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

Minimum altitudes for manned craft

  • Thread starter Deleted member 94307
  • Start date
Are there no manned pilots on these forums? Lowest legal height (AGL) for manned aircraft as long as certain requirements are met is 0' AGL! For example, over open water with no infrastructure (i.e. boats, docks, oil platforms. etc.) and no people you can take it down as low as like. Obviously this statement is overly simplified but it is a mistaken preconception that manned aircraft can't fly below 500' except when taking off or landing.

Yes there are quite a few of us but at the same time we get tired of trying to beat the rules into the heads of people who simply either don't car to know them or try to rebut them with ridiculous remarks. I simply state the FARs (link/quote them) and let it be. I feel that sometimes my time is better spent bouncing a ball off the wall than trying to explain, justify, or argue what the facts really are.
 
“air planes should be 1000 feet agl except for landing and taking off. A mile out they shouldn’t be lower”... at a mile out, they’d have to fall at about a -19% descent rate to get down to surface, or a 5.3:1 ratio. A Piper Cub? On a 65 degree day, 1260#, engine idle, the glide ratio is 7.5:1, which means the pilot would have to be diving and increasing airspeed a lot to get down to the airport surface in less than 1 mile.

^^^Good conclusion statement to the thread, too!
 
Another thing people demanding equal rights to airspace here are forgetting are the safety and training criteria.

A manned aircraft is operated by a trained pilot who has been independently assessed on their responses, ability and rules of the air knowledge and operating an aircraft with multiple redundant systems, legally mandated design procedures, airworthiness checks, routine maintenance and so on.
All of this compared to a toy drone with an operator who has had no training, no assessment, potentially no awareness of any of the rules, no skills assessment operating a plastic drone that has zero redundancy, no routine maintenance, follows none of the ICAO mandated design philosophies and so on.

So equal access to airspace isnt really an option given the huge disparity in ability and reliability - the only option is what we have now - airspace segregation and approved procedures for integrating if and when required.
 
Another thing people demanding equal rights to airspace here are forgetting are the safety and training criteria.

A manned aircraft is operated by a trained pilot who has been independently assessed on their responses, ability and rules of the air knowledge and operating an aircraft with multiple redundant systems, legally mandated design procedures, airworthiness checks, routine maintenance and so on.
All of this compared to a toy drone with an operator who has had no training, no assessment, potentially no awareness of any of the rules, no skills assessment operating a plastic drone that has zero redundancy, no routine maintenance, follows none of the ICAO mandated design philosophies and so on.

So equal access to airspace isnt really an option given the huge disparity in ability and reliability - the only option is what we have now - airspace segregation and approved procedures for integrating if and when required.

You get an award for one of the best (and very accurate) statements on the internet today :)


Well done :)
 
Most of the uncontrolled airspace between the surface up to 400’ is shared by UAS and manned aircraft. The types of manned aircraft that can legally fly in it include working helicopters (utility inspection and construction, surveys, field crew transportation), paragliders, hot air balloons and blimps, air ambulances, search and rescue aircraft, coast guard aircraft, crop dusters (your exception), law enforcement helicopters, ultralights, military practice (in MOA’s), fire fighting planes and copters, wildlife survey and other research aircraft (USGS, NASA, universities, etc.) bush and float planes, and commercial copters (tours, people and cargo, etc.). Drones must yield and take second seat to manned aircraft in this shared airspace for obvious reasons.

Most manned aircraft have very strict rules, licensing, annual maintenance and inspections, qualifications and registration Why shouldn't drones? They are flying in the NAS as well and don’t even have beacons to announce their presence and registration to ATC (which will probably change sometime sooner than we all realize).

The vast majority of the manned aircraft I've seen below 500' certainly were doing any of the things you mention (flying along the beach, flying in populated areas, no emergency that required flight for long durations below 500', etc.). Crew transfer can be done above 500' except for landing and taking off. I seriously doubt, given the advanced photographic technology that exist today that accurate surveying can't be done at 500' or higher. The only time air rescue or emergency flights needed to be below 500' is in the immediate area of the emergency, that includes Coast Guard and law enforcement. That is a fraction of the time actually in flight. The overwhelming vast majority of manned flight operations have no need to fly below 500' other than landing or taking off, that includes gliders and balloons. The airspace below 400' should be reserved for UAS operations or manned operations where an emergency is involved and, for manned operations, only as needed to complete the operation. No time is lost if a helicopter has to go from 300' to 500' (accomplished in 20 seconds) so the reasonings you given for manned flight below 500' are shallow at best. Again, if safety is the primary concern most manned operations outside of the airport environment can just as easily be done at 500' versus 400'.
 
The vast majority of the manned aircraft I've seen below 500' certainly were doing any of the things you mention (flying along the beach, flying in populated areas, no emergency that required flight for long durations below 500', etc.). Crew transfer can be done above 500' except for landing and taking off. I seriously doubt, given the advanced photographic technology that exist today that accurate surveying can't be done at 500' or higher. The only time air rescue or emergency flights needed to be below 500' is in the immediate area of the emergency, that includes Coast Guard and law enforcement. That is a fraction of the time actually in flight. The overwhelming vast majority of manned flight operations have no need to fly below 500' other than landing or taking off, that includes gliders and balloons. The airspace below 400' should be reserved for UAS operations or manned operations where an emergency is involved and, for manned operations, only as needed to complete the operation. No time is lost if a helicopter has to go from 300' to 500' (accomplished in 20 seconds) so the reasonings you given for manned flight below 500' are shallow at best. Again, if safety is the primary concern most manned operations outside of the airport environment can just as easily be done at 500' versus 400'.
One point, personally experienced in Medevac/Airevac operations. In summer heat helicopters did not have the ability to fly to my town at 7000ft elevation in central AZ, much less at 500ft above. We had to have patients transported by ground to a lower elevation for helicopter transport.
Some rules need to be bent for emergencies. As UAS Pilots we need to keep our eyes and ears open.
 
Another thing people demanding equal rights to airspace here are forgetting are the safety and training criteria.

A manned aircraft is operated by a trained pilot who has been independently assessed on their responses, ability and rules of the air knowledge and operating an aircraft with multiple redundant systems, legally mandated design procedures, airworthiness checks, routine maintenance and so on.
All of this compared to a toy drone with an operator who has had no training, no assessment, potentially no awareness of any of the rules, no skills assessment operating a plastic drone that has zero redundancy, no routine maintenance, follows none of the ICAO mandated design philosophies and so on.

So equal access to airspace isnt really an option given the huge disparity in ability and reliability - the only option is what we have now - airspace segregation and approved procedures for integrating if and when required.

The "toy drone operator" is being phased out. In the near future every UAS operator will be required to have some level of training. But the training issue is bogus when it comes to airspace and who should be where. The only training for manned aircraft with respect to flight below 500' is related to landing and taking off. Other than emergency operations that's it. I got no training in flying at low altitude during my VFR or IFR training so training has very little to do with the issue. Not a lit of training is required to understand as a UAS pilot you need to remain below 401' and 5 miles from an airport. No extensive training of manned aircraft pilots would be required to convey stay above 500' unless you're landing, taking off or have an emergency. If UAS pilots are forced to give up the airspace above 400' and all airspace within 5 miles of an airport why is it unreasonable to require manned aircraft pilots to give ip the airspace below 500' except for landing, taking off, in an emergency or where a job can ONLY BE DONE at a lower altitude?
 
  • Like
Reactions: strdr
Pilots fly below 500ft because it is FUN!. The world looks wonderful from the air looking down at it. The world looks different at 300ft, different again at 500ft and different again at 1,000ft and again different at 2,000ft, 5,000ft and 10,000ft. When you are way up there, say in a slow flying aircraft, things move below you s l o w l y.. but when you drop down to 500ft, you get more of a sense of sped in your slow flying aircraft, plus the world looks so nice from that altitude.

That is why you fly at those altitudes, where it is allowed. I used to teach flying out in Colorado, many years ago. We had some pilot friends who flew for United, based in Denver. They would come up into the mountains from time to time to fly with us and we would drop down to 100ft or 50ft and sometimes 20ft above the ground and follow the terrain over open undulating prairie land, or skip over fresh hay bails in open fields early in the morning, just for the fun of it. These United pilots would whoop and yelp as we flew, saying they just loved the feeling of doing this type of flying in an open cockpit aircraft, more than any other type of flying.

So, the simple answer is because it is just plain fun and legal to do when you understand where you can do it. If you take the hierarchy of flying, everything shares the airspace and enjoys flying but as you move down the food chain, there are different rules to obey, and you must observe those rules to keep everyone safe and happy. Slower aircraft usually fly inside the pattern and often at lower altitudes, because that is where you need to be to be seen by faster aircraft in the pattern. Patterns in general, are always left hand at an airport unless something or structure or development necessitates a right hand pattern, but this is then noted on charts.

Faster aircraft know where to look to see if there are slower flying aircraft in that pattern, plus a pilot announces what they are doing and where they are in the pattern, at uncontrolled airports, so that everyone else in the pattern or on the ground or inbound, knows what is going on and can visualize where the other aircraft are in relation to themselves. This generally keeps everyone using the airspace, safe and happy.

Even and ultralight, a real ultralight, not just a small aircraft that most people just call an ultralight, has a right to be up in that airspace. However, they are the lowest on the food chain and therefore must yield to every other type of flying machine in the sky. Even in the pattern, every other flying aircraft has priority over them, other than, say, a powered paraglider. Even when in the pattern, if another heavier and faster aircraft is catching them up, the ultralight must yield and allow the other aircraft to land. The only time this does not apply is when they may be landing in an emergency situation. Then all other aircraft must give way. In fact any aircraft landing is an emergency has right of way over everything else.

So you can take the drone as being even lower on the food chain than an ultralight, and they must then give way to everything else out there flying, even if the drone is within their legal altitude of surface to 400ft. If you start to think that way, then you won't be getting in the way of anything else up there flying about. You won't be misguided about your right to be in that airspace and expect other aircraft not to be there, and everyone sharing the sky will be happy.
 
There are countless reasons why a manned aircraft would want to operate below 500ft.
Military to start with.
Search and rescue
Fire fighting
Police
Detailed survey work
Possibly forced due to met conditions
Medevac (Casualties with various issues where going higher is simple unsafe)

All of those would be routine and not emergencies.
 
Pilots fly below 500ft because it is FUN!. The world looks wonderful from the air looking down at it. The world looks different at 300ft, different again at 500ft and different again at 1,000ft and again different at 2,000ft, 5,000ft and 10,000ft. When you are way up there, say in a slow flying aircraft, things move below you s l o w l y.. but when you drop down to 500ft, you get more of a sense of sped in your slow flying aircraft, plus the world looks so nice from that altitude.

That is why you fly at those altitudes, where it is allowed. I used to teach flying out in Colorado, many years ago. We had some pilot friends who flew for United, based in Denver. They would come up into the mountains from time to time to fly with us and we would drop down to 100ft or 50ft and sometimes 20ft above the ground and follow the terrain over open undulating prairie land, or skip over fresh hay bails in open fields early in the morning, just for the fun of it. These United pilots would whoop and yelp as we flew, saying they just loved the feeling of doing this type of flying in an open cockpit aircraft, more than any other type of flying.

So, the simple answer is because it is just plain fun and legal to do when you understand where you can do it. If you take the hierarchy of flying, everything shares the airspace and enjoys flying but as you move down the food chain, there are different rules to obey, and you must observe those rules to keep everyone safe and happy. Slower aircraft usually fly inside the pattern and often at lower altitudes, because that is where you need to be to be seen by faster aircraft in the pattern. Patterns in general, are always left hand at an airport unless something or structure or development necessitates a right hand pattern, but this is then noted on charts.

Faster aircraft know where to look to see if there are slower flying aircraft in that pattern, plus a pilot announces what they are doing and where they are in the pattern, at uncontrolled airports, so that everyone else in the pattern or on the ground or inbound, knows what is going on and can visualize where the other aircraft are in relation to themselves. This generally keeps everyone using the airspace, safe and happy.

Even and ultralight, a real ultralight, not just a small aircraft that most people just call an ultralight, has a right to be up in that airspace. However, they are the lowest on the food chain and therefore must yield to every other type of flying machine in the sky. Even in the pattern, every other flying aircraft has priority over them, other than, say, a powered paraglider. Even when in the pattern, if another heavier and faster aircraft is catching them up, the ultralight must yield and allow the other aircraft to land. The only time this does not apply is when they may be landing in an emergency situation. Then all other aircraft must give way. In fact any aircraft landing is an emergency has right of way over everything else.

So you can take the drone as being even lower on the food chain than an ultralight, and they must then give way to everything else out there flying, even if the drone is within their legal altitude of surface to 400ft. If you start to think that way, then you won't be getting in the way of anything else up there flying about. You won't be misguided about your right to be in that airspace and expect other aircraft not to be there, and everyone sharing the sky will be happy.

I appreciate your response because fundamentally that is the reason for most of these flights. It's not rescue or crew transfer or line inspection but fun that's the motivation. And the reason these flights won't be restricted regardless of the enhanced safety it would provide us the food chain rather than a serious addressing of the safety issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cymruflyer
There are countless reasons why a manned aircraft would want to operate below 500ft.
Military to start with.
Search and rescue
Fire fighting
Police
Detailed survey work
Possibly forced due to met conditions
Medevac (Casualties with various issues where going higher is simple unsafe)

All of those would be routine and not emergencies.

Why is it you keep forgetting, plain and simple FUN FLYING at those altitudes? The fun flight is probably the most prolific of all the reasons you posted above.
 
It maybe fun but the " person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. " applies in most countries assuming VFR flight so wouldnt always be legal. But there are many many legal reasons why an aircraft will be below 500ft and quite legitimately. All far more compelling reasons than someone wanting to fly a toy quadcopter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
It maybe fun but the " person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. " applies in most countries assuming VFR flight so wouldnt always be legal. But there are many many legal reasons why an aircraft will be below 500ft and quite legitimately. All far more compelling reasons than someone wanting to fly a toy quadcopter.

Not quite sure what you mean here. If you are speaking about my comment as to why a manned aircraft would be flying below 500ft then it is because it is fun. With that said, you must go back and read exactly what I wrote because you will see I clearly stated this... "
That is why you fly at those altitudes, where it is allowed. "

That means a manned aircraft will fly below 500ft for fun in an area that is legal for that pilot to do so. No where have I ever stated that a manned aircraft should be flying for fun below 500ft in an area that was illegal to carry out such a flight. As for SAR aircraft, that does not even come into the equation because no drone flyer should be in that area anyway.
 
The vast majority of the manned aircraft I've seen below 500' certainly were doing any of the things you mention (flying along the beach, flying in populated areas, no emergency that required flight for long durations below 500', etc.). Crew transfer can be done above 500' except for landing and taking off. I seriously doubt, given the advanced photographic technology that exist today that accurate surveying can't be done at 500' or higher. The only time air rescue or emergency flights needed to be below 500' is in the immediate area of the emergency, that includes Coast Guard and law enforcement. That is a fraction of the time actually in flight. The overwhelming vast majority of manned flight operations have no need to fly below 500' other than landing or taking off, that includes gliders and balloons. The airspace below 400' should be reserved for UAS operations or manned operations where an emergency is involved and, for manned operations, only as needed to complete the operation. No time is lost if a helicopter has to go from 300' to 500' (accomplished in 20 seconds) so the reasonings you given for manned flight below 500' are shallow at best. Again, if safety is the primary concern most manned operations outside of the airport environment can just as easily be done at 500' versus 400'.

Tour balloons will revolt under those rules, they often skim the ground, orchards and lakes as part of their experience. Gliders, parasailers and hang gliders often fly ridgetops to get lift, often just 10’s of feet above them. Survey work often requires below 400’ flying, I’ve done it for the USFS on the San Bernardino NF as we were mapping water sources and fractures across a faultline that an aerial imagery survey at 500’ would have never been able to do. Also, I’ve done wildlife telemetry surveys where we had to fly below 500ft, and placing those radio collars on deer and bighorn required the use of a netgun from a helicopter flying below 100ft, and for the NPS when we were delivering supplies by sling load which we couldn’t carry that high due to density altitude restrictions. Other non-emergency low AGL work includes stringing cables and maintaining high tension lines for the utility companies, pipeline inspections, etc.

It’s ridiculous to reserve that part of the NAS for drones across the US. The only places it would be feasible is at authorized fixed sites.
 
Last edited:
Survey work often requires below 400’ flying, I’ve done it for the NPS when we were delivering supplies by sling load, and for the USFS on the San Bernardino NF as we were mapping water sources and fractures across a faultline that an aerial imagery survey at 500’ would have never been able to do. Also, I’ve done wildlife telemetry surveys where we had to fly below 500ft, and placing those radio collars on deer and bighorn required the use of a netgun from a helicopter flying below 100ft. Other non-emergency work includes stringing cables and maintaining high tension lines for the utility companies, pipeline inspections, etc.

It’s ridiculous to reserve that part of the NAS for drones across the US. The only places it would be feasible is at authorized fixed sites.

Even IF those flight operations you mentioned HAVE to be conducted below 500' what percentage of manned operations does that account for in the U.S? 0.00001%? Reserve the airspace below 500' is feasible for 99.9999% of flight operations. "Radio collars on deer"...give me a break!
 
Even IF those flight operations you mentioned HAVE to be conducted below 500' what percentage of manned operations does that account for in the U.S? 0.00001%? Reserve the airspace below 500' is feasible for 99.9999% of flight operations. "Radio collars on deer"...give me a break!

Please stay on topic, there are numerous reasons for conducting studies on game animals, and migration studies is one of them. And if you think radio collaring a deer is ridiculous, I’ll show you how we also have put them on bats! :D

The NAS works well as it is, and most UAS pilots are able to coexist with manned flights by following the rules. It’s only the rogue operators that are causing the issues we read about in the news.
 
Last edited:
Please stay on topic, there are numerous reasons for conducting studies on game animals, and migration studies is one of them.

The NAS works well as it is, and most UAS pilots are able to coexist with manned flights by following the rules. It’s only the rogue operators that are causing the issues we read about in the news.

I'm on topic. If you want to conduct those operations below 500' request an ATC waiver just like a drone pilot has to do if they want to fly in airspace reserved for manned aircraft.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: strdr and AMann
I'm on topic. If you want to conduct those operations below 500' request an ATC waiver just like a drone pilot has to do if they want to fly in airspace reserved for manned aircraft.


So since you're not in contact with ATC how in the world does this, in ANY WAY, improve NAS safety? Are you checking NOTAMS before you fly? Are you contacting anyone to see if there are any "Manned Aviation Waivers" active in the area? How will a hobby sUAS operator know that a Manned Aircraft might be operating in the general area with your suggested "Waiver" system?

The reason Drone operators have to get waivers is so that ATC can let incoming traffic know what to expect. Exactly how do you see this working the other way around?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheech Wizard
So since you're not in contact with ATC how in the world does this, in ANY WAY, improve NAS safety? Are you checking NOTAMS before you fly? Are you contacting anyone to see if there are any "Manned Aviation Waivers" active in the area? How will a hobby sUAS operator know that a Manned Aircraft might be operating in the general area with your suggested "Waiver" system?

The reason Drone operators have to get waivers is so that ATC can let incoming traffic know what to expect. Exactly how do you see this working the other way around?
I also think the aircraft without transponders should have to be the ones to have to notify ATC, don’t you?
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,004
Messages
1,558,778
Members
159,985
Latest member
kclarke2929