Altitude regulations refer to the altitude of the drone above the ground below it.Since the drone measure barometrically its altitude from the takeoff point (which is 0) if one were to fly to 390 ft and then fly on a level plane over a 100 ft deep wash or gully, would that be a violation?
Kevin
Yes, it's a violation. But, and there is a but. Are you going to get in trouble? If you hit an aircraft, you might. How likely would that be? Maybe as likely as you winning the lottery. If the ATSB actuallly got ahold of your flight logs, they would still show you flying at less than 400 feet. They would then have to compare the impact location with ground elevation maps. Would they go that far? If there were deaths, perhaps, but a hit, maybe not. Again, you would have to hit a manned aircraft for you to be investigated.Since the drone measure barometrically its altitude from the takeoff point (which is 0) if one were to fly to 390 ft and then fly on a level plane over a 100 ft deep wash or gully, would that be a violation?
Kevin
Anyone who can read flight data could tell in a minute how high the drone was above the ground below it.If the ATSB actuallly got ahold of your flight logs, they would still show you flying at less than 400 feet.
That image has always been a bit confusing IMO. If you let the angled line free fall, it would have to be more than 400 feet. It's the altitude directly below the aircraft that counts. Really it should be like this:In my opinion, you would be be busting your altitude restriction. This illustration supports my opinion.
View attachment 133543
B52-D
Blue Skys & Happy Contrails.
View attachment 133544
That image has always been a bit confusing IMO. If you let the angled line free fall, it would have to be more than 400 feet. It's the altitude directly below the aircraft that counts. Really it should be like this:
Not confusing...just wrong...as you point out the altitude is straight down under the aircraft...nice clean job editing and correcting it @dronerdave
That image is from a UK site (Introduction - Dronesafe) and it is correct for the UK rules, nothing confusing about it, really. USA rules are slightly different and that's where confusion may set in - expecting a UK website to apply to another country's laws.That image has always been a bit confusing IMO. If you let the angled line free fall, it would have to be more than 400 feet. It's the altitude directly below the aircraft that counts. Really it should be like this:
View attachment 133572
Exactly but the OP is from the USA.That image is from a UK site (Introduction - Dronesafe) and it is correct for the UK rules, nothing confusing about it, really. USA rules are slightly different and that's where confusion may set in - expecting a UK website to apply to another country's laws.
In the UK you just need to keep within 120m of the ground, whether that be vertically or horizontally. For example you could fly 100m out off the edge of a very tall cliff and remain legal, even though your drone's altitude above ground is, say, 500m.
Like this one. Right?That image has always been a bit confusing IMO. If you let the angled line free fall, it would have to be more than 400 feet. It's the altitude directly below the aircraft that counts. Really it should be like this:
View attachment 133572
if one were to fly to 390 ft and then fly on a level plane over a 100 ft deep wash or gully, would that be a violation?
I would say that it depends.Since the drone measure barometrically its altitude from the takeoff point (which is 0) if one were to fly to 390 ft and then fly on a level plane over a 100 ft deep wash or gully, would that be a violation?
Kevin
I would respectfully disagree.That cliff is part of the topography...it is not a structure...I did see where you say a CFI confirmed that....but a CFI teaches how to fly manned aircraft...and I surmise that he is well versed in the rules that apply to them...this is not manned aircraft and has its own different set of rules
Keeping it a friendly discussion....the 400' ceiling is AGL....there are places....probably most of the country where you can be over 400"MSL at launch .......with a mountain...you can follow the topography and maintain the 400' AGL.....with a cliff..if you were to ascend ..go higher than the cliff and go forward.....now you are BVLOS...I would respectfully disagree.
First, I would note the definition of structure is fairly broad. There are rock structures, for example, that are completely manmade. Had the rule meant "only" man-made structures, they probably would have said so.
Second, I would look at the various approved training materials, which all note that an sUAS can increase MSL altitude while maintaining 400' AGL when going over a hill.
Last, I think that if there were a mountain or cliff in front that were more than 400' high, part 107 doesn't mandate that you must crash into it. A reasonable interpretation is that you would be allowed to fly over it, just as you would do for a man made structure.
Anyhow, that's my two cents.
There are plenty of FAA examiners on here who will, no doubt, correct me if my understanding is mistaken.
And attempting a strict literal interpretation of the rules always ends up in pointless about flying over a hypothetical cliff edge like this.I think loose interpretation of the rules will just get someone in trouble