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

[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