Recreational Operators have a HARD limit of 400'AGL with no allowance for "Flights Over Structures". That's Part 107 and only in Uncontrolled Airspace.
FAA to UAS Violation Enforcement for December 2021 (hopefully one of many)
- Thread starter BigAl07
- Start date
- Status
So the prior allowance for recreational fliers to fly above 400' near a structure has been removed. There are a lot of YouTube and old training material that needs to be cleaned up. Why was that rule changed? Safety enhancement? The FAA doesn't understand these rule changes complicate matters. Was this the result of a rash of accidents that occurred?
O.k. the 107 pilot was up on this recreational rule but it doesn't diminish my main point. Too much complication for something that really simp!e.
Rich QR
Well-Known Member
Have you made an attempt to read 44809?
Here's the entire text:
(a)(6) is where you'll find the altitude limit. The word "structure" appears nowhere in 44809.
Rich QR
Well-Known Member
The 400' over structure has been exclusive to Part 107 since it was enacted and never part of Hobby/Recreational either under 44809 or back in the old 101 days. There is not and has never been a need for Hobby/Recreational to fly higher than 400' AGL over a structure. You're confusing Part 107 allowances and only muddying the water.
Hobby rules are indeed simple (by design) regardless how hard you work to make them seem complicated.
Rich QR
Well-Known Member
If by "it", you mean "44809 with its 400' AGL altitude limit in its current form", then you're right.
According to the Federal Register of 05/17/2019, On October 5, 2018, the President signed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254). Section 349 of that Act repealed the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (section 336 of Pub. L. 112-95; Feb. 14, 2012) and replaced it with new conditions to operate recreational small unmanned aircraft without requirements for FAA certification or operating authority. The Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft established by section 349 is codified at 49 U.S.C. 44809.
That issue of the Federal Register goes on to explain in great detail the law that was enacted, and it contains the current text, 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.
If you think a more complex rule regarding structures was in place for flyers without a license, please cite the law or regulation.
Here's the Federal Register reference: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-recreational-operations-of-unmanned-aircraft
The FAA never allowed recreational pilots to fly beyond 400’ AGL, only §107 pilots were allowed the 400’ over when within 400’ of a structure. I have to admit that there was a lot of misleading information published on the internet, but it was not by the FAA or any other US government agency.
I thought the same thing when I first got into flying drones, but the misinformation I had read was cleared up for me by a responsible §107 pilot that pointed out the difference between §107 and the old recreational rules (349?).
Last edited:
Screwed again and didn’t even know it. And this change was made for some urgent safety reason? One of those what ifs. Not so simple. DoomMeister needed some clearing up on the issue and apparently he wasn’t alone.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
What change?....If you took less than 5 minutes to read the regulation with an open mind you would agree that they are
simple. Instead you are exhausting yourself throwing imaginary and erroneous statements out there....You think the FAA is complicated?...Have you ever tried doing your own tax return?...That is complicated
When you buy a drone with the intention of flying it, you assume some responsibilities which include finding out what the rules of the game and understanding them...just like buying ice skates and a hockey stick or a volley ball net, or a basketball and a net...you find out how the game is played and the rules of the game... ...it does not become the FAA's responsibility to hold your hand and make sure that you are able to do that.....you don't have to like the regulations, or the way that they are worded ....but they really could not be made any simpler, and seem to be understood by and to work for most people who operate a drone
I’ve read the regulations with a very open mind. As a reminder not only a 107 pilot but an instrument rated part 61 pilot. My mind is very open, in fact still open to the point of viewing the regulations from the standpoint of new folks wanting to get into the hobby. Maybe I’m dealing with mostly genius mentality on this forum but the regulations are not simple and easy. If they were so easy why has an industry grown up around creating training material to help folks pass a test that wasn’t required in the past? The creation and grow of this and other forums is in part because flying drones has become more complex with every new regulation passed.
Hmmm, not really sure. But, that's the beauty of it, I'm not required to know all the rules cause I fly under 44809.
The only item I think is incorrect in Rich's post is when flying in controlled airspace. Sometimes an altitude restriction is listed on the map, it may be 100ft agl. Your supposed to apply for less than that, or be denied. Then again, he may be correct, depends on the area restrictions.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
Are you referring to the TRUST test? If you are..just take a look at the prelude and take the test...you cannot fail it ...you do not need any training manual for it,...just read the introduction ....then take the test ...it takes less than 10 minutes to "study" and take the test and find out that you passed I do not know of any industry that has grown from creating a manual for the TRUST test....and it has been in the regulations forever that some proof of training would become necessary at some point...it finally happened last June some time... ...if you are talking about the 107 training.......that is not required for a strictly recreational flyer ....so that argument does not apply...you did not describe the "change" you mentioned.....some changes that are coming are the Community Based Organizations, which will have some actual authority and more likely to be misguided,, and exclusionary . I say that because I believe they will be tied into AMA.....and around here AMA has fields that strictly prohibit drones....so I don't think they actually have any drone operators in mind except for excluding them....the other change that looks like it is on the horizon is RID
When you were learning to fly and become IFR rated..did you find the applicable FAA rules to be as troublesome as you say the Drone regs are?
Troublesome? If troublesome = complex the IFR rules are much more complex but the benefits that come with the rating are worth the “trouble” of learning them. On the other hand if I simply want to fly a drone in my backyard or some remote area of land the current rules for recreational flying are overly complex in my opinion. The was a prior discussion about the rules being put in place based on establishing an acceptable level of risk. But there seems to be no recognition of the varying levels of risk between flying in a remote area versus flying in a urban area where controlled airspace exist. Then we get back to punishing recreational pilots based on rules established for commercial pilots. There are many shortcomings in the FAA’s approach to recreational drone regulations IMHO.
What change are you talking about? At no point was their a structure exception to the 400' rule for Recreational operations. It's been 400' long before Part 107 came online and it's remained 400' for Recreational operation consistently all along.
Well there certainly seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding about it when I first got involved in the hobby years ago…
Can you fly higher than 400ft?
Most drones should not fly more than the maximum altitude of 400 feet, which applies to recreational and commercial drone pilots.According to official aeronautical regulations designed for drone flight – a drone's altitude cannot exceed 400 feet from the ground unless it is "flown within a 400-foot perimeter of an object and does not stay airborne than 400 feet over the structure's immediate topmost limit."
And this from another website…
“Remember here that 400 feet above the ground is what matters here and not the 400 feet that you can see in the drone’s altimeter. So, if you started 100 feet off the ground when your drone took off because you were on top of a building, the drone will still start at zero feet because its altimeter starts recording at the point of takeoff and not from how high it is. “
So it appears that going back some years this “simply” rule was misinterpreted by others.
This is good - sort of.
It's bad that someone gets fined $15k for doing a dumb thing but good in the sense I have been selected to give a talk to our local Rotary Club on drones. Part of it will be on laws related to not only flyers but idiots who shoot down drones and the related jail terms for that. I need to speak for 30 mins, I think I could go an hour easy
It's bad that someone gets fined $15k for doing a dumb thing but good in the sense I have been selected to give a talk to our local Rotary Club on drones. Part of it will be on laws related to not only flyers but idiots who shoot down drones and the related jail terms for that. I need to speak for 30 mins, I think I could go an hour easy
You can't cite "random websites" in your argument against how Congress and the FAA have instilled regulations upon us. You could literally go on the internet and find supporting info for just about ANY argument you want to make but that's on YOU if you don't go to the official source. Just like someone coming here and reading your outlandish comments about "Recreational Rules allowing to fly differently over a structure" it's totally FALSE and should not be where you get your Regulatory information. That's like asking someone on the street corner to help you understand Case Law. . . I hope this puts your "400' structure" argument to bed as it was wrong and misguided from the get-go and only served to derail this INFORMATIVE thread and create more confusion and arguments for the mere sake of arguing.
While I respect you having Part 61, (current or not), I do question your basic understanding of UAS Regulations on both ~44809 and Part 107. You seem to be a bit fuzzy on both aspects of UAS regulations, and too fuzzy to be trying to cite anything digestible and useable by anyone who is wanting to operate within the actual framework of ~44809 and Part 107.
I agree the way the rules are written is totally confusing which probably makes it even harder for the FAA to decide how or what to charge violators much less how pilots should declare their intentions. It would be nice if there was a table that shows the common rules the apply to both and rules that apply to only one or the other.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
As it stands 107 is the law of the land for flying drones. You can fly under the exemption for recreational flyers as outlined in 44809.....you found and listed the 8 provisions for validly claiming the exemption.....if you look at those rules that you posted...it does not say anything, anywhere about being allowed to fly 400 feet over buildings ...your original argument was regarding recreational flights....apparently, you had gone to the FAA site to get the 8 rules you that you posted..the real source for this information...you see nothing about flying over buildings in that......you can't say that the FAA is responsible because someone else is posting invalid statements as facts .....and if whoever posted that incorrect information read both the 107 regs and recreational regs, it is obvious that they did not carefully read them and disseminate them,, keeping the applicable rules in their proper places .......because someone else confused the 107 and recreational regulations, does not mean that the rules under the exemption are not simple ..that person confused the two sections and applied rules for 107 to rules for the exemption...there is nothing in the exemption to cause anyone to think they can go 400 feet over a building, there is absolutely no mention of it
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
-
Drone Safety Day, The Commercial Ticket Myth, A Fresh Forecast " - FAASafety.go
- Started by GFields
- Replies: 0
-
Forum statistics
