Are the FAA rules to restrictive?

[sigi.stiemer]

I am trying to comply with all FAA-imposed rules because most or all seem to make sense. Recently I was considered by a member of this group "questionable" to do this.

How do you feel about those FAA rules? Which ones restrict your hobby that it appears to be less fun to you?

 

[BigAl07]

I am trying to comply with all FAA-imposed rules because most or all seem to make sense. Recently I was considered by a member of this group "questionable" to do this.

How do you feel about those FAA rules? Which ones restrict your hobby that it appears to be less fun to you?

So someone considered you "questionable" for following the rules? Please explain more

I fly within them every flight. TBH I think some of them are becoming too lenient and are detrimental to the industry as a whole but I'm very much Old School in that thought process and proud of it

 

[msinger]

ecently I was considered by a member of this group "questionable" to do this.

If someone thinks you're questionable for wanting to follow the laws, then you're probably not the problem

 

[African wildlife]

Don't blame the FAA (or CAA here in the UK) rules. It's all the irresponsible idiots who buy drones, crash them, or fly irresponsibly that should be challenged. A lot of human behaviour is psychologically immature or sick - and we think we're entitled. Sod the human rights; it's the responsibilities that everyone should be focusing on.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not someone who is a fan of rules. But they're needed in a world full of morons.

 

[Howard70]

...Which ones restrict your hobby that it appears to be less fun to you?

I am concerned about flying safely while I enjoy my hobby. FAA rules help me do that and provide an opportunity to fly as a recreational pilot as long as I follow some simple restrictions. Considering the injuries eight sharp spinning blades could cause if I made a mistake or have an equipment failure the FAA rules for hobby flight actually seem lax - at least until the recreational pilot knowledge test comes into effect.

Howard

 

[vindibona1]

I think for the most part the FAA has it right. Like most government entities they create black and white rules in a one-size-fits-all fashion. And yet some of the rules are a bit vague, leaving shades of gray that sometimes get interpreted in black and white. Sometimes, maybe often, the rules should not apply to certain areas or circumstances.

Example- VLOS: Does this mean that you have to have your eyes on your drone 100% of the time. It is obvious that flying in an area of open land for miles is much different than flying in suburban Chicago. Should not the rule be relaxed under certain circumstances? I suspect most folks understand that with good judgement they're ok bending the rule (on a practical/safety level), much like few folks drive 55mph in a 55 zone.

What does this mean for FPV pilots? I doubt that most FPV pilots have spotters all the time- maybe not even most of the time. Even with spotters you know that much of the time the FPV drones are not within line of sight. From the FPV videos I've seen, most are either very low to the ground or out in the middle of nowhere. Again, no shades of gray within the official rules.

But yes... I try to stay with in the rules and never get aggressive beyond the limits of my skill level. And in that regard the rules protect me from the expensive of crashes or worse yet, civil liability. But again, admittedly, some of the official rules have little practical sense. But unfortunately they get put there because one fool or another does something stupid- and we all have to pay the price for them.

 

[Capt. Paradise]

Yes. Absolutely. At all times when there is a specific rule. I worked for the FAA for 34 yrs and, trust me, saw my share of “silly” rules. But they are there for only one reason, safety. It’s the safest system in the world for a reason. I’ve seen the results of cutting corners on the rules (or ignoring them altogether) and do not want to be involved in that kind of incident in any way. I know the chances are very small, but it does happen so why tempt fate?

 

[anotherlab]

I am trying to comply with all FAA-imposed rules because most or all seem to make sense. Recently I was considered by a member of this group "questionable" to do this.

How do you feel about those FAA rules? Which ones restrict your hobby that it appears to be less fun to you?

I wouldn't place much stock with that other member. You are absolutely right about the rules making sense. They allow you to fly safely and not place anyone at risk.

 

[dronerdave]

The one rule I'd like to see changed is how rec flying must be 400' vertically max to the ground or less at all times. It should be similar to other countries where on a vertical cliff or other structure allows you to fly within a safe specific distance to the object (like 107 allows) rather than 400'directly below the quad.

 

[Rich QR]

The one rule I'd like to see changed is how rec flying must be 400' vertically max to the ground or less at all times. It should be similar to other countries where on a vertical cliff or other structure allows you to fly within a safe specific distance to the object (like 107 allows) rather than 400'directly below the quad.

That's a reasonable suggestion. I'll just point out that the limits over terrain are exactly the same for Part 107 as they are for recreational flying. 400' AGL. That means that if there's a 500' vertical natural cliff, neither a Part 107 nor a recreational flyer can go over the edge legally. Where Part 107 is different is in the limits around structures, such as buildings, towers, bridges, skyscrapers, etc. Part 107 flyers can go up to 400' above the top of a structure, so long as they are within 400' laterally from the structure. Of course, they still must obtain permission before flying into controlled airspace, regardless of whether they're near a structure.

 

[arcticfrost]

I try to follow their rules to the best of ability but they do restrict in some areas. What do you think about this?

Drones - Rights and the Federal Aviation Administration. Is the FAA constitutional?

Is the FAA constitutional?

www.bitchute.com

 

[muchuckwagon]

The rules tend to exist for a reason and I think more rules are forthcoming that will limit recreational pilots even further. The problem with more rules is the guy who lands his drone on the field during a MLB game is going to do so, rules or no rules. This just means more headaches for the person who wants to enjoy the hobby responsibly.

The problem is most of the DJI drones are not toys but it is easy to mistakenly view them as such when first getting into the hobby. There is also no barrier of entry in the hobby. If you have $500, you can be up in the air in the time it takes to charge the battery. This is somewhat concerning when you think about the fact these drones have a range of several miles and can hit speeds of 20 to 90 MPH.

A little off topic, I do wish recreational pilots could profit from their drone footage. The fact we can’t doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[Tomk_]

The one rule I'd like to see changed is how rec flying must be 400' vertically max to the ground or less at all times. It should be similar to other countries where on a vertical cliff or other structure allows you to fly within a safe specific distance to the object (like 107 allows) rather than 400'directly below the quad.

That is a rule that I agree with. Maintaining separation is the main safety rule of all aviation. "Real" aircraft are to stay at least 500 ft agl. Drones 400 ft max give 100 ft of safety. If I'm going to complain, I would say that helicopters need to stay in their lane and abide by the 500 ft rule.

 

[Thomas B]

That is a rule that I agree with. Maintaining separation is the main safety rule of all aviation. "Real" aircraft are to stay at least 500 ft agl. Drones 400 ft max give 100 ft of safety. If I'm going to complain, I would say that helicopters need to stay in their lane and abide by the 500 ft rule.

Lifeflight Medivac copters being the exception of course.

 

[dronerdave]

That is a rule that I agree with. Maintaining separation is the main safety rule of all aviation. "Real" aircraft are to stay at least 500 ft agl. Drones 400 ft max give 100 ft of safety. If I'm going to complain, I would say that helicopters need to stay in their lane and abide by the 500 ft rule.

I think you miss read me. I'm saying if I'm 100' away form a vertical cliff that towers 800' feet above the floor, I should be able to stay within an reasonable distance from the face of the cliff. As it's written I cannot launch off the top of a mountain and fly 5 feet from the face of it because directly below is well past 400 feet AGL. I have no issues with the way the 400 foot rule is with 107. I fly in areas where many manned aircraft fly well below 100' and actually expect them to be there even if they are not. It's about safety.

 

[dronerdave]

Lifeflight Medivac copters being the exception of course.

I do not understand why people can't understand that manned aircraft DO fly below 400 AGL in many circumstances legally. Basically manned aircraft are the pedestrians of the sky and have the right of way at all times no matter where they are operating in the NAS. It's up to me to see and avoid via my eyes minimum while operating my quads. FPV and ADS-B are tools to aid in detecting aircraft during your flight but VLOS with your sight is required as the main procedure for safety to see and avoid.

 

[maelstrom]

That is a rule that I agree with. Maintaining separation is the main safety rule of all aviation. "Real" aircraft are to stay at least 500 ft agl. Drones 400 ft max give 100 ft of safety. If I'm going to complain, I would say that helicopters need to stay in their lane and abide by the 500 ft rule.

Remember that drones are at the very bottom of the food chain as far as aviation regulations go (and rightly so). A drone hitting a full-sized aircraft does no damage whatsoever to the drone pilot but could potentially kill the aircraft pilot, Once out of controlled airspace, there are few instances when helicopters (or fixed-wing for that matter) need to follow lanes. Helicopters can legally land at unlicensed sites and fixed wing aircraft can land at field strips so both can legitimately operate below 400 ft well away from helipads or airports.

Lifeflight Medivac copters being the exception of course.

And police helicopters, the military, search and rescue and pipeline/powerline inspections to name just a few more.

 

[BigAl07]

The rules tend to exist for a reason and I think more rules are forthcoming that will limit recreational pilots even further. The problem with more rules is the guy who lands his drone on the field during a MLB game is going to do so, rules or no rules. This just means more headaches for the person who wants to enjoy the hobby responsibly.

No Rule or Regulation will stop EVERY bad apple but believe it or not rules do cause many of u to stop and reconsider an action that we might otherwise do with no hesitation. To think or insinuate that a rule/reg is going to stop everyone is unrealistic and comical.

The problem is most of the DJI drones are not toys but it is easy to mistakenly view them as such when first getting into the hobby. There is also no barrier of entry in the hobby. If you have $500, you can be up in the air in the time it takes to charge the battery. This is somewhat concerning when you think about the fact these drones have a range of several miles and can hit speeds of 20 to 90 MPH.

Actually they are toy-grade for the most part with cheap components and zero levels or redundancy but the root of your statement is accurate none-the-less. They are too EASY to operate with almost no skills needed other than reading the Quick Start Guide and hitting the TAKE OFF button.

A little off topic, I do wish recreational pilots could profit from their drone footage. The fact we can’t doesn’t make much sense to me.

But you CAN! It's a often over looked concept of getting your Part 107.

Why does not making $$ from your aircraft under RECREATIONAL regulations seem such a strange concept?

EVERYONE is Part 107 by DEFAULT but if you don't want to be held accountable for Part 107 rules you stay inside the protective bubble of 49 USC 44809: Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft
Making $$ pierces that protective bubble putting you right back into the DEFAULT of Part 107.

 

[iReviewFrozenDinners]

I think you miss read me. I'm saying if I'm 100' away form a vertical cliff that towers 800' feet above the floor, I should be able to stay within an reasonable distance from the face of the cliff. As it's written I cannot launch off the top of a mountain and fly 5 feet from the face of it because directly below is well past 400 feet AGL. I have no issues with the way the 400 foot rule is with 107. I fly in areas where many manned aircraft fly well below 100' and actually expect them to be there even if they are not. It's about safety.

View attachment 126207

Easy, totally legitimate solution incoming:
Here's FAA's list of structure types. Bring any one of those with you and build it/set it up at the cliff. Now you have a structure that you can fly above 400' within a 400'. Problem solved.