FAA 400ft rule

[Former Member07122019a]

My controller reads AGL for my Mavic Pro; with NLD to mod the firmware and local terrain data from USGS, it works beautifully.

I would love to add that mod also.

 

[Jaysjob]

Don't mad just because we're tossing logic and facts at ya. We all like a good debate and we all usually learn something from it (eventually).

I can assure you the FAA hasn't "forgotten/over looked" any portion of this when developing their 400' rule.

Controlled Airspace does deal with ABSOLUTES! That's how we are able to operate aircraft flying many MANY miles per hour, in close proximity to other aircraft, structures, and terrain in a safe and controlled environment. They remove as many variables as is possible and expect EVERYONE to be playing from the same sheet of music. Even thinking, for a moment, that hobby operations should get a "Free Pass" in such an environment is mind boggling.

If your'e going to play in the NAS with the Big Boys you've got to step up to the plate and play by the Big Boy rules.

Jeesh. Kinda harsh.

 

[BigAl07]

A lot was posted between me typing. Seems as though it’s pretty clear the over tower portion was removed for hobbyists. Slightly off topic, night flying, and flying 107 without collecting money?

Hobbyist never had the "Flying over a Structure/Tower" provision. This has been Part 107/Section 333 provisions for "working" in Controlled Airspace. Part 107 is about a lot more than just the "Exchange of $$". Anything that isn't Hobby or Government falls under Part 107.

There is no restrictions (as of yet) for Night Flight as a hobbyist. Part 107 have the provision for getting a Daylight Waiver ~107.29 and this may change in the not too distant future.

I have no real use case for any of these things currently. I am just trying to become informed. In case I take a trip and what to get some shots I want to be informed and safe. I can’t see how getting part 107 will not increase my understanding. But am uncertain if that will prohibit night flight. I live near a city and am on a hill. Putting it up 50ft has some amazing pictures at night. There are hospitals with helicopters near by. But the buildings they land on are pretty far and much higher. Those are my immediate concerns about learning more about 107.

Getting your Part 107 is a HUGE step in becoming informed about NAS and FAA Regulations. I can't see any reason not to if you're planning to be a safe and informed operator in the National Airspace System.

Getting your Part 107 doesn't prohibit flight because a Part 107 operator can still fly under HOBBY rules if so inclined. One caveat is you can't use the "I didn't know that was a Rule/Law/Regulation" excuse because you're been exposed to and TESTED on the rules.

 

[BigAl07]

The 400 ft. rule is almost impossible to work in around my area. We live in heavy mountains, and I can fly a 400 ft for a very short distance, then hit a mountain. Yeah, I know I can fly up at that mountain, but then I'm way too high on the other side. Where I fly is so hilly that airplanes just don't come around here at anything less than 5000 feet or so. I know it's breaking rules, but I don't think the drone would be any safer flying into someone's living room, up on a hill.

Sorry but I'm calling NEGATIVE on that one. I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains and fly just about every single day (weather permitting). While I'm confident there are times when I allow the aircraft to get slightly above 400' as I crest a hill etc I always do my best to stay legal and SAFE within my ability. Does my aircraft hit an actual 401-450' AGL? I'd say so but not intentionally and if I even suspect it's about to happen or HAS happened I immediately take action to correct it. Safety in the NAS isn't flying where you think/feel it's ok to bust the regs. You never know when a legal, safe, and justified manned aircraft is going to be flying less than your expected height. We are at the bottom of the totem pole for a good reason.

Anything less is irresponsible IMHO.

 

[BigAl07]

Jeesh. Kinda harsh.

Harsh? Come on man... we're talking about Real World situations and sUAS interferring with manned aircraft that have living and breathing souls on board. If that seems harsh you should hear how this conversation goes on in the Real-World without the keyboard . . .

 

[Marko9219]

it is a shame that the height readout on the app screen is only giving you height above take off point and not the AGL height where the drone actually is during flight ,not so much an issue in reasonably flat terrain in VLOS and i bet people have been caught out thinking that they are flying under 400ft AGL when in fact they are really above that

How on Earth would our drones do that?!? The military spends thousand and thousands of dollars on their aircraft to do that very thing, using radar altimetery systems. I have very little trust in USGS topography data around mountains.

 

[sar104]

How on Earth would our drones do that?!? The military spends thousand and thousands of dollars on their aircraft to do that very thing, using radar altimetery systems.

If the firmware or app included a suitably resolved digital elevation model then it could use that to calculate altitude AGL.

 

[Marko9219]

I live at the base 9,000 foot mountain range. I frequently fly over to the mountain, climb the mountain face to the max altitude our drones will go (something like 16 hundred and a few odd feet) park the drone there and shoot amazing sunset shots out over the Great Salt Lake of Utah. However, my drone never exceeds about 75-100 ft above the dirt the entire flight. In fact, I'll bet it stays closer to 50' AGL the entire time.

 

[BigAl07]

I live at the base 9,000 foot mountain range. I frequently fly over to the mountain, climb the mountain face to the max altitude our drones will go (something like 16 hundred and a few odd feet) park the drone there and shoot amazing sunset shots out over the Great Salt Lake of Utah. However, my drone never exceeds about 75-100 ft above the dirt the entire flight. In fact, I'll bet it stays closer to 50' AGL the entire time.

Well stated. Some of my most appreciated (and most sold for the most $$) pictures I've ever taken were sitting at 1,620 over my launch point but were roughly 250' AGL..... Climbed up the mountain face (almost vertically) and the FW hard limit was barely high enough to get to the top to take the needed pictures. At the highest point on the mountain I would estimate my AGL was maybe 50' and I could go no higher but I didn't NEED to either

 

[Marko9219]

If the firmware or app included a suitably resolved digital elevation model then it could use that to calculate altitude AGL.

But, digital data is notoriously inaccurate around mountains. You might be reading 200 ft AGL based on the digital mapping data but actually flying at 400 ft.

 

[sar104]

But, digital data is notoriously inaccurate around mountains. You might be reading 200 ft AGL based on the digital mapping data but actually flying at 400 ft.

Not sure where you are, but it's pretty good around here which is why autonomous Litchi missions programmed AGL work well. The uncertainty, from a flight point of view, tends to be the vegetation (or structures in an urban environment). And it would certainly be more useful than height above the takeoff location.

 

[dawgpilot]

A lot was posted between me typing. Seems as though it’s pretty clear the over tower portion was removed for hobbyists. Slightly off topic, night flying, and flying 107 without collecting money?

I have no real use case for any of these things currently. I am just trying to become informed. In case I take a trip and what to get some shots I want to be informed and safe. I can’t see how getting part 107 will not increase my understanding. But am uncertain if that will prohibit night flight. I live near a city and am on a hill. Putting it up 50ft has some amazing pictures at night. There are hospitals with helicopters near by. But the buildings they land on are pretty far and much higher. Those are my immediate concerns about learning more about 107.

If you have your 107 remote pilot certificate, there is no requirement that you be collecting money to fly under those rules. You also are allowed to choose to fly under the recreational rules for an entire flight even if you have your 107 certificate. Recreational users don't have the night flight prohibition.

 

[kensteele]

If you have your 107 remote pilot certificate, there is no requirement that you be collecting money to fly under those rules. You also are allowed to choose to fly under the recreational rules for an entire flight even if you have your 107 certificate. Recreational users don't have the night flight prohibition.

so how exactly does that work. if you are a 107 pilot and you can choose to fly recreational, how come you cannot choose to fly recreational and fly at night? are you saying you just can't do commercial work at night (without a waiver)?

imo, the faa is probably the only organization that will recognize a 107 pilot as having recreational capabilities, no?

 

[dawgpilot]

so how exactly does that work. if you are a 107 pilot and you can choose to fly recreational, how come you cannot choose to fly recreational and fly at night? are you saying you just can't do commercial work at night (without a waiver)?

You can chose to fly recreationally and thus at night without a waiver. Ken Heron did a video on this here.

Commercial work would require flying under Part 107 rules and thus would require a waiver.

imo, the faa is probably the only organization that will recognize a 107 pilot as having recreational capabilities, no?

I don't understand your question here.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Talk about beating a dead horse.

 

[Former Member07122019a]

Talk about beating a dead horse.

No kidding. As with most groups that deal with technology, the arrogance / snark is off the charts. I see this in my field constantly (software engineering).
Fly safe folks. Use common sense. If folks do that, everyone will be fine. No splitting hairs over hypothetical scenarios required.

 

[AMann]

Well stated. Some of my most appreciated (and most sold for the most $$) pictures I've ever taken were sitting at 1,620 over my launch point but were roughly 250' AGL..... Climbed up the mountain face (almost vertically) and the FW hard limit was barely high enough to get to the top to take the needed pictures. At the highest point on the mountain I would estimate my AGL was maybe 50' and I could go no higher but I didn't NEED to either

As we often have low flying military helicopters and Ospreys flying over our area as they transfer between Ft Pendleton and MCAGCC in 29 Palms, in addition to private planes practicing aerobatics in the same uncontrolled airspaces where I fly, I keep it very low when I crest a hill above where I am standing due to the fact that you never know, can’t see nor hear what is going to come over it from the other side!

 

[drvrbob]

OK, now I’m confused. As both recreational and commercial pilots could do before, if you’re a recreational pilot standing at the base of a cliff wall or mountain that is higher than 400’ above you, wouldn’t you need to stay within 400 feet from the side of it in order to be able to fly higher than 400’ above you?

As a hobbyist now, your at the base of a 600 ft vertical cliff. From the base the hobbyist can only fly 400 ft straight up.

 

[sar104]

As a hobbyist now, your at the base of a 600 ft vertical cliff. From the base the hobbyist can only fly 400 ft straight up.

The FAA never clarified this with respect to terrain (only structures) even for Part 107, so the same argument could be applied there. Of course if the cliff has any slope at all then you can get to the top without exceeding 400 ft AGL. I suspect that climbing it staying reasonably close to the cliff would be fine, since there obviously won't be any air traffic to conflict with.

 

[AMann]

The FAA never clarified this with respect to terrain (only structures) even for Part 107, so the same argument could be applied there. Of course if the cliff has any slope at all then you can get to the top without exceeding 400 ft AGL. I suspect that climbing it staying reasonably close to the cliff would be fine, since there obviously won't be any air traffic to conflict with.

...and once someone gets to the top of a hill or cliff above where they are standing, it really isn't safe to climb very high above it if you cant visually see the other side.