THE RULES!!

[Blacksmith]

DJI built a beautiful and capable ship which can far exceed any of the above guidelines. That being said, does it mean we have to? I have absolutely no stats to back this statement up, but speaking as an old fart who worked hard for everything I have I am not willing to lose it all for one liability claim if my ship drops on a child and/or causes harm to someone/something because I didn't see it coming. I'm guessing a lot of younger pilots don't have these concerns since they may be students, or living at home. Even though I am a member of the AMA and am covered by their liability insurance I still fly very conservatively. Can pilot error happen? Sure. Can malfunctions occur? Yes. But if my Mavic fails because it threw a prop that shattered ( and in this cold weather I found out after brushing a twig I didn't see and when I landed that prop looked like Swiss Cheese and another was missing the last 1/2" on one side) and wasn't my fault the damage could still be severe. I didn't make it to middle age by being dumb, and I'm not going to be homeless by being stupid. Following these rules minimizes but doesn't eliminate all hazards, but I feel more comfortable using these guidelines and lets me enjoy flight instead of holding my breath to see if I'm gonna make it home.

Off the soapbox.

Jake

Exactly my feelings.

 

[raymo]

Well by calling the tower to let them know you're flying they can share that with aircraft passing through that same airspace...just saying

I wonder what actually happens after a UAV operator calls the tower and informs them of their flight plan. I suspect its just thanks and have a nice day, but I could be wrong. Anyone know for sure?

 

[raymo]

It's been somewhat beaten to death but I guess it's worth repeating; there is no 400 ft rule for Part 101. It's neither mentioned in Part 101 subpart E, and nor is it in the AMA Safety Code, which only requires calling when exceeding 400 ft AGL within 3 miles of an airport. And even though the FAA has confirmed that there is no such rule, they did attempt to imply that rule in their website guidelines and FAQs, and in the "agreement" that you make when registering with the FAA.

The 400 ft rule only exists in Part 107 under 107.51 (b).

Curiously, the NTSB appears to have a different view in the case of the incident Report with the Phantom/Helicopter crash, which was being discussed on a separate thread. Here is an excerpt from that report:

"During the incident flight, the pilot of the sUAS intentionally flew the aircraft 2.5 miles away, well beyond visual line of sight and was just referencing the map on his tablet; therefore, he was not aware that the helicopter was in close proximity to the sUAS. Although the pilot stated that he knew that the sUAS should be operated at an altitude below 400 ft, flight logs revealed that he had conducted a flight earlier on the evening of the incident, in which he exceeded 547 ft altitude at a distance of 1.8 miles, which was unlikely to be within visual line of sight."

It looks pretty clear to me that this UAV owner was getting his hands slapped HARD! VLOS as well as height. Not sure what the followup was on this case and certainly not clear as to what would happen if this was pursued to its fullest extent. Under Canadian law, it is clear what the restrictions are for non-commercial use. 90 metres height and 500 metres distance. Comments.

 

[787steve]

OK! OK! I'LL CLEAN UP MY ACT.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Curiously, the NTSB appears to have a different view in the case of the incident Report with the Phantom/Helicopter crash, which was being discussed on a separate thread. Here is an excerpt from that report:

"During the incident flight, the pilot of the sUAS intentionally flew the aircraft 2.5 miles away, well beyond visual line of sight and was just referencing the map on his tablet; therefore, he was not aware that the helicopter was in close proximity to the sUAS. Although the pilot stated that he knew that the sUAS should be operated at an altitude below 400 ft, flight logs revealed that he had conducted a flight earlier on the evening of the incident, in which he exceeded 547 ft altitude at a distance of 1.8 miles, which was unlikely to be within visual line of sight."

It looks pretty clear to me that this UAV owner was getting his hands slapped HARD! VLOS as well as height. Not sure what the followup was on this case and certainly not clear as to what would happen if this was pursued to its fullest extent. Under Canadian law, it is clear what the restrictions are for non-commercial use. 90 metres height and 500 metres distance. Comments.

Ultimately this will be decided by an NTSB judge. Based on the 2014 interpretation of section 336 by the administrator of the FAA, the FAA expected hobbyists to stay out of controlled airspace. I'm pretty sure the class E started at 700' where this incident occurred. IMO, could this individual be violated by flying over 400'? NO - but by his own admittance he did not follow the FAA "recommendation" of staying below 400', flew during a TFR and BVLOS - more than likely will be charged with violation of FAR 101.43, which I consider a boilerplate catch-all.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That documentation does not exist because it cannot legally exist. It's impossible for the FAA to impose that rule. See my above reply.

Agreed. My research has led me to think that only SEC 336 applies to us as far as specifics like this. I am wondering where the 400' impression came from. Perhaps the FAA guidelines.

What the FAA DOES expect is for hobbyists to stay out of controlled airspace unless authorized:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf (see page 17)

Also read the FAA's playbook for more info


http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.16,Ch5,Sec3

Section 336(b) of the Act makes clear that the FAA has the authority under its existing regulations to pursue legal enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft in accordance with Section 336(a) and 336(c) when the operations endanger the safety of the NAS. So, for example, a model aircraft operation conducted in accordance with Section 336(a) and (c) may be subject to an enforcement action for violation of 14 CFR § 91.13 if the operation is conducted in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

[sar104]

Curiously, the NTSB appears to have a different view in the case of the incident Report with the Phantom/Helicopter crash, which was being discussed on a separate thread. Here is an excerpt from that report:

"During the incident flight, the pilot of the sUAS intentionally flew the aircraft 2.5 miles away, well beyond visual line of sight and was just referencing the map on his tablet; therefore, he was not aware that the helicopter was in close proximity to the sUAS. Although the pilot stated that he knew that the sUAS should be operated at an altitude below 400 ft, flight logs revealed that he had conducted a flight earlier on the evening of the incident, in which he exceeded 547 ft altitude at a distance of 1.8 miles, which was unlikely to be within visual line of sight."

It looks pretty clear to me that this UAV owner was getting his hands slapped HARD! VLOS as well as height. Not sure what the followup was on this case and certainly not clear as to what would happen if this was pursued to its fullest extent. Under Canadian law, it is clear what the restrictions are for non-commercial use. 90 metres height and 500 metres distance. Comments.

I'm not sure what the NSTB thinks about this, but note that they did not state that either the altitude or the lack of VLOS breached any specific law. But clearly they have two options to prosecute: they can use 101.43 (endangering the NAS), or they can argue that he did not satisfy 101.41, and thus falls under 107 and was in violation of 107.12 (no license), 107.31 (VLOS), 101.47 (flying in a TFR) and (at least earlier) 107.51 (400 ft limit).

 

[ascension]

I don't believe the NTSB "prosecutes."
I believe that is the FAA's jurisdiction.
The NTSB can hear an appeal on certificate action imposed by the FAA, but that is not germane in a drone operator situation.
In addition, an otherwise certificated airman operating a drone is not jeopardizing his other certificates.

 

[Karl2951]

I'm going to guess that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of drones worldwide. How many people have been Injured or how much property damaged? I would suggest the vast majority are doing something right. Everyone is getting far to carried away with the rules about something that's a, what if problem but then go and ride or drive a car above the speed limit where there's far more Injuries and find that ok or at least a risk they are prepares tk take. just a point of view but worth a mention.
Don't fly like a **** and keep away from people and property that people care about and u will be fine.. Nobody will actually care if u hit a water tower, derelict building or any other structure that won't be damaged.
Just dint fly to high and use common sense.....

 

[colinfowler]

Don't fly like a **** and keep away from people and property

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't believe the NTSB "prosecutes."
I believe that is the FAA's jurisdiction.
The NTSB can hear an appeal on certificate action imposed by the FAA, but that is not germane in a drone operator situation.
In addition, an otherwise certificated airman operating a drone is not jeopardizing his other certificates.

Yes - you are correct and I stand to be corrected. The FAA will bring charges, its when you appeal is when you go in front of an "NTSB judge." https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Pages/default.aspx

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm going to guess that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of drones worldwide. How many people have been Injured or how much property damaged? I would suggest the vast majority are doing something right. Everyone is getting far to carried away with the rules about something that's a, what if problem but then go and ride or drive a car above the speed limit where there's far more Injuries and find that ok or at least a risk they are prepares tk take. just a point of view but worth a mention.
Don't fly like a **** and keep away from people and property that people care about and u will be fine.. Nobody will actually care if u hit a water tower, derelict building or any other structure that won't be damaged.
Just dint fly to high and use common sense.....

As long as the potential is there and as long as we have folks doing stupid things and the press brining bad light to this industry, this will be a mute point, but you got it right - "Don't fly like a **** and keep away from people and property that people care about and u will be fine"

 

[rfc]

Yes - you are correct and I stand to be corrected. The FAA will bring charges, its when you appeal is when you go in front of an "NTSB judge." https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Pages/default.aspx

The FAA has stated that they are not likely going to be the first to act on an offender.
Here's a great document outlining the FAA's guidance to local Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA's) for investigating violations of the RULES:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/faa_uas-po_lea_guidance.pdf

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The FAA has stated that they are not likely going to be the first to act on an offender.
Here's a great document outlining the FAA's guidance to local Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA's) for investigating violations of the RULES:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/faa_uas-po_lea_guidance.pdf

Great info and have to agree - it cost money for the Feds to violate an individual. Many times in lieu of issuing a violation they will request the offender to take remedial training or do some type of "penance" so they don't have to get their lawyers involved.

 

[787steve]

Curiously, the NTSB appears to have a different view in the case of the incident Report with the Phantom/Helicopter crash, which was being discussed on a separate thread. Here is an excerpt from that report:

"During the incident flight, the pilot of the sUAS intentionally flew the aircraft 2.5 miles away, well beyond visual line of sight and was just referencing the map on his tablet; therefore, he was not aware that the helicopter was in close proximity to the sUAS. Although the pilot stated that he knew that the sUAS should be operated at an altitude below 400 ft, flight logs revealed that he had conducted a flight earlier on the evening of the incident, in which he exceeded 547 ft altitude at a distance of 1.8 miles, which was unlikely to be within visual line of sight."

It looks pretty clear to me that this UAV owner was getting his hands slapped HARD! VLOS as well as height. Not sure what the followup was on this case and certainly not clear as to what would happen if this was pursued to its fullest extent. Under Canadian law, it is clear what the restrictions are for non-commercial use. 90 metres height and 500 metres distance. Comments.

I'm not sure they can do anything about his 547' altitude. They seemed to combine the altitude and distance to say he probably violated VLOS, which seems obvious. But I don't think they could get a court to punish him if he was within the law, but outside recommendations. If he was sued for damages in a civil suit, that might be brought up with consequences. But I'm no attorney. Any legal experts reading this? I'd love to read your take on it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not sure they can do anything about his 547' altitude. They seemed to combine the altitude and distance to say he probably violated VLOS, which seems obvious. But I don't think they could get a court to punish him if he was within the law, but outside recommendations. If he was sued for damages in a civil suit, that might be brought up with consequences. But I'm no attorney. Any legal experts reading this? I'd love to read your take on it.

Remember, he was also operating during a TFR

 

[sar104]

I'm not sure they can do anything about his 547' altitude. They seemed to combine the altitude and distance to say he probably violated VLOS, which seems obvious. But I don't think they could get a court to punish him if he was within the law, but outside recommendations. If he was sued for damages in a civil suit, that might be brought up with consequences. But I'm no attorney. Any legal experts reading this? I'd love to read your take on it.

I think what I posted above in #87 is a pretty complete list of potential legal violations, as opposed to guideline violations.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think what I posted above in #87 is a pretty complete list of potential legal violations, as opposed to guideline violations.

Don't forget 91.13!

 

[rfc]

I think what I posted above in #87 is a pretty complete list of potential legal violations, as opposed to guideline violations.

Agreed. But you could be 100% within both the letter of the FAA statute/Rules as well as the Guidelines, and still be subject to being dragged in on Reckless Endangerment for operating your UAS in a careless or reckless manner. Once there's an "incident"...(I'm including a drone getting whacked by a chopper's rotor blades for example, an "incident"), all bets are off. You could be charged without the FAA even being involved.

 

[sar104]

Don't forget 91.13!

Definitely, but actually that is covered by its own specific Part 107 clause, 107.23.