Looks like there is a lot of misinformation / confusion in this thread. Here are the legal reasons (with sources cited) why the
400' rule does not apply to recreational users.
Here is why:
In 2012 congress passed public law 112-95 Section 336 "Special rules for certain unmanned aircraft systems."
See page 67. It states that as long as you are operating under the following rules, the FAA may NOT make any rules regarding said model aircraft
:
- Operating recreationally. (So this does NOT apply to those operating commercially. Thus the FAA can makes rules... resulting in FAA part 107 which includes the 400' AGL requirement among other rules)
- Operated within a community based set of safety guidelines. (The AMA is the most common one.
Their safety code only requires you fly under 400' AGL if you are within 3 miles of an airport.)
- Under 55 pounds
- Operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft
- When flown within 5 miles of an airport, notifies the airport of your plans (If the tower objects with a legitimate reason the FAA considers this endangering the NAS (National Airspace System) and thus you are breaking the law.)
- It is also noted in the definition of the "Model Aircraft" that it "...
is flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft"( This rule seems to be broken all the time, but you can easily fly higher than 400' and still see it.
So in order for you to be exempt from any rulings of the FAA, you must be operating within those parameters. Essentially these are your rules. However this does not apply to airspace requirements that apply to all type of aircraft, such as TFR's (temporary flight restrictions).
The FAA has acknowledged section 336
in this statement. The document explains FAA's interpretation of the vague section 336. The only mention of 400' AGL in this document is a mention of a "recommended set of voluntary operating standards" listed in 1981 in the background explanation of the document. The document further clarifies each of the section 336 requirements, but does not interpret the law in such a way that requires the aircraft to stay under 400' AGL.
I am not saying that you should just blow off the < 400' AGL guideline without being careful and being aware of low flying aircraft. That would be endangering the NAS which section 336 of course does not permit. And it would be stupid. What I am saying is that it is perfectly legal to fly as high as you want as long as you are maintaining line of sight, watching out of other aircraft, and not entering some kind of restricted airspace.
And if all of that doesnt convise you, here is a letter from the FAA basicly confirming everything here: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf
Some people will say "Well the FAA requires me to register my drone and that isn't listed in 336 so how is that allowed?" It arguably is not, but the FAA says that registering any aircraft is a pre-existing condition prior to 336 and thus not "new regulation". EDIT: In fact, it was struck down in court yesterday, proving how strong 336 is.
On another note... Any state, local, or business laws, ordinances, or rules forbidding drones from flying within their airspace conflict with federal law as the FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace. The states, cities, and business do not. They can say "you are not allowed to operate a drone while standing within our jurisdiction", but they cannot tell you that you cannot fly over it. Interesting fact that many don't realize, but good luck explaining that to the cops and code enforcement when their law says otherwise.
