height limit

[deleted member 877]

Why is this so hard to understand? I'm not suggesting anything - just read the law yourself. Congress prevented the FAA from regulating recreational flight in 2012 - that was the Special Rule, AKA Section 336.

It's not at all hard to understand - I think you missed my point. Again, why would they limit Part 107 certified pilots to 400 ft but then go ahead and allow reactional drone pilots to go as high as they want? It simply does not make any logical sense. Whatever happened in 2012 is most probably not relevant now because it is ancient history.

You can read the law until the cows come home but laws are amended every day. The Bill will go to Congress and if the 400 ft rule for recreational UAS pilots is not included and not as clear as crystal then it will be sent back for amendment. It's a no-brainer really.

 

[Afremont]

It's not at all hard to understand - I think you missed my point. Again, why would they limit Part 107 certified pilots to 400 ft but then go ahead and allow reactional drone pilots to go as high as they want? It simply does not make any logical sense. Whatever happened in 2012 is most probably not relevant now because it is ancient history.

You can read the law until the cows come home but laws are amended every day. The Bill will go to Congress and if the 400 ft rule for recreational UAS pilots is not included and not clear as crystal then it will be sent back for amendment. It's a no-brainer really.

No, they actually did do this. I suppose the FAA was attempting to suck in all "drone" flying to be under their control, without recognizing that model rc aircraft had always been exempt from their direction control. 107 was created for professional users of drones, while 336 kept hobby use as a separate entity under law, outside control of the FAA. 107 had strict, verbose rules about height, night flying etcvas you'd expect from the FAS. 336 wasn't very explicit and its vaguery created the odd situation that's bugging you. I think that's about right.

Edit: if I understand, 336 is about to be repealed and we are likely to be placed under another set of more explicit, less conflicting rules.

 

[deleted member 877]

No, they actually did do this. I suppose the FAA was attempting to suck in all "drone" flying to be under their control, without recognizing that model rc aircraft had always been exempt from their direction control. 107 was created for professional users of drones, while 336 kept hobby use as a separate entity under law, outside control of the FAA. 107 had strict, verbose rules about height, night flying etcvas you'd expect from the FAS. 336 wasn't very explicit and its vaguery created the odd situation that's bugging you. I think that's about right.

Again, missing my point I think. I'm not questioning what is currently in place as far as the laws governing recreational UAS Pilots. But I am predicting the loophole that currently allows recreational UAS pilots to fly above 400 ft AGL will be closed tighter than a frog's fundamental orifice when the rules currently being proposed are passed into law.

If the FAA Proposed Rule document does not adequately cover the 400 ft rule for all categories of drones and associated operators then a simple amendment is all it will take to resolve the issue.

 

[brett8883]

It's not at all hard to understand - I think you missed my point. Again, why would they limit Part 107 certified pilots to 400 ft but then go ahead and allow reactional drone pilots to go as high as they want? It simply does not make any logical sense. Whatever happened in 2012 is most probably not relevant now because it is ancient history.

You can read the law until the cows come home but laws are amended every day. The Bill will go to Congress and if the 400 ft rule for recreational UAS pilots is not included and not as clear as crystal then it will be sent back for amendment. It's a no-brainer really.

Pete having been exposed a little bit more to the international community here on this forum, one thing I have picked up on is people from outside the US being surprised even in disbelief when a law here in the US is upside down meaning they Law is the opposite of what makes sense.

However, for us here in the States this is par for for the course. It’s to be expected. We are use to it. What makes sense can’t be used as a gauge for what the law is. So while you are absolutely correct that it is ludicrous it is in fact the law

 

[deleted member 877]

Pete having been exposed a little bit more to the international community here on this forum, one thing I have picked up on is people from outside the US being surprised even in disbelief when a law here in the US is upside down meaning they Law is the opposite of what makes sense.

However, for us here in the States this is par for for the course. It’s to be expected. We are use to it. What makes sense can’t be used as a gauge for what the law is. So while you are absolutely correct that it is ludicrous it is in fact the law

Haha - I'm hearin' ya but it's pretty much the same here in Australia. We've had seven prime ministers in the last ten years! But I can confirm that there is little or no ambiguity when it comes to our laws concerning UAS.

The problem is that, like in many other countries, it's difficult to convince the authorities that UAS operators, including recreational pilots, should be taken seriously and not be automatically blamed for the cause of every single incident involving a drone. Sorry to go off topic.

 

[sar104]

It's not at all hard to understand - I think you missed my point. Again, why would they limit Part 107 certified pilots to 400 ft but then go ahead and allow reactional drone pilots to go as high as they want? It simply does not make any logical sense. Whatever happened in 2012 is most probably not relevant now because it is ancient history.

You can read the law until the cows come home but laws are amended every day. The Bill will go to Congress and if the 400 ft rule for recreational UAS pilots is not included and not as clear as crystal then it will be sent back for amendment. It's a no-brainer really.

This is getting quite ridiculous. What passed in 2012 is relevant because it is the basis for current US regulation, which is what the discussion was about - not whether someone from Brisbane who has clearly never bothered to read any of the relevant legislation or regulation thinks it makes sense.

 

[deleted member 877]

This is getting quite ridiculous. What passed in 2012 is relevant because it is the basis for current US regulation, which is what the discussion was about - not whether someone from Brisbane who has clearly never bothered to read any of the relevant legislation or regulation thinks it makes sense.

The discussion is actually about "Can I unlock the flight limit on my MP?" but went off topic. The thing about what was passed in 2012 is something you somewhat unnecessarily threw into the mix. I think that by now everyone understands why the previously mentioned loophole exists.

If I am from Brisbane and happen to believe that the current legislative state of affairs pertaining to UAS in the US makes no sense (and the content of this thread clearly indicates that I am not alone in this regard) then that's my right and not for you to be concerned about. So maybe I should not have used the word "irreverent" - I can see that now.

Furthermore, I have indeed read some of the legislation but not all of it. My main source of information is what the majority of this and other forum's members are posting in regard to this topic.

Up until now, I have been pleased to be part of a discussion that has been cordial but then someone always has to lower the bar by getting personal and making uninformed assumptions.

 

[sar104]

The discussion is actually about "Can I unlock the flight limit on my MP?" but went off topic. The thing about what was passed in 2012 is something you somewhat unnecessarily threw into the mix. I think that by now everyone understands why the previously mentioned loophole exists.

If I am from Brisbane and happen to believe that the current legislative state of affairs pertaining to UAS in the US makes no sense (and the content of this thread clearly indicates that I am not alone in this regard) then that's my right and not for you to be concerned about. So maybe I should not have used the word "irreverent" - I can see that now.

Furthermore, I have indeed read some of the legislation but not all of it. My main source of information is what the majority of this and other forum's members are posting in regard to this topic.

Up until now, I have been pleased to be part of a discussion that has been cordial but then someone always has to lower the bar by getting personal and making uninformed assumptions.

I'm afraid that the uninformed assumptions were all yours and did nothing more than muddy the discussion. I've run out of patience with this thread, since it has turned into a series of misguided and incorrect assertions by posters who seem to think it perfectly fine to pontificate on subjects that they subsequently admit not to have bothered to read about before posting, and then act offended when criticized. By all means take comfort in not being alone, but it's not a valid defense.

 

[deleted member 877]

I'm afraid that the uninformed assumptions were all yours and did nothing more than muddy the discussion. I've run out of patience with this thread, since it has turned into a series of misguided and incorrect assertions by posters who seem to think it perfectly fine to pontificate on subjects that they subsequently admit not to have bothered to read about before posting, and then act offended when criticized. By all means take comfort in not being alone, but it's not a valid defense.

I'm afraid that the uninformed assumptions were all yours and did nothing more than muddy the discussion. I've run out of patience with this thread, since it has turned into a series of misguided and incorrect assertions by posters who seem to think it perfectly fine to pontificate on subjects that they subsequently admit not to have bothered to read about before posting, and then act offended when criticized. By all means take comfort in not being alone, but it's not a valid defense.

Good - see ya later Buddy but before you go, please answer one simple question:-

Do you personally believe that Part 107 UAS pilots should be limited to 400 ft AGL but that recreational UAS pilots should not be restricted in this regard?

 

[brett8883]

Good - see ya later Buddy but before you go, please answer one simple question:-

Do you personally believe that Part 107 UAS pilots should be limited to 400 ft AGL but that recreational UAS pilots should not be restricted in this regard?

Pete here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter what you, me, SAR or anybody believes or thinks. That’s how it is.

 

[deleted member 877]

Pete here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter what you, me, SAR or anybody believes or thinks. That’s how it is.

I know that's how it is. I'm far more interested in how it will be in the future when the new laws are passed.

 

[MavicFT1P]

I have my M2P set to a max of 100 ft (actually 30m), which is my agreement with the local control tower. Yet the other day I found myself inadvertently substantially above that. Today I checked the setting again at takeoff, then tested it, and it let my fly above it again. Anyone else have this issue?

I have an agreement with my wife, yet
I found myself in a House of Ill repute the other week.
It happens. Just dont tell her or the Control Tower and relax

 

[sar104]

Good - see ya later Buddy but before you go, please answer one simple question:-

Do you personally believe that Part 107 UAS pilots should be limited to 400 ft AGL but that recreational UAS pilots should not be restricted in this regard?

No - I think that the Special Rule was a bad law. Congress probably didn't anticipate the rapid rise in the use of consumer UAVs but that's a poor excuse. Many of us here predicted (it was pretty obvious) that Congress would repeal it at some point and enable robust regulation of recreational flights.

None of which changes the fact that it is the law.

 

[brett8883]

I have my M2P set to a max of 100 ft (actually 30m), which is my agreement with the local control tower. Yet the other day I found myself inadvertently substantially above that. Today I checked the setting again at takeoff, then tested it, and it let my fly above it again. Anyone else have this issue?

Make sure you are setting that height when you are connected to the drone

 

[Drbobk]

Make sure you are setting that height when you are connected to the drone

When not connected, the max altitude reads 0, and when I turn the aircraft on it turns to 30.

 

[Texas Mavic]

Connect, then change it to 500. You may have it set to Beginner mode.

 

[Texas Mavic]

Here’s where Beginners mode is

 

[Texas Mavic]

Turn off beginner mode, you should be able to change it to 500 meters.

 

[Meta4]

I have my M2P set to a max of 100 ft (actually 30m), which is my agreement with the local control tower. Yet the other day I found myself inadvertently substantially above that. Today I checked the setting again at takeoff, then tested it, and it let my fly above it again. Anyone else have this issue?

When not connected, the max altitude reads 0, and when I turn the aircraft on it turns to 30.

To correct this, you need to find out why it happened.
The solution to your puzzle will be in the recorded flight data.

Go to DJI Flight Log Viewer | Phantom Help
Follow the instructions there to upload your flight record for the flight that went higher than your limit, from your phone or tablet.
That will give you a detailed report of the flight.
Come back and post a link to the report it gives you.

 

[Trollistika]

I's all so confusing. Some members say you can and some say you can't over 400 ft rule. Where can I read the laws of the FAA on recreational drone flying ?

From what I gathered. Recreational allows above 400. Just make sure you are in the clear with the apps like b4youfly or Hoover. I have like 10 apps just to make sure. But if you fly part 107, it's limited to 400. What I don't understand is what prevents people from saying they are flying commercially then switching to recreationally? Seems like a loop hole. Maybe someone knows more.