400 ft ATO -- But higher AGL?

[Chaosrider]

If you launch a drone from the edge of a cliff, under the Rec rules, and you stay under 400 ft ATO, are you legal if you fly out to a point where you're 1000 ft AGL?

Assume hard VLOS is maintained.

Legal?

Thx,

MM

 

[BigAl07]

If you launch a drone from the edge of a cliff, under the Rec rules, and you stay under 400 ft ATO, are you legal if you fly out to a point where you're 1000 ft AGL?

Assume hard VLOS is maintained.

Legal?

Thx,

MM

ATO is your term and NOT a standard term.

Everything in terms of UAS is AGL.... imagine a 400' string hanging from your aircraft... if at any moment it isn't touching the ground you are NOT compliant .

I cringe every time I see you say ATO as it could easily confuse other UAS operators.


AGL AGL AGL AGL AGL

 

[Camino Ken]

Technically you can fly over the side of a cliff as long as you maintain a distance of 400ft from the cliff edge since this is still considered the ground and the regulation is AGL (above ground level) I have heard folks argue against this but I have seen pictorial depiction of the regulation that shows an angular measurement to ground.

 

[Chaosrider]

ATO is your term and NOT a standard term.

Everything in terms of UAS is AGL.... imagine a 400' string hanging from your aircraft... if at any moment it isn't touching the ground you are NOT compliant .

I cringe every time I see you say ATO as it could easily confuse other UAS operators.


AGL AGL AGL AGL AGL

Sorry, I don't mean to be cringe-worthy...

ATO isn't a standard term...yet!

ATO = Above Take Off

If there's a standard, equally succinct, term for the height above the take-off point, let me know what it is, and I'll use that instead.

I know the AGL limit applies to 107 flights. I'm pretty careful about it. My understanding was, that for Rec flights, you can't go more than 400 ft ATO, even if you're only 200 ft AGL at the time. Like climbing up a hill. I have an image of Pilot Institute vid that shows exactly that.

Is that wrong?

It sounds like you're suggesting that for Rec flights, that both the 400 ft ATO rule, and the 400 ft AGL rule, apply.

Is that right?

That would make sense, now that I write it out, in terms of your description of Rec flight as a "carve out bubble" from the overall 107 rule.

Thx,

TCS

 

[z28lt1]

As noted, recreational flights are 400 foot above the ground the drone is over. Once you fly off of the take off "point" take off means absolutely nothing to the regulation.

Edit: The exact FAA Language would be "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.".

Note the use of "Ground level" and no mention of "take off"

 

[FLDave]

I can't figure out why AGL is such a difficult term to comprehend as it returns the distance to the ground directly below the aircraft, not at an angle to a cliff. Above ground below the aircraft is so simple.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

I think the "ATO" confusion is because if you set an altitude limit in DJI Fly it is above takeoff altitude. But this has no regulatory meaning. DJI may let you fly off the cliff to an area where you are 1000 AGL because the drone does not know about the cliff. But the regulation is 400 AGL at all times, regardless of where you took off.

 

[BigAl07]

Sorry, I don't mean to be cringe-worthy...

ATO isn't a standard term...yet!

ATO = Above Take Off

If there's a standard, equally succinct, term for the height above the take-off point, let me know what it is, and I'll use that instead.

I know the AGL limit applies to 107 flights. I'm pretty careful about it. My understanding was, that for Rec flights, you can't go more than 400 ft ATO, even if you're only 200 ft AGL at the time. Like climbing up a hill. I have an image of Pilot Institute vid that shows exactly that.

Is that wrong?

It sounds like you're suggesting that for Rec flights, that both the 400 ft ATO rule, and the 400 ft AGL rule, apply.

Is that right?

That would make sense, now that I write it out, in terms of your description of Rec flight as a "carve out bubble" from the overall 107 rule.

Thx,

TCS

No I'm suggesting you use AGL because that's the only height that matters in terms of regulations.

ATO is NOT an FAA Term and not something you'll see in the regulations. Even in rough/hilly terrain you are giving you Best Guess as to if the aircraft if 400'AGL, 390'AGL, or 410' AGL. There's no reason why you can't fly lower and increase your Margin of Safety in terms of not violating the 400' AGL rule.

The moment you transition away from your takeoff point your altitude is an estimation if you're relying on the on-screen altitude. If there is an incident your real altitude will be determined forensically using your logs and GPS data etc. All that matter is AGL.

 

[pilotinstitute]

Sorry, I don't mean to be cringe-worthy...

ATO isn't a standard term...yet!

ATO = Above Take Off

If there's a standard, equally succinct, term for the height above the take-off point, let me know what it is, and I'll use that instead.

I know the AGL limit applies to 107 flights. I'm pretty careful about it. My understanding was, that for Rec flights, you can't go more than 400 ft ATO, even if you're only 200 ft AGL at the time. Like climbing up a hill. I have an image of Pilot Institute vid that shows exactly that.

Is that wrong?

It sounds like you're suggesting that for Rec flights, that both the 400 ft ATO rule, and the 400 ft AGL rule, apply.

Is that right?

That would make sense, now that I write it out, in terms of your description of Rec flight as a "carve out bubble" from the overall 107 rule.

Thx,

TCS

The FAA actually doesn't recognize Above Take Off as an actual altitude. It's only a thing because manufacturers don't have a way to give you AGL data (at the moment).
Recreational pilots, just like part 107 pilots, are limited to 400 feet AGL at all times. Part 107 pilots do have access to an additional rule that allows them to fly above 400 feet AGL as long as they are in airspace that doesn't require approval, and as long as they are within 400 feet horizontal of a structure.

 

[Rich QR]

There is NEVER a case where the legality of flying at a particular point in the air depends on the aircraft's take-off altitude.

The safety or danger of flying at a particular spot in the air doesn't depend on the takeoff altitude. That's why the legality of flying at a particular spot also doesn't depend on the takeoff altitude.

Furthermore, enforcement is simpler if those observing don't have to track the takeoff point of every flying object that is observed in order to know whether or not a violation occurred.

 

[Meta4]

I have seen pictorial depiction of the regulation that shows an angular measurement to ground.

And that comes from England .... It does not apply in the USA.

 

[Meta4]

My understanding was, that for Rec flights, you can't go more than 400 ft ATO, even if you're only 200 ft AGL at the time. Like climbing up a hill.

Is that wrong?

Totally wrong

It sounds like you're suggesting that for Rec flights, that both the 400 ft ATO rule, and the 400 ft AGL rule, apply.

There is no 400 ft ATO rule
No aviation safety authority in the world has any rule relating to altitude above takeoff point.
And it shouldn't take much thought to understand why, but this might help you to understand.

 

[dronerdave]

I know the AGL limit applies to 107 flights. I'm pretty careful about it. My understanding was, that for Rec flights, you can't go more than 400 ft ATO, even if you're only 200 ft AGL at the time. Like climbing up a hill. I have an image of Pilot Institute vid that shows exactly that.

Is that wrong?

I could be wrong but this is how I've understood it.

 

[MA2 317]

Worked in a fast food restaurant and ATO was an Apple Turnover.

 

[BigAl07]

I could be wrong but this is how I've understood it.

View attachment 146467

That's the first time I've seen that graphic but it looks very accurate but I'm looking at it on my iPhone so keep that in mind

 

[Deleted member 93449]

But it's all very simple .

 

[Rich QR]

I could be wrong but this is how I've understood it.

View attachment 146467

That graphic is almost, but not quite, right. Look carefully at where the flat blue meets the sloping brown. In both places, the green line indicating the 400' AGL limit has a corner that is clearly above the blue. The corner on the green line should be directly above the junction of the blue and brown.

 

[dronerdave]

Yeah crude and not quite to scale but I hope it's close enough to get the idea. Because water is a flat surface, once you hit the corner of the water and the terrain you'd have to begin to measure from there and stay 400' above the terrain directly below the drone. In the real world you should stay well below 400' in uneven terrain being you really have no way to accurately get a measurement.

There have been so many posts about staying 400' AGL I've been involved in, that the image posted has been my understanding when flying across a canyon (in this case a lake).

If I'm flying from the top of a hill and across a canyon, I have no reference to the actual distance to the ground, so I generally stay as close to the ground as possible (reasonable) while maintaining VLOS. It does force me to work closer to my home point, and be very aware of the drones surroundings.
Sheer cliffs are another issue. Although I'd like to be able to fly several few feet from the face of a 2000 foot vertical cliff and be in compliance, the rec rules (as I've seen it) say AGL is directly below the UAV. So depending on the slope, in many cases it makes a high sheer cliff flight almost impossible for me if I fly too far out away from the face. The steeper the cliff, the more difficult it is to know you're in compliance. I figure a 107 operation above/around a man made structure of 400' from it is simply because of the extra training involved that they are required to have. I'm actually surprised that there aren't restrictions on Rec flying too close to certain critical infrastructure especially towers and power lines.




I've never heard the term ATO (Auto Take Off came to mind) but figure it is the home point. Being the closest reference to altitude (what DJI telemetry offers) is from your home point, launching at the top of a hill then flying across a deep canyon might be confusing for some if they don't understand you gotta follow the terrain directly below the drone and never exceed 400' AGL.

 

[twickers14]

Wow. So many thoughts but as an old timer I’m just grateful for the airing this subject has attracted. I shall stay no more than 400‘ above any ground (or water) I fly over. Really difficult to judge but always err on the conservative side.

 

[Chaosrider]

As noted, recreational flights are 400 foot above the ground the drone is over. Once you fly off of the take off "point" take off means absolutely nothing to the regulation.

Edit: The exact FAA Language would be "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.".

Note the use of "Ground level" and no mention of "take off"

This example assumes hard VLOS maintained at all times.

Under this interpretation, if a rec pilot takes off, and climbs to the top of a 1000 ft hill, they're perfectly legal, as long as they are never more than 400 ft AGL?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Thx,

TCS