Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

Class E Tower Inspections

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff member
DSAR Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
2,287
Age
51
Location
Western North Carolina
Is this for anyone to answer or should we let this go on for a few hours first? :)

I can tell you this much... the answer isn't the "Obvious" one!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Russ Still

Local UAS

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
14
Reaction score
5
Location
Illinois
Website
www.localuas.com
What a great refresh. Thank you!

As you clearly state, contacting the tower is not required in this case but I'm curious as to what you recommend with regards to contacting Williston Tower and simply notifying them of your tower inspection activities? Not sure if the controllers would find that a waste of time or abundantly cautious? Any insights there? Thanks again...
 

Russ Still

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
286
Reaction score
248
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Website
www.UAVGroundSchool.com
What a great refresh. Thank you!

As you clearly state, contacting the tower is not required in this case but I'm curious as to what you recommend with regards to contacting Williston Tower and simply notifying them of your tower inspection activities? Not sure if the controllers would find that a waste of time or abundantly cautious? Any insights there? Thanks again...

Good comment. But in this case, is there a control tower at Williston? What Class of airspace is the airport in?
 

Russ Still

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
286
Reaction score
248
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Website
www.UAVGroundSchool.com
It's easy to remember: Class G starts at the ground. It extends from the ground up to the next Class of airspace that overlays it. In this case, Class E starts at 700 (identified by the shaded magenta outline).
 

Rodger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
245
Reaction score
84
Location
Rhode Island
I find that once you have a good handle on class G airspace the rest comes easy. What I don't understand is why you would want to 400' above a structure and secondly, if you were inspecting a 1,500' tower and added 400' you would be at 1,900'. I don't know about the rest of you but that would be beyond my line of sight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff member
DSAR Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
2,287
Age
51
Location
Western North Carolina
I find that once you have a good handle on class G airspace the rest comes easy. What I don't understand is why you would want to 400' above a structure and secondly, if you were inspecting a 1,500' tower and added 400' you would be at 1,900'. I don't know about the rest of you but that would be beyond my line of sight.


I tend to agree. This is one of those times where "You CAN" but most likely "You wouldn't NEED to".

This is an excellent "Training/Learning" moment for sure.

IMHO I think the FAA goofed on this one. I feel like you shouldn't pierce Class ECHO without authorization even in the 400 of the structure scenario. But they didn't call and ask me so there ya go LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Russ Still

AH-1G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
793
Reaction score
391
Location
Florida
Website
digitalphotographypainting.weebly.com
I tend to agree. This is one of those times where "You CAN" but most likely "You wouldn't NEED to".

This is an excellent "Training/Learning" moment for sure.

IMHO I think the FAA goofed on this one. I feel like you shouldn't pierce Class ECHO without authorization even in the 400 of the structure scenario. But they didn't call and ask me so there ya go LOL.
Hey BigA, I heard they wrote your phone # wrong couldn't get in touch.:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

Steven Davis

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
9
Reaction score
5
Age
64
As an instrument pt 61 cfi/i/mei, and have flown the east coast extensively, I would recommend all pt 107 operators to study VFR aviation maps very well in planning. Any airport with a Cl E starting at 700 agl has instrument approaches. Pilots can be vectored onto a final approach, there are usually minimums that SHOULD keep them clear of any obstacle. Approaches are designed to have their minimums avoid getting close to obstacles, so flying within 400 ft of this one should not be a problem. But, there are VFR aircraft out there with instructors that do training and simulated engine outs happen routinely and might be down close to an airport like X60. This looks to me like a perfect place to pull one on a student. BUT, i would not here, cause of V579 and T205 begin exceptionally close and they start at 1200 agl,,,,so, legal? yes, but smart? It's a big picture, a number of Cl D towered airports with approaches and traffic in area. So, yes, I would fly here, but with certain conditions, such as good Wx and good visibility, I'd most likely monitor ATC, who u might ask? Depends on winds and which approaches if any were being used in the area. So, I should know how to look that up. I should know where to expect GA traffic and who to monitor to avoid having one of them call ATC and report UAV spotting, which ATC then is required to report and we do not need any bad publicity. Always up for [email protected]
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

AH-1G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
793
Reaction score
391
Location
Florida
Website
digitalphotographypainting.weebly.com
As an instrument pt 61 cfi/i/mei, and have flown the east coast extensively, I would recommend all pt 107 operators to study VFR aviation maps very well in planning. Any airport with a Cl E starting at 700 agl has instrument approaches. Pilots can be vectored onto a final approach, there are usually minimums that SHOULD keep them clear of any obstacle. Approaches are designed to have their minimums avoid getting close to obstacles, so flying within 400 ft of this one should not be a problem. But, there are VFR aircraft out there with instructors that do training and simulated engine outs happen routinely and might be down close to an airport like X60. This looks to me like a perfect place to pull one on a student. BUT, i would not here, cause of V579 and T205 begin exceptionally close and they start at 1200 agl,,,,so, legal? yes, but smart? It's a big picture, a number of Cl D towered airports with approaches and traffic in area. So, yes, I would fly here, but with certain conditions, such as good Wx and good visibility, I'd most likely monitor ATC, who u might ask? Depends on winds and which approaches if any were being used in the area. So, I should know how to look that up. I should know where to expect GA traffic and who to monitor to avoid having one of them call ATC and report UAV spotting, which ATC then is required to report and we do not need any bad publicity. Always up for [email protected]

Your speaking of Valdosta Rgnl where they intersect, World Low Chart
 

Rodger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
245
Reaction score
84
Location
Rhode Island
I tend to agree. This is one of those times where "You CAN" but most likely "You wouldn't NEED to".

This is an excellent "Training/Learning" moment for sure.

IMHO I think the FAA goofed on this one. I feel like you shouldn't pierce Class ECHO without authorization even in the 400 of the structure scenario. But they didn't call and ask me so there ya go LOL.

I do as well, take this example. Using a Sectional you have a tower at a height of 900' AGL and with everything else considered that Quadrant is marked 12 and you are 400' above that would put you 100' above the safe Airspace floor. Some guy coming along in his Cessna at 1250' AGL and he has you. I think that 200' above is more than enough height. The 400' surrounding is fine, that is quite a distance. Heck, I do my mapping at 150' AGL. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

Geo_in_KS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
91
Reaction score
32
Age
54
Location
Eastern KS
I agree with 400' above a structure being excessive. Ive done a few videos at 400' and that is HIGH! If you're inspecting the top of a tower for someone that is 1000' + why on earth would you need to go another 400'? You couldn't possibly see anything worthwhile on the tower 400' below the UAS. Well, I guess probably in the photos/videos maybe. I still dont see the need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

Rodger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
245
Reaction score
84
Location
Rhode Island
I agree with 400' above a structure being excessive. Ive done a few videos at 400' and that is HIGH! If you're inspecting the top of a tower for someone that is 1000' + why on earth would you need to go another 400'? You couldn't possibly see anything worthwhile on the tower 400' below the UAS. Well, I guess probably in the photos/videos maybe. I still dont see the need.

I agree, if it were a tower or antenna inspection the photos/videos would be useless. Actually any kind of inspection would be useless. Doing an inspection you want to get as close as possible. You will never see me at that height. I rarely go to the 400' AGL and when I do which is seldom, I will do a quick 360 degree video and come back down. Most mapping programs have a 200' AGL default. I use 150' AGL to get as much detail as possible.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
3,723
Messages
34,492
Members
5,220
Latest member
dnareiss