FAA to UAS Violation Enforcement for December 2021 (hopefully one of many)

[ScottNH]

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.

Wait...are you trying to say there's bad information posted on some websites on the internet?!

Holy crap! We need to let someone know about this.

 

[brett8883]

(WARNING: Below is historical information about past regulations. These rules have since been REPEALED and are no longer the law. Do not use these rules. )

Actually before 44809 there was Section 336 which didn’t actually have a height restriction even though the FAA tried tirelessly to make people think there was. In fact if I remember, @sar104 , didn’t you write a letter to the FAA asking for clarification on that since there was no height restriction in the law but the FAA would say there was on their website? Remember it was a big deal for those large often jet engine powered model aircraft pilots when 336 was repealed in 2018-2019 and 44809 replaced it because those guys said they couldn’t safely fly those things without being able to go over 400 ft AGL.


Since it was repealed it was difficult to find the original text but I found this Advisory Circular from 2016 that says the rules were:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) The aircraft operates in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization (CBO);

(3) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds, unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a CBO;

(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft; and

(5) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the model aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation. Model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport).

Again this was repealed in 2018-2019 probably because they realized they forgot some important bits like height limit and requiring registration.

 

[BigAl07]

@brett8883 that still doesn't validate the "Structural Allowance" that was incorrectly heavily suggested here. It was never that way for Recreational operators.

Heck if we want to go back let's go back to when I started in '74 and we could legally do just about anything but we still didn't or we did it in a way to ensure Aviation Safety.

 

[Rich QR]

You can't cite "random websites" in your argument against how Congress and the FAA have instilled regulations upon us.

BINGO! Just because a person has a complicated misunderstanding of the rules does not imply the rules themselves are complicated.

2edgesword has repeatedly said the rules for recreational flight are too complicated. I'm going to quote the operational restrictions exactly, in italics, following this paragraph. If anyone thinks they're unnecessarily complicated, rather than just saying they're too complex, please rewrite them in a shorter, simpler, clearer way, and post your proposed rewrite. Sure, it would be possible to simplify the rules by modifying them to say, "You buy it, you can fly it!", but that might compromise public safety.

In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:

1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
2. The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.
4. The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.
5. In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
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.
7. The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
8. The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

 

[New England Droning]

As you'll soon be hearing from @Vic Moss and Greg @pilotinstitute have been working to get more "information" released to the public about enforcement actions/fines/sanctions that have been taken against UAS operations. In our FAA Safty Team report we finally had a tid bit we can share.

This is taken directly from the EMAIL but expect more from those I mentioned at the start of this:

"Recent Drone Enforcement Case
In December 2021, the FAA issued a fine to a drone operator for flying a drone over protest events in upstate New York. The regulations violated by the recreational flyer that happened during a series of three separate flights in October and November 2020. The self-proclaimed recreational flyer did not comply with all of the eight requirements listed in section (a) of 49 USC § 44809 — the exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. Section (b) of the statute states when recreational flyers fail to comply with any of the eight limitations contained in section (a), they must comply with the applicable regulations governing the operation of drones. In this case, since the drone was a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS), 14 CFR part 107 was the applicable regulatory part.
The FAA investigation revealed the flights were over people, at night, in controlled airspace without an authorization, and posed a hazard to people and property below. As a result, the FAA determined the operator of the drone was in noncompliance with section 44809 and therefore subject to 14 CFR part 107. The following list of regulations were cited in the enforcement case:

1. 107.12(b): no remote pilot certificate.
2. 107.13: drone not registered.
3. 107.19(c): posing a hazard to people, aircraft, or property.
4. 107.23(a): careless or reckless flying.
5. 107.29(a): flying at night without a waiver (prior to the new operations over people or at night rule).
6. 107.39: flying over people without a waiver (prior to the new operations over people or at night rule).
7. 107.41: flying in controlled airspace without authorization.
8. 107.65: no 24 month recency of knowledge.

The drone operator was assessed a civil penalty for $15,205 which had to be paid immediately.

Hopefully this is the first of many publications so we can actually let you know what CAN happen if you insist on being "That guy/girl".

I'd like to hear whether it was actually paid... having the fine leveed is one thing but forcing the individual to actually pay it is another... (did the FAA follow through)

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Wait...are you trying to say there's bad information posted on some websites on the internet?!

Holy crap! We need to let someone know about this.

Yes, there is bad and outdated information on internet websites. And there are legitimately folks that are very much into the hobby that had the understanding that recreational fliers could fly above 400' if the were flying adjacent to a taller structure.

How long have you been flying? Have you never had a misunderstanding about a rule or regulation? Did you pickup a sectional chart on day one and on day two interpret all of the elements contained on the chart? Why are there businesses that have grown up around providing training for recreational as well as commercial fliers? It's all so simple.

No, it's not so simple and the idea that a recreational pilot should be punished for infractions of 107 rules on top of infractions for violating recreational rules is not how regulations should be structured.

 

[DoomMeister]

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.

The is that there was never a change in policy by the FAA. There was a lot of FALSE information posted on the internet leading those flying under the recreational exception that they were allowed to fly above 400’ AGL when near obstructions just like those with a §107 certification.

 

[Rich QR]

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.

What it actually says is

In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.​

​

I believe I summarized that accurately. The rules say you've got to obtain prior authorization and comply with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions. The 44809 rules don't explicitly say there's a 400' limit in controlled airspace -- they don't establish any particular hard limit in controlled airspace. But the requirement to obtain prior authorization gives the FAA the freedom to deny authorization if you request an altitude they don't like. It seems they never like altitudes over 400', and they may like to keep you significantly lower than that (perhaps even keep you on the ground) in certain places. You're also required to comply with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions, which covers the case where an altitude restriction is published on the map.

 

[Rich QR]

No, it's not so simple and the idea that a recreational pilot should be punished for infractions of 107 rules on top of infractions for violating recreational rules is not how regulations should be structured.

There you go again, complaining about your understanding of the rules, rather than the way they are actually written. There are NO infractions for violating recreational rules. No penalties, no fines, no suspension of privileges, no jail time, none of that. There are no penalties for one rule on top of penalties for another. The rules just say, "If you adhere to these eight limitations, you can ignore Part 107 and fly without a license." The only gotcha is that the converse is also true. If you don't adhere to the limitations, you don't get the free pass to ignore Part 107.

You may think it would be simpler to establish a separate set of infractions and penalties for violations of each aspect of 44809. I believe that would complicate the body of law significantly. Not only would you need to establish penalties for each kind of 44809 violation, but there would have to be criteria established about what kind of operation is punished under which set of rules when an operation wouldn't be legal under either set. My idea that that would complicate things is a judgment call, of course, and there is room for a difference of opinion. But Congress took the position of writing the law as they wrote it.

 

[spudster]

You say simply in hindsight but given the NUMEROUS discussions on this and other forums seeking clarifications they are not as simple as you and others claim. Again, define “controlled airspace” and tell me with a straight face that outlining controlled airspace on a sectional chart is a “piece of cake”.

You somehow convently left out the supplied Note in the FAA rules about controlled airspace. Which Says to quote "Note: Flying drones in certain airspace is not allowed. Classes of airspace and flying restrictions can be found on our B4UFLY app or the UAS Facility Maps webpage." If they need to understand the B4UFLY app there is a help section.

Just as with anything, people need to learn how to operate or use an item they've never used before. So you get questions like you do here. There is no confusion once once it is explained to them other then they just want to find an excuse not to follow a rule they do not like. Just get into any new car you have never used before and try to understand all of the controls without some explanation, instruction, reading the manual or trial & error. Did you know all of the rules of the road without first studying and still having questions about those rules?

Example, I know a person that bought a new car with lane keeping. They didn't know about lane keeping, never really heard about it. The first time they tried to change lanes without using their signal, the car tried to steer it back into the lane. This scared the person and they slammed on the brakes as they thought that car was trying to take over the controls or was out of control.

 

[ScottNH]

Yes, there is bad and outdated information on internet websites. And there are legitimately folks that are very much into the hobby that had the understanding that recreational fliers could fly above 400' if the were flying adjacent to a taller structure.

How long have you been flying? Have you never had a misunderstanding about a rule or regulation? Did you pickup a sectional chart on day one and on day two interpret all of the elements contained on the chart? Why are there businesses that have grown up around providing training for recreational as well as commercial fliers? It's all so simple.

No, it's not so simple and the idea that a recreational pilot should be punished for infractions of 107 rules on top of infractions for violating recreational rules is not how regulations should be structured.

Hi.

ASMEL, Instrument Airplane, Airline Transport Pilot
Flying since: 1979

You're bailing a canoe with a giant hole in the bottom using a measuring spoon. Leave the canoe and swim (contritely) to shore.

 

[Rich QR]

ASMEL, Instrument Airplane, Airline Transport Pilot
Flying since: 1979

On the Internet, I try to judge a person's credibility based on the logic of their arguments and the sources they cite, rather than on their credentials. But I love it when someone challenges the credentials of a person who is able to come back so impressively.

Student Pilot, 27.9 hrs in C152, including 7.1 hrs solo, most recent PIC time in 1991
Part 107 SUAS remote pilot certificate issued Jan 2021
just not so impressive

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Hi.

ASMEL, Instrument Airplane, Airline Transport Pilot
Flying since: 1979

You're bailing a canoe with a giant hole in the bottom using a measuring spoon. Leave the canoe and swim (contritely) to shore.

No contrition required. Do you consider the process of getting your pilot's license and instrument rating easy? Less than 25% that start the process of flight training get their pilots license. Less than 15% that start the process go on to get an instrument rating. The fact that an industry has grown up around helping individuals get the TRUST and 107 certification is evidence the process isn't easy.

So no contrition on my part. The creation of this forum and the multitude of questions asked in an attempt to get clarification on the regulations indicates the process isn't easy.

 

[ScottNH]

On the Internet, I try to judge a person's credibility based on the logic of their arguments and the sources they cite, rather than on their credentials. But I love it when someone challenges the credentials of a person who is able to come back so impressively.

Student Pilot, 27.9 hrs in C152, including 7.1 hrs solo, most recent PIC time in 1991
Part 107 SUAS remote pilot certificate issued Jan 2021
just not so impressive

We all started in the same place. That's the beauty of flying; you don't get to CLEP out of ratings.

Unless you've done practically no flying since Jan 2021, you certainly have more drone/Part 107 time than I have, and I can probably learn a good deal from you.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

On the Internet, I try to judge a person's credibility based on the logic of their arguments and the sources they cite, rather than on their credentials. But I love it when someone challenges the credentials of a person who is able to come back so impressively.

Student Pilot, 27.9 hrs in C152, including 7.1 hrs solo, most recent PIC time in 1991
Part 107 SUAS remote pilot certificate issued Jan 2021
just not so impressive

Btw, what percentage of 107 pilots are completing their recurrence requirements so the can continue to legally fly under 107? I don't have the most recent numbers but one article I read a couple of years ago had it at less than 50% (correct me if I'm wrong). If it's all so darn easy why are less than half of those that got their initial 107 maintaining currency. And yes, I'm current.

 

[MARK (LI)]

No contrition required. Do you consider the process of getting your pilot's license and instrument rating easy? Less than 25% that start the process of flight training get their pilots license. Less than 15% that start the process go on to get an instrument rating. The fact that an industry has grown up around helping individuals get the TRUST and 107 certification is evidence the process isn't easy.

So no contrition on my part. The creation of this forum and the multitude of questions asked in an attempt to get clarification on the regulations indicates the process isn't easy.

What company...forget about industry grew up around helping people get their TRUST cert?......That is not a rhetorical question...name one, ....again you are grasping at straws and made another false claim..I am not trying to be funny, sarcastic cruel...nothing...but if someone can't just take a 5 minute look at the introduction to the test and pass it in less than 10 minutes they have to be illiterate...the statements and claims you are making casts a lot of doubt on anything you are saying
If it's all so darn easy why are less than half of those that got their initial 107 maintaining currency.
Possibly sick or aged out or just lost interest.....at my age, I don't know if I will keep it up

 

[brett8883]

@brett8883 that still doesn't validate the "Structural Allowance" that was incorrectly heavily suggested here. It was never that way for Recreational operators.

Heck if we want to go back let's go back to when I started in '74 and we could legally do just about anything but we still didn't or we did it in a way to ensure Aviation Safety.

I think what I said supports your argument not the other way around. If there were no height limits how could there be “structural allowance.”

At the same time it also wouldn’t have been against the rules for them to do that so in that way he is correct.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Btw, what percentage of 107 pilots are completing their recurrence requirements so the can continue to legally fly under 107? I don't have the most recent numbers but one article I read a couple of years ago had it at less than 50% (correct me if I'm wrong). If it's all so darn easy why are less than half of those that got their initial 107 maintaining currency. And yes, I'm current.

I just realized how you shifted gears here....you started complaining about the rules for Recreational drone usage....now you drifted into the 107 lane ...and yes 107 is an advanced area of operating drones so it is more complex....but it does not change the response to your original complaint...the rules for recreational flying are really quite simple to learn and follow...if you stick to one aspect of your argument you might absorb all the great information provided to you in this thread

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I just realized how you shifted gears here....you started complaining about the rules for Recreational drone usage....now you drifted into the 107 lane ...and yes 107 is an advanced area of operating drones so it is more complex....but it does not change the response to your original complaint...the rules for recreational flying are really quite simple to learn and follow...if you stick to one aspect of your argument you might absorb all the great information provided to you in this thread

A slight veering into a related lane. And I wasn't complaining about the recreational rules but rejecting the idea that they are easy or quite simple and that recreational pilots should be penalized for 107 violations if the violate some provision of the recreational rules. I mean, this is all so easy.

One element of getting your recreational, part 107 and part 61 license is interpreting sectional charts. Not so easy. Other difficulties (based on the number of discussions I've seen on this forum) are what actually constitutes recreational flying? The AMA website references altitude restrictions and says "Altitude: Remember, you must generally fly below 400 feet in uncontrolled airspace to stay legal." Using the word "generally" leaves the impression that there are exceptions. If there are exceptions what are they? What are TFR's and where do you go to find them? What other knowledge is required to decipher them?

I could go on but the idea that fulfilling the new requirements for recreational flying are easy is very much counter to the discussions I see on this and other forums. If it was easy everyone would be doing it. Too many view the issue in hindsight discounting the difficulties after the fact.

 

[Rich QR]

Btw, what percentage of 107 pilots are completing their recurrence requirements so the can continue to legally fly under 107? I don't have the most recent numbers but one article I read a couple of years ago had it at less than 50% (correct me if I'm wrong). If it's all so darn easy why are less than half of those that got their initial 107 maintaining currency. And yes, I'm current.

I have no idea of the recurrent training statistics. But the Part 107 certificate hasn't been around for a huge number of years. When that 50% number was published, was that considered 50% of all the certificate holders, or just 50% of the certificate holders who had held their certificates for a long enough time period to require recurrent training? My own certificate is less than two years old, so I'm not required to take recurrent training yet. I have done so anyway, but if I hadn't, that wouldn't be evidence that I'd dropped out.

Anyway, there are loads of reasons for moving from one avocation to another, and most of them don't involve difficulty understanding eight bullet points. Since the recurrent training is quite a bit easier and cheaper than the initial effort of getting a Part 107 license, I find it hard to believe that many Part 107 pilots neglect to maintain currency because they had a hard time learning the rules.

All of this is irrelevant to your point that the recreational rules are too complex. If you think they're too complex, remember that I posted the eight bullet points of 44809, and invited anyone to propose a simplification. So far, nobody has taken me up.