400 ft ATO -- But higher AGL?

[MS Coast]

I agree with you to a point but I also don't assume most people that have a question about the restrictions are just looking an excuse to violate regulations.

One of the issues that causes some of the misunderstanding is changes in the rules and the misinformation out there based on those changes. Even now if you search for rules on altitude you find information that mingles part 107 and recreational rules together.

There has been discussion in this thread regarding what constitutes a structure. The dictionary definition of a structure is "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex." It says nothing about man made or naturally occurring.

If you tell someone to go to the source (FAA 44809) they are greeted with this...

FAA 44809

Someone wants to fly a drone in their backyard or hundreds of acres of open farmland or a local park is now required to wade through 44809 and take a test?

Flying drones and RC aircraft have been around for decades. There is near zero risk of injuries or fatalities and yet the rule makers use the what ifs you derided to create a massive new set of regulations. I think the regulators have gone to far in an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist and when that happens there is typically a backlash.

"Someone wants to fly a drone in their backyard or hundreds of acres of open farmland or a local park is now required to wade through 44809 and take a test?"

Wade through? The relevant content consists of a one-sentence introduction and eight one-sentence rules. It's hardly a massive set of regulations. Have you compared it to the reference publication for your province's driver's license test?

Required to take a test? The TRUST certificate requires an extremely fundamental and brief no-fail on-line test. Anyone who is unable to pass it should definitely not be flying a non-toy drone. And they probably shouldn't be using public sidewalks without supervision.

I really cant' see how the FAA could have made the 400' AGL rule much simpler.

 

[dronerdave]

You are allowed to fly as high as 400' AGL measured from the water's surface on the upstream side of the dam. But only as long as you remain over the water.

Not saying you're wrong but personally I'd like to hear the FAA's ideas on that.

Being the surface of water or surrounding terrain is the measurement to base from, I'd guess the measurement of the dam's structure itself would only be what is sticking out of the water or the terrain around it, what is directly below the aircraft and not how deep the structure is to the bottom under the surfaces. Buildings, towers and poles don't just sit on the ground; they often penetrate the ground by many feet yet we still reference the their heights from the grounds surface.
But it's an interesting question.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

"Someone wants to fly a drone in their backyard or hundreds of acres of open farmland or a local park is now required to wade through 44809 and take a test?"

Wade through? The relevant content consists of a one-sentence introduction and eight one-sentence rules. It's hardly a massive set of regulations. Have you compared it to the reference publication for your province's driver's license test?

Required to take a test? The TRUST certificate requires an extremely fundamental and brief no-fail on-line test. Anyone who is unable to pass it should definitely not be flying a non-toy drone. And they probably shouldn't be using public sidewalks without supervision.

I really cant' see how the FAA could have made the 400' AGL rule much simpler.

The FAA wrote the regulation and the relevant content IS the regulation. So yes, it's wade through the regulation AND going to relevant sections of other regulations to understand the meaning of those regulations. No where in 44809 are airspace classifications defined. No where in 44809 are the standards of community based organizations defined.

Are you equating the operation of manned, thousand pound vehicles in which tens of thousands of people are killed every year and hundreds of thousands more are injuried with the operation of 250+gram drones in a park?

 

[Tomk_]

 

[MS Coast]

The FAA wrote the regulation and the relevant content IS the regulation. So yes, it's wade through the regulation AND going to relevant sections of other regulations to understand the meaning of those regulations. No where in 44809 are airspace classifications defined. No where in 44809 are the standards of community based organizations defined.

Are you equating the operation of manned, thousand pound vehicles in which tens of thousands of people are killed every year and hundreds of thousands more are injuried with the operation of 250+gram drones in a park?

Eight sentences and a one-sentence introduction. Little wading required.

As to the second question, "No." Simply pointing out that complying with 44809 and TRUST are less complex than getting a driver's license.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Eight sentences and a one-sentence introduction. Little wading required.

As to the second question, "No."

You cannot understand the regulation without reading the entire regulation and the other regulations that explain those regulations.

You made the point about a driver’s test so you did equate the operation of motor vehicles with flying drones.

 

[MS Coast]

You cannot understand the regulation without reading the entire regulation and the other regulations that explain those regulations.

You made the point about a driver’s test so you did equate the operation of motor vehicles with flying drones.

See post #85.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

See post #85.

Repeating a flawed and irrational argument doesn't make it accurate and rational.

 

[Chip]

in humour

but you might in a dictionary, I don't think even Manta Rays fly under water surely they swin?????

Yes, I think you are right. However, my understanding is that these Rays are learning to fly in the navigable airspace (begins .00000001 mm AGL) or is it AOS (Above Ocean Surface)?

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Yes, I think you are right. However, my understanding is that these Rays are learning to fly in the navigable airspace (begins .00000001 mm AGL) or is it AOS (Above Ocean Surface)?

I think if a Great White was after me, I might be able to get that airborne too, lol.

 

[Meta4]

There has been discussion in this thread regarding what constitutes a structure. The dictionary definition of a structure is "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex." It says nothing about man made or naturally occurring.

It's obvious that a structure is something that has been constructed.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It's obvious that a structure is something that has been constructed.

Structure - the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
"flint is extremely hard, like diamond, which has a similar structure"

 

[Meta4]

Structure - the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
"flint is extremely hard, like diamond, which has a similar structure"

You could look at the atomic structure of a diamond, but no-one is suggesting that a diamond is a structure.
You are torturing the language beyond it's normal limits.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

You could look at the atomic structure of a diamond, but no-one is suggesting that a diamond is a structure.
You are torturing the language beyond it's normal limits.

Or you could look at the Grand Canyon and suggest it is structured. I'm not torturing the language. That's the dictionary definition with the illustration provided in the dictionary to clarify the meaning.

 

[Meta4]

Or you could look at the Grand Canyon and suggest it is structured. I'm not torturing the language. That's the dictionary definition with the illustration provided in the dictionary to clarify the meaning.

This is getting beyond silly.
There's a big difference between structure and a structure.

 

[Meta4]

That's the dictionary definition with the illustration provided in the dictionary to clarify the meaning.

Here's what a proper dictionary says:

structure
/ˈstrʌktʃə/
noun: structure; plural noun: structures

1.
the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
"the two sentences have equivalent structures"
Similar:construction, form, formation, shape, composition, fabric, anatomy, make-up, constitution, organization, system, arrangement, layout, design, frame, framework, configuration, conformation, pattern, plan, mould, set-up
the quality of being organized.
"we shall use three headings to give some structure to the discussion"

2.
a building or other object constructed from several parts.
"the station is a magnificent structure and should not be demolished"
Similar:building, edifice, construction, erection, pile, complex, assembly

verb
verb: structure; 3rd person present: structures; past tense: structured; past participle: structured; gerund or present participle: structuring
construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to.
"services must be structured so as to avoid pitfalls"

 

[Deleted member 93449]

This is getting beyond silly.
There's a big difference between structure and a structure.

Are the negative characterizations really necessary?

I think the Grand Canyon is a very impressive "structure". It's "a structure" that attracts thousands of visitors each year. Is a hoodoo in Bryce Canyon a structure? The FAA list an arch and a wall in its list of obstacles related to the 400 foot rule. Does that include the walls of the Grand Canyon and the Arches in the Colorado Plateau?

O.k., I've had enough fun for the evening. On a serious note, I don't think anyone can claim the 44809 regulations are simple or extremely simple. While some of the back and forth in these threads are the product of scoring debating points that doesn't tell the whole story. Some of the blame for the confusion and misunderstandings rest with the FAA and the changing of rules. Anyone that says interpreting section charts is simple forgot what it was like the first time they saw a sectional charter. There should not be rules that refer to other rules that reference other rules for something as simple and basic as flying a drone in your backyard.

 

[Meta4]

Are the negative characterizations really necessary?

You based your tenuous argument entirely on the dictionary definition.
But look in any proper dictionary and you find that it has more meanings than the definition you insisted on pushing.

 

[Zbip57]

Not saying you're wrong but personally I'd like to hear the FAA's ideas on that.

The FAA will just tell you the questions are moot since the entire area around the Hoover Dam is a No-Fly-Zone. So don't bother us with any of these annoying drone questions.

Being the surface of water or surrounding terrain is the measurement to base from, I'd guess the measurement of the dam's structure itself would only be what is sticking out of the water or the terrain around it,

That's actually what I would prefer as well, as it's the only measurement that makes any sense. Treating the section of the dam protruding above the water's surface like any other "obstacle" makes perfect sense.

If it's just an island made of natural rock poking above the level of the water's surface, you would be entitled to fly as much as 400' above the rock, since AGL is measured vertically from the water's surface and from the rock's surface. That is the "perfectly simple" and easy to understand concept that everybody keeps referring to.

If the regulation simply said for drones to stay within 400' of any "obstacle", then everything is perfectly clear. You could fly up vertical cliff-faces, mountains, buildings, towers, trees etc, as long as you always stayed closer than 400' to that obstacle, whatever it is. The regulation for manned aircraft should say the opposite, stay more than 500' away from all obstacles. Then we'd have a clear 100' separation for everyone's safety.

All of the confusion and debates arise because the 400' AGL is supposed to be measured only vertically above "ground", which can also mean water, but not structures, and not trees, and not treehouses, and not structures disguised as trees, and not...

(By the way, the actual height of any "obstacle" hazardous to aviation will be marked on your aviation sectional charts, but that height is always referenced to MSL, not AGL. That's the only measure that makes any sense at all, because the top is all we care about. Nobody needs to know how many levels of parking garage descend however deep into the ground below that office tower "structure".)

Is there a legal definition of "structure" somewhere in the FAA regs. Does it define how the height of a structure is measured? Is it measured from the height of the abutting earthworks (or water), or is it measured from base of its foundations? If you do a Google search for the height of the Hoover Dam, it's always listed as 726.4 feet. That's a pretty precise figure, and obviously not based on what is exposed above the water line (which is constantly varying).

If I'm flying my plane above a dense Amazon jungle I will do my utmost best to avoid descending below the solid level of the treetop canopy. I really don't care one iota whether those trees are 400' tall, or only 1 foot tall. I'm only seeing the tops of the trees. From my aerial perspective, that treetop canopy counts every bit as much as solid "ground level" as if it was a solid granite mountain top, or the solid ground of a cow pasture, or the solid concrete top of the Hoover Dam.

As far as I'm concerned, "Above Ground Level" should always be measured from the highest surface of any hazardous "obstacle", rather than trying to debate whether it's actually measured from the bottom of a lake or the water's surface, or the bottom of a structure's foundation, or from where that structure first protrudes through the surrounding face of the earth.

The top of any tree, or the highest peak of any tall microwave tower effectively is ground level, just as much as any peak of any solid mountain top. Manned aircraft don't want to hit any of them.

All that really matters to manned aircraft is how high (MSL) you need to climb to clear the top of any obstacle, or how far you need to go around it to stay safely away from it (500' in every direction). If that space is safely cleared of manned aircraft, then that empty space should be safely available for use by any drone flyer when staying within 400' (vertically, horizontally, whatever) of any obstacle. That leaves a comfortable 100' buffer of separation so everybody stays safe.

Why all this song and dance about "structures" needing to be treated differently than "ground", and trees being ignored altogether, and only being allowed to fly along cliff faces as long as they're not actually vertical cliff faces.

Everything you wouldn't want to hit with an aircraft, including trees, is an "obstacle". Planes stay away from obstacles, drones stay close. That is perfectly simple, no?

 

[MS Coast]

@2edgesword's signature line - "Some basic rules: Maximum altitude 400', remain within visual line of sight, no flight in controlled airspace without authorization, no flight over people or moving vehicles."

Essence of 44809: Fly only for recreation, follow a recognized set of operating guidelines, remain within visual line of sight, don't interfere with manned aircraft, no flight in controlled airspace without authorization, maximum altitude 400', get your TRUST certificate, register and mark your aircraft.

Until specific community based organizations are recognized, that part is a bit vague. In the interim the FAA provides simple guidelines.

Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft

This action provides notice of the statutory exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. It also describes the agency's incremental implementation approach for the exception and how individuals can operate recreational unmanned aircraft (commonly referred to as drones)...

www.federalregister.gov

• Fly only for recreational purposes
• Keep your unmanned aircraft within your visual line-of-sight or within the visual line of sight of a visual observer who is co-located and in direct communication with you
• Do not fly above 400 feet in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace
• Do not fly in controlled airspace without an FAA authorization
• Follow all FAA airspace restrictions, including special security instructions and temporary flight restrictions
• Never fly near other aircraft
• Always give way to all other aircraft
• Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people
• Never fly near emergency response activities
• Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Simple, concise, straightforward.

(No references to sectional charts and no references to structures.)