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

[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/q...ns/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 HutchinsonOct 12 '18 at 19:23"

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/...O_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/show...er-E4-airspace

Steve

[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.

[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......