The Dreaded 400' Altitude Limit - A NEW TWIST!

[ascension]

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.

What I have posted in response to you is based on information you have provided that indicates a misunderstanding.
In no way was my response ever intended to irritate you.I note that you think some others may have, but not me.

What you stated was that you were "covered" and it would be the manned aircraft's fault if something above 400' occurred.
That is simply incorrect.
If there was some sort of failure in your drone, nobody would care about the 350' you had set in.
They would only care that you didn't resolve it before something happened.

What you are stating is like suggesting that if a manned pilot got an altitude bust that caused a near miss, it would be excused by claiming the autopilot was programmed to level at X altitude and didn't, or if there was a 400 kt aircraft at 2000' feet the individual could be excused because the autothrottles were set to 250, the limit.

That is not how the FAA or certificated manned aircraft pilots view. things.
It is your machine, whatever it does, whenever it does it.
Regarding your app, those things only report cooperating aircraft, ADSB equipped.
You can miss a whole lot of other stuff.

Anyway, no need to argue, the information was presented in good faith and a smile.
Take care.

 

[microlinux]

OMG... you people just want to fight, yes.

If by "fight" you mean "provide factual information in the face of a flagrantly inaccurate statement", I'm guilty as charged.

 

[Taylor1430]

When speaking about the cliff, it’s my understanding you can go out 400’ from the object you are flying around (tower for example). So with the 500’ cliff and 10’ over it, you could still go out 400’ from the edge...and be 510’ and still be following the FAA’s recommendation. At least that’s my understanding of it.

 

[tcope]

When speaking about the cliff, it’s my understanding you can go out 400’ from the object you are flying around (tower for example). So with the 500’ cliff and 10’ over it, you could still go out 400’ from the edge...and be 510’ and still be following the FAA’s recommendation. At least that’s my understanding of it.

That is commercial flying, not hobby. The letter we were discussing is about hobby flying.

 

[Thwyllo]

If by "fight" you mean "provide factual information in the face of a flagrantly inaccurate statement", I'm guilty as charged.

Me too...see you in jail.

 

[Thwyllo]

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.

So all that spouting and you appear not to know what ADS-B is or understand it's part in one of the biggest changes to management of US airspace in years? Way to go. Find your own links and do your own research.

And the figure of 70% non-compliance at the end of 2017 was US-specific, what with it being a US initiative and all...

Why can't people gracefully accept that sometimes they're just wrong and move on?

 

[Thwyllo]

....and by the way, take it in good heart Until I looked at this issue I didn't know what ADS-B was either, I just knew that your assertion about FlightRadar wasn't correct but I did some research and now I know something I didn't know before - and that's often the result of a bit of robust conversation. I'm never afraid of being corrected after spouting nonsense, after all nobody but nobody knows everything do they

 

[JSKCKNIT]

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.

I get exactly what you're saying!

 

[Thwyllo]

That is commercial flying, not hobby. The letter we were discussing is about hobby flying.

I'm confused...surely the height restriction, which is intended to provide a 100ft buffer between drones and larger aircraft, is common to both? So there is a 400 bubble above and around any object. Yes they confusingly use the word "structure" but, as common sense would dictate, it doesn't say 'man made' does it, so mountains and cliffs are included. So fly 399 feet away from that 500 foot cliff and you're still legal. Am I right or wrong,and if I'm wrong, please show me a clearer explanation of the regulation than the one given by the..err..FAA.

 

[tcope]

I'm confused...surely the height restriction, which is intended to provide a 100ft buffer between drones and larger aircraft, is common to both?

No, it is not. You can search the forum for more info on this. It has been mentioned a lot.

Section 336, which you would be following for hobby flight tells you what the regulations are and it never mentions 400'. The FAA has confirmed this in a letter to the AMA. If you read the very first post of this thread you will see this information from the FAA as well. It is what this entire thread is discussing.

 

[Thwyllo]

Ah ok sorry, I'd lost the plot a bit along the way. So recreational drones are managed under the Small Model Aircraft regs which, as you say, don't mention a height limit. I suspect the reality is that, given the plethora of advice given out by the FAA about the 400' 'limit', allied to the general 500' lower limit for aircraft, while there isn't a prosecutable offence per se, the reality is that common sense dictates that flying within those limits makes a lot of sense. And to be honest, if things develop as I expect regarding the increasingly indiscriminate use of drones by, shall we say, the less well educated, these things will indeed come to pass.

 

[microlinux]

I suspect the reality is that, given the plethora of advice given out by the FAA about the 400' 'limit', allied to the general 500' lower limit for aircraft, while there isn't a prosecutable offence per se, the reality is that common sense dictates that flying within those limits makes a lot of sense.

Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable recommendation (and one I follow), but it's not a law or regulation for recreational flyers. I don't think it helps the FAAs credibility to be evasive. I feel like being straightforward and explaining why they make this recommendation would be much more effective until something reasonable can be officially codified.

 

[Thwyllo]

You're right, but to be fair, the 500' floor limit kind of dictates that 400' ceiling as a sensible solution doesn't it, just a shame they can't explain that in plain English! I think the big problem is that, in the absence of an actual enforceable regulation, the danger is that letting people clearly know about that, means the morons out there will be thinking "Ha! The sky really is the limit!".

On the other side of the coin - and negative for us - is that the 500' floor limit doesn't need to be observed "over water or in sparsely populated areas" as anyone who watches people like Trent Palmer on YouTube will know only too well. Are we ever going to get it right?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

So all that spouting and you appear not to know what is or understand it's part in one of the biggest changes to management of US airspace in years? Way to go. Find your own links and do your own research.

And the figure of 70% non-compliance at the end of 2017 was US-specific, what with it being a US initiative and all...

Why can't people gracefully accept that sometimes they're just wrong and move on?

What REALLY gets me is when people can't be graceful when they think they are right. I'm not the one "Spouting" and demeaning.
I believe I did admit I was wrong when I told you it was I that said "Every Plane" not the website and took your 70% figure to be right which it isn't. So, I don't accept your answer as right either after "Finding my own links and doing my own research". "Way to go" huh?
Currently, about 65% of aircraft in Europe are equipped with ADS-B but only 35% in the US. For example: all Airbus aircraft are ADS-B equipped but Boeing 707, 717, 727, 737-200, 747-100, 747-200, 747SP do not come equipped and are not generally visible unless retrofitted by their operators.

Not a US initiative: The service was founded by two Swedish aviation enthusiasts in 2006 for Northern and Central Europe, who then opened it up, allowing anyone with a suitable ADS-B receiver to contribute data in 2009.

We can all learn something new I guess.

Flightradar24 - Wikipedia

 

[Thwyllo]

What REALLY gets me is when people can't be graceful when they think they are right. I'm not the one "Spouting" and demeaning.
I believe I did admit I was wrong when I told you it was I that said "Every Plane" not the website and took your 70% figure to be right which it isn't. So, I don't accept your answer as right either after "Finding my own links and doing my own research". "Way to go" huh?
Currently, about 65% of aircraft in Europe are equipped with ADS-B but only 35% in the US. For example: all Airbus aircraft are ADS-B equipped but Boeing 707, 717, 727, 737-200, 747-100, 747-200, 747SP do not come equipped and are not generally visible unless retrofitted by their operators.

Not a US initiative: The service was founded by two Swedish aviation enthusiasts in 2006 for Northern and Central Europe, who then opened it up, allowing anyone with a suitable ADS-B receiver to contribute data in 2009.

We can all learn something new I guess.

Flightradar24 - Wikipedia

My my you're hilarious!

First you say my "70% incomplete" comment was wrong, then refer to a source you've found that says only 35% of applicable aircraft are currently conforming. So call me a liar for 5% why don't you?

Secondly, it's clear you aren't reading a lot of this stuff and are spinning the bits you do read. I never said the principle of ADS-B was an American "initiative" - we were discussing the enforced rollout of the system, by the US, to aircraft operating in US airspace.

Keep up will you?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

What I have posted in response to you is based on information you have provided that indicates a misunderstanding.
In no way was my response ever intended to irritate you.I note that you think some others may have, but not me.

What you stated was that you were "covered" and it would be the manned aircraft's fault if something above 400' occurred.
That is simply incorrect.
If there was some sort of failure in your drone, nobody would care about the 350' you had set in.
They would only care that you didn't resolve it before something happened.

What you are stating is like suggesting that if a manned pilot got an altitude bust that caused a near miss, it would be excused by claiming the autopilot was programmed to level at X altitude and didn't, or if there was a 400 kt aircraft at 2000' feet the individual could be excused because the autothrottles were set to 250, the limit.

That is not how the FAA or certificated manned aircraft pilots view. things.
It is your machine, whatever it does, whenever it does it.
Regarding your app, those things only report cooperating aircraft, ADSB equipped.
You can miss a whole lot of other stuff.

Anyway, no need to argue, the information was presented in good faith and a smile.
Take care.

Yes I have done more research and understand the app better now, I know using these settings will not completely cover me, but if anything happens officials will see I was trying to do the right thing instead of trying to get around the "Rules". Also my settings "Should" keep me out of the "no fly zone" in the first place.

"What you stated was that you were "covered" and it would be the manned aircraft's fault if something above 400' occurred." What I meant about this is my drone will NEVER be over 400 ft and my understand is 500 ft is the lowest a manned aircraft can fly? If a manned aircraft is lower that that, they are at fault.

And you are right about the arguing crap. If I want to argue with people I'll go to Face Book...ha. I'm almost 60 and am open to any new information I can learn from peers, as log as I'm not basically being called an idiot.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

My my you're hilarious!

First you say my "70% incomplete" comment was wrong, then refer to a source you've found that says only 35% of applicable aircraft are currently conforming. So call me a liar for 5% why don't you?

Secondly, it's clear you aren't reading a lot of this stuff and are spinning the bits you do read. I never said the principle of ADS-B was an American "initiative" - we were discussing the enforced rollout of the system, by the US, to aircraft operating in US airspace.

Keep up will you?

Are you telling me you didn't say "And the figure of 70% non-compliance at the end of 2017 was US-specific, what with it being a US initiative and all". It's a few posts up.

Why so condescending? That's not what this forum is about.

 

[Thwyllo]

Are you telling me you didn't say "And the figure of 70% non-compliance at the end of 2017 was US-specific, what with it being a US initiative and all". It's a few posts up.

Why so condescending? That's not what this forum is about.

Yes I did say that. Let me explain for a third time. The FAA has said that all aircraft need to be so equipped by 2020 in order to fly in US controlled airspace. At the end of 2017, 70% of the aircraft that fell into that definition were NOT yet equipped. You have apparently found a source to indicate that figure has fallen to 65%. With me so far?

My long forgotten point was that, with two thirds of US aircraft still not equipped, not only was "every" aircraft NOT tracked by that website as you said, but unless you live under the flight path of an international airport and therefore only ever see heavy commercial traffic, you would NOT be able to track every aircraft that flies over you as you claim to do.

 

[Thwyllo]

What I meant about this is my drone will NEVER be over 400 ft and my understand is 500 ft is the lowest a manned aircraft can fly? If a manned aircraft is lower that that, they are at fault.

Not true either sadly. The 500' floor limit doesn't apply over water or in sparsely populated areas. That's an awful lot of territory where a droner can get in serious trouble even when adhering to the (apparently unenforceable) 400' ceiling.

 

[Dizzy1971]

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!

I’m picking up on your sarcasm....