FLYING. IT IS OUR BUSINESS TO ENSURE THAT THE FLYING THEY DO IS DONE SAFELY, AND WE CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT HAVE REGS THAT FORCE THEM TO DO UNSAFE THINGS, SUCH AS FLYING CLOSER THAN THEY WOULD LIKE TO, TO A MOUNTAIN THAT IS WELL KNOWN TO GENERATE ITS OWN WX, INCLUDING EXTREME TURB, AND VICIOUS WINDSHEARS AND UP AND DOWNDRAFTS.

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.