Here's the real truth-- just as in the long run the FAA is never going to go along with the proposed interpretation that the meaning of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" only extends up to 700 feet above the ground, so too the FAA is never going to go along with my argument (read full details here
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... 5714#55714 ) that the meaning of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" does not extend to "extension" areas that don't actually enclose the airport whose approaches they are designated to protect.
Why do I say that? Because Congress has recently passed a bill for the purposes of keeping drones and radio-controlled model airplanes out of the way of air traffic, motivated undoubtedly by the many sightings of drones being flown beyond line-of-sight by irresponsible hobbyists right in the middle of the approach paths for busy airports. Also clearly motivated by a desire to open up defined portions of the airspace for use by the expected explosion in growth of commercial drones. If I'm understanding it right, drones weighing under a certain weight limit (55 pounds), as well as conventional radio-controlled planes flown by hobbyists, are now called subjected to very onerous restrictions.
Here's one of the restrictions-- " In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions. "
That really sucks for r.c. sailplane enthusiasts like me-- 400' above the ground is NOTHING. Note however that the 400' restriction is ONLY for class G airspace.
Here's another one of the restrictions--
" 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, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions. "
There's that same language that we have in and FAR 103.17 and FAR 107.13 -- "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport". No drone or r.c. plane operation in there without prior permission, just as is currently the case for ultralights.
If the interpretation of the meaning of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" given by the January 10 2018 FAA Memorandum on FAR 107.13 (
http://goldsealgroundschool.com/uav-lib ... ations.pdf ) is upheld, that means any drone hobbyist can go fly their drone in the Class-E-to-surface EXTENSIONS, with no need for prior authorization and NO prescribed altitude limit.
The FAA will NEVER go for this. That's exactly the problem they are trying to prevent.
What do you think they will do about this? Options would include--
1) Rewrite the 400' rule so that it is not limited to Class G airspace
2) Rewrite the proposed regulations to explicitly include the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" as well as the airspace "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport"
3) Issue a ruling that the meaning of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" DOES encompass the Class-E-to-surface "extensions" to Class D or higher airspace-- thus over-ruling the Jan 10 2018 Memorandum to the contrary.
I bet you anything they'll go for #3. It's the simplest option, and the language and terminology involved is just vague enough to let them get away with it. Plus I think similar opinions have already been issued in the past by various FAA offices, specifically in regard to FAR 103.17 (ultralights). I don't have current links to any of those handy. From what I remember they seemed based on a lot of confusion and a lack of careful consideration of the exact language and history of the regs. But now that they have a specific memorandum to the contrary to over-rule, they'll be much more deliberate about it. Like I've been saying, I think such a ruling would NOT be in line with the original intent and best logical interpretation of the regulations. But, there's enough slop in the language to let them get away with it. They didn't do a good job of in the first place (or rather I should say at the time of the 1993 airspace re-organization) of harmonizing the exact language of FAR 103.17 and the exact language of "Airspace Designations And Reporting Points" (Order JO 7400.11C or whatever was its past incarnation at that time.) (See
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 00.11C.pdf .) And so now we're going to pay the price of that sloppiness. They'll find a way to interpret the language to get what they want.
So-- the long and short of it is-- this is probably NOT a good time to go ask the FAA for an interpretation in favor of the idea that the meaning of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" only extends up to 700'. They'll never say yes, and the odds are very good that they'll also say something-- either without realizing the complexity of the various issues involved, or because they do explicitly realize they are about to have an issue re keeping drones from flying to high altitudes in the "extensions"-- that over-rules the January 10 2018 Memorandum and explicitly extends the meaning of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" to the extensions.
I'm not versed with legal issues well enough to know whether the January 10 2018 "Memorandum" carries any legal weight anyway. If you were "caught" flying a hang glider or other ultralight-- or even a drone-- in one of those Class-E-to-surface extensions, would it really help you to cite that "Memorandum"? Or is that more just something that pertains to internal FAA business and is not meant to be a legal ruling or guidance to the public?
Anyway, that's how I see it. The conflict between the January 10 2018 Memorandum and the desired intent of the new proposed regulations on UAS's (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) is going to force the FAA's hand to clarify the meaning of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport", and it's probably not going to come out in our favor.
Sooner or later we are all going to need to fly with transponders anyway.
Steve