Can request permission to go over 500m agl from the FAA?

[Zbip57]

Why are you so stuck on the exact 400'AGL? To go up the mountainside you have Up To 400' to work with. From 0'AGL to 400'AGL you just have to stay under 400'AGL.

It's not so much the normal 400' AGL that I'm stuck on. I'm on board with that. It's to keep a 100' vertical buffer between unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft which shouldn't be flying lower than 500' AGL.

What I'm stuck on is why there should be any difference between FAA's recreational versus commercial flyers with respect to the extra 400' height allowed over structures as long as you stay within a 400' radius of the structure, or why that 400' horizontal distance shouldn't apply equally to flying off the edge of a 500' high cliff.

If manned aircraft need to stay either 500' above structures, or 500' horizontally away, then drones should be permitted to safely use the airspace up to 400' above and within a 400' horizontal radius.

I understand what you're saying here, if the 400' is always measured vertically. But the height allowance extends to everything within a 400' horizontal radius around the structure. I'm not following the logic why this should apply only to Part 107 and not to all classes of drone flyers.

Imagine a 400' rope suspended from the bottom of the aircraft. If at any time that rope isn't touching the ground the aircraft is higher than 400'AGL and in violation. For Hobby you can't use the height of the structure to increase the AGL limit. If it's a 500' high building the UAS can't fly up to the top and over because at 401' they are now in violation.

It does apply equally to all drone flyers in Canada, with the exception that here you're allowed to go only 100' higher above structures and cannot go outside a 200' radius from the structure.

I used to work in regulation enforcement with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety, the equivalent to your NHTSA. We'd get into long battles with lawyers who twisted the wording of regulations to suit their own interpretations. I hate ambiguously worded regulations, or regulations that make no sense.

 

[Zbip57]

I think a more reasonable interpretation would be that you should always remain within 400' distance and elevation of the topography, in any direction.

Flying off a 500' cliff should be okay as long as you stay horizontally within 400' of the cliff face.

Let's say you're standing in a forest surrounded by 400' tall trees, but there's a 500' high fire lookout tower. By your interpretation, a recreational flyer would not be permitted to launch their drone from the top of the 500' tower, because they'd immediately be exceeding the 400' AGL limit measured vertically from terra firma.

But the view from the 500' tower shows you the local topography of the surrounding landscape is composed entirely of treetops 100' below your vantage point. With respect to any potential conflict with manned aviation, you are effectively standing only 100' above the local topography. Ergo it is safe to fly from there.

You should be allowed to fly up to 400' above the highest point (the tower) anywhere within a 400' horizontal radius of the tower, or 400' above the treetops everywhere else. That would be a more realistic interpretation, no?

 

[dronerdave]

I think a more reasonable interpretation would be that you should always remain within 400' distance and elevation of the topography, in any direction.

Flying off a 500' cliff should be okay as long as you stay horizontally within 400' of the cliff face.

Let's say you're standing in a forest surrounded by 400' tall trees, but there's a 500' high fire lookout tower. By your interpretation, a recreational flyer would not be permitted to launch their drone from the top of the 500' tower, because they'd immediately be exceeding the 400' AGL limit measured vertically from terra firma.

But the view from the 500' tower shows you the local topography of the surrounding landscape is composed entirely of treetops 100' below your vantage point. With respect to any potential conflict with manned aviation, you are effectively standing only 100' above the local topography. Ergo it is safe to fly from there.

You should be allowed to fly up to 400' above the highest point (the tower) anywhere within a 400' horizontal radius of the tower, or 400' above the treetops everywhere else. That would be a more realistic interpretation, no?

I wish it was that way for recreational flying but it isn't. There are several places I had wished to fly close to steep vertical cliffs. These areas provide unique photographic opportunities but now days doing so would violate the 400 foot rule... no sense to argue about it. I just would like to see that change. Optimistic? Not really but it would be a more logical move IMO.

 

[Bob4131]

Sorry, so many people can not read your entire question but just spout off based on the title of the question. I can not believe the folks going into detail on the 400 ft FAA regulation. You even highlighted you were maintaining <400 ft agl your entire flight.
To answer your question, my DJI Mavic is hard-coded to not fly more than 500m above the launch point. This is a problem for folks trying to fly up mountains in the Rocky Mountains, for example. I believe this is true for all DJI consumer products.
It has nothing to do with the FAA.
I have never requested DJI's help in removing this limitation but I have read others say they were unable to get this limit removed by DJI.
You have 2 options:
1) Use a non-DJI drone.
2a) I believe there is no minimum, so if you can launch from the peak, you can fly down more than 500m.
2b) In many cases, you might be able to get part way up the mountain and launch from there. If you can get within 500m of the peak, this midpoint solution will work. I personally have done (2b) but I realize that isn't always possible.
Good luck and good flying.

 

[dawgpilot]

I think a more reasonable interpretation would be that you should always remain within 400' distance and elevation of the topography, in any direction.

Flying off a 500' cliff should be okay as long as you stay horizontally within 400' of the cliff face.

Let's say you're standing in a forest surrounded by 400' tall trees, but there's a 500' high fire lookout tower. By your interpretation, a recreational flyer would not be permitted to launch their drone from the top of the 500' tower, because they'd immediately be exceeding the 400' AGL limit measured vertically from terra firma.

But the view from the 500' tower shows you the local topography of the surrounding landscape is composed entirely of treetops 100' below your vantage point. With respect to any potential conflict with manned aviation, you are effectively standing only 100' above the local topography. Ergo it is safe to fly from there.

You should be allowed to fly up to 400' above the highest point (the tower) anywhere within a 400' horizontal radius of the tower, or 400' above the treetops everywhere else. That would be a more realistic interpretation, no?

That might be your idea of a reasonable rule, but that's not how the rule is written today. It seems like the FAA / Congress didn't really spend much time thinking about how a pilot could legally fly near a cliff face when they drafted the recreational rules. Effectively there are situations where flight is prohibited even though it could probably be done safely.

 

[pilotinstitute]

A quick recap of the 400 foot rule:

As a hobbyist

• You can't fly over 400 feet AGL, period. The "structure" rule is only a rule under Part 107, aka for Remote Pilots.
• In controlled airspace (LAANC), follow the grid numbers, there is no waiver process for hobbyists at the moment to fly higher than the grid numbers published by the FAA.
• In uncontrolled airspace, fly no higher than 400 feet AGL.

As a Remote Pilot

• You can fly 400 feet above the structure, if you're within 400 feet of it, AS LONG AS (important) you are NOT in controlled airspace that requires authorization. If you are, you have to follow the altitude you were approved for, and no higher. If you were approved for 200ft AGL, you can't go 400 feet over a structure. It says that in your LAANC authorization.
• In controlled airspace, a waiver process is available to fly higher than the grid numbers, including zero grids.
• In uncontrolled airspace, there's a waiver process to fly over 400 feet AGL, even without structures around. It takes a while but it's possible.
• In uncontrolled airspace, if you use the "structure" rule, be sure it does not take you into controlled airspace (aka Class B, C, or D). Otherwise, you need approval to get in there.

I hope this clarifies it.

 

[Zbip57]

A quick recap of the 400 foot rule:
As a hobbyist [...]
As a Remote Pilot [...]
I hope this clarifies it.

The original poster's questions, about flying up a hillside, have been adequately answered. And the legalities of the FAA's 400 foot rule are clear with respect to the difference between Hobbyist versus Part 107 Remote Pilot. Those FAA rules would apply to the original's poster's question as he is located in Vermont.

That said, I still think that FAA rule is non-sensical as written.

Originally the limit was 400 ft AGL, period. Then someone quite rightly asked the FAA how they might be permitted to do inspections on a microwave tower taller than 400ft. So, some clever regulator only added the "structure" exception into the Part 107 rules, since obviously hobbyists shouldn't be doing inspections anyway. Easy-peasy, that all makes sense...

Except it doesn't.

For example, take this pyramid-shaped hill. Any hobbyist would be permitted to fly up, over, and down this hill, as long as they never exceed the 400 ft AGL limit (or climbed into a higher altitude controlled air space). Dragging the hypothetical 400ft long string, as long as the string touches the ground all the way, you're good to go.




So what if, instead of a hill composed of terra firma, someone (in Vermont) constructed an Egyptian pyramid of the same shape? Now it's a "structure", no longer a hill. The FAA says Hobbyists cannot exceed 400 ft above "ground", and therefore hobbyists are not permitted to overfly this "structure".

Why does that make any sense? Why can any hobbyist fly over a hill of this shape, but not over a similarly shaped structure?




A Part 107 Remote Pilot would be permitted to fly the extra 400 ft vertically above the structure, while staying within a 400 ft horizontal radius.



In contrast, here in Canada there no longer is any distinction between Recreational or Commercial drone pilots The "structure" allowance applies equally to everyone. However, Transport Canada's version of the structure rule is also flawed.

Rather than copying the FAA's 400' vertical allowance within a 400' horizontal radius of the structure, Canada's regulation allows only an extra 100' vertical height within a 200' horizontal radius.

That means, here in Canada everyone is allowed to fly their drone 400' above the pyramid-shaped hill, but only 100' above a similar pyramid-shaped "structure". That also makes no sense whatsoever.