magentabluesky wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:50 am
Once upon a time in the old days: a control zone was not in effect unless the weather at the airport was IMC (Instrument meteorological conditions).
Michael, I really don't think this is true. Are you sure? Ramifications such as only one airplane allowed in the Control Zone at a time under IFR or SVFR may have only applied during poor weather, but that's not really the same as saying it's as if the control zone was not there at all. Perhaps there were other ramifications such as required radio communications that only applied during poor weather-- I'm not sure-- but again that's really the same as saying it's as if the control zone was not there at all. It may have been common pilot lingo to say that the control zone was or wasn't "in effect" but was that really strictly accurate especially in the context of what we're talking about now?
Is it really your understanding that the original FAR 103.17, which specifically prohibited ultralights from "control zones" (without prior authorization) did NOT apply during good VFR weather conditions? I've never heard that before. IF we could really demonstrate that that was true, it might set an important precedent, but I've sure never heard that before. Of course those days were long before I started flying hang gliders.
magentabluesky wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:50 amSo in the old days of control zones Part 103.17 only required clearance when the weather at the airport was IMC and the control zone was in effect. There was a relationship between Part 103.17 and Part 103.23 that supports that old interpretation.
Can you explain more what you mean?
This link
http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html gives the text of FAR 103 along with PAST versions.
Here is the original text of 103.17--
"No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within an airport traffic
area, control zone, airport radar service area, terminal control area, or
positive control area unless that person has prior authorization from the air
traffic control facility having jurisdiction over that airspace."
And here is the original text of 103.23--
"No person may operate an ultralight vehicle when the flight visibility or
distance from clouds is less than that in the following table, as
appropriate:
Minimum
flight
visibility
Flight altitudes /1/ Minimum distance from clouds
1,200 feet or less above the
surface regardless of MSL
altitude:
(1) Within controlled airspace 3 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, 2,000 feet horizontal.
(2) Outside controlled airspace 1 Clear of clouds.
More than 1,200 feet above the
surface but less than 10,000
feet MSL:
(1) Within controlled airspace 3 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, 2,000 feet horizontal.
(2) Outside controlled airspace 1 500 feet below, 1,000 feet
More than 1,200 feet above the 5 1,000 feet below, 1,000 feet
surface and at or above 10,000 above, 1 statute milehorizontal
feet MSL
/1/ Statute miles."
The format may come across as a little jumbled but the key point is that there is NO specific reference to "control zones", or to whether the weather is or is not below VFR minimums at any given point. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, as a professional pilot, that "controlled airspace" is not at all the same thing as a "control zone". The old charts from the early 90's and 80's that showed the dashed blue "control zones", ALSO showed the magenta shading and blue shading showing where the floor of the REST of the controlled airspace was-- often 700' or 1200' AGL. (Those markings were present long before the 1983 introduction of FAR 103.)
The CURRENT version of 103.23 actually gives the minimum visibility and cloud clearance required for ultralight flight not only in class E airspace, but also in class D and class C and class B airspace! They are the same as the minimums for standard GA VFR aircraft. But in the ultralight case, we are given the reminder "All operations in Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D airspace or Class E airspace designated for an airport must receive prior ATC authorization as required in Sec. 103.17 of this part."
So, we're right back to where we started-- figuring out the precise meaning of 103.17.
But yes, with PRIOR ATC AUTHORIZATION, we can go LOTS of places that we couldn't go otherwise. I think we can all agree on that.
magentabluesky wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:50 am
If the question was previewed with a review of the old control zone and the example of transitioning the Winslow Class E surface airspace, clear and a million, the FAA may give a favorable answer.
If you are referencing specific historical ultralight/ hang gliding activity within a "Control Zone" in the Winslow area (or anywhere else) then I think you may be referencing something that may have been accepted or condoned by a given FAA subculture at a given particular location but would not generally have been viewed as within strict letter of the FAR's -- unless of course you had PRIOR AUTHORIZATION from the relevant ATC facility.
magentabluesky wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:50 am
Why does KBIH have a Hang Glider symbol in the middle of the Class E surface airspace?
Authorization is commonly granted at this location? Maybe even "Permanent" prior authorization so long as the weather is good? Hey that sounds good to me--
Or are they just recognizing that an aircraft has a good chance of encountering a hang glider there regardless of whether it is legal or not?
Did you you know that there is an icon on sectional charts that indicates "objectionable"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shXJrTHkGi0
Hope we don't start seeing THAT marking pop up near our flying sites! (Apparently it only applies to airports-- but there are some airports that see a lot of hang gliding activity such aerotowing or landings after mountain flights--
Steve