Some time in the late 90?s I volunteered to give a presentation on reading sectionals. What I learned in researching the talk was quite disturbing. Basically, our ability to fly the Rock seemed to hinge on the fact that the right hand didn?t know what the left hand was doing at the FAA. A change made to Part 103 back in 1987-1991 ? the infamous "lateral limits of the Class E for an airport" restriction ? put High Rock Launch and LZ clearly within a zone requiring us to obtain prior permission from ATC in order to fly. The only cover we had was this little Hang Glider Activity symbol on the Washington Area Sectional chart. All non-hang glider pilots whom I very discretely approached concerning this issue expressed confusion, followed by the observation that regulations trump charts, and so the hang glider symbol should probably not be there. It seemed likely that our continued High Rock privileges hinged on an oversight on the part of the chart-makers.
My solution was to go schizoid; espousing a defensible rationale for flying at the Rock out of one side of my mouth, while simultaneously advocating a conservative interpretation of the rules out of the other side. All to put off the day when our activities might prompt the FAA discover and correct their apparent oversight. It was in this environment that I found myself working with two government agencies to obtain a waiver to fly within the TFR, while working to ensure that certain branches of one of those agencies didn?t find the subject too terribly interesting. You can see now why my attitudes seemed a bit manic at times when people, either by plan or by deed, threatened to hit IDENT on the transponder and place our situation brightly on the radar screen.
Having eventually reached what I felt to be a stable position, I dropped any further research on the issue. The recent firestorm over flights through and over Salisbury, having inevitably dragged High Rock back into the picture once again, impelled me to resolve those loose ends so as to clarify things once and for all.
Here, for the first time, is the whole story:
As I said, in researching my airspace talk years ago, I quickly discovered that ultralight pilots had an added restriction that did not apply to licensed airmen flying certificated aircraft. In December 1991, the FAA amended Part 103 to prohibit ultralights from operating "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." Yet High Rock was clearly depicted on the sectional within a dashed magenta line depicting Class E adjacent to Washington County (Hagerstown) airport. What was up with that? In an effort to resolve the issue ? without asking someone at the FAA ? I looked for more specific written guidance. This search lead to an article in the Jan-Feb 1995 issue of FAA Aviation News entitled "The A,B,C?s of Airspace Operations for Ultralights." It stated that "a Class E surface area is airspace configured to contain all instrument approaches to the associated airport and is depicted on the sectional charts with a magenta segmented line." and "The existence of the surface area is independent of weather conditions." So much for that idea. I then looked for exact definition of the airspace around Washington County (Hagerstown) Airport. Did those keyways really constitute ?surface Class E for an airport?? Turns out this stuff is clearly defined in FAA Order 7900.9, "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points." At the time (late 90?s) the most recent version of this document available was in the FAA archives at UMCP. FAA Order 7900.9A (1993) placed High Rock launch and LZ squarely within Surface Area Class E designated for Washington County Regional Airport - and this airspace was in effect 24/7. The mapmakers, apparently, had missed this little detail when the regulations changed in 1991, and I was loath that we do anything to further educate them on the subject.
So, I took the logical position that we obviously must have blanket permission from Washington County tower to fly in that airspace. Otherwise, we would not still be on the chart, right? This permission probably takes the form of some memorandum of understanding (MOU) gathering dust in their files somewhere. Unfortunately, our copy of that MOU appeared to be lost. Lucky for us that we had a friend working the tower there. [As it turns out, Washington County Airport does not control that airspace, so tower could not have given us permission to fly there even if they wanted too!]
At the same time I advocated that we do as little as possible to bring attention to ourselves with regards to airspace issues. Don?t fly over the Class D (especially at Hagerstown) since this may induce someone unfriendly to look deeply into the issue, notice the discrepancy, and call for a revision of the charts. Don?t fly in the Class E keyways for other airports ? like Salisbury and Dover ? since our MOU argument only works for Washington County.
Many people railed at this interpretation, but it had the advantage of providing plausible deniability while maintaining the status quo, which was favorable to us given an impartial reading of the regs. The whole idea was to maintain our High Rock privileges for as long as possible.
Fast forward to today. The only loose end left hanging from my previous reasearch was the fact that we never found out why the FAA made that change to Part 103 in 1991. If the precipitating ?event? or rationale was related to something other than hang gliders in Class E keyways, we might have an argument that the regs shouldn?t apply to us, and use this to seek an exception if the need arose. If the change was aimed at us, well, then we are really no worse off that we were to begin with. So last week I started contacting people who had knowledge of the history of Part 103. One of them said something that sounded funny to me, so I decided to update my references. I now have FAA Order 7400.9L (2003) sitting on my desk; right next to the old 7400.9A.
Now, it is an article of faith that FAA regulations DO NOT become less restrictive over time, especially after 9/11. So I didn?t really expect to find much beyond additional areas of more tightly regulated airspace. What I found was both amazing and wonderful.
You see, sometime in the intervening few years, the FAA had completely reorganized this Order, and by the law of unintended consequences has given us more than we could ever have obtained on our own. You see, the FAA decided to break out the keyways and describe them as a separate section, 6004, labeled ?extension to a Class D surface area.? It gets better. The section describing Class E ?designated as a surface area for an airport?, 6002, now lists essentially the same boundaries as the Class D depicted on the charts. And this airspace is only in-place during times listed in the Airport/Facility Directory or by NOTAM, which generally corresponds to those times when the tower is not in operation, which essentially boils down to night ? when we are not flying anyway (right?).
So it?s Christmas in July, folks. Until and unless they change things again, it is now (and has been since 2003, at least) perfectly legal to fly over Class D airspace ? just don?t sink out in the process. Likewise, it is now perfectly legal to follow a cloud street through the keyways around Salisbury ? just look out for any aircraft practicing instrument approaches under VFR. We can land on North Bower?s Beach once again (the side of the river with the restaurant) ? just look out for C-5?s on approach. And we don?t have that particular worry concerning High Rock anymore. A world of possibilities has (re)opened to us.
That said, I end by offer one piece of sage advice: Just because you can do a thing, doesn?t mean you should do that thing. Just because something is legal, doesn?t mean it is smart. (okay, that was two pieces, but who?s counting?) After all, it is legal for us to fly in a MOA. Given the sorts of things you find buzzing around in those areas, and the ways in which they buzz, I wouldn?t consider it particularly smart. But it is legal. Use common sense. Have fun.
-- Joe G.
Airspace Issues Resolved (long story with a great ending)
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Airspace Issues Resolved (long story with a great ending)
Thank you, Santa Claus! - Hugh
(Seriously, thanks for doing all this research!)
On 6 Aug 2005, at 09:43, air_medal wrote:
>
> Some time in the late 90?s I volunteered to give a presentation on
> reading sectionals. What I learned in researching the talk was
> quite disturbing. Basically, our ability to fly the Rock seemed to
> hinge on the fact that the right hand didn?t know what the left
> hand was doing at the FAA. A change made to Part 103 back in
> 1987-1991 ? the infamous "lateral limits of the Class E for an
> airport" restriction ? put High Rock Launch and LZ clearly within a
> zone requiring us to obtain prior permission from ATC in order to
> fly. The only cover we had was this little Hang Glider Activity
> symbol on the Washington Area Sectional chart. All non-hang glider
> pilots whom I very discretely approached concerning this issue
> expressed confusion, followed by the observation that regulations
> trump charts, and so the hang glider symbol should probably not be
> there. It seemed likely that our continued High Rock privileges
> hinged on an oversight on the part of the chart-makers.
>
> My solution was to go schizoid; espousing a defensible rationale
> for flying at the Rock out of one side of my mouth, while
> simultaneously advocating a conservative interpretation of the
> rules out of the other side. All to put off the day when our
> activities might prompt the FAA discover and correct their apparent
> oversight. It was in this environment that I found myself working
> with two government agencies to obtain a waiver to fly within the
> TFR, while working to ensure that certain branches of one of those
> agencies didn?t find the subject too terribly interesting. You can
> see now why my attitudes seemed a bit manic at times when people,
> either by plan or by deed, threatened to hit IDENT on the
> transponder and place our situation brightly on the radar screen.
>
> Having eventually reached what I felt to be a stable position, I
> dropped any further research on the issue. The recent firestorm
> over flights through and over Salisbury, having inevitably dragged
> High Rock back into the picture once again, impelled me to resolve
> those loose ends so as to clarify things once and for all.
>
> Here, for the first time, is the whole story:
>
> As I said, in researching my airspace talk years ago, I quickly
> discovered that ultralight pilots had an added restriction that did
> not apply to licensed airmen flying certificated aircraft. In
> December 1991, the FAA amended Part 103 to prohibit ultralights
> from operating "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." Yet High Rock was clearly depicted on the
> sectional within a dashed magenta line depicting Class E adjacent
> to Washington County (Hagerstown) airport. What was up with that?
> In an effort to resolve the issue ? without asking someone at the
> FAA ? I looked for more specific written guidance. This search
> lead to an article in the Jan-Feb 1995 issue of FAA Aviation News
> entitled "The A,B,C?s of Airspace Operations for Ultralights." It
> stated that "a Class E surface area is airspace configured to
> contain all
> instrument approaches to the associated airport and is depicted on
> the sectional charts with a magenta segmented line." and "The
> existence of the surface area is independent of weather
> conditions." So much for that idea. I then looked for exact
> definition of the airspace around Washington County (Hagerstown)
> Airport. Did those keyways really constitute ?surface Class E for
> an airport?? Turns out this stuff is clearly defined in FAA Order
> 7900.9, "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points." At the time
> (late 90?s) the most recent version of this document available was
> in the FAA archives at UMCP. FAA Order 7900.9A (1993) placed High
> Rock launch and LZ squarely within Surface Area Class E designated
> for Washington County Regional Airport - and this airspace was in
> effect 24/7. The mapmakers, apparently, had missed this little
> detail when the regulations changed in 1991, and I was loath that
> we do anything to further educate them on the subject.
>
> So, I took the logical position that we obviously must have blanket
> permission from Washington County tower to fly in that airspace.
> Otherwise, we would not still be on the chart, right? This
> permission probably takes the form of some memorandum of
> understanding (MOU) gathering dust in their files somewhere.
> Unfortunately, our copy of that MOU appeared to be lost. Lucky for
> us that we had a friend working the tower there. [As it turns out,
> Washington County Airport does not control that airspace, so tower
> could not have given us permission to fly there even if they wanted
> too!]
>
> At the same time I advocated that we do as little as possible to
> bring attention to ourselves with regards to airspace issues.
> Don?t fly over the Class D (especially at Hagerstown) since this
> may induce someone unfriendly to look deeply into the issue, notice
> the discrepancy, and call for a revision of the charts. Don?t fly
> in the Class E keyways for other airports ? like Salisbury and
> Dover ? since our MOU argument only works for Washington County.
>
> Many people railed at this interpretation, but it had the advantage
> of providing plausible deniability while maintaining the status
> quo, which was favorable to us given an impartial reading of the
> regs. The whole idea was to maintain our High Rock privileges for
> as long as possible.
>
> Fast forward to today. The only loose end left hanging from my
> previous reasearch was the fact that we never found out why the FAA
> made that change to Part 103 in 1991. If the precipitating ?event?
> or rationale was related to something other than hang gliders in
> Class E keyways, we might have an argument that the regs shouldn?t
> apply to us, and use this to seek an exception if the need arose.
> If the change was aimed at us, well, then we are really no worse
> off that we were to begin with. So last week I started contacting
> people who had knowledge of the history of Part 103. One of them
> said something that sounded funny to me, so I decided to update my
> references. I now have FAA Order 7400.9L (2003) sitting on my
> desk; right next to the old 7400.9A.
>
> Now, it is an article of faith that FAA regulations DO NOT become
> less restrictive over time, especially after 9/11. So I didn?t
> really expect to find much beyond additional areas of more tightly
> regulated airspace. What I found was both amazing and wonderful.
>
> You see, sometime in the intervening few years, the FAA had
> completely reorganized this Order, and by the law of unintended
> consequences has given us more than we could ever have obtained on
> our own. You see, the FAA decided to break out the keyways and
> describe them as a separate section, 6004, labeled ?extension to a
> Class D surface area.? It gets better. The section describing
> Class E ?designated as a surface area for an airport?, 6002, now
> lists essentially the same boundaries as the Class D depicted on
> the charts. And this airspace is only in-place during times listed
> in the Airport/Facility Directory or by NOTAM, which generally
> corresponds to those times when the tower is not in operation,
> which essentially boils down to night ? when we are not flying
> anyway (right?).
>
> So it?s Christmas in July, folks. Until and unless they change
> things again, it is now (and has been since 2003, at least)
> perfectly legal to fly over Class D airspace ? just don?t sink out
> in the process. Likewise, it is now perfectly legal to follow a
> cloud street through the keyways around Salisbury ? just look out
> for any aircraft practicing instrument approaches under VFR. We
> can land on North Bower?s Beach once again (the side of the river
> with the restaurant) ? just look out for C-5?s on approach. And we
> don?t have that particular worry concerning High Rock anymore. A
> world of possibilities has (re)opened to us.
>
> That said, I end by offer one piece of sage advice: Just because
> you can do a thing, doesn?t mean you should do that thing. Just
> because something is legal, doesn?t mean it is smart. (okay, that
> was two pieces, but who?s counting?) After all, it is legal for us
> to fly in a MOA. Given the sorts of things you find buzzing around
> in those areas, and the ways in which they buzz, I wouldn?t
> consider it particularly smart. But it is legal. Use common
> sense. Have fun.
>
> -- Joe G.Joe G.
>
(Seriously, thanks for doing all this research!)
On 6 Aug 2005, at 09:43, air_medal wrote:
>
> Some time in the late 90?s I volunteered to give a presentation on
> reading sectionals. What I learned in researching the talk was
> quite disturbing. Basically, our ability to fly the Rock seemed to
> hinge on the fact that the right hand didn?t know what the left
> hand was doing at the FAA. A change made to Part 103 back in
> 1987-1991 ? the infamous "lateral limits of the Class E for an
> airport" restriction ? put High Rock Launch and LZ clearly within a
> zone requiring us to obtain prior permission from ATC in order to
> fly. The only cover we had was this little Hang Glider Activity
> symbol on the Washington Area Sectional chart. All non-hang glider
> pilots whom I very discretely approached concerning this issue
> expressed confusion, followed by the observation that regulations
> trump charts, and so the hang glider symbol should probably not be
> there. It seemed likely that our continued High Rock privileges
> hinged on an oversight on the part of the chart-makers.
>
> My solution was to go schizoid; espousing a defensible rationale
> for flying at the Rock out of one side of my mouth, while
> simultaneously advocating a conservative interpretation of the
> rules out of the other side. All to put off the day when our
> activities might prompt the FAA discover and correct their apparent
> oversight. It was in this environment that I found myself working
> with two government agencies to obtain a waiver to fly within the
> TFR, while working to ensure that certain branches of one of those
> agencies didn?t find the subject too terribly interesting. You can
> see now why my attitudes seemed a bit manic at times when people,
> either by plan or by deed, threatened to hit IDENT on the
> transponder and place our situation brightly on the radar screen.
>
> Having eventually reached what I felt to be a stable position, I
> dropped any further research on the issue. The recent firestorm
> over flights through and over Salisbury, having inevitably dragged
> High Rock back into the picture once again, impelled me to resolve
> those loose ends so as to clarify things once and for all.
>
> Here, for the first time, is the whole story:
>
> As I said, in researching my airspace talk years ago, I quickly
> discovered that ultralight pilots had an added restriction that did
> not apply to licensed airmen flying certificated aircraft. In
> December 1991, the FAA amended Part 103 to prohibit ultralights
> from operating "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." Yet High Rock was clearly depicted on the
> sectional within a dashed magenta line depicting Class E adjacent
> to Washington County (Hagerstown) airport. What was up with that?
> In an effort to resolve the issue ? without asking someone at the
> FAA ? I looked for more specific written guidance. This search
> lead to an article in the Jan-Feb 1995 issue of FAA Aviation News
> entitled "The A,B,C?s of Airspace Operations for Ultralights." It
> stated that "a Class E surface area is airspace configured to
> contain all
> instrument approaches to the associated airport and is depicted on
> the sectional charts with a magenta segmented line." and "The
> existence of the surface area is independent of weather
> conditions." So much for that idea. I then looked for exact
> definition of the airspace around Washington County (Hagerstown)
> Airport. Did those keyways really constitute ?surface Class E for
> an airport?? Turns out this stuff is clearly defined in FAA Order
> 7900.9, "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points." At the time
> (late 90?s) the most recent version of this document available was
> in the FAA archives at UMCP. FAA Order 7900.9A (1993) placed High
> Rock launch and LZ squarely within Surface Area Class E designated
> for Washington County Regional Airport - and this airspace was in
> effect 24/7. The mapmakers, apparently, had missed this little
> detail when the regulations changed in 1991, and I was loath that
> we do anything to further educate them on the subject.
>
> So, I took the logical position that we obviously must have blanket
> permission from Washington County tower to fly in that airspace.
> Otherwise, we would not still be on the chart, right? This
> permission probably takes the form of some memorandum of
> understanding (MOU) gathering dust in their files somewhere.
> Unfortunately, our copy of that MOU appeared to be lost. Lucky for
> us that we had a friend working the tower there. [As it turns out,
> Washington County Airport does not control that airspace, so tower
> could not have given us permission to fly there even if they wanted
> too!]
>
> At the same time I advocated that we do as little as possible to
> bring attention to ourselves with regards to airspace issues.
> Don?t fly over the Class D (especially at Hagerstown) since this
> may induce someone unfriendly to look deeply into the issue, notice
> the discrepancy, and call for a revision of the charts. Don?t fly
> in the Class E keyways for other airports ? like Salisbury and
> Dover ? since our MOU argument only works for Washington County.
>
> Many people railed at this interpretation, but it had the advantage
> of providing plausible deniability while maintaining the status
> quo, which was favorable to us given an impartial reading of the
> regs. The whole idea was to maintain our High Rock privileges for
> as long as possible.
>
> Fast forward to today. The only loose end left hanging from my
> previous reasearch was the fact that we never found out why the FAA
> made that change to Part 103 in 1991. If the precipitating ?event?
> or rationale was related to something other than hang gliders in
> Class E keyways, we might have an argument that the regs shouldn?t
> apply to us, and use this to seek an exception if the need arose.
> If the change was aimed at us, well, then we are really no worse
> off that we were to begin with. So last week I started contacting
> people who had knowledge of the history of Part 103. One of them
> said something that sounded funny to me, so I decided to update my
> references. I now have FAA Order 7400.9L (2003) sitting on my
> desk; right next to the old 7400.9A.
>
> Now, it is an article of faith that FAA regulations DO NOT become
> less restrictive over time, especially after 9/11. So I didn?t
> really expect to find much beyond additional areas of more tightly
> regulated airspace. What I found was both amazing and wonderful.
>
> You see, sometime in the intervening few years, the FAA had
> completely reorganized this Order, and by the law of unintended
> consequences has given us more than we could ever have obtained on
> our own. You see, the FAA decided to break out the keyways and
> describe them as a separate section, 6004, labeled ?extension to a
> Class D surface area.? It gets better. The section describing
> Class E ?designated as a surface area for an airport?, 6002, now
> lists essentially the same boundaries as the Class D depicted on
> the charts. And this airspace is only in-place during times listed
> in the Airport/Facility Directory or by NOTAM, which generally
> corresponds to those times when the tower is not in operation,
> which essentially boils down to night ? when we are not flying
> anyway (right?).
>
> So it?s Christmas in July, folks. Until and unless they change
> things again, it is now (and has been since 2003, at least)
> perfectly legal to fly over Class D airspace ? just don?t sink out
> in the process. Likewise, it is now perfectly legal to follow a
> cloud street through the keyways around Salisbury ? just look out
> for any aircraft practicing instrument approaches under VFR. We
> can land on North Bower?s Beach once again (the side of the river
> with the restaurant) ? just look out for C-5?s on approach. And we
> don?t have that particular worry concerning High Rock anymore. A
> world of possibilities has (re)opened to us.
>
> That said, I end by offer one piece of sage advice: Just because
> you can do a thing, doesn?t mean you should do that thing. Just
> because something is legal, doesn?t mean it is smart. (okay, that
> was two pieces, but who?s counting?) After all, it is legal for us
> to fly in a MOA. Given the sorts of things you find buzzing around
> in those areas, and the ways in which they buzz, I wouldn?t
> consider it particularly smart. But it is legal. Use common
> sense. Have fun.
>
> -- Joe G.Joe G.
>
-
Paul Tjaden
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:28 pm
Airspace Issues Resolved (long story with a great ending)
Just returned from Texas and read Joe's post regarding Class E. This is great news, Joe. Thanks so much for digging out this nugget. Your post also helps me understand more fully why you seemed so?concerned by what I considered?a very minor infraction.
?
BTW, Lauren and I had a blast at Big Spring and will tell you all more about it in a day or two.
?
Paul
?
BTW, Lauren and I had a blast at Big Spring and will tell you all more about it in a day or two.
?
Paul