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?8661-Let-s-discuss-Part-103-17-ultralight-flight-in-Class-E-to-surface-quot-extensions-quot&p=76038&viewfull=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=32.657&lon=-114.606&zoom=10 or here http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=42.374&lon=-122.874&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=44.580&lon=-124.058&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

[quietflyer]

Links to any other forum anyone is aware of where this has been discussed-- any kind of forum, local ultralight group, whatever-- would be appreciated too. Thanks

SS

[Bill Berson]

This airport is class E with lateral boundaries and has an ultralight (or at least had) runway on the upper left of photo. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCLM
You might contact the airport manager to see if they have open authorization for ultralights or not.
Or contact some other ultralight operation in a class E.

[Bill Berson]

I think you can get some ATC guidance from Advisory Circular 103.6 (AC 103.6) https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22639

Unfortunately, AC 103.6 appears so far out of date and was created before class E airspace was invented.
You would need more current advice.

[martymayes]

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 does NOT fall within the definition of airspace "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport".
That is not correct.


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.

I would be surprised if they issued a statement in writing as an official declaration because they can't do that. A legal interpretation would have to come from the FAA Office of Chief Counsel or one of the designated regions. They may offer their personal opinion but then so can anyone else. Doesn't necessarily carry more weight just because they are FAA employees or ATC personnel.


Those Class E surface area extensions you claim "do NOT enclose the airport whose approaches they protect--" do in fact depict lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport. This can be confirmed by looking at the airspace description for these airports in subpart E of FAA Order 7400.11C (incorporated by reference, see §71.1. The only reason to have a surface area would be in conjunction with an airport; it would make no sense to have a random block of Class E surface area out in the middle of nowhere.

So for an ultralight vehicle, prior authorization from ATC (whatever that is) would be required to operate in those areas. That airspace goes upward to the overlying airspace, which in this case would be Class A at 18,000 ft.

An ultralight vehicle operator is free to operate in other Class E airspace (that is Class E airspace that is NOT a surface area designated for an airport) simply by complying with flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements outlined in 103.23.

I think where you are going askew is thinking a dashed magenta line depicting an extension has to fully enclose the airport in order for that extension to be a surface area designated for an airport, which is not the case because of airspace hierarchy.

To illustrate that point, how would this example be depicted when the tower is closed? http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=32.657&lon=-114.606&zoom=10 . Since the Class D airpace would cease to exist, it would revert to a Class E surface area, with attached extensions. IOW's it would be all magenta dashed lines.

[Bill Berson]

I looked up FAA Order 7400.11C and didn't see anything for the airports linked above.
Perhaps the Airport/Facility Directory, (now called Chart Supplement) could have info regarding the class E hours at your particular airport.

[martymayes]

I looked up FAA Order 7400.11C and didn't see anything for the airports linked above.

The example I used, Yuma, AZ is on page E-129 and E-130 but it only describes the last modification to the airspace which appears to be a "carve out" over Somerton Airport from the surface up to 300 ft above the surface. That would allow those guys a means to access their airport without penetrating the Class E. (As written an ultralight could fly to/from the Somerton Private Airport without prior authorization from ATC by utilizing the carve out. Interesting).

Anyway, that means have to go back to an earlier version of FAA Order 7400 (or Federal Register) and find the complete legal description of the Yuma AZ Class D/E airspace (or just go to the facility and ask for the same). At any rate, I'll bet a box of donuts the surface area extensions are included in the airspace designated for the airport. The OP is arguing they are separate from, which makes no sense. (His question about the upper limit of that extension airspace is kinda interesting, if there is one).

So to fly an ultralight vehicle through that extension surface area would require prior authorization from ATC, period. To do otherwise is contrary to the FARs.

[Bill Berson]

There might be some other means of "prior authorization" that doesn't require radio request in flight. Such as a permit or special airspace training or something for local 103 operations. Certificated pilots don't need prior authorization in good visibility, and a well trained pilot in a 103 would be no different.

[Sam Buchanan]

There might be some other means of "prior authorization" that doesn't require radio request in flight. Such as a permit or special airspace training or something for local 103 operations. Certificated pilots don't need prior authorization in good visibility, and a well trained pilot in a 103 would be no different.

There is no such animal as a "well trained" ultralight pilot, PART 103 doesn't spell out any training requirements for UL pilots. :)

If 103 doesn't allow an ultralight access to a particular type of airspace it doesn't matter what type of training the pilot possesses, the ultralight is not be operated in that airspace.

[Bill Berson]

There is no such animal as a "well trained" ultralight pilot, PART 103 doesn't spell out any training requirements for UL pilots. :)

If 103 doesn't allow an ultralight access to a particular type of airspace it doesn't matter what type of training the pilot possesses, the ultralight is not be operated in that airspace.

There are some well trained pilots with pilot certificates that fly ultralights. Of course Part 103 doesn't spell out the details of how a trained or untrained 103 pilot would get "prior authorization", but it does suggest that authorization may be granted. So the details of the particular "permit" that ATC might issue would take into account the training, Certificates, etc, of the permittee, I suppose. Certainly a Private Pilot should qualify for a "prior authorization" permit because they have been tested about airspace. The requirements ATC might need from an ultralight operator with no certificates would be different, is my view. But I don't have any experience with the authorization procedure yet. But I am interested as I am assembling an ultralight slowly, and there is class E airspace near me.

[FlyingRon]

I think you can get some ATC guidance from Advisory Circular 103.6 (AC 103.6) https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22639

Unfortunately, AC 103.6 appears so far out of date and was created before class E airspace was invented.
You would need more current advice.

Surface area of class E airspace designated for an airport existed, it just went by a much simpler name: "Control Zone"

I agree with Marty. Surface Area of class E airspace designated for an airport includes the class E extensions to class D airspace.

[Sam Buchanan]

There are some well trained pilots with pilot certificates that fly ultralights. Of course Part 103 doesn't spell out the details of how a trained or untrained 103 pilot would get "prior authorization", but it does suggest that authorization may be granted. So the details of the particular "permit" that ATC might issue would take into account the training, Certificates, etc, of the permittee, I suppose.

That's a lot of supposing.... ;)

[Bill Berson]

Feel free to provide pertinent facts, it's been six days since the question was posed here.
I can also say the FAA does issue Notams as a form or "prior authorization". In the case of Airventure a Notam is issued for ultralight operations and requires pilots attend a morning class or review for procedures.
I "suppose" ATC may have issued prior authorization in a continuous Notam for the ultralight runway that was at Port Angeles International airport. I don't know if the ultralight runway is still there, since ultralights hardly exist anywhere now.

I just read in the AMA journal that FAA may require model aircraft pilots pass an aeronautical knowledge and safety test.

[Dana]

Some years back a group of us were flying powered paragliders from a sod farm within a class D area, about 3½ miles south of the airport. We got our "prior authorization" with a phone call to the tower before taking off; one call for all of us for the afternoon. The agreement was that we would stay 3 miles south of the airport and below 300' until clear of the class D.

Unfortunately some moron in a powered parachute (not one of our group and without calling the tower) wrecked it by repeatedly buzzing the town about a mile and a half from the airport. After that, no more permission even though we told them it wasn't one of us. Pity, it was a great spot to fly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjMV3VF7et0
(cameras weren't as good back then)

[quietflyer]

I went on a long road trip shortly before the first reply to my original post came it seems, didn't realize anyone had replied. Sorry to get back to the topic so late (months later)-- more in a sec here. S

[quietflyer]

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".


That is not correct.



Actually I believe it is correct. More in a moment. S

[quietflyer]

Those Class E surface area extensions you claim "do NOT enclose the airport whose approaches they protect--" do in fact depict lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport. This can be confirmed by looking at the airspace description for these airports in subpart E of FAA Order 7400.11C (incorporated by reference, see §71.1.

No, in subpart E of FAA order 7400.11C, the extensions that do NOT enclose the airport whose approaches they protect are described as (E3) "6003. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension.The Class E airspace areas listed below consist of airspace extending upward from the surface designated as an extension to a Class C surface area." and (E4) a. The Class E airspace areas listed below consist of airspace extending upward from the surface and designated as an extension to a Class B surface area.

In contrast to the dashed magenta lines that DO enclose the airports whose approaches they protect (E2): "6002. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.The Class E airspace areas listed below are designated as a surface area for an airport."

S

[quietflyer]

See http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=32.657&lon=-114.606&zoom=10


At any rate, I'll bet a box of donuts the surface area extensions are included in the airspace designated for the airport.

OK, I'll be waiting for that box of donuts. :)


The example I used, Yuma, AZ is on page E-129 and E-130 but it only describes the last modification to the airspace which appears to be a "carve out" over Somerton Airport from the surface up to 300 ft above the surface. That would allow those guys a means to access their airport without penetrating the Class E. (As written an ultralight could fly to/from the Somerton Private Airport without prior authorization from ATC by utilizing the carve out. Interesting).

Anyway, that means have to go back to an earlier version of FAA Order 7400 (or Federal Register) and find the complete legal description of the Yuma AZ Class D/E airspace (or just go to the facility and ask for the same).

No, you don't have to go back to an older version of FAA Order 7400. You just didn't look in the right part of the document. All the airspace is described in the latest version of the document. Actually you proved my point exactly-- you WON"T find the E4 "extensions" described in the same part of the document that describes "Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas" or "designated as a surface area for an airport." Because that's not what the E4 extensions are considered to be.

What do we find when we take a careful look at FAA Order JO_7400.11C ? ( https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7400.11C.pdf )

Below page E-156-- heading "6004. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

We find page on E-211--

AWP AZ E4 Yuma, AZ Yuma MCAS-Yuma International Airport, AZ (lat. 32°39'24"N., long. 114°36'22"W.) Bard VORTAC (lat. 32°46'05"N., long. 114°36'10"W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles either side of the Bard VORTAC 181° radial extending from the Bard VORTAC to the 5.2 mile radius of the Yuma MCAS-Yuma International Airport and within that airspace bounded by a line beginning at lat. 32°44'05"N, long. 114°33'41"W; to lat. 32°50'00"N, long. 114°31'00"W; to lat. 32°49'00"N, long. 114°27'00"W; to lat. 32°40'15"N, long. 114°30'17"W, thence counterclockwise via the 5.2- mile radius of the Yuma MCAS-International Airport, to the point of beginning. AMENDMENTS 04/23/98 63 FR 7058 (Revised)

Those are the E-4 extensions at Yuma. They are NOT listed as part of the class-E-to-surface airspace "Designated for an airport".

What Class-E-to-surface IS "designated for an airport" at Yuma? Read on to find out.

Below page D-1-- heading "Subpart D - Class D Airspace 5000. General. The Class D airspace areas listed below consist of specified airspace within which all aircraft operators are subject to operating rules and equipment requirements of Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (see 14 CFR 91.129). Each Class D airspace area designated for an airport in this subpart contains at least one primary airport around which the airspace is designated."

We find on page D-141--
"AWP AZ D Yuma, AZ Yuma MCAS-Yuma International Airport, AZ (lat. 32°39'24''N., long. 114°36'22''W.) Somerton, Somerton Airport, AZ (lat. 32°36'03''N., long. 114°39'57''W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 5.2- mile radius of Yuma MCAS-Yuma International Airport, excluding that airspace from the surface up to and including 300 feet above the surface from lat. 32°36'52'' N., long. 114°41'44'' W.; thence east to lat. 32°36'52'' N., long. 114°39'30'' W.; thence south to lat. 32°34'55'' N., long. 114°39'30'' W.; thence clockwise along the 5.2-mile radius to the point of beginning. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. AMENDMENTS 09/23/10 75 FR 39146 (Modified)"

That's the Class D airspace for Yuma.

Since the Yuma tower is not open 24 hours, that Class D reverts to Class E at times. Therefore we also find the dashed inner circle described again here-- this is the Class-E-to-surface that is "Designated for an airport" at Yuma--

Under page E-1, heading "6002. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas. The Class E airspace areas listed below are designated as a surface area for an airport."

We find the following on p. E-129-130 --

"AWP AZ E2 Yuma, AZ Yuma MCAS-Yuma International Airport, AZ (lat. 32°39'24''N., long. 114°36'22''W.) Somerton, Somerton Airport, AZ (lat. 32°36'03''N., long. 114°39'57''W.) That airspace, within a 5.2-mile radius of Yuma MCAS/Yuma International Airport, excluding that airspace from the surface up to and including 300 feet above the surface from lat. 9/15/18 JO 7400.11C E-130 32°36'52''N., long. 114°41'44''W.; thence east to lat. 32°36'52''N., long. 114°39'30''W.; thence south to lat. 32°34'55''N., long. 114°39'30''W.; thence clockwise along the 5.2-mile radius to the point of beginning. The Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. AMENDMENTS 09/23/10 75 FR 39146 (Modified)"

This is the same airspace that was described in the Class D section-- it is the dashed inner circle. It is shown as blue on the chart, but it effectively reverts to magenta when the tower is closed. The Class D airspace reverts to E2 airspace when the tower is closed. This is the only Class-E-to-surface airspace that is defined as "designated for an airport" at Yuma AZ. Not the E4 extensions.

As an aside, note that when it is Class D it has an altitude ceiling, but when it is E2 no altitude ceiling is given. Class E airspace never has an altitude ceiling, other than the ceiling imposed by an overlying higher class of airspace (such as the overlying Class A in this case.)

[quietflyer]

The only reason to have a surface area would be in conjunction with an airport; it would make no sense to have a random block of Class E surface area out in the middle of nowhere.


This statement is true in the general sense, but it is not true in the bureaucratic or legalistic sense. The fact is that in FAA Order JO 7400.11C ( https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7400.11C.pdf ), the E2 airspace is named or designated as being "Designated as a Surface Area" and "designated as a surface area for an airport", while the E3 and E4 airspace is not. The E3 and E4 airspace is named as "designated as an extension." That's the whole essence of my argument. S

[quietflyer]

I think you can get some ATC guidance from Advisory Circular 103.6 (AC 103.6)https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cumentID/22639 (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22639)

Unfortunately, AC 103.6 appears so far out of date and was created before class E airspace was invented.

You would need more current adviceSurface area of class E airspace designated for an airport existed, it just went by a much simpler name: "Control Zone"

I agree with Marty. Surface Area of class E airspace designated for an airport includes the class E extensions to class D airspace.

Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with Marty.

But you are raising an interesting point here.

What is the history of how "control zones" turned into Class E "surface areas"?

"Control Zones" first appeared on charts in the mid-1940's (or at least by 1950) and often consisted of a thin dashed circle enclosing an airport-- originally red, later (by 1969) blue. Sometimes there were rectangular projections to enclose instrument approaches, giving a "keyhole" appearance, or other irregular shapes. By the time of this 1974 test-prep publication (http://www.birdbird.org/aviation/examogram/vfr/examogram-vfr-026-1974-01.pdf), control zones had been defined to go up to the overlying "Continental Control Area" at 14,500' MSL. At that time, most (but not all) towered airports had Control Zones around them, and some non-towered airports did too. By that time, special requirements in effect within a Control Zone included 3 miles visibility and a ceiling of at least 1000', unless a pilot was granted permission to fly under "special VFR" rules. Also by that time, an "Airport Traffic" area was a different thing from a "Control Zone", requiring radio communication with the tower for entry, with a standardized circular shape, a smaller standardized diameter and a much smaller, standardized vertical height. "Airport Traffic Areas" were not even depicted on sectional charts, because they were automatically present at all towered airports, and they were standardized in shape, diameter and height. Even though Airport Traffic Areas weren't depicted on sectional charts, they were referenced on the chart legend through at least mid 1983 in the language concerning towered airports, but by sometime in late 1988 that reference had been dropped.

Now, on to ultralights-- FAR 103 was adopted July 30 1982.

Originally, FAR 103.17 said that "No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within an airport traffic area, control zone, airport radar service area, terminal control area, or positive control area unless that person has prior authorization from the air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over that airspace".

Not until mid-to-late 1992 do we see dashed magenta lines (as opposed to magenta shading) appear on sectional charts. Originally, the chart legend for the dashed magenta line read as follows: "Control Zone at airport without control tower and Control Zone extension without communications requirement". The charts now contained dashed magenta lines that encircled the airports whose instrument approaches they protected-- this would be a "Control Zone at airport without control tower"-- as well as dashed magenta extensions abutting dashed blue lines encircling airports, or abutting higher classes of airspace such as TRSA's-- these would be "control zone extensions" and not actually "control zones". Presumably the "without communications requirement" applied in both cases. So now for the first time we have two different kinds of airspace enclosed by dashed magenta lines. We also still have control zones depicted by dashed blue lines-- by this time, those control zones did have a communications requirement, since one of their functions was to fill the role of the old "Airport Traffic Area". At the same time that the control zones (and control zone extensions) depicted by dashed magenta lines appeared on the chart, the charts started showing a designated, individualized ceiling for each control zone depicted by a dashed blue line, typically around 2500 AGL. This was a step toward the evolution of the current "Class D" airspace. No specific ceiling was shown on the chart for the control zones depicted by a dashed magenta line or for the control zone extensions depicted by a dashed magenta line-- these airspaces had no upper limit other than floor of a higher class of airspace somewhere above.

KEY POINT ----> Even after "control zone extensions" appeared on the sectional charts by mid-to-late 1992, FAR 103.17 never was modified to prohibit ultralights from entering "control zone extensions" without prior authorization from ATC.

In late 1993 the nation's airspace went through a substantial change in nomenclature, along with some changes in structure-- this when the current system of Classes A, B, C, D, and E came into use. By November 1993, all reference to "control zones" and "control zone extensions" vanished from the sectional charts. Now the chart legend simply said "Class D airspace" for the dashed blue lines and "Class E airspace" for the dashed magenta lines. The latter isn't terribly descriptive, given the abundance of Class E airspace-- the pilot was simply expected to understand that this was specifically a reference to the nature of the airspace right at the very surface of the earth.

This was also when the FAA's "Airspace Designations And Reporting Points" document, was revised to delete all references to control zones. According to the January 1 1993 CFR 14 17.1, the November 2 1992 version of this document (FAA Order 7400.7A) references "jet airways, area high routes, Federal airways, control areas, control area extensions, area low routes, control zones, transition areas, terminal control areas, airport radar service areas, positive control areas, reporting points, and other controlled airspace". According to the January 1 1994 CFR 14 17.1, the June 17 1993 version of this document (FAA Order 7400.9A) simply references "Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace areas and ..all reporting points".

This is when we get the awkward terminology in the headings of the Airspace Designations And Reporting Points document. The heading of the section describing the type of Class-E-to-surface airspaces that surround the airports they protect (i.e. E2 airspaces) is "Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area". Wouldn't they have done better to title this section something like "Class-E-to-surface airspace areas designated for an airport"? The term "Surface Area" is inherently somewhat confusing, since the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" also go all the way down to the surface. As we've already noted though, the descriptive text following the titles clears things up-- the heading "Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area" is followed by the descriptive sentence _"The Class E airspace areas listed below are designated as a surface area for an airport". We don't find this language attached to the headings for the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" (i.e. the E3 and E4 airspaces) For example,the E4 Class-E-to-surface "extensions" are described as "Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area" ".

Around the same time-- specifically on September 16, 1993-- the text of FAR 103.17 was changed to include the current "No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, 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 the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace."

Given the context of all of the above, there's no reason to think the phrase "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" was intended to included the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" -- i.e. the E3 and E4 airspaces. Nowhere in the "Airspace Designations And Reporting Points" document do we see the E3 or E4 extensions referred to as a "Surface Area", or as "designated for an airport", or as "surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport".

See the next post for more on this.

S

[quietflyer]

How is E4 airspace described in FAA Order JO_7400.11C? ( https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7400.11C.pdf )?

The specific terms used to describe E4 airspace in FAA Order JO_7400.11C include "Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area" (page x), and "Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. The Class E airspace areas listed below consist of airspace extending upward from the surface designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area (page E-156)."

E3 airspace is described similarly, but as an extension to Class B or C airspace rather than to Class D or E airspace.

E3 and E4 airspace are depicted by dashed magenta lines that do NOT actually surround the airports whose approaches they protect. Examples-- E4-- the airspace in the dashed magenta shapes NNW and SSE of the Medford airport-- http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=42.374&lon=-122.874&zoom=10 (http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=37.246&lon=-93.389&zoom=10) . E3-- the airspace in the small dashed magenta shape NNE of Springfield Branson International airport-- http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=37.246&lon=-93.389&zoom=10 .

Now let's look at "E2" airspace. This is another kind of Class E airspace that goes all the way to the surface. E2 airspace is denoted by a dashed magenta line that completely surrounds the airport whose approaches it protects. Example-- The dashed magenta line around Newport Oregon denotes E2 airspace-- take a look at the sectional chart-- http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=44.580&lon=-124.058&zoom=10 .


The specific terms used to describe E2 airspace in FAA Order JO_7400.11C include "Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area" (page vii), and "6002. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas. The Class E airspace areas listed below are designated as a surface area for an airport." (page E-1).


The language is kind of clunky here-- why is E2 airspace named / described as "Designated as Surface Areas" or "designated as a surface area for an airport", while E4 airspace is not, even though both types of airspace do extend all the way to the surface, and both types of airspace clearly have something to do with a nearby airport? Well, that's bureaucracy for you.


The FAA's "Airman's Information Manual" ( https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/AIM_Basic_dtd_10-12-17.pdf ), while not a legal document in the sense of FAA Order JO_7400.11C, also supports this distinction in terminology. On page 3-2-9, E2 airspace is described as "Surface area designated for an airport where a control tower is not in operation", while E4 airspace is described as "Extension to a surface area" or "Class E airspace extensions". Nowhere is E4 airspace described as "Designated as a Surface Area" or "Surface Area designated for an airport" or "Surface Area", or anything similar, even though E4 airspace DOES go all the way down to the surface.


The FAA's "Pilot-Controller Glossary" ( https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/PCG_10-12-17.pdf ) (page PCG S-8) also supports the idea that in the context of Class E airspace, the phrase "Surface Area" should be understood to mean the type of E-to-surface airspace that is "designated for an airport". I.e. E2 airspace, not the E4 "extensions", even though both types of airspace do go all the way to the surface.


This distinction also pertains to the issue of where a clearance may be granted for Special VFR operations. FAR 91.157 only allows for Special VFR operations "below 10,000 feet MSL within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport." There's that phrase again-- "designated to the surface for an airport". The FAA holds that the phrase "designated to the surface for an airport" applies to E2 airspace and not E4 airspace, and does not offer clearance for Special VFR operations in E4 airspace. Read more about this at these three links --

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48103/does-far-91-155c-apply-to-class-e-surface-extensions/55806#55806

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48106/does-an-svfr-clearance-extend-to-echo-surface-extensions/55947#55947

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48106/does-an-svfr-clearance-extend-to-echo-surface-extensions/56045#56045


The last link above in particular is highly relevant and includes a response from the FAA ATO Western Service Center stating that

"Our opinion is that E4 airspace is not part of the airspace designated as the surface area for an airport. The surface area for an airport is D, C, or E2. Extensions are treated differently from surface areas designated for an airport, ie there is no communication requirement. In addition extensions, by definition in 7400.9, are not airspace designated as the "surface area for an airport"."

FAR 107.41 uses the phraseology "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" to describe where small unmanned aircraft (commercial drones) may not operate without prior authorization from ATC. The January 10 2018 FAA memorandum by Scott Gardner points out that according to the language of FAA Order JO_7400.11C, this includes E2 airspace but NOT E4 airspace. Read the memo here -- and pay special attention to the three attachments-- http://goldsealgroundschool.com/uav-library/surface-E-authorizations.pdf -- the attachments are very enlightening.

The FAA's interactive UAS map also supports this distinction-- the E3 and E4 airspaces are clearly not included in the areas where prior authorization is required for commercial drone (UAS) flight -- https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9c2e4406710048e19806ebf6a06754ad


In short, as we look over these various documents, especially FAA Order JO_7400.11C, we are forced to the conclusion that ANY of the phrases "Surface Area" , "designated as a Surface Area", "designated for an airport", or "designated as a Surface Area for an airport", or anything similar, is sufficient to indicate that we are talking about E2 airspace (shown on chart by a dashed magenta line completely encircling the airport whose approaches it protects), not the E3 or E4 "extensions" (shown on chart by a dashed magenta line that abuts up against another dashed blue or magenta line that encircles the airport whose approaches are being protected.) Even though both the E2 and the E3 / E4 airspaces do extend all the way down to the surface.

For more, see https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/35297/which-parts-of-class-e-airspace-can-an-ultralight-part-103-fly-in-without-prio/55714#55714 . This answer also deals with the issue of how the present system of E2, E4, and other types of airspace, and the associated terminology, evolved over time from the mid-1940's onwards.

At the end of the day it's wise to keep in mind the following-- what is the fundamental purpose of the E3 and E4 extensions? It appears that the only purpose of the E3 and E4 extensions is to extend standard Class E cloud clearance and visibility requirements all the way to the surface, for the protection of IFR traffic emerging from clouds at low altitudes. That's all they do. You can legally fly there VFR--without speaking to anyone if you so desire-- but you can't skim the cloud-tops or cloud-bases like you can in Class G. So, there's no reason that these airspaces are fundamentally incompatible with ultralight activity, so long as it is carried out in prudent manner.

S

[quietflyer]

Actually, I thought some folks might share my concern that there's some small possibility that the language of upcoming FAR's re model aviation -- relating to section 349 of HR 302, passed last October-- might end up causing the FAA to interpret the phrase "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" differently than has been in the case in the past-- possibly including the E3/E4 airspaces and thereby causing the E3/ E4 airspaces to be closed to ultralight flight (in the absence of prior authorization.) But, if you all believe that these areas were never open to ultralight flight anyway (without prior authorization), I don't suppose anyone would be much concerned about this possibility.

Note that these E3/ E4 airspaces have no upper limit short of any overlying higher class airspace above (Class A for example), and the concept of "within the lateral boundaries" of these E3/ E4 airspaces has NO UPPER LIMIT AT ALL. That's quite a lot of airspace to give up.

Still waiting to see what the upcoming FARs will actually say when they are released -- I'll try to be a little more timely in keeping up with this thread and with any relevant changes to the FARs.

Anyway, it's a complex subject. Take a moment to read the previous posts in the thread before diving in--

S

[quietflyer]

I don't know if the ultralight runway is still there, since ultralights hardly exist anywhere now.


Nothing to see here, move along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlxeUC4-gLo

[martymayes]

This statement is true in the general sense, but it is not true in the bureaucratic or legalistic sense. The fact is that in FAA Order JO 7400.11C ( https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7400.11C.pdf ), the E2 airspace is named or designated as being "Designated as a Surface Area" and "designated as a surface area for an airport", while the E3 and E4 airspace is not. The E3 and E4 airspace is named as "designated as an extension. That's the whole essence of my argument. S

Stalemate-

The AIM says: "Surface area arrival extensions become part of the surface area and are in effect during the same times as the surface area" (AIM 3-2-6)

My position is the same as before, extensions are part of the surface area designated for an airport.

Thereby, the ultralight vehicle operating within the lateral boundaries of the extension is by definition operating within the lateral boundaries of the surface area designated for the airport and needs to have prior authorization to go there. (103.17)

[martymayes]

You can legally fly there VFR--without speaking to anyone if you so desire-- but you can't skim the cloud-tops or cloud-bases like you can in Class G. So, there's no reason that these airspaces are fundamentally incompatible with ultralight activity, so long as it is carried out in prudent manner

I think that is what the FAA was addressing in the Part 103 preamble - some ultralight operators were being less than prudent, a NMAC in IFR conditions while in controlled airspace, was one of the specifics. A few bad apples ruined it for everyone.

[quietflyer]

Stalemate-

The AIM says: "Surface area arrival extensions become part of the surface area and are in effect during the same times as the surface area" (AIM 3-2-6)

My position is the same as before, extensions are part of the surface area designated for an airport.

Thereby, the ultralight vehicle operating within the lateral boundaries of the extension is by definition operating within the lateral boundaries of the surface area designated for the airport and needs to have prior authorization to go there. (103.17)

Thanks for replying. That one particular line in the AIM does indeed seem to support your argument. However, the AIM is not a legal document in the same sense that FAA Order JO 7400 is. I would argue that line 3-2-6 in the AIM is simply erroneous-- it does not reflect the actual situation as defined by the FARs and by FAA Order JO 7400.

See the totality of the situation as described in post #21 above, including the fact that SVFR cannot be practiced in the "extensions", despite the fact that the FAR 91.157 authorizes SVFR operations "below 10,000 feet MSL within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport." Also the fact that the FAA does not requiring commercial drones to get prior authorization for operation in the "extensions", despite the fact that prior authorization is required "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport". See the January 10 2018 Gardner memo in particular.

Surely at some point the FAA has offered some clarification of the status of the "extensions" specifically in regard to part 103 (ultralight) operations, but if so, I'm not aware of it at present.

Steve

[quietflyer]

Also consider this-- there are a few airports where we find a central Class E (not Class D) core, with Class E extensions. (Many Class D airports also revert to this configuration when the tower closes for the night, but let's focus for now on the ones where there is no Class D at all.) Here's one example-- KTLV -- http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=38.894&lon=-119.995&zoom=10 . In fact, this example was specifically addressed in one of the attachments to the January 10 2018 Gardner memo I've been referencing in post #21 and elsewhere -- stating that prior authorization was not required by FAR 107.41 for drone operations in the extension.

But independent of the Gardner memo, I'd pose the following question-- if AIM 3-2-6 is truly accurate in stating that "Surface area arrival extensions become part of the surface area" whenever the surface area is in effect, then wouldn't it be fair to say there is no functional difference of any kind whatsoever between the rectangular class-E-to-surface extension and the round Class-E-to-surface circle at KTLV? Whether we are talking about SVFR operations as prescribed by FAR 91.155c and 91.157, or drone operations as prescribed by FAR 107.31, or ultralight operations as prescribed by FAR 103.17, if the airspace within the extension is really considered to be "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport", it would seem to not make any difference at all whether an aircraft was within the dashed magenta circle or the dashed magenta rectangular extension. If this is what is intended, why have the dashed magenta line separating the two units of airspace? Why not just have a single piece of airspace, like we see at KONP ( http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=44.580&lon=-124.058&zoom=10 ) ? There must be a reason for the distinction.

At KTLV-- but not at KONP-- the airspace in the rectangular portion is described in a separate portion of JO 7400-- the portion starting on page E-156 under the heading "6004. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area", rather than in the portion staring on page E-1 under the heading "6002. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area". Hence the dashed magenta line separating the two portions at KTLV, but not at KONP.

It sure looks to me that at KTLV and other airports with similar airspace configurations, there must have been a desire for the "extension" to function differently in some way than the airspace in the "Surface Area" in the dashed circle. Such as, in some way relating to SVFR operations and/or part 103 ultralight operations and/or part 107 sUAV operations, or perhaps in some other way relating to instrument approach procedures. But if AIM 3-2-6 were really accurate in stating that "Surface area arrival extensions become part of the surface area" whenever the surface area is in effect, it seems that no such distinction would exist, and there would be no reason to ever create an airspace configuration like we see at KTLV, as opposed to what we see at KONP.

Even if there is standard guidance in place that if the rectangular portions protecting the approaches extend more than X miles from the main circle then they are to be designated as "extensions" rather than as part of the inner surface area, why would they bother to draw the dashed line separating the two areas on the sectional chart for KTLV unless there were some functional difference between the two airspaces? I can't imagine how there could be any functional difference-- especially any functional difference pertaining to VFR pilots-- unless the airspace above the "extensions" were NOT considered to be ""within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport".

Steve

[martymayes]

The AIM is not a 'regulatory' document from which some people infer it can't be used to uphold a regulation infraction. That's not true as the FAA often cites the AIM during enforcement cases as "preponderance of the evidence." I have never heard it being rejected by an ALJ as not being a credible source.


Subpart B of 91 and the AIM both say SVFR can be accomplished in Class E surface areas. Where can we find what class E surface area is? The AIM.

The guy talking about UAS is not giving an official FAA legal interpretation. He's has the right to be incorrect.

I have never seen an interpretation or case law regarding 103.17. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, don't know. If you really wanted to make your case you could ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion or interpretation.

[quietflyer]

The AIM is not a 'regulatory' document from which some people infer it can't be used to uphold a regulation infraction. That's not true as the FAA often cites the AIM during enforcement cases as "preponderance of the evidence." I have never heard it being rejected by an ALJ as not being a credible source.

Good point. There is definitely a grey area here.


Subpart B of 91 and the AIM both say SVFR can be accomplished in Class E surface areas. Where can we find what class E surface area is? The AIM.

Well, I would say we should look in FAA Order JO 7400.

By the way, there was another case where this issue was being discussed on another forum and a pilot commented that he had exchanged several letters with the FAA over a period of months before finally being told in writing that there was no mechanism to get a SVFR clearance in the E4 extensions, because they were not "part of the airspace designated as the surface area for an airport". It bears highly on the topic here, though it may or may not be an official legal opinion. I've added a reference to this in post #21-- I had kind of forgotten about this specific content until this morning. I've also addressed it in more detail in the following post below.


The guy talking about UAS is not giving an official FAA legal interpretation. He's has the right to be incorrect.

Well, he is an FAA official putting out a memorandum explaining why prior authorization is not required in the E4 airspace. It's also the same interpretation that we see reflected on the FAA interactive map for drone operators seeking prior authorization for flight near airports etc, as noted in post #21.



I have never seen an interpretation or case law regarding 103.17. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, don't know. If you really wanted to make your case you could ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion or interpretation.

Perhaps I ought to do that. Honestly I'm surprised that one of the national ultralight or hang gliding/ paragliding organizations hasn't done so already, but if so it's never been referenced in any of the on-line discussions I've had on the subject.

One would think it would be of particular interest re soaring pilots setting FAI records-- I don't think the records are valid if you violate airspace limitations. TAlso some contests are now starting to subtract points for airspace violations. The truth is that most ultralight pilots seem to think that ultralights may NOT fly in the E4 extensions without prior authorization-- yet some don't understand that the concept of "within the lateral boundaries" of these airspaces has no vertical limit. Likewise the E2 surface areas.

Steve

[quietflyer]

Re the issue of whether a SVFR clearance may be issued for the E4 extensions as noted in the previous post--

Does this constitute an actual legal opinion from the FAA? Probably not. But it definitely bears on the topic, including the topic of what FAR 103.17 means by "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport"

Below is a response from the FAA ATO Western Service Center.

Pay special attention to the very last paragraph


From the forum https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48106/does-an-svfr-clearance-extend-to-echo-surface-extensions/56045#56045 --

Introductory comment--

"Sure, during my rotorcraft checkride, the DPE (Barry Llloyd) asked me, "if the field (KSTS) is IFR and you can get an SVFR clearance to depart, can you fly with SVFR cloud clearance/vis through the echo extensions. After a torturous discussion he finally showed me his long correspondence with the FAA and finally a letter from the FAA stating that there is no known mechanism to grant an SVFR clearance in a type 2 echo airpace (like at KSTS). I will reach out to Barry to try to get a copy of the letter.– John Hutchinson (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/28642/john-hutchinson)Oct 12 '18 at 19:23 (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48106/does-an-svfr-clearance-extend-to-echo-surface-extensions?rq=1#comment145570_55947)"

Follow-up answer-- posted by John Hutchinson last edited October 15 2018--

"This is an answer to the question provided by my checkride examiner Barry Lloyd

On 01-26-2010, a query asking whether SVFR is available in Class E extensions was routed to FAA ATC Headquarters. Below is a response to that query from the FAA ATO Western Service Center:

"Our opinion is:

FAR 91.157 (a) ..."special VFR operations may be conducted"..."within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport." This permits SVFR clearances within the vertical extension, not the lateral/horizontal extension of an airport designated surface area.

FAAO 7400.9T par 6002. Definition of Class E2 airspace: "The Class E airspace areas listed below are designated as a surface area for an airport."

FAAO 7400.9T par 6004. Definition of Class E4 airspace: "...airspace extending upward from the surface designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area."

The language in FAR 91.157 exactly matches the language in FAAO 7400.9T par 6002. Par. 6004 does not match and the FAR does not permit SVFR operations in the lateral extension of a surface area designated for an airport; only within the vertical extension.

Presumably this could be corrected if we indeed want to provide for SVFR within lateral extensions, but it is currently not permitted.

There are other operational issues involved: eg. an extension to a Class D surface area where the tower provides SVFR services within the Class D airspace as is permitted via LOA. They cannot issue a SVFR clearance in the E4 extension. If permitted, the controlling agency, presumably the ARTCC would have to do this.

Our opinion is that E4 airspace is not part of the airspace designated as the surface area for an airport. The surface area for an airport is D, C, or E2. Extensions are treated differently from surface areas designated for an airport, ie there is no communication requirement. In addition extensions, by definition in 7400.9, are not airspace designated as the "surface area for an airport"."

[quietflyer]

Is there a mechanism to bring to the attention of the FAA a potentially inaccurate, ambiguous, or misleading statement in the AIM, such as section 3-2-6?

"Surface area arrival extensions become part of the surface area and are in effect during the same times as the surface area."

Steve

[Bill Berson]

The floor of the class E "extensions" should logically be higher than the surface. Perhaps 400agl or something for drones and ultralights to operate without prior permission.
Because IFR traffic is always higher in the extensions (just like the class B inverted wedding cakes)
The rules for class E airspace are so poorly defined in AIM or the chart or anywhere, it's appalling.

[quietflyer]

The floor of the class E "extensions" should logically be higher than the surface. Perhaps 400agl or something for drones and ultralights to operate without prior permission.
Because IFR traffic is always higher in the extensions (just like the class B inverted wedding cakes)
The rules for class E airspace are so poorly defined in AIM or the chart or anywhere, it's appalling.

Though may not be obvious at first sight, the floor of the Class E "extensions" is definitely the surface. Look at any of the E3 and E4 airspace descriptions in FAA Order JO 7400 -- https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7400.11C.pdf

I know, it's a can of worms. If you want to read about another possible can of worms re model airplane flight, see a related discussion here. However, I need to emphasize, the apparent problem here is in the words of the authorizing congressional legislation-- not the FARs. The actual FARs have not yet been codified, or at least have not yet been released to the public. -- https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?3295269-About-that-400-ceiling-concern-over-E4-airspace

Steve

[martymayes]

Is there a mechanism to bring to the attention of the FAA a potentially inaccurate, ambiguous, or misleading statement in the AIM, such as section 3-2-6?

"Surface area arrival extensions become part of the surface area and are in effect during the same times as the surface area."

Steve

Yes, there is. There is a Comments/Corrections page in the front of the AIM right after the subscription information page. And you will absolutely receive a reply to your comment(s), no black holes there.

Of course, it would be prudent to ensure the AIM is indeed inaccurate, ambiguous or misleading before making such a suggestion......

[martymayes]

The floor of the class E "extensions" should logically be higher than the surface. Perhaps 400agl or something for drones and ultralights to operate without prior permission.


Well, they have areas like that, called "Class E transition areas," except they don't use 400'. Where the floor of Class E touches the surface, the powers in charge decided they needed to vertically protect aircraft that are operating in that airspace and that protection extended to the surface.

[quietflyer]

I have never seen an interpretation or case law regarding 103.17. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, don't know. If you really wanted to make your case you could ask the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion or interpretation.

Thanks for the note re the AIM- and what is the mechanism for acting the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion or interpretation? Just write a letter?

[martymayes]

Well, he is an FAA official putting out a memorandum explaining why prior authorization is not required in the E4 airspace. It's also the same interpretation that we see reflected on the FAA interactive map for drone operators seeking prior authorization for flight near airports etc, as noted in post #21.

I have heard FAA officials make incorrect statements (sometimes in writing) many times over my 40 yrs in aviation.


Perhaps I ought to do that. Honestly I'm surprised that one of the national ultralight or hang gliding/ paragliding organizations hasn't done so already, but if so it's never been referenced in any of the on-line discussions I've had on the subject.

Sometimes people prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.


One would think it would be of particular interest re soaring pilots setting FAI records-- I don't think the records are valid if you violate airspace limitations.

I think most sanctioned record attempts obtain the proper waivers, etc.

[martymayes]

Thanks for the note re the AIM- and what is the mechanism for acting the FAA Chief Counsel for an opinion or interpretation? Just write a letter?

Write a clear and concise, make simple declarative sentences, avoid pedantic -- oh sheesh I sound like my old english teacher....

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/administration/contacts/


A quicker mechanism would be to write to your regional counsel and ask for an "interpretive ruling" it carries less weight than a chief counsel opinion but it might shine light on the overall subject. Getting a response from the Chief Counsels office may take months.

[FlyingRon]

The historical description of the control zones is WRONG. By the way. Control zones were very much depicted prior to 1992 as either dashed blue lines or dashed T lines (when no SVFR was allowed).
The control zones had the "extensions" prior to 1992 as well and were depicted they just weren't called anything specific.

What was true before 1992 was that the Airport Traffic Area that was created by having an operating control tower wasn't either charted nor was it by default controlled airspace. If they wanted controlled airspace in the ATA they also created a control zone. When these ATAs were subsumed into the class D controlled airspace, now you had an issue. What to do with the stuff sticking out of the circular central area. This is where the idea of "extensions" came about. If the extensions were small, they just became part of the class D. If they were larger, they became class E extensions to the class D.

Frankly, I think this is much ado about nothing. The scope and size of a control zone is no different than the current class D or class E surface areas.

By the way, the FAA when they proposed all this change, promised the uncharted zombie airspace of the naked ATA would go away. They lied. Within a few months after the regs became effective, they restored the rules for operations in vicinity of control towers in class G or E airspace.

[quietflyer]

I have heard FAA officials make incorrect statements (sometimes in writing) many times over my 40 yrs in aviation.

Me too. I know a hang glider pilot who was told by an official at the local FSDO that the class-E-to-surface areas could be ignored in relation to part 103 whenever the weather at the airport was above VFR minimums. Later he was told by a different FSDO official that the ceiling of an E4 "extension" was considered to be 700' AGL. Supposedly he was also later told in writing by the Office of Chief Counsel that the ceiling of an E4 extension was considered to be the height of the adjacent Class D cylinder. And that "This is written in the rules & definitions and no further written correspondence will be offered". All a bunch of garbage.


Sometimes people prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.

Partly because of the risk of simply getting a confused or inaccurate answer. Especially considering that the FAA's interpretation of the significance of the E4 extensions re SVFR and drone flight appears to also suggest a favorable interpretation re FAR 103-- so why rock the boat and risk getting a different interpretation in writing? Still, it would be nice to get it pinned down.

Steve

[quietflyer]

EDIT 5-17-2019-- I've excised out some of the portions of the post below. I no longer feel that the exact language of the FARs as they stood during the time when we had "Control Zone extensions" appearing on the chart legend, i.e. late 1992 to September 1993, proves that ultralights were welcome in these areas even without prior authorization. But the modern language does indeed indicate that today's E3 and E4 airspace is not included in the airspace listed in today's FAR 103.17 where ultralights are not to enter without prior permission.

If you want to read more about my take on the pre-1993 history of the "Control Zones" and "Control Zone extensions" before the "alphabet" airspace reclassification, see this link to an entry I wrote for another on-line aviation forum -- https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/64246/what-are-the-historical-precedents-of-todays-e2-and-e4-airspace-us/64247#64247

----- end edit.




The historical description of the control zones is WRONG. By the way. Control zones were very much depicted prior to 1992 as either dashed blue lines or dashed T lines (when no SVFR was allowed).

Ron, I assume you are referring to post #20 -- http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?8661-http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?8661-Let-s-discuss-Part-103-17-ultralight-flight-in-Class-E-to-surface-quot-extensions-quot&p=75320&viewfull=1#post75320 - Read it again-- I never said control zones were not depicted prior to 1992. In fact I said they were depicted starting sometime in the mid-1940's. I said the dashed magenta lines first appeared it 1992.


The control zones had the "extensions" prior to 1992 as well and were depicted they just weren't called anything specific.

You mean they had rectangular projections sticking out from the circles? I never meant to suggest otherwise. (Ok, I guess I did describe them as round circles. I went back and edited the post so as not to imply they were always round.)

In fact, in FAA advisory circular AC 103-6 from 1983 https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_103-6.pdf , we find the word "extension" on the 7th page, in the section on control zones.

But there was no dashed line on the sectional charts separating these areas from the basic inner circles, and these areas were never officially designated as "extensions to control zones" or "control zone extensions" in the "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points" document. So the areas weren't "extensions" in the same sense as we have now.

I don't think that your description of the evolution of the airspace is fundamentally different than mine. The point is that at a certain time (1992), the concept of "Control Zone extensions" suddenly appears as a specific thing on the sectional chart legends, and for the first time we see dashed magenta lines that abut up against the dashed blue circles.

Steve

[quietflyer]

Sometimes people prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.
Partly because of the risk of simply getting a confused or inaccurate answer.

Here's an example of how the FAA can screw up an answer --

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2006/hucker%20-%20%282006%29%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

On July 14, 1999, the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel issued an interpretation that the area under a class B shelf, but outside the inner class B cylinder that extended to the surface, was considered to be "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area" of the Class B airspace.

Later (I see no exact date on the new interpretation but it is after December 2005) a new interpretation was issued, that the area under the Class B shelf was not considered to be "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area" of the Class B airspace.

This was all in relation to FAR 91.303 (c), which states that "No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -- Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport."

That one seems like kind of a no-brainer to me. It seems pretty incredible that they would miss that one.

Unfortunately, they also narrowly missed giving some clarification on the status of the E4 Class-E-to-surface "extensions". They contrast "certain E airspace (designated for an airport)" that begins at the surface with the transition areas that begin at 700' or 1200' AGL, noting that aerobatics are not allowed "within the lateral boundaries" of the former, but they don't say anything specific about the E4 "extensions".

So it seems to me that the status of the airspace above the lateral boundaries of the E4 "extensions" is still arguably unclear in relation to all of the following--


FAR 91.155c -- the prohibition on operating VFR without a SVFR clearance if the ceiling is less than 1000 feet AGL

language: "within the lateral boundaries the surface area of controlled airspace designated for an airport"

FAR 91.155d -- the prohibition on taking off, landing, or entering the traffic pattern unless certain visibility requirements are met--

language: "within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport

FAR 91.157a -- the possibility of obtaining a SVFR clearance (addressed by the FAA letter linked to in post #21, the third "stack exchange link"; the letter states that SVFR clearance may not be granted)

language: "below 10,000 feet MSL within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport"

FAR 91.303c -- aerobatic flight prohibited

language: "Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport."

FAR 101.33a -- flight in free balloons prohibited unless otherwise authorized by air traffic control--

language: "below 2000 feet above the surface within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport."

FAR 103.17 -- ultralight flight prohibited unless prior authorization is obtained by air traffic control

language: "within Class A, 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"

FAR 107.41 -- operation of non-recreational sUAS (e.g. commercial drones) prohibited without prior authorization (addressed by the January 10 2018 Gardner memo as noted in post #21; the memo states that prior authorization is not required for operations in E4 airspace)

language: "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"

And possibly some new upcoming FAR's in relation to line-of-sight recreational sUAS (model airplanes)

Steve

[FlyingRon]

I agree. Control zone 'extensions' were just pieces of the control zone that were beyond the circular area. I don't know if they had a name back then, they were just part of the mostly round depicted shape.
Again, there was no "magenta" control zones, because control zones were distinct from whether or not there was a control tower there. The magenta depiction was an outcropping of the creation of class D airspace out of control zones. As far as "surface area of controlled airspace designated for an airport," it is pretty clear that these include the class E extensions to class D and were always intended to be so.

[quietflyer]

I agree. Control zone 'extensions' were just pieces of the control zone that were beyond the circular area. I don't know if they had a name back then, they were just part of the mostly round depicted shape.
Again, there was no "magenta" control zones, because control zones were distinct from whether or not there was a control tower there. The magenta depiction was an outcropping of the creation of class D airspace out of control zones.

It's clear that magenta depiction was likely motivated by the coming change to the alphabet airspace system, but it happened a year earlier. The magenta depiction happened around September 1992, and that's when we first see "Control Zone extension" mentioned as a specific thing on the sectional chart legend. The "alphabet" airspace re-organization happened in September 1993, and that's when the phrase "Control Zone" vanishes from the charts. Why is this significant? See next post.


As far as "surface area of controlled airspace designated for an airport," it is pretty clear that these include the class E extensions to class D and were always intended to be so.

Well, the various posts above, especially #21, contain my arguments to the contrary, including several FAA communications (one of which is given in full in post #30). Post #27 also seems especially relevant.

I do appreciate your engaging on this thread.

Steve

[quietflyer]

Stalemate-

The AIM says: "Surface area arrival extensions become part of the surface area and are in effect during the same times as the surface area" (AIM 3-2-6)


I did some checking in old editions of the AIM and found that that line was only added in a revision that became effective May 26, 2016. Nothing like that appears in older editions of the AIM.

Find an AIM from 2014 or earlier, and this line won't be in it.

Though the AIM sheds light on the intent of the FARs, it is not a regulatory document, and there was no relevant change in the FARs or the "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points" document at the time that that line appeared.

Looking at the FARs or the "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points" document as they've evolved through time, I see a consistent meaning.

I find the following to be highly relevant--

"Control Zone extensions" first appeared on the legends of US sectional charts, and on the charts themselves, in mid-to-late 1992-- prior to the September 1993 airspace re-organization. If the authorities had intended for these "Control Zone extensions" to be included within the scope of the language of FARs 91.155c, 91.155d, 91.157a, 91.303c, 101.33a, and 103.17, it would have been very simple to modify these FARs to include the phrase "Control Zone extensions".This was not done. Instead, the old language was left in place until replaced in the September 1993 airspace organization by the new "alphabet" language that we have now.

This clearly indicates that when the "Control Zone extensions" were introduced in mid-to-late 1992, they not meant to fall within the scope of FARs 91.155c, 91.155d, 91.157a, 91.303c, 101.33a, and 103.17, even though much of the airspace now encompassed by the new "Control Zone extensions" had previously been part of a "Control Zone".

Note that prior to the 1993 "alphabet" revision, the language of the FARs was much simpler than what we have now. It did not include awkward phrases like "surface area of controlled airspace designated for the airport" or "surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport", or other similar phrases. The simple phrase "Control Zones" was sufficient, and could easily have been replaced by "Control Zones and Control Zone extensions" if that had been the actual intention. Due to the simplicity of the language in use at that time, the period after the introduction of the "Control Zone extensions" in mid-to-late 1992, but before the September 1993 "alphabet" revision, provides an unusually clear window into the intended relationship between the newly-created "Control Zone extensions" and the various FARs noted above.

(According to FAR 71.1 effective 1-1-93, the actual delineations of the "Control Zones" and "Control Zone extensions" as of Nov 1 1992 were apparently spelled out in the "Compilation Of Regulations", FAA Order 7400.7A, effective 11-1-92. Another source may be "Airspace Reclassification", FAA Order 7400.9, effective 11-1-91. I haven't seen these particular documents as of yet.)

The modern language of the various FARs noted above is more awkward, but a close examination suggests that at the time of the September 1993 "alphabet" re-organization, the E3 and E4 extensions were still not meant to fall within the scope of FARs 91.155c, 91.155d, 91.157a, 91.303c, 101.33a, and 103.17.

Whether the current authorities still have the same understanding, may be an open question.

(EDIT 6-20-19-- I'm no longer finding all of the argument above quite so convincing. It's possible that when the "Control Zone extensions" first appeared on the charts in 1992, they did not yet have any regulatory significance-- the airspace may have still been officially described as part of a "Control Zone" rather than a "Control Zone extension"-- so there would have been no need to revise the FARs. It's a little unclear-- to say more, one would have to closely examine the airspace description documents from that time. The main point is that when the FARs were re-written to accommodate the September 1993 "alphabet" airspace re-organization, the choice was made to adopt the "designated for an airport" language, which does exclude the E4 airspace. For a better description of the pre-1993 history of the airspace descriptions, visit the outside link https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/64246/what-are-the-historical-precedents-of-todays-e2-and-e4-airspace-us )


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

Anyway, the original point of this thread was to ask if anyone knew of any oral or written communications from any FAA officials specifically addressing the ultralight issue in relation to E4 extensions, either in relation to some specific airport or in a more general sense -- see post #1-- thanks --

Steve

[quietflyer]

Some time has passed since this thread has last been active.

My thoughts have changed a little, but not much--

In JO 7400.11C (the "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points" document), the AIM, the Pilot-Controller glossary, and many other places, the FAA seems to have acquired the habit of using the phrase "Surface Area" or "surface area" in a rather strange way, referring to an actual chunk of airspace with a vertical dimension as well as a horizontal dimension. Furthermore, many examples can be found where the horizontal extent of the airspace named as a "Surface Area" or "surface area" is construed not to include E4 Class-E-to-surface "extensions". The "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points" document is one such example.

Nonetheless, the plain language of FAR 103.17 and many related regulations suggests that within the context of those regulations, "surface area" simply means the surface footprint of a given column of airspace whose bottom is in contact with the surface. For example other regulations suggest that class B or class C airspace also can have a "surface area", even though this term is not used in JO 7400.11C in relation to these airspace types. "Within the lateral boundaries of the surface area" simply means any airspace above the surface footprint of a given column of airspace whose bottom is in contact with the surface, without regard to altitude. In this context, if we were discussing the "surface area of Class E airspace" near a given airport, it would not seem incongruent to assume we were including any adjacent E4 "extensions", despite the fact that JO 7400.11C and numerous other FAA materials follow a different practice. All things considered, it would seem to be a matter of some ambiguity-- a conflict between what the plain language of the FARs seems to suggest on first reading, and what is suggested by the convention followed in JO 7400.11C and other FAA materials in reference to Class E airspace in particular.

If we do embrace the idea that the use of the term "surface area" does not automatically exclude E4 "extensions" in the context of FAR 103.17 and other FARs with similar language, the critical point then boils down to the phrase "designated for an airport". While this phrase seems to have been superfluously retained in several recent regulations that don't even address Class E airspace (for example FAR 91.225 (e)(2)), it seems to have originally appeared in the post-"Alphabet" re-organization (post September 1993) version of FAR 103.17 and other regulations with related language as a way to indicate that the only type of Class-E-to-surface airspace encompassed by the said regulation was E2 airspace. E4 "extensions" were not meant to be included. E2 airspace is the only kind of Class-E-to-surface airspace that is named or described in the "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points" document as being "designated for an airport". If this distinction were not intended, there would have been no reason to include the phrase "designated for an airport" or any other similar phrase in FAR 103.17 and other regulations with similar language; it serves no other purpose whatsoever.

This understanding is consistent with the understanding expressed in the 2010 response from the FAA ATO Western service center re obtaining SVFR clearance in E4 "extensions" as referenced in post #30 http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?8661-Let-s-discuss-Part-103-17-ultralight-flight-in-Class-E-to-surface-quot-extensions-quot&p=75340&viewfull=1#post75340 , and the January 10 2018 FAA internal memo from Scott Gardner re sUAS (commercial drone) operations in E4 "extensions" (old link not working at present -- instead see https://jrupprechtlaw.com/section-107-41-operation-in-certain-airspace ). In both cases, E4 airspaces were understood NOT to be encompassed by the language of the relevant regulations, which had language similar to (in the former case) or identical to (in the latter case) the language of FAR 103.17.

It will be interesting to see whether the FAA continues to stay consistent with this line of reasoning in the future. There are some ambiguities in new rules regarding recreational sUAS operation (recreational model airplanes and drones) that they'll need to address one way or another. So, stay tuned.

Steve

[jedi]

I find this thread interesting and the attention to detail and informed comments are appreciated.

Could one of the commentators please clarify the E2, E3 and E4 extensions so as not to require a read of the full contents.

[quietflyer]

* Hang on I'll get to it-- you can skim through the first part of this post if you don't want to read another re-hash of the issue of interest--

* Considering that FAR 103.17 has been around in its current format for over 20 years (since the 1993 airspace re-organization), it seems surprising that the FAA has never come out with a hard-and-fast interpretation of FAR 103.17 in relation to E4 airspace. I've now asked them for an interpretation/ clarification. (A little over a month ago.) We'll see whether or not they think it is worth responding to. Depending on what they say, I might regret ever asking.

* If they don't deem the matter worthy of a response, I'll take it as an indication that the logic of the January 2018 "Gardner memo" (internal FAA memo referenced in previous posts) re FAR 107.41 (commercial "drone" operation) also applies to FAR 103.17, and that there is therefore no restriction against operating an ultralight within the E4 or E3 or E3a airspace, using due caution not to cause a hazard to other traffic of course.

* Keep in mind that the way the language of FAR 103.17 is constructed, if the E4/E3/E3a airspace were construed to be off-limits to ultralights, there would be no vertical limit of any kind on this prohibition, because the regulation says "within the lateral boundaries of". The same is true of E2 airspace as well, where there is no dispute that ultralights may not fly without prior authorization. It's kind of absurd that the E2 circle around a small airport creates a barrier to ultralight flight all the way up to 18,000', but that is in fact the way the regulation is written. In the case of an airport that is Class D during the day and changes to E2 Class-E-to-surface when the tower closes, you can operate an ultralight with no prior authorization above the Class D ceiling when the tower is open, but not when it is closed. A little weird, but that's the way regulation is written. As to whether this would ever be enforced in actual practice, who knows.

* It's also surprising that the FAA has said so little over the years on the related issue (related by virtue of similar language in the relevant regulations) as to whether or not a Special VFR clearance may be issued in such a way that it is valid for the E4/E3/E3a "extensions"-- various ATC centers seem to follow very different practices in this regard. (I called several facilities and asked some questions.) I have asked the FAA for clarification on this as well. (I have seen one FAA letter from the ATO Western Service Center, referenced in some of the prior posts, stating that due to the language of regulations, Special VFR clearance may not be authorized for an E4 extension. This is seems to support the suggestion that FAR 103.17 does not require authorization for ultralight flight in these areas, although the language of the SVFR regulation is not exactly identical to the language of FAR 103.17.)

* Anyway back to the question in the previous post-- this may help--

* "E4" is basically synonymous with "extension", or more precisely, "extensions" may be either E4, E3, or E3a. Examples are given below. Throughout this thread I've often used "E4" as shorthand for all the extensions; the comments also would apply to E3 and E3a extensions.

* In the vast majority of cases, E4 airspace is depicted on the aviation sectional charts by a dashed magenta line that does NOT actually surround the airport whose approaches are being protected. It adjoins another dashed magenta or dashed blue circle or other shape that does actually surround the airport whose approaches are being protected.


* Here are some examples of E4 airspace-- look specifically at the airspace within the dashed magenta line that does NOT surround the airport whose approaches are being protected. The airspace within the dashed magenta or dashed blue line that DOES surround the airport is E2 or D airspace and that's not what we are talking about here:


http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=38.894&lon=-119.995&zoom=10
http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.978&lon=-124.108&zoom=10
http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=42.374&lon=-122.874&zoom=10
http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=42.906&lon=-106.464&zoom=10

* Note that the first two examples above, KTVL and KACV, are oddballs. It is very unusual to have an E4 extension adjoin full-time E2 airspace. In such a case it is much more common to see all the airspace designated as E2, as per KONP in the link below. The normal reason that an E4 extension would adjoin E2 airspace is that a tower has closed for the night and the Class D circle has been designated to revert to E2 airspace when the tower is closed. However, it's possible that there has been a recent change in policy in regard to airspace design and the KTVL/ KACV situation will become more common in the future.


* None of the airspace enclosed by the dashed magenta line here is E4 airspace. It is all E2 airspace. There is no dashed magenta line that does NOT enclose the airport:


http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=44.580&lon=-124.058&zoom=10


* E3 and E3a airspace is depicted like E4 airspace but the dashed magenta "extension" abuts Class C or Class B airspace, respectively, which is depicted differently than the dashed blue or dashed magenta circles in the examples above.


* Here is an example of E3 airspace--the dashed magenta boundary extending toward the northeast:


http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=37.246&lon=-93.389&zoom=10


* To keep things simple most of my comments in this thread just mentioned E4 airspace, but all the same points would apply to E3 and E3a as well. Of course there may be OTHER restrictions on operating an ultralight in those areas-- for example if they are over a "congested area" of a city or town, of if there is simply too much traffic for an ultralight to operate there without creating a hazard to other aircraft.

Extra credit-- I've found three other "oddball" cases where the outlying projections are designated as E4 and the inner circle is designated as full-time E2, but you would never know it by looking at the sectional chart, because it just shows one dashed magenta line around the whole area. In my opinion this should be considered to be a mistake on the chart-- or at the very least the depiction is not consistent with what was done for KTVL and KACV (first two links above). These 3 other cases are KSGU, KBIH, and KTPL. Note the "hang gliding" symbol within the E2 circle at KBIH-- presumably this is an instance where the "prior authorization" for ultralight flight required by FAR 103.17 is often granted.

Hope that helped--

Steve