Authorization Class E surface vs. Class E 700 AGL

[daveisim]

I agree - but you misunderstood my point. ... Hence the (correct) statement that flying in Class G never requires authorization is simpler to understand.

I've read all your posts in this thread and do not see that statement. Even if you had made that statement, it is not correct as Class G will go up to at least 700' AGL and without a structure nearby, you cannot be higher than 400' AGL - unless you have an authorization (or waiver).

What you have said is "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." and " Under Part 107, authorization is always required to fly in any airspace other than Class G - that includes flying in any Class E airspace."

I responded that was not correct.

Now if someone new to 107 does not understand surface Class E and the other rule of within 400' lateral of a structure for higher than 400' AGL and wants to confine themselves to strictly Class G and only up to 400' AGL to make sure they are legit, then that's something different.

 

[sar104]

I've read all your posts in this thread and do not see that statement. Even if you had made that statement, it is not correct as Class G will go up to at least 700' AGL and without a structure nearby, you cannot be higher than 400' AGL - unless you have an authorization (or waiver).

What you have said is "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." and " Under Part 107, authorization is always required to fly in any airspace other than Class G - that includes flying in any Class E airspace."

I responded that was not correct.

Now if someone new to 107 does not understand surface Class E and the other rule of within 400' lateral of a structure for higher than 400' AGL and wants to confine themselves to strictly Class G and only up to 400' AGL to make sure they are legit, then that's something different.

Yes - you are correct. My final sentence in post #53 is obviously incorrect. I should have looked back to see exactly what I wrote vs. what I meant. I meant to exclude the structure case in my original post #44, which is the one situation that permits flight in Class E. With the exception of that special case, it is correct to say that anything other than Class G requires waiver or authorization but not, obviously, that the converse is true. That was the simplification I was trying to make - apologies for the additional confusion.

 

[Steven Graham]

There is also no provision anywhere in the current law that restricts part 101 operators from flying in Class B airspace. Here in Denver we have two established fields, one a glider field that both operate within the class B surface area. We have no altitude limits, nor are any implied in any regulation. What we do have is a working agreement with DEN tower that we are to maintain line of site while operating under the auspices of part 101. It is true that the ATC folks were less than thrilled at first when we showed them the rules and laws in place. Having them physically come to our flying sites and show them we operate responsibly as well as not taking a bull doggish approach with them went a long way towards securing the agreements we have today.

The sad reality is with the poor language of section 336 congress handed both the FAA and the sUAS community a confusing and even conflicting set of guidelines. While I think there is ample justification for the AMA's lobbying efforts to be granted the provisions of 336 there are MANY who do not feel this way and want this law re-written. Powerful lobbies are lined up against our hobby and unfortunately there are just as many who would flaunt and disregard what few restrictions we currently have in a way that threatens the hobby for the rest of us.

Make good choices.

 

[sar104]

There is also no provision anywhere in the current law that restricts part 101 operators from flying in Class B airspace. Here in Denver we have two established fields, one a glider field that both operate within the class B surface area. We have no altitude limits, nor are any implied in any regulation. What we do have is a working agreement with DEN tower that we are to maintain line of site while operating under the auspices of part 101. It is true that the ATC folks were less than thrilled at first when we showed them the rules and laws in place. Having them physically come to our flying sites and show them we operate responsibly as well as not taking a bull doggish approach with them went a long way towards securing the agreements we have today.

The sad reality is with the poor language of section 336 congress handed both the FAA and the sUAS community a confusing and even conflicting set of guidelines. While I think there is ample justification for the AMA's lobbying efforts to be granted the provisions of 336 there are MANY who do not feel this way and want this law re-written. Powerful lobbies are lined up against our hobby and unfortunately there are just as many who would flaunt and disregard what few restrictions we currently have in a way that threatens the hobby for the rest of us.

Make good choices.

The assertions regarding Class B stem mostly from one FAA webpage that makes the statement that recreational flight is generally not permitted in Class B airspace. It is quite true that there is no specific provision in Part 101 to support that position.

 

[Steven Graham]

Yes, the FAA has a long history of making strong suggestions that lead the listener to believe they are speaking with regulatory backing when in fact a careful reading of the regulations reveals just the opposite. The airline I work for has run into this repeatedly in the 23 years I've worked there. I saw it in my previous life as well. This is where a careful reading of the FAR's is in the best interest of the airspace users along with a willingness to calmly and rationally communicate your position with the authorities you may come into contact with. In many cases you will find your own study has made you more knowledgable than they are.

In the long run I believe the FAA is on a quest to remove the protections of section 336 and they intend to do so with the help of strong political allies in the form of the Airline Pilots Association and other powerful lobbies. This is just one reason I am so strongly committed to imploring my fellow sUAS hobbyists use their best possible wisdom when operating. Sadly the nature of our government is that one event often leads to a whole raft of new legislation which is rarely deeply thought out when political motivations get involved.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There is also no provision anywhere in the current law that restricts part 101 operators from flying in Class B airspace. Here in Denver we have two established fields, one a glider field that both operate within the class B surface area. We have no altitude limits, nor are any implied in any regulation. What we do have is a working agreement with DEN tower that we are to maintain line of site while operating under the auspices of part 101. It is true that the ATC folks were less than thrilled at first when we showed them the rules and laws in place. Having them physically come to our flying sites and show them we operate responsibly as well as not taking a bull doggish approach with them went a long way towards securing the agreements we have today.

The sad reality is with the poor language of section 336 congress handed both the FAA and the sUAS community a confusing and even conflicting set of guidelines. While I think there is ample justification for the AMA's lobbying efforts to be granted the provisions of 336 there are MANY who do not feel this way and want this law re-written. Powerful lobbies are lined up against our hobby and unfortunately there are just as many who would flaunt and disregard what few restrictions we currently have in a way that threatens the hobby for the rest of us.

Make good choices.

The key is you have authorization, even though it sounds like you went to great lengths to attain it. The 2014 FAA policy letter concerning 336 indicates that they (the FAA) expect hobbyists to stay out of controlled airspace unless permission is granted, vague and without specifics, IMO. I do agree with your points, this is a mess...