The Dreaded 400' Altitude Limit - A NEW TWIST!

[Taylor1430]

On a side note, how far can one see their MP. Can one make it out at 400’?

While we can argue there is no “law” against 400’ The FAA does state:

“
Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:

1. Register their UAS with the FAA
2. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
3. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
4. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
5. Give way to manned aircraft
6. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
7. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization.

We all know the above rules...I think the FAA could easily argue anything above 400ft is not LOS and you are therefore operating in an unsafe manner against their regulations. Additionally, above 400ft, what is your view of other possible manned aircraft that you are required to give way to?

 

[tcope]

The posted e mail came from their (the FAA) sUAV office so the talking head who sent this had to be pre-programmed. The problem is if you're violated over this policy, its up to you to prove the FAA wrong and when you go before an "NTSB judge" the cards are usually stacked against you.

Not everything coming from one person at the FAA means that it's FAA policy. For example, read the following article:

FAA Enforcement and YouTube

There was also a time when the FAA's official position was that it was regulation that you could not fly over 400'. They then backed off of that assumption with a letter to the AMA. So don't assume that because one person writes an email that it's FAA policy.

Also, on the note I just mentioned, the FAA admitted to the AMA that there was no regulation against flying over 400'. The _never_ stated that flying over 400' would always be a safety violation. If their stance was this... why would they not mention this when specifically talking about flying over 400'?

Here is the letter from the FAA:

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf

There is specific information in the letter as follows:



That first sentence clearly states that the FAA acknowledges that there are times when flying over 400' is safe. The letter mention in this thread states that it is the FAA's position that it is never safe to fly over 400'. Which is it?

What I _suspect_ is that the person who wrote the email mentioned in this thread went a little too far. The FAA's stance is that flying over 400' _can_ be considered unsafe. So even though it's not specifically illegal, it can still be considered unsafe and therefor, illegal. But this is _far_ different then stating all flights over 400' are automatically unsafe.

What I think really needs to be done is someone needs to write to that email address with this information and ask why the FAA has stated that some flights are safe over 400' but their email contradicts that statement. Examples showing that the unsafe statement should be used as well (someone under Part 107 can fly safe at 500' but the person standing next to them flying hobby at 500' is not? Someone flying next to a 500' cliff at 450' is automatically flying unsafe?

 

[tcope]

We all know the above rules...I think the FAA could easily argue anything above 400ft is not LOS and you are therefore operating in an unsafe manner against their regulations. Additionally, above 400ft, what is your view of other possible manned aircraft that you are required to give way to?

I call slight BS on most people claims of how far they can see a Mavic or Phantom but 400-500' is not problem for me. I'd say that, not losing sight of the Mavic at any time, I can see it at 800'.

But this was never the FAAs statement. Their statement as it was made is what is in question.


[one FAA complaint from a helicopter pilot claimed he saw a drone 1 mile away]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What I think really needs to be done is someone needs to write to that email address with this information and ask why the FAA has stated that some flights are safe over 400' but their email contradicts that statement. Examples showing that the unsafe statement should be used as well (someone under Part 107 can fly safe at 500' but the person standing next to them flying hobby at 500' is not? Someone flying next to a 500' cliff at 450' is automatically flying unsafe?

I sent them an e mail in an attempt to verify the original message posted, basically the administrator considers flight over 400' AGL a hazard to the NAS

Examples showing that the unsafe statement should be used as well (someone under Part 107 can fly safe at 500' but the person standing next to them flying hobby at 500' is not? Someone flying next to a 500' cliff at 450' is automatically flying unsafe?

A 107 pilot will not be flying over 400' legally unless they are within 400' of a structure that is higher than 400' and they are flying under 107.51. The FAA will consider their flight safe and legal because the individual conducting the flight is certificated as opposed to a hobbyist doing the same thing.

 

[Qoncussion]

[one FAA complaint from a helicopter pilot claimed he saw a drone 1 mile away]

You know those little "floaters" you get in your eyes? I think we can add them to the list of drone "sightings."

 

[tcope]

A 107 pilot will not be flying over 400' legally unless they are within 400' of a structure that is higher than 400' and they are flying under 107.51. The FAA will consider their flight safe and legal because the individual conducting the flight is certificated as opposed to a hobbyist doing the same thing.

So it's the paper the person has that makes the airspace a safe place to fly and the lack of paper in the person's pocket that makes the other airspace unsafe to fly in?

Odd how a license can change the nature of the airspace.

 

[ac0j]

I wouldn't worry about this at all. All you extreme altitude jockies dont have anything to worry about. UNTIL you hit a Plane or Helicopter. It is probably only going to be enforced if there is a problem as a result. It would probably have to be more of an "manned aircraft falls from the sky after drone hit" event to make it a law. So all you hobby astronauts get out there and reach for the stars!

 

[tcope]

I wouldn't worry about this at all. All you extreme altitude jockies dont have anything to worry about. UNTIL you hit a Plane or Helicopter.

Actually, we _do_ have something to worry about even if no planes are at risk. That is what the entire thread is about.

I don't know if I'd classify anyone as an "extreme altitude jockey". What if I want if I'm on a 500' cliff and I want to fly from 10' right off the side of the cliff. Now, according to the FAA, I'm all of a sudden creating an unsafe airspace and can be fined up to $27,500.

It is probably only going to be enforced if there is a problem as a result. It would probably have to be more of an "manned aircraft falls from the sky after drone hit" event to make it a law. So all you hobby astronauts get out there and reach for the stars!

Not according to the information contained in this thread. Again, that is what this entire thread is about... the fact that the "FAA" is stating that it does not matter what the situation is, above 400' is automatically unsafe.

 

[787steve]

In the OP is what I assume an "official" letter. It is pretty clear that even "it sounds like there is leeway but...."
Kind of leaves the door open to trouble IF, THEY deem the flight unsafe, Not up to us to decide.

However, I do not see this being an issue if you are not reported or caught doing something stupid. I doubt the FAA is going to hire nation wide "drone police" to patrol and watch you

Agreed.
Most likely another nail in your coffin if something unfortunate happened while operating above 400'.

 

[ac0j]

Actually, we _do_ have something to worry about even if no planes are at risk. That is what the entire thread is about.

I don't know if I'd classify anyone as an "extreme altitude jockey". What if I want if I'm on a 500' cliff and I want to fly from 10' right off the side of the cliff. Now, according to the FAA, I'm all of a sudden creating an unsafe airspace and can be fined up to $27,500.



Not according to the information contained in this thread. Again, that is what this entire thread is about... the fact that the "FAA" is stating that it does not matter what the situation is, above 400' is automatically unsafe.

Its 400' AGL you are good to 400' above the 500' cliff.

Can be deemed unsafe........ if you are doing something stupid in an unsafe place you are at risk. Again, they would have to catch you, and I am pretty sure they dont have the staff to drive around looking for drones in the sky. However there is staff at airports where it would absolutely be unsafe at 400' plus.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So it's the paper the person has that makes the airspace a safe place to fly and the lack of paper in the person's pocket that makes the other airspace unsafe to fly in?

Odd how a license can change the nature of the airspace.

Yep - its been that way since 1927

 

[Qoncussion]

Agreed.
Most likely another nail in your coffin if something unfortunate happened while operating above 400'.

The blame will fall on the drone pilot if any event happens below 400', as well. No matter the altitude, it is our responsibility not to come in contact with a manned aircraft. We can see them... They can't necessarily see us.

Flying in a park one day, a chopper came in low and fast at about 150' AGL. I landed and left the area. He was just way too low to leave any margin of error for me. Had their been an incident at 150', you can bet that 100% of the blame would have fallen on me. But, at least I would have gotten my name in the papers!

Working in a fire lookout tower, I watch planes fly *very low* over my town. It's a bit of a tourist trap town, and I think pilots are giving their passengers a look-see from up close. I see pilots break their 500' floor constantly. But I bet the drone pilot would still take the blame in the event of an impact.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The blame will fall on the drone pilot if any event happens below 400', as well. No matter the altitude, it is our responsibility not to come in contact with a manned aircraft. We can see them... They can't necessarily see us.

Flying in a park one day, a chopper came in low and fast at about 150' AGL. I landed and left the area. He was just way too low to leave any margin of error for me. Had their been an incident at 150', you can bet that 100% of the blame would have fallen on me. But, at least I would have gotten my name in the papers!

Working in a fire lookout tower, I watch planes fly *very low* over my town. It's a bit of a tourist trap town, and I think pilots are giving their passengers a look-see from up close. I see pilots break their 500' floor constantly. But I bet the drone pilot would still take the blame in the event of an impact.

I can't dispute a thing you say however it is VERY difficult to accurately determine the altitude of low flying aircraft, especially if the witnesses have little aviation knowledge or experience. Years ago I was a witness in a violation hearing that involved a low flying aircraft. There were about 12 witnesses of which half said the plaintiff was under 500', the others said he was well over 1000.' Turns out, thanks to a photo that the FAA thought they were going to use against this pilot actually exonerated him as it was shown he was actually at 1100 feet when compared to landscape and terrain (this guy was flying in a valley). Going full circle, any type of low flying by fixed wing aircraft that violates FAR 91.119 needs to be reported if it continually happens.

 

[Qoncussion]

I can't dispute a thing you say however it is VERY difficult to accurately determine the altitude of low flying aircraft, especially if the witnesses have little aviation knowledge or experience. Years ago I was a witness in a violation hearing that involved a low flying aircraft. There were about 12 witnesses of which half said the plaintiff was under 500', the others said he was well over 1000.' Turns out, thanks to a photo that the FAA thought they were going to use against this pilot actually exonerated him as it was shown he was actually at 1100 feet when compared to landscape and terrain (this guy was flying in a valley). Going full circle, any type of low flying by fixed wing aircraft that violates FAR 91.119 needs to be reported if it continually happens.

I agree. In this case, I am above the air traffic when up in the fire tower. But I have been known to misjudge certain measurements... Just ask my wife.

 

[cayman5522]

Agree - The FAA Administrator is basically creating policy with little or no regulatory direction. Sure, you could be violated for hazardous operations above or below 400' per 101.43 but there is still no direct FAR that says "no operations above 400'. I see lawsuits.

It would appear that there maybe be some Obama leftovers in this agency. Drone operators should consider petitioning President Trump over some of these ridiculous regulations. He has undone countless Obama oversteps. Liberal over protection has gone crazy. Now is the time to take advantage of an administration that is bent on reducing stupidity in Government and restoring freedoms that don't endanger others.

 

[MAVA4]

On a side note, how far can one see their MP. Can one make it out at 400’?

While we can argue there is no “law” against 400’ The FAA does state:

“
Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:

1. Register their UAS with the FAA
2. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
3. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
4. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
5. Give way to manned aircraft
6. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
7. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization.

We all know the above rules...I think the FAA could easily argue anything above 400ft is not LOS and you are therefore operating in an unsafe manner against their regulations. Additionally, above 400ft, what is your view of other possible manned aircraft that you are required to give way to?

I can see it out to 800-1000 ft depending.. Can I see its attitude or direction of flight at that distance?
Nope.

 

[RQdrone]

I have a part 107 sUAS license. The FAA states very clearly that you may not fly above 400’ AGL unless within 400 feet of a structure such as a building or water tower. Then you may fly up to 400’ above that structure. The rule is there to keep drones out of the airspace that manned aircraft operate in. Generally, manned aircraft are not supposed to operate below 500’ AGL unless taking off or landing, and are to keep 500’ above structures. So you have a 100’ buffer between drones and manned aircraft. There was nothing to suggest the rule was discretionary.

 

[JoelP]

I hiked up a trail in the hills behind where I live to an elevation of about 2000 ft, thinking it might be a good place to fly my drone. As I was nearing the crest of one hill I was surprised to see a single engine plane zooming over me at about 200' over the terrain and far less than that over the high tension lines. My first thought was that I was glad that I had not launched my drone. My second thought was that this pilot had to be in violation of the altitude he was allowed to fly in that terrain. I later asked a friend, who is a commercial pilot and instructor, who explained that for that plane's pilot to get under the inverted wedding cake of the nearby commercial airport the pilot had made the correct choice to fly that close to the ground to approach the smaller controlled airport that he was heading for to land. If I had not been studying the Part 107 info I would not have fully appreciated the configuration of this airspace. Even so I had not anticipated such a low level flight possibility for other than helicopters that I can better hear approaching. BTW I always fly with a Firehouse strobe to reduce the possibility of an aircraft encounter and to better spot my drone when I am a quarter mile away.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It would appear that there maybe be some Obama leftovers in this agency. Drone operators should consider petitioning President Trump over some of these ridiculous regulations. He has undone countless Obama oversteps. Liberal over protection has gone crazy. Now is the time to take advantage of an administration that is bent on reducing stupidity in Government and restoring freedoms that don't endanger others.

This has nothing to do with Obama, Trump, Bush, Queen Elizabeth, liberals, conservatives or communists!!! it's the way the FAA works and has always worked. BTW the current FAA Administrator (acting administrator) was appointed by Trump. The position has not officially been filled.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have a part 107 sUAS license. The FAA states very clearly that you may not fly above 400’ AGL unless within 400 feet of a structure such as a building or water tower. Then you may fly up to 400’ above that structure. The rule is there to keep drones out of the airspace that manned aircraft operate in. Generally, manned aircraft are not supposed to operate below 500’ AGL unless taking off or landing, and are to keep 500’ above structures. So you have a 100’ buffer between drones and manned aircraft. There was nothing to suggest the rule was discretionary.

All true but there is nothing in FAR 101.41 that is clear cut with regards to altitude limits. It seems the FAA leaving ambiguity within the FARS but will enforce hazardous sUAV incidents based on a "policy" rather than specific regulation. Personally I would support a 400' limit for all hobby operations as I fly airplanes and had an incident with a sUAV about 2 years ago.