800' Radio Tower - Can I Legally Fly to the Top of It?

[DownandLocked]

Understanding the US 400' max. altitude, can I legally fly to the top of a local TV tower that is 800' tall to shoot a 360 panorama image? There sure won't be an airplanes anywhere near it? That could be an interesting shot.

If it's legal, does DJI limit my flight to only 400'?

 

[james_mav]

The 400 feet is a safety guideline. You can set your limit to 500 meters (1600 feet) in your Main controller settings.

 

[DownandLocked]

The 400 feet is a safety guideline. You can set your limit to 500 meters (1600 feet) in your Main controller settings.

Thanks. The big question, though, is it "legal" to fly at 800' here in the US as long as I'm flying near the 800' tower.

 

[mnoutdoors]

 

[Cyberpower678]

I’m sure nobody will care since as you say if a plane is flying below that altitude near the tower, then you have bigger problems to worry about. With that being said, exp ct significant interference.

 

[DownandLocked]

EXCELLENT!!!! That's the information I was looking for. Thanks!!!

 

[mnoutdoors]

Of course we will expect a video .................

 

[sar104]

EXCELLENT!!!! That's the information I was looking for. Thanks!!!

Actually, assuming that you are flying recreationally, the correct answer was given in post #2, not in that video. While the video glosses over it very quickly, the rule about flying near structures is part of 107.51 and only applies to non-recreational flights. For recreational (Part 101) flights you need to follow the AMA Safety code or equivalent (but there is no equivalent at this time), which does not have a general altitude restriction.

§107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:

(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).

(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.

(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 statute miles. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

(d) The minimum distance of the small unmanned aircraft from clouds must be no less than:

(1) 500 feet below the cloud; and

(2) 2,000 feet horizontally from the cloud.

 

[SouthernComfort]

Don’t get much closer than this....

 

[MichiganMavic]

From my own flying experience, I haven’t had any interference from power lines as that’s where I normally fly around. The main towers along the manufacturing plants and railroads have a wide berth running through the city so it makes for a great flying area for me. I also have a 1/2 mile long dead end road with a circle at the end for parking. Just make sure you set your RTH point high enough to clear the highest thing around [emoji6].

 

[jag32266]

One of us has misinformation- "(2) 2,000 feet horizontally from the cloud."

In my reading of the study material the 2000' doesn't apply to just clouds. It also applies to all towers- 2000' clearance must be maintained. *IF* he was doing a commercial evaluation of the tower he can fly 400" above the tower in keeping within regulations.

Since he is a hobbyist than no, he can't do it legally. I'll see iif I can find that text.

**What I've found are two items**-
1.) Maximum Altitude (all classes)
I. 400’ AGL unless flown within a 400’ radius of a structure, and not higher than 400’ above the
structure’s immediate uppermost limit
2.) Overhead Wires
I. Lines that do not exceed 200’ AGL are not marked or lighted, thus are a particular danger to sUAS
operations
II. Before commencing flight, scan the area for any supporting structures that might indicate their
presence
III. Maintain a horizontal standoff of 2,000’ from any wires

and from the RP study guide-
Antenna Towers
Extreme caution should be exercised when flying less
than 2,000 feet AGL because of numerous skeletal
structures, such as radio and television antenna
towers, that exceed 1,000 feet AGL with some
extending higher than 2,000 feet AGL. Most skeletal structures are supported by guy wires which are
very difficult to see in good weather and can be invisible at dusk or during periods of reduced visibility.
Figure 11-4. Magnetic meridians are in red while the lines
of longitude and latitude are in blue. From these lines of
variation (magnetic meridians), on can determine the effect
of local magnetic variations on a magnetic compass.
Figure 11-5. Note the agonic line where magnetic variation
is zero.
Remote Pilot – Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide 69
Chapter 11: Airport Operations
These wires can extend about 1,500 feet horizontally from a structure; therefore, all skeletal structures
should be avoided horizontally by at least 2,000 feet.
Additionally, new towers may not be on your current chart because the information was not received
prior to the printing of the chart

 

[sar104]

One of us has misinformation- "(2) 2,000 feet horizontally from the cloud."

In my reading of the study material the 2000' doesn't apply to just clouds. It also applies to all towers- 2000' clearance must be maintained. *IF* he was doing a commercial evaluation of the tower he can fly 400" above the tower in keeping within regulations.

Since he is a hobbyist than no, he can't do it legally. I'll see iif I can find that text.

Since I quoted directly from 14 CFR Part 107, I'm afraid that you have the misinformation. It does not apply to towers - obviously, since it is stated clearly right there in 107.51 (b). And if you have been studying for Part 107 then I'm very surprised that you have not encountered any of the many practice questions on exactly that issue.

As for hobbyist rules - sorry - you are incorrect on that also since there is no altitude rule in either Part 101 or the AMA Safety Code. You may find numerous statements on the FAA website that imply that there is a 400 ft altitude limit for hobbyists, but it has no basis in existing law and the FAA acknowledged that in their July 2016 response to the AMA by the Director of their UAS Integration Office.

 

[DownandLocked]

Of course we will expect a video .................

Just flew it. Here it is! Thanks for your help. The tower was 970' above ground, actually. I did reset the altitude limit on the Mavic which was originally set for 400'.

Also, see the link in the video description for the 360 pano I did.

 

[PlatinumPilot]

Actually, assuming that you are flying recreationally, the correct answer was given in post #2, not in that video. While the video glosses over it very quickly, the rule about flying near structures is part of 107.51 and only applies to non-recreational flights. For recreational (Part 101) flights you need to follow the AMA Safety code or equivalent (but there is no equivalent at this time), which does not have a general altitude restriction.

Why would it not apply to rec flying?

 

[sar104]

Why would it not apply to rec flying?

As I said, because it's not in Part 101 or the AMA Safety Code, and the FAA has confirmed that it doesn't apply.

 

[sar104]

The AMA Safety Code is moot, but not be included in Part 101 leaves a gaping loop hole, wouldn't you agree?

You seem to be missing the entire history of Part 101. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act which prevented the FAA from imposing any new regulations on hobby flight. That's why Part 101 is so empty of regulation.

 

[sar104]

The AMA Safety Code is moot, but not be included in Part 101 leaves a gaping loop hole, wouldn't you agree?

And, just to be clear, the AMA Safety Code is not moot at all - it is the only framework that satisfies the requirement in 101.41. If you don't follow it then you are not operating under Part 101, which means that Part 107 would apply and a hobby flier would then be in breach of all kinds of regulations. So, if the AMA Safety Code did have a 400 ft rule, then it would be a requirement for hobby flight.

 

[PlatinumPilot]

You seem to be missing the entire history of Part 101. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act which prevented the FAA from imposing any new regulations on hobby flight. That's why Part 101 is so empty of regulation.

Then I don't understand the problem if one were to follow the FAA's regulation that does apply to this specific situation.

 

[sar104]

Then I don't understand the problem if one were to follow the FAA's regulation that does apply to this specific situation.

That's the point. There is no regulation that applies. I'm afraid I'm really not following your line of reasoning here. And why did you delete your post that I responded to?

 

[PlatinumPilot]

That's the point. There is no regulation that applies. I'm afraid I'm really not following your line of reasoning here. And why did you delete your post that I responded to?

My apologies for the delete. i was going back and forth between sub forums and deleted the wrong post. My bad!

Guess we were saying the same thing, but from differing points of view.