2018 FAA Reauthorization - Not Good

[JROD]

Yeah that’s why I was wondering. What craft goes above 400 ft at an event, and how often? I’m sure there are waivers as you say that can be applied for. I think we should be more concerned about being under the arm of the FAA.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah that’s why I was wondering. What craft goes above 400 ft at an event, and how often? I’m sure there are waivers as you say that can be applied for. I think we should be more concerned about being under the arm of the FAA.

I'm told some of the jet RCs go well over 400' but it seems they are mainly flown VLOS. Now that this is moving forward, I don't see us reverting back and even though you have an organization like the AMA, the Feds will always play the safety card and gain leverage though the "flying public" who will have the ear of politicians.

 

[EyeFlightDrone]

If a building is 500 feet, I can fly 400 feet above it. That is a total of 900 feet. Is this not correct?

 

[mquinn1963]

There is no ama in CT, USA. What can I do?

Join online...

 

[mquinn1963]

If a building is 500 feet, I can fly 400 feet above it. That is a total of 900 feet. Is this not correct?

NO. I do not believe the height of a building counts? Now someone may prove me wrong but from everything I have read its based on AGL (Above ground level). Now if you were at a 500 foot HIll, you can fly 400 feet about that... Thats what I believe Ive been reading. Anyone else have that info?

 

[cyeung]

NO. I do not believe the height of a building counts? Now someone may prove me wrong but from everything I have read its based on AGL (Above ground level). Now if you were at a 500 foot HIll, you can fly 400 feet about that... Thats what I believe Ive been reading. Anyone else have that info?

The exception applies for people flying under Part 107. Of course, if you had to temporarily deviate from that rule for safety reasons, you can do that too.

Reference: eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations §107.51(b)

 

[sar104]

NO. I do not believe the height of a building counts? Now someone may prove me wrong but from everything I have read its based on AGL (Above ground level). Now if you were at a 500 foot HIll, you can fly 400 feet about that... Thats what I believe Ive been reading. Anyone else have that info?

The "within 400 ft of a structure" is a specific provision in Part 107.51 (b):

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:​

​

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and​

​

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.​

​

Under Part 101 there is no specific altitude restriction since the AMA doesn't have one (except within one mile of airports), and so the issue is mostly moot.

 

[EyeFlightDrone]

Tony northup's video says it does. It is also how I would have answered the question on 107 exam except it never came up. Plus, the AMA, so I think it's settled. If a building was 2000 feet, 2400 feet would be the answer for 107 exam.

 

[sar104]

Tony northup's video says it does. It is also how I would have answered the question on 107 exam except it never came up. Plus, the AMA, so I think it's settled. If a building was 2000 feet, 2400 feet would be the answer for 107 exam.

There is no ambiguity with respect to Part 107 - I included the actual provision in post #27. But you didn't specify whether you were referring to Part 107 or Part 101 in your post, hence the various responses.

 

[Cymruflyer]

NO. I do not believe the height of a building counts? Now someone may prove me wrong but from everything I have read its based on AGL (Above ground level). Now if you were at a 500 foot HIll, you can fly 400 feet about that... Thats what I believe Ive been reading. Anyone else have that info?

That is the correct way to understand the 400 feet rule.

 

[Cymruflyer]

There is no ambiguity with respect to Part 107 - I included the actual provision in post #27. But you didn't specify whether you were referring to Part 107 or Part 101 in your post, hence the various responses.

The 400 feet rule is to keep sepertion of various flying classes. It is to be 400 feet AGL. General aviation as in rec. real flying where you sit in the aircraft and control it, have a minimum altitude to maintain which is no lower than 500 feet unless over water whereby you can take it right down onto the deck but must not fly over people or objects (such as boats and floating huts etc.) or landing or taking off. Flying over cities or built up areas has other minimum flight restrictions that take them higher. Helicopters have other rules as well that pertain to some of their flight paths but there is no point going into every detail here.

So that means that if a drone flyer behaves and obeys the law, and a GA pilot does the same, while flying out in open spaces, we will always have a minimum of 100 feet separation of aircraft and that is the safety buffer. I don't believe that anyone can go on top of a 500 feet tall building and then expect they can fly another 400 feet above that, because the moment they fly outside the actual dimensions, they would be breaking the law, if that were in fact the law, to allow them to fly at 400 feet above the roof top (for part n107, see their 400 ft radius specs.). With that said, there should still be no safety issue because any GA fixed wing pilot would not be flying over a 500 ft. building with just 400 ft below them and the roof top.

 

[tcope]

Thread started talking about new proposed Bill and those rules, thread went to exiting regs and then went to exiting regs confusing hobby vs commercial flying.

People wonder why others get confused about the _actual_ regs.

 

[sar104]

The 400 feet rule is to keep sepertion of various flying classes. It is to be 400 feet AGL. General aviation as in rec. real flying where you sit in the aircraft and control it, have a minimum altitude to maintain which is no lower than 500 feet unless over water whereby you can take it right down onto the deck but must not fly over people or objects (such as boats and floating huts etc.) or landing or taking off. Flying over cities or built up areas has other minimum flight restrictions that take them higher. Helicopters have other rules as well that pertain to some of their flight paths but there is no point going into every detail here.

So that means that if a drone flyer behaves and obeys the law, and a GA pilot does the same, while flying out in open spaces, we will always have a minimum of 100 feet separation of aircraft and that is the safety buffer. I don't believe that anyone can go on top of a 500 feet tall building and then expect they can fly another 400 feet above that, because the moment they fly outside the actual dimensions, they would be breaking the law, if that were in fact the law, to allow them to fly at 400 feet above the roof top (for part n107, see their 400 ft radius specs.). With that said, there should still be no safety issue because any GA fixed wing pilot would not be flying over a 500 ft. building with just 400 ft below them and the roof top.

I have no idea why what you "believe" comes into it. I posted the law, verbatim, in post #27. Under Part 107 you can fly up to 400 ft above the highest point of a building or other structure as long as you remain within 400 ft of its lateral extent.

 

[sined00]

Here is the link - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180924/HR302.pdf

Everyone should consider joining the AMA. They are your voice in government.

From the AMA...

Dear members,
As you may have heard, a new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill was introduced today, which is the result of negotiations between House and Senate leaders. There are several provisions in the bill that will impact our hobby, and we are currently conducting a thorough assessment of the bill with our legal and government affairs teams.

At first glance, some of the changes are positive and reflect AMA's efforts to forcefully advocate for our members and our hobby. The bill defines a community based organization (CBO) and allows the FAA to designate CBOs, something we have championed for years. At the same time, other provisions appear problematic, and allow the FAA more authority to further encroach on our hobby.

You can read the entire FAA reauthorization bill here - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180924/HR302.pdf , and we will provide a more thorough analysis in the coming days. It is likely that we may ask for your help in contacting your members of Congress.

Thank you,
AMA Government Affairs Team

What is the AMA link to their page?
I want to join. All I could find was Membership Enrollment Center | Academy of Model Aeronautics

 

[sar104]

What is the AMA link to their page?
I want to join. All I could find was Membership Enrollment Center | Academy of Model Aeronautics

Did that page not load? It is the AMA enrollment page. It's where you join the AMA.

 

[toddellis]

i don't see anything radically wrong with this bill. it always baffled me that pt. 107 flyers have so many more restrictions than POTENTIALLY untrained rec. flyers. unlike many here, i've always believed that flying out of VLOS is ALMOST ALWAYS a bad idea. if you can't see it - you are NOT in complete control. the bigger issue to me is DJI's assumed control of our property.

 

[STKNRUD]

The 400 feet rule is to keep sepertion of various flying classes. It is to be 400 feet AGL. General aviation as in rec. real flying where you sit in the aircraft and control it, have a minimum altitude to maintain which is no lower than 500 feet unless over water whereby you can take it right down onto the deck but must not fly over people or objects (such as boats and floating huts etc.) or landing or taking off. Flying over cities or built up areas has other minimum flight restrictions that take them higher. Helicopters have other rules as well that pertain to some of their flight paths but there is no point going into every detail here.

So that means that if a drone flyer behaves and obeys the law, and a GA pilot does the same, while flying out in open spaces, we will always have a minimum of 100 feet separation of aircraft and that is the safety buffer. I don't believe that anyone can go on top of a 500 feet tall building and then expect they can fly another 400 feet above that, because the moment they fly outside the actual dimensions, they would be breaking the law, if that were in fact the law, to allow them to fly at 400 feet above the roof top (for part n107, see their 400 ft radius specs.). With that said, there should still be no safety issue because any GA fixed wing pilot would not be flying over a 500 ft. building with just 400 ft below them and the roof top.

Wrong. Aircraft can fly below 500 in rural areas so long as in the event of engine failure they can land without undue hazard to persons or property. Training always includes practiced force landings to an altitude lower than 500’.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

With regards to hobbyists, this is what the bill says;

44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(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.

(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

 

[Lon Denard]

Those requirements all seem quite reasonable.

Those requirements all seem quite reasonable.

Mind reader...

 

[STKNRUD]

To those that “see nothing wrong with this bill”, have to consider 1) 336 no longer protects us. The FAA can now establish any law they consider necessary. 2) what fatality or injury has occurred the new requirements would have prevented that wasn’t already covered.? 3) aeronautical test? Stupid! How far from a cloud in what airspace? When you are in the aircraft you can’t tell how far you are. Full scale pilots laugh at this reg. 4) tail number and registration...only helps law enforcement if the bad guy will comply.

Come on guys, regulations come in incremental steps and this law just opened up pandora’s box.