The Dreaded 400' Altitude Limit - A NEW TWIST!

tcope · Jun 22, 2018

Thwyllo said:
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 they do... the FAA's official stance is that the 400' limit is not a regulation, it is only a recommendation. The letter that started this thread appears to be from one person at the FAA that was on vacation when they discussed this. Though, IMHO the part of the letter there this person goes off on how all flights over 400' are automatically unsafe is really asinine. At best, the person was making up their own interpretation of the actual FAA stance, that you can fly over 400' but still need to abide by the regulation that it needs to ne a safe flight. Still, that is a simple thing and the person was _way_ off in their statement.

I think it's all been in plane English, it is just that the FAA has had a history of simply lying to people and not doing their job when it comes to drones being used in airspace. If they would simply stop misleading people and come out with some useful information, we'd all be in a better place.

Cheech Wizard · Jun 22, 2018

Thwyllo said:
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.

Oh, you did say that? Hmmm thought I was getting senile.

You know what... you don't "Have to explain a third time" and I understand English so yeah, I'm "With you so far", and you can click on my source instead of taking my word for it, It's Wikipedia.

I HAVE tracked EVERY plane I heard 100% so far. Except a couple of Black Hawks which I saw with my bare eyes. Do you have the app or need the app?

This going back and forth is over, you have a condescending attitude and I am not letting you troll me anymore.

Good day sir!

Cheech Wizard · Jun 22, 2018

genesimmons said:
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,,,

Since I got my drone I am constantly scanning the skies from walking out the door...people think I'm nuts. Maybe I am...ha.

Cheech Wizard · Jun 22, 2018

Qoncussion said:
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.

I'm not being negative, just been brought up to follow the rules... ever been to prison? You won't like it.