Part 101 and 400-ft Recommendation (Very Long!)

[TheoMatthias]

Please note: the following is extremely long and only represents my personal opinion. It is not meant as a criticism of anything or anyone, it is just an explanation of my choice.

While flying as a Part 101 pilot, I know I can be "legal" and take advantage of several situations that, without a waiver/authorization, I am not permitted to undertake when I fly as a Part 107 pilot. One of those situations is flight above 400-ft.

When I leave the ground, I am in the National Air Space (NAS), over which the FAA has jurisdiction. It is the FAA's responsibility to promulgate regulations that ensure the NAS is as safe as possible for ALL pilots who use it. But then, what is "unsafe"?

As a GA pilot and an sUAS pilot, I view the safety issue from (literally) two different perspectives. When flying in GA, I have a great deal of visibility within the NAS. I appreciate flying in beautiful VFR conditions and use a scanning process that strives to enhance my situational awareness (SA) outside of the AC. Something as large as another AC can be picked up miles away during the scanning process. Add to that the detection capabilities of ADS-B (which identifies only transponder-equipped AC) and a pilot's SA is enhanced. Note that it is "enhanced" and not "perfect"! Also remember that while I may me able to spot something as large as an aircraft with my scanning process, visually detecting a Mavic may be almost impossible.

When I fly as an sUAS pilot, my SA is completely different. My scanning process is horizontally restricted by the terrain and the objects upon it. My SA is also vertically restricted by the fact that I am on the ground and not 2,000 - 4,000-ft above the ground in the NAS. Therefore, for me, I find that maintaining "adequate" SA (as defined by my personal safety minimums) as a sUAS pilot is much more difficult than as a GA pilot.

So, in this case, we have the GA pilot who's visibility and SA is greater at 2,000-ft than a sUAS pilot on the ground, but who's SA capabilities become greatly reduced if tasked with also scanning for objects the size of a Mavic. And then we have the sUAS pilot who's SA is restricted to only a small part of the low-altitude NAS. I personally see SA being compromised (unwillingly) for both pilots by sUAS activity in an area of shared airspace. To my mind, it is a recipe for compromising the safety of the low-altitude NAS and, therefore, is what I define as inherently "unsafe".

Can sUAS pilots increase their SA for GA aircraft? All sUAS pilots can increase their SA of the NAS using sectional charts to identify things like airspace classes (and their floors), military training routes (MTRs) and their altitudes of operation, TFRs, NOTAMS and other situations that affect the safety of the NAS where they are flying. In addition, monitoring local CTAF frequencies can help with SA (though reception falls-off when not in LOS with the transmitting radio). Using a dedicated spotter (Visual Observer) can also help SA, especially when the RPIC is performing videography-based operations. I even have a portable ADS-B rig and have been known to haul that out to the site. However, the whole deal about radio transmissions also applies to my ADS-B rig AND I have to monitor the ADS-B display (reducing my SA).

Can GA pilots increase their SA for sUAS aircraft? I'm not sure that is possible when in flight. However, there are some attempts to make GA pilots more aware of the locations of sUAS operations. If a Part 107 operation has received an authorization/waiver, chances are that the GA pilot's briefing will include that PART 107 sUAS activity; but Part 101 operations will NOT be included in the briefing. Also, SkyVector.com is a aeronautical chart site that has introduced the filing and display of "DROTAM"s. A DROTAM is a "Drone NOTAM" and is specifically meant to allow GA pilots to be aware of Part 107 sUAS operations at a specific location. Note that DROTAMs report only Part 107 operations; Part 101 operations will NOT be included in DROTAMs. So, essentially, GA pilots are "blind" to Part 101 operations.

For their part, the FAA have also tried to address this potentially unsafe situation. The preexisting regulations regarding minimum altitudes for GA aircraft combined with the Part 107 400-ft limit regulation attempt to create a 100-ft separation between most of GA activity (though not all) and Part 107 sUAS activity. Similarly, the AMA encourages a 400-ft limit "recommendation". However, both the 400-ft regulation and recommendation are not "foolproof"! To wit: a Part 101 pilot can (without violation) bust-trough the 400-ft ceiling and compromise the 100-ft separation. The same can be said for a GA pilot who flies below 500-ft (legally or illegality) in an area of Part 101 or Part 107 operations.

Contrast the above two situations with a Part 107 pilot who has received a waiver/authorization to fly above 400-ft. The granting of the waiver/authorization sets in motion the FAA's notification to GA pilots that sUAS activity that compromises the 100-ft separation will occur at a specified location and during a specified period. That goes a long way toward reducing unsafe situations in the low-altitude NAS.

When flying as a Part 101 sUAS pilot, the measures I take for safety are not just the ones that are written down or recommended, but include the fact that my fellow GA pilots have limited notification and SA of Part 101 sUAS aircraft. In addition, I am aware that not all GA pilots are as capable or regulation-conscious as others; the possibility of SA breakdowns and altitude variations (purposeful or not) can be very real.

Therefore, I choose to keep my Part 101 operations at 400-ft or below. I don't feel this is an issue of "rights", or represents an unwarranted increase in governmental control, or is an abuse of authority; for me, the issue is safety in the NAS.

Just my $0.02! Thanks for reading...

 

[2nckayakers]

Great information Theo. First let me commend you as a GA pilot for not going on a rant about how those that fly a drone are not UAS pilots. Personally I think that as long as those flying a UAS keep saying it is a toy, and they aren't pilots, then they don't own up to the huge responsibility they have of keeping our NAS safe. I agree with your long post. You are exactly right, when flying GA it is hard enough sometimes to see another small aircraft, even when you are in direct communication with the pilot of the other AC and he is trying to tell you where he is. I was flying an old T-6 about a month a go and I was flying in the front seat and the PIC was in the back instructing me and we were trying to meet up with one of his buddies to do some formation flying. I had us in a slow turn orbit over this lake and I could see the airport where the other guy was supposed to be flying to us from, and we had the hardest time trying to spot him. There is absolutely no way you could spot a Mavic from a plane unless it was right on top of you, or it was at twilight or night and you just happened to catch the flashing rear light. Even then it would have to be right on top of you.

I keep under 400 agl for the most part, but I do set my minimum agl for the aircraft for a slightly higher altitude incase I do need to maneuver in an emergency. (not that you can do much emergency maneuvering with a Mavic) Sometimes I will set it for quite a bit higher depending on the terrain around me. For instance this past weekend I was doing some flying in the mountains. I was flying a tower that was siting at 2940 msl. The tower itself was 100 feet, so legally I could fly at 500 agl right over the tower, and I wanted to get some orbital shots at that altitude. I took off from about half a mile away as I couldn't launch right at the base of the tower. Where I launched from was actually 400 feet lower than the ground level of the tower. So to get the shots I wanted, I had to reset my max flight altitude on the Mavic to 900 feet.

Now I didn't just willy nilly do that. First I knew what the rules were and that I could fly at 900 agl from where I took off because I was on the slop of a mountain, with an altitude 400 feet higher than my location, and flying above a tower that was 100 feet higher than the ground level. I knew that GA aircraft had to keep a separation of 500 feet from that tower. I knew (because I had looked at a sectional chart) that I was in Class G airspace. Even though I was in Class G, I still paid close attention to where the airports were around me because I knew that the tower that I was flying around most likely is used as a reference for pilots in the area flying VFR. It is all about situational awareness and I whole heartily agree that you must use every tool at your disposal to make sure you have as much information as you can before you fly. If everyone would do that and quit with this "I am flying 101 so I don't have to do anything" attitude, and quit with this "a drone is just a toy not a real aircraft" attitude and realize that you have just as much responsibility to keep the NAS safe as GA pilots and the FAA, then it would make things a whole lot better for us as a profession or as a hobbyist.