FAA to Impose 400' Max for Rec Flyers NO EXCEPTIONS

[Drgnfli]

The mere mindset that Hobby/Recreational "need" to fly over 400' in Controlled Airspace baffles me.

Even Part 107 operations have to adhere to 400' or the LAANC height in Controlled airspace (there are some grey areas but that's not relevant to this conversation). Why does a hobbyist "NEED" to fly any higher in CONTROLLED airspace? It was just a few weeks ago NO hobby flights in controlled airspace at all....

Your statement, "It was just a few weeks ago NO hobby flights in controlled airspace at all..."

Is Wrong!

I used to call my nearest airfield & was allowed to fly within the 5 mile limit of a Class D airfield every time. I did this for over a year & a half. Then that no flying in controlled air space came up for about a month while the FAA was introducing LAANC. Your statement infers that UAVs were never allowed in controlled airspace.

 

[sar104]

Your statement, "It was just a few weeks ago NO hobby flights in controlled airspace at all..."

Is Wrong!

I used to call my nearest airfield & was allowed to fly within the 5 mile limit of a Class D airfield every time. I did this for over a year & a half. Then that no flying in controlled air space came up for about a month while the FAA was introducing LAANC. Your statement infers that UAVs were never allowed in controlled airspace.

I don't think it either infers or implies that. It's a completely accurate statement.

 

[BigAl07]

Your statement, "It was just a few weeks ago NO hobby flights in controlled airspace at all..."

Is Wrong!

I used to call my nearest airfield & was allowed to fly within the 5 mile limit of a Class D airfield every time. I did this for over a year & a half. Then that no flying in controlled air space came up for about a month while the FAA was introducing LAANC. Your statement infers that UAVs were never allowed in controlled airspace.

What I posted is/was 100% correct. I didn't say "could NEVER". I said just a few weeks ago they couldn't... I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Don't try to put words in my mouth or try to change what I meant. I left no grey area what so ever.

 

[Nosebump]

So you have no problem with non hobby flight above 400' as allowed?

Show me where I said that. 400' is plenty high, and minimizes conflict with aircraft. It's that simple. I suspect that with the new ADS-B regs that will come into effect at the end of the year, drones will then be required to have some kind of ADS-B out requirement. That would help tremendously, but at the same time, increase the price of a drone to outrageous levels. As an example, the minimum cost for a general aviation aircraft to comply with the law is around $2,000 for the equipment alone. I'm about to shell out $7,000. This does not please me!

In light of the the cost potential, a 400' altitude limitation is far less draconian.

 

[tcope]

Show me where I said that.

You didn't... that is why it was a question. You did say the 400' limit was well thought out. So I'm wondering if you have no problem with non-hobby flight into manned aircraft space (i.e. 400'+)

 

[dronerdave]

What about imac competitions and practice at AMA sanctioned fields? Try to perform complex down lines with a 40 percenter with only 400 feet of attitude.

Most here probably don't understand about this type of flying. This was what was supposed to be allowed as it has been for years but the FAA pulled the rug out from under the AMA. I don't have a problem with multi rotors being limited to 400' AGL but the glider RC crowd were told those flying styles (above 400 AGL) would not change with the new regs. Well it changed and those folks are not happy about it. I just hope for some wiggle room with regard what has been proven safe when it comes to the rules. The AMA has always gone to great lengths to incorporate safe hobby flying rules that integrates with manned aircraft flight but it seems the FAA isn't listening to their suggestions.

 

[BigAl07]

Most here probably don't understand about this type of flying. This was what was supposed to be allowed as it has been for years but the FAA pulled the rug out from under the AMA. I don't have a problem with multi rotors being limited to 400' AGL but the glider RC crowd were told those flying styles (above 400 AGL) would not change with the new regs. Well it changed and those folks are not happy about it. I just hope for some wiggle room with regard what has been proven safe when it comes to the rules. The AMA has always gone to great lengths to incorporate safe hobby flying rules that integrates with manned aircraft flight but it seems the FAA isn't listening to their suggestions.

Very well (and accurately) stated. I completely agree.

 

[marcorasi1960]

This discussion made me understand that I really don't understand the 400 ft rule. Can somebody help me get up the learning curve? I fly a Mavic 2 recreationally. Up until today, I was under the impression that I was not allowed to go more than 400 ft above ground level. Period. There are some places where I cannot even go to 400 ft, in fact there are places where I can't even take off (NFZ). But I was under the impression that NOWHERE could I go above 400 ft. Did I get it wrong? Are there places where I am allowed to fly higher?

 

[FlyingGary]

unfortunately the drone industry has been under represented and this is the result full on government intrusion,from the beginning lobbyists should have been hired to purchase politicians and bribe them into keeping the faa in check and now its to late,the government never releases its power it only grows and will continue until everyone must pay homage in the form of buying a licens.we have giving up our rights for safety and now we have to purchase them back.

Buying a license won’t get you over 400’ AGL — you need a waiver, too, unless flying near a structure. Wait until you have to pass a test.

You do know that there are good reasons for these restrictions, right? FAA would prefer not to waste its time, but irresponsible operators make it necessary.

 

[BigAl07]

This discussion made me understand that I really don't understand the 400 ft rule. Can somebody help me get up the learning curve? I fly a Mavic 2 recreationally. Up until today, I was under the impression that I was not allowed to go more than 400 ft above ground level. Period. There are some places where I cannot even go to 400 ft, in fact there are places where I can't even take off (NFZ). But I was under the impression that NOWHERE could I go above 400 ft. Did I get it wrong? Are there places where I am allowed to fly higher?

That's a big NEGATIVE! You're original thoughts are correct as a recreational operation you are required to maintain 400 or less. Sometimes this less can be ZERO etc if you happen to want to fly in a Controlled Airspace but those are individual. When flying in G airspace you're good up to 400' so long as you're following all other rules etc.

 

[marcorasi1960]

That's a big NEGATIVE! You're original thoughts are correct as a recreational operation you are required to maintain 400 or less. Sometimes this less can be ZERO etc if you happen to want to fly in a Controlled Airspace but those are individual. When flying in G airspace you're good up to 400' so long as you're following all other rules etc.

Thank you for your reply. I am still confused. So the comments about being able to fly higher near a structure do not apply to recreational? To be sure I understand: there is no place in the US where I can go above 400 ft legally. Correct?

 

[BigAl07]

Thank you for your reply. I am still confused. So the comments about being able to fly higher near a structure do not apply to recreational? To be sure I understand: there is no place in the US where I can go above 400 ft legally. Correct?

There is NO allowance for Hobby/Recreational to fly higher than stated allowances for "structures". This 'Allowance' is in place for specific applications (such as inspecting a tower).

Hobby/Recreational must stay within 400'AGL (or less depending on other restrictions).

 

[marcorasi1960]

There is NO allowance for Hobby/Recreational to fly higher than stated allowances for "structures". This 'Allowance' is in place for specific applications (such as inspecting a tower).

Hobby/Recreational must stay within 400'AGL (or less depending on other restrictions).

Thanks. That is what I always thought, until I read (or misread) some of the comments above. Appreciate the clarification

 

[BigAl07]

It's easy to see how people can get the wrong idea. Between rapidly changing regulations, people unwilling to believe the regs are legit, people not WANTING to believe the regs, and then people who just don't know what they are talking about... it's no surprise it's a confusing landscape to say the least.

When in doubt always reach out to your local FSDO and you can usually take what they say to the bank but they are HUMAN and also make mistakes.

 

[Drgnfli]

What I posted is/was 100% correct. I didn't say "could NEVER". I said just a few weeks ago they couldn't... I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Don't try to put words in my mouth or try to change what I meant. I left no grey area what so ever.

Oh, yes you did!!!