FAA to Impose 400' Max for Rec Flyers NO EXCEPTIONS

[ChrisOutdoors]

The question is why do we "need" over baring laws against the enjoyment of life.

Precisely the problem with UAS legislation. Laws are being considered about unrealistic worst case scenarios. Eventually it'll be easier to drive a car than operate a UAS for fun; all in the name of nonsensical SAFETY.

Hang onto your DJI products from today folks, they may be worth more in the future when the newer versions never let you take off due to NFZs and are not as easily hacked as todays/yesterdays variants.

 

[2edgesword]

Not difficult. I'm above a canyon at 450 feet and I fly over the edge. I'm now 10 feet away from bit I'm now illegal. Nothing has changed when it comes to manned aircraft. I'm flying next to a canyon ledge and it's 500 feet tall. I'm 20 feet off the wall but at 401 feet I'm illegal. A manned aircraft it going to be flying 10 or 20 feet off a cliff wall? To go a bit further, why have a different altitude limit for hobby vs commercial flight? Is flying for a fee at 410 off a structure any less dangerous then flying in the same place and not charging for a photo? Nope.

O.k., maybe I'm missing something. First, if you're 450' above the canyon floor you're already in violation of FAA rules. Unless the "wall" of the canyon is a vertical drop there will be a slope as you near the wall where you should be able to remain under 400' (surface below to the height of the drone) while navigating to get above the ridge.

 

[tcope]

O.k., maybe I'm missing something. First, if you're 450' above the canyon floor you're already in violation of FAA rules. Unless the "wall" of the canyon is a vertical drop there will be a slope as you near the wall where you should be able to remain under 400' (surface below to the height of the drone) while navigating to get above the ridge.

An example. I'm standing on the edge, flying 10' off the ground. i fly out 10 feet and all of a sudden I'm 450' off the ground. Nothing has really changed. Hobby flight, I'm illegal. Commercial flight, I'm legal. So if I'm not charging for a photo I'm endangering manned flight and if I'm charging, I'm not. Does that make sense?

 

[2edgesword]

An example. I'm standing on the edge, flying 10' off the ground. i fly out 10 feet and all of a sudden I'm 450' off the ground. Nothing has really changed. Hobby flight, I'm illegal. Commercial flight, I'm legal. So if I'm not charging for a photo I'm endangering manned flight and if I'm charging, I'm not. Does that make sense?

Based on what I've read the wall of a canyon wouldn't be considered a "structure" so even 10' from the wall if you're 450' above the ground it would be a violation. In either case you would need authorization and if I'm understanding the OP if you're in controlled airspace you can't get recreational authorization.

 

[tcope]

Based on what I've read the wall of a canyon wouldn't be considered a "structure" so even 10' from the wall if you're 450' above the ground it would be a violation. In either case you would need authorization and if I'm understanding the OP if you're in controlled airspace you can't get recreational authorization.

Now you understand my point. It is no more dangerous under an terms of flight and certainly charging for a photo should not change the legality when it comes to safety, but it does.

The FAA is not making drone flight any more safe then it has been since 2012. They are just needlessly restricting flight and adding hoops that are difficult to jump through.

 

[2edgesword]

Now you understand my point. It is no more dangerous under an terms of flight and certainly charging for a photo should not change the legality when it comes to safety, but it does.

The FAA is not making drone flight any more safe then it has been since 2012. They are just needlessly restricting flight and adding hoops that are difficult to jump through.

I work in a 75' tall three story building about 2 miles from a controlled airport. There is a large parking lot with 30' trees surrounding it. Technically I can't hover at 1' without authorization. Does it make practical sense? No, but those are the rules until the rules catch up with practically. Unfortunately there are 1001 one variations to your situation and mine. I don't think the FAA is going to be up for the fine tuning to address them all.

 

[tcope]

I work in a 75' tall three story building about 2 miles from a controlled airport. There is a large parking lot with 30' trees surrounding it. Technically I can't hover at 1' without authorization. Does it make practical sense? No, but those are the rules until the rules catch up with practically. Unfortunately there are 1001 one variations to your situation and mine. I don't think the FAA is going to be up for the fine tuning to address them all.

Of course they won't. They would rather make laws that do nothing and make it appear they they are doing something. Their track record shows this to be the case. The easy thing to do to have made things be better would have simply been to make the same safety rules for hobby and commercial flight. They both pose the same risk. That would have been very easy and it would have made sense. This still would have left us with a lot of worthless rules but it would have been easy to do and made sense.

 

[Bill combs]

Too bad there weren't many lobbyists who were R/C Hobbyist.......

its never to late to hire lobbyists to bribe politicians since politicians are a low life form and are willing to take money from anyone for any reason.

 

[2edgesword]

its never to late to hire lobbyists to bribe politicians since politicians are a low life form and are willing to take money from anyone for any reason.

The AMA is lobbying Congress to get some of these rules changed. The FAA said they would work with hobbiest to figure out a way to incorporate their operations in the large scale airspace reorganization. Unfortunate rather than try to incorporate it's easier to just say no.

 

[stonecherub]

Dear WhyWould folks:

Why on earth would anybody "need" to fly over 120 m (400 ft)? This is why! Admittedly, it's in Mexico and I am the only one flying there that I know of. Because YOU can't imagine, please do not denigrate those of us who can.




Dan Lynch

 

[Thomas B]

One place I like to go is the Mogollon Rim. I can takeoff form the top , climb to an altitude of 10-15 feet, then fly south about 25 feet and over the edge. Suddenly I’m flying at 2000 ft above the ground below me... sounds like the ability to get shots like the one below is coming to an end

 

[BigAl07]

Dear WhyWould folks:

Why on earth would anybody "need" to fly over 120 m (400 ft)? This is why! Admittedly, it's in Mexico and I am the only one flying there that I know of. Because YOU can't imagine, please do not denigrate those of us who can.


View attachment 83675

Dan Lynch

I don't think that's in CONTROLLED airspace is it? Maybe the airport is directly behind you in this picture . . .

 

[Neil Reid]

I'll leave the legal interpretations to more experienced folks than myself, but as for me, I have zero need to be above 400'. At any range at all at that altitude you can not see the drone with the naked eye. If you look down at your controller and phone/tablet- which you need to monitor carefully- the drone is nearly impossible to reacquire visually. The LOS requirement is a good one, IMHO and it gets pretty tenuous at 400' of altitude.

 

[2edgesword]

Dear WhyWould folks:

Why on earth would anybody "need" to fly over 120 m (400 ft)? This is why! Admittedly, it's in Mexico and I am the only one flying there that I know of. Because YOU can't imagine, please do not denigrate those of us who can.


View attachment 83675

Dan Lynch

Your desire to fly over 400' to take a pictures For recreation doesn't trump the safety of manned aircraft that use that airspace. Try Google Earth.

 

[tcope]

I'll leave the legal interpretations to more experienced folks than myself, but as for me, I have zero need to be above 400'. At any range at all at that altitude you can not see the drone with the naked eye. If you look down at your controller and phone/tablet- which you need to monitor carefully- the drone is nearly impossible to reacquire visually. The LOS requirement is a good one, IMHO and it gets pretty tenuous at 400' of altitude.

Simply not true. See my photo above. I can fly 10, 20, 100 feet out and see my drone perfectly. I'm 10 feet above where I'm standing but the drone is over 400'. It makes no sense if I charge for a photo I'm safe but if I don't, I'm not.

 

[tcope]

Your desire to fly over 400' to take a pictures For recreation doesn't trump the safety of manned aircraft that use that airspace. Try Google Earth.

So why can someone flying under Part 107 fly above 400' near a structure and it be safe but the same person not charging cna fly in the same place and it not be safe? If I'm 10' off a rock cliff but over 400' I'm endangering manned aircraft?

 

[harle83]

As many others have already stated and I agree completely, no one needs to fly over 400 ft about AGL or a Structure that you may be videoing. The days of the Wild West are long over. Why the AMA which is notedly absent most of the time with any issues concerning Quads, is kinda beyond me. This is a fight that shouldn’t be picked and that I would not suppot, even if I were a member still. When I first purchased my Phantom 3SE I set the height at 400 meters not feet. When I realized what I had done my drone was nowhere that I could see. Only thing that saved it was my very alert wife who saw it while someone just walked up and wanted to start the what are you flying nonsense. Had to ask 3 times for him to give me a moment and finally after the longest 5 minutes of my drone life I got it back. That was right at 2 years ago. 400 feet is perfect you don’t need to go further unless you’re doing some kind of inspection or building video that is above AGL. You have the same right in the mountains as well. The AMA? Sounds kinda like there trying to make it look like they care when in fact honestly to me anyway, we’ve always been Second Class Citizens to them. YMMV.

 

[JAW]

Actually his comment makes no sense to me as applied either to recreational or Part 107.

This taken from the most recent AMA blog looks to me like the 700' or 1200' statement is referring to AMA sites located in uncontrolled airspace:

Q: How high will I be able to fly in uncontrolled airspace?
A: The FAA has stated that they are working on a blanket flying site waiver for uncontrolled airspace, this will allow AMA members to fly up to 700’ or 1200’ depending on the location within Class G airspace.

 

[sar104]

This taken from the most recent AMA blog looks to me like the 700' or 1200' statement is referring to AMA sites located in uncontrolled airspace:

Q: How high will I be able to fly in uncontrolled airspace?
A: The FAA has stated that they are working on a blanket flying site waiver for uncontrolled airspace, this will allow AMA members to fly up to 700’ or 1200’ depending on the location within Class G airspace.

Right - that sounds like a fixed site waiver to the floor of the Class E airspace for recreational flight.

 

[BigAl07]

This taken from the most recent AMA blog looks to me like the 700' or 1200' statement is referring to AMA sites located in uncontrolled airspace:

Q: How high will I be able to fly in uncontrolled airspace?
A: The FAA has stated that they are working on a blanket flying site waiver for uncontrolled airspace, this will allow AMA members to fly up to 700’ or 1200’ depending on the location within Class G airspace.

I think that's a very reasonable option. At a controlled location (able to be NOTAM created) and in Class G airspace.