Minimum altitudes for manned craft

[sar104]

I didn't ignore your point but your point has near zero impact on the discussion.

Ah yes - the old "I ignored your question because I deemed it irrelevant" gambit.

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.

Yes - you keep saying that, but with no mention at all of how that could possibly work.

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.

So you want all police, ambulance, medivac and news reporting helicopters to apply for authorizations and have NOTAMs issued before they fly? NOTAMs are not currently issued for most LE/emergency flights - there's not enough time to get them out there in time to be useful.

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.

Sorry - why should it be reserved for drone pilots? Just because you want it, or is there some missing compelling argument here why priority in the lower airspace should suddenly be ceded to untrained, uncertified hobbyists?

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.

Apart from all those "UAS operators" represented by the common sentiment on these forums of "won't comply"? It's fascinating how the argument is "the test is stupid - it will never work" when discussing the test, but it suddenly becomes "the test will ensure that all hobbyists are fully aware of NOTAMs and check them before each flight" when you want to push for airspace ownership. If the "relatively" sUAS-educated subset of hobbyists here have that attitude, how well do you think that will work with the hordes of hobbyists who have never heard of the FAA?

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.

If you think they are illegal then document them and report them. Then you could also post here with some actual evidence, rather than unsupported assertions of widespread illegal flying.

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'.

Apart from all the reasons already discussed.

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?

And back to that bizarre assertion that for some reason, drone pilots are entitled to an entire layer of airspace to call their own. You are even already calling it "our airspace". I'm really struggling to accept that you are not simply trolling at this point.

 

[AMann]

Ah yes - the old "I ignored your question because I deemed it irrelevant" gambit.



Yes - you keep saying that, but with no mention at all of how that could possibly work.



So you want all police, ambulance, medivac and news reporting helicopters to apply for authorizations and have NOTAMs issued before they fly? NOTAMs are not currently issued for most LE/emergency flights - there's not enough time to get them out there in time to be useful.



Sorry - why should it be reserved for drone pilots? Just because you want it, or is there some missing compelling argument here why priority in the lower airspace should suddenly be ceded to untrained, uncertified hobbyists?



Apart from all those "UAS operators" represented by the common sentiment on these forums of "won't comply"? It's fascinating how the argument is "the test is stupid - it will never work" when discussing the test, but it suddenly becomes "the test will ensure that all hobbyists are fully aware of NOTAMs and check them before each flight" when you want to push for airspace ownership. If the "relatively" sUAS-educated subset of hobbyists here have that attitude, how well do you think that will work with the hordes of hobbyists who have never heard of the FAA?



If you think they are illegal then document them and report them. Then you could also post here with some actual evidence, rather than unsupported assertions of widespread illegal flying.



Apart from all the reasons already discussed.



And back to that bizarre assertion that for some reason, drone pilots are entitled to an entire layer of airspace to call their own. You are even already calling it "our airspace". I'm really struggling to accept that you are not simply trolling at this point.

Sar104, I can see segregated airspace possibly happening when private vehicles fly and air traffic becomes really congested, but we are not even close to there yet. And flying toys certainly do not count as a valid reason to segregate airspace either. Anyways, thats just my opinion as the FAA keeps the stats and is responsible for managing all airspace and the aircraft that can fly in it, even hobby toy drones.

I used the nuclear option twice here already, but your counters are right on so I was still following the thread a bit, but this is it for me, Im out. Cheers!

 

[sar104]

Sar104, I can see segregated airspace possibly happening when private vehicles fly and air traffic becomes really congested, but we are not even close to there yet. And flying toys certainly do not count as a valid reason to segregate airspace either. Anyways, thats just my opinion as the FAA keeps the stats and is responsible for managing all airspace and the aircraft that can fly in it, even hobby toy drones.

I used the nuclear option twice here already, but your counters are right on so I was still following the thread a bit, but this is it for me, Im out. Cheers!

I just watched for a while, but I really wanted to see if there was any rational proposal behind the argument. Asked and answered at this point.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Ah yes - the old "I ignored your question because I deemed it irrelevant" gambit.

And irrelevant it was.

Yes - you keep saying that, but with no mention at all of how that could possibly work.

I explained how it would work further along in my post.

So you want all police, ambulance, medivac and news reporting helicopters to apply for authorizations and have NOTAMs issued before they fly? NOTAMs are not currently issued for most LE/emergency flights - there's not enough time to get them out there in time to be useful.

I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension skills. No one said anything about emergency services requiring prior notification. I "said" notams would be issued when an emergency service activity is in progress. The prior notification would be required for all other low level flights below 500'.

Sorry - why should it be reserved for drone pilots? Just because you want it, or is there some missing compelling argument here why priority in the lower airspace should suddenly be ceded to untrained, uncertified hobbyists?

Because in the 21st century reality of airspace usage that is where drone pilots are limited to fly. That is where we are headed as for as corporate use of drones for delivery will occur. There will be no more untrained, uncertified hobbyist after this year. All UAS pilots will be required to have some level of training.

Apart from all those "UAS operators" represented by the common sentiment on these forums of "won't comply"? It's fascinating how the argument is "the test is stupid - it will never work" when discussing the test, but it suddenly becomes "the test will ensure that all hobbyists are fully aware of NOTAMs and check them before each flight" when you want to push for airspace ownership. If the "relatively" sUAS-educated subset of hobbyists here have that attitude, how well do you think that will work with the hordes of hobbyists who have never heard of the FAA?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that "all those" UAS operators won't comply. As far as rule making is concerned it is done with the understanding that most will comply, if not there is not point in rule making. But I can throw that argument make to you regarding manned aircraft pilots so it's a non-started in the discussion.

If you think they are illegal then document them and report them. Then you could also post here with some actual evidence, rather than unsupported assertions of widespread illegal flying.

Oh, so now the onus is on me. Not! And when they crash into a UAS, kill themselves and maybe some folks on the ground I don't want to hear how it's the UAS pilot's fault.

Apart from all the reasons already discussed.

You mean the lame excuses, that cover 0.000001 percent of all flight operations, for why the right of UAS operators to fly safely in the airspace in which they are restricting without worrying about killing someone because a manned aircraft pilot wants to joy ride at 300'.

And back to that bizarre assertion that for some reason, drone pilots are entitled to an entire layer of airspace to call their own. You are even already calling it "our airspace". I'm really struggling to accept that you are not simply trolling at this point.

Nothing "bizarre" about the assertion except to those that are stuck in 20th century thinking about airspace and how it's used. Just as the regulations on drone operations are being developed for recreational and commercial drone pilots the regulations about manned flights below 500' will be coming, not so much driven by hobbyist but by the increase interest in the corporate usage of drones in that airspace.

 

[BigAl07]

Just for the record... NOTAMS are not generated immediately. The "Suggestion" is to file your requested NOTAM at least 24hrs in advance. This allows time for review and possible modifications to go into effect before the actual time of the NOTAM.

Nothing "bizarre" about the assertion except to those that are stuck in 20th century thinking about airspace and how it's used. Just as the regulations on drone operations are being developed for recreational and commercial drone pilots the regulations about manned flights below 500' will be coming, not so much driven by hobbyist but by the increase interest in the corporate usage of drones in that airspace.

Please indicate where you sourced this "the regulations about manned flights below 500' will be coming"

I don't think you realize where the $$$ is in this equation. The very moment John Q. Public becomes afraid to fly manned aircraft because of drones in the NAS you'll see some knee jerk regulation that will boggle the mind.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Just for the record... NOTAMS are not generated immediately. The "Suggestion" is to file your requested NOTAM at least 24hrs in advance. This allows time for review and possible modifications to go into effect before the actual time of the NOTAM.



Please indicate where you sourced this "the regulations about manned flights below 500' will be coming"

I don't think you realize where the $$$ is in this equation. The very moment John Q. Public becomes afraid to fly manned aircraft because of drones in the NAS you'll see some knee jerk regulation that will boggle the mind.

I used the term notams but alerts regarding emergency operations can be issued real-time and available to anyone with a smartphone. The sourcing of coming regulations is based on the knowledge of airspace and the changes coming as drones for corporate applications will required restricted airspace for safe usage. I'm no visionary but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that if the push for corporate use of drones in various applications goes forward airspace regulations controlling flight in those areas is coming with it. Whether it's 100', 200' or 300' feet there is airspace that is going to be allocated to UAS operations.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

And irrelevant it was.



I explained how it would work further along in my post.



I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension skills. No one said anything about emergency services requiring prior notification. I "said" notams would be issued when an emergency service activity is in progress. The prior notification would be required for all other low level flights below 500'.



Because in the 21st century reality of airspace usage that is where drone pilots are limited to fly. That is where we are headed as for as corporate use of drones for delivery will occur. There will be no more untrained, uncertified hobbyist after this year. All UAS pilots will be required to have some level of training.



I'm not sure where you get the idea that "all those" UAS operators won't comply. As far as rule making is concerned it is done with the understanding that most will comply, if not there is not point in rule making. But I can throw that argument make to you regarding manned aircraft pilots so it's a non-started in the discussion.



Oh, so now the onus is on me. Not! And when they crash into a UAS, kill themselves and maybe some folks on the ground I don't want to hear how it's the UAS pilot's fault.



You mean the lame excuses, that cover 0.000001 percent of all flight operations, for why the right of UAS operators to fly safely in the airspace in which they are restricting without worrying about killing someone because a manned aircraft pilot wants to joy ride at 300'.



Nothing "bizarre" about the assertion except to those that are stuck in 20th century thinking about airspace and how it's used. Just as the regulations on drone operations are being developed for recreational and commercial drone pilots the regulations about manned flights below 500' will be coming, not so much driven by hobbyist but by the increase interest in the corporate usage of drones in that airspace.

Isn't it true that if a manned aircraft hits a drone under 400 ft, the manned aircraft will be at fault unless it is taking off, landing or in an emergency situation?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Isn't it true that if a manned aircraft hits a drone under 400 ft, the manned aircraft will be at fault unless it is taking off, landing or in an emergency situation?

I'm sure some common sense would be used to assign blame but as I understand the regulations the onus is on the UAS pilot to avoid all manned aircraft. Unless you can prove the pilot of the manned aircraft intentionally flew into the drone fault will be assigned to the IAS pilot for failure to avoid the collision.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

I'm sure some common sense would be used to assign blame but as I understand the regulations the onus is on the UAS pilot to avoid all manned aircraft. Unless you can prove the pilot of the manned aircraft intentionally flew into the drone fault will be assigned to the IAS pilot for failure to avoid the collision.

If the manned aircraft is below 400ft unless taking off, landing or in an emergency situation it is at fault... that's the simple part. And I say 400 ft because that is "Our airspace". Everyone here loves car analogies so here we go... A car pulls directly into "your lane"... do you avoid him or just hit him?

 

[BigAl07]

Isn't it true that if a manned aircraft hits a drone under 400 ft, the manned aircraft will be at fault unless it is taking off, landing or in an emergency situation?

Negative!! The sUAS is ultimately responsible for See & Avoid. Unless the manned aircraft was deliberately trying to fly into your sUAS (not sure that's plausible). It's our responsibility to do whatever necessary to avoid a conflict with a MANNED AIRCRAFT!

Below 400' is not "Our Space"..... and there are many reasons for a Manned Aircraft to legally be below 400'. This whole thread is about that very topic and it's now a "Circular Reference".

 

[BigAl07]

If the manned aircraft is below 400ft unless taking off, landing or in an emergency situation it is at fault... that's the simple part. And I say 400 ft because that is "Our airspace". Everyone here loves car analogies so here we go... A car pulls directly into "your lane"... do you avoid him or just hit him?

How about this...

an RC Car pulls into your lane of traffic and you run it over... Is it your fault or the irresponsible RC car operator who was operating where he/she shouldn't be?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Negative!! The sUAS is ultimately responsible for See & Avoid. Unless the manned aircraft was deliberately trying to fly into your sUAS (not sure that's plausible). It's our responsibility to do whatever necessary to avoid a conflict with a MANNED AIRCRAFT!

Below 400' is not "Our Space"..... and there are many reasons for a Manned Aircraft to legally be below 400'. This whole thread is about that very topic and it's now a "Circular Reference".

I used "Our Airspace" because that was a quote from another comment. And someone said "Common sense". Common sense tells me an aircraft falling out of the sky can't maintain that 500 ft it just might run into a drone...We are talking about minimum height correct? Drones can fly to 400ft, Manned aircraft can't fly under 500ft (unless cleared for it,or landing, taking off and emergencies). It's that simple.... and accidents do happen.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

How about this...

an RC Car pulls into your lane of traffic and you run it over... Is it your fault or the irresponsible RC car operator who was operating where he/she shouldn't be?

I treat it like a squirrel, say a little prayer and move on down the road, not going to swerve and hit another car.

 

[BigAl07]

Drones can fly to 400ft, Manned aircraft can't fly under 500ft (unless cleared for it,or landing, taking off and emergencies). It's that simple....

Um buddy it's not that simple at all my friend. Post #5 stated it (and I think it's been posted a couple of times)

Here's the bits & pieces:
************************************************************************************************************
§ 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
************************************************************************************************************

Color and formatting added by Allen for clarity and emphasis.

So it's perfectly legal, in many instances (maybe not smart but legal) to fly at a few inches off the ground.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

If the manned aircraft is below 400ft unless taking off, landing or in an emergency situation it is at fault... that's the simple part. And I say 400 ft because that is "Our airspace". Everyone here loves car analogies so here we go... A car pulls directly into "your lane"... do you avoid him or just hit him?

As BigAl07 has stated, and the way the current regulations are worded, regardless of the circumstances the UAS pilot will be held responsible since I don't now how you can prove the manned pilot intentional targeted the drone. And as the regulations exist today manned aircraft pilots can fly below 500' with some restrictions based on population density, structures in the area, etc.

This reality (the current situation regarding who's to blame if a collision occurs) is really the point of all my post on this issue. The airspace from the surface to 400' is increasingly being populated by UAS. All the real or imagine exceptions aside the current regulations don't reflect that reality and my educated guess is given the increasing population of UAS, especially with the push toward corporate use of UAS, those regulations are going to change to limit access to that surface to 400' airspace to UAS and special circumstance manned aircraft operations eliminating the low and slow joy rides simply to take a closer look at bikinis on the beach.

 

[Meta4]

Manned aircraft can't fly under 500ft (unless cleared for it,or landing, taking off and emergencies). It's that simple....

It's not that simple, particularly when you start with assumptions that are incorrect.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

It's not that simple, particularly when you start with assumptions that are incorrect.

Tell me why i am Incorrect...
What assumptions...?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

As BigAl07 has stated, and the way the current regulations are worded, regardless of the circumstances the UAS pilot will be held responsible since I don't now how you can prove the manned pilot intentional targeted the drone. And as the regulations exist today manned aircraft pilots can fly below 500' with some restrictions based on population density, structures in the area, etc.

This reality (the current situation regarding who's to blame if a collision occurs) is really the point of all my post on this issue. The airspace from the surface to 400' is increasingly being populated by UAS. All the real or imagine exceptions aside the current regulations don't reflect that reality and my educated guess is given the increasing population of UAS, especially with the push toward corporate use of UAS, those regulations are going to change to limit access to that surface to 400' airspace to UAS and special circumstance manned aircraft operations eliminating the low and slow joy rides simply to take a closer look at bikinis on the beach.

WHO said a manned aircraft will be "Targeting a drone"? That's just nonsense. You use too many words to say nothing... wasting my time,

 

[Meta4]

Tell me why i am Incorrect...
What assumptions...?

These assumptions:

Isn't it true that if a manned aircraft hits a drone under 400 ft, the manned aircraft will be at fault unless it is taking off, landing or in an emergency situation?

If the manned aircraft is below 400ft unless taking off, landing or in an emergency situation it is at fault... that's the simple part.

Manned aircraft can't fly under 500ft (unless cleared for it,or landing, taking off and emergencies). It's that simple.... and accidents do happen.

Read post #5 or post #114 to find out the facts

 

[Deleted member 93449]

WHO said a manned aircraft will be "Targeting a drone"? That's just nonsense. You use too many words to say nothing... wasting my time,

You questioned who would get the blame if a manned aircraft collided with a drone below 400' unless they were landing, taking off or in an emergency. I think you're wrong and my point was unless you could prove a manned aircraft pilot intentionally targeted the drone, in a collision the drone pilot is going to get the blame every time.