Max Altitude in Restricted Area

[dnelson200]

I hope someone can help me find the answer to this. I live somewhat close to a military air base. B4UFly shows the majority of the area as restricted air space. The attached image is what I see. My question is...is there any altitude that I can fly in this area? I want to take some pictures of my house at between 100 and 200 feet. Am I not allowed to do even that? I am curious if there might be a max altitude in these areas or if everything is prohibited no matter what altitude?

Thanks in advance.

 

[sar104]

The MOA isn't the problem - you can fly in an MOA. The Valparaiso, Florida Terminal Area is the problem - it has permanent flight restrictions from the surface up to 18,000 ft MSL:

14 CFR §93.83 Aircraft operations. (Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area)

(a) North-South Corridor. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC (including the Eglin Radar Control Facility), no person may operate an aircraft in flight within the North-South Corridor designated in §93.81(b)(1) unless—

(1) Before operating within the corridor, that person obtains a clearance from the Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility; and​

​

(2) That person maintains two-way radio communication with the Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility while within the corridor.​

(b) East-West Corridor. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC (including the Eglin Radar Control Facility), no person may operate an aircraft in flight within the East-West Corridor designated in §93.81(b)(2) unless—

(1) Before operating within the corridor, that person establishes two-way radio communications with Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility and receives an ATC advisory concerning operations being conducted therein; and​

​

(2) That person maintains two-way radio communications with the Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility while within the corridor.​

 

[brett8883]

The MOA isn't the problem - you can fly in an MOA. The Valparaiso, Florida Terminal Area is the problem - it has permanent flight restrictions from the surface up to 18,000 ft MSL:

14 CFR §93.83 Aircraft operations. (Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area)

(a) North-South Corridor. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC (including the Eglin Radar Control Facility), no person may operate an aircraft in flight within the North-South Corridor designated in §93.81(b)(1) unless—

(1) Before operating within the corridor, that person obtains a clearance from the Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility; and​

​

(2) That person maintains two-way radio communication with the Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility while within the corridor.​

(b) East-West Corridor. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC (including the Eglin Radar Control Facility), no person may operate an aircraft in flight within the East-West Corridor designated in §93.81(b)(2) unless—

(1) Before operating within the corridor, that person establishes two-way radio communications with Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility and receives an ATC advisory concerning operations being conducted therein; and​

​

(2) That person maintains two-way radio communications with the Eglin Radar Control Facility or an appropriate FAA ATC facility while within the corridor.​

I’ve deleted my post because you’ve answered it better than I did.

So if you follow those rules COULD you technically fly there as a UAV pilot? I’m sure ATC would have a cow but technically we can meet those requirements

 

[sar104]

I’ve deleted my post because you’ve answered it better than I did.

So if you follow those rules COULD you technically fly there as a UAV pilot? I’m sure ATC would have a cow but technically we can meet those requirements

I guess so - that section allows it. In practice I suspect that it would have to be SGI or military.

 

[brett8883]

I guess so - that section allows it. In practice I suspect that it would have to be SGI or military.

Ok wait is it a) OR b)... or is it a) and b)?

For b) it doesn’t sound like you have to ask anyone for permission just make contact.

 

[sar104]

Ok wait is it a) OR b)... or is it a) and b)?

For b) it doesn’t sound like you have to ask anyone for permission just make contact.

The zone in question is east-west, so it is (b) that applies. The main problem is that, in general, sUAS pilots are not licensed to communicate with ATC by radio.

 

[brett8883]

The zone in question is east-west, so it is (b) that applies. The main problem is that, in general, sUAS pilots are not licensed to communicate with ATC by radio.

There’s the issue I see. Now that would be for part 107 only though right? For recreational Pilots it says:

`(5) 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.
``(6) 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.

Since this isn’t Class B, C, or D it doesn’t say anything about not contacting ATC or needing prior authorization from the administrator. Just to comply with “all airspace restrictions and prohibitions”

 

[sar104]

There’s the issue I see. Now that would be for part 107 only though right? For recreational Pilots it says:

`(5) 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.
``(6) 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.

Since this isn’t Class B, C, or D it doesn’t say anything about not contacting ATC or needing prior authorization from the administrator. Just to comply with “all airspace restrictions and prohibitions”

No - that would be for both recreational and Part 107 flights because, as you quoted, even recreational pilots must comply with airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

 

[brett8883]

No - that would be for both recreational and Part 107 flights because, as you quoted, even recreational pilots must comply with airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

No I mean the not making radio contact part. If that's the airspace requirement that's what the law says to do.

This is all very theoretical I know because pretty much nobody is going to actually do this.

 

[Camino Ken]

No I mean the not making radio contact part. If that's the airspace requirement that's what the law says to do.

This is all very theoretical I know because pretty much nobody is going to actually do this.

It’s been a while but if I remember right a private pilot gets a radio operator license via the FCC when they get their pilots license. I think it is probably not likely that a drone pilot could get a radio operator license because that could create an overly burdensome situation for ATC.

 

[brett8883]

@dnelson200 just to summarize for all intents and purposes you cannot fly here legally

 

[brett8883]

It’s been a while but if I remember right a private pilot gets a radio operator license via the FCC when they get their pilots license. I think it is probably not likely that a drone pilot could get a radio operator license because that could create an overly burdensome situation for ATC.

Ahh gotcha. Puts this one to bed then

 

[dnelson200]

Thanks to everyone for their replies and information.

 

[Mavic Mac]

It’s been a while but if I remember right a private pilot gets a radio operator license via the FCC when they get their pilots license. I think it is probably not likely that a drone pilot could get a radio operator license because that could create an overly burdensome situation for ATC.

I am Part 107 certified and requested and received flight authorization in controlled air space. One condition of authorization was to be able to maintain two-way radio contact with the ATC tower, if requested.

I applied to the FCC for my radio operators license and received it. The license "call number" is very similar to an aircraft tail number.

 

[sar104]

I am Part 107 certified and requested and received flight authorization in controlled air space. One condition of authorization was to be able to maintain two-way radio contact with the ATC tower, if requested.

I applied to the FCC for my radio operators license and received it. The license "call number" is very similar to an aircraft tail number.

Which class of license did you get?

 

[Mavic Mac]

@sar104 Copy attached

 

[Camino Ken]

I am Part 107 certified and requested and received flight authorization in controlled air space. One condition of authorization was to be able to maintain two-way radio contact with the ATC tower, if requested.

I applied to the FCC for my radio operators license and received it. The license "call number" is very similar to an aircraft tail number.

I stand corrected.

 

[sar104]

@sar104 Copy attached

I'm not sure that's what you think it is. The portable radio station authorization is not for a ground station - it's for the operation of a radio station on more than one aircraft (47 CFR §87.47). This would be a ground station, and I don't think there is any ground station authorization that isn't restricted to specific operations and frequencies.

47 CFR PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES

 

[Mavic Mac]

I stand corrected.

Trust me it was a number of phone calls back and forth between myself and the FCC. Each time I called I would get a different person and a different answer as the type of license I needed. Finally got it resolved. Unfortunately (maybe fortunately) I haven't been in the situation where I needed to try radio contact.

 

[sar104]

Trust me it was a number of phone calls back and forth between myself and the FCC. Each time I called I would get a different person and a different answer as the type of license I needed. Finally got it resolved. Unfortunately (maybe fortunately) I haven't been in the situation where I needed to try radio contact.

That's a pretty common experience. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that you ended up with accurate information - 47 CFR Part 87 is not at all ambiguous on this subject. But if the FCC has carved out some kind of accepted method for this then it would be really good to know - I'm guessing that it would be hopelessly over-optimistic to ask if you got that determination in writing?

For the record - I operate under subpart M - Aeronautical Search and Rescue Stations.