The Dreaded 400' Altitude Limit - A NEW TWIST!

[Cheech Wizard]

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.

The Gentleman said "Flying NEXT to a 500 ft cliff" not over it. So, my comment does make sense.

 

[ascension]

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.

I always wait a bit before responding.
You are wrong on two points.
One, you are not "covered" by entering data into a drone. If you hit something, nobody is going to care what you "entered."
Second, I'm not sure you understand what is being displayed, and more importantly what is not being displayed in your app.

 

[Thwyllo]

The Gentleman said "Flying NEXT to a 500 ft cliff" not over it. So, my comment does make sense.

I beg to differ. Perhaps the regulations are badly written but they are easy to interpret and extrapolate. Nowhere does it say there is a combined height limit. The clear reading from what @FLYBOYJ posted is that the height of the structure doesn't matter - it could be 1000 feet high but so long as you're within a 400ft radius of it, you can rise another 400 feet above its highest point. By extrapolation the same is true for a cliff or other landscape feature, so as long as you're less than 400 feet from it you can fly up the tallest cliff you like and remain legal (or advisory, I've lost the plot) 400 feet above it.

Eminently logical because of course a full sized aircraft should never be that close to anything in flight in normal conditions so that is a safe envelope that a drone can operate inside.

I'm happy to be re-educated if that's a load of baloney....

 

[Thwyllo]

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

I don't need to, I'm familiar with it. Please point me to the part of their website where they make that ridiculous claim.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

I don't need to, I'm familiar with it. Please point me to the part of their website where they make that ridiculous claim.

I have the app on my tablet and when I hear a plane or helicopter overhead I can click the plane and get info on said plane. Private planes, jets and helicopters, I guess you are calling me a liar or didn't check it out and you are lying.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

I always wait a bit before responding.
You are wrong on two points.
One, you are not "covered" by entering data into a drone. If you hit something, nobody is going to care what you "entered."
Second, I'm not sure you understand what is being displayed, and more importantly what is not being displayed in your app.

My MAX altitude is 350 ft so I don't really have to worry about being in the "No Fly Zone", if I do hit a plane they are at fault.. so yes "covered".

 

[Thwyllo]

I have the app on my tablet and when I hear a plane or helicopter overhead I can click the plane and get info on said plane. Private planes, jets and helicopters, I guess you are calling me a liar or didn't check it out and you are lying.

I'm not calling you a liar at all but let me remind you what you said: "...EVERY commercial and private plane and helicopter.." - all I did was ask you to point out where on their website they make that claim. Take as much time as you like, the claim isn't there because that's not what it currently does.

If you take the trouble to Google ADSB rollout (the tech that FR24 uses), you'll see that not only are not all aircraft required to have it, even after the 2020 deadline, but at the end of last year, around 70% of those that were, still hadn't had it fitted.

 

[tcope]

First of all you said flying next to a cliff... not over a cliff.

Actually, I gave both examples:

Perhaps a person wants to fly at 10' over a 400' cliff

So, yes I did.

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.

It is obvious that you are simply attempting to deflect my statements by attempting to mention things that are completely different. I've never looked for approval and simply stated facts. Not only should I know I "should not fly over 400'", I've stated facts to show it is not illegal and it appears that I was correct... it is still not the FAA's official position that this is automatically illegal.

Unfortunately that affects us all and soon they will make it a law because of people like you.

You could not be more incorrect. First, I've never advocated flying above 400' as you indicate. I've also been very clear about that. So you are simply attempting to use incorrect statements about something not even being discussed.

My MAX altitude is 350 ft so I don't really have to worry about being in the "No Fly Zone", if I do hit a plane they are at fault.. so yes "covered".

Yeah, because anyone reading this knows this is how it will work out for someone who hits a manned aircraft with a drone. I better understand where you are coming from now.

 

[microlinux]

My MAX altitude is 350 ft so I don't really have to worry about being in the "No Fly Zone", if I do hit a plane they are at fault.. so yes "covered".

You are not "covered" below 400'. Airplanes always have ROW and helicopters are not subject to minimum altitude.

 

[ascension]

My MAX altitude is 350 ft so I don't really have to worry about being in the "No Fly Zone", if I do hit a plane they are at fault.. so yes "covered".

There is clearly a misunderstanding on your part.
I'm not sure where these ideas come from, but the reality is that when you are operating a drone you are responsible for it at all times.
A data entry is no defense.
Unless a manned aircraft is being operated carelessly or recklessly, it has the right of way, and whatever data you entered does not change that.
That's what being in command of something means.
It means at all times.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

My MAX altitude is 350 ft so I don't really have to worry about being in the "No Fly Zone", if I do hit a plane they are at fault.. so yes "covered".

If you're flying at 350' and a bird swoops in to attack your sUAS, what is your plan? If your answer is anything but "increase altitude"....start saving for a new drone now!

As others have stated, manned aircraft always have the right-of-way over your unmanned ac.

 

[genesimmons]

its funny now that i fly quad copters i contantly look at in coming planes and planes that are flying for sport near the local lakes i live by, ive seen quite a few and say to myself,,,,,,,pretty sure i was higher than that yesterday haha, its hard to tell eleavation and a plane of course is different than my copter but to me the elevation looks the same,,,

 

[Cheech Wizard]

I'm not calling you a liar at all but let me remind you what you said: "...EVERY commercial and private plane and helicopter.." - all I did was ask you to point out where on their website they make that claim. Take as much time as you like, the claim isn't there because that's not what it currently does.

If you take the trouble to Google ADSB rollout (the tech that FR24 uses), you'll see that not only are not all aircraft required to have it, even after the 2020 deadline, but at the end of last year, around 70% of those that were, still hadn't had it fitted.

OK... lets get to the crux of the biscuit. I said "Every Plane" not the website. And are you counting Military Planes from every nation? Because they are definitely NOT shown. I live on the shore in New England and there is lot's of traffic, New York and Boston airports, plus tons of private planes and some helicopters. I have never not been able to identify ONE of them. You are saying 70 %... That is world wide. I will google ADSB because I don't know what it is or even if you know what it is. You could have left a link. No matter what you say. it is a good tool to have.... and I am done with this conversation... didn't join this forum to get into a pissing contest.. life is too short for that.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

If you're flying at 350' and a bird swoops in to attack your sUAS, what is your plan? If your answer is anything but "increase altitude"....start saving for a new drone now!

As others have stated, manned aircraft always have the right-of-way over your unmanned ac.

I would go up, down, left , right... birds can't fly digitally. It's like a bull fight....ha. step out of the way and get low and home ASAP?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

There is clearly a misunderstanding on your part.
I'm not sure where these ideas come from, but the reality is that when you are operating a drone you are responsible for it at all times.
A data entry is no defense.
Unless a manned aircraft is being operated carelessly or recklessly, it has the right of way, and whatever data you entered does not change that.
That's what being in command of something means.
It means at all times.

Of course you have to be in command at all times... do you understand that my drone will NOT go over 350ft and more than a mile away? Thats why you set limits....I don't get what you want to hear.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

You are not "covered" below 400'. Airplanes always have ROW and helicopters are not subject to minimum altitude.

OMG... you people just want to fight, yes, manned aircraft always have the right of way... try getting your craft out of the way when you can't even see it.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Actually, I gave both examples:


So, yes I did.

It is obvious that you are simply attempting to deflect my statements by attempting to mention things that are completely different. I've never looked for approval and simply stated facts. Not only should I know I "should not fly over 400'", I've stated facts to show it is not illegal and it appears that I was correct... it is still not the FAA's official position that this is automatically illegal.

You could not be more incorrect. First, I've never advocated flying above 400' as you indicate. I've also been very clear about that. So you are simply attempting to use incorrect statements about something not even being discussed.


Yeah, because anyone reading this knows this is how it will work out for someone who hits a manned aircraft with a drone. I better understand where you are coming from now.

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say... a few other people on this post just want to fight about it.

 

[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.

I think it's a big misunderstanding,,, I thought you said you were flying to the top of a 500 ft cliff which is already over the 400 "Limit". Iv'e seen your posts and you seem cool to me. my apologies.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

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.

Try to tell these guys and gals that! I have and get attacked... a 100ft buffer zone is pretty small.

 

[tcope]

I think it's a big misunderstanding,,, I thought you said you were flying to the top of a 500 ft cliff which is already over the 400 "Limit". Iv'e seen your posts and you seem cool to me. my apologies.

To clarify... I'm standing on a 500' cliff and fly 10' above the ground. I'm safe. I fly over the edge 20' and now I'm 510' above the ground. According to the 1st email from the FAA, I'm now unsafe. When it comes to manned aircraft, what has changed? Nothing. But the FAA (person) wanted to say I was now automatically "unsafe". It made no sense and we now know that one person did not appear to know what they were talking about.

Edit: and I think most people would disagree with you and think I'm an A-hole. I'm okay with that. Some people get my posts... others don't.