The Dreaded 400' Altitude Limit - A NEW TWIST!

[LeighD]

This was sent to a member of a FB page yesterday. It seems the administrator considers hobbyist operations over 400' a hazard to the NAS. First time I seen this in writing. I contacted the Feds as well asking where this is indicated as regulation. I'll post their response (not holding my breath)

What don’t you construe as law when they tell you the fine for endangering airspace (and they said it is considered to be dangerous) is 27,000 Civil and up to 250,000 and 3YEARS PRISON TIME ? Prisons are where you go when you are convicted of a crime. You’re going to do it anyway, you’re just looking for support where it’s irrelevant (a forum of hobbyists) and the officer who arrests you is going to say, “Tell it to the judge” and after you pay 20 times the price of your drone to an attorney to defend you, you’ll still be arguing the point.

 

[Qoncussion]

What don’t you construe as law when they tell you the fine for endangering airspace (and they said it is considered to be dangerous) is 27,000 Civil and up to 250,000 and 3YEARS PRISON TIME ? Prisons are where you go when you are convicted of a crime. You’re going to do it anyway, you’re just looking for support where it’s irrelevant (a forum of hobbyists) and the officer who arrests you is going to say, “Tell it to the judge” and after you pay 20 times the price of your drone to an attorney to defend you, you’ll still be arguing the point.

And yet, for hobby flights, it's still not a law (period).

 

[tcope]

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.

Wow... way to turn something has has NOTHING to do with politics into your own little political view.

Not sure anything can get more shallow (and incorrect) than that. Most people would be embarrassed to post such nonsense.

 

[DroningOn]

Wow... way to turn something has has NOTHING to do with politics into your own little political view.

Not sure anything can get more shallow (and incorrect) than that. Most people would be embarrassed to post such nonsense.

Hate to burst your bubble but no matter where one is on the political spectrum, all federal agencies are rife with people with partisan bias and goals. It has always been this way. The DOT and FAA are no exceptions.

 

[Mavic1204]

Yet another example of the FAA attempting to do an end run around Section 336. I suspect that the powers that be at the FAA would state that the information in that letter is not the FAA official position on this matter. It is not like the FAA has lied about things in the past... oh wait... they lied about 400' being a regulation! Now (at least) this person is simply trying to do an end run about that whole being wrong thing. Next the FAA will simply claim that flying a drone at all is a "safety issue".

I think there would be nothing easier then showing a judge that 1) all flights above 400' are not always a safety issue and 2) that the FAA has no authority to make that claim. Heck, I can prove that very easily... what makes a commercial flight above 400's safe when the hobby person standing right next to them flying at the same height, "unsafe"?

[flying next to a 300' water tower, for example]

Another example... what makes flying next to a 500' cliff at 400', automatically "unsafe"?

In the _real world_ the FAA would not to be able to show why that one flight posed a threat. Simply flying legally does not make something "unsafe".

Another example (these are easy). The speed limit is 70mph. I can't be given a ticket for driving unsafe _just_ because I'm driving 70mph (something that is legal).

The statement in that letter is simply stupid.

I separate things flying in the NAS for a living. The FAA is only trying to separate UAV from manned aircraft. If the lowest an airplane can fly over

Yet another example of the FAA attempting to do an end run around Section 336. I suspect that the powers that be at the FAA would state that the information in that letter is not the FAA official position on this matter. It is not like the FAA has lied about things in the past... oh wait... they lied about 400' being a regulation! Now (at least) this person is simply trying to do an end run about that whole being wrong thing. Next the FAA will simply claim that flying a drone at all is a "safety issue".

I think there would be nothing easier then showing a judge that 1) all flights above 400' are not always a safety issue and 2) that the FAA has no authority to make that claim. Heck, I can prove that very easily... what makes a commercial flight above 400's safe when the hobby person standing right next to them flying at the same height, "unsafe"?

[flying next to a 300' water tower, for example]

Another example... what makes flying next to a 500' cliff at 400', automatically "unsafe"?

In the _real world_ the FAA would not to be able to show why that one flight posed a threat. Simply flying legally does not make something "unsafe".

Another example (these are easy). The speed limit is 70mph. I can't be given a ticket for driving unsafe _just_ because I'm driving 70mph (something that is legal).

The statement in that letter is simply stupid.

Yet another example of the FAA attempting to do an end run around Section 336. I suspect that the powers that be at the FAA would state that the information in that letter is not the FAA official position on this matter. It is not like the FAA has lied about things in the past... oh wait... they lied about 400' being a regulation! Now (at least) this person is simply trying to do an end run about that whole being wrong thing. Next the FAA will simply claim that flying a drone at all is a "safety issue".

I think there would be nothing easier then showing a judge that 1) all flights above 400' are not always a safety issue and 2) that the FAA has no authority to make that claim. Heck, I can prove that very easily... what makes a commercial flight above 400's safe when the hobby person standing right next to them flying at the same height, "unsafe"?

[flying next to a 300' water tower, for example]

Another example... what makes flying next to a 500' cliff at 400', automatically "unsafe"?

In the _real world_ the FAA would not to be able to show why that one flight posed a threat. Simply flying legally does not make something "unsafe".

Another example (these are easy). The speed limit is 70mph. I can't be given a ticket for driving unsafe _just_ because I'm driving 70mph (something that is legal).

The statement in that letter is simply stupid.

Hey tcope what’s up man? The FAA is only trying to keep everybody safe. As somebody who keeps aircraft separated in the NAS, having a 400’ restriction seems smart. The FAA’s thought here is that the lowest a manned aircraft can fly over a populated area is 500’, it’s smart to have some built in separation. This is how the whole NAS is based. There are altitude restrictions for different directions of flight. I don’t think they are trying to be overly regulatory as the rest of the guidelines seem like common sense. Just trying to explain their thought process

 

[tcope]

Hey tcope what’s up man? The FAA is only trying to keep everybody safe. As somebody who keeps aircraft separated in the NAS, having a 400’ restriction seems smart. The FAA’s thought here is that the lowest a manned aircraft can fly over a populated area is 500’, it’s smart to have some built in separation. This is how the whole NAS is based. There are altitude restrictions for different directions of flight. I don’t think they are trying to be overly regulatory as the rest of the guidelines seem like common sense. Just trying to explain their thought process

1) They should do it legally.
2) Telling people they can only drive 5mph on any road would "keep people safe". There are reasonable limits to this. Those limits are already in place. They state that people are required to fly in a safe manner. I'm not arguing against that.... no one is arguing against that. What _IS_ being talked about is the assumption that _every_ flight over 400' is automatically unsafe. It's simply another lie.

You direct aircraft. You tell me... if I fly at 450 next to a 500' cliff how an I endangering aircraft? If a person flying commercially flies 20' above a 400' structure and I do the same thing as a hobby, why is my drone endangering aircraft and the one next to mine not?

Please let me know the answers to these questions.

 

[Mavic1204]

1) They should do it legally.
2) Telling people they can only drive 5mph on any road would "keep people safe". There are reasonable limits to this. Those limits are already in place. They state that people are required to fly in a safe manner. I'm not arguing against that.... no one is arguing against that. What _IS_ being talked about is the assumption that _every_ flight over 400' is automatically unsafe. It's simply another lie.

You direct aircraft. You tell me... if I fly at 450 next to a 500' cliff how an I endangering aircraft? If a person flying commercially flies 20' above a 400' structure and I do the same thing as a hobby, why is my drone endangering aircraft and the one next to mine not?

Please let me know the answers to these questions.

1. Chill, I am not the enemy but a fellow hobbyist.
2. It’s not unsafe, but there has to be some “general rules” They are just trying to do something.
3. There are a LOT of idiots out there and some of them have drones. This rule as a general guideline makes sense to me. Is every flight over 400’ unsafe, of course not. It’s impossible to come up with the perfect rule for every situation. Just like driving a car over the speed limit on a dead straight away isn’t necessarily either.
4. Also there are a lot of people who don’t have any common sense. Keep using yours and I’m sure you won’t have any safety problems.

 

[tcope]

2. It’s not unsafe, but there has to be some “general rules” They are just trying to do something.

Then you agree with me and disagree with the FAA's stance on this position.

3. There are a LOT of idiots out there and some of them have drones. This rule as a general guideline makes sense to me. Is every flight over 400’ unsafe, of course not. It’s impossible to come up with the perfect rule for every situation. Just like driving a car over the speed limit on a dead straight away isn’t necessarily either.
4. Also there are a lot of people who don’t have any common sense. Keep using yours and I’m sure you won’t have any safety problems.

It is not a "guideline"... per the quoted email the FAA is taking the stance that every hobby flight over 400' is illegal.

Laws never stop idiots... that is why they are idiots. laws never stopped people with no common sense either. But we are not talking about that nor does it matter. Are drones hitting planes an issue at this time? Has it ever really been an issue? Seems like the current laws are working just fine.

It _is_ possible to come up with the perfect law in this case... simply follow the existing Section 336 and if anyone is caught flying in an unsafe manner, pursue them legally. Even you disagree with the FAA stating all flights above 400' are automatically a danger to aircraft.

 

[catshepheard]

This was sent to a member of a FB page yesterday. It seems the administrator considers hobbyist operations over 400' a hazard to the NAS. First time I seen this in writing. I contacted the Feds as well asking where this is indicated as regulation. I'll post their response (not holding my breath)

 

[catshepheard]

Reading FAR Part 107, I believe the 400' ceiling is the rule. As a GA and a UAV pilot, I take the FAR sections pertaining to my operations. So what's the problem?
So what's unclear here
"The maximum allowable altitude is 400 feet above the ground, and higher if your drone remains within 400 feet of a structure."

 

[ac0j]

1) They should do it legally.
2) Telling people they can only drive 5mph on any road would "keep people safe". There are reasonable limits to this. Those limits are already in place. They state that people are required to fly in a safe manner. I'm not arguing against that.... no one is arguing against that. What _IS_ being talked about is the assumption that _every_ flight over 400' is automatically unsafe. It's simply another lie.

You direct aircraft. You tell me... if I fly at 450 next to a 500' cliff how an I endangering aircraft? If a person flying commercially flies 20' above a 400' structure and I do the same thing as a hobby, why is my drone endangering aircraft and the one next to mine not?

Please let me know the answers to these questions.

I'll give you some answers..... I am sure they will bounce off, but here goes.

1."They should do it legally."
The government gives them the power to make laws (regulations) without acts of congress and on the fly, and also supports them in enforcing these laws. That is how it works. Drone pilots dont get to make the laws.

2."Telling people they can only drive 5mph on any road would "keep people safe". There are reasonable limits to this. Those limits are already in place. They state that people are required to fly in a safe manner. I'm not arguing against that.... no one is arguing against that. What _IS_ being talked about is the assumption that _every_ flight over 400' is automatically unsafe. It's simply another lie."

The talk is that every flight above 400' COULD prove unsafe. To use your 5mph speed limit point, they COULD limit you to 5' AGL to be super safe, but they give you all the way up to just under manned aircraft at 400' AGL. Think of it as asking you not to drive your car on train tracks....

And yet again, the cliff.........
"You tell me... if I fly at 450 next to a 500' cliff how an I endangering aircraft? If a person flying commercially flies 20' above a 400' structure and I do the same thing as a hobby, why is my drone endangering aircraft and the one next to mine not?"

the rule is 400' AGL, if you are flying at 450' next to a 500' cliff you can without problem go up another 450' to stop at 400' above the ground on top of the cliff, You can fly all the way up and over a 10,000' mountain and never need to go more than 100' AGL.

Drones are TOYS... dont expect to get the same consideration as manned aircraft EVER!
What is it with you and cliffs anyway???

 

[tcope]

I'll give you some answers..... I am sure they will bounce off, but here goes.

1."They should do it legally."
The government gives them the power to make laws (regulations) without acts of congress and on the fly, and also supports them in enforcing these laws. That is how it works. Drone pilots dont get to make the laws.

Then you have not read Section 336 because Congress actually does not allow the FAA to make any further laws for hobby flight. it is the very first paragraph of Section 336:

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

The talk is that every flight above 400' COULD prove unsafe. To use your 5mph speed limit point, they COULD limit you to 5' AGL to be super safe, but they give you all the way up to just under manned aircraft at 400' AGL. Think of it as asking you not to drive your car on train tracks....

I'm also not sure you have read the letter from the initial post of this thread. The one that we are discussing. I say that because... it specifically does _not_ say "could". It specifically points out that the FAA considers _all_ flight above 400' as unsafe and therefore illegal.

the rule is 400' AGL, if you are flying at 450' next to a 500' cliff you can without problem go up another 450' to stop at 400' above the ground on top of the cliff, You can fly all the way up and over a 10,000' mountain and never need to go more than 100' AGL.

It is not a rule (as in law or regulation)... it is a recommendation.If you read the email from the FAA in this thread you'd see that it's not as you state. I would recommend that you read that email and also Section 336.

What is it with you and cliffs anyway???

I gave an example of a water tower also. But I think I mention cliffs as it applies to my use of drones. If I fly above 400', it is usually around or over a cliff.

 

[Scubaerik]

Flying above 400 feet is not illegal per US law. However, if you do something that endangers other aircraft/people, you could certainly be fined under US law. The same goes for doing dangerous things below 400 feet too.

Some of the places I fly have local helicopter traffic. They fly below 400 feet. One day two came zipping my way. I had to go up to avoid them. Scared the crap out of me. I saw the first one but the noise droned out the second one. I actually thought it was an echo. Got to love the cops flying so low and fast.

 

[Dizzy1971]

This was sent to a member of a FB page yesterday. It seems the administrator considers hobbyist operations over 400' a hazard to the NAS. First time I seen this in writing. I contacted the Feds as well asking where this is indicated as regulation. I'll post their response (not holding my breath)

In Canada we are restricted to flying 90m max.... it’d be nice to be able to go higher,but I’m just one of those rule bound peeps I guess

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Some of the places I fly have local helicopter traffic. They fly below 400 feet. One day two came zipping my way. I had to go up to avoid them. Scared the crap out of me. I saw the first one but the noise droned out the second one. I actually thought it was an echo. Got to love the cops flying so low and fast.

Love them more - FAR 91.119 allows them to operate below 500'

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What don’t you construe as law when they tell you the fine for endangering airspace (and they said it is considered to be dangerous) is 27,000 Civil and up to 250,000 and 3YEARS PRISON TIME ? Prisons are where you go when you are convicted of a crime. You’re going to do it anyway, you’re just looking for support where it’s irrelevant (a forum of hobbyists) and the officer who arrests you is going to say, “Tell it to the judge” and after you pay 20 times the price of your drone to an attorney to defend you, you’ll still be arguing the point.

Because there is no regulation in CFR title 14 stating that this is actually breaking the law. What I posted is an alleged "policy" interpretation by the current FAA Administrator. Someone could be assigned to that position next month (the currenting guy is an acting administrator) and interpret this differently. BTW, as a commercial pilot and flight instructor I would never condone operations outside of 107.51(b)(1)(2) that are in excess of 400'. I'm all about following the law but it has to be written and administered properly.

 

[ac0j]

As an electronics Technician and a Hot rod builder with over 30 years experience in Jenga and Tiddly winks. I would never allow the FAA to make decisions about anything that affects my hobbies.
So we are on the same page there. BUT they did it anyway.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Reading FAR Part 107, I believe the 400' ceiling is the rule. As a GA and a UAV pilot, I take the FAR sections pertaining to my operations. So what's the problem?
So what's unclear here
"The maximum allowable altitude is 400 feet above the ground, and higher if your drone remains within 400 feet of a structure."

Hobbyists don't have to fly under 107, they fly under 101.41

 

[skiptv]

From the FAA
"You can fly during daylight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) or in twilight with appropriate anti-collision lighting. Minimum weather visibility is three miles from your control station. The maximum allowable altitude is 400 feet above the ground, higher if your drone remains within 400 feet of a structure. Maximum speed is 100 mph (87 knots)."
These are NOT guidelines, they are (regulations). If you answer that they are guidelines on your FAA test, you miss the question, and fail.
If you think flying under 336 (model airplane rules/hobby) is a work around, its not, If you fly under those rules you are subject to Community Laws, which means, you might only be able to fly at a model airfield. or some designated area. Your local cop could ticket or fine you, and if you get ticked for flying your drone, it could prevent you from getting a 107 License in the future.

 

[tcope]

The maximum allowable altitude is 400 feet above the ground, higher if your drone remains within 400 feet of a structure. Maximum speed is 100 mph (87 knots)."
These are NOT guidelines, they are (regulations). If you answer that they are guidelines on your FAA test, you miss the question, and fail.
If you think flying under 336 (model airplane rules/hobby) is a work around, its not, If you fly under those rules you are subject to Community Laws, which means, you might only be able to fly at a model airfield. or some designated area. Your local cop could ticket or fine you, and if you get ticked for flying your drone, it could prevent you from getting a 107 License in the future.

I'm not sure that you understand that this thread if about hobby flight. I'm not sure you understand the difference between flying under Part 107 and Section 301/336. None of what you mention applies to what is being discussed.