Flying Over 400ft

[Torque]

Exactly why I don't agree with law enforcement to enforce drone laws setup by the FAA. Anyone flying FPV can be cited because the regulations are easily misinterpreted. It doesn't matter what it really says or really means, all that matter is when it comes time to detain and cite you and then when it comes time to convict you. It's totally out of your hands when it comes to local law enforcement and you may stand a fighting chance if this is administrative action under FAA (federal) jurisdiction. Any officer for any reason can simply walk up to you, ask you to land your FPV and take off the goggles, then write you a citation for the dangerous operation of a UAV re: failure to maintain VLOS and walk away with your drone and there's nothing you can do about it [for now]....

I just might buy this for my visual observer so there will be no questions. Also a good idea to record the interaction.

 

[Droning on and on...]

This presents an immediate problem for FPV drones and their goggles, because the drone pilot is viewing the live camera feed and therefore cannot maintain VLOS. The use of FPV drones and goggles is legal in both the United Kingdom and the United States, but to fly an FPV drone you’ll need an observer who can maintain visual line of sight with the aircraft and communicate this with the pilot.

In the US the VO must be co-located with the Pilot, so that the pilot and the VO have the same range of site.

In this way there is no scenario where the VO can see the aircraft (down in a canyon, as in a previous post) but the pilot cannot if removing the goggles.

A VO can not be located far enough away that they can see areas the pilot can't with direct observation.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

You can fly your drone 400 ft above any structure within a 50 ft radius of you.

No, it's 400 X 400 -- and the guy in the video mentions this as well, you need to be within 400 feet of the tallest part of the structure and can then go 400 feet above that tallest part of that structure.

In case anyone is wondering why it's 400 feet: because general aviation starts at 500 feet.

And incidentally, as a former broadcast engineer, don't fly close to active antennas unless you really really know what you're doing. Many of those antenna installations are operating on frequencies very close to those used by the drones and RCs, and the resulting interference could cause a loss of connection with your drone, and other things.

The amount of power in TV, FM, and AM radio installations can be substantial—The entire tower of an AM radio tower can be energized to tens of thousands of volts. The guy wires are thin and hard to see. Telco including cell phone installations and microwave links operate at a much higher power than the drone is expecting——I'm not saying the drones electronics would be damaged necessarily, but a loss of connection, and if it goes in a return to home and then goes and flies up into a guy wire, props stop, drone crashes...

I mention the high voltages, because if something happens where your drone crashes and lands/stuck on the tower, and you think you're gonna climb up and get it, well... ZAP

 

[NightFlightAlright]

By permission I meant for such a tall structure there will need to be a place within 50 ft of the building ( probably lots of people working and wandering about) to take off from I don't know about Pittsburg but a lot of secretaries and business people here in L.A. get nervous when you start buzzing your drone around them. and you know that cool" Nakatomy plaza" (I know spelling!) building used for die hard here in L.A. well don't even think of flying a drone anywhere on that property. yep I tried. the property owners can prevent you from flying on the property yes they can't stop you from buzzing around the building within reason but the building is on their property and if you linger too long on the property with your drone that can be considered harassment .

That's Fox movie studios… but there's plenty of not-Fox-movie-studios around if you actually wanted to buzz around Nakatomi plaza… not that I know anything about that

 

[Droning on and on...]

Not necessarily. As long as you can still communicate with your VO without radios or other aids, they do not need to be right by your side.

True, as long as the pilot can see everywhere they can.

Which is usually only practical in a clear, flat, open area. Every where else, to satisfy the requirement in the FARs that both pilot and VO are able to see the aircraft at all times will usually require them to be standing next to each other.

 

[Torque]

True, as long as the pilot can see everywhere they can.

Which is usually only practical in a clear, flat, open area. Every where else, to satisfy the requirement in the FARs that both pilot and VO are able to see the aircraft at all times will usually require them to be standing next to each other.

There is really no advantage I can think of having my VO within shouting distance. If we don't share the same field of vision where he can immediately help me locate my drone in the sky if needed, then I have no use for a visual observer.

 

[Droning on and on...]

There is really no advantage I can think of having my VO within shouting distance. If we don't share the same field of vision where he can immediately help me locate my drone in the sky if needed, then I have no use for a visual observer.

No argument, qualitatively.

However, that's not what the regs require. To be compliant, you and your VO must be able to see exactly the same everything. There can't be some location that your VO can see that you can't when you lift your goggles.

That's my reading of the regs, at least. If I'm correct, there are few topologies other than open, flat field where that can be satisfied without pilot and VO ccollated.

Of course, anywhere the requirement can be satisfied regardless of topology would be legal.

 

[karlblessing]

Noticing a lot of misinformation in here (and not current at that either).

The current rule, far as a Part 107 certified pilot goes, is up to 400 feet above a manmade structure within 400 feet of it.... in uncontrolled air space.

In controlled airspace, you can't just jump up 400 foot over a building, the limits within controlled airspace are absolutes, if you want to go over the marked AGL for that grid you have to wait for a human review of that authorization request.

All the other rules have to be observed such as staying within visual line of sight as well unless you get a waiver for it (since the visual observer needs to be right next to you, they can't be elsewhere on a walkie or something).

Recreational fliers have to follow the topography. So the literal ground, manmade structures don't count as ground.

 

[Torque]

No argument, qualitatively.

However, that's not what the regs require. To be compliant, you and your VO must be able to see exactly the same everything. There can't be some location that your VO can see that you can't when you lift your goggles.

That's my reading of the regs, at least. If I'm correct, there are few topologies other than open, flat field where that can be satisfied without pilot and VO ccollated.

Of course, anywhere the requirement can be satisfied regardless of topology would be legal.

I think I may have worded my post badly. Let me rephrase, if my VO is not standing next to me where we can easily and quickly communicate, then what use is a VO? I'm not going to shout across the field to him/her to communicate with them. IOW, I can't see any scenario where having the VO positioned shouting distance away is a benefit to my FPV flight.

 

[karlblessing]

I think I may have worded my post badly. Let me rephrase, if my VO is not standing next to me where we can easily and quickly communicate, then what use is a VO? I'm not going to shout across the field to him/her to communicate with them. IOW, I can't see any scenario where having the VO positioned shouting distance away is a benefit to my FPV flight.

Also a VO should know what they should be looking for, kind of pointless to just have a guy standing by if they're not scanning the skies for incoming obstacles. (That's part of how that crash happened in Canada by the police drone).

 

[Jack Frost]

So you now need permission to fly close to a building?

I'm sorry I didn't see this in TRUST.

The faa rule is within a 400ft radius of a structure, and this rule exception is only for part 107 pilots.

 

[MS Coast]

The faa rule is within a 400ft radius of a structure, and this rule exception is only for part 107 pilots.

Is this the regulation you're thinking of? It's not a prohibition against being too close to a structure.

Federal Register :: Request Access

"The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit."

 

[Jack Frost]

Is this the regulation you're thinking of? It's not a prohibition against being too close to a structure.

Federal Register :: Request Access

"The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit."

I never said "prohibition". I was responding to the person that said that you needed to be with 50ft of the structure, which is not accurate. You need to be within 400ft of the structure. Also alot of people aren't aware that this FAA rule is only for part 107 pilots. And yes, it is FAA 107.51

 

[Jack Frost]

The faa rule is within a 400ft radius of a structure, and this rule exception is only for part 107 pilots.

I was talking about FAA 107.51 regarding flying higher than 400ft AGL. You do not need permission to fly close to a building unless it is considered critical infrastructure or in a restricted area.

 

[MS Coast]

I was talking about FAA 107.51 regarding flying higher than 400ft AGL. You do not need permission to fly close to a building unless it is considered critical infrastructure or in a restricted area.

Exactly.

I think some folks might have been thinking there was a regulation about flying too close to structures.

 

[Jack Frost]

Exactly.

I think some folks might have been thinking there was a regulation about flying too close to structures.

You are correct. Education is key, and in my opinion the FAA needs to do a better job educating people.

 

[AMann]

“The FAA doesn't require a VO to be co-located for BVLOS flights. They just need to be present. You can use radios to communicate. Co-located is only for FPV under recreational rules in the U.S.” -Vic Moss

VLOS article I found interesting

Welllllll me and @zeusfl got into a little bit of FAA awakening after our long distance flights with spotters. I was not to happy about it , as to this day I am still a bit confused . The FAA does like to make things confusing. It makes sense to me that, if the pilot can't see the drone, then...

mavicpilots.com

And regarding height above structures in controlled airspace:

“In accordance with Title 14 CFR Part 107.41, your operation is authorized within the designated airspace and timeframe constraints. Altitude limits are absolute values above ground level which shall not be added to the height of any structures.”

 

[Dustydoug]

Ken Heron likes to really push the envelope and start ****. And then cries like a baby when confronted.

Yeah I have watched him once in the last two years, had to do with comparing signal distances on two DJI drones. Too much drama and whining.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Ken Heron likes to really push the envelope and start ****. And then cries like a baby when confronted.

I wouldn't click on a video of his if my life depended on it.
As a newbie I think I thought he did some good stuff but I gradually formed the opinion that he was out to create '#%$%^&^%
The last video of his that I watched was the long range beach test where others flew to extreme ranges over prople and built up areas, at least one of those pilots is also on my 'avoid list'