Minimum altitudes for manned craft

[dronerdave]

See I always thought the FAA required sUAS operators to give way to manned aircraft and the reason you are supposed to visually look at your AC enough to make sure you will see a full sized aircraft approaching, then do what's necessary to avoid collision. So if anybody is like me, I'd have to have a spotter looking for other aircraft as I set up my photographic shots as well as flying at longer VLOS distances. It's one reason I don't fly alone as I fly where there is a lot of crop dusting going on. When I see them begin to work an area I'm in, I return and bug out. Another spot I fly at has somebody who loves to fly very low over a lake with his cub. It doesn't stop me from flying there, but I keep an eye out for him after a very close encounter. But at this time I don't think having low level manned flights require authorization is needed, only unmanned aircraft need to give way to manned because there's a human life involved. The future may indeed be a different story but as far as making manned aircraft requiring authorization below 400', be careful what you ask for. If that's required sUAV pilots might end up with a much more testing required to fly.

 

[DoomMeister]

Mavic3" data-source="post: 767952" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Just curious, at 1.5 miles do you really have VLOS? (Can you see your bird a mile away?)

He said he was located 1.5 miles from the airport where he was conducting the flight, not flying 1.5 miles from his location.

 

[DoomMeister]

What class did you take? Whoever was your instructor is clearly wrong as you are now. This is why it is important for any drone operator who wishes to fly outside of a designated AMA field to have a part 61 license as well. I hope one day they will go back to that. They probably will once Amazon starts flying. The hobbyist will have to remain under a new height lower than what Amazon or other commercial operators will be in. (speculation)

What ? Fly at an AMA field? No need for a camera there! Flat, boring, and a bunch of self righteous old duffers that think multirotors have no place at their field ( as from my experience visiting a couple).

Testing for understanding of airspace rules and the effects of intoxicants yes! Giving Amazon and other big business our low altitude airspace NO!!! Let them vie with manned aircraft for altitude concessions to create a useable airspace. The only thing I can see being important enough to be delivered by drone, is medical emergency items.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

See I always thought the FAA required sUAS operators to give way to manned aircraft and the reason you are supposed to visually look at your AC enough to make sure you will see a full sized aircraft approaching, then do what's necessary to avoid collision. So if anybody is like me, I'd have to have a spotter looking for other aircraft as I set up my photographic shots as well as flying at longer VLOS distances. It's one reason I don't fly alone as I fly where there is a lot of crop dusting going on. When I see them begin to work an area I'm in, I return and bug out. Another spot I fly at has somebody who loves to fly very low over a lake with his cub. It doesn't stop me from flying there, but I keep an eye out for him after a very close encounter. But at this time I don't think having low level manned flights require authorization is needed, only unmanned aircraft need to give way to manned because there's a human life involved. The future may indeed be a different story but as far as making manned aircraft requiring authorization below 400', be careful what you ask for. If that's required sUAV pilots might end up with a much more testing required to fly.

The see and avoid burden is on the UAS pilot because as you've pointed out it's a lot easier to spot a manned aircraft then it is to see a UAS, especially one flying low and lost in ground clutter.

The main consideration behind my comments is need of use and what is available to pilots of both types of aircraft. I've flown both and other than emergency services and a very narrow slice of commercial purposes there really is no need to fly a manned aircraft lower than 500' AND with respect to safety flight at 500' leaves you with very, very little options should you experience an engine out situation. That surface to 400' is all UAS pilots have to work with.

We're in the 21st century. Getting ATC authorization or providing ATC notification of a flight operation can be done in minutes and disseminating that information can be done in minutes, tailor to a specific region. The arguments against a general prohibition of manned aircraft below 500' are lame excuses IF pilot safety is the real objective. If I'm flying my drone at 400' and a manned pilot is low and slow at 200' it can be VERY difficult to make a decision on the best course of action to take to avoid a collision. That plane is probably flying three or four times faster then I can maneuver. Perception of distance when to objects over very different size are involved added to the difficult of seeing and avoiding.

I'm not thrilled about the potential infringement on the lower airspace that IS COMING given the push for incorporating drones in delivery services. How broad that service will be remains to be seen but the companies pushing the expansion are large, politically influential and will be driving the public sentiment to put these service in place.

 

[DoomMeister]

I'm not thrilled about the potential infringement on the lower airspace that IS COMING given the push for incorporating drones in delivery services. How broad that service will be remains to be seen but the companies pushing the expansion are large, politically influential and will be driving the public sentiment to put these service in place.

Ditto!

I have trouble seeing how a drone can do what they can’t get a human delivery person with GPS assistance to do, and that is deliver a package to my door and put it on my enclosed porch so it is not exposed to the elements.

A truck can be loaded with at least 100 deliveries over a planned route to reduce time and fuel use. I really can’t see a drone being more economical with its limited payload and multiple flights coming home empty each time. Maintenance costs over time have got to be considerably more than a delivery truck.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Ditto!

I have trouble seeing how a drone can do what they can’t get a human delivery person with GPS assistance to do, and that is deliver a package to my door and put it on my enclosed porch so it is not exposed to the elements.

A truck can be loaded with at least 100 deliveries over a planned route to reduce time and fuel use. I really can’t see a drone being more economical with its limited payload and multiple flights coming home empty each time. Maintenance costs over time have got to be considerably more than a delivery truck.

I saw a video somewhere that had a UPS truck equipment with an opening in the roof where a drone with a package attached was lift up through the opening and sent flying down a 1/4 mile driveway to deliver a package. This was out in a rural area where many of the homes had long driveways off the main road. I guess in some circumstances in could be a viable option (rural area, relatively small/light packages, etc.) but I don't know how an operation similar to this is workable even in a suburban area similar to where I life let alone an urban area.

 

[dronerdave]

Personally I'm having a real hard time thinking light weight drones will be of much value in delivery. Maybe in very limited situations but I do see site to site heliport deliveries with large multi rotors (maybe even over 55 lbs) and those would probably require some kind of flight plan and would follow how manned AC operate. I do hope they don't take say the 300-400 foot range from us... but for now it's all speculation.

Manned aircraft have had authority to occupied lower airspace for decades (for a host of reasons already stated) and all of a sudden a bunch of people as drone operators think they have higher authority? I'm worried that if hobby drones become a real problem, pitting manned against unmanned will end up as more restrictions on the unmanned AC. Again that's speculation.

More on topic, for now I know full sized aircraft do indeed use altitudes below 400' and fly my hobby craft as safely as I know possible and in part that is to give way to manned aircraft. Having to know these rules needs to be a requirement for all hobbyists.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Personally I'm having a real hard time thinking light weight drones will be of much value in delivery. Maybe in very limited situations but I do see site to site heliport deliveries with large multi rotors (maybe even over 55 lbs) and those would probably require some kind of flight plan and would follow how manned AC operate. I do hope they don't take say the 300-400 foot range from us... but for now it's all speculation.

Manned aircraft have had authority to occupied lower airspace for decades (for a host of reasons already stated) and all of a sudden a bunch of people as drone operators think they have higher authority? I'm worried that if hobby drones become a real problem, pitting manned against unmanned will end up as more restrictions on the unmanned AC. Again that's speculation.

More on topic, for now I know full sized aircraft do indeed use altitudes below 400' and fly my hobby craft as safely as I know possible and in part that is to give way to manned aircraft. Having to know these rules needs to be a requirement for all hobbyists.

It's not "all of a sudden". The use of drones has been expanding and will continue to expand, possible into areas we can't imagine right now. Again, outside of a very narrow range of applications (did I say 0.0000001% of flight operations) there is no reason for any manned aircraft to be flying below 500'. In rural areas where drone usage is probably a more viable option restrictions on manned operations may be a step toward making those applications a reality. Beyond that applications that might not be very apparent today may expand usage into more populated suburban areas of the country. We'll see.

 

[DoomMeister]

More on topic, for now I know full sized aircraft do indeed use altitudes below 400' and fly my hobby craft as safely as I know possible and in part that is to give way to manned aircraft. Having to know these rules needs to be a requirement for all hobbyists.

Well stated!

I took ground school while I was in the Air Force as I had always been interested in aviation and wanted to become a pilot. Financial constraints prevented taking flight lessons at the time, but the rules and responsibilities of being a pilot have stayed with me.

Being a hobbyist or recreational UAV Pilot, I still understand the responsibilities of putting an aircraft into the NAS. It is a privilege to do so and not a right and learning how other aircraft and pilots use the airspace and their responsibilities is all part of keeping that airspace safe.

We are not kids flying balsa wood gliders on the playground and we need to man up and follow the rules being set forth or risk losing out completely to big commercial interests. So play by the rules and hound your legislators to keep your slice of the airspace open to your use.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It's been an interesting conversation. At times I like to throw out the extreme position just to see how the conversation goes and the rational that exist to counter that position. The one experience I had with a low flying helicopter and the difficulty of deciding the best course of action due to the perception problem (judging height/distance of a large object in 3 dimensions relative to the height/distance of a much smaller object) is one of the things that prompted the way I approached this discussion.

 

[DoomMeister]

I try to mentally picture the size of a human in the craft and them holding my drone to get a relative distance. Being a golfer I see people at distances of 500 feet and more on an almost daily basis ( I work at the course) and low flying aircraft are actually higher than most think they are. Part of the perception is the noise level from the craft making it seem closer than it actually is.

 

[pftarch]

...........Please do not talk to me here in a way that you would not talk to me in person.

This is the most knowledgeable quote that I have seen in this, or any other, forum. Can we please make this a rule for this (and all other internet) forums.

 

[Aussie Oldtimer]

Are there rules or laws regarding minimum altitudes for manned aircraft. I was flying about 1.5 miles away from an active class G airport. I was at 400 feet in vlos and heard a plane loud . I quickly came down to 200 feet and a low flying piper cub came over most likely in route to the air port . I am sure he was lower than 1000 feet.
I have seen helicopters low too.

I was shocked, annoyed, scared and glad I was in vlos ......

is that legal?

 

[Meta4]

is that legal?

If that's a real question, read post #5 or post #114 to find out what the rules are for the USA.
Most other countries have similar rules.

 

[Deleted member 94307]

Sorry for the last unbelievably rude people I have attracted with this post. If they take the time to direct you , they could have just answered your question.

 

[Deleted member 94307]

is that legal?

The laws posted in post 5 refer to what manned aircraft are supposed to follow. It’s somewhat vague. What it comes down to in this instance is what is considered a populated area. If it’s not then the airplane was fine . If it’s populated (which most of NJ should be considered) then the plane was to low.

None of that really matters because it is impossible to enforce those laws.

If I were to fly at this location again , I would take the advice given in one post to call the airport even though I do not need to.

I won’t be flying there again . If I did I would keep it real low.

I was exactly 2 miles from the airport but was lined up perfectly with the runway.

What I was doing was not illegal. The fact that I was in VLOS and under 400 feet and reacted quickly led to a safe outcome. But I fly even safer now.

 

[AMann]

The laws posted in post 5 refer to what manned aircraft are supposed to follow. It’s somewhat vague. What it comes down to in this instance is what is considered a populated area. If it’s not then the airplane was fine . If it’s populated (which most of NJ should be considered) then the plane was to low.

None of that really matters because it is impossible to enforce those laws.

If I were to fly at this location again , I would take the advice given in one post to call the airport even though I do not need to.

I won’t be flying there again . If I did I would keep it real low.

I was exactly 2 miles from the airport but was lined up perfectly with the runway.

What I was doing was not illegal. The fact that I was in VLOS and under 400 feet and reacted quickly led to a safe outcome. But I fly even safer now.

Hey Gord, I was just in follow the thread mode for awhile but caught that you mentioned that you always called the airport before you got your 107 ? That was a good practice, it also helps to carry in aviation radio and just monitor their CTAP/Unicom frequency for arrivals and departure announcements. I have flown within 5 miles of our airport , but with prior approval from their manager, and they requested that I monitor the radio as well while doing it. In my previous posts here, I really just meant it was a bad idea if someone does it without telling the airport or getting LAANC clearance for it. Still though, it’s good to be redundant and do both of these along with monitoring the radio if possible.

 

[M2Pro]

Are there rules or laws regarding minimum altitudes for manned aircraft. I was flying about 1.5 miles away from an active class G airport. I was at 400 feet in vlos and heard a plane loud . I quickly came down to 200 feet and a low flying piper cub came over most likely in route to the air port . I am sure he was lower than 1000 feet.
I have seen helicopters low too.

I was shocked, annoyed, scared and glad I was in vlos ......

I have the same issue in Colorado Springs, Co.....C-130's, Military Black Hawks, A-10's all below a 1000 ft over heavy Residential (200 - 500)....that's okay....they have to train. The Airforce Academy Flight Club is the Worst Offenders....lost 2 ea. Promark Drones due to their Personal level of Perversion...I have film clips neighboring on several 100 GB of this Crapshoot....Peace to All

 

[AMann]

I have the same issue in Colorado Springs, Co.....C-130's, Military Black Hawks, A-10's all below a 1000 ft over heavy Residential (200 - 500)....that's okay....they have to train. The Airforce Academy Flight Club is the Worst Offenders....lost 2 ea. Promark Drones due to their Personal level of Perversion...I have film clips neighboring on several 100 GB of this Crapshoot....Peace to All

They often fly at night over our town with no visual lights on also, practicing their night vision flying. Man, they are lit up though in IR when you put NV goggles on to watch them.

 

[FoxhallGH]

There is a 'Science and Technology' Government Hearing in progress in London at the moment, whose agenda is to determine the future regulatory and technical requirements for Drones in the UK. They are looking at the subject from a very wide point of view that includes things like future delivery of packages and people by drone, Security around atomic and military installations, and even delivery of items across an airport inside the operational boundary area. One thing that is becoming apparent (the video's of the hearing sessions are available to the public), is that there almost certainly will be a push to what's being called a 'Unified Traffic Management' (UTM) scheme, where all operators of aircraft (balloon, rotary & fixed), will know where UAV's are, and vice versa. Here in the UK, the 'National Air Transport Services' (NATS), already runs an app (in conjunction with their partner - Altitude Angel) that is freely available for all mobile devices, that will show all NFZ and cautionary flying zones in the UK, and that's updated with current NOTAMS, i.e. it IS for all aviators, not just UAV operators. One of the things that came out of a session a couple of days ago, is that NATS are wanting to enhance this system so that they CAN set up a NFZ on the fly to accommodate a temporary exclusion zone around an incident where helicopters (Police / Rescue / Medical) are needed. This has come about due to the high reported number of drones that have caused delays in getting medical and Police aid to people due to the equivalent of 'Ambulance Chasing' drones ...
My impression is that future regulations are being drafted around the 'future commercial use of Drones' and that largely, recreational users are considered an irritant!
The UK Government is wanting to set up a proper environment where all aircraft can safely use the airspace, but they are looking way ahead to AI and all sorts of things, so that we recreational fliers will have to lobby (and upskill) quite a lot, to keep our rights to use the airspace.