Recreational Operation in Class B Airspace

Class Bravo carries it's own set of rules (some are the same as other classes but some are not) and this one is for ALL aircraft (which UAS are indeed now aircraft):

§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.
(a)Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with § 91.129 and the following rules:


(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.
 
Show me where I'm wrong. Really. I'm wanting someone to give me an actual rule or even a subtle inference. I proclaim that flying my UAS at 10 feet AGL just outside of LAX property is not illegal. If you think different, quote chapter and verse, the actual law.
If you want to be shown where you're wrong simply read the thread. Flying a UAS at 10' AGL outside of LAX is clearly illegal (without ATC approval) and the actual statute has been referenced multiple times (post #12 for example.)

That said, at some airports Class B 'to the ground' airspace is extensive and does that mean that a UAS cannot be flown at rooftop level or below anywhere in that entire area, even miles from the airport? In practical terms perhaps not, but by the letter of the law yes, it is illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crack The Sky
If we are to believe that 91.131 is applicable then we must also observe 191.129 (Class D airspace) and 191,130 (Class C airspace) as they are for all aircraft too. Yet we don't. Neither do we observe a slew of other Part 91 items, like 91.155 (weather minimums).

Only Part 101.1(a)(5), 101.41 and 101.43 are for recreational use. Specifically 101 Subpart E which states :

§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: ...

Model aircraft have their own section. Just like Kites, Model rockets and Balloons. And you know what? The only rule that is prescribed for model aircraft is 101.43:

§101.43 Endangering the safety of the National Airspace System.
No person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

That's it. One actual rule, if you meet the requirements.
 
If you want to be shown where you're wrong simply read the thread. Flying a UAS at 10' AGL outside of LAX is clearly illegal (without ATC approval) and the actual statute has been referenced multiple times (post #12 for example.)

No. There is no statute shown there, in post #12. Or anywhere. Just some words that are on a web page. It is not in 14 CFR, nor a NOTAM nor Federal Register nor Public Law.

Words on a web page do not make it a law or regulation. There are formal methods needed for making and amending laws and rules. This has not been done. Simple as that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcope
It is not in 14 CFR, nor a NOTAM nor Federal Register nor Public Law.

Words on a web page do not make it a law or regulation. There are formal methods needed for making and amending laws and rules. This has not been done. Simple as that.
Well if there is no actual statue specifying that Class B airspace is special in that it requires authorization (vs. notification) for recreational flying then yes, I would have to agree with you. The statement "recreational operations are not permitted in Class B airspace around most major airports without specific air traffic permission and coordination" seems very clear and certainly implies that a statute exists to back it up, but perhaps we are wrongly assuming that is the case... and if not then yes, one does wonder where the basis is? Did the author of the web page perhaps have recreational and Part 107 operations confused?

If there is no actual regulation then we are back to my original post where I asked the same question as Dave... where's the beef? What specific statute prohibits recreational UAV ops in Class B airspace (or differentiates Class B space as special or distinct from any other controlled airspace)?
 
Last edited:
Well I guess my take is this... the only prohibition I have ever seen for recreational flying in Class B space is the verbiage on the single web page referenced above which I am not certain is correct. Until and unless I can find a specific statute backing it up I don't see any reason to presuppose a blanket prohibition against Class B airspace for recreational activities. I would not be cavalier about it of course and my SOP will be to treat it the same as any controlled airspace, i.e. if I am operating within 5 miles of a Class B airport I will provide notification of my intent to fly (vs. asking for clearance.) If ATC takes the step of actively denying permission then I would respect that as I would in any other case, otherwise I will conduct the flight under normal recreational UAV guidelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcope
Sorry, I just stumbled upon your question and really did not read any further. I would love to know what they mean by "Most major airports". I have been dealing with the FAA for 40 years and from my experience, every question they answer, creates (2) more questions.

Whenever I see the term "major airport" in a FAA document, I generally assume they're talking about the ones listed in Appendix D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon900
Class Bravo carries it's own set of rules (some are the same as other classes but some are not) and this one is for ALL aircraft (which UAS are indeed now aircraft):

§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.
(a)Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with § 91.129 and the following rules:


(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.

Folks - Big Al hit the nail on the head. This is as clear as it could be. All I can say is if hobbyists want to pretend to be bar room lawyers and make their own interpretation of the FARs, we'll see a day where all drone operations will fall under FAR 107 (my 2 cents).
 
All I can say is if hobbyists want to pretend to be bar room lawyers and make their own interpretation of the FARs, we'll see a day where all drone operations will fall under FAR 107 (my 2 cents).

It's just a matter of time before there is either an incident (hopefully not) or before Congress goes back and removes their mandate from 2012 excluding hobbyists from new rules and regulations. I seriously doubt the lobbyist will even touch this issue the next time it comes to the table given the mere pressure the buzz word DRONE carries with it. Once Congress repeals that then all of us will fall under one portion of the FAA FARs or another whether you like it or not.
 
Sorry to bring this back up, but I needed help with this. I have a personal use drone and would like to fly it to capture some images of commencement ceremonies for a high school (family is graduating). The school has granted permission with one caveat; any footage obtained should also be turned over to them to use for their purposes (likely a little video for the next year's ceremonies). Due to the location from Philadelphia International Airport (Class B) and falling within the 5-mile range I was wondering if there was anything I could do to get it off the ground legally (the waiver isn't really an option since the commencement is next week and it requires a 90 day approval period). I was looking to keep the drone below 50 ft from ground level (Below the tree line that surrounds the graduation location). Any advice?
 
Last edited:
Sorry to bring this back up, but I needed help with this. I have a personal use drone and would like to fly it to capture some images of commencement ceremonies for a high school (family is graduating). The school has granted permission with one caveat; any footage obtained should also be turned over to them to use for their purposes (likely a little video for the next year's ceremonies). Due to the location from Philadelphia International Airport (Class B) and falling within the 5-mile range I was wondering if there was anything I could do to get it off the ground legally (the waiver isn't really an option since the commencement is next week and it requires a 90 day approval period). I was looking to keep the drone below 50 ft from ground level (Below the tree line that surrounds the graduation location). Any advice?

I believe the school's request would make this a part 107 flight. Were it to be a recreational flight, however, a more precise location would be helpful so a sectional can be matched. Class B doesn't always go to the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon900
It is in Woodbury Heights, NJ. Gateway Regional High School. The school though didn't request the flight, I did. They just want some of the footage (no cost). It gets very hairy I know.
 
Sorry to bring this back up, but I needed help with this. I have a personal use drone and would like to fly it to capture some images of commencement ceremonies for a high school (family is graduating). The school has granted permission with one caveat; any footage obtained should also be turned over to them to use for their purposes (likely a little video for the next year's ceremonies). Due to the location from Philadelphia International Airport (Class B) and falling within the 5-mile range I was wondering if there was anything I could do to get it off the ground legally (the waiver isn't really an option since the commencement is next week and it requires a 90 day approval period). I was looking to keep the drone below 50 ft from ground level (Below the tree line that surrounds the graduation location). Any advice?

Surface Class B and within 5 miles of KPHL makes this difficult from a recreational and Part 107 perspective. I'm not sure that there is much at all that you can do to fly legally at short notice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon900
You've already soiled your "Recreational" declaration because:

A) Class Bravo airspace
B) You've already stated the only way they will allow you to fly their ceremony is to "pay" them with your pics and video which they will use to "promote" their organization.

I'd leave the drone at home and enjoy the ceremony like everyone else. Plus our drones tend to distract people's attention especially when we're less than 150' in the air. I don't think I'd want a drone flying at 50' at my graduation/wedding etc.
 
With all the back and forth about what is "legal" and what is not per different interpretations of the FAR's and statements, do not overlook the fact that since we have trouble agreeing on what is what, think about he local authority who thinks he knows the rules and decides to give you a hard time. It doesn't matter if you are legal or not, what he decides to do can upset your whole day. You are not going to win the argument of the moment with him.
 
I want to respond to this thread because it came up while I was doing some searches on a related topic and it doesn't appear that anyone was satisfied with a particular answer. My credentials are CFI/CFII, Remote Pilot Certificate, airplane owner and operator, drone owner and operator and Juris Doctor Candidate (graduating this May). Note: I cannot provide legal advice, and this should not be construed as such.

TL;DR - The statute that you would be violating if you are operating a model aircraft for recreational purposes beyond 5 miles from the primary airport associated with Class B airspace yet within the Class B airspace itself without authorization to do so would indeed be 14 C.F.R. § 91.131 (or, as has been said, through § 101.43 utilizing § 91.131 as indicia of endangering the NAS).

The following is from the FAA's "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" which is located here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

As discussed above, if a model aircraft is operated consistently with the terms of section 336(a) and (c), then it would not be subject to future FAA regulations regarding model aircraft. However, Congress also recognized the potential for such operations to endanger other aircraft and systems of the NAS. Therefore, it specifically stated that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(b).
...
Reading the broad reference to the NAS, along with Congress’ clear interest in ensuring that model aircraft are safely operated, we conclude that Congress intended for the FAA to be able to rely on a range of our existing regulations to protect users of the airspace and people and property on the ground. Therefore, regardless of whether a model aircraft satisfies the statutory definition and operational requirements described above, if the model aircraft is operated in such a manner that endangers the safety of the NAS, the FAA may take enforcement action consistent with Congress’ mandate.

IV. Examples of Regulations That Apply to Model Aircraft

The FAA could apply several regulations in part 91 when determining whether to take enforcement action against a model aircraft operator for endangering the NAS. The FAA's general operating and flight rules are housed in part 91 of the FAA's regulations. These rules are the baseline rules that apply to all aircraft operated in the United States with limited exceptions, and are the appropriate rules to apply when evaluating model aircraft operations.
...
Rules governing operations in designated airspace are found in §§ 91.126 through 91.135. In general, those rules establish requirements for operating in the various classes of airspace, and near airports in non-designated airspace to minimize risk of collision in higher traffic airspace. Generally, if an operator is unable to comply with the regulatory requirements for operating in a particular class of airspace, the operator would need authorization from air traffic control to operate in that area.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
We have two long established fields that predate the construction of Denver international airport and fall within the class B surface area. One is a sod farm that hosts RC soaring. The other is a club field. Years ago when FAA rule making and section 336 were being contemplated both clubs contacted the tower and local FAA officials. They actually made a trip to the glider field to observe operations. The officials had clear concerns in addition to the questions regarding class B airspace operations. Through considerate conversations we were able to address all concerns. We, for now, are continuing to operate as we have for the last 23 years since the airport opened. All who fly here however are aware of just how tenuous our freedoms to fly here are. We self regulate and watch very closely those who fly at our fields. There is a lot more to it than I have brought up here but suffice to say that I am of the opinion that there is no specific prohibition against flying under part 101 in class B airspace. It has been written there is much confusion with the current legal framework and some of that has indeed been promulgated by the FAA when guidance and rules are conflated.

We can argue ad infinitum about the state of sUAS regulation. I see problems and inconsistencies in the current situation myself but am happy that for the time being part 101 fliers are free to operate largely as they have for many decades. Still there are many groups aligned against keeping section 336 in the law when the congress eventually gets around to re-authorizing the FAA. I fear it will go away, and once that happens the FAA will be free to fully regulate recreational fliers. They often use terms like "integrating sUAS into the NAS" in complete and willful ignorance of the fact that recreational sUAS have been a part of the NAS long before the FAA even existed. When the FAA started talking about rules for recreational sUAS back in the 2000's several restrictions that would lead to the elimination of various aspects of our hobby. It was this unwillingness to WORK with the AMA that lead the organization to push congress for protections from the FAA's clear draconian intent. The various recreational sUAS hobby sectors have been at times hostile and careless of each others interests until now. If we are to have ANY chance of defending our flying freedoms in the future that needs to change. I have and continue to encourage all sUAS users to engage others beyond their focus in pursuit of finding this common ground we'll all need before long.

FWIW I have been flying commercially from this same airport since it opened in 1995. There has never been a single instance of interference from either of the established fields I spoke of earlier with the full scale operations out of DIA with modelers flying under the auspices of the AMA's safety code. Sadly the same can not be said for a few FPV pilots in recent years. I'm of the belief that our airspace can be shared fully by all manner of operators as long as they come to the table with adult and rational positions. In this vein I find I can honestly and confidently advocate for the interests of both manned and unmanned communities. It falls on each and every one of us who values our hobby to not only act responsibly while in the NAS but also to do what we can to educate others. My tolerance for those who intentionally threaten either the safety of the NAS or the future of my hobby through illegal and stupid behavior like the recent incident in Las Vegas is ZERO.
 
Steven Graham: I would say that your unique situation is an example of having, at the very least, implied authorization to operate in Class B airspace, but I caution others thinking of extrapolating your situation to their own without taking the steps that you and your clubs took to ensure that you are not endangering the NAS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Regarding operation in Class B airspace for recreational (not Part 107) flying...

For all the lengthy discussion of Class B airports I have been unable to find any written prohibition against recreational drone flying within Class B airspace under 400', beyond the usual 5-mile notification process. DJI has created no-fly zones close (1-2 miles) of certain Class B airports, and while I'm not disputing the value of these I'm still wondering where they came from in terms of a regulatory standpoint? I would not likely choose to fly within a mile or two of any airport but can someone point me to a regulation that says I cannot fly for purely recreational purposes at low altitude and, say, 4 miles from a Class B airport and within Class B airspace? (with notification of course.)

Thanks
This is from the FAA's website:

Airports
Recreational operators are required to give notice for flights within five miles of an airport to both the airport operator and air traffic control tower, if the airport has a tower. However, recreational operations are not permitted in Class B airspace around most major airports without specific air traffic permission and coordination.

Airspace Restrictions
https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/b4ufly/
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,590
Members
104,977
Latest member
wkflysaphan4