Since when have manned aircraft been limited to above 500’? ‘...that altitude where an engine out landinding can not be accomplished without undo hazard to people or property.’ And it isn’t just “drones”. Model aircraft/gliders have flown from AMA sites for 40+ years without incident. In the 30 years they have been keeping records, only 4 deaths have occurred as a result of AMA flying and only one of those was a spectator.
FAA to Impose 400' Max for Rec Flyers NO EXCEPTIONS
- Thread starter JAW
- Start date
Since when have manned aircraft been limited to above 500’? ‘...that altitude where an engine out landinding can not be accomplished without undo hazard to people or property.’ And it isn’t just “drones”. Model aircraft/gliders have flown from AMA sites for 40+ years without incident. In the 30 years they have been keeping records, only 4 deaths have occurred as a result of AMA flying and only one of those was a spectator.
Manned aircraft are not limited to above 500 ft - hence my statement that such arguments are incorrect. I probably should have worded that better to clarify that the premise (500 ft) was incorrect, rather than just the arguments that stemmed from it.
We have been hearing about how all these restrictions are necessary for years now. Can someone tell me about the scores of deaths and mass casualties? Yes, reasonable restraints but regardless of laws, fools are still going to fly recklessly in full scale aircraft and scale RC. In 30+ years of RC flying, only 4 reported deaths and only one was a spectator. Have RC planes become more popular or dangerous? Just the opposite. Radios are infinitely better and more reliably. Video simulators have reduce airfield crashes. Auto-idle stopped fly-always.
PT_Mavic
Well-Known Member
When government people deem it necessary to obey the law, and start being punished for their obvious felonies, then I might take a look at whatever demands they consider necessary to keep the clockwatching parasites happy.
So here is what we have as you posted...
Hobby fliers are being limited to 400' because they are less apt to know the rules that they need to follow:
FAA to Impose 400' Max for Rec Flyers NO EXCEPTIONS
Again, your rationale for having a 400' law for hobby fliers is because they may not know the laws. If they don't know the laws, how would they know to stay under 400'? This is the issue with the prior statements that I've been pointing out. I've simply walked you through each step.
You do offer some additional information though. It appears that you might be saying that someone who has past part 107 understands the risk of a collision better than a hobby flier. So that is why they are allowed to fly higher. This is wrong on so many levels. The risk we are talking about is a collision with a manned aircraft. As mentioned above, the risk is no higher for a hobby flier that knows the laws (see above) then someone who has passed part 107 and knows the laws. I am _not_ saying that the person who passed part 107 does not know a lot of other things that a hobby flier knows, they very well could... but the risk is a collision and the way to avoid the collision is by seeing the manned aircraft. I'm not sure how passing a test is going to make a person's sight any better. Again, in order for your argument to work, the hobby fliers needs to know the laws that apply to them. So they know to avoid manned aircraft, keep the drone in sight, etc.
What I propose is that the risk is the same for anyone above 400' so there is no reason to have different laws. Heck, if a person who has passed part 107 is not changing at the time, they have different rules to follow. What has changed that there needs to be a change in the laws that apply? Nothing. Since the risk/exposure is the same, there only needs to be _one_ set of rules that everyone follows. This is a _lot_ less confusing for everyone. If you don't think it is confusing to even people that have passed part 107, you simply need to read some of their posts on this forum.
tcote- it's hard to discuss this with flatlanders. If a manned aircraft is flying 10 feet away from the cliff you initially cited, they likely won't be breathing for much longer. When your tormentor's entire point of reference is a gently sloping pancake landscape, they resort to the ridiculous assertion that no one needs to fly over 400 feet. As you and I know, if you fly a canyon rim you can go from 400' AGL to 600' AGL or more in a forward movement of less than a foot, as you explain, only being a mere 10 feet above the AGL of the canyon rim you are standing on. Your altitude above sea level has not changed. Hey I know this is a total waste of time trying to examine the issue with spatially challenged intellectuals in the crowd, just wanted you to know you have some support for your discussion. Not all of us fly around 400 foot buildings.
You're still missing the critical word "demonstrated". The FAA requires that you demonstrate you know the regulations by passing a test.
It has nothing to do with being "spatially challenged". The FAA is going to write rules that accommodate 99% of the flying situations and not worry about the 1001 situations that may fall in the cracks. I doubt they are going to get as precise in the rule making to say you can fly above 400 feet if you're flying near a cliff that has a wall that has a 90 ~ 70 degree slope as long as you remain within 100 feet of the canyon wall or if flying over a forest you can exceed 400' as long as you remain less than 400' above the tallest tree within a 100 foot radius.
As for giving greater latitude to those that have DEMONSTRATED they have knowledge of the general regulations that govern the airspace that's the logical progression. The more you can demonstrate your knowledge of the airspace requirements for conducting a safe flight (all the components that go into making flying safe) the more freedom you're given in the options you have for flying.
Last edited by a moderator:
wsalopek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 118
- Reactions
- 32
- Age
- 64
Talking about "need" is not the right way to think about this...after all, the gov't could say no one NEEDS to drive a car, or walk in a particular place, or eat whatever, or listen to music, or indeed anything at all past breathing, eating, and sleeping.. The gov't needs to show legitimate reasons for taking freedoms AWAY from people. Of course there quite frequently ARE legitimate reasons...but what I am saying is that it's almost never correct to ask why a person "needs" a certain freedom...but it IS always correct to ask why a gov't, or anyone, should be allowed to take freedoms away.
Nosebump
Well-Known Member
I think the 400' rule is well thought-out, and a good one. As a pilot, I fly as low as 1000' at times, and Helicopter pilots limit themselves to 600'. While flying my drone last year, a local police helicopter suddenly appeared at little more than tree-top height. For safety reasons, I descended to just above the weeds for safety reasons. Had I not been line of sight, my limited view from the drone camera lens would've been insufficient. 400' allows an adequate safety margin.
I plan to frequently and recurringly ignore this [Language removed by Admin]!
*Admin: Unacceptable language
*Admin: Unacceptable language
Last edited by a moderator:
SwampFox
Member
Get your UAV Pilot license, follow the Commercial limits (which allow you to go 400' above OR NEXT TO!!! like a canyon wall) the structure you are inspecting. Then sell your picture to someone for a small amount, like $1. Put on the receipt some explanation as to why you were inspecting the canyon wall, etc... (Like looking for rock climbing possibilities) As for taking a photo of the crater, be careful because you never know when a small aircraft might come zippy by. I would always stay within the sectional chart altitude limits for the area and avoid going outside the parameters established by the FAA. Otherwise, with the popularity of drones, both commercial and recreational, it will become very dangerous for people on the ground and in the air.
We need to put energy (letters and phone calls) to our people in Congress. Of course, don't expect too much from them either.
We need to put energy (letters and phone calls) to our people in Congress. Of course, don't expect too much from them either.
dougiefresh27
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
- Messages
- 173
- Reactions
- 99
I fly DJI Mavic Air so the 400' AGL is my limit. However, I live in a city with 200' tall limestone bluffs. If I take off by the river I can go to 400' AGL but move 100 yards away, I could launch from the top of a bluff and be 600' from the base of the river. So here the 400' ceiling is almost a relative issue. I would live to fly a mile up and see that view but I will follow the rules. LOS may be another issue.
In USA, as a hobbyist, as the rule reads that would be a no. It's 400ft AGL, no exceptions. Being within 100ft of the cliff would not matter.
Though from a practical standpoint rather than legal, it shouldn't matter.
Though from a practical standpoint rather than legal, it shouldn't matter.
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Help With Judder Correction 24p Footage Shot On Mini 3 Pro
- Started by phazemonster
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
