Class E Surface Area Authorizations FAA Memo

[FLYBOYJ]

Has anyone else seen this?

 

[BigAl07]

Yep that was all the rage a while back and it's now "On File" for most of us just in case we need it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks Al - I guess I'm a little behind the 8 ball. I guess its going to save me from re-applying for my Class E waiver!

 

[Florida Drone Supply]

I just saw a recent video posted on this same topic helping explain it to everyone...as @BigAl07 said, its a good one to hang on to.

 

[BigAl07]

Keep in mind this memo distinguishes between:

Item (A) Class E SFC that is within the boundaries of an airport (ie actually part of the airport's airspace) and Item (B) Class E SFC that is part of an airport "Extension". See the picture below that should help differentiate between the two.

@Russ Still does a much better job of explaining it than I can . . . .

 

[BigAl07]

To add to the above here is a short (approx 5min) video from @Russ Still at Gold Seal that also helps to clarify this as well:

 

[Mike Nevins]

Good info. I ran into this are Montrose Regional Airport (MTJ) (Lookup on Skyvector) to see what I mean. In MTJ the class of airspace is "Surface E Only". Interestingly enough, it was Scott J. Gardner that signed my authorization.

 

[Mike Nevins]

Got to looking, apparently Gardner signed all the requests even though it may be others that do the review of our requests. My bad.

 

[OverArizona]

Anyone have the FAA PDF link? I'm having trouble finding that specific Memorandum on their site.

Thnx

 

[Brad Pierce]

Me too,
Anyone have the FAA PDF link? I'm having trouble finding that specific Memorandum on their site.

Thnx

 

[BigAl07]

Anyone have the FAA PDF link? I'm having trouble finding that specific Memorandum on their site.

Thnx

Me too,
Anyone have the FAA PDF link? I'm having trouble finding that specific Memorandum on their site.

Thnx

Here's a link to it in PDF form from Gold Seal's website:
http://goldsealgroundschool.com/uav-library/surface-E-authorizations.pdf


I don't recall the FAA listing most of the MEMO on their website over the years. . .

 

[BigAl07]

Hello @Brad Pierce and welcome to the Commercial Drone Pilots forum. We are glad to have you on board. I'm confident you'll find lots of helpful and enlightening information throughout this forum.

If you haven't already done so, consider adding your LOCATION to your forum profile to help us know where you are when you post suggestions or ask for assistance. It helps a lot more than you might think especially because this is an international forum with members from all parts of the world. Here's a direct link to yours:

https://commercialdronepilots.com/account/personal-details

Allen

 

[Fontinalis]

I have a situation related to this that impacts my Real Estate business.

The POU airport has Class D and a surface-E extension to the northeast. There is also a small airport, 44N within that extension. In the facility map snapshot below i see that the facility map was changed. The area I circled used to have some 0, 100, 400 foot grids around the small airport, 44N.

In the facility map it identifies the extension airspace as "belonging" to POU and not to do with 44N, as it used to. so I'm thinking that, perhaps related to the memo above, I don't need authorization in the extension surface-E, as its for POU, not airport airspace for 44N

Does this sound reasonable?

 

[OverArizona]

Here's a link to it in PDF form from Gold Seal's website:
http://goldsealgroundschool.com/uav-library/surface-E-authorizations.pdf


I don't recall the FAA listing most of the MEMO on their website over the years. . .

 

[OverArizona]

Thank you but that is not an official link or document I was looking for. Plz, I'd like to know how you or the posting source came to this particular Memo(?).

A little background:
I've been working closely with the FAA for 26yrs as a pilot, A&P, SW Administrator, FEMA Helibase Manager.... Memorandums within federal agencies are passed about daily for intent of other Inter-Agency personal to review for consideration. Usually if a "Memorandum" is intended for public review, it is tagged with a filling code (I'm forgetting the format off to top of my head [because they are just only that - a memorandum and holds no official Authorization, or even guidance - It moves on to the rule making phase for hand]) and made public for inspection. There are lawyers currently arguing since October about subject matter stated in the memo (hence to why this Memo came into existence in January within the Agency).

I've been advised that it is not official. However if an incident occurred within an oE extension the verbiage in the official Part can be argued (easily).

But, my personal advise is since this is still up to the local FISDO Admins interpretation (after the fact of an incorred incident), is to avoid court and lawyer fees until an official (if any comes about) Directive is filled. Talking to your local Office (which i did this morning) isn't enough until it's in an official letter-headed document.

Before I catch slack here on the forum, remember, as pilots, we have to adhere to the CFR's, not interpret them.

~j

 

[BigAl07]

Thank you but that is not an official link or document I was looking for. Plz, I'd like to know how you or the posting source came to this particular Memo(?).

A little background:
I've been working closely with the FAA for 26yrs as a pilot, A&P, SW Administrator, FEMA Helibase Manager.... Memorandums within federal agencies are passed about daily for intent of other Inter-Agency personal to review for consideration. Usually if a "Memorandum" is intended for public review, it is tagged with a filling code (I'm forgetting the format off to top of my head [because they are just only that - a memorandum and holds no official Authorization, or even guidance - It moves on to the rule making phase for hand]) and made public for inspection. There are lawyers currently arguing since October about subject matter stated in the memo (hence to why this Memo came into existence in January within the Agency).

I've been advised that it is not official. However if an incident occurred within an oE extension the verbiage in the official Part can be argued (easily).

But, my personal advise is since this is still up to the local FISDO Admins interpretation (after the fact of an incorred incident), is to avoid court and lawyer fees until an official (if any comes about) Directive is filled. Talking to your local Office (which i did this morning) isn't enough until it's in an official letter-headed document.

Before I catch slack here on the forum, remember, as pilots, we have to adhere to the CFR's, not interpret them.

~j

I cited my source which is about as much as I can offer. This went around like Hot Cakes and was even discussed by our FAA sUAS Liaison (Kevin Morris, FAA) shortly after it was announced.

If you have doubt of the authenticity, or you need an official copy then by all means follow the link above, see the sender, his official signature, and his contact information and contact him directly. That should get you pretty much in contact with the "horses mouth" as they say.

 

[OverArizona]

I cited my source which is about as much as I can offer. This went around like Hot Cakes and was even discussed by our FAA sUAS Liaison (Kevin Morris, FAA) shortly after it was announced.

If you have doubt of the authenticity, or you need an official copy then by all means follow the link above, see the sender, his official signature, and his contact information and contact him directly. That should get you pretty much in contact with the "horses mouth" as they say.

Thank you. Gardner is the current FAA's assigned Technology Liason for Unmanned AC's. I met him at last year's symposium (different title then) breifly. Getting a hold of him now will take weeks and that is why I've been in contact with my local FISDO Admin as other commercial pilots should do pertaining to this subject.

I am not doubting the authenticity of the memo. I know factually that it it an "Inter-Agency" memo because it has not been coded and documented for public archive.

Our only question is the source of this particular Memo. A PART 141 school isn't an official source or shouldn't be releasing Inter-Agency Memorandums publicly.

Please do realize I appreciate your participation in this thread