HELP!!! Using 400' AGL as my ceiling hypothetically

[BigAl07]

Wow. Really?

Could you elaborate on the basis of your question?

 

[dronerdave]

Wow. Really?

This image isn't exactly to scale but you disagree??? IMHO I doubt if you strayed off course and go a few feet past the 400' limit that the FAA would be very critical of your flight, but as mentioned, if your flight causes an incident, I'd rather be in compliance for obvious reasons. The OP seems to be thinking clearly by simply adding an extra 50 foot buffer in the flight plan. Seems like a good Idea to me.

 

[MS Coast]

This image isn't exactly to scale but you disagree??? IMHO I doubt if you strayed off course and go a few feet past the 400' limit that the FAA would be very critical of your flight, but as mentioned, if your flight causes an incident, I'd rather be in compliance for obvious reasons. The OP seems to be thinking clearly by simply adding an extra 50 foot buffer in the flight plan. Seems like a good Idea to me.

View attachment 151138

Well done and very clear.

Looks like one minor glitch. The green line should have descended through the middle of the first arrow marked 400 rather than extending past it.


Well

 

[EpicFlight]

This image isn't exactly to scale but you disagree???

With bullying an FAA employee?

Yes, I disagree. Strongly.

 

[dirkclod]

With bullying an FAA employee?

Yes, I disagree. Strongly.

Sorry I must have missed where he was bullying a FAA employee.

 

[EpicFlight]

...and please indicate the FAA employee who stated you could fly 500' AGL over the edge of a cliff (Part 107 or not).

For the record, I'm a FAAST member too.

 

[dirkclod]

He wasn’t bullying just trying to find out who was giving out wrong information.

 

[BigAl07]

For the record, I'm a FAAST member too.

To be honest, that makes your comments even more troubling. We are to lead by example . . .

 

[BigAl07]

With bullying an FAA employee?

Yes, I disagree. Strongly.

Bullying? LOL appreciate the comedy relief.

Hardly bullying in the least... it's a matter of getting in contact with the person giving the erroneous information and giving them the proper information so they give CREDIBLE and LEGAL advice. We all make mistakes and until we are told otherwise we keep repeating those mistakes.

 

[EpicFlight]

To be honest, that makes your comments even more troubling. We are to lead by example . . .

I'm not surprised you see it that way.

From the beginning I've not once said you were wrong about what the regs say.

What I've said is laws can not perfectly anticipate every possible circumstance, that officials thereby exercise discretion in enforcement, and that the scenario under discussion would never be punished.

If some FAA Poindexter saw this occur, and pursued an action against the citizen, a judge would laugh it out of court.

Just like a speeding ticket for going 2mph over the limit.

Your response to this was to AFFIRM EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ("The laws are interpreted very narrowing but unless there is an incident you're not going to see any type of "attention" from enforcement").

First, that's a contradiction, unless you mean something different from "interpreted very narrowly" than enforced without discretion, which is what it means to me (narrowly == without exceptions).

Al, is there any way to reset your hostility toward me? I don't get it. It screams from your posts. You YELL at me regularly when I'm just trying to join the dialog. What's going on?

As I was saying the same thing as you, but in a less formal, scolding way, it's puzzling why you reacted the way you do.

What I do disagree with you on is you yelling that it's DANGEROUS to tell people that FAA officials are reasonable, and exercise discretion where the rules clearly don't anticipate the circumstances. I find that reaction to be hysteria.

 

[EpicFlight]

Bullying? LOL appreciate the comedy relief.

Hardly bullying in the least... it's a matter of getting in contact with the person giving the erroneous information and giving them the proper information so they give CREDIBLE and LEGAL advice. We all make mistakes and until we are told otherwise we keep repeating those mistakes.

And this is where you and I are butting heads. You think "legal" is confined to the letter of the law/regulation/rule. Therefore stating anything otherwise is wrong, and dangerous.

You couldn't be more wrong about the law, and what is legal. As one example, every ruling by any judge or administrator in resolving a question like the one here would become part of the law, but the US Code would not be updated to reflect that, nor will FAAST Members be informed of every ruling.

I just wrote Patricia Mathes, FAA Safety Team National Manager, with some questions about the FAAST program, the role and expectations for FAAST Representatives and how they comport themselves when interacting with public on aviation safety concerns. Included a link to this thread.

It'll be interesting to see what she says.

 

[DoomMeister]

The rules are not interpreted that narrowly here. You can fly up and over the cliff face without concern.

That sort of unintended flaw in a complex regulatory scheme occurs all the time. It's obviously NOT what the regulators intended. This is why we have judges, if any LEO were stupid enough to nitpick like that.

This is not legally acceptable at this point in time. You are not allowed to fly up a sheer cliff in the US.

To my knowledge the only manned aircraft that can fly that close to a sheer cliff air hang gliders, powered chutes, and helicopters.

@Vic Moss , @pilotinstitute , or @BigAl07 please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

This image isn't exactly to scale but you disagree??? IMHO I doubt if you strayed off course and go a few feet past the 400' limit that the FAA would be very critical of your flight, but as mentioned, if your flight causes an incident, I'd rather be in compliance for obvious reasons. The OP seems to be thinking clearly by simply adding an extra 50 foot buffer in the flight plan. Seems like a good Idea to me.

View attachment 151138

What is the purpose of the red lines? .....oooo....illegal flight pathes perhaps? The proximity to the 1640ft threw me and it took a while to spot the green drone

 

[MS Coast]

I'm not surprised you see it that way.

From the beginning I've not once said you were wrong about what the regs say.

What I've said is laws can not perfectly anticipate every possible circumstance, that officials thereby exercise discretion in enforcement, and that the scenario under discussion would never be punished.

If some FAA Poindexter saw this occur, and pursued an action against the citizen, a judge would laugh it out of court.

Just like a speeding ticket for going 2mph over the limit.

Your response to this was to AFFIRM EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ("The laws are interpreted very narrowing but unless there is an incident you're not going to see any type of "attention" from enforcement").

First, that's a contradiction, unless you mean something different from "interpreted very narrowly" than enforced without discretion, which is what it means to me (narrowly == without exceptions).

Al, is there any way to reset your hostility toward me? I don't get it. It screams from your posts. You YELL at me regularly when I'm just trying to join the dialog. What's going on?

As I was saying the same thing as you, but in a less formal, scolding way, it's puzzling why you reacted the way you do.

What I do disagree with you on is you yelling that it's DANGEROUS to tell people that FAA officials are reasonable, and exercise discretion where the rules clearly don't anticipate the circumstances. I find that reaction to be hysteria.

Good afternoon. A few days ago, you a made similar, but milder, comment to my post about the regulation. In that case, you were seeing disagreement and an absurd viewpoint that did not exist. It appears to me that you're doing the same here, only far more severely and more offensively.

No one is suggesting that the FAA should punish trivial violations of regulations.

Examine your words in these posts. Hostility. Screams. YELL. DANGEROUS. Hysteria. Bullying. I see none of that in any of the texts @BigAl07 posted.

Let's be civil here, please.

 

[EpicFlight]

This is not legally acceptable at this point in time. You are not allowed to fly up a sheer cliff in the US.

To my knowledge the only manned aircraft that can fly that close to a sheer cliff air hang gliders, powered chutes, and helicopters.

@Vic Moss , @pilotinstitute , or @BigAl07 please correct me if I am wrong.

Have reviewed all relevant court and administrative rulings to make this statement so definitively?

And is the letter of the law solely what defines what is legal?

I'm all for following the law, and absolutely for safety. However I don't believe bullying and trying to scare people that they're going to be behaving dangerously if they make a completely harmless technical violation of the rules advances either objective. This is lying at worst, obnoxious nannyism at it's best.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

You are not allowed to fly up a sheer cliff in the US.

Just to avoid confusion does that apply to manned planes or drones or.....?
I saw what you said about choppers, powered chutes and hang gliders so ignore them if you answer.

 

[Daytona500]

WOW we really need beating a dead horse Icon

 

[DoomMeister]

Just to avoid confusion does that apply to manned planes or drones or.....?
I saw what you said about choppers, powered chutes and hang gliders so ignore them if you answer.

If I am reading CFR 14 §91.119 properly that distance would be 500’ unless over a congested area (yellow on sectional maps) then it would be 2000’.

 

[DoomMeister]

WOW we really need beating a dead horse Icon

If the horse stayed dead there would be no need, but he keeps rearing his head.

 

[dirkclod]

If the horse stayed dead there would be no need, but he keeps rearing his head.

Not no mre he’s on vacation