Class E Surface Areas

luvflyin

luvflyin

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
15,879
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Luvflyin
This discussion usually gets started where there is an airport within the Surface Area established for a different airport. 91.155(c) says thou shalt not operate thy aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet. The situation is the ceiling is 900 broken but the clouds that make that ceiling are all "over there" not here. Do you comply with the letter of the law and not operate beneath the ceiling which is 900. Or do you comply with the intent of the law and just not operate beneath any of the clouds that define that ceiling? Assume no Class D, or if there is, this is happening in a Surface Area extension. Not trying to start a discussion on communication requirements.
 
luvflyin said:
This discussion usually gets started where there is an airport within the Surface Area established for a different airport. 91.155(c) says thou shalt not operate thy aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet. The situation is the ceiling is 900 broken but the clouds that make that ceiling are all "over there" not here. Do you comply with the letter of the law and not operate beneath the ceiling which is 900. Or do you comply with the intent of the law and just not operate beneath any of the clouds that define that ceiling? Assume no Class D, or if there is, this is happening in a Surface Area extension. Not trying to start a discussion on communication requirements.
Click to expand...

You said the ceiling is 900. Are you asking if it's OK to violate §91.155(c)?
 
Brad Z said:
You said the ceiling is 900. Are you asking if it's OK to violate §91.155(c)?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, he's talking about a situation where the ceiling at the primary airport is below 1000 feet, but the ceiling at the secondary airport is either unlimited or above 1000 feet.
 
Palmpilot said:
As I understand it, he's talking about a situation where the ceiling at the primary airport is below 1000 feet, but the ceiling at the secondary airport is either unlimited or above 1000 feet.
Click to expand...

OK, I missed that part.

91.155(c)
(c) Except as provided in §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet.

1.1
Ceiling means the height above the earth's surface of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena that is reported as “broken”, “overcast”, or “obscuration”, and not classified as “thin” or “partial”.

As such, if the ceiling reported on the surface of the earth at the airport where he is is more than 1000 feet, then the ceiling isn't 900 feet as reported by the primary airport.

The question here is who is doing the reporting...the certified weather observer at the primary airport, or you, the pilot about to take off? Good question that I haven't personally experienced. In a class D situation, it would be the tower, so I would err on going with the weather at the primary airport, even if I had better weather.
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
As such, if the ceiling reported on the surface of the earth at the airport where he is is more than 1000 feet, then the ceiling isn't 900 feet as reported by the primary airport.
Click to expand...

What if there is no weather reporting at the secondary airport?

My opinion is that as long as he doesn't fly into an area where clouds below 1000 AGL obscure more than 50% of the sky, then he is not operating under the ceiling. However, I have no prediction on what position the FAA would take on it.
 
Brad Z said:
You said the ceiling is 900. Are you asking if it's OK to violate §91.155(c)?
Click to expand...

Yes. As long as you don't actually operate beneath one of the clouds. You stay 500 above, 1000 below and 2000 laterally from any cloud. But yes, the reported cieling is 900 and you are in a Surface area.
 
luvflyin said:
Yes. As long as you don't actually operate beneath one of the clouds. You stay 500 above, 1000 below and 2000 laterally from any cloud. But yes, the reported cieling is 900 and you are in a Surface area.
Click to expand...

You have that backwards...;)
 
Palmpilot said:
What if there is no weather reporting at the secondary airport?

My opinion is that as long as he doesn't fly into an area where clouds below 1000 AGL obscure more than 50% of the sky, then he is not operating under the ceiling. However, I have no prediction on what position the FAA would take on it.
Click to expand...

Agree, I think the words "beneath the ceiling" allow him to do what he proposes.

What is the point of this regulation anyway? To prevent people from practicing touch and goes at 300' when the ceiling is 800'?
 
Brad Z said:
OK, I missed that part.

91.155(c)
(c) Except as provided in §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet.

1.1
Ceiling means the height above the earth's surface of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena that is reported as “broken”, “overcast”, or “obscuration”, and not classified as “thin” or “partial”.

As such, if the ceiling reported on the surface of the earth at the airport where he is is more than 1000 feet, then the ceiling isn't 900 feet as reported by the primary airport.

The question here is who is doing the reporting...the certified weather observer at the primary airport, or you, the pilot about to take off? Good question that I haven't personally experienced. In a class D situation, it would be the tower, so I would err on going with the weather at the primary airport, even if I had better weather.
Click to expand...

The primary airport. The airport which is the "within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airportwhen the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet. There doesn't really have to be another airport for the question to come up. It just usually does when there is another airport (so called satellite airport) within that surface area. It's a given that you don't have to call the tower if there is one. It's a given that the reported surface visibility over there is not pertinent, we use our flight visibility.
 
Brad Z said:
Also, read this interpretation:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/baginski - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

It's not entirely the same information, but one relevant part, which basically says the determination of visibility by the pilot is not an official weather report.
Click to expand...

I think I've read that one or something just like it. The scenario here is just about 91.155 (c). No questions about the visibility, just the ceiling. If you're not actually beneath a cloud, then are you beneath the ceiling.
 
Palmpilot said:
What if there is no weather reporting at the secondary airport?

My opinion is that as long as he doesn't fly into an area where clouds below 1000 AGL obscure more than 50% of the sky, then he is not operating under the ceiling. However, I have no prediction on what position the FAA would take on it.
Click to expand...

Assume no weather reporting at the secondary airport. In fact just assume there is no secondary airport. We are just flying through the Surface Area. That airport has a reported ceiling of 900. It's broken and we can get through without actually flying under any of the clouds that make that ceiling.
 
dmspilot said:
Agree, I think the words "beneath the ceiling" allow him to do what he proposes.

What is the point of this regulation anyway? To prevent people from practicing touch and goes at 300' when the ceiling is 800'?
Click to expand...

Surface Areas take controlled airspace to the surface for Instrument Approaches. My guess is if you looked at the history of 91.155 (c) you'd find some close ones when approaches descend through the bases
 
luvflyin said:
Surface Areas take controlled airspace to the surface for Instrument Approaches. My guess is if you looked at the history of 91.155 (c) you'd find some close ones when approaches descend through the bases
Click to expand...

I know what surface areas are. My point was that 91.155(c) is kind of redundant with 91.155(a) and 91.119.
 
I'm pretty certain that the entire Class E surface area is off limits to VFR pilots (baring a Special VFR clearance) any time the reported ceiling at the primary airport is below 1000 AGL, even if the only cloud in the sky is directly over the airport with lateral extent inside the boundaries of the airport.

And unless it's night and your not instrument rated/equipped why not just get a SVFR clearance?
 
dmspilot said:
I know what surface areas are. My point was that 91.155(c) is kind of redundant with 91.155(a) and 91.119.
Click to expand...
I don't see the redundancy. 91.155(a) talks about cloud clearances in general while (c) excludes use of defined airport surface areas. 91.119 talks about minimum altitudes, except for takeoff or landing, while 91.155(c) applies specifically to takeoff and landing.

Whether the rule is needed or not based on the hypothetical pilot doing VFR touch and goes in an area that would be 500 AGL in a class E area is probably historical.
 
dmspilot said:
I know what surface areas are. My point was that 91.155(c) is kind of redundant with 91.155(a) and 91.119.
Click to expand...

Oh. Got it. 800-300=500. Maybe the "there were no people, cars, boats or buildings anywhere near me" card got played enough and there were still problems with airplanes being under the deck when Approaches broke out that they invented 155(c)
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't see the redundancy. 91.155(a) talks about cloud clearances in general while (c) excludes use of defined airport surface areas. 91.119 talks about minimum altitudes, except for takeoff or landing, while 91.155(c) applies specifically to takeoff and landing.

Whether the rule is needed or not based on the hypothetical pilot doing VFR touch and goes in an area that would be 500 AGL in a class E area is probably historical.
Click to expand...

91.155(c) just says "operate an aircraft", there is nothing about just takeoffs and landings. If the ceiling is 900 and you are 1000 above, 500 below and 2000 laterally with 3 miles visibility from clouds you can fly through at 900 and be perfectly legal because you are not operating beneath the ceiling. Go any lower and you just violated 155(c)
 
Brad Z said:
Also, read this interpretation:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/baginski - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

It's not entirely the same information, but one relevant part, which basically says the determination of visibility by the pilot is not an official weather report.
Click to expand...

Can anyone write the Chief Counsel and get a determination on something like this? Or do you have to have some kind of status, like being the aopa, nbaa, airline or someone "official" like that
 
luvflyin said:
Can anyone write the Chief Counsel and get a determination on something like this? Or do you have to have some kind of status, like being the aopa, nbaa, airline or someone "official" like that
Click to expand...

This one may actually have been answered. There are a string of Chief Counsel opinion letters that suggest that, while visibility is based on what the pilot sees out the window, ceiling is reported ceiling and it applies to the entire surface area.

From 35 years ago:
==============================
The established and continuing legal opinion at this office is that the reported ceiling at the primary airport in a control zone governs as to whether VFR operations may be conducted within that particular control zone. This is the interpretation of Sec. 91.105(c) which we furnished AAT-300 in our memo of May 21, 1979 (a copy of which is enclosed for your information.) [91.105 is the precursor to 91.155]
==============================

For a more recent one saying essentially the same thing, see the 2012 Buginsky letter.


On your more general question about writing the Chief Counsel, anyone can ask. BUT...

Be aware that there is a history of folks asking the Chief Counsel operational questions like this one that end up with an answer no one likes (most of us recall the "known ice," Mangiamele and the completely moronic private pilot with a photo hobby letters). They sometimes surprise us but typically, if there is an expansive and restrictive interpretation to be made, it will be the restrictive one.

Often better not to ask.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Anyone can ask. BUT...

Be aware that there is a history of folks asking the Chief Counsel operational questions like this one that end up with an answer no one likes (most of us recall the "known ice," Mangiamele and the completely moronic private pilot with a photo hobby letters). They sometimes surprise us but typically, if there is an expansive and restrictive interpretation to be made, it will be the restrictive one.

Often better not to ask.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Don't go opening cans of worms just to satisfy your curiosity.
Don't be the reason we can't have nice things.
 
"Ceiling" is the height of the layer of clouds, not any particular cloud. A broken ceiling is still the ceiling, even if you're under the space between our around the clouds.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
"Ceiling" is the height of the layer[/] of clouds, not any particular cloud. A broken ceiling is still the ceiling, even if you're under the space between our around the clouds.
Click to expand...


This is what I was getting at. Thanks. Is there a ruling or some other documentation that spells that out.
 
midlifeflyer said:
This one may actually have been answered. There are a string of Chief Counsel opinion letters that suggest that, while visibility is based on what the pilot sees out the window, ceiling is reported ceiling and it applies to the entire surface area.

From 35 years ago:
==============================
The established and continuing legal opinion at this office is that the reported ceiling at the primary airport in a control zone governs as to whether VFR operations may be conducted within that particular control zone. This is the interpretation of Sec. 91.105(c) which we furnished AAT-300 in our memo of May 21, 1979 (a copy of which is enclosed for your information.) [91.105 is the precursor to 91.155]
==============================

For a more recent one saying essentially the same thing, see the 2012 Buginsky letter.


On your more general question about writing the Chief Counsel, anyone can ask. BUT...

Be aware that there is a history of folks asking the Chief Counsel operational questions like this one that end up with an answer no one likes (most of us recall the "known ice," Mangiamele and the completely moronic private pilot with a photo hobby letters). They sometimes surprise us but typically, if there is an expansive and restrictive interpretation to be made, it will be the restrictive one.

Often better not to ask.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks. I won't go kick the Chief Counsels sleeping dog.
 
By the way, do chief counsel opinions actually get cited in enforcement cases?
 
Lindberg said:
"Ceiling" is the height of the layer[/] of clouds, not any particular cloud. A broken ceiling is still the ceiling, even if you're under the space between our around the clouds.
Click to expand...


luvflyin said:
This is what I was getting at. Thanks. Is there a ruling or some other documentation that spells that out.
Click to expand...
You mean something like the Pilot Controller Glossary or FAR 1.1? ;)
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
By the way, do chief counsel opinions actually get cited in enforcement cases?
Click to expand...
They do, but not that often. When the opinion letters are referred to, it's typically done as part of a showing that it's not new; that the FAA has held a certain position for some period of time. Or, by the defense for the opposite reason - that the FAA has consistently interpreted something the exact opposite way it is now trying to interpret it. You sometimes see ACs, Orders, the AIM and other "non-regulatory" material cited in this same way.

For a short example, there's the Super Bowl party case which, if you recall, involved a pilot who helped out a friend by transporting his customers to his Bar & Grill. The case ultimately held that the pilots expectation of future good will was compensation (that silly result may be why you will remember it).

Anyway, it contains the following in discussing the pilots position:

However, he misperceives the definition of compensation
long-established through the Administrator's interpretations and
NTSB case law. (emphasis added)​


And, while not strictly an enforcement action, the FlyteNow case has a lot of references to interpretation letters by both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top