Max Altitude Limit for USA

[TomMcW]

On the Know Before You Fly website (here), the FAA states the following:

"Follow community-based safety guidelines, as developed by organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)."

I'm no lawyer, but it seems you can follow the rules of any community-based organization. I've never seen the FAA specifically list the approved organizations. Nor does the FAA explain in detail what "community-based organization" means. It seems like you and I could create our own organization today, draft a set of rules, and follow them.


Some related/interesting links regarding community-based organizations (CBOs):

• This guy started his own CBO
• Rich Hanson (leader of the AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs) describes what he thinks CBO means here
• Loretta Alkalay (an Aviation attorney & previous FAA employee) explains she does not know what CBO means here
• Peter Sachs (an attorney) believes the AMA is the only CBO the FAA recognizes (as of today) in his article here
• The Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft states a CBO includes any groups that "meet the statutory definition"
• Public Law 112-95, Section 336 states you only need to follow the rules of a CBO (you don't need to be a member of it)

They definitely didn't do us any favors by not specifying what exactly comprises a CBO and not naming any particular ones. It's a laissez faire action on the part of the FAA and they've done it successfully in other areas. I'm not quite sure it will in this case.

In some places in the legal mumbo jumbo that they publish they specify a national CBO. And ance again, they don't define that either. Can you start your own CBO and make your own rules? Nothing says you can't. If the FAA decided to go after you then it would be in the hands of a judge to decide whether it qualifies. They always leave themselves flexible wording, like "operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft," that gives them a lot of leeway for enforcement action.

It all sort of boils down to what happens if there's a problem. If an airplane strikes a drone at 2000 ft agl they're certainly going to want to take some enforcement action, provided they can determine whose drone it was. Unless the airplane pilot was doing something monumentally stupid the FAA is going to side with them. After all, the drone pilot is standing safely on the ground while the airplane pilot could potentially be badly injured or killed. If there's a mishap and the FAA comes calling you had better have something solid to point at to say you were at least trying to fly safely. I dont want to stand in front of a judge and explain that me and my buddy formed a CBO and decided we could fly to 10,000 feet. I just don't think they'll see it that way.

 

[TomMcW]

This debate or disagreement is like many others, guns for example. Fearful people who see no evil in controlling others because they know they know best and think more strict rules are fine because only a jerk would do more anyway. People who think government and know what's best for everyone types should not be allowed to impose their opinions on the freedoms of others will always reject such sanctimonious dictates. I am in the middle, and I am a lawyer. I follow the law as written. I don't follow someone's reading that spins it one way or the other. Advisory or aspirational language on the FAA website is not enforceable law folks. The actual law was quoted above. One last thought - fearful people tend to see limiting freedom as a no brainer. They want to regulate the world into being danger free. They mean well, but they always go too far. Eventually people reject their control because a totally safe life is not worth living. If you disagree, that is your right. But don't kid yourself that your truth is absolute. You're just scared of things that have statistically minimal chances of happening. With you, the terrorists always win.

I agree that the enforceability of the laws in this case are questionable. In defense of the FAA in this case, though, I believe that they are trying to do precisely what you are saying. They're doing their best not to make up a crapload of strict rules that you have to be an expert to follow. Or at least that's what congress has told them to do. They have left it up to the "community" to self-regulate. They have allowed for a way to take action against people who are "clearly" doing something dangerous. With laws written that way it signals that they don't want to be out policing hobbyists.

 

[Clapper]

As a lawyer who follows the law as written, can you explain how you're following this law?

"the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

Sure. This language is not law. It is a reference to other potential rules that right now do not exist in most areas. For instance, if my city passes an ordinance limiting my rights to fly above a certain altitude under their police powers, then I will abide within their jurisdiction. They have that authority. But if the local Elks Lodge or Pilot Association declares itself a CBO and passes a rule, that is not law. The FAA or any other agency cannot delegate regulatory authority to just any CBO and have that become law. Regulations that are duly promulgated within the scope of a government entity's authority have the force of law from enabling statues that confer that authority. The agencies do not have the power to enable CBO's in the same way. This is only aspirational language as to any CBO that is not an actual government agency or body.The FAA has been barred from regulating hobbyist drone flights by Congress although they still have power to regulate use of airspace. They cannot delegate power they do not have that specifically applies to hobbyist drone flights, period. It is always the legislatures that enable regulation, and here they have proscribed it rather than enable it. Not what you may want, but true.

 

[TomMcW]

I'm throwing a stupid question:
- There are rules for certain regions (for example near airports) where drones are not welcome and a risk for any manned flying vehicle. What about the opposite ? what not proposing some flying area for drones only ? for example regions where flying with a helicopter/plane can be dangerous (cliff, bridges, hills) but not with a drone ? Maybe having a local drones pilots association submitting a "Drones Only Zone" with a "24h in advance announcement of Drone flights" might be a win-win situation, with "radius and height of the flying zone" subject to negotiation with the local Drone Association and the local airport?

That's an entirely doable thing. And one the FAA would probably welcome. The only problem is that most drone flyers simply don't want to be boxed into a certain area or time. That's part of what makes the MP so nice is that it fits into a small bag you can carry around easily. That gives you freedom to go where you want.

 

[dwallersv]

But also absolutely unsafe; no reason for a hobbyist to exceed 400'

There are plenty of reasons.

However, if you don't have one, then don't.

 

[thomas withers]

Suddenly the Mavic won't fly above 400 ft whereas a few days ago I was able to fly well above that. Now suddenly it limits me to 120 meters max in the setting. When I try to raise it to say 240 it drops back down when the focus is moved to another field.

I live at the base of a mountain and plan on staying below 400 feet AGL but the Mavic limits me to flying 400 feet above my takeoff point. Shouldn't I be able to override the setting if we're talking about being 400 feet above ground level?

 

[MisterMavic]

The idiots who love to cloud hop are going to be the first ones crying once rules are put in place that make it illegal. "I bought my drone and now the evil DJI limits my flight". Fly with common sense, my car will go 150mph but I don't drive it that way. I firmly believe restrictions are coming and we'll have Mr I want to touch the clouds to thank for it.

 

[NaiveFlight]

I spend most of my time at between 100 and 220 ft. Plenty of tree clearance. When I get the chance to go to a place where I can check if there are any airways, I might just try 500m once to see what the fuzz is. But I doubt it's anything too crazy other than a battery half drained (I suppose).... Mavic descends very slowly....

 

[msinger]

Sure. This language is not law. It is a reference to other potential rules that right now do not exist in most areas.

That language is from Public Law 112-95, Section 336. That is not law? I was always under the impression that it is law -- and it's explaining how the FAA should handle rules/regulations for model aircraft.

I was more interested in which CBO's rules you're following. And if it's not the AMA, how can you be sure the FAA/law accepts that CBO as a CBO.

 

[Threshold]

Here's the facts. There is a lot of controlled airspace above 700'. Not to mention Pilots flying by VFR are usually small planes and planes are allowed to fly 500' above any object or surface. The 400' guide the FAA listed was to create a 100' buffer between pilots and drones. Flying above 400' is downright wreck less and should be punishable by law.

To add to the madness, some military routes are flown from ground level 1,500' above the surface.

Some flight victor airways can be flown as low as 1,200'

Helicopters are flying at low altitudes all the time.

If this isn't already deterring people from flying over 400', then I don't know what will.

 

[dwallersv]

The sUAV is already transmitting position, altitude, and speed telemetry, with a range of at least 10 miles (check out the Range Leaderboard thread). It would be pretty straightforward to integrate collision avoidance technology into drones so they're visible to other aircraft.

Ultimately, this is where I think this is headed, as the density of drones in our skies is only going to increase, and at an accelerating pace. Commercial delivery services will be the first use that will cause a sudden huge increase in these aircraft.

An accurate "sensor net" so to speak of aircraft locations will be absolutely necessary, with automated collision avoidance. Fortunately we're well past the level of necessary technology to do this. It is just now that the autonomous control tech has gotten to a point where its necessary.

 

[cobra46]

Here's the facts. There is a lot of controlled airspace above 700'. Not to mention Pilots flying by VFR are usually small planes and planes are allowed to fly 500' above any object or surface. The 400' guide the FAA listed was to create a 100' buffer between pilots and drones. Flying above 400' is downright wreck less and should be punishable by law.

To add to the madness, some military routes are flown from ground level 1,500' above the surface.

Some flight victor airways can be flown as low as 1,200'

Helicopters are flying at low altitudes all the time.

If this isn't already deterring people from flying over 400', then I don't know what will.

This is not true and is a common misconception. In a sparsely populated area I can fly a plane right on the deck, however, I must remain 500' from vessels, structures, people and vehicles.

A couple places where this is likely to happen is over bodies of water or out in the desert.

Another thing people don't understand is that rotary wing aircraft (helicopters) can fly at any altitude even over populated areas.

At the end of the day, drone pilots need to keep an eye out for manned aircraft at all times.

 

[Boog0822]

I've been flying my Mavic in the Dallas area for almost 4 months now. With all the talk of "the density of drones in our skies increasing" I thought for a moment... I've never, ever seen a drone flying anywhere I've ever been. The only drone other than mine I've ever seen was my buddy's who flew with me a few days ago. I think we're pretty far off from having a sky crowded with drones.

 

[TomMcW]

The sUAV is already transmitting position, altitude, and speed telemetry, with a range of at least 10 miles (check out the Range Leaderboard thread). It would be pretty straightforward to integrate collision avoidance technology into drones so they're visible to other aircraft.

Ultimately, this is where I think this is headed, as the density of drones in our skies is only going to increase, and at an accelerating pace. Commercial delivery services will be the first use that will cause a sudden huge increase in these aircraft.

An accurate "sensor net" so to speak of aircraft locations will be absolutely necessary, with automated collision avoidance. Fortunately we're well past the level of necessary technology to do this. It is just now that the autonomous control tech has gotten to a point where its necessary.

They may find an inexpensive way to integrate some type of transponder (like a simplified version of ads-b) to make them visible to atc and possibly aircraft equipped with tcas. But there are two problems. One is simply battery power. The other is that at the low altitudes drones are really useful at they would be most likely to conflict with GA aircraft, most of which are not equipped with tcas and many operating under vfr, so they won't be in contact with atc. Vfr aircraft are only required to be in contact with atc in class B, C and D airspace. And unless they request (and get) flight following, atc will not be giving them traffic advisories.

 

[rstekeur]

I've been flying my Mavic in the Dallas area for almost 4 months now. With all the talk of "the density of drones in our skies increasing" I thought for a moment... I've never, ever seen a drone flying anywhere I've ever been. The only drone other than mine I've ever seen was my buddy's who flew with me a few days ago. I think we're pretty far off from having a sky crowded with drones.

Same here, over the last 5 years I've never seen a drone besides mine except once at the AMA field. I have a Part 107 and I really have no desire to fly higher than 400' nor has it ever impaired my ability to do any job. At 400' if I take my eye's off the drone I have a hard time finding it in the sky again. In the current uav climate flying over 400' just to see high you can go just seems reckless.

 

[dwallersv]

At the end of the day, drone pilots need to keep an eye out for manned aircraft at all times.

^This.

It is the only viable practice to maximize safety. In fact, in the opinion of some of us, specific limits like 400' actually make everything less safe, leading sUAV pilots to believe they are free and clear below 400'.

In fact, if there is going to be a collision between a manned aircraft and a drone, in my humble opinion it is most likely -- by a long shot, to occur under 500'.

 

[dwallersv]

I've been flying my Mavic in the Dallas area for almost 4 months now. With all the talk of "the density of drones in our skies increasing" I thought for a moment... I've never, ever seen a drone flying anywhere I've ever been. The only drone other than mine I've ever seen was my buddy's who flew with me a few days ago. I think we're pretty far off from having a sky crowded with drones.

Amazon doesn't have them routinely delivering packages yet. You are aware that this is a done deal already, in the testing stages, full FAA participation and support.

When it goes from testing to production, within a few years you won't be able to leave the house without seeing at least one sometime during the day, in my estimate.

 

[dwallersv]

They may find an inexpensive way to integrate some type of transponder (like a simplified version of ads-b) to make them visible to atc and possibly aircraft equipped with tcas. But there are two problems. One is simply battery power. The other is that at the low altitudes drones are really useful at they would be most likely to conflict with GA aircraft, most of which are not equipped with tcas and many operating under vfr, so they won't be in contact with atc. Vfr aircraft are only required to be in contact with atc in class B, C and D airspace. And unless they request (and get) flight following, atc will not be giving them traffic advisories.

Airbags are required equipment for cars. They didn't used to be.

The lack of widespread adoption/existence of the technology necessary to address this problem is not an argument against it. Rather, if the solution is compelling enough, it's an argument for REQUIRING it, forcing all small aircraft to add this technology.

I'd bet money right now that that is where this is going to go. sUAV tech is a paradigm shift that is going to result in some major changes to airspace management. These changes needn't be draconian and burdensome, if we simply use the technology we have available today.

 

[TomMcW]

Airbags are required equipment for cars. They didn't used to be.

The lack of widespread adoption/existence of the technology necessary to address this problem is not an argument against it. Rather, if the solution is compelling enough, it's an argument for REQUIRING it, forcing all small aircraft to add this technology.

I'd bet money right now that that is where this is going to go. sUAV tech is a paradigm shift that is going to result in some major changes to airspace management. These changes needn't be draconian and burdensome, if we simply use the technology we have available today.[/
]

I agree that would be a best case scenario, but there are a few things you aren't taking into about. The biggest one is the sheer expense of equipping your aircraft with new gear. Everything that is to go into an airplane has to be certified in twenty different ways, so they are very expensive. To put new avionics equipment in a plane is thousands of dollars. Another is the snail's pace that aviation regulations move at.

The FAA just dumped a new requirement on plane owners to be equipped with ads-b-out by Jan 1, 2020 in order to fly in B, C or D airspace or above 10,000 ft msl. They announced this requirement years in advance so owners could decide how to deal with the expense. They're not going to change that any time soon.

They didn't require ads-b-in, which would be needed to receive radar positions of other traffic. They also don't require it in class G or most class E. As a matter of fact, in class G aircraft are not required to have a transponder or a radio - or even an electrical system for that matter.

There are all kinds of things out there in the sky that can't be seen on radar, from birds to weather balloons to hot air balloons to guys in lawn chairs.* And aircraft of all sizes do hit them occasionally (well, I don't know if any hot air balloon strikes). Most lower altitude flight is still done by see-and-avoid - just like you drive a car. That's not going to go away. There's no electronic solution to preventing aircraft drone strikes. It can help, but not in a lot of cases.

* Larry Walters - Wikipedia