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

[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/...O_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)

[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....19.995&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....24.058&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]

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/q...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?...ll=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-10...rtain-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