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
I also think the aircraft without transponders should have to be the ones to have to notify ATC, don’t you?


Exactly!

Keep in mind sUAS are very much at the bottom of the food chain (as we should be) and as such we do have to allow for the flight of every other type of aircraft and give way always.
 
Not so sure I agree UAS are, or should be, at the bottom of the food chain. We allow truckers with all sorts of training to share the same road as motorcycles - both have the privilege of operating on the road with different licensing requirements. One day all aircraft will be autonomous, just like on the highways vehicles will as well. Routes will be planned, deconfliction identified hours in advance, sensors avoid collisions. Human pilots think they have a superior right over UAS because it threatens their current career. UAS pilots think they have a right to a new career. Both should have rights. There ought to be an expectation and enabling of equal access for all classes of vehicles, not just privileged access for a few. How many citizens can afford a private aircraft, training and insurance - most cannot. UAS makes airspace more accessible to all and should be something we encourage in a free society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strdr
Not so sure I agree UAS are, or should be, at the bottom of the food chain. We allow truckers with all sorts of training to share the same road as motorcycles - both have the privilege of operating on the road with different licensing requirements. One day all aircraft will be autonomous, just like on the highways vehicles will as well. Routes will be planned, deconfliction identified hours in advance, sensors avoid collisions. Human pilots think they have a superior right over UAS because it threatens their current career. UAS pilots think they have a right to a new career. Both should have rights. There ought to be an expectation and enabling of equal access for all classes of vehicles, not just privileged access for a few. How many citizens can afford a private aircraft, training and insurance - most cannot. UAS makes airspace more accessible to all and should be something we encourage in a free society.


You don't understand how the Hierarchy of Aviation works. It's not about rights or how much louder you are in the crowd. Why in the world (right NOW in this day and age) would a toy/hobby sUAS have the same Right Of Way as a 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?

Do all manned pilots check notams before every operation? Don't tell me what they are suppose to do, tell me from you years of experience and what the pilots you know actually do. Beyond that why shouldn't there be notams issued for flights below 500' so drone pilots can know about those operations and avoid them. I, the drone pilot, have to tell you where I'm going to be operating but you, the manned pilot, don't have to tell me where you're going to be operating? Who has more to lose in a collision, the drone pilot or the manned aircraft pilot?

Again, if the issue is safety and drone pilots can legally fly in "uncontrolled" airspace (misnomer) up to 400', manned pilots should be required to notify ATC if they are going to be flying in that airspace for THEIR safety. Instead of making 101 rules for drone pilots make one rule for manned aircraft, no flying below 500' unless taking off, landing, in an emergency or with an FAA waiver. I'm happy to stay our of the controlled airport environment and below 400' unless a waiver is requested. Manned pilots should be required to do the same.
 
Do all manned pilots check notams before every operation? Don't tell me what they are suppose to do, tell me from you years of experience and what the pilots you know actually do. Beyond that why shouldn't there be notams issued for flights below 500' so drone pilots can know about those operations and avoid them. I, the drone pilot, have to tell you where I'm going to be operating but you, the manned pilot, don't have to tell me where you're going to be operating? Who has more to lose in a collision, the drone pilot or the manned aircraft pilot?

Again, if the issue is safety and drone pilots can legally fly in "uncontrolled" airspace (misnomer) up to 400', manned pilots should be required to notify ATC if they are going to be flying in that airspace for THEIR safety. Instead of making 101 rules for drone pilots make one rule for manned aircraft, no flying below 500' unless taking off, landing, in an emergency or with an FAA waiver. I'm happy to stay our of the controlled airport environment and below 400' unless a waiver is requested. Manned pilots should be required to do the same.
Manned aircraft do notify ATC wherever they fly by use of an ADS-B Transponder. As soon as they become more practical, it probably won’t be that long before the FAA requires all sUAS flying in the NAS to have similar types of transponders, or to be at least easily trackable.
 
I also think the aircraft without transponders should have to be the ones to have to notify ATC, don’t you?

I think any aircraft allowed to fly above 500' or in an airport environment (the realm of 99.999% of manned operations) should have a transponder or ATC authorization. Any manned aircraft flying below 500' and not in an airport environment should be required to get ATC authorization.
 
Manned aircraft do notify ATC wherever they fly by use of an ADS-B Transponder. As soon as they become more practical, it probably won’t be that long before the FAA requires all sUAS flying in the NAS to have similar types of transponders, or to be at least easily trackable.

That wasn't the question. The question was do all manned aircraft pilots check notams before every operation.
 
The reality is most aircraft flying below 400ft are general aviation aircraft unless approach or departure for commercial aircraft. At most that’s four our five people. No drone collision has ever been linked to one death - not one. How many times have we heard of major interstate accidents incoming buses or trucks involving multiple vehicles and numerous people. In fact fatal accident rates are much higher for vehicles than aircraft. So why the extreme concern for the airspace but not the roads - a pilots union that is fighting to keep privileged access for a select few - it’s about money. Lose control and share the airspace with UAS and soon you’ll be out of a career and your aviation business wrecked. It’s time to move into the 21st century, modernize the airspace to enable access of all types - manned, unmanned and optimally piloted. Use ads-b, active sensors etc to avoid and mitigate collisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strdr
That wasn't the question. The question was do all manned aircraft pilots check notams before every operation.

Its Ok, I was reaponding to “manned pilots should be required to notify ATC if they are going to be flying in that airspace for THEIR safety.”

But yes, manned aircraft pilots do check NOTAMS, especially for TFR’s as part of their pre-flight checks. All sUAS pilots should learn to do this too.
 
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.
One clarification which may help. The airspace from 400’ to ground is not reserved for UAS, it is just the only airspace open to them (me included).

Other air traffic may be in this space for many legitimate recognized reasons... For instance Medivac operations, crop dusting, surveying, etc.
 
The pilots I know and fly with actually DO check NOTAMs! It's part of our regimen and a very wise one too. Do I check them before EVERY flight? I sure do. You can bet your bottom dollar on that because I'm betting my LIFE on checking them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMann and Thomas B
The pilots I know and fly with actually DO check NOTAMs! It's part of our regimen and a very wise one too. Do I check them before EVERY flight? I sure do. You can bet your bottom dollar on that because I'm betting my LIFE on checking them.

I check them before flying my sUAS as my pre-flight each day too, as well as for any local TFR’s. Would be negligent flying not to.
 
One clarification which may help. The airspace from 400’ to ground is not reserved for UAS, it is just the only airspace open to them (me included).

Other air traffic may be in this space for many legitimate recognized reasons... For instance Medivac operations, crop dusting, surveying, etc.

I realize the airspace from 400' is shared airspace and really I'm pressing this argument not that it's going to change anything but to convey the idea that the airspace environment has changed with the advent of UAS operations and that most of the "give" over the last few years is being required on the part of UAS operators. I can totally understand the restrictions on flight in the airport environment because that is the place where the overwhelming vast majority of manned flights start or end while operating from the surface to 500'. Outside of that area it is rare (in spite of the perception attempting to be conveyed by some) that manned aircraft have to operate below 500'. In certain areas there is no reason for a manned aircraft to be flying below 500' except in an emergency situation (haven't seen an aerial pipe line or transmission line inspection on Long Island ever).

If pilot safety really is the main concern in enacting all of the rules for UAS operators one rule that should be put in place is a prohibition of manned aircraft below 500' except in an emergency or by special authorization. Other than those situations if you're flying below 500' and collide with a drone the drone operator shouldn't automatically be held accountable. Again, drone operators have that thin slight of airspace to work in. Manned operators have from 500' and up (limitations based on oxygen supply, positive controlled airspace, etc.).

Now I throw this out there to hear some of the arguments against the idea of flight bans below 500' for manned aircraft pilots but in the back of my mind, as use of drones expand for corporate purposes (package delivery), does anyone think these types of restrictions on some level won't be put in place? When Amazon, Fed-X, UPS, etc. say they need the airspace from the surface to 400' for package delivery in XYZ area during the hours of 6:00am to 8:00pm and for safety purposes manned aircraft in these areas should be restricted during those hours do you think it's not going to have any sway on airspace rules?
 
I realize the airspace from 400' is shared airspace and really I'm pressing this argument not that it's going to change anything but to convey the idea that the airspace environment has changed with the advent of UAS operations and that most of the "give" over the last few years is being required on the part of UAS operators. I can totally understand the restrictions on flight in the airport environment because that is the place where the overwhelming vast majority of manned flights start or end while operating from the surface to 500'. Outside of that area it is rare (in spite of the perception attempting to be conveyed by some) that manned aircraft have to operate below 500'. In certain areas there is no reason for a manned aircraft to be flying below 500' except in an emergency situation (haven't seen an aerial pipe line or transmission line inspection on Long Island ever).

If pilot safety really is the main concern in enacting all of the rules for UAS operators one rule that should be put in place is a prohibition of manned aircraft below 500' except in an emergency or by special authorization. Other than those situations if you're flying below 500' and collide with a drone the drone operator shouldn't automatically be held accountable. Again, drone operators have that thin slight of airspace to work in. Manned operators have from 500' and up (limitations based on oxygen supply, positive controlled airspace, etc.).

Now I throw this out there to hear some of the arguments against the idea of flight bans below 500' for manned aircraft pilots but in the back of my mind, as use of drones expand for corporate purposes (package delivery), does anyone think these types of restrictions on some level won't be put in place? When Amazon, Fed-X, UPS, etc. say they need the airspace from the surface to 400' for package delivery in XYZ area during the hours of 6:00am to 8:00pm and for safety purposes manned aircraft in these areas should be restricted during those hours do you think it's not going to have any sway on airspace rules?

You can argue ad infinitum about the fraction of manned flights that require operations below 500 ft AGL, but the fact remains that such flights occur. In a city environment, disregarding approaches to airports, it's mostly going to be LE, medical, heliport transfers and news helicopters. So how would your proposal work if there are already manned flights in that airspace? You can't exclude them. Suggesting that they be required to get waivers is, firstly, redundant, because they are already most likely operating in controlled airspace under ATC control and, secondly, pointless, because that achieves nothing since recreational pilots are not going to be getting guidance from ATC about authorized manned traffic? Suggesting that they bear even some responsibility for avoiding small UAVs is unreasonable, given that drones are small, difficult to see, and not broadcasting position data. It's also rather ironic in view of how insistent most of the drone community seems to be that pilots of manned aircraft cannot possibly even spot a drone when flying.

Commercial sUAS delivery systems almost certainly will be required to avoid manned traffic rather than the other way around. That will be relatively simple to achieve once all traffic is using ADS-B or equivalent.
 
You can argue ad infinitum about the fraction of manned flights that require operations below 500 ft AGL, but the fact remains that such flights occur. In a city environment, disregarding approaches to airports, it's mostly going to be LE, medical, heliport transfers and news helicopters. So how would your proposal work if there are already manned flights in that airspace? You can't exclude them. Suggesting that they be required to get waivers is, firstly, redundant, because they are already most likely operating in controlled airspace under ATC control and, secondly, pointless, because that achieves nothing since recreational pilots are not going to be getting guidance from ATC about authorized manned traffic? Suggesting that they bear even some responsibility for avoiding small UAVs is unreasonable, given that drones are small, difficult to see, and not broadcasting position data. It's also rather ironic in view of how insistent most of the drone community seems to be that pilots of manned aircraft cannot possibly even spot a drone when flying.

Commercial sUAS delivery systems almost certainly will be required to avoid manned traffic rather than the other way around. That will be relatively simple to achieve once all traffic is using ADS-B or equivalent.

Commercial transport helicopters also often use intercity heliports to carry people as well as cargo. We used to use one in downtown San Bernardino to deliver survey crews and sling loads of gear to the nearby National Forest. It is in Class D airspace near what used to be Norton AFB.
 
You can argue ad infinitum about the fraction of manned flights that require operations below 500 ft AGL, but the fact remains that such flights occur. In a city environment, disregarding approaches to airports, it's mostly going to be LE, medical, heliport transfers and news helicopters. So how would your proposal work if there are already manned flights in that airspace? You can't exclude them. Suggesting that they be required to get waivers is, firstly, redundant, because they are already most likely operating in controlled airspace under ATC control and, secondly, pointless, because that achieves nothing since recreational pilots are not going to be getting guidance from ATC about authorized manned traffic? Suggesting that they bear even some responsibility for avoiding small UAVs is unreasonable, given that drones are small, difficult to see, and not broadcasting position data. It's also rather ironic in view of how insistent most of the drone community seems to be that pilots of manned aircraft cannot possibly even spot a drone when flying.

Commercial sUAS delivery systems almost certainly will be required to avoid manned traffic rather than the other way around. That will be relatively simple to achieve once all traffic is using ADS-B or equivalent.

Who said anything about excluding emergency services flights? I didn't and that was the main exception. Yes, those flight occur. What percentage of flight operations does that account for? Are the restrictions on drone operations gear toward those flights? I'll give you the answer to both questions, 0.0000001% of flight operations and the drone restrictions have near nothing to do with those flight operations. Emergency service can all the leeway to flight as low as they want in emergencies. All other manned aircraft should remain above 500' where they belong given we're in the 21st century and UAS operations below 500' are here to stay.

As for "already most likely", how do you know that? I've probably witness five flights of manned aircraft below 500 feet (in one case well below) over the last few months and I'm 99% sure, having flown in this area for over 30 years, that none of them were via an ATC clearance. They were very much more likely VFR pilots flying low for simply for the sake of flying low and probably with no idea that drones exist and are authorized to fly up to 400'.
 
”...we're in the 21st century and UAS operations below 500' are here to stay.”
...when it has been shown that sUAS technology and pilots of sUAS aircraft are compatible with NAS safety guidelines. The technology is so new compared with the amount of time aircraft have been flying in the NAS that it seems that until the safety guidelines and goals for the NAS can be better achieved by sUAS, the FAA has been accommodating and is trying to help guide its safe integration into the NAS, thus why we’ve all been getting new procedural and regulation updates quite often.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
...when it has been shown that sUAS technology and pilots of sUAS aircraft are compatible with NAS safety guidelines. The technology is so new compared with the amount of time aircraft have been flying in the NAS that it seems that until the safety guidelines and goals for the NAS can be better achieved by sUAS, the FAA has been accommodating and is trying to help guide its safe integration into the NAS, thus why we’ve all been getting new procedural and regulation updates quite often.

That compatibility is what the FAA is working towards with the advent of new regulations for drone pilots. As far as technolgoy is concerned I see it the other way around. The technology in a Mavic Pro is probably far ahead of the technology in a lot of general aviation aircraft built before 1990. As far as safety is concerned the consequences of a 1 lb drone falling out of the sky are FAR below those of a general aviation aircraft falling out of the sky so a call that sUAS meet the meet reliability standards of general aviation aircraft woefully ignore the differences in consequences should an accident occur. Ultimate the requirement that general aviation aircraft remain above 500' is more a matter of safety for manned aircraft pilots than any safety concern for drone pilots AND doesn't require any real burden on their ability to exercise their right to the airspace. Again, absent emergency flights and a exceedingly small (relative to flight operations in general) number occupational flight that require flying at low altitude the other flying time below 500' is joy riding.
 
Who said anything about excluding emergency services flights? I didn't and that was the main exception. Yes, those flight occur. What percentage of flight operations does that account for? Are the restrictions on drone operations gear toward those flights? I'll give you the answer to both questions, 0.0000001% of flight operations and the drone restrictions have near nothing to do with those flight operations. Emergency service can all the leeway to flight as low as they want in emergencies. All other manned aircraft should remain above 500' where they belong given we're in the 21st century and UAS operations below 500' are here to stay.

It's really difficult to have a discussion with someone who completely ignores every point made, and instead just constructs straw man arguments. I'm not going to bother discussing the ridiculous, ever-decreasing percentages that you keep quoting. The main, and obvious point of my post was that even if you exclude all other categories of manned flight below 500 ft, then how does that help, because you still have those other categories flying there, no matter how small a fraction you might wish they were of manned flights. And my question, which you studiously ignored, or course, was how would you deal with that? How would you deconflict legitimate low-altitude manned traffic with sUAS traffic if not by simply requiring the sUAS traffic to yield? Your only suggestions so far have been to require the manned traffic to request authorization (which I pointed out it already has - what would further authorization achieve?) and to make it the responsibility of the manned traffic to see and avoid (which is impracticable due to the small size of sUAS).

As for "already most likely", how do you know that? I've probably witness five flights of manned aircraft below 500 feet (in one case well below) over the last few months and I'm 99% sure, having flown in this area for over 30 years, that none of them were via an ATC clearance. They were very much more likely VFR pilots flying low for simply for the sake of flying low and probably with no idea that drones exist and are authorized to fly up to 400'.

I was referring to your New York example where, as you pointed out, there are unlikely to be lots of low-level survey and inspection flights. Since much of that airspace is controlled to the surface, anyone flying there is going to be using ATC services. So are you now talking instead just about Class G airspace? And you would like manned aircraft excluded from the lower 500 ft of Class G (except around airports, heliports etc?) unless they are LE, emergency services, inspection, surveying, crop-dusting, news reporting etc., to relieve you of the onerous burden of see and avoid? So again - how would that work? If there are categories of manned flights still allowed there then how do you deconflict?
 
It's really difficult to have a discussion with someone who completely ignores every point made, and instead just constructs straw man arguments. I'm not going to bother discussing the ridiculous, ever-decreasing percentages that you keep quoting. The main, and obvious point of my post was that even if you exclude all other categories of manned flight below 500 ft, then how does that help, because you still have those other categories flying there, no matter how small a fraction you might wish they were of manned flights. And my question, which you studiously ignored, or course, was how would you deal with that? How would you deconflict legitimate low-altitude manned traffic with sUAS traffic if not by simply requiring the sUAS traffic to yield? Your only suggestions so far have been to require the manned traffic to request authorization (which I pointed out it already has - what would further authorization achieve?) and to make it the responsibility of the manned traffic to see and avoid (which is impracticable due to the small size of sUAS).

I didn't ignore your point but your point has near zero impact on the discussion. I said the major exception to the flight restrict below 500' would be for emergency services. The other 0.000001 (you can make it 0.00000 wherever you like) are not critical and infringe on the only airspace available to drone operators.

As far as notification of emergency flights at low altitude, you deal with them the same way you deal with emergency flights now, issue notams and require drone pilots to check notams before each flight. You deconflict legitimate non-emergency operations by requiring the manned aircraft pilot receive prior ATC authorization to conduct the operation and issue a notam for the time and place of the flight so that drone pilots can be made aware of them. Put the onus regarding notification on the manned pilot wanting to fly in airspace that should be reserved for drone pilots since it's the only place they can fly, not the other way around.

Every drone pilot could have a notam app on their phone to notify them when an authorized low level flight is being conducted in their area. The FAA is requiring ALL UAS operators to take a test so ALL UAS operators are now going to be under the direct control of the FAA. If you get a notification that a manned aircraft operation will be taking place from 1200Z to 1800Z down to 200' it allows the UAS pilot to plan their operation accordingly.

I was referring to your New York example where, as you pointed out, there are unlikely to be lots of low-level survey and inspection flights. Since much of that airspace is controlled to the surface, anyone flying there is going to be using ATC services. So are you now talking instead just about Class G airspace? And you would like manned aircraft excluded from the lower 500 ft of Class G (except around airports, heliports etc?) unless they are LE, emergency services, inspection, surveying, crop-dusting, news reporting etc., to relieve you of the onerous burden of see and avoid? So again - how would that work? If there are categories of manned flights still allowed there then how do you deconflict?

I'm talking about the class G airspace outside of NYC (a stretch of nearly 100 miles of it east of the city on LI where I live). There is some controlled airspace in that area (mainly KFRG and KISP) but other than that very little if any crop-dusting, surveying, line inspection, etc. are taking place (occasional news and traffic report). There shouldn't be any manned aircraft other than emergency services flying below 500' in this area. Actually, due to the population density, those flights violate FAA regulations but I still see VFR pilots conducting low level flights.

But on a larger scale, in spite of all of the exceptions mentioned, exceptions that account for a extremely small percentage of manned operations, there is no reason for manned aircraft to be flying below 500'. And since this is the only airspace drone pilots have to fly in the onus should be on the manned aircraft pilot to get prior authorization to conduct low level flights in that airspace, especially given the see and avoid problem is most critically their problem. If as a drone pilot I have to get prior authorization to fly in "their airspace" why shouldn't they have to get prior authorization to fly in our airspace?
 
  • Like
Reactions: strdr
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,599
Messages
1,554,251
Members
159,603
Latest member
refrigasketscanada