The Dreaded 400' Altitude Limit - A NEW TWIST!

[TomCatPrower]

As a former general aviation pilot, then a Part 103 Ultralight pilot, I would say FAA requires personal carrying aircraft to stay 500 feet above or within any, persons, buildings, or objects. The 400 limit they place on us is to provide a one hundred foot cushion for licensed pilots. My house is within two miles of an aviation housing development. They **** well better stay above 500 feet of my house. There should not be any conflict above my house, and if I am flying, I go low if I hear someone in the area. I also have nearly 1000 foot mountains within a mile of me. When I fly around them I have a high max altitude set.

 

[TomCatPrower]

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.

I have had the unfortunate experience to appear before a NTSB administrative law judge, and WON! However, the FAA appealed, and you find you can not fight the "man"! They come with the idea not to figure out what is right, only "how do we prove you wrong"!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

You are most correct about 107 regulation, but again there is absolutely NOTHING in CFR Title 14 or in 336 that "codifies" a 400' altitude limitation for hobbyists!!!

 

[Cheech Wizard]

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 put a flat black skin on my Mavic Pro and can see it at 400 ft, (it's tiny) but set my altitude at 350 ft so if there ever is a question the authorities can see I took preventive measures to keep it under 400. If it takes off on it's own...I am covered. I also rolled the max distance back to 1 mile (I can see the black drone up to 1/2 mile depending on weather conditions).

As far as my view of other possible aircraft in the area I find out if there is any and can identify the aircraft and it's mission with an app on my tablet called "Flight Radar 24". If I hear a plane or copter my co-pilot opens the app, and it will tell you What type/Air line/ and flight plan the aircraft is executing. I can spend a lot of time just checking out the app without flying because it is so cool. You can see departure/arrival times and locations of the planes, what height they are flying, how fast...etc. Too much to list.

Take a look: Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!

Click on one of the aircraft near you on the map to see it's statistics in real time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK folks -

As mentioned earlier in this thread I contacted the FAA with regards to the original e mail sent to a member of a FB group I belong to. Here's the response I got from the FAA.

The 2016 letter to the AMA was attached.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sir/ Ma'am

Yesterday a friend of mine contacted your offices with regards to the 400' ceiling limit "recommendation" mentioned through out faa.gov as as well as numerous publications and advisory circulars. Yesterday someone from your offices responded to my friend and stated that "hobbyists may not operate over 400' under any circumstances." While I agree with this as a "recommendation" there is nothing regulatory that currently prohibits hobbyists to operate over 400' (Ref CFR Title 14 FAR 101.41). While the administrator may consider operations above 400' a hazard to the National Airspace System (and I fully agree with his "opinion") the FAA must first provide specific regulatory guidance in the matter.

I hope this correspondence is reviewed and forwarded accordingly.

Sincerely;

xxx
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[email protected]

8:30 AM (4 minutes ago)

to me

Mr. xxx,

Thank you for contacting the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Support Center.
Staying below 400 feet AGL is a best practice, but is not regulatory. I have attached a clarifying letter sent to the AMA from the FAA on this matter.

Best Regards,

Paul

PLH
Please follow up with any further inquiries at [email protected]. Additional information is also available at Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
We appreciate your feedback. Please select: UAS Safety and Integration Division AUS-400.

 

[MdMavicMan]

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)

I believe this is 400' agl from the home point, correct? At least that's how it's working for me. I was in WV a while back and took off from a hill top, flew down below and it went negative, but i could go from my take off level to 400'. I went down and took off from the valley floor, after the home point updated again, and could only go 400' from that point. I imagine that it would work the same for anyone else, but I am only me. I have read that if you are within x number of feet from say a tower, the max height is technically 400' above that object, but i've not seen an actual reg for it.

 

[microlinux]

I believe this is 400' agl from the home point, correct?

400' AGL in the context of the FAA is relative to the terrain/structure your drone is over at a given point in time. From the perspective of GO, it's height limitations and measurements are relative to the home point.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

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 is this obsession of so many people wanting to fly over 400 ft AGL? Not judging... just curious why. Is it just that people want to be free of any constraints on their freedom? Cause people in aircraft and on the ground also have to right to not die if a drone takes down a plane.

 

[tcope]

Is it just that people want to be free of any constraints on their freedom? Cause people in aircraft and on the ground also have to right to not die if a drone takes down a plane.

Why is it that people automatically think that flying over 400' is always because people want to be unsafe? But I'll repeat what I've posted several times in this thread.... perhaps a person wants to fly 450' next to a 500' cliff. Perhaps a person wants to fly at 10' over a 400' cliff. These are just a few examples of how flying 400' can be perfectly safe. The main concern is the FAA overstepping their authority.

 

[gnirtS]

The main concern is the FAA overstepping their authority.

And without the limit the main concern are people acting like idiots. Unfortunately the drone community isn't grown up enough to self police or act responsibly.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Why is it that people automatically think that flying over 400' is always because people want to be unsafe? But I'll repeat what I've posted several times in this thread.... perhaps a person wants to fly 450' next to a 500' cliff. Perhaps a person wants to fly at 10' over a 400' cliff. These are just a few examples of how flying 400' can be perfectly safe. The main concern is the FAA overstepping their authority.

Then you have to climb 100 ft to get to the top...what's the problem? You just don't like to be told what to do is the real answer. Be honest with yourself and then be honest with the forum.

 

[Qoncussion]

Then you have to climb 100 ft to get to the top...what's the problem? You just don't like to be told what to do is the real answer. Be honest with yourself and then be honest with the forum.

You're making my brain hurt. What exactly is wrong with flying at 410', as per tcope's example, when you are technically only 10' AGL. This is the easy stuff. I have a disability, and climbing 100', as per your suggestion, is - on some days - out of the question. But flying 10' off the ground concerns you...? It is not at all a matter of not liking being told what to do. The real question is, are we flying safe and within the regulations. Indeed, 10' off the ground is seriously within the regulations, by a factor of 390'. I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would comment negatively against that reasoning.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What is this obsession of so many people wanting to fly over 400 ft AGL? Not judging... just curious why. Is it just that people want to be free of any constraints on their freedom? Cause people in aircraft and on the ground also have to right to not die if a drone takes down a plane.

Agree. At the same time regulations should be clear and accurate. Under part 107, it's black and white. Under 101.41 for the laymen its ambiguous.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe this is 400' agl from the home point, correct?

It's above ground level. If you fly under Part 107.51 the "400 x "400 rule comes int effect.

107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:

(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.

 

[lisadoc]

Then you have to climb 100 ft to get to the top...what's the problem? You just don't like to be told what to do is the real answer. Be honest with yourself and then be honest with the forum.

Here's the reason:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is a perfectly legal flight (even though it's not in the US) that never breaks the 400-foot AGL limit. Personally, I wouldn't want to climb it.

 

[Thwyllo]

I put a flat black skin on my Mavic Pro and can see it at 400 ft, (it's tiny) but set my altitude at 350 ft so if there ever is a question the authorities can see I took preventive measures to keep it under 400. If it takes off on it's own...I am covered. I also rolled the max distance back to 1 mile (I can see the black drone up to 1/2 mile depending on weather conditions).

As far as my view of other possible aircraft in the area I find out if there is any and can identify the aircraft and it's mission with an app on my tablet called "Flight Radar 24". If I hear a plane or copter my co-pilot opens the app, and it will tell you What type/Air line/ and flight plan the aircraft is executing. I can spend a lot of time just checking out the app without flying because it is so cool. You can see departure/arrival times and locations of the planes, what height they are flying, how fast...etc. Too much to list.

Take a look: Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!

Click on one of the aircraft near you on the map to see it's statistics in real time.

Works fine for commercial jets flying at 35,000 feet.....unless you're in close proximity to an airport, what's the point??????

 

[tcope]

Then you have to climb 100 ft to get to the top...what's the problem? You just don't like to be told what to do is the real answer. Be honest with yourself and then be honest with the forum.

First, your post makes no sense in response. I mention a 500' cliff and you say that I should hike 100' to the top? I mention flying over the edge of a 400' cliff and you say that I should hike to the top? Regardless, your post still does not apply as I was asked why there was an "obsession" for flying over 400'. Flying as I mentioned is 100% legal and safe. So why should it not be allowed?

I've been 100% honest and 100% correct. You seem to want to indicate that I'm flying unsafe or not following the rules. If you think this, you've not read my posts very carefully as I'm not stating anything close to this. What I _am_ stating is that the FAA should not be considering all flights over 400' as automatically unsafe. I appears that I was correct also in that this was one person at the FAA who was stating their opinion and not the FAA's over-all stance on the subject.

 

[tcope]

And without the limit the main concern are people acting like idiots. Unfortunately the drone community isn't grown up enough to self police or act responsibly.

Millions of drone and how many issues?

I've also never put people at risk. I've also been an advocate of following the actual rules (I have a PSA video up about not flying in National Parks.... which, for some reason, I took some heat for).

 

[Cheech Wizard]

First, your post makes no sense in response. I mention a 500' cliff and you say that I should hike 100' to the top? I mention flying over the edge of a 400' cliff and you say that I should hike to the top? Regardless, your post still does not apply as I was asked why there was an "obsession" for flying over 400'. Flying as I mentioned is 100% legal and safe. So why should it not be allowed?

I've been 100% honest and 100% correct. You seem to want to indicate that I'm flying unsafe or not following the rules. If you think this, you've not read my posts very carefully as I'm not stating anything close to this. What I _am_ stating is that the FAA should not be considering all flights over 400' as automatically unsafe. I appears that I was correct also in that this was one person at the FAA who was stating their opinion and not the FAA's over-all stance on the subject.

First, your post makes no sense in response. I mention a 500' cliff and you say that I should hike 100' to the top? I mention flying over the edge of a 400' cliff and you say that I should hike to the top? Regardless, your post still does not apply as I was asked why there was an "obsession" for flying over 400'. Flying as I mentioned is 100% legal and safe. So why should it not be allowed?

I've been 100% honest and 100% correct. You seem to want to indicate that I'm flying unsafe or not following the rules. If you think this, you've not read my posts very carefully as I'm not stating anything close to this. What I _am_ stating is that the FAA should not be considering all flights over 400' as automatically unsafe. I appears that I was correct also in that this was one person at the FAA who was stating their opinion and not the FAA's over-all stance on the subject.

First of all you said flying next to a cliff... not over a cliff. I assumed you were filming the cliff. You can do whatever you want so why are you looking to this forum for approval? You know you shouldn't and it's killing you. Unfortunately that affects us all and soon they will make it a law because of people like you. Somebody posted that ultralights are not supposed to fly less than 500 ft... That is only a 100 ft buffer zone.

According to you !00% legal and 100% safe... then as I said do what you want, sounds like you will anyway.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Works fine for commercial jets flying at 35,000 feet.....unless you're in close proximity to an airport, what's the point??????

If you are talking about Flight Radar 24, it show EVERY commercial and private plane and helicopters, did you even look at it?