Authorization Class E surface vs. Class E 700 AGL

[teelions]

Thank you.
Passed my 107 today with a 93%!

• No Airspace questions.
• One Load question.
• Two Regulations questions.
• Two Metars.

And a boat load of Sectional questions where I was forced to read print off a page that appeared to be left out in the rain! I couldn't see 5 of the examples at all though merely recognizing them from previous study. But the CTAF and ATIS frequencies were completely illegible. I complained twice and they brought me a child's junior detective magnifying glass!
But I reiterate my post above: Many answers based merely on the wording of the question though not always fact. Thanks for your help!

 

[sar104]

Hey there, Flyboy. I typically avoid discussions of Part 101 issues. They can be more vague. But recreational fliers don't get Airspace Authorizations. They have that infamous 5-mile rule regarding airports. If the airport is Class E or G, a call to the airport manager is all that is required. If the airport is in B, C, or D, a call to the tower is required. It's an urban legend that this is notify only - the tower controller can deny your request.

A couple of points on that. Firstly, nowhere in Part 101 does it call out different requirements for flying within 5 miles of an airport depending on whether it is Class E, vs Class B, C or D. It does state that a call to the airport operator and tower (if present) is required in all cases, so are you simply basing that difference on the fact that airports in Class E airspace are untowered?

The FAA has stated that Class B airspace is different but not elaborated on where that requirement derives from, although it's presumably that all air traffic requires clearance into Class B.

Also note that whether or not it is correct, it is certainly not an urban legend that the 5 mile requirement is notify only - the wording of Part 101 states that specifically:

§101.41 (e)​

When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.

It clearly says provide prior notice, not request permission. The FAA FAQ page elaborates somewhat, but refers only to "airport operator", not ATC, so not definitive.

Can an airport operator object to model aircraft flights near an airport?
Yes, an airport operator can object to the proposed use of a model aircraft within five miles of an airport if the proposed activity would endanger the safety of the airspace. However, the airport operator cannot prohibit or prevent the model aircraft operator from operating within five miles of the airport. Unsafe flying in spite of the objection of an airport operator may be evidence that the operator was endangering the safety of the National Airspace System. Additionally, the UAS operator must comply with any applicable airspace requirements.​

So - can you cite a reference (law or FAA clarification) that supports your statement that it is a request that ATC can deny?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not sure that's correct. Under Part 107, authorization is always required to fly in any airspace other than Class G - that includes flying in any Class E airspace.

Agree, but let's face it in most places class E will start at either 700' or 1200' AGL (excluding next to an airport). With the 107 limit of 400' we'll never be close.

But the only Class E airspace that you can access under Part 107, with the 400 ft AGL restriction, is surface Class E (if we exclude the special case of flying near structures over 300 ft high).

Now I'm not sure about that - How about the lateral boundaries next to an airport? I actually have a class E exemption that is adjacent to an airport and is supporting an IAP

Then what's your thoughts on hobbyist flying into class E (700 & 1200' AGL)?

 

[sar104]

Agree, but let's face it in most places class E will start at either 700' or 1200' AGL (excluding next to an airport). With the 107 limit of 400' we'll never be close.

Now I'm not sure about that - How about the lateral boundaries next to an airport? I actually have a class E exemption that is adjacent to an airport and is supporting an IAP

Then what's your thoughts on hobbyist flying into class E (700 & 1200' AGL)?

The "lateral boundaries" statement has caused all kinds of confusion. All that matters is the airspace class. Either you are in Class G or you are not - if not then you require authorization or waiver. That's all that counts for Part 107.

For hobbyists the airspace class is largely irrelevant, except perhaps Class B. Hobbyists can fly in Class G, E, D and C, and all they need to do is call if within 5 miles of an airport.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The "lateral boundaries" statement has caused all kinds of confusion. All that matters is the airspace class. Either you are in Class G or you are not - if not then you require authorization or waiver. That's all that counts for Part 107.

For hobbyists the airspace class is largely irrelevant, except perhaps Class B. Hobbyists can fly in Class G, E, D and C, and all they need to do is call if within 5 miles of an airport.

Always appreciate your inputs and thoughts!

As far as class E - then you're thoughts are; a hobbyist, who is nowhere near an airport, could take his/her drone straight up into Class E controlled airspace (above 1200')?

 

[sar104]

Always appreciate your inputs and thoughts!

As far as class E - then you're thoughts are; a hobbyist, who is nowhere near an airport, could take his/her drone straight up into Class E controlled airspace (above 1200')?

Well only if the hobbyist could argue that doing so was within the community-based safety guidelines, which seems somewhat unlikely.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well only if the hobbyist could argue that doing so was within the community-based safety guidelines, which seems somewhat unlikely.

My thoughts as well! Thank for the input!

 

[N42742]

Also note that whether or not it is correct, it is certainly not an urban legend that the 5 mile requirement is notify only - the wording of Part 101 states that specifically:

§101.41 (e)​

When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.

It clearly says provide prior notice, not request permission. The FAA FAQ page elaborates somewhat, but refers only to "airport operator", not ATC, so not definitive.

Can an airport operator object to model aircraft flights near an airport?
Yes, an airport operator can object to the proposed use of a model aircraft within five miles of an airport if the proposed activity would endanger the safety of the airspace. However, the airport operator cannot prohibit or prevent the model aircraft operator from operating within five miles of the airport. Unsafe flying in spite of the objection of an airport operator may be evidence that the operator was endangering the safety of the National Airspace System. Additionally, the UAS operator must comply with any applicable airspace requirements.​

So - can you cite a reference (law or FAA clarification) that supports your statement that it is a request that ATC can deny?

Yes, it is FAA JO 7200.23. It is true that the reg states "provides notification", but the point is that the operation can be denied after that notification. The urban legend aspect crops up in the form of disbelief that ATC can prevent one from operating after "notification" has been given. They can.

B. Notification. Part 101 operators are required to notify the airport and ATCT, if one is operational, when operating within 5 statute miles of the airport.
1. If the facility is contacted directly and the operation poses no hazard:
a. Acknowledge the notification.
b. Do not use the word “approved” in the communication with the operator.
2. If the facility determines that a hazard exists:
a. Deny the operation .
b. State the reason for denial.

 

[sar104]

Yes, it is FAA JO 7200.23. It is true that the reg states "provides notification", but the point is that the operation can be denied after that notification. The urban legend aspect crops up in the form of disbelief that ATC can prevent one from operating after "notification" has been given. They can.

B. Notification. Part 101 operators are required to notify the airport and ATCT, if one is operational, when operating within 5 statute miles of the airport.
1. If the facility is contacted directly and the operation poses no hazard:
a. Acknowledge the notification.
b. Do not use the word “approved” in the communication with the operator.
2. If the facility determines that a hazard exists:
a. Deny the operation .
b. State the reason for denial.

Yes - that order was discussed at some length when it came out, but it is guidance to ATC, not law. There is clearly tension between the FAA desire to regulate for safety and Congress's prohibition on new regulation of hobby flight, and so it's not surprising that the FAA has attempted to stretch the envelope by encouraging ATC to deny if they feel an activity is unsafe. But the law itself does not support that - they have no power to prevent it, they can only object and, if they feel that the activity endangers the NAS, report it. That's not how it should be in my view, but it is how the law was written.

 

[daveisim]

The "lateral boundaries" statement has caused all kinds of confusion. All that matters is the airspace class. Either you are in Class G or you are not - if not then you require authorization or waiver. That's all that counts for Part 107.

Uh, no. Confusion in only that not many people have never heard of "lateral boundaries". Pilots included. There is no 107 rule about flying only in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. You won't find that word ("uncontrolled") in any of the rules. What you will find in 107.41 is:

"No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from Air Traffic Control (ATC)."

Take a look at the sectional pic I'm including

The dashed magenta line show the surface Class E airport area for the Zanesville airport in Ohio. The area is inside the normal 1200 / 700 AGL transition area around the airport.

To re-iterate, there is no rule about flying in normal Class E. It's just that in 99.9% of the cases the bottom of Class E is higher than the normal 400 AGL limit. When you are within 400' (laterally) of a structure (and in Class G) you may go up to 400' above the structure, even if that would put you into Class E.

 

[N42742]

Well, the regulation says "provide notification" so we're in agreement that that is required of the drone pilot.

But the regulation goes no further, i.e. it does not say that the drone pilot may ignore a denial from an ATC tower controller. And there is plenty of regulatory material making tower operators kings of their own airspace.

I would not recommend that any recreational drone pilot try testing this one out.

 

[daveisim]

Well only if the hobbyist could argue that doing so was within the community-based safety guidelines, which seems somewhat unlikely.

The hobbyist does not need to argue. There is no absolute rule in any of the community-based safety guidelines, be it AMA or Drone User Group Network (to name two CBO's), limiting altitude outside of the 5SM airport radius. Now the DUG does say:

5. Maximum Altitude
Keep your drone below 400 feet above-ground-level (AGL) or below 400 feet above the top of a structure that you are flying over. In locations with sparse manned air traffic, and when visibility is excellent, you may exceed 400 feet AGL with the assistance of a spotter who continually scans the airspace in all directions to report to you any approaching air traffic.

The AMA does not have, neither in it's general rules or Document 560, an altitude limit. The FAA has published that it doesn't have a 400' AGL limit for hobbyist.

 

[sar104]

Uh, no. Confusion in only that not many people have never heard of "lateral boundaries". Pilots included. There is no 107 rule about flying only in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. You won't find that word ("uncontrolled") in any of the rules. What you will find in 107.41 is:

"No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from Air Traffic Control (ATC)."

Take a look at the sectional pic I'm including
View attachment 93243 The dashed magenta line show the surface Class E airport area for the Zanesville airport in Ohio. The area is inside the normal 1200 / 700 AGL transition area around the airport.

To re-iterate, there is no rule about flying in normal Class E. It's just that in 99.9% of the cases the bottom of Class E is higher than the normal 400 AGL limit. When you are within 400' (laterally) of a structure (and in Class G) you may go up to 400' above the structure, even if that would put you into Class E.

I agree - but you misunderstood my point. The reference to lateral boundaries caused confusion because it has led many people to think that they may not fly under 700 ft transition Class E. You may be correct that they chose that wording quite deliberately to permit flying in non-surface Class E (e.g. around a structure), but the confusion, as evidenced by multiple posts on these forums, was real. Hence the (correct) statement that flying in Class G never requires authorization is simpler to understand.

 

[sar104]

Well, the regulation says "provide notification" so we're in agreement that that is required of the drone pilot.

But the regulation goes no further, i.e. it does not say that the drone pilot may ignore a denial from an ATC tower controller. And there is plenty of regulatory material making tower operators kings of their own airspace.

I would not recommend that any recreational drone pilot try testing this one out.

That I completely agree with, if for no other reason than they will (or should) immediately come after you per 101.43 if you do ignore them.

 

[N42742]

That I completely agree with, if for no other reason than they will (or should) immediately come after you per 101.43 if you do ignore them.

And that brings us back to the commonly held belief that recreational pilots are free to fly after providing notification. If they are denied, they are NOT free to fly in Class B, C, or D.

 

[sar104]

And that brings us back to the commonly held belief that recreational pilots are free to fly after providing notification. If they are denied, they are NOT free to fly in Class B, C, or D.

Why is C or D any different to E in that regard?

 

[N42742]

Why is C or D any different to E in that regard?

There is (generally) no tower controller in Class E. If the airport was in a Class E surface area, the airport manager might deny your request, but he is not considered part of ATC and (in my opinion) would have no FAA authority to deny the operation.

 

[sar104]

There is (generally) no tower controller in Class E. If the airport was in a Class E surface area, the airport manager might deny your request, but he is not considered part of ATC and (in my opinion) would have no FAA authority to deny the operation.

Oh - yes. But again, the law does not provide for ATC to deny in any airspace. If that were the intent of the law then 101.41 would obviously have said "request permission" not "provide notification". I'll go back to my observation that the FAA's actionable authority here derives from 101.43, not 101.41.

 

[N42742]

Oh - yes. But again, the law does not provide for ATC to deny in any airspace. If that were the intent of the law then 101.41 would obviously have said "request permission" not "provide notification". I'll go back to my observation that the FAA's actionable authority here derives from 101.43, not 101.41.

I think we'll have to disagree on this one. You are providing your own interpretation which conflicts with JO 7200.23.

 

[sar104]

I think we'll have to disagree on this one. You are providing your own interpretation which conflicts with JO 7200.23.

That's fine. JO 7200.23 clearly conflicts with 14 CFR 101 but, as I said - I completely agree that it should be the way that you see it so I don't want to argue about it - the law just isn't written that way.