Misconception about 400 Feet

[Retoxx]

If your drone is over .55 lbs....

Yes, technically we are breaking the law flying FPV as well, but it is not enforced pretty much as long as your not endangering people or wildlife....

The FAA needs to write rules that make sense for this growing sport, so it can thrive and we can all stay legal, and still have fun.

 

[Mav1G1]

It was also stated in another forum that if you fly over the cliff, you are NOT "illegal" because you are still within 400 feet of the ground. In other words, as long as you are within 400 feet of the side of the cliff, you can descend down the cliff, even if it is 1000 feet down. But again, the US has no real FAA laws re hobby drones, only guidelines.

 

[Strafe1]

If your drone is over .55 lbs, NO MATTER WHAT REASON YOU FLY IT FOR. You are restricted to 400' AGL, unless within 400' of taller structures, you can go above that. This is right in the sign-up for registering your UAV with the FAA.

Sorry, but totally wrong info you are referencing. I can see how the registration page could confuse you, but the the actual Public Law and official FAA regulations, as well as the community based guidelines have no such restriction. Just research it a bit more.

 

[Strafe1]

But again, the US has no real FAA laws re hobby drones, only guidelines

You are pretty much correct. There are some, but not in regards to maximum AGL, unless within 3 miles of major airports. Still, fly safe and protect the NAS.

 

[tangoseal]

Keep in mind that you must be a 107 certified pilot in order to be covered under these rules, otherwise as a hobbyist you are restricted to 400' AGL no matter what.

Above ground level means ---- ground level... not sea level for crying out loud.

I used to live in Montana and trust me at 9300 foot elevation I would be violating the law just powered it on inside my car if that were the case.

Use some common sense. If I were launching my drone at 9000 foot exactly on top of a mountain top I would be limited to 9400 real feet in altitude right above my head. As I dropped down the slope I would need to maintain no more than 400 foot above the sloping ground so I would have to angle my aircraft to follow the slope of the mountain keeping within 400 foot of the ground level directly beneath the drone.

It doesn't have a freaking thing to do with sea level.

 

[Retoxx]

Sorry, but totally wrong info you are referencing. I can see how the registration page could confuse you, but the the actual Public Law and official FAA regulations, as well as the community based guidelines have no such restriction. Just research it a bit more.

Lol

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

 

[EJay]

Love the "guideline" revelation - but this begs the question: would putting videos up on Youtube of things you did while flying as a "hobbyist" immediately make it "commercial use"?

Yes in Australia because of potential commercial reward from YouTube.
Commercial use definition included even doing a survey of your own commercial property! Crazy thinking. The public servants have become public masters.

Commercial use requires a licence - training and about $1,500

 

[Strafe1]

Lol

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

A good read! You do understand that this post reinforces what I've been saying? I can't tell if you understood what you posted.

 

[geigy]

Not really sure if this is a typo....
But if it were legal to drive on the other side of the road, by definition (of a legal forward lane of travel), you would not likely be endangering anybody.....

No. It would just be a bad law, or lack of a law, that endangered people. You are responsible for the safety of others. It does not matter whether it is legal or not, or whether you realize it or not. Grow up dude. There are consequences here.

 

[Strafe1]

No. It would just be a bad law, or lack of a law, that endangered people. You are responsible for the safety of others. It does not matter whether it is legal or not, or whether you realize it or not. Grow up dude. There are consequences here.

Did you even understand my post?
You make a bad example in your post, just own it. You try to compare a potential head on automobile collision with flying a quadcopter at night, within LOS and in full observation of the craft and it's surroundings. Really?
All I ever posted was that I can see my Mav over 400 feet, and even further with lights. Your response is to talk about driving on the other side of the road? And people are now in danger of night flying? Don't know where you're coming from. But since you have now educated me on how to be a responsible citizen, I consider myself all growd up. Thank you for setting me straight.
In all seriousness, what is the purpose of your post #16? Because it sounds like you want to label night flying as reckless and dangerous. With no evidence or provocation to do so. If calling out the drone police elicits a "grow up" response, I'll do it every time. You might consider saving your lecturing/self-edifying advice for posted activity which has factually or knowingly put people in danger.

 

[geigy]

I'll own it, but I think it's a fair comparison. Sorry you disagree but this is a discussion supposedly where we present our different takes on things.

My take is safety comes first, and 400 feet is a good rule that keeps people safer.

 

[Strafe1]

I'll own it, but I think it's a fair comparison. Sorry you disagree but this is a discussion supposedly where we present our different takes on things.

My take is safety comes first, and 400 feet is a good rule that keeps people safer.

Except you state that as fact, not opinion. Each flight location and condition is different. 400' where I live is just over the foothills, not even 100'AGL. Your post #16, since you repeated my exact words, calls out my activity as putting others at risk. Again, save it for some idiot who posts a video of his quad flying into a group of innocent bystanders.
My take is also safety comes first. I just don't tell other pilots that they are unsafe, unless I have enough factual evidence to support it.

 

[BlakPhoenix]

Yes in Australia because of potential commercial reward from YouTube.
Commercial use definition included even doing a survey of your own commercial property! Crazy thinking. The public servants have become public masters.

Commercial use requires a licence - training and about $1,500

Not if you're sub 2kg. You can fly commercially in Australia without a ReOC under the new regulations here: Commercial unmanned flight - remotely piloted aircraft under 2kg | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

[EJay]

Not if you're sub 2kg. You can fly commercially in Australia without a ReOC under the new regulations here: Commercial unmanned flight - remotely piloted aircraft under 2kg | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Thanks for this.
As mentioned here there is a Senate Committee reviewing this topic due to report later 2017, so I guess we are on a moving feast.

I hope that even close to controlled airports etc you are at least able to go as high as the trees or buildings without getting pinged!

 

[geigy]

Except you state that as fact, not opinion. Each flight location and condition is different. 400' where I live is just over the foothills, not even 100'AGL. Your post #16, since you repeated my exact words, calls out my activity as putting others at risk. Again, save it for some idiot who posts a video of his quad flying into a group of innocent bystanders.
My take is also safety comes first. I just don't tell other pilots that they are unsafe, unless I have enough factual evidence to support it.

My post 18 was an analogy to show that your statement didn't justify ignoring the 400 foot rule or the night flying rule. That's all. Nothing about you being an unsafe flyer that I remember. All the best.

 

[JHSlayer]

Still watching...

 

[ThisIsCusel]

The check box reads, "I will fly under 400 feet"

I always fly under 400 feet....on my way up to 1000.

I haven't done anything I didn't agree to. Lawyers have made sure wording is more important than common sense.

 

[Jaysjob]

It appears you are correct. While further researching it appears as a hobbyist this does not apply... Which is news to me.

AMA has the following information posted...

Academy of Model Aeronautics - Government Relations

None the less an interesting read.

Thanks Hollajandro for the heads up.

Hmmm. A 2. (c) says not fly higher than approximately 400' above ground level. So doesn't that mean... if you belong to the AMA and are flying under their rules... to not fly higher than approximately 400' above ground level? Please tell me what I'm missing here. Thanks.

 

[Ryder]

Note: part 107 doesn't apply to hobbyists... commercial only. FYI.

 

[Ryder]

What is the legal maximum height for hobby flying if it does not apply? I haven't seen anything different. Please do share a link so I can be properly educated.

It's a funny thing... there is no legal requirement for hobbyists per se. The FAA can't regulate "model aircraft", but a "model aircraft" can become a UAS in an instant (and thus become subject to FAA regs for UAS re: part 107) if your machine is used in a way outside of what constitutes model aircraft guidelines... so if you fly above 400' AGL, that may be interpreted as leaving the "model aircraft" classification, and then all FAA rules kick in. Suddenly it's a UAS.