Skyward vs Airmap: Skyward requires FAA authorization beyond airspace radius?

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Old school or new school, you are going to need more than a sectional in your hand to get approval to fly in controlled airspace. You're going to need one of the apps.

"You're going to need one of the apps" Not exactly.
I've never used any cell phone "apps" to get LAANC approval and don't need them. I get my approvals on my PC/Skyward at home the day before before leaving for the job...Now, if one waits to get to the site, (or if you get some hot job offer that needs to be done ASAP) yes, you need the app.

 

[mdurbanek]

"You're going to need one of the apps" Not exactly.
I've never used any cell phone "apps" to get LAANC approval and don't need them. I get my approvals on my PC/Skyward at home the day before before leaving for the job...Now, if one waits to get to the site, (or if you get some hot job offer that needs to be done ASAP) yes, you need the app.

Totally agree, the Skyward desktop app is straight forward and intuitive. That company has some big tech chops and lots of resources. And Airmap’s intentions seem to be questionable.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Totally agree, the Skyward desktop app is straight forward and intuitive. That company has some big tech chops and lots of resources. And Airmap’s intentions seem to be questionable.

I plan every job flight before I leave the house, just like I used to with manned aircraft. My bag carries my sectional and a hard copy of my Skyward LAANC clearance, my business license, certificate of insurance, FAA registration of all aircraft, my FAA and driver's license (all in one folder so the cop can go back to her/his squad car and comfortably run me for warrants (cops always do that) and I can safely land. If s/he is so inclined s/he can also run my FAA N#s through the MDT. Yes, I suffer from a-n-a-l-itosis, but it may be in remission.

 

[mdurbanek]

A couple of months ago I was shooing the LAPD Northeast Police Station for the architects. There were several really compelling views from 25-30 feet altitude. One of them was a dusk shot.

The facilities guy swears everybody in the division knows what I’m doing. Still, I check in with the Watch
Commander and the front desk beforehand.

I do the flight check, launch a few minutes before the
right moment when a very snappily dressed and confident Sargent shows me his badge and asks for a word with me.

I asked him to wait a moment while I land the drone and he thanks me. I showed him the FAA license on my lanyard and my driver’s license and handed him a business card. I told him my story, told him the WC’s name and let him know I was losing the light. 30 seconds later he apologized and left with a smile.

 

[Earnest Ward]

This is a very interesting point of contention, and one that definitely needs to be clarified as we gain access to more Controlled Airspace - whether via LAANC or Wide Area Airspace Authorizations. I think I've already stated that - for manned aircraft pilots - aeronautical charts are the official go-to documents (with checks of other, more current, documents for updates) but they were created and intended for a pre-sUAS era when airspace under 500' AGL was seen as "transitional" (i.e., takeoffs & landings) for most flight operations.

Small unmanned aerial systems are a whole new breed. (Among other things, we don't fly at alternating altitudes based upon our headings.) And, I believe, the "bleed" of grids when overlaid upon traditional "circles & keyholes" is to afford greater separation between manned and unmanned aircraft.

Not convinced? Then look at the UASFM for Dyess AFB in Abilene, TX. There is an entire row of grid sections along the southern edge of the airfield's grid pattern that don't touch the field's Class D circle AND that have a maximum altitude restriction of just 200' AGL. (And, no, Dyess is not currently part of the LAANC system. But you can obtain a WAAA from the FAA.)

But I don't want you to take my word as gospel - or any other pilot's for that matter. (When in doubt, I don't.) So, I've asked the folks at my local FISDO to weigh in with an official answer. Will get back to y'all as soon as I get a response.

Fly safe!

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Not sure what is in "contention." The FAM grids was just an effort to fit a square peg in a round hole. Yes, it would have been easier if the feds would have "trimmed the edges" and/or deleted the squares you alluded to. (someone got lazy.), but they didn't.

As you said, sectionals are the final authority on airspace.

 

[Earnest Ward]

Update: Still nothing from FISDO (wasn't really expecting a quick response there.) But was able to slip in a couple of questions during today's FAA Waivers & Authorizations Webinar, and got some great answers from one of their Air Traffic Support Specialists.

1) The Controlled Airspace does, indeed, stop at the edge of the respective circle or keyhole - no difference for manned or unmanned aircraft! (The grid, in effect, is what printers refer to as full bleed, and we are expected to ignore/trim the excess.) Great to know if you're flying just outside the airspace of a non-LAANC field and/or you have a Class-G 107.29 waiver. Kudos to everyone who called this one right.

2) The bottom row of grid segments came as a total surprise to the ATS Specialist I was chatting with (and his colleagues at the webinar.) So, they're checking with DoD and Dyess AFB to see what that's all about and will post a final update on the FAA summer webinar website.

Cheers!

 

[BigAl07]

Keep in mind the GRID is used as a "Quick Reference" and not to be considered as the "Golden Rule". I'd imagine we will see several variations of it over the next few years as the system as a whole is "Tweaked".

 

[Dave Pitman]

1) The Controlled Airspace does, indeed, stop at the edge of the respective circle or keyhole

I'm glad you are finally convinced of what some of us found out awhile ago. Nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism!

Sectionals are THE official source of airspace designation, period. Manned or unmanned.

 

[Earnest Ward]

I'm glad you are finally convinced of what some of us found out awhile ago. Nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism!

I'm happy your happy. 40+ years as a professional pilot, though, have taught me to always err on the side of "healthy skepticism." When it comes to my responsibilities as PIC (remote or otherwise) what others "found out awhile ago" is just secondhand hearsay. (Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who popularized the English language version of an old Russian proverb - "Doveryai, no proveryai/Trust, but verify"? Anyway, I've found that works rather well for pilots.) So, I'm a happy camper once I know I have the current, verifiable facts.

Our new industry is in its infancy, and that's one of the things that make it so exciting. We (as pilots), and the FAA, are in uncharted waters and there are bound to be stumbles and (as BigA107 commented above) "several variations" as we move toward full integration into the NAS. I'm confident we'll get there, but I wouldn't care to venture a guess as to what the system (or the equipment) will look like by the time we have full access to the NAS and BVLOS. (Something along the lines of the Swiss U-Space or Singapore models, maybe?) But I imagine we're in for an exciting ride. (Everybody buckle up. It may get bumpy.)

 

[Dave Pitman]

When it comes to my responsibilities as PIC (remote or otherwise) what others "found out awhile ago" is just secondhand hearsay.

True. But I got the info from the FAA uas specialists "awhile ago". That should hold a little sway!

As a non-professional private pilot for 22 years, I'm still plenty conservative! Been a "pro" uas pilot since 2015.

 

[Earnest Ward]

True. But I got the info from the FAA uas specialists "awhile ago". That should hold a little sway!

As a non-professional private pilot for 22 years, I'm still plenty conservative! Been a "pro" uas pilot since 2015.

Actually, Dave, you're spot on. You needed accurate, official information and you did the responsible thing. You didn't settle for secondhand information; you went to the source. When I needed the facts, I did the same thing. As much fun as it is to chew the fat in the forum, I wouldn't bet my pilot privileges on someone else's word. Nor would I recommend that anyone who values their ticket settle for anything short of an FAA ruling/interpretation obtained directly from the source.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Good Advise, Earnest.

 

[R.Perry]

I'm with Luis on this one, I prefer printed sectional. Lets face it the FAA states that the sectional is the final authority, why, because they publish them. I do agree the apps are nice, as long as they are presenting the same information the sectional is. As already stated flaws have been found in these apps.
I would think if someone finds a discrepancy between a sectional and an app maybe it should be reported to the FAA for verification.

 

[Earnest Ward]

I'm with Luis on this one, I prefer printed sectional. Lets face it the FAA states that the sectional is the final authority, why, because they publish them. I do agree the apps are nice, as long as they are presenting the same information the sectional is. As already stated flaws have been found in these apps.
I would think if someone finds a discrepancy between a sectional and an app maybe it should be reported to the FAA for verification.

Apps aside, it is worth noting that the UASFM grid is an FAA publication AND an essential source of critical information not provided by sectionals, WACs, or TACs - namely, the maximum ceiling (AGL) a sUAS may operate within the geographic limits of the specified grid section.

The UASFM offers another useful feature too; fields that are in the LAANC system are shown as green grids, while those awaiting incorporated are shown as red.

 

[Dave Pitman]

it is worth noting that the UASFM grid is an FAA publication AND an essential source of critical information not provided by sectionals, WACs, or TACs - namely, the maximum ceiling (AGL) a sUAS may operate within the geographic limits of the specified grid section.

Not entirely true, Earnest. The UASFM display the ceilings heights that TYPICALLY will be authorized. The FAA does grant authorization, including through LAANC, that deviate from the UASFM.

 

[BigAl07]

Apps aside, it is worth noting that the UASFM grid is an FAA publication AND an essential source of critical information not provided by sectionals, WACs, or TACs - namely, the maximum ceiling (AGL) a sUAS may operate within the geographic limits of the specified grid section.

The UASFM offers another useful feature too; fields that are in the LAANC system are shown as green grids, while those awaiting incorporated are shown as red.

The UASFM Grid is a guide to what is acceptable but it's not critical information. It's designed to help "submitters" refine their submissions to more closely match anticipated allowable heights.

As noted already, there have been approvals granted outside of the grid heights.

 

[Richard R]

Yup going to hop on the stick to the sectionals train.

Airmap is garbage IMO. Find too many mistakes, incorrect airspace delineations etc.

If you can pay, Foreflight is legit for determining airspace.

Otherwise www.skyvector.com and Google Earth with a sectional layer, and using the Digital Chart Supplement Chart Supplements – Basic Search are your friends.

I will use Skyward too over Airmap for LAANC.

Skyvector will also show you any active TFRs in your area.
If you use Android, Avare is another free app that can be useful. Once you install it and download the appropriate sectional(s), you don't need any wifi connection, just GPS. It will display your location on the sectional making it easy to determine if you are in or getting close to controlled airspace. It also self checks sectional status and won't let you run if your sectional has expired. Just hit the update button to load current charts.
We use it all the time when flying manned aircraft.