More Class E Confusion...

[MAVICPILOT13]

Ok so I am now getting a "Class E" warning on the DJI app when I try to fly in an area I have flown in before. I use both Kittyhawk and Airmap and neither indicate an issue (beyond a helipad (house) that has a full VM box).

I understand the concepts of Class E (1200/700/Surface) but even if DJI is right (and KH/AM are not), telling which version of Class E I am in is proving harder than I thought.

Also, even though I don't fly in or near it really, I'm within a mile of another warning zone, this time it's a purple "controlled airspace" square that juts off the 5 mile radius of an airport nearby. Only Kittyhawk finds that one, Airmap and DJI do not. I don't fly there anyway, but what the heck is a purple square area in Kittyhawk?

I tried to look at the sectional for my area (W of Deer Valley Airport in Peoria, AZ, 85383... obviously beyond it's 5 mile radius), but it isn't as simple as a "fuzzy magenta circle" as far as I can tell.

Any experts that can lend some guidance? It's annoying that in the same area, three respected apps we use all provide different warnings, but I am most concerned about the Class E warnings. As long as it isn't "surface" it shouldn't affect me, but I can't identify reliably if it is. There isn't a magenta anything on the sectional, unless I am misinterpreting what that means (very possible!).

Should I just ignore DJI and rely on Airmap or Kittyhawk? I also don't get why it just started appearing now, after months of flying in the area (I drive a ways to get there, so maybe the area just changed, but it's curious the warning just started popping up on DJI now and not the others)?

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Is your mission going to be commercial or recreational?

 

[MAVICPILOT13]

Always recreational, always under 400ft

 

[Robert Mitchell]

In that case, your only requirement is to notify the airport if within 5 miles.

I do understand your frustration with the conflicting reporting. If you want accurate descriptions of the airspace you are in, the FAA has published facility maps: ArcGIS Web Application.

You can actually tap on any point in question and a chart will pop up as to the exact airspace description and dimensions, I.E. upper and lower limits at that point.

In addition you can turn on and off transparent layers, a digital sectional, if you will.

Great tool and it's available for desktop or device.

 

[sar104]

I'm not sure what you are looking at exactly. To the WNW of KDVT there is a block of surface Class E outside the 5 mile surface Class D circle. To the SW of that there is surface Class D around KLUF, and between them is a surface - 4000 MSL SATR area that you would need to stay out of.

 

[MAVICPILOT13]

I'm not sure what you are looking at exactly. To the WNW of KDVT there is a block of surface Class E outside the 5 mile surface Class D circle. To the SW of that there is surface Class D around KLUF, and between them is a surface - 4000 MSL SATR area that you would need to stay out of.

Right, but what Class E is it? What’s confusing me is determining if I can fly in it, as long as I’m below 700 (of course) or if its the variety of E that goes to surface. Kittyhawk (the only one that identifies the block) doesn’t specify.

The KLUF issue is ANOTHER conflict of the apps. I’ll try to post a screenshot of the area from both KH and AM to illustrate what I mean. There’s nothing in either indicating the MSL SATR you mention. Just the 5 mile radius

It’s maddening being a recreational pilot, trying to do the right thing, and getting conflicting “good to fly... nope... maybe... yep... nope... go for it!” Info from 3 reputable sources (DJI, Kittyhawk.io premium, and AirMap)

If I ever were accosted by the FAA, I’d go ballistic because of this kind of garbage. How is a recreational pilot, especially one that cares (or else why even bother with the services I’m using) supposed to reconcile this crap without going commercial anyway?

 

[sar104]

Right, but what Class E is it? What’s confusing me is determining if I can fly in it, as long as I’m below 700 (of course) or if its the variety of E that goes to surface. Kittyhawk (the only one that identifies the block) doesn’t specify.

The KLUF issue is ANOTHER conflict of the apps. I’ll try to post a screenshot of the area from both KH and AM to illustrate what I mean. There’s nothing in either indicating the MSL SATR you mention. Just the 5 mile radius

It’s maddening being a recreational pilot, trying to do the right thing, and getting conflicting “good to fly... nope... maybe... yep... nope... go for it!” Info from 3 reputable sources (DJI, Kittyhawk.io premium, and AirMap)

If I ever were accosted by the FAA, I’d go ballistic because of this kind of garbage. How is a recreational pilot, especially one that cares (or else why even bother with the services I’m using) supposed to reconcile this crap without going commercial anyway?

It's surface Class E - I stated that above. The apps that you quoted are not definitive sources - the only source that matters is the official sectional for the area, and there is nothing ambiguous there.

In any case, you stated that you are flying recreationally so, as pointed out above, you don't care about airspace, at least as long as it is not Class B. Just notify any airports within 5 miles.

 

[MAVICPILOT13]

I'm not sure what you are looking at exactly. To the WNW of KDVT there is a block of surface Class E outside the 5 mile surface Class D circle. To the SW of that there is surface Class D around KLUF, and between them is a surface - 4000 MSL SATR area that you would need to stay out of.

Right, but what Class E is it? What’s confusing me is determining if I can fly in it, as long as I’m below 700 (of course) or if its the variety of E that goes to surface. Kittyhawk (the only one that identifies the block) doesn’t specify.

The KLUF issue is ANOTHER conflict of the apps. I’ll try to post a screenshot of the area from both KH and AM to illustrate what I mean. There’s nothing in either indicating the MSL SATR you mention. Just the 5 mile radius

It’s maddening being a recreational pilot, trying to do the right thing, and getting conflicting “good to fly... nope... maybe... yep... nope... go for it!” Info from 3 reputable sources (DJI, Kittyhawk.io premium, and AirMap)

If I ever were accosted by the FAA, I’d go ballistic because of this kind of garbage. How is a recreational pilot, especially one that cares (or else why even bother with the services I’m using) supposed to reconcile this crap without going commercial anyway?

It's surface Class E - I stated that above. The apps that you quoted are not definitive sources - the only source that matters is the official sectional for the area, and there is nothing ambiguous there.

In any case, you stated that you are flying recreationally so, as pointed out above, you don't care about airspace, at least as long as it is not Class B. Just notify any airports within 5 miles.

That was more of a “why does the app not indicate the type of Class E”, but yeah, you’re right.

I wonder how these apps exist if they’re wholly unreliable anyway?

Regardless, thanks.

Now the only concern I have is that I swear I’ve seen aircraft nearby that seem really low to my recreational pilot eyes. Maybe they’re at 700 while I’m at 400 and it looks closer than it is, but if all I need to observe is 5 miles from airports I’d be good even if I smacked into one anyway, right? (Besides the obvious horror... lol).

I think it’s probably aircraft heading into that surface E patch, but even when I’m well outside that square, it’s a bit alarming!

 

[sar104]

That was more of a “why does the app not indicate the type of Class E”, but yeah, you’re right.

I wonder how these apps exist if they’re wholly unreliable anyway?

Regardless, thanks.

Now the only concern I have is that I swear I’ve seen aircraft nearby that seem really low to my recreational pilot eyes. Maybe they’re at 700 while I’m at 400 and it looks closer than it is, but if all I need to observe is 5 miles from airports I’d be good even if I smacked into one anyway, right? (Besides the obvious horror... lol).

I think it’s probably aircraft heading into that surface E patch, but even when I’m well outside that square, it’s a bit alarming!

Just because you are not in surface Class E does not necessarily mean that aircraft are not permitted at lower altitudes, and no, you would not be good if you hit one since it is always your responsibility to avoid manned aircraft.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Again, read above. I have just about abandoned all but the FAA facility map. It's all headed that direction anyway, at least for the 107s.
It gives you the information you are looking for.

 

[MAVICPILOT13]

If I’m obeying the rules and a manned aircraft that is much faster and bigger than my mavic smacks into me at below 400’, how would that be my fault?

Don’t other aircraft pilots have any responsibilities when they’re 5 miles out of an airport and flying under 400’, or could they just go around blaming everything they hit on the other guy?

Better put: I don’t know how drone pilots could be responsible for avoiding a faster moving aircraft operating under 400’ if they’re 5 miles away from an airport. I guess we’ll find out one day, but I’d happily defend the drone pilot in that instance.

 

[lisadoc]

If I’m obeying the rules and a manned aircraft that is much faster and bigger than my mavic smacks into me at below 400’, how would that be my fault?

Manned aircraft always have right of way. It is your responsibility to stay out of their way, irrespective if they are below 400 feet or not.

 

[TheoMatthias]

+1 lisadoc

Also, GA aircraft *should* be operating no lower than 500-ft AGL except if they are on final to the rwy. However, there was that incident I had with a Blackhawk in my traffic pattern!!!!

 

[sar104]

+1 lisadoc

Also, GA aircraft *should* be operating no lower than 500-ft AGL except if they are on final to the rwy. However, there was that incident I had with a Blackhawk in my traffic pattern!!!!

That's not correct: CFR 14

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

 

[sar104]

If I’m obeying the rules and a manned aircraft that is much faster and bigger than my mavic smacks into me at below 400’, how would that be my fault?

Don’t other aircraft pilots have any responsibilities when they’re 5 miles out of an airport and flying under 400’, or could they just go around blaming everything they hit on the other guy?

Better put: I don’t know how drone pilots could be responsible for avoiding a faster moving aircraft operating under 400’ if they’re 5 miles away from an airport. I guess we’ll find out one day, but I’d happily defend the drone pilot in that instance.

It's your responsibility because the law makes it your responsibility. You should familiarize yourself with that before you fly again.

 

[MAVICPILOT13]

It's your responsibility because the law makes it your responsibility. You should familiarize yourself with that before you fly again.

If a manned aircraft hits me below 400’ I’ll take my chances, as “right of way” implies I have the ability to yield. The assumption that a drone that only has a few yards of obstacle avoidance can be responsible for avoiding something traveling at ten times the speed (or more), below 400’ and further than 5 miles from an airport is relevant because you may not be ABLE to yield. If I’m at a stop light, I can yield because I know what direction oncoming traffic is coming from. In the air, how is a pilot supposed to divine the movements of a faster moving object in 3D space. Even if you literally cut power and fall out of the sky, that doesn’t any more effectively yield than going up, forward, left, or right.

Yielding right of way implies that you COULD/CAN do so. 400’ in the air, with a pending collision imminent with a larger, faster, and unknown 3D direction aircraft (in an unexpected condition no less), that expectation is unreasonable, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree if you don’t think so.

It would necessitate an investigation at minimum, and I’m not saying you could intentionally pilot towards a manned aircraft, but if they hit you (again, under 400’ and 5 miles away from an airport), it’d be a tough sale to blame the drone pilot for “not yielding”.

We’ll see when it invariably happens, but I’d defend the drone pilot all day if the data indicates he hadn’t clearly been trying to hit something.

That rule may sound black and white, but it’d be harder to enforce than you’d think (just considering traffic law as an example, which I may or may not be a specialist in because of my choice of profession...). Rights of way are not black and white, even if you think they are.

 

[sar104]

If a manned aircraft hits me below 400’ I’ll take my chances, as “right of way” implies I have the ability to yield. The assumption that a drone that only has a few yards of obstacle avoidance can be responsible for avoiding something traveling at ten times the speed (or more), below 400’ and further than 5 miles from an airport is relevant because you may not be ABLE to yield. If I’m at a stop light, I can yield because I know what direction oncoming traffic is coming from. In the air, how is a pilot supposed to divine the movements of a faster moving object in 3D space. Even if you literally cut power and fall out of the sky, that doesn’t any more effectively yield than going up, forward, left, or right.

Yielding right of way implies that you COULD/CAN do so. 400’ in the air, with a pending collision imminent with a larger, faster, and unknown 3D direction aircraft (in an unexpected condition no less), that expectation is unreasonable, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree if you don’t think so.

It would necessitate an investigation at minimum, and I’m not saying you could intentionally pilot towards a manned aircraft, but if they hit you (again, under 400’ and 5 miles away from an airport), it’d be a tough sale to blame the drone pilot for “not yielding”.

We’ll see when it invariably happens, but I’d defend the drone pilot all day if the data indicates he hadn’t clearly been trying to hit something.

That rule may sound black and white, but it’d be harder to enforce than you’d think (just considering traffic law as an example, which I may or may not be a specialist in because of my choice of profession...). Rights of way are not black and white, even if you think they are.

14 CFR 107.37 (a) and (b) for operating under Part 107 rules and 14 CFR 101.41 (d) for Part 101 (hobby) operations. Good luck finding a loophole in those if you hit something.

§107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
(a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

§101.41 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.

 

[MAVICPILOT13]

Would it surprise you to know that pedestrians that have the right of way can still be found responsible?

What about rear ending the car in front of you? Always your fault, right???

Nope

If you are saying that a manned aircraft has ZERO responsibility to avoid a UAV operating below 400’ and more then 5 miles from an airport, we’ll just have to wait until it happens and see.

If the resulting investigation reveals the UAV pilot wasn’t intentionally trying to hit the manned aircraft, there are plenty of reasonable ways that a black and white seeming rule will get very gray, very fast.

We won’t know until it happens. But I am firmly of the opinion (and that’s all any of us have on this) that unless you could prove intent, it’d be impossible to hold someone accountable for not yielding to something flying fast and under 400’. It could be on you in a matter of seconds, and if you’re following the rules, it would be unexpected to experience.

In those moments, what do you do? Drop? Bank left? How do you yield to an unpredictable object??? What if the pilot sees you and thinks you’re about to do the opposite of what you do to try and yield? Yielding is only possible if you can predict the flight path. In a situation like I’m describing (under 400’) no reasonable person could.

 

[sar104]

Would it surprise you to know that pedestrians that have the right of way can still be found responsible?

What about rear ending the car in front of you? Always your fault, right???

Nope

If you are saying that a manned aircraft has ZERO responsibility to avoid a UAV operating below 400’ and more then 5 miles from an airport, we’ll just have to wait until it happens and see.

If the resulting investigation reveals the UAV pilot wasn’t intentionally trying to hit the manned aircraft, there are plenty of reasonable ways that a black and white seeming rule will get very gray, very fast.

We won’t know until it happens. But I am firmly of the opinion (and that’s all any of us have on this) that unless you could prove intent, it’d be impossible to hold someone accountable for not yielding to something flying fast and under 400’. It could be on you in a matter of seconds, and if you’re following the rules, it would be unexpected to experience.

In those moments, what do you do? Drop? Bank left? How do you yield to an unpredictable object??? What if the pilot sees you and thinks you’re about to do the opposite of what you do to try and yield? Yielding is only possible if you can predict the flight path. In a situation like I’m describing (under 400’) no reasonable person could.

Sorry - but no - you don't get to play the "it's just my opinion against yours" card. My opinion has nothing to do with it since I didn't express one. I cited the applicable Code of Federal Regulations and you chose to counter with your opinion that it cannot mean what it clearly says.

My opinion of those laws, for what little it's worth, is that it could indeed be possible to do due diligence and still run afoul of them, which might be a mitigating factor in terms of degree of culpability and personal consequence, but does not change our responsibility under the law. That's a risk that you run when you fly an sUAS in the NAS.

 

[lisadoc]

There's also a reason for the rule. If you're flying a Mavic, you're risking a $1,000 piece of equipment and no one's life if it crashes. If you're flying a Cessna, or a crop duster, or any other manned aircraft, you're risking a $100,000+ piece of equipment and 1+ lives if it crashes (1 or more in the plane and 1 or more on the ground potentially).

The assumption that a drone that only has a few yards of obstacle avoidance can be responsible for avoiding something traveling at ten times the speed (or more), below 400’ and further than 5 miles from an airport is relevant because you may not be ABLE to yield. If I’m at a stop light, I can yield because I know what direction oncoming traffic is coming from. In the air, how is a pilot supposed to divine the movements of a faster moving object in 3D space. Even if you literally cut power and fall out of the sky, that doesn’t any more effectively yield than going up, forward, left, or right.

If in doubt, dive. Anything flying below 500 feet won't be dropping to avoid a potential collision.

And sorry... you have a responsibility to have situational awareness while flying your MP and be aware of potential aircraft coming towards your craft. The plane didn't get within your line of sight and to your position within 2 seconds. Most low-flying planes (other than fighter jets on low-altitude missions) give you enough advance notice to become aware of them, see their direction of travel, and take some sort of evasive action.