FAA to Impose 400' Max for Rec Flyers NO EXCEPTIONS

[Deleted member 93449]

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?

Because the FAA has some understanding that the person with the 107 knows the airspaces rules and flight safety requirements for sUAS vehicles sharing airspace with manned flight operations. As mentioned (I think I mentioned this), my hope is the FAA will relax this rule once they have the knowledge testing system in place for recreational pilots and that authorizations would be allowed for recreational purposes that don't pose a hazard to manned aircraft.

 

[tcope]

Because the FAA has some understanding that the person with the 107 knows the airspaces rules and flight safety requirements for sUAS vehicles sharing airspace with manned flight operations.

Makes no sense. So a hobby flyer won't know the 400' rule but the Part 107 person would? so this is why the Part 107 person's 401' flight into manned aircraft area is safe but a hobby flight is not? That makes zero sense.

If the hobby flier did not know the rule, well, then the law won't make a difference at all.

 

[sar104]

Makes no sense. So a hobby flyer won't know the 400' rule but the Part 107 person would? so this is why the Part 107 person's 401' flight into manned aircraft area is safe but a hobby flight is not? That makes zero sense.

Try not to be so disingenuous. As you are perfectly well aware, Part 107 pilots have passed a knowledge test and so yes - they will all know the 400 ft AGL rule, and more. Recreational pilots, on the other hand, haven't taken any kind of test and many of them clearly haven't read anything beyond whatever basic minimum was necessary for them to get the aircraft into the air. So of course it makes sense.

If the hobby flier did not know the rule, well, then the law won't make a difference at all.

Outstanding - yet another attempt to assert that if anyone is ignorant of a law then it makes that law pointless. Is this really the best you can come up with?

 

[JAW]

I was unable to find any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the 400' rule, so it might still be in the "how 'bout we do this" stage. It's been 10 months since the FAA drafted an NPRM to allow night flying and flights over people without waivers (107 jocks only) and it still remains in red-tape limbo.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Makes no sense. So a hobby flyer won't know the 400' rule but the Part 107 person would? so this is why the Part 107 person's 401' flight into manned aircraft area is safe but a hobby flight is not? That makes zero sense.

If the hobby flier did not know the rule, well, then the law won't make a difference at all.

Yes, because to get the 107 you need to pass a test that demonstrates your knowledge of the rules. And it's not just the knowledge of the altitude restricts but all the other rules that govern sharing the national airspace (how to know if the airspace you want to fly in is controlled airspace, what type of controlled airspace, ceiling and visibility requirements, responsibilities of the pilot in command, etc., etc., etc.).

You'd be surprised at the ignorance among the general population about the regulations regarding drones. Yes, people unknowingly break the rules all the time and where someone knowledgeable amount the rules encounters them they should do some educating, explaining the rules and why a rule exist.

 

[superstarpup]

flight into manned aircraft area

that verbiage alone shows why training should be required.

 

[sar104]

I was unable to find any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the 400' rule, so it might still be in the "how 'bout we do this" stage. It's been 10 months since the FAA drafted an NPRM to allow night flying and flights over people without waivers (107 jocks only) and it still remains in red-tape limbo.

14 CFR Part 101 subpart E has not been updated, as far as I can tell, but the 400 ft restriction is based on established Public Law, Chapter 448 of title 49 of US code, specifically 44809 (a) (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 it doesn't need a NPRM - it's Federal law.

 

[tcope]

Yes, because to get the 107 you need to pass a test that demonstrates your knowledge of the rules. And it's not just the knowledge of the altitude restricts but all the other rules that govern sharing the national airspace (how to know if the airspace you want to fly in is controlled airspace, what type of controlled airspace, ceiling and visibility requirements, responsibilities of the pilot in command, etc., etc., etc.).

So your argument is that people who pass part 107 know the rules. Your argument only works is you are also stating that hobby fliers don't. That is where your argument fails. Hobby fliers are required to know the rule as well. If they don't then this is all moot... as they would not know to stay under 400' anyway. So you can't say they should be restricted... by a restriction they know nothing about. So your argument would not hold up on that alone. But to add to that, the _action_ is either safe or it is not safe. You are saying that a commercial flier somehow has a better chance of avoiding a manned aircraft then someone who has not taken a written test? Why? If their vision much better? Or does that airspace somehow become safe because the person on the ground passed a test?

 

[tcope]

Outstanding - yet another attempt to assert that if anyone is ignorant of a law then it makes that law pointless. Is this really the best you can come up with?

Not at all what I said... not even close. It makes the "argument" without merit, not the law. My post was very clear so you are simply trying to change what I stated.

 

[sar104]

Not at all what I said... not even close. It makes the "argument" without merit, not the law. My post was very clear so you are simply trying to change what I stated.

No - that's not what you said, which was:

"If the hobby flier did not know the rule, well, then the law won't make a difference at all."​

I realize that, as usual, you think you can wriggle out of posting nonsense by attempting to obfuscate what you wrote and twisting the meaning of the responses you get, but no amount of dissembling is going to help justify it. Back to the ignore list.

 

[tcope]

No - that's not what you said, which was:
"If the hobby flier did not know the rule, well, then the law won't make a difference at all."

You turned that into this:

yet another attempt to assert that if anyone is ignorant of a law then it makes that law pointless.

When in _reality_ the comment of the law being pointless had _nothing_ to do with there not being a need for the law at all.

The _context_ (that is where you read the _entire_ outline of the comment) was that the 400' law was more lax on a commercial flier and more strict on a hobby flier because hobby fliers may not know about the law. Well, if the hobby flier did not know the law, the theory would not make sense as the law was pointless.... IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED.

A law is more strict on a group of people for the sole reason that they may not know the law? Just think about that for a moment. Once that soaks in, you can then move not knowing about a law somehow changes the likelihood that a flying area is safe or unsafe. it is either safe or unsafe for the fact that a 2lbs piece of plastic could collide with a plane, not because someone may know the law or not.

If you want to ignore someone PLEASE do so. The forum makes it very easy. No need to announce it like it is because a person's post is worthless and you are so much above having to read their posts. Simply.... don't read the post and move on.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

So your argument is that people who pass part 107 know the rules. Your argument only works is you are also stating that hobby fliers don't. That is where your argument fails. Hobby fliers are required to know the rule as well. If they don't then this is all moot... as they would not know to stay under 400' anyway. So you can't say they should be restricted... by a restriction they know nothing about. So your argument would not hold up on that alone. But to add to that, the _action_ is either safe or it is not safe. You are saying that a commercial flier somehow has a better chance of avoiding a manned aircraft then someone who has not taken a written test? Why? If their vision much better? Or does that airspace somehow become safe because the person on the ground passed a test?

Wrong. Part 107 pilots have DEMONSTRATE they know the rules by passing the test.

And it's not all moot. If they don't know the rules they are more likely to be flying outside of the rules and the more that happens the more likely bad things can happen. If they know the rule they are more likely to obey the rules.

 

[tcope]

Wrong. Part 107 pilots have DEMONSTRATE they know the rules by passing the test.

And it's not all moot. If they don't know the rules they are more likely to be flying outside of the rules and the more that happens the more likely bad things can happen. If they know the rule they are more likely to obey the rules.

It is not wrong in that I never disagreed that people flying under Part 107 don't know the laws. What I pointed out was the argument that hobby fliers may not know the laws is why they are limited to 400' period. Again, if the argument is that they (hobby fliers) don't know the law then the reason the law is different for them does not allow that argument to work.

Again, I never argued that people flying under Part 107 did not know the law. I said nothing even close to that.

 

[JAW]

What I pointed out was the argument that hobby fliers may not know the laws is why they are limited to 400' period.

My thinking is 400' has to do with providing clearance from the 500' min altitude restriction (with several exceptions) applied to a fixed wing aircraft.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It is not wrong in that I never disagreed that people flying under Part 107 don't know the laws. What I pointed out was the argument that hobby fliers may not know the laws is why they are limited to 400' period. Again, if the argument is that they (hobby fliers) don't know the law then the reason the law is different for them does not allow that argument to work.

Again, I never argued that people flying under Part 107 did not know the law. I said nothing even close to that.

You missed the point. The point is the FAA says that you have DEMONSTRATE what you know by taking and passing a test. And as mentioned, it's not just a matter of knowing the altitude limitations but being versed in many of the rules regarding flying in the national airspace.

 

[tcope]

You missed the point. The point is the FAA says that you have DEMONSTRATE what you know by taking and passing a test. And as mentioned, it's not just a matter of knowing the altitude limitations but being versed in many of the rules regarding flying in the national airspace.

So, hobby fliers are limited to 400' without exceptions and commercial fliers are not because commercial fliers are more apt to know the laws? You are saying this is why there is a difference in that law?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

So, hobby fliers are limited to 400' without exceptions and commercial fliers are not because commercial fliers are more apt to know the laws? You are saying this is why there is a difference in that law?

Part 107 pilots are not just "apt to know the laws", they have demonstrated they know the regulations for safely flying in controlled airspace by passing a test. Yes, when you know and follow the rules governing flight safety it enhances flight safety.

 

[tcope]

Part 107 pilots are not just "apt to know the laws", they have demonstrated they know the regulations for safely flying in controlled airspace by passing a test. Yes, when you know and follow the rules governing flight safety it enhances flight safety.

Okay. With that said, hobby fliers are less safe in excess of 400' because they might not know the laws?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Okay. With that said, hobby fliers are less safe in excess of 400' because they might not know the laws?

Yes. Knowing the regulations regarding right of way, ceiling and visibility, visual line of sight, equipment requirements, etc. all help to enhance safety if known and followed.

 

[JAW]

Yes. Knowing the regulations regarding right of way, ceiling and visibility, visual line of sight, equipment requirements, etc. all help to enhance safety if known and followed.

I think the operative word here is "followed."