Let's discuss-- Part 103.17-- ultralight flight in Class-E-to-surface "extensions"

[quietflyer]

(Edit 6/21/19-- this thread was originally intended largely as a request for information about past communications from the FAA on this topic. To cut to the chase as far as my best interpretation of the regulations is concerned, skip to post # 46: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...ll=1#post76038 )

************************************************** **

I would like to open a discussion about where ultralight aircraft are or are not allowed to fly. Specifically focussed on one particular kind of airspace.

FAR 103.17 prohibits ultralight flight (without prior authorization from ATC) "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport"--
This post focusses on Class-E-to-surface "extensions" that do NOT enclose the airport whose approaches they protect. Like the airspace within the dashed magenta lines here http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=32....14.606&zoom=10 or here http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=42....22.874&zoom=10 . We're NOT talking about Class-E-to-surface airspace that DOES enclose the airport whose approaches it protects, like this --http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=44....24.058&zoom=10

The underlying thrust of this post is that the airspace in the Class-E-to-surface "extensions"-- the airspace within the bits of Class-E-to-surface airspace that do NOT enclose the airport whose approaches they protect-- does NOT fall within the definition of airspace "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport". More on this in my next post. I am aware of some FAA interpretations that agree with this view, but bureaucracy being what it is and the language of the regs being rather complex and unintuitive, I wouldn't be surprised if some FAA/ ATC personnel have issued statements that conflict with this view as well.

So, re the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" as illustrated in the above links, I would like folks to submit as many examples as they can of the following--

* instances where FAA/ ATC personnel have verbally stated that ultralights can not fly in this airspace w/o prior authorization (and up to what altitude the prohibition applied, if a ceiling altitude was stated)

* instances where FAA/ ATC personnel have verbally stated that ultralights can fly in this airspace w/o prior authorization

* any written (printed) statements from FAA/ ATC personnel, regardless of whether or not an official legal "interpretation", stating that ultralights can not fly in this airspace w/o prior authorization (and up to what altitude the prohibition applied, if a ceiling altitude was stated)

* any written (printed) statements from FAA/ ATC personnel, regardless of whether or not an official legal "interpretation", stating that ultralights can fly in this airspace w/o prior authorization

* any instance of airports with such class-E-to-surface "extensions", in which it is generally accepted by the local ultralight flying community that flight in such "extensions" is, or is not, allowed, w/o prior authorization-- and what this understanding is based on, if known. This question wouldn't apply to an ultralight pilot that took off in Class D airspace after getting prior authorization, but rather to an ultralight pilot that wanted to pass through one of the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" with no prior authorization of any kind. And if the understanding is that ultralight flight is not allowed in such "extensions" w/o prior authorization, up to what altitude is this prohibition thought to apply?

I'm not so much asking for people's own interpretations of what the "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area..." language means, but rather for examples of specific statements on the subject from FAA/ATC personnel, as well as for examples of specific airports where it is generally understood by the local ultralight flying community that ultralight flight in these airspaces is or is not allowed (w/o prior authorization.)

Thank you
SS

In a later post, I'll try to shed more light on why this airspace-- these Class-E-to-surface "extensions" that do NOT enclose the airports whose approaches they protect-- should NOT fall within the definition of airspace "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport", based a close look at the letter of the FAR's, FAA order JO 7400, the AIM, the pilot-controller glossary, and other documents, and as reinforced by specific written statements from the FAA regarding FAR 91.157 and FAR 107.41. I'll also speak to why there is reason to suspect the FAA may soon issue an interpretation to the contrary, to safeguard the intention of some poorly-written language contained in recently passed legislation concerning Small Unmanned Aircraft (e.g. "drones, model airplanes). (Otherwise, it seems that the ONLY place that these SUA's will be allowed to exceed 400' AGL, while operating with no prior authorization and not in the immediate vicinity of structures (e.g. radio and TV broadcast towers), will be within the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" we've been discussing here. This would be a little odd, and is surely an oversight on somebody's part.)

In the meantime, please post any examples you can find re the cases described above, especially examples of written statements issued by FAA/ATC personnel on this subject. Thanks.

SS