DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Looks like my "Class H" idea is creeping closer and closer to reality...

Donnie Frank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
527
Reactions
373
Age
60
Location
Albuquerque, N.M.
Hey doods;



Per this article:




It seems the FAA is digging their craws deeper and deeper into the drone community. Every extra step of regulation is one more step toward legitimization. As the FAA creeps toward total and complete regulation of the UAV community, they will eventually have to delineate airspace for the monster they created.



I have published my ideas on Class H airspace in this forum and it's been met with a lot of resistance from the manned aviation community. My position is simply this; You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't force drones and their operators into all kinds certification, regulation and compliance, and NOT provide UAV's with their own safe air space. If you're going to take the gloves off and assert that UAV's are essentially "just the same" as aviation from a regulation point of view, that point of view must ALSO carry over to RIGHTS of these UAV's and their operators. The only way to respond to the Need For Rights (NFR), is to provide an airspace that regulates ALL aviation regardless of size. The sole purpose of Class H is to insure safety for all.



To be clear, Class H airspace is NOT for the "convenience" of UAV pilots. It is designed for the SAFETY of full scale aviation, pilots and passengers. Class H insures that UAV operators won't be blind-sided by fast moving (125 knots), low flying (under 400' AGL) aviation. It simply tells full scale aviation, "If you're going to fly low, fly slow."



After several conversations with helicopter pilots, I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument against my Class H airspace idea. Even arguments for "emergency situations" have been weak. My points have not been addressed, but are, instead, dismissed. Dismissal does NOT a good argument make.



My proposal for Class H:


* All aviation must adhere to strict air speed limits of < 65 knots 150' AGL to 400' AGL.
* All aviation must adhere to strict air speed limits of < 50 knots from ground to 150' AGL.
* No flying below 100' AGL unless you are on landing approach or there is an emergency that requires it.



This allows helicopters to remain well within safety margins of the Helicopter Height Velocity Diagram for auto rotation:
1576000047862.png





* Class B, C and D airspace takes precedence over Class H, which makes sense because UAV's should NOT be in the flight path or glide slope of any runway, and should not be flying within 4 miles of Class B, C or D anyway.


Exceptions:

* Waterway landing fields for both fixed wing and helicopters.

* Agriculture.



These areas should be marked with the same signage the government uses to forbid UAV activity in local parks.

Keep in mind that this is a first draft of my Class H idea. Like all regulation, open discussion and consultation from experts is required before committing to a final draft.

I'm open to any arguments against Class H. But as of this writing, I've yet to hear even a single reasonable argument against it.

Discuss.

D
 
Hey doods;



Per this article:




It seems the FAA is digging their craws deeper and deeper into the drone community. Every extra step of regulation is one more step toward legitimization. As the FAA creeps toward total and complete regulation of the UAV community, they will eventually have to delineate airspace for the monster they created.



I have published my ideas on Class H airspace in this forum and it's been met with a lot of resistance from the manned aviation community. My position is simply this; You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't force drones and their operators into all kinds certification, regulation and compliance, and NOT provide UAV's with their own safe air space. If you're going to take the gloves off and assert that UAV's are essentially "just the same" as aviation from a regulation point of view, that point of view must ALSO carry over to RIGHTS of these UAV's and their operators. The only way to respond to the Need For Rights (NFR), is to provide an airspace that regulates ALL aviation regardless of size. The sole purpose of Class H is to insure safety for all.



To be clear, Class H airspace is NOT for the "convenience" of UAV pilots. It is designed for the SAFETY of full scale aviation, pilots and passengers. Class H insures that UAV operators won't be blind-sided by fast moving (125 knots), low flying (under 400' AGL) aviation. It simply tells full scale aviation, "If you're going to fly low, fly slow."



After several conversations with helicopter pilots, I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument against my Class H airspace idea. Even arguments for "emergency situations" have been weak. My points have not been addressed, but are, instead, dismissed. Dismissal does NOT a good argument make.



My proposal for Class H:


* All aviation must adhere to strict air speed limits of < 65 knots 150' AGL to 400' AGL.
* All aviation must adhere to strict air speed limits of < 50 knots from ground to 150' AGL.
* No flying below 100' AGL unless you are on landing approach or there is an emergency that requires it.



This allows helicopters to remain well within safety margins of the Helicopter Height Velocity Diagram for auto rotation:
View attachment 87810





* Class B, C and D airspace takes precedence over Class H, which makes sense because UAV's should NOT be in the flight path or glide slope of any runway, and should not be flying within 4 miles of Class B, C or D anyway.


Exceptions:

* Waterway landing fields for both fixed wing and helicopters.

* Agriculture.



These areas should be marked with the same signage the government uses to forbid UAV activity in local parks.

Keep in mind that this is a first draft of my Class H idea. Like all regulation, open discussion and consultation from experts is required before committing to a final draft.

I'm open to any arguments against Class H. But as of this writing, I've yet to hear even a single reasonable argument against it.

Discuss.

D
I live "in the boonies", a Class G airspace which borders the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. This is an attraction for manned aircraft to go "sightseeing" (not agriculture) outside the boundaries of the park, which includes my 15 acres in a north-south route parallel to the Lake Michigan shoreline. That's where the conflict occurs. My home fly area includes the airspace over my property and outside of the National Lakeshore. On some occasions (not all), aircraft fly over my house at less than 400 ft. I cannot know for sure of their speed, but I'm sure their altitude is less than 400 feet. Under current UAV regulations, it is my responsibility to look, listen, react, and get out of the way. And to accommodate my ability to do so, I have hacked my MPP so that I can descend at a speed of 22 mph. I have not had any close calls, but if your proposal would allow me to react faster and mitigate the danger then I support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gindra and Lucky
I live "in the boonies", a Class G airspace which borders the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. This is an attraction for manned aircraft to go "sightseeing" (not agriculture) outside the boundaries of the park, which includes my 15 acres in a north-south route parallel to the Lake Michigan shoreline. That's where the conflict occurs. My home fly area includes the airspace over my property and outside of the National Lakeshore. On some occasions (not all), aircraft fly over my house at less than 400 ft. I cannot know for sure of their speed, but I'm sure their altitude is less than 400 feet. Under current UAV regulations, it is my responsibility to look, listen, react, and get out of the way. And to accommodate my ability to do so, I have hacked my MPP so that I can descend at a speed of 22 mph. I have not had any close calls, but if your proposal would allow me to react faster and mitigate the danger then I support it.

Your last sentence sums it up exactly. Despite all the controversy, my Class H proposal is for the safety of manned aviation. The rule simply prevents full scale aviation from flying too fast at low altitudes. This give us UAV pilots time to get out of their way.

I don't know about you, but quite a few times helicopters have moved through my working area at extremely fast speeds at very low altitudes. Fortunately, I was not in the air at the time. But had I been, I can say with a lot of confidence that I don't think I would've had time to react and get out of their way. Building don't just obstruct vision, they obstruct audio. So, in some circumstances, many of the visual or audio cues we count on don't exist. This is just begging for collision. Class H simply says, "If you're going to fly below 400' AGL, slow it down." It's that simple.

You wouldn't believe how much controversy this has raised with pilots. Their knee-jerk reactions are ridiculous. All they get out of my proposal is, "UAV's have right of way in Class H." Nothing could be further from the truth.

D
 
Can you be specific about what you see in the webpage you linked to that leads you to believe the FAA is considering a special airspace designation dedicated to UAS pilots?

While the regulations for recreational pilots are being formalized I don't see anything in the FAA website that leads me to believe they are considering another special class of airspace for the exclusive use by UAS pilots. The regulations and testing requirements appear to be geared toward educating drone pilots rather than educating or adding restricts pilots of manned aircraft.
 
Can you be specific about what you see in the webpage you linked to that leads you to believe the FAA is considering a special airspace designation dedicated to UAS pilots?

To be clear, this is MY proposal. This is just an idea I had to make the skies safer for manned aviation. I'm bouncing this idea off the collective to get their input.



While the regulations for recreational pilots are being formalized I don't see anything in the FAA website that leads me to believe they are considering another special class of airspace for the exclusive use by UAS pilots.

Correct. This is MY conception. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer about that. I purposely used the word "my" in the thread title. I didn't mean to mislead you.




The regulations and testing requirements appear to be geared toward educating drone pilots rather than educating or adding restricts pilots of manned aircraft.

Correct. The "Class H airspace" idea is an idea I had for making the skies safer for manned aviation.

D
 
It’s not class g or class h or whatever. The FAA has found a way to make a ton of money they didn’t have before so more regulation to them also means more money.
 
Hey doods;



Per this article:




It seems the FAA is digging their craws deeper and deeper into the drone community. Every extra step of regulation is one more step toward legitimization. As the FAA creeps toward total and complete regulation of the UAV community, they will eventually have to delineate airspace for the monster they created.



I have published my ideas on Class H airspace in this forum and it's been met with a lot of resistance from the manned aviation community. My position is simply this; You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't force drones and their operators into all kinds certification, regulation and compliance, and NOT provide UAV's with their own safe air space. If you're going to take the gloves off and assert that UAV's are essentially "just the same" as aviation from a regulation point of view, that point of view must ALSO carry over to RIGHTS of these UAV's and their operators. The only way to respond to the Need For Rights (NFR), is to provide an airspace that regulates ALL aviation regardless of size. The sole purpose of Class H is to insure safety for all.



To be clear, Class H airspace is NOT for the "convenience" of UAV pilots. It is designed for the SAFETY of full scale aviation, pilots and passengers. Class H insures that UAV operators won't be blind-sided by fast moving (125 knots), low flying (under 400' AGL) aviation. It simply tells full scale aviation, "If you're going to fly low, fly slow."



After several conversations with helicopter pilots, I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument against my Class H airspace idea. Even arguments for "emergency situations" have been weak. My points have not been addressed, but are, instead, dismissed. Dismissal does NOT a good argument make.



My proposal for Class H:


* All aviation must adhere to strict air speed limits of < 65 knots 150' AGL to 400' AGL.
* All aviation must adhere to strict air speed limits of < 50 knots from ground to 150' AGL.
* No flying below 100' AGL unless you are on landing approach or there is an emergency that requires it.



This allows helicopters to remain well within safety margins of the Helicopter Height Velocity Diagram for auto rotation:
View attachment 87810





* Class B, C and D airspace takes precedence over Class H, which makes sense because UAV's should NOT be in the flight path or glide slope of any runway, and should not be flying within 4 miles of Class B, C or D anyway.


Exceptions:

* Waterway landing fields for both fixed wing and helicopters.

* Agriculture.



These areas should be marked with the same signage the government uses to forbid UAV activity in local parks.

Keep in mind that this is a first draft of my Class H idea. Like all regulation, open discussion and consultation from experts is required before committing to a final draft.

I'm open to any arguments against Class H. But as of this writing, I've yet to hear even a single reasonable argument against it.

Discuss.

D


I'm all for this
But rogue airplane pilots do not obey the rules just like the rogue sUAV pilots.
Aircraft is supposed to be 1,000AGL over towns and cities.
There have been several times where I have been out at 400AGL and see planes BELOW ME.
And I am flying in town....small 10,000 ppl but we are here none the less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucky
I'm all for this
But rogue airplane pilots do not obey the rules just like the rogue sUAV pilots.
Aircraft is supposed to be 1,000AGL over towns and cities.
There have been several times where I have been out at 400AGL and see planes BELOW ME.
And I am flying in town....small 10,000 ppl but we are here none the less.
So why are you for more government intervention if by your own admission it won't be followed by the rule breakers anyhow.
 
It’s not class g or class h or whatever. The FAA has found a way to make a ton of money they didn’t have before so more regulation to them also means more money.
Please cite how they are making this "ton of money".

The FAA does EDUCATION first and foremost unless there is a significant incident or some Gross Negligence.
 
I'm all for this
But rogue airplane pilots do not obey the rules just like the rogue sUAV pilots.
Aircraft is supposed to be 1,000AGL over towns and cities.

I was unaware of this rule. Are you sure about this? It sure makes a TON of sense.



There have been several times where I have been out at 400AGL and see planes BELOW ME.

I've experienced this with helicopters, but not planes.

D
 
I was unaware of this rule. Are you sure about this? It sure makes a TON of sense.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
 
Last edited:
Please cite how they are making this "ton of money".

The FAA does EDUCATION first and foremost unless there is a significant incident or some Gross Negligence.
Well when the FAA initially said everyone is required to register their drones they had 300,000 people pay $5 each to do it. That’s 1.5 million collected that cost almost nothing to produce.
That was just the initial request when not a lot of people even knew of it. I have no idea how many are now registered but 10x that wouldn’t surprise me.
 
To be clear, this is MY proposal. This is just an idea I had to make the skies safer for manned aviation. I'm bouncing this idea off the collective to get their input.

Correct. This is MY conception. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer about that. I purposely used the word "my" in the thread title. I didn't mean to mislead you.

Correct. The "Class H airspace" idea is an idea I had for making the skies safer for manned aviation.

D

I have argued this point on various forums but it seems a lot of manned aircraft pilots (which I am, SEL IFR) don't like the idea of a dedicated slice of airspace for drone pilots. I disagree and also have argued that the reasons given that there should not be a dedicated airspace for UAS pilots are flimsy.

While there are emergency and occupational situations where flight of manned aircraft have to descend below 400' outside of an airport traffic area they are relatively few in contrast to total flight hours. The general rule in my opinion should be that airspace below 400' be dedicated to UAS pilots unless there is an emergency or an occupational reason to fly lower (crop dusting, power line inspection, etc.). In these cases a TFR can be generated. Of course this would required that UAS pilots check for TFR's before EVERY flight but in this age of the internet and wifi that should be a burdensome task in the vast majority of case.

Beyond that I have to imagine with the advent of commercial use of drones that sections of airspace are going to be dedicated to these commercial low attitude applications.

The incidents of drones and manned aircraft attempting to occupy the same space are very rare. The added step of dedicating low level airspace to UAS flights with the exceptions mentioned would make them exceedingly rare.
 
Read my original post again. I already addressed that.

View attachment 87864

D
Quite a number of small Airports and landing strips are class G. Just check out DJI's geofence map. They make runway approach paths as authorization zones even when they are not in controlled airspace, which has gotten criticism on this site.

As for no UAS should be within 4 miles class C or greater, and I assume you mean 4 miles of center, FAA allows UAS flights in such classes, though with lower altitudes. Just look at the facilities map. MAS should stick to the 400ft rule even in these classes. Even at 2 miles on runway approach, they're usually quite a bit higher than 400ft.

But beyond those details, I agree that we need to be given rights. MAS that need to fly in class H should show up in a timely manner in FlightAware or FlightRadar24. I've seen too many small planes fly over my house and never show up in these apps, even though this is class D airspace.
The bigger boys that always appear are way too high to matter.
 
Well when the FAA initially said everyone is required to register their drones they had 300,000 people pay $5 each to do it. That’s 1.5 million collected that cost almost nothing to produce.
That was just the initial request when not a lot of people even knew of it. I have no idea how many are now registered but 10x that wouldn’t surprise me.


Nothing to produce? While I don't think it cost millions there is backend stuff that had to be done in order to make that possible. Believe it or not, it costs $$ to run the FAA and all of the resources needed for just the UAS portion is mind boggling. So I'm pretty sure the petty $5 registration is but a drop in the bucket as to what it costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
Well when the FAA initially said everyone is required to register their drones they had 300,000 people pay $5 each to do it. That’s 1.5 million collected that cost almost nothing to produce.
That was just the initial request when not a lot of people even knew of it. I have no idea how many are now registered but 10x that wouldn’t surprise me.
1.5 million you think is a ton of money LOL thats like pocket change
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
I live north of Deer Valley airport , its one of the busiest GA airports if not the busiest in the country, with hundreds of take offs and landing per day. They have flight schools there which fly over my house continuously everyday and there suppose to stay above 500' AGL but many time they are below that. I've had to drop my MA a few times. Checking their speed their always over a 100kts. I do have lots of warning time as the sky is wide open and clear most the time but if they come from behind by house I don't have that time as I don't hear or see them till they come over the house so Yea you proposed H space sounds pretty good to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RadioFlyerMan
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,585
Messages
1,554,095
Members
159,585
Latest member
maniac2000