Flying over mountain

[Strafe1]

You cannot, because the part that keeps intentionally getting left out is the "following community guidelines" stipulation of Section 336. That means you can either follow the FAA guidelines (which includes the 400ft rule) or you can follow some other group's guidelines (like the AMA's, which only allow flight at AMA airfields). What set of community guidelines are you following that allow flight above 400ft?

AMA allows flight outside of designated airfields and over 400' if outside 3 mi. radius of an airport. And if you use AMA, not all of it applies anyway since it is written for different types of craft primarily.
And, again, Part 107 does not apply, as the FAA categorizes a hobby flier by Webster's Dictionary only. The FAA defines you by WHY you fly, NOT HOW you fly.

 

[Strafe1]

What I'm saying is that for the best information you should never the abbreviated version of the FAA's interpretation of the regulations.

I don't see what is abbreviated. Please elaborate.

 

[AyeYo]

AMA allows flight outside of designated airfields and over 400' if outside 3 mi. radius of an airport. And if you use AMA, not all of it applies anyway since it is written for different types of craft primarily.
And, again, Part 107 does not apply, as the FAA categorizes a hobby flier by Webster's Dictionary only. The FAA defines you by WHY you fly, NOT HOW you fly.

Maybe you can quote the AMA guidelines for us.

Here's what I see...

• Don’t operate on or fly over private property without first obtaining permission from the property owner and/or the property tenant.
• Don’t fly where the operation of radio control aircraft is prohibited.
• Don’t fly near open assemblies of people without first obtaining permission or otherwise making prior arrangements to do so.
• Don’t fly near or over sensitive infrastructure or property such as power stations, water treatment facilities, correctional facilities, heavily traveled roadways, government facilities, etc. without making prior arrangements to do so.

So that's most of the areas people fly which are now off limits.



http://suas.modelaircraft.org/ama/images/sUAS_Safety_Program_web.pdf

 

[Strafe1]

Maybe you can quote the AMA guidelines for us.

Here's what I see...

• Don’t operate on or fly over private property without first obtaining permission from the property owner and/or the property tenant.
• Don’t fly where the operation of radio control aircraft is prohibited.
• Don’t fly near open assemblies of people without first obtaining permission or otherwise making prior arrangements to do so.
• Don’t fly near or over sensitive infrastructure or property such as power stations, water treatment facilities, correctional facilities, heavily traveled roadways, government facilities, etc. without making prior arrangements to do so.

So that's most of the areas people fly which are now off limits.

View attachment 9026

http://suas.modelaircraft.org/ama/images/sUAS_Safety_Program_web.pdf

I won't quote the whole of their guidelines as they can be seen from the link you posted. When you were discussing the Public Law, you were stressing the importance of regulation vs. stipulation. The actual safety code goes into more detail regarding the maximum height. As it also does in the FPV section, which also states a limit only within airport range. Your bullet points above are from a general rule paragraph. It's interesting how there is different guidelines/suggestions/codes varying throughout their documents.

 

[AyeYo]

I won't quote the whole of their guidelines as they can be seen from the link you posted. When you were discussing the Public Law, you were stressing the importance of regulation vs. stipulation. The actual safety code goes into more detail regarding the maximum height. As it also does in the FPV section, which also states a limit only within airport range. Your bullet points above are from a general rule paragraph. It's interesting how there is different guidelines/suggestions/codes varying throughout their documents.

Bottom line point being - the people not following the FAA guidelines ALSO aren't following the AMA guidelines, or any other guidelines, and are therefore flying illegally.

If you need further clarification of the 400ft rule, it can be found in the FAA's letter in response to the AMA request for clarification on the rule. The letter state's the FAA's guideline is only a guideline - and that's where everyone stops reading. What it goes on to do is reiterate the need for following community based guidelines - which, again, no one that's flying over 400ft is doing.

 

[Strafe1]

Bottom line point being - the people not following the FAA guidelines ALSO aren't following the AMA guidelines, or any other guidelines, and are therefore flying illegally.

If you need further clarification of the 400ft rule, it can be found in the FAA's letter in response to the AMA request for clarification on the rule. The letter state's the FAA's guideline is only a guideline - and that's where everyone stops reading. What it goes on to do is reiterate the need for following community based guidelines - which, again, no one that's flying over 400ft is doing.

That's just it...I don't need further clarification of the 400' rule. The only guideline for this is in the AMA safety code which explains this in detail. All aspects of the AMA documents refer to the Safety Code for the actual "guidelines" to follow. They make recommendations as well, just as the FAA does in some of their publications. But when the AMA points out an actual regulation of theirs in Flight Safety Guide, they cite the Safety Code. The Safety Code allows for flight over 400', with the airport exception.
I don't know what guidelines people are following or not following, but it probably can be summarized better this way:
The FAA uses the power given to it by Congress to develop and enforce the rules we fly by.
The FAA has made clear that pilots of sUAS's are categorized into 2 types, defined by WHY you fly.
The FAA has posted those rules for us in the GETTING STARTED publication.
Outside of that publication, nothing is hard and fast. But if something bad happens and your irresponsibility causes harm, that's on you as the pilot. Don't endanger the NAS. Fly with minimal risk to others and property.
Just don't scare others with false information and policing type language.

 

[tcope]

I don't see what is abbreviated. Please elaborate.

Location Requirements 5 miles from airports without prior notification to airport and air traffic control

This statement on it's is not clear. As a "location requirements", does this mean the person is required to fly within that area? if you did not know anything about drone flying and you read that entry, you'd not know what it was talking about.

Operating Rules Must ALWAYS yield right of way to manned aircraft
Must keep the aircraft in sight (visual line-of-sight)
UAS must be under 55 lbs.
Must follow community-based safety guidelines
Must notify airport and air traffic control tower before flying within 5 miles of an airport


Actually Section 336 does not state the above. It states as follows:

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

So there is not a regulation stating you must fly within VLOS, it's part of the definition of a "model aircraft"... which really does not make any sense. That is, no where in Section 336 does it state you are required to fly within VLOS. If I don't fly within VLOS then, according to Section 336, what I'm flying is not a "model aircraft". Does this make much sense? No. But its not the same as the interpretation from the FAA.

My point... it's always best to go back to the _actual_ regulation and not just what the FAA states the regulations are. I've also mentioned that the FAA claimed there was a 400' limit before the AMA called them on this. They also stated that there had been reports of xxxx near missed" with manned aircraft. Turns out that was a lie as well.

 

[andy966]

That's it Andy. Your post is of a guideline and not a rule. It is a good guideline though. But going up a mountain like the op stated is not an issue as long as he can see where he's going!

Going up a mountain is still maintaining AGL. The ground level actually changes as you go up the mountain.

 

[andy966]

That's it Andy. Your post is of a guideline and not a rule. It is a good guideline though. But going up a mountain like the op stated is not an issue as long as he can see where he's going!

Strafe, I don't know whether you just love arguing or if you have a real point here. I actually got the guidelines from this link right here:

That is the page that you are referencing and my link comes from THAT page which clearly states the 400 feet rule but according to you that is just a guideline. Would you say the other items on that list are also just guidelines and not rules? Here is the list:

• Fly at or below 400 feet
• Keep your UAS within sight
• Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports
• Never fly over groups of people
• Never fly over stadiums or sports events
• Never fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
• Never fly under the influence
• Be aware of airspace requirements

Either they are all just guidelines or they are rules. I don't think the FAA would list 1 guideline and a bunch of rules.

And again, not policing, just want to make sure I am following the correct rules as well but I also think it is even more harmful to tell people that they can fly over 400 feet when in reality they can't.

 

[tcope]

If you need further clarification of the 400ft rule, it can be found in the FAA's letter in response to the AMA request for clarification on the rule. The letter state's the FAA's guideline is only a guideline - and that's where everyone stops reading. What it goes on to do is reiterate the need for following community based guidelines - which, again, no one that's flying over 400ft is doing.

The AMA guidelines only apply to AMA members, no one else. The confusion lies with the liberty that the AMA took with the FAA's letter. They were not incorrect... they only left the statement open. The FAA acknowledged that the AMA was a CBO. However, it never stated that the AMA has _any_ control over everyone in the US that ever flies a model aircraft. There is _no_ legal obligation for anyone to know the AMA has control over how they fly. The part about CBO in section 336 is not clarified. What it really means is that any CBO that _can_ govern someone's actions can still feel free to do so as long as it does not interfere with the FAA's authority. An example is if a person is flying at an AMA event, the AMA can create their own rules for flight (for example, perhaps a racing drone can be flown higher than 100' at a competition). Even though it's clear that only the FAA can regulate airspace, the AMA is free to create this rule for their event as it does not conflict with the FAA regulations.

Bottom line, the AMA rules mean 0% to anyone who is not a member or participating in an AMA event.

 

[andy966]

The AMA guidelines only apply to AMA members, no one else. The confusion lies with the liberty that the AMA took with the FAA's letter. They were not incorrect... they only left the statement open. The FAA acknowledged that the AMA was a CBO. However, it never stated that the AMA has _any_ control over everyone in the US that ever flies a model aircraft. There is _no_ legal obligation for anyone to know the AMA has control over how they fly. The part about CBO in section 336 is not clarified. What it really means is that any CBO that _can_ govern someone's actions can still feel free to do so as long as it does not interfere with the FAA's authority. An example is if a person is flying at an AMA event, the AMA can create their own rules for flight (for example, perhaps a racing drone can be flown higher than 100' at a competition). Even though it's clear that only the FAA can regulate airspace, the AMA is free to create this rule for their event as it does not conflict with the FAA regulations.

Bottom line, the AMA rules mean 0% to anyone who is not a member or participating in an AMA event.

That is what I thought as well. Why would the AMA rules apply to people who are not a member of the AMA? I would also love to see if someone from the AMA would actually post a response as well to either confirm or debunk this.

 

[AyeYo]

Bottom line, the AMA rules mean 0% to anyone who is not a member or participating in an AMA event.

Exactly, and I never meant to imply otherwise. But what 336 does say is that SOME set of community guidelines must be followed. So if people aren't flying AMA rules, that's perfectly fine... but they need to be following another set of rules - most logically the FAA's own guidelines. There's no option for people making up their own rules or doing as they please.

 

[AyeYo]

So there is not a regulation stating you must fly within VLOS, it's part of the definition of a "model aircraft"... which really does not make any sense. That is, no where in Section 336 does it state you are required to fly within VLOS. If I don't fly within VLOS then, according to Section 336, what I'm flying is not a "model aircraft". Does this make much sense? No. But its not the same as the interpretation from the FAA.

Praise the sweet lord baby jesus that someone else understands plain English. I must have restated this 15 different ways in the other thread and I couldn't get strafe to wrap his mind around it.

 

[Strafe1]

Location Requirements 5 miles from airports without prior notification to airport and air traffic control

This statement on it's is not clear. As a "location requirements", does this mean the person is required to fly within that area? if you did not know anything about drone flying and you read that entry, you'd not know what it was talking about.

Operating Rules Must ALWAYS yield right of way to manned aircraft
Must keep the aircraft in sight (visual line-of-sight)
UAS must be under 55 lbs.
Must follow community-based safety guidelines
Must notify airport and air traffic control tower before flying within 5 miles of an airport


Actually Section 336 does not state the above. It states as follows:

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

So there is not a regulation stating you must fly within VLOS, it's part of the definition of a "model aircraft"... which really does not make any sense. That is, no where in Section 336 does it state you are required to fly within VLOS. If I don't fly within VLOS then, according to Section 336, what I'm flying is not a "model aircraft". Does this make much sense? No. But its not the same as the interpretation from the FAA.

My point... it's always best to go back to the _actual_ regulation and not just what the FAA states the regulations are. I've also mentioned that the FAA claimed there was a 400' limit before the AMA called them on this. They also stated that there had been reports of xxxx near missed" with manned aircraft. Turns out that was a lie as well.

I thought I read 336 correctly.....are we not talking about the same thing?

 

[Strafe1]

Strafe, I don't know whether you just love arguing or if you have a real point here. I actually got the guidelines from this link right here:

That is the page that you are referencing and my link comes from THAT page which clearly states the 400 feet rule but according to you that is just a guideline. Would you say the other items on that list are also just guidelines and not rules? Here is the list:

• Fly at or below 400 feet
• Keep your UAS within sight
• Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports
• Never fly over groups of people
• Never fly over stadiums or sports events
• Never fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
• Never fly under the influence
• Be aware of airspace requirements

Either they are all just guidelines or they are rules. I don't think the FAA would list 1 guideline and a bunch of rules.

And again, not policing, just want to make sure I am following the correct rules as well but I also think it is even more harmful to tell people that they can fly over 400 feet when in reality they can't.

If I step back and look at myself objectively, I probably do like debating. I just hope I do so in an instructive and respectful manner. I do appreciate accurate information, and more importantly, I don't like false information passed off as fact.
In response to the guidelines:
That is the confusing part. Because that page is not consistent with either Public Law 112-95 sec 336 OR with the FAA response/explanation letter to the Public Law. There are other places where the FAA suggests safe practices for flying, that closely resemble the bullet points above. In the end, the Congressional law says that the FAA cannot regulate model aircraft use beyond what is in the Public Law. That is why the Getting Started page is the more accurate posting IMO. The linked page you reference goes beyond their directive, but it actually does apply to Part 107 pilots. And even they can easily get a waiver.

 

[AyeYo]

In the end, the Congressional law says that the FAA cannot regulate model aircraft use beyond what is in the Public Law.

But what you're REPEATEDLY missing is that 336 REQUIRES adherence to "community guidelines". The quoted FAA guidelines ARE the "community guidelines" if you are not following AMA or some other organization's guidelines. What "community guidelines" do you follow?

You're also REPEATEDLY missing that 336 is not a regulation but a definition of what qualifies as a "model aircraft" exempt from FAA regulation. If you don't adhere to 336, you're not operating a "model aircraft" exempt from FAA regulation and therefore can be regulated by the FAA.

 

[andy966]

If I step back and look at myself objectively, I probably do like debating. I just hope I do so in an instructive and respectful manner. I do appreciate accurate information, and more importantly, I don't like false information passed off as fact.
In response to the guidelines:
That is the confusing part. Because that page is not consistent with either Public Law 112-95 sec 336 OR with the FAA response/explanation letter to the Public Law. There are other places where the FAA suggests safe practices for flying, that closely resemble the bullet points above. In the end, the Congressional law says that the FAA cannot regulate model aircraft use beyond what is in the Public Law. That is why the Getting Started page is the more accurate posting IMO. The linked page you reference goes beyond their directive, but it actually does apply to Part 107 pilots. And even they can easily get a waiver.

There is a separate link for Part 107 pilots. Fly for Work/Business
So this page is not referring to Fly for Business/Work and it clearly states the 400 feet rule. Not sure what there is to be confused about. If you asked anyone in the FAA about this, they would point you to this page Fly for Fun and that would make sense. That page is an extension of the page you cited.

 

[Strafe1]

But what you're REPEATEDLY missing is that 336 REQUIRES adherence to "community guidelines". The quoted FAA guidelines ARE the "community guidelines" if you are not following AMA or some other organization's guidelines. What "community guidelines" do you follow?

You're also REPEATEDLY missing that 336 is not a regulation but a definition of what qualifies as a "model aircraft" exempt from FAA regulation. If you don't adhere to 336, you're not operating a "model aircraft" exempt from FAA regulation and therefore can be regulated by the FAA.

Good thing you are not the inter

There is a separate link for Part 107 pilots. Fly for Work/Business
So this page is not referring to Fly for Business/Work and it clearly states the 400 feet rule. Not sure what there is to be confused about. If you asked anyone in the FAA about this, they would point you to this page Fly for Fun and that would make sense. That page is an extension of the page you cited.

So how can the FAA make this rule if by Congressional law they are not allowed to regulate hobby fliers of model aircraft?

 

[AyeYo]

There is a separate link for Part 107 pilots. Fly for Work/Business
So this page is not referring to Fly for Business/Work and it clearly states the 400 feet rule. Not sure what there is to be confused about. If you asked anyone in the FAA about this, they would point you to this page Fly for Fun and that would make sense. That page is an extension of the page you cited.

His argument is that 336 does not include the 400ft and that the FAA's regulatory authority is bound by 336, and he's right. What he's intentionally overlooking is that 336:

1. Demands adherence to "community guidelines" - which includes the 400ft whether the guidelines be from the AMA or the FAA.

2. People that choose to follow no community guidelines do not qualify for FAA regulatory exemption under 336 and are therefore subject to the full set of FAA sUAS regulator rules, which include the 400ft rule.

So in either case, you're not going over 400ft legally.

 

[Strafe1]

But what you're REPEATEDLY missing is that 336 REQUIRES adherence to "community guidelines". The quoted FAA guidelines ARE the "community guidelines" if you are not following AMA or some other organization's guidelines. What "community guidelines" do you follow?

You're also REPEATEDLY missing that 336 is not a regulation but a definition of what qualifies as a "model aircraft" exempt from FAA regulation. If you don't adhere to 336, you're not operating a "model aircraft" exempt from FAA regulation and therefore can be regulated by the FAA.

Good thing it's not up to you. You admit no mistakes and claim your interpretation is gospel. How do you come up with the statement that FAA guidelines are now community guidelines?