Part 107 Asinine Airspace Authorization Rules

[Joet]

While it may be true someone at the FAA told Joet that he needed a waiver to fly in controlled airspace, it is likely he FAA person did not understand the question or does not understand the new regulations.

This gentleman was one of the FAA's UAS subject matter experts, and from our discussion it was pretty clear that he was one of the team that helped devise or at a minimum provided input to Part 107. He was very clear on the question, we covered the various interpretations and he was quite clear: You do not call the tower, you do not use the radio (indeed, you cannot use the radio for this), you must apply for a waiver.

 

[Jason1234]

I am confused now!!!

Shocking, isn't it? SanCap, you can probably fly in controlled space with your 333 if you exemption allows it, but Part 107 requires what the FAA estimates as a 90 day minimum authorization process at this point. Meanwhile, unlicensed recreational pilots can just notify the airport owner and tower and be flying in 5 minutes. I submitted a couple of authorization requests already, so we will see how it goes. I'm hoping to find some suggested language out there from others for a successful application. I'm trying to get authorization in a small pocket of KFMY and in the Surface Class E of KAPF.

 

[Jason1234]

...you must apply for a waiver.

To be accurate, you don't need a waiver. You need authorization. It just happens to be the same form on their website, but what we are talking about is technically an authorization, not a waiver.

 

[Joet]

To be accurate, you don't need a waiver. You need authorization. It just happens to be the same form on their website, but what we are talking about is technically an authorization, not a waiver.

Correct, I misspoke.

 

[Joet]

Shocking, isn't it? SanCap, you can probably fly in controlled space with your 333 if you exemption allows it, but Part 107 requires what the FAA estimates as a 90 day minimum authorization process at this point. Meanwhile, unlicensed recreational pilots can just notify the airport owner and tower and be flying in 5 minutes. I submitted a couple of authorization requests already, so we will see how it goes. I'm hoping to find some suggested language out there from others for a successful application. I'm trying to get authorization in a small pocket of KFMY and in the Surface Class E of KAPF.

With this weather, it will be 90 days before you can fly anyway.

 

[Jason1234]

To be accurate, you don't need a waiver. You need authorization. It just happens to be the same form on their website, but what we are talking about is technically an authorization, not a waiver.

Actually, to be completely accurate, you can get a waiver, too. I think the problem here is that the FAA has not made a clear distinction between authorization and waiver. For now, the process is almost identical, except you check a different box on the web form.

You can get an authorization or a waiver for Part 107.41, but you use the same process. They have defined the waiver parameters in the performance based standards, but that isn't the same as the standards for an authorization (I don't think). I would hate to think that an authorization request would have to meet the same standards as a waiver, but maybe that's what they are thinking.

Note that 107.41 appears twice here:

 

[ADT]

As you guys get the waivers, would you mind posting in this thread so we can start tracking how long the approval process has been taking?

Title 14 CFR Part 107 Waivers (Post your approved/rejected)

 

[Dave Armbrust]

Dave,

I see you are a CFI, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the regulations. Reference this:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf

Section 5.8 (Emphasis added):

It states:

5.8 Operation Near Airports; in Certain Airspace; in Prohibited or Restricted Areas; or in the Proximity of Certain Areas Designated by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Though many sUAS operations will occur in uncontrolled airspace, there are some that may need to operate in controlled airspace. Operations in Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace, or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, are not allowed unless that person has prior authorization from air traffic control (ATC). The link to the current authorization process can be found at www.faa.gov/uas/. The sUAS remote PIC must understand airspace classifications and requirements. Failure to do so would be in violation of the part 107 regulations and may potentially have an adverse safety effect. Although sUAS will not be subject to part 91, the equipage and communications requirements outlined in part 91 were designed to provide safety and efficiency in controlled airspace. Accordingly, while sUAS operating under part 107 are not subject to part 91, as a practical matter, ATC authorization or clearance may depend on operational parameters similar to those found in part 91. The 6/21/16 AC 107-2 5-6 FAA has the authority to approve or deny aircraft operations based on traffic density, controller workload, communication issues, or any other type of operations that could potentially impact the safe and expeditious flow of air traffic in that airspace. Those planning sUAS operations in controlled airspace are encouraged to contact the FAA as early as possible. (For suggested references, please see paragraph 2.3.)​

This clearly states the authorization process is to fill out the same form as the waiver process. You can't just call the tower and request permission to enter the airspace. That is not the current authorization process.

What is happening is the FAA is sending out sector maps to all airports. They are sending these back to the FAA with recommended maximum altitudes per sector. The FAA will approve or disapprove authorizations centrally based on this feedback and notify the airport and the remote pilot. It is a centralized process.

Over time, I expect this to evolve. I think you would agree it is unworkable in the long run.

As to your comment that Class G covers most of the country, that is not the point. I suspect that much of the commercial opportunity from Part 107 will come from urban and suburban areas that are in close proximity to a controlled airport. Real estate comes to mind, but also filming for TV, movies, and commercials, package delivery, and a whole host of other uses in densely populated residential and commercial centers. It is not a viable solution to require a detailed waiver process that takes 90 days. Ultimately this needs to either go away altogether, have reduced maximums for these areas, or require local ATC authorization or preferably notification (like hobbyists).

Finally, regarding surface Class E extensions of Class D airspace... they really should just make the maximum 200 feet AGL without a waiver. These extensions often take up huge chunks of densely populated suburban residential and commercial land. There are huge commercial applications in these areas, even if limited to treetop-altitudes. While it is a "surface" Class E, manned aircraft should not be operating under 200 feet in these areas anyway. An IFR approach would be above this altitude if I am not mistaken, but a UAS operation would be done in VFR conditions anyway, and see-and-avoid should be pretty easy at this altitude. Selfishly, I would be fine with a 200' AGL and 300' radius restriction within controlled airspace without notification. That's all I need for my typical expected operations. I realize that would not suit many. At a certain point it is ridiculous to require ATC authorization (i.e. operations below adjacent treetops within the confines of a residential property).

In the interim, we will just have to jump through the hoops and follow the letter of the law.

Confusing, yes, but let me clearly restate what I have already stated:

107.41 only requires prior ATC authorization. This is no difference than what we have already been familiar with where we just call the tower and they say "sure, have fun, call us when you are done" or something to that effect. If you call the tower tomorrow and get that type of authorization you are good to go and you are within full compliance with Part 107, that is assuming you have your pilot certificate and UAS registration and following the other requirements such as over people, etc.

What is new, and frankly what I had missed is the new FAA Order JO 7200.23. It was just issued August 19, and the reason many of us have missed it is because it is a order for ATC, not pilots. It is a "Air Traffic Organization Policy". It, in effect, states that controllers are not to grant authorization to operate in controlled airspace. Instead this is to go through the UAS waiver request process. It is not a waiver of Part 107.41, instead it is just authorization for controlled airspace.

It does not go into effect until October 3rd and will apply to both model aircraft and Part 107 operations. (No the 15 year kid with a model aircraft will not have more latitude than a Part 107 operator). It is intended to be a single authorization document for both Part 101 (modelers/hobbyists) and Part 107 operators. So how is the FAA allowed to roll modelers/hobbyists into this new requirement after congress mandated that they could not? Simple, under Part 101.43, Subpart E, no person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

Why the new order? We are looking at a lot of requests. At our Class C tower there is generally only one tower controller and he is handling manned traffic. He is not going to be able to handle this traffic plus all the requests for UAS. Today the number of requests are still quite small, but this is likely to change quickly.

Until October 3rd, the process is what I have already outlined, which is call the tower. If they say "sure, have fun, call us when you are done" you are good to go. If they turn down your request, well you are SOL.

To answer your question on Class E surface areas. These surface areas are to protect IFR traffic which can go as low as 200' AGL in the clouds. If we do not see the airport at 200' AGL we go missed and will start our missed approach procedures. This would mean that we would typically drop below 200' as we reconfigure the airplane for the climb. While normal manned traffic (other than helicopter) is at least 500' AGL this changes when we are landing or taking off in which case we go much lower. If we are on a IFR flight plan we could easily be coming out of the side of that cloud you are hovering next to.

The airspace needed for IFR traffic goes below the 500' the closer we get to the airport. As a general rule if the drone is lower than a 40 to 1 height from the airport it should not be a factor. For 400' this would equate to 16,000' or about 3 NM. The 40 to 1 ratio is what the FAA uses when considering fixed objects within the approach path to the airport when designing a instrument approach.

The FAA blind sided me with the FAA Order JO 7200.23 and it is required reading for anyone interested in flying in controlled airspace after 10/03/2016: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_JO_7200_23_2.pdf

No, it is not going to take 90 days for them to grant your request. It will probably be granted within a couple of days. It is not a waiver, that can take 90 days. I have made a request for Class C airspace surface area at Sarasota Florida downtown area. I will keep the forum posted on my results.

IMHO, this thread with it asinine title needs to go away and lets start a new thread for those that need help with this process.

 

[SanCap]

Confusing, yes, but let me clearly restate what I have already stated:

107.41 only requires prior ATC authorization. This is no difference than what we have already been familiar with where we just call the tower and they say "sure, have fun, call us when you are done" or something to that effect. If you call the tower tomorrow and get that type of authorization you are good to go and you are within full compliance with Part 107, that is assuming you have your pilot certificate and UAS registration and following the other requirements such as over people, etc.

What is new, and frankly what I had missed is the new FAA Order JO 7200.23. It was just issued August 19, and the reason many of us have missed it is because it is a order for ATC, not pilots. It is a "Air Traffic Organization Policy". It, in effect, states that controllers are not to grant authorization to operate in controlled airspace. Instead this is to go through the UAS waiver request process. It is not a waiver of Part 107.41, instead it is just authorization for controlled airspace.

It does not go into effect until October 3rd and will apply to both model aircraft and Part 107 operations. (No the 15 year kid with a model aircraft will not have more latitude than a Part 107 operator). It is intended to be a single authorization document for both Part 101 (modelers/hobbyists) and Part 107 operators. So how is the FAA allowed to roll modelers/hobbyists into this new requirement after congress mandated that they could not? Simple, under Part 101.43, Subpart E, no person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

Why the new order? We are looking at a lot of requests. At our Class C tower there is generally only one tower controller and he is handling manned traffic. He is not going to be able to handle this traffic plus all the requests for UAS. Today the number of requests are still quite small, but this is likely to change quickly.

Until October 3rd, the process is what I have already outlined, which is call the tower. If they say "sure, have fun, call us when you are done" you are good to go. If they turn down your request, well you are SOL.

To answer your question on Class E surface areas. These surface areas are to protect IFR traffic which can go as low as 200' AGL in the clouds. If we do not see the airport at 200' AGL we go missed and will start our missed approach procedures. This would mean that we would typically drop below 200' as we reconfigure the airplane for the climb. While normal manned traffic (other than helicopter) is at least 500' AGL this changes when we are landing or taking off in which case we go much lower. If we are on a IFR flight plan we could easily be coming out of the side of that cloud you are hovering next to.

The airspace needed for IFR traffic goes below the 500' the closer we get to the airport. As a general rule if the drone is lower than a 40 to 1 height from the airport it should not be a factor. For 400' this would equate to 16,000' or about 3 NM. The 40 to 1 ratio is what the FAA uses when considering fixed objects within the approach path to the airport when designing a instrument approach.

The FAA blind sided me with the FAA Order JO 7200.23 and it is required reading for anyone interested in flying in controlled airspace after 10/03/2016: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_JO_7200_23_2.pdf

No, it is not going to take 90 days for them to grant your request. It will probably be granted within a couple of days. It is not a waiver, that can take 90 days. I have made a request for Class C airspace surface area at Sarasota Florida downtown area. I will keep the forum posted on my results.

IMHO, this thread with it asinine title needs to go away and lets start a new thread for those that need help with this process.

I am even more confused now. Let me put this as simply as I can. Do I need to file for a waiver to fly in class C or D airspace if I want to fly closer than 5 miles. Or do I just need to contact the tower and ask their permission.

 

[Dave Armbrust]

I am even more confused now. Let me put this as simply as I can. Do I need to file for a waiver to fly in class C or D airspace if I want to fly closer than 5 miles. Or do I just need to contact the tower and ask their permission.

The simple answer is "yes" to both questions.

Yes can just contact the tower and get permission if they are willing to grant it until 10/03.

Yes, after 10/03 they are not to grant this permission, in which case you will need to use the website mentioned above.

It is not a waiver, but authorization that you are requesting. (Same web site for both types of requests)

 

[ADT]

It is not a waiver, but authorization that you are requesting. (Same web site for both types of requests)

Actually, it looks like you can apply for authorization to enter airspace (what you are discussing) and also apply for a waiver to operate in certain airspace.

107.41 is the waiver to operate in certain airspace without having to get access granted from ATC.

 

[Joola]

I'm really glad I'm not the only one who has been utterly confused by the process necessary to operate legally and safely in controlled airspace. This thread has been very helpful in outlining the current and future process required to do so. We can only hope the authorization process will be expeditious as it will otherwise cripple certain commercial applications.

 

[Jason1234]

It does not go into effect until October 3rd and will apply to both model aircraft and Part 107 operations. (No the 15 year kid with a model aircraft will not have more latitude than a Part 107 operator). It is intended to be a single authorization document for both Part 101 (modelers/hobbyists) and Part 107 operators.

No, it is not going to take 90 days for them to grant your request. It will probably be granted within a couple of days. It is not a waiver, that can take 90 days.

We must be reading a different document. I see:

"The current guidance for modelers/hobbyists will not change"

Look at chapter 3. It clearly states the rules are the same as previous for Part 101 operators. 5 miles, notify and fly (unless denied). That's it. Don't interfere with manned flight and you're good to go.

On what basis can you say a Part 107 authorization under this order won't take 90 days? That's exactly what the FAA is telling us now.

And since the ATC currently has no published and effective guidance that I know of regarding Part 107 airspace authorization requests, and they have already received thus order, albeit not in effect yet, I seriously doubt the are going to happily say "go ahead" between now and October 3rd. Let's call our local towers and report back, but we're only a month from it being a moot point.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Jason1234]

To answer your question on Class E surface areas. These surface areas are to protect IFR traffic which can go as low as 200' AGL in the clouds. If we do not see the airport at 200' AGL we go missed and will start our missed approach procedures. This would mean that we would typically drop below 200' as we reconfigure the airplane for the climb.

If you're in the clouds at 200', or 500' for that matter, Part 107 UAS operations are prohibited anyway. You're making my case for allowing UAS in surface E look better.

I understand it's not that simple, having some IFR training, but the bottom line is that equating surface E to D, C, or B in terms of ATC authorization requirement, especially under decreased maximums, is asinine since surface E will be 4 miles out.

I'm sorry you don't like the thread subject, but that's my opinion. The whole Part 107 authorization concept and system is asinine when you consider the lack of operational limitations on unlicensed hobbyists. That was my original point. I agree that a productive separate thread on authorizations procedures, successes, and failures would be great.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Mark Allan]

Dave Armbrust
I sent you a PM
I'd be interested in hearing about how your clearances go for Sarasota. I have some projects on Longboat Key and Bird Key.

Mark

 

[Dave Armbrust]

If you're in the clouds at 200', or 500' for that matter, Part 107 UAS operations are prohibited anyway. You're making my case for allowing UAS in surface E look better.

I understand it's not that simple, having some IFR training, but the bottom line is that equating surface E to D, C, or B in terms of ATC authorization requirement, especially under decreased maximums, is asinine since surface E will be 4 miles out.

I'm sorry you don't like the thread subject, but that's my opinion. The whole Part 107 authorization concept and system is asinine when you consider the lack of operational limitations on unlicensed hobbyists. That was my original point. I agree that a productive separate thread on authorizations procedures, successes, and failures would be great.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Clouds are not the issue as these approaches are often flown in Day VFR conditions, where much of the pilot's attention is focused on the instruments rather than looking for drones. While none of these approaches will bring the manned aircraft within 100' of the ground, they will bring the aircraft down within 400' in the areas often defined as Class E airspace. Remember these Class E airspaces were created to protect these aircraft on approaches from other manned VFR aircraft. That protection needs to be extend to unmanned aircraft that may also be operating in this airspace. Part 107 could have been written with a lower than 400' requirement for Class E to the surface. Also remember that for non-towered airports the entire airport may be protected with a Class E to the surface if it has precision approaches (200' AGL). While this is rare it is common enough that they could not just write a 107 rule for Class E airspace. Instead that have taken a much more sensible procedure using the UAS Facility Maps (UASFM).

After 10/03 flights within the surface area of Class E airspace will require a request through the FAA airspace authorization web page, but will be automatically granted unless the UAS Facility Maps (UASFM) shows that the UAS flight would be a risk to the NAS. In that case it will take more coordination with the ATC facility for obvious reasons.

I have spent many hours as a pilot doing aerial photographs in the surface area of Class B, C, D and E airspace. In all cases I have felt that the tower has been very reasonable handing my requests. I have no reason to believe we will not see the same cooperation with unmanned flight.

I have started a productive separate thread on the authorization procedures at USA - Part 107 Flights in Controlled Airspace

Now that you have had your vent it is probably time to close this thread.

 

[Figbar]

Part 107 allows us to fly within class G (uncontrolled airspace) up to 400'. This is huge and describes most of the country. Class B, C and D surface areas are excluded. Manned aircraft must have a mode C transponder (B an C), establish two way communication (B, C and D) and receive a clearance to enter Class B airspace. We can do any of this.

Class E to the surface is a little tricker as this is an untowered airport that has an instrument approach that goes down to 200' AGL typically. Fortunately an airport with an instrument approach that goes this low typically has a control tower.

To fly in any of this airspace Part 107.41 only requires prior authorization from Air Traffic Control (ATC). While it is possible to get a waiver from 107.41, it does not state we can not fly in this airspace without this waiver. Again it only says that you must have prior ATC (tower) authorization.

There is no reason to believe that the tower would tell a certified remote pilot that he can not fly in this airspace, yet give approval to a hobbiest in the same location.

While it may be true someone at the FAA told Joet that he needed a waiver to fly in controlled airspace, it is likely he FAA person did not understand the question or does not understand the new regulations.

The regulations are what the regulations state. Yes, you do need a waiver to fly in controlled airspace WITHOUT prior authorization, and NO you do not need a waiver to fly I controlled airspace with prior ATC (tower) authorization.

It really is that simple.

This is exactly what I thought. I've been studying this 107 Remote Pilot stuff for the past 2 months...to the point where I thought I was literally loosing brain cells. I took a million practice tests based on FAA rules. Time and time again we have been told that we just need prior ATC permission to fly in controlled airspace. On the list of waivers put out by the FAA...more 107 study material...permission to fly in controlled airspace was on this list. There seems to be a mountain of misinformation out there. I know there are a ton of attorneys out there now telling us they can get us the waivers to fly in controlled airspace...what a bunch of crap. We go through all this work and effort to do the right thing to legally fly commercially, and there seems to be no real clear process in place to be able to fly SAFELY in urban environments. I am hoping that all this stuff will work itself out and we will be able to gain permission to fly/shoot in controlled airspace with a reasonable amount of lag time from the initial request.

 

[Adelberg aerial imaging]

One of the biggest issues with 107 is the fact they made the knowledge test so basic that non Faa pilots simply don't have the real working knowkege of airspace. I would suggest everyone obtain a copy of the FARS, and really read the airspace complete rules. A pilot can fly in controlled airspace by contacting ATC via the proper frequency , which is on the chart , requesting entry into airspace, giving exact position from the Vor racial from and altitude. For aerial photography they can grant you and orbit position and an altitude block . One annouces on station and vacating. You must be in communication and listening to atc for traffic advisory and instructions. This entire atc communication section is left out if part 107. It's just a beginning and as secretary said will have many changes. Also the entire notam process has been hardly addresses in 107. No one can fly in controlled airspace without checking notams .

 

[Donnie Frank]

Explain to me how the airspace authorization rules make any sense. A teenager can fly for fun inside controlled airspace by "notifying" the airport operator and tower. A licensed, tested, certificated commercial adult operator can't operate in the same space without submitting a lengthy web form with detailed explanation about how they will operate safely, and then wait 90+ days for a response from the FAA.

This is totally upside-down an nonsensical.

I see this as the biggest disappointment in the Part 107 rules.

I couldn't agree with you more. The 107 is just going from the frying pan to the fire. Like the 333, this, too, shall pass. I've been operating professionally for 2.5 years. No 333. No 107. No accidents. No mishaps. No runs, no drips, no errors. Just the same common-sense AMA rules I've been following since the '80s. I even did a shoot within 100 yards of an airport. I called the airport manager a week ahead of the shoot to let him know I was going to fly a drone in his area. He says, "No problem. Call me before you take off." So the day of the shoot I called him and gave him my cell number just in case. An hour later called him to say I was done. Easy peasy.

I know about as much about air space as the next guy. I'm not a pilot, but I get that giving way to full scale aircraft is a no-brainer. I don't fly over people. Unless I communicate, I don't fly near airports. I'll take "good communication" over "legislation" any day.

 

[Mike Daniels]

Here is a pretty good article explaining the end game for airspace permissions. It is a way off yet.
Here's The Future Of UAS ATC - Drone Business Center