DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Drone Vs. Powered Hang Glider

Thanks. That’s why i led with the admission i didn’t know anything about ultralights, but i knew the 300’ the op mentioned didn’t make sense.
ACs are not regulatory... but failing to follow advisories involving an accident/incident would likely fall under careless and reckless.

I believe that the ultralight is required to be 500 feet away from buildings or people unless taking off or landing.
 
Not everyone follows the rules. I had a plane flying about 300 feet above the trees the other day. Little prop plane. Scared the crap out of me to see him so low
 
Even if you have your drone in VLOS and the aircraft/ulralight in VLOS, it can be difficult from where we're standing to determine if we're in or near their path.

I had this problem with a helicopter flying low offshore from the beach. I couldn't tell how far out or really how low he was. It was only by turning my drone to face him and view FPV that I figured out he was about 250-300ft (I had descended to 200ft) that he was probably 500ft or more offshore. I was on the shoreline.
 
If I was flying 300 ft out and VLOS looking at my drone and a glider with no noise came from behind me and suddenly powered up it would scare me and piss me off. Sure he's got the right of way but theres nothing I can do till I know he's there and 300 feet is very little time to react almost impossible to move out of the way . Does anyone look behind them when flying I doubt that you do too often becdause then you have to take your eyes off your drone or off the screen. I see people sit in cars and fly sit in the house and fly sit on the porch and fly and all these place you can't even see behind you . Keeping tabs on whats going on in the sky behind you is not a natural thing and if all you na sayers say it is I'll call BS. I don't do it and I don't know anyone that flys and I know a lot that keeps watch behind them.
Exactly my point you can’t avoid what you don’t see again like driving in a car if you constantly look around you and not pay attention to what your doing is dangerous I understand manned has right of way but he also has a responsibility to know what he is flying into I would think
 
Exactly my point you can’t avoid what you don’t see again like driving in a car if you constantly look around you and not pay attention to what your doing is dangerous I understand manned has right of way but he also has a responsibility to know what he is flying into I would think

When you’re driving can you spot a large insect. This is essentially what you’re expecting the pilot to spot. Coming in from altitude and distance a drone you don’t even know is there would be extremely difficult to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cymruflyer
I was pissed / annoyed because the hang glider pilot did not seem to care where he was flying. I heard back from beach patrol and they are supposed to be at a minimum height of 300ft along the beach. He was far below this
Not sure on your point here?
drone is flying slow or maybe even hovering when a hang glider comes upon you you at whatever speed they can travel at from behind. He needs to know his limitations also
 
If you are flying VLOS (as I always do) and you are out a ways and you need to look around to identify a sound, there is a very high probability that you may not be able to reacquire visual contact with your drone again.
It may have been pretty easy to keep it in sight while concentrating on it, but take your eyes off your drone and then find it again are two very different things.
DAMHIK
:rolleyes:
 
Technically, I'd say you are wrong. First, there is no FAR requiring a 500'agl minimum over 'populated' areas. Fixed wing manned aircraft are required to stay 1000'agl min over densely populated areas. Rotor craft don't seem to have any actual minimum. Both are generally restricted to a 500' clearance from people and buildings, but that is not an altitude restriction. The FAA is quite clear, an ultralight vehicle is NOT an aircraft and therefore not subject to FARs specific to aircraft. If ultralight vehicles were subject to the FARs for aircraft, one would need pilot's license to fly one and they would have to have N numbers.

FAR 103.15 states that one may not fly an ultralight vehicle over congested areas or an open air assemble of people. That means 'not over' no matter how high! While the definition of 'congested area' is not very well defined, the restriction is absolute: no matter how high.

When it comes to low level flight, FAR 103.9 (a) says one may not fly in a manner that creates a hazard to persons or property. And that's it.

As far as the OP's example, it's possible that FAR 103.9 (a) could be interpreted to restrict an ultralight vehicle from flying close to people on the beach. If the number of people on the beach constitutes an 'open air assemble of people', than an ultralight may not over fly them at any altitude.

As long as an ultralight vehicle is operated within FAR 103.9 (a) and FAR 103.15, it can be flown as low as the pilot wants. As a practical matter, except for the lack of a 500' clearance requirement, this is actually much more restrictive than for manned aircraft.

Nick

Nick, let's take a few things you stated above, for example your first paragraph. You seem to think there is no requirement to be 500ft AGL. Well you are incorrect, there is a law that states you must be a min. of 500ft above a populated (or better stated Other than congested) area. You are mixing in here populated areas and densely populated areas. We have all been discussing the area where the OP was flying, this was a beach and he let us not that there were some people on it but he did not state this was a "Densely" populated area. Therefore we are assuming this was simply a populated area or in FAA speak "Other than congested" area.

You stated that an aircraft as in GA type, must be a min. of 1,000ft above a densely populated area, that is mostly correct, but again you brought in the word "Densely" and no one was previously speaking about Dense. (Not that it makes any real difference but the FAA use the word congested and non congested). However, since you brought it up, you must understand that the rule is a little more complicated than the simplicity you stated. A pilot must be a min. of 1,000ft above the tallest structure in that "Densely" populated (or congested) area, which means if there is a slight hill of 50ft and they build a church on that and it has a100ft spire then the pilot must be a minimum of 1,150ft above that spire, unless he skirts it by at least 2,000ft, then he can be back down to 1,000ft.

Now when it comes to just a populated area (we can also call this non-congested or "Other than congested" to be precise), then the pilot can fly lower, but they can not fly as low as they want to, it is still required to be at least 500ft above that populated area. Go back and have another read of Part 91, since you keep bringing that up. Now I have stated this before, if the pilot is over open water or barren land as in the open range in Colorado or open farm fields in the middle of nowhere, anywhere, then they can of course be as low as they feel safe to fly, but they must still steer clear of any person or car or structure in that open land by at least 500ft. They can not just buzz above them. Nick, if you feel there is no min. altitude over populated or as FAA puts "Other than congested areas" you are wrong. The rule clearly states (once more we are not speaking about over open water or in the middle of nowhere here) the aircraft must maintain a min. of 500ft AGL and here is the wording for you:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Nick, the above means the pilot can be as low as they want but must be at least 500ft away from anything on the ground. Rotor craft must still abide by these rules but they are allowed to deviate from the altitude mins. if their flight plan calls for that. That means they are not allowed to buzz a congested (or densely populated) area at 300ft or 500ft unless there is a valid reason for them to do so. Same over "Other than congested" areas, they can not legally just buzz around at 200ft just for fun, because if they were reported, they would "have sum splainin to do" (that is for all the Lucy fans reading.

Ultralights are a little more free in some areas, as are rotor craft, but the FAA also clearly states that the ultralight too must follow or parallel the same rules that GA aircraft follow, when flying in certain airspace.

Now Nick, in your second paragraph you stated Ultralight man not fly over congested areas, and we know this and I have clearly stated that previously, therefore, there was no need for you to reiterate that, this was not "new" news to us.

Nick, your paragraph four, again this has already been stated so you are just repeating what I have already said, again, no new news here. Now the FAA purposefully do not specify what constitutes a gather of people, therefore it is best to think this as a minimum of one to be on the safe side, just don't buzz anyone and steer clear at least 500ft around them.

There is no point in beating this horse anymore, the laws are in place and must be followed. And of course there are always people who do not do this, whether in a car, flying a drone, an ultralight or a GA aircraft and sometimes even a commercial aircraft, but we can't control that.
 
Exactly my point you can’t avoid what you don’t see again like driving in a car if you constantly look around you and not pay attention to what your doing is dangerous I understand manned has right of way but he also has a responsibility to know what he is flying into I would think
Well if you drive a car or fly an aircraft and do not constantly be aware of what is around you, then you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you. You should always drive a car and we aware of what is around you, that means you look ahead and you glance in the rear and side mirrors and you sometimes look side to side etc., all the time while driving. That keeps you aware of your surroundings and a safer driver.

To say that doing this is dangerous is well, just a stupid statement. As for flying, keeping a vigilant look out is hammered into you when undergoing flight instruction, so you are always doing this. Eyes straight ahead or in the cockpit are dangerous eyes, I taught flying for years and I always wanted to see my students head moving around, including behind him, so they could be aware of everything around, above and below as they flew.
 
If you are flying VLOS (as I always do) and you are out a ways and you need to look around to identify a sound, there is a very high probability that you may not be able to reacquire visual contact with your drone again.
It may have been pretty easy to keep it in sight while concentrating on it, but take your eyes off your drone and then find it again are two very different things.
DAMHIK
:rolleyes:
That is a valid statement and quite true, however, the likely hood or a sailplane or hang glider or parachute gliding in over the top of you from behind at your legal max. or below drone flying altitude, is so rare an occasion that it will probably never happen to you. Therefore, it is not something to be worried about, but something to remember, could possibly happen.
 
You seem to think there is no requirement to be 500ft AGL. Well you are incorrect, there is a law that states you must be a min. of 500ft above a populated (or better stated Other than congested)

the pilot can fly lower, but they can not fly as low as they want to, it is still required to be at least 500ft above that populated area. Go back and have another read of Part 91, since you keep bringing that up. Now I have stated this before, if the pilot is over open water or barren land as in the open range in Colorado or open farm fields in the middle of nowhere, anywhere, then they can of course be as low as they feel safe to fly, but they must still steer clear of any person or car or structure in that open land by at least 500ft. They can not just buzz above them. Nick, if you feel there is no min. altitude over populated or as FAA puts "Other than congested areas" you are wrong. The rule clearly states (once more we are not speaking about over open water or in the middle of nowhere here) the aircraft must maintain a min. of 500ft AGL and here is the wording for you:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Nick, the above means the pilot can be as low as they want but must be at least 500ft away from anything on the ground. Rotor craft must still abide by these rules but they are allowed to deviate from the altitude mins. if their flight plan calls for that. That means they are not allowed to buzz a congested (or densely populated) area at 300ft or 500ft unless there is a valid reason for them to do so.

Ultralights are a little more free in some areas, as are rotor craft, but the FAA also clearly states that the ultralight too must follow or parallel the same rules that GA aircraft follow, when flying in certain airspace.

steer clear at least 500ft around them.

That post was too long. All you had to type was, “I’ve read 91.119 (c), but didn’t read as far as 91.119 (d) (2).”

91.119 (d)-

d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
 
Thanks. That’s why i led with the admission i didn’t know anything about ultralights, but i knew the 300’ the op mentioned didn’t make sense. I read the ac, but i also just glanced at the background section, which is where i missed that. I would have thought the faa would have wielded 103.9 in much the same way they use 91.13.

I understand why they called them “vehicles” and not “aircraft,” my point was more joking about calling drones aircraft.

As for your suggestion to call the fsdo for enlightenment, I’m good, this was more of an academic discussion for me. 91.119(d)(2) would have come to mind before calling them, but I have little to no interest in flying lawn chair based vehicles, but hey if you like flying things powered by lawn mower engines, knock yourself out.

I agree with you about calling drones aircraft, because they should be called maybe unmanned flying vehicles.

As for flying lawn mower engines, they are nothing like like that. Maybe back in the 70s they were closer to that but if you have been in aviation for any length of time, you would know that the new category of flying machine called LSA or Light Sport Aircraft, were only a few years ago called ultralight training vehicles/aircraft, because those 2 seaters were use to train on.

Those, as you put it, "flying lawn chair based vehicles powered by lawn mower engines" are so far removed from that description it would be like comparing the Wright Flyer to a Cessna 150. Even the true ultralight have for years been powered with engines that were designed for aviation use and built from the same standard of materials as a Cessna or Piper aircraft. Things have long changed from what your current perception is of them. I would never dream of taking to the sky in a lawn mower powered flying lawn chair. I have not ben to an airshow in years but even back then, those things were really quite advanced flying machines back then, that I saw flying, at least.
 
Last edited:
That post was too long. All you had to type was, “I’ve read 91.119 (c), but didn’t read as far as 91.119 (d) (2).”

91.119 (d)-

d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

And you need to add this from the FAA

"...operating under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 103. It also discusses when an ultralight must be operated as an aircraft under the regulations applicable to certificated aircraft."
 
That post was too long. All you had to type was, “I’ve read 91.119 (c), but didn’t read as far as 91.119 (d) (2).”

91.119 (d)-

d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
So you now understand that your statement of not having to abide by a 500ft limit is still incorrect right?
 
So you now understand that your statement of not having to abide by a 500ft limit is still incorrect right?

After further review, I'll give you some credit for the 500'agl rule. But, not very much. The vast majority of ultralight vehicles are exempted from the rule. For those ultralights there is no 500' min rule, one is either flying over 'sparely populated' area or over 'congested'. On the other hand, there are some ultralight vehicles that do not meet the criteria to be exempted so there are some that are required to maintain the 500'agl min. That said, the region of 'populated' in between 'congested' and 'sparsely populated' is so small as to be effectively nonexistent. This is due to the FAA's very broad definition of congested. The FAA can consider even flying over a single house as flying over a congested area.

Nick
 
After further review, I'll give you some credit for the 500'agl rule. But, not very much. The vast majority of ultralight vehicles are exempted from the rule. For those ultralights there is no 500' min rule, one is either flying over 'sparely populated' area or over 'congested'. On the other hand, there are some ultralight vehicles that do not meet the criteria to be exempted so there are some that are required to maintain the 500'agl min. That said, the region of 'populated' in between 'congested' and 'sparsely populated' is so small as to be effectively nonexistent. This is due to the FAA's very broad definition of congested. The FAA can consider even flying over a single house as flying over a congested area.

Nick
Nick, it is not about giving me credit. You said the following:
"I'd say you are wrong. First, there is no FAR requiring a 500'agl minimum over 'populated' areas."

And I'm sorry but YOU are wrong on this point, you just need to accept that, not give me any credit.

You said:
" Fixed wing manned aircraft are required to stay 1000'agl min over densely populated areas."

Mostly correct but not just fixed wing, any aircraft that is legally flying over a congested area must abide by that. Ultralights are banned from flying over congested areas, therefore, they don't even come into the discussion here.

You said:
"Rotor craft don't seem to have any actual minimum. Both are generally restricted to a 500' clearance from people and buildings, but that is not an altitude restriction."

Rotor craft do have minimums just like all GA aircraft do fixed or non fixed wing. Rotor craft have added exceptions due to the way they can fly but as I stated, only when their legal flight plan makes for those allowances. They can not simply fly as low as they want, congested or Other than congested areas, just because they are rotor wing aircraft and want to have fun flying down low. The 500ft clearance you are speaking of is a width around that object, but that again is only in areas OTHER than congested areas or, as you put it, sparsely populated areas. In a congested area, all aircraft legally allowed to fly above it (That does not include ultralights, because they are banned from that area) must maintain a 2,000ft width clearance around the highest object in that congested area or fly a minimum of 1,000ft above that object, so if it is a 100ft or 500ft tall object they must be 1,000ft above that total object height or fly around it by a minimum of 2,000ft if they want to maintain 1,000ft AGL.

ALL aircraft flying over "sparsely populated areas" and "over open water", including ultralights, are allowed to be as low as they want to, but again must give a minimum of 500ft width clearance around any person, vehicle (Boat), building or other structure.

You also stated:
"On the other hand, there are some ultralight vehicles that do not meet the criteria to be exempted"

There is no such thing as what you just suggested above, there are no grey areas. It is like suggesting someone being a little pregnant, it is not possible. You either are, or you are not. Therefore you either are an ultralight because of the specs. laid out by the FAA of which are single seat, speed restrictions and fuel capacity as well as total empty weight that makes that aircraft fall into that category, and if it does, then it is an ultralight, or it is outside of any one of those FAA laid out criteria. And if it is outside, then it is clearly not an ultralight. It is either an illegal aircraft/flying machine, or it is an unregister aircraft, but what ever it is, it is not an ultralight and it still must comply with all rules governing a GA type of aircraft. FAA makes that quite clear.
 
Last edited:
Well if you drive a car or fly an aircraft and do not constantly be aware of what is around you, then you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you. You should always drive a car and we aware of what is around you, that means you look ahead and you glance in the rear and side mirrors and you sometimes look side to side etc., all the time while driving. That keeps you aware of your surroundings and a safer driver.

To say that doing this is dangerous is well, just a stupid statement. As for flying, keeping a vigilant look out is hammered into you when undergoing flight instruction, so you are always doing this. Eyes straight ahead or in the cockpit are dangerous eyes, I taught flying for years and I always wanted to see my students head moving around, including behind him, so they could be aware of everything around, above and below as they flew.
What you are stating is common sense. My point was you can’t concentrate what’s behind you constantly a lot can happen between glances. How many times you look down in your car to adjust heat or check your gas or whatever and when you look up to a big surprise. I very well understand about awareness around you but sometimes sh@t happens. A person suddenly coming up behind you on a motorized hang glider at who knows what speed without engine on and suddenly starting his motor to me is very wrong. So before you decide to label a persons comment without understanding it is very ignorant and stupid.
 
What you are stating is common sense. My point was you can’t concentrate what’s behind you constantly a lot can happen between glances. How many times you look down in your car to adjust heat or check your gas or whatever and when you look up to a big surprise. I very well understand about awareness around you but sometimes sh@t happens. A person suddenly coming up behind you on a motorized hang glider at who knows what speed without engine on and suddenly starting his motor to me is very wrong. So before you decide to label a persons comment without understanding it is very ignorant and stupid.
I understand what you are saying about a drone, and losing sight for a glance away. As I stated, the likelihood of a sailplane or hang glider coming on over your head from behind is almost non existant while flying, unless of course you are out flying where you know hang gliders and parachutes are known to fly. Then it is best to fly somewhere else.

As for driving a car and glancing down, you really should not ever have a case where you glance down to the radio or heater and look up to a surprise, because you should never be looking down that long in the first place, while driving. It is that simple. You look around and if the conditions are not safe to do so, then never look down and take your eyes off the road for that long or in those quick changing conditions. there is no excuse for that.

The surprises you speak of while driving are, I would suspect, because you took your eyes off the road for too long in the first place, or in conditions that warranted your full concentration. The radio or heater can wait until you are in safer conditions.
 
I understand what you are saying about a drone, and losing sight for a glance away. As I stated, the likelihood of a sailplane or hang glider coming on over your head from behind is almost non existant while flying, unless of course you are out flying where you know hang gliders and parachutes are known to fly. Then it is best to fly somewhere else.

As for driving a car and glancing down, you really should not ever have a case where you glance down to the radio or heater and look up to a surprise, because you should never be looking down that long in the first place, while driving. It is that simple. You look around and if the conditions are not safe to do so, then never look down and take your eyes off the road for that long or in those quick changing conditions. there is no excuse for that.

The surprises you speak of while driving are, I would suspect, because you took your eyes off the road for too long in the first place, or in conditions that warranted your full concentration. The radio or heater can wait until you are in safer conditions.
Now your just being argumentative if your telling me that you have never taken your eyes off the road in front of you for a split second to maybe look at one of your rear view mirrors to make a lane change I guess you just live in a more perfect world than I do. In that split second anything could happen be it someone texting or what ever and you are in a situation that is completely unexpected. I am not talking about looking away and maybe read a novel or figure Einstein’s theory.
 

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
136,496
Messages
1,618,242
Members
165,125
Latest member
ZEMUSHKA
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account