height limit

[Afremont]

I tend to agree with crystal pete, why take chances. If pilots continue to point fingers at drones, and hobbyists continue to post videos of ridiculous altitude flying, the final law will punish us all. If I lived in rural Indiana, I might not be all that concerned about exceeding 400'. Otoh, I live in the outskirts of Houston with fields and helipads everywhere along with two international airports. The FAA absolutely requires that manned aircraft fly above 1000' + the height of any obstructions within a 2000' radius. Is that what I see in practice, absolutely not. I see traffic and lifeflight helicopters regularly barely making 500', if that. If I hit one of them, even though they're the ones violating the law, who is going to take the blame? How will the mass media report the incident?

I'll admit that I was reciting what others had said about the AMA pushing 400' limits and shunning flying at night. I'll have to dig through your links to find if there's any truth to all those claims.

Personally, I don't know of any practical reason for flying above 400' AGL. Maybe there is, but I can't really think of any other than clearing obstructions of that height. There aren't many outside of office buildings and a few antenna towers. I'd just fly around the towers and steer well clear of office building since loss of signal would be quite likely once part of the building was between you and your craft.

Recently, a DJI drone (apparently according to DJI) overflew a baseball stadium filled with people. The owner must have hacked his drone to ignore a TFR and geofencing. Would anyone here defend that behavior? Possibly not, but some jerk really did it and now we all suffer because of it. Is it really too much to ask from people that they use some common sense? Apparently some drone pilots don't have any.

Edit:. There is this:
"Night flying requires a lighting system that provides the pilot with a clear view of the model’s attitude and orientation at all times. Hand-held illumination systems
by themselves are inadequate for night flying operations and must be supplemented with other lighting systems."

How many people violate this on a regular basis? How many people don't live within 3 miles of a designated airfield, airport or helipad?

Edit 2:. The 1000' rule I mentioned applies to populated areas. The 500' rule for manned aircraft that so many like to mention applies only to sparse areas. At any rate flying at 400' when manned aircraft could be at 500' isn't much of a margin. I'd be willing to be that even eagle eyed individuals would have a hard, if not impossible time spotting a whoop drone at 400' AND be able to determine orientation and attitude.

 

[brett8883]

Personally, I don't know of any practical reason for flying above 400' AGL. Maybe there is, but I can't really think of any other than clearing obstructions of that height. There aren't many outside of office buildings and a few antenna towers. I'd just fly around the towers and steer well clear of office building since loss of signal would be quite likely once part of the building was between you and your craft.

Mountains. Flying between mountains
??⛰.

 

[sar104]

I tend to agree with crystal pete, why take chances. If pilots continue to point fingers at drones, and hobbyists continue to post videos of ridiculous altitude flying, the final law will punish us all. If I lived in rural Indiana, I might not be all that concerned about exceeding 400'. Otoh, I live in the outskirts of Houston with fields and helipads everywhere along with two international airports. The FAA absolutely requires that manned aircraft fly above 1000' + the height of any obstructions within a 2000' radius. Is that what I see in practice, absolutely not. I see traffic and lifeflight helicopters regularly barely making 500', if that. If I hit one of them, even though they're the ones violating the law, who is going to take the blame? How will the mass media report the incident?

I'll admit that I was reciting what others had said about the AMA pushing 400' limits and shunning flying at night. I'll have to dig through your links to find if there's any truth to all those claims.

Personally, I don't know of any practical reason for flying above 400' AGL. Maybe there is, but I can't really think of any other than clearing obstructions of that height. There aren't many outside of office buildings and a few antenna towers. I'd just fly around the towers and steer well clear of office building since loss of signal would be quite likely once part of the building was between you and your craft.

Recently, a DJI drone (apparently according to DJI) overflew a baseball stadium filled with people. The owner must have hacked his drone to ignore a TFR and geofencing. Would anyone here defend that behavior? Possibly not, but some jerk really did it and now we all suffer because of it. Is it really too much to ask from people that they use some common sense? Apparently some drone pilots don't have any.

Edit:. There is this:
"Night flying requires a lighting system that provides the pilot with a clear view of the model’s attitude and orientation at all times. Hand-held illumination systems
by themselves are inadequate for night flying operations and must be supplemented with other lighting systems."

How many people violate this on a regular basis? How many people don't live within 3 miles of a designated airfield, airport or helipad?

As I said to a previous poster - if you want to discuss prudent flying habits rather than what the law says then fine. But it doesn't help anyone to misrepresent the law in either direction - it just creates confusion. And if you want to discuss how often the laws are broken then that's fine too, but it's a difficult discussion to have without understanding the law in the first place.

14 CFR Part 101 subpart E is all of 195 words long. The AMA Safety Code is a whopping full page of 345 words. The Safety Handbook is 11 pages, and searchable. There is not a lot to dig through, and every pilot in the US should already be familiar with the contents of all three.

 

[Afremont]

Doesn't the law say to follow a sanctioned body standard, like AMA? Doesn't that mean that the AMA "guidelines" now carry the weight of law?

 

[msinger]

Doesn't the law say to follow a sanctioned body standard, like AMA? Doesn't that mean that the AMA "guidelines" now carry the weight of law?

It states you must follow the safety guidelines of a nationwide community-based organization (CBO). The FAA has no list of approved CBOs at this time. When that list surfaces, I think the AMA will be on it.

 

[deleted member 877]

As I said to a previous poster - if you want to discuss prudent flying habits rather than what the law says then fine. But it doesn't help anyone to misrepresent the law in either direction - it just creates confusion. And if you want to discuss how often the laws are broken then that's fine too, but it's a difficult discussion to have without understanding the law in the first place.

I believe it's more about the essentially irresponsible attitude of those who would say, "Hey, it's only an FAA guideline - it's not law", when they know full well that the 400 ft rule, in particular, is 99.9% likely to be enshrined in LAW in the near future.

The current state of affairs with a lot of this stuff sitting in a state of limbo due to typical governmental inefficiency and lack of due diligence is the only reason that there are gaping loopholes through which opportunists will continue to stupidly jump simply because they can and that it makes them feel powerful.

 

[brett8883]

I believe it's more about the essentially irresponsible attitude of those who would say, "Hey, it's only an FAA guideline - it's not law", when they know full well that the 400 ft rule, in particular, is 99.9% likely to be enshrined in LAW in the near future.

The current state of affairs with a lot of this stuff sitting in a state of limbo due to typical governmental inefficiency and lack of due diligence is the only reason that there are gaping loopholes through which opportunists will continue to stupidly jump simply because they can and that it makes them feel powerful.

Well I could very well be wrong I give it a 50/50 because I didn’t read this whole thing but scanning it over looking for a mention of the height rules I didn’t see any so maybe our friends at the AMA turned the tides on that

FAA New Regulations Proposal

 

[Afremont]

It states you must follow the safety guidelines of a nationwide community-based organization (CBO). The FAA has no list of approved CBOs at this time. When that list surfaces, I think the AMA will be on it.

Does this mean that 101.41(b) doesn't matter until they make a specific list? I somehow think not.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Understood. I have to admit, it was after I got my 107 that I learned that I could also fly as a hobbyist, at night. So I missed NYE footage because I couldn’t get the waiver in time lol...

Not sure if the same in the US, but here in Australia, a commercially licenced UAV pilot, remote pilot licence (RePL), can CHOOSE to fly as a hobbiest . . . any time.
Basically though, hobbyists here and commercial both have the 400' ceiling, you can apply for exemption to fly higher, but need to apply to do so.
This would obviously be a lot easier to get through for RePL holders where they have the right background training under their wing.
I think commercial night flights are allowed with the correct training module tacked onto their RePL, but still have to be applied for with each flight.

 

[sar104]

Doesn't the law say to follow a sanctioned body standard, like AMA? Doesn't that mean that the AMA "guidelines" now carry the weight of law?

Effectively yes - if you don't follow guidelines then you lose the protection of Part 101, and fall under Part 107.

 

[sar104]

Does this mean that 101.41(b) doesn't matter until they make a specific list? I somehow think not.

A specific list of what? Are we still discussing the 400 ft limit question or something else? The AMA Safety Code doesn't mention 400 ft and the handbook only requires less than 400 ft within 3 miles of airports. I'm having a hard time following your line of thought here.

 

[sar104]

Well I could very well be wrong I give it a 50/50 because I didn’t read this whole thing but scanning it over looking for a mention of the height rules I didn’t see any so maybe our friends at the AMA turned the tides on that

FAA New Regulations Proposal

That's for Part 107. You need to look at

49 USC §44809 (a) (6):

In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.​

 

[Afremont]

A specific list of what? Are we still discussing the 400 ft limit question or something else? The AMA Safety Code doesn't mention 400 ft and the handbook only requires less than 400 ft within 3 miles of airports. I'm having a hard time following your line of thought here.

I was responding to another poster when I said that. He stated that there was no official list of sanctioned bodies. You can read his exact wording above.

 

[sar104]

I was responding to another poster when I said that. He stated that there was no official list of sanctioned bodies. You can read his exact wording above.

Right - the FAA declined to produce a list, but have now been required by law to do so.

 

[deleted member 877]

Well I could very well be wrong I give it a 50/50 because I didn’t read this whole thing but scanning it over looking for a mention of the height rules I didn’t see any so maybe our friends at the AMA turned the tides on that

FAA New Regulations Proposal

The 400 ft rule is mentioned - I searched the document (the link in your post) and found the following:-

VII. Section 44807 Statutory Findings
To determine whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44807, the Secretary must find that the operation of the UAS would not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. The Secretary must also determine whether a certificate under 49 U.S.C. 44703 (“Airman certificates”) or section 44704 (“Type certificates, production certificates, and airworthiness certificates, and design and production organization certificates”), or a certificate of waiver or certificate of authorization, is required for the operation of small UAS subject to this proposed rule. Using a risk-based approach, the Secretary proposes to determine that small UAS operations under this proposed rule would operate safely in the NAS; the individual findings section 44807 requires are as follows.

A. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public
Section 44807(b)(1) requires the Secretary to determine which types of small UAS operations, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, operation over people, and operation within or beyond visual line of sight, or operation during the day or night do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. In the 2016 final rule, the Secretary's finding of acceptable risk was based on the following mitigations: Requiring operations to be conducted within visual line of sight; limiting maximum gross weight of the small unmanned aircraft to be 55 pounds; limiting the operating altitude to below 400 feet above ground level (AGL); requiring remote pilots to hold valid, current certificates; defining the area of operation; and prohibiting operations over any person who is not directly participating in the operation. This proposed rule would allow operations over uninvolved people; however, these aircraft would still be required to comply with the other restrictions codified in part 107. The additional hazard posed by operating directly over people would be mitigated through manufacturer requirements and operational restrictions, including limited areas of operation for Category 3 aircraft. This rule would also allow for operations at night. The proposed risk mitigation measures of an illuminated anti-collision light and increased airman knowledge would provide sufficient risk mitigation for such operations.

Accordingly, the Secretary proposes to find that small UAS operations subject to this proposed rule would not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. The FAA invites comments on this proposed finding.

 

[sar104]

The 400 ft rule is mentioned - I searched the document (the link in your post) and found the following:-

VII. Section 44807 Statutory Findings
To determine whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44807, the Secretary must find that the operation of the UAS would not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. The Secretary must also determine whether a certificate under 49 U.S.C. 44703 (“Airman certificates”) or section 44704 (“Type certificates, production certificates, and airworthiness certificates, and design and production organization certificates”), or a certificate of waiver or certificate of authorization, is required for the operation of small UAS subject to this proposed rule. Using a risk-based approach, the Secretary proposes to determine that small UAS operations under this proposed rule would operate safely in the NAS; the individual findings section 44807 requires are as follows.

A. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public
Section 44807(b)(1) requires the Secretary to determine which types of small UAS operations, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, operation over people, and operation within or beyond visual line of sight, or operation during the day or night do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. In the 2016 final rule, the Secretary's finding of acceptable risk was based on the following mitigations: Requiring operations to be conducted within visual line of sight; limiting maximum gross weight of the small unmanned aircraft to be 55 pounds; limiting the operating altitude to below 400 feet above ground level (AGL); requiring remote pilots to hold valid, current certificates; defining the area of operation; and prohibiting operations over any person who is not directly participating in the operation. This proposed rule would allow operations over uninvolved people; however, these aircraft would still be required to comply with the other restrictions codified in part 107. The additional hazard posed by operating directly over people would be mitigated through manufacturer requirements and operational restrictions, including limited areas of operation for Category 3 aircraft. This rule would also allow for operations at night. The proposed risk mitigation measures of an illuminated anti-collision light and increased airman knowledge would provide sufficient risk mitigation for such operations.

Accordingly, the Secretary proposes to find that small UAS operations subject to this proposed rule would not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. The FAA invites comments on this proposed finding.

Yes - but this is referring to Part 107, not recreational.

 

[Afremont]

That's for Part 107. You need to look at

49 USC §44809 (a) (6):

In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.​

So there is a specific requirement (law?) to stay below 400' then in all "uncontrolled" (class g) airspace. This is not a proposed changes, but actual current law, right?

Edit: To clarify, this is for recreational or hobby flying, not part 107.

 

[deleted member 877]

Yes - but this is referring to Part 107, not recreational.

Maybe so but can you seriously suggest that they would limit Part 107 certified pilots to 400 ft but allow reactional drone pilots to go as high as they want? It ain't gonna happen - there will be an amendment or whatever is necessary to make the 400 ft rule universal.

 

[sar104]

So there is a specific requirement (law?) to stay below 400' then in all "uncontrolled" (class g) airspace. This is not a proposed changes, but actual current law, right?

No - that's part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 that was passed by congress, repealing the Special Rule (Public Law 112-95, Section 336) in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and requiring the FAA to regulate recreational flight. We are in the transition period and it has not been implemented. Current regulation is unchanged - 14 CFR Part 101 subpart E.

 

[sar104]

Maybe so but can you seriously suggest that they would limit Part 107 certified pilots to 400 ft but allow reactional drone pilots to go as high as they want? It ain't gonna happen - there will be an amendment or whatever is necessary to make the 400 ft rule universal.

Why is this so hard to understand? I'm not suggesting anything - just read the law yourself. Congress prevented the FAA from regulating recreational flight in 2012 - that was the Special Rule, AKA Section 336.