FAA 400ft rule

[AMann]

I don’t believe that this diagram is correct. The FAA never measures altitude diagonally, or perpendicular to sloped terrain. I’m pretty sure they would describe AGL altitude as height above the ground, not measured at an angle other than 90 degrees.

You are right! I was just looking at that and realized the same. On the slope, it means the drone should be flying closer to the hill than shown in order to be 400’ AGL directly above it!

Just fixed it.

 

[old man mavic]

it all boils down to common sense,flying in a urban setting in say a park,where there are height references near by,to assess ones height by a third party is one thing,but out in the sticks flying in hilly country is something else a third party would have to have some pretty sophisticated equipment to accurately assess your height above the ground at any given moment in time that is not to say that it cant be done.

 

[sar104]

That's where I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Really good article on all this here:

New Drone Laws in the USA [2024] - Drone U™

Here is the comprehensive summary of USA drone laws by state as well as new rules for flying drones by DroneU.

www.thedroneu.com

The agency is evaluating the impacts of this change in the law and how implementation will proceed. The Reauthorization Act cannot be fully implemented immediately, please continue to follow all current policies and guidance with respect to recreational use of drones:

• Fly for hobby or recreation only
• Register your model aircraft
• Fly within visual line-of-sight
• Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization
• Fly a drone under 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
• Never fly near other aircraft
• Never fly near emergency response efforts

Updated direction and guidance will be provided as the FAA implements this new legislation.

Disagree with me on what? That article is already out of date, since the new Section 349 recreational rules are now in force. But, in any case, this is what it says:

If you’re interested in seeing what is coming down the road for U.S. Hobby operators, please read Section 349 of the 2019 FAA Reauthorization Act. This section includes all of the upcoming rules. Pay close attention to all parts of Section (a). Especially this part: “(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.” So, as you can see, the 400’ AGL rule is coming.​

​

So other than the fact that the 400 ft AGL rule is now here, how is that not consistent with my post?

 

[sar104]

You are right! I was just looking at that and realized the same. On the slope, it means the drone would be flying closer to the hill than shown!

Just fixed it.

That diagram represented the UK CAA interpretation of the 400 ft rule.

 

[BigAl07]

Disagree with me on what? That article is already out of date, since the new Section 349 recreational rules are now in force. But, in any case, this is what it says:

If you’re interested in seeing what is coming down the road for U.S. Hobby operators, please read Section 349 of the 2019 FAA Reauthorization Act. This section includes all of the upcoming rules. Pay close attention to all parts of Section (a). Especially this part: “(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.” So, as you can see, the 400’ AGL rule is coming.​

​

So other than the fact that the 400 ft AGL rule is now here, how is that not consistent with my post?

I was just getting ready to type and "cite" exactly what you did. Even though it's only 7 weeks old it is now OUT DATED!

 

[Former Member07122019a]

So other than the fact that the 400 ft AGL rule is now here, how is that not consistent with my post?

Other than that, it's totally consistent. However, the 400 ft AGL rule is the topic of this thread.
You're right and I'm wrong.
I'm outtie.

 

[sar104]

Other than that, it's totally consistent. However, the 400 ft AGL rule is the topic of this thread.
You're right and I'm wrong.
I'm outtie.

The 400 ft AGL rule is now a published, in-force rule, which it was not at the time the article was written. I still don't know what you are disagreeing with.

 

[jacquespa]

It doesn't show NFZs in the way you want, but the background of the FAA Facility map can be changed to show old USGS topos (select USA Topo Maps).
View attachment 73888

I'm likely over thinking this, but since to date I have generally flown over relatively flat terrain I'll ask the question anyway. The topo you posted shows a plateau that appears to be significantly higher elevation than the McArthur Ranch in the LAANC rectangle above it. Both areas are shown with 400 AGL limits but the lower rectangle limit would allow for a higher MSL absolute height when flying above the plateau, correct?

 

[Former Member07122019a]

The 400 ft AGL rule is now a published, in-force rule, which it was not at the time the article was written. I still don't know what you are disagreeing with.

I disagree with the fact that the highly intelligent folks at the FAA would basically entrap anyone by flying over 400 ft because of an obstacle by interpreting the rule's intent without a degree of common sense.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm likely over thinking this, but since to date I have generally flown over relatively flat terrain I'll ask the question anyway. The topo you posted shows a plateau that appears to be significantly higher elevation than the McArthur Ranch in the LAANC rectangle above it. Both areas are shown with 400 AGL limits but the lower rectangle limit would allow for a higher MSL absolute height when flying above the plateau, correct?

"Technically" it's 400' directly over the exact spot of earth under the aircraft. So as the land/elevation rises the aircraft could, technically, also rise in MSL so long as it maintains the max AGL (or less).

I disagree with the fact that the highly intelligent folks at the FAA would basically entrap anyone by flying over 400 ft because of an obstacle by interpreting the rule's intent without a degree of common sense.

Regardless PArt 349 does NOT allow for flying over a structure. Why should it?

 

[Former Member07122019a]

"Technically" it's 400' directly over the exact spot of earth under the aircraft. So as the land/elevation rises the aircraft could, technically, also rise in MSL so long as it maintains the max AGL (or less).

Regardless PArt 349 does NOT allow for flying over a structure. Why should it?

I don't know.. Perhaps it's in your way or prevents you from maintaining line of sight. There are a myriad of reasons and more importantly, there are reasons that the FAA hasn't thought of. It is absurd to think that the intent of the law is to restrict recreational flyers from being able to navigate a structure that an airplane or helicopter would have a redefined floor for. Secondarily, the case in point wasn't just talking about a structure. You were speaking in absolutes. If indeed that was the FAA's intent, as you say, any good judge would throw the case out if challenged.

I'm going to go fly now. Have a great night.

 

[sar104]

I disagree with the fact that the highly intelligent folks at the FAA would basically entrap anyone by flying over 400 ft because of an obstacle by interpreting the rule's intent without a degree of common sense.

Okay. But in that case, why would they carefully spell out that Part 107 flights can go 400 ft above structures, but not mention that in the rules for recreational flight? For recreational flight they only allow 400 ft AGL, and AGL does not include structure heights as, for example, they have clarified for LAANC altitude-restricted authorizations.

And as @BigAl07 asked - why would you expect them to make that allowance? It was included for Part 107 to allow for inspection of buildings and towers, which are not valid use cases for recreational flights. As a recreational pilot, if a structure is in your way then you should neither fly behind it nor over it. If you don't like that answer then simply call your local FSDO and ask them - but you won't like their answer either.

 

[BigAl07]

I don't know.. Perhaps it's in your way or prevents you from maintaining line of sight. There are a myriad of reasons and more importantly, there are reasons that the FAA hasn't thought of. It is absurd to think that the intent of the law is to restrict recreational flyers from being able to navigate a structure that an airplane or helicopter would have a redefined floor for. Secondarily, the case in point wasn't just talking about a structure. You were speaking in absolutes. If indeed that was the FAA's intent, as you say, any good judge would throw the case out if challenged.

I'm going to go fly now. Have a great night.

Don't mad just because we're tossing logic and facts at ya. We all like a good debate and we all usually learn something from it (eventually).

I can assure you the FAA hasn't "forgotten/over looked" any portion of this when developing their 400' rule.

Controlled Airspace does deal with ABSOLUTES! That's how we are able to operate aircraft flying many MANY miles per hour, in close proximity to other aircraft, structures, and terrain in a safe and controlled environment. They remove as many variables as is possible and expect EVERYONE to be playing from the same sheet of music. Even thinking, for a moment, that hobby operations should get a "Free Pass" in such an environment is mind boggling.

If your'e going to play in the NAS with the Big Boys you've got to step up to the plate and play by the Big Boy rules.

 

[brett8883]

Okay. But in that case, why would they carefully spell out that Part 107 flights can go 400 ft above structures, but not mention that in the rules for recreational flight? For recreational flight they only allow 400 ft AGL, and AGL does not include structure heights as, for example, they have clarified for LAANC altitude-restricted authorizations.

Ok I’m just thinking out loud and don’t really have any real insight and you obviously know more about this stuff then I do but I notice that Part 107 isn’t really law right? That’s the rules put forth by the FAA at the direction of Federal law and therefore carries the weight of Federal Law but FAA could change those rules any time they wanted and is at their discretion. Let me know if I’m wrong about that.

That makes it easier for the FAA to clarify the rules because they made them and they are the ones that can change them. Section 349 on the other hand is a bonafide law enacted by Congress signed by the President and becomes slightly more challenging for the FAA because it’s not their rule per se and laws are open to interpretation. Again could be wrong I’m just thinking out loud.

At any rate it seems conspicuous to me that the FAA hasn’t directly addressed this I also find it conspicuous that in all their guidance they say to stay below 400ft. They don’t use the AGL or from ground or specify 400 ft. from what. I could be totally wrong but I see this as a way to keep options open. It seems like they aren’t sure yet about it and are kicking this can down the road.

Take this as another example If I operate my drone within 400 Ft. radius or 400 Ft. above a structure, do I still need authorization?

If I operate my drone within 400 Ft. radius or 400 Ft. above a structure, do I still need authorization?

“Part 107.51 details the 400 foot limitation with respect to structures on the ground. This applies to UAS or drones operating in Class G or Class E airspace. In other airspace classifications, like Class D airspace, an authorization per 107.41 is required.”

This is a lawyers response to this question if I’ve ever heard one. Am I the only one that finds it extremely odd they state that Part “107 details this 400 ft. respect to structures” but then doesn’t even mention recreational rules? Wouldn’t a normal person say, “for 107 pilots the structure thing is ok in class G and E airspace but not for recreational pilots”? It seems like they trying their best not to make any kind of statement that might clarify this. Honestly if this isn’t the case it’s truly bizarre.

 

[sar104]

Ok I’m just thinking out loud and don’t really have any real insight and you obviously know more about this stuff then I do but I notice that Part 107 isn’t really law right? That’s the rules put forth by the FAA at the direction of Federal law and therefore carries the weight of Federal Law but FAA could change those rules any time they wanted and is at their discretion. Let me know if I’m wrong about that.

Within the constraints of 49 USC Ch. 448, yes.

That makes it easier for the FAA to clarify the rules because they made them and they are the ones that can change them. Section 349 on the other hand is a bonafide law enacted by Congress signed by the President and becomes slightly more challenging for the FAA because it’s not their rule per se and laws are open to interpretation. Again could be wrong I’m just thinking out loud.

At any rate it seems conspicuous to me that the FAA hasn’t directly addressed this I also find it conspicuous that in all their guidance they say to stay below 400ft. They don’t use the AGL or from ground or specify 400 ft. from what. I could be totally wrong but I see this as a way to keep options open. It seems like they aren’t sure yet about it and are kicking this can down the road.

I cannot see any confusion in the current Part 107 or recreational law on the structure issue. Both are limited to 400 ft AGL but under Part 107 they added 400 ft over and around structures and the ability to request a waiver to go higher. Under the new recreational rules they provided neither of those options, and so you cannot do that.

Take this as another example If I operate my drone within 400 Ft. radius or 400 Ft. above a structure, do I still need authorization?

If I operate my drone within 400 Ft. radius or 400 Ft. above a structure, do I still need authorization?

“Part 107.51 details the 400 foot limitation with respect to structures on the ground. This applies to UAS or drones operating in Class G or Class E airspace. In other airspace classifications, like Class D airspace, an authorization per 107.41 is required.”

This is a lawyers response to this question if I’ve ever heard one. Am I the only one that finds it extremely odd they state that Part “107 details this 400 ft. respect to structures” but then doesn’t even mention recreational rules? Wouldn’t a normal person say, “for 107 pilots the structure thing is ok in class G and E airspace but not for recreational pilots”? It seems like they trying their best not to make any kind of statement that might clarify this. Honestly if this isn’t the case it’s truly bizarre.

Again - what is even remotely unclear about that? The question is being answered with regard to Part 107 flight, to which the structure exception applies. There was no 400 ft limit for recreational flight in December 2018, when that answer was published, so it was not relevant to recreational flight. Now recreational flight is limited to 400 ft AGL, with no exception for structures. What is not clear about that?

 

[David Kisley]

Ok. Confused. So. Let’s say I take off and fly 200 ft. Then fly over a 300ft valley. Or take off 10 ft and fly over a 500 ft valley. Hobbyiest. No longer ok? And Hobbyists can no longer fly over a 400ft tower or building? What about night flight? I see no prohibition. Thinking about getting 107. Not interested in charging anyone for any services. Is there anything wrong with that? Or does money have to change hands to fly 107. Finally, as I understand. 107 is not allowed at night. If I get 107, can I fly at night as a hobbyist? Assuming it’s still prohibited by 107?

Thanks. In. Advance.

 

[David Kisley]

Ok. Confused. So. Let’s say I take off and fly 200 ft. Then fly over a 300ft valley. Or take off 10 ft and fly over a 500 ft valley. Hobbyiest. No longer ok? And Hobbyists can no longer fly over a 400ft tower or building? What about night flight? I see no prohibition. Thinking about getting 107. Not interested in charging anyone for any services. Is there anything wrong with that? Or does money have to change hands to fly 107. Finally, as I understand. 107 is not allowed at night. If I get 107, can I fly at night as a hobbyist? Assuming it’s still prohibited by 107?

Thanks. In. Advance.

A lot was posted between me typing. Seems as though it’s pretty clear the over tower portion was removed for hobbyists. Slightly off topic, night flying, and flying 107 without collecting money?

I have no real use case for any of these things currently. I am just trying to become informed. In case I take a trip and what to get some shots I want to be informed and safe. I can’t see how getting part 107 will not increase my understanding. But am uncertain if that will prohibit night flight. I live near a city and am on a hill. Putting it up 50ft has some amazing pictures at night. There are hospitals with helicopters near by. But the buildings they land on are pretty far and much higher. Those are my immediate concerns about learning more about 107.

 

[JY-tek]

The 400 ft. rule is almost impossible to work in around my area. We live in heavy mountains, and I can fly a 400 ft for a very short distance, then hit a mountain. Yeah, I know I can fly up at that mountain, but then I'm way too high on the other side. Where I fly is so hilly that airplanes just don't come around here at anything less than 5000 feet or so. I know it's breaking rules, but I don't think the drone would be any safer flying into someone's living room, up on a hill.

 

[PT_Mavic]

it is a shame that the height readout on the app screen is only giving you height above take off point and not the AGL height where the drone actually is during flight ,not so much an issue in reasonably flat terrain in VLOS and i bet people have been caught out thinking that they are flying under 400ft AGL when in fact they are really above that

My controller reads AGL for my Mavic Pro; with NLD to mod the firmware and local terrain data from USGS, it works beautifully.
As for this rule, I'll take it under advisement while awaiting prosecution of real offenses against the public back in DC. Tired of double standards.

 

[PT_Mavic]

The 400 ft. rule is almost impossible to work in around my area. We live in heavy mountains, and I can fly a 400 ft for a very short distance, then hit a mountain. Yeah, I know I can fly up at that mountain, but then I'm way too high on the other side. Where I fly is so hilly that airplanes just don't come around here at anything less than 5000 feet or so. I know it's breaking rules, but I don't think the drone would be any safer flying into someone's living room, up on a hill.

Obviously, in your situation common sense should prevail over some paperwork from people who haven't been outdoors in months.