Class E Tower Inspections

[Russ Still]

We all know that we can fly 400 feet above an obstruction as long as we stay within a 400 foot radius. But what if that places your aircraft inside of Class E airspace? There are a lot of misconceptions involved in this one. Check out this example near Williston, Florida.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BigAl07]

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!!

 

[Russ Still]

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!!

I like it. Yes! Everyone give it shot, THEN watch the video to find the answer.

 

[Local UAS]

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]

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?

 

[Local UAS]

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

Understood, nontowered airport in Class E. Thank you again! What a great resource.

 

[Russ Still]

Correct. Good catch about it being non-towered. The final piece to the puzzle is the airspace. Williston Airport is Class G.

 

[Local UAS]

Alright, I'm grounded... will reemerge when not a safety risk. ...gets cozy with PHAK again... Thanks again for your insight.

 

[Russ Still]

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]

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.

 

[BigAl07]

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.

 

[AH-1G]

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.

 

[BigAl07]

Hey BigA, I heard they wrote your phone # wrong couldn't get in touch.

That explains it LOL

Thanks for the chuckle. Made my afternoon

 

[Steven Davis]

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 questions....Steve@influentialdrones.com

 

[AH-1G]

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 questions....Steve@influentialdrones.com

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

 

[Rodger]

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.

 

[Geo_in_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.

 

[Rodger]

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.