THE RULES!!

[sar104]

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.

I agree - but that would be covered by 101.43 or 107.23.

 

[BIGLUG24]

I’m a bit confused.
I have an App that indicates I can not fly within 5 miles of an airport. The OP shows information stating 3 miles. I’m in CA if that matters.
Also... I’m curious. Do you guys actually pick up the phone and call the airport to let them know you plan to fly your drone today? What is their typical response? ‘Okay, have fun” don’t hit any of our planes”. I can’t imagine how this process works.
Please let me know what is actually happening in this regard.
Thanks!

There are some video's on how to contact the airport on YouTube you will need to tell them the time and how long you will be flying
also you need to give them the place you are planning on flying and the altitude you will be fling.

 

[787steve]

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.

In a search, I found only 23 enforcement actions from the FAA against drone operators.. Lowest fines were in hundreds of dollars, some were thousands, and one (commercial operator) was for over a e million. It seems they were really concentrated primarily in the north east. And several were over stadiums and events. Here is the best link I found to get the big picture.
The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined

Remember, he was also operating during a TFR

Absolutely! He has plenty of non compliance issues to be concerned about.
The TRF, and the VLOS issues, which lead to the conflict with a manned aircraft are easy to cite. I can easily imagine a number of others. I suspect he has already spent considerable cash for legal services. That reply was only addressing the altitude as we had been discussing the ghostly 400' issue.

From my short time here, I have I found a lot of ignorance in regard to the regs. That is why I started this post. I was looking for validation that my understanding was correct, or info to teach me where I was wrong. I have also found a lot of "I think the regs are stupid, so I'm going to do what I want" attitude. You can fix ignorance by showing the facts. Arrogance is not a problem, it is a choice.
This offender MIGHT get a little more gentle handling if he pleads ignorance. But if he goes with the other attitude, or if they find that he has publicly expressed his lack of concern for the law, .......well, take a deep breath,,, because this is going to hurt.

 

[ascension]

I think there are a lot of swings and misses in these last few pages.
There seems to be an abundance of looking to the FAA regs for guessing what will happen, along with not knowing how these things will get adjudicated, and by who.
It makes no sense to consider certificate action. The world, at least in the US does not see this as pilots busting FAR's.
It will be prosecuted as negligence, much the same as operating anything in your control without common sense caution.
Buying a drone does not make you a certificate holder, and FAA regs or not, if you operate anything negligently and cause damage or injury, the FAA is the least of your worries.
The lack of specific mention of altitudes/line of sight or anything else does not indemnify one from operating responsibly.
Being a hobby operator of a drone does not make you a pilot who would face part 91/135 or 121 certificate action.

 

[787steve]

I think there are a lot of swings and misses in these last few pages.
There seems to be an abundance of looking to the FAA regs for guessing what will happen, along with not knowing how these things will get adjudicated, and by who.
It makes no sense to consider certificate action. The world, at least in the US does not see this as pilots busting FAR's.
It will be prosecuted as negligence, much the same as operating anything in your control without common sense caution.
Buying a drone does not make you a certificate holder, and FAA regs or not, if you operate anything negligently and cause damage or injury, the FAA is the least of your worries.
The lack of specific mention of altitudes/line of sight or anything else does not indemnify one from operating responsibly.
Being a hobby operator of a drone does not make you a pilot who would face part 91/135 or 121 certificate action.

True, but they can fine you.

 

[ascension]

True, but they can fine you.

Which would be the least of your worries.
This is no different than operating your lawn mower or any other equipment.
Doing it negligently, and causing damage or injury is going to get people in far more trouble than anything the FAA might do.
The fact that the FAA does not consider certificate action against a drone issue is an indication of they think.
In other words, a private, commercial or ATP is not threatened by anything one does with a drone.
That is not true if you are an ATP holder and do something in a Bonanza.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Being a hobby operator of a drone does not make you a pilot who would face part 91/135 or 121 certificate action.

The Feds will use part 91.13 and possibly other parts of part 91 against a hobbyist if deemed the violation warranted it. Don't know if you're familiar with FSIMS, I'll re-post

"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."

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

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu

 

[787steve]

You are correct. I think the biggest shock a drone operator could get would be that envelope from XXX, Attorney at Law, representing the plaintiff. The FAA is limited as to what they can fine you. I think the guy who landed on the White House lawn only got hit for a few thousand dollars. But if a drone operator hurt someone, or worse, especially if violating the rules, I suspect he would be hit for punitive damages. You know, the ones where they add all the zeroes they can find at the right end of the number.

As far as your statement about Certificate action, do you know that to be true, or is it opinion? Can you post links to docs?
Not a challenge, an honest desire to know.
I started this thread to bring about honest discussion about the facts of what are, and are not "The Rules." It was my desire that we post docs to insure to everyone that they can KNOW that what they read here is factual
Thanks for your input.

 

[ascension]

I am very familiar with 91.13 and other regs in 91 and 121.

In the gross preponderance of likely suits, it is going to be common negligence that is going to result in any civil action, not something aviation related, and the penalties would be far more significant than anything the FAA is going to go after.

 

[ascension]

As far as your statement about Certificate action, do you know that to be true, or is it opinion? Can you post links to docs?
Not a challenge, an honest desire to know.
I started this thread to bring about honest discussion about the facts of what are, and are not "The Rules." It was my desire that we post docs to insure to everyone that they can KNOW that what they read here is factual
Thanks for your input.

I absolutely know it to be true.
In fact, it comes up all the time when airline pilots consider purchasing one.
Because of the relatively basic technology of these things, (see all the uncontrolled flyaway threads), airline folks who make their living flying always ask if any goofy drone thing could result in certificate action.
A lot wouldn't buy one if that was a threat.
The FAA has suspended certificates for all kinds of things not directly related to a flight violations, but regarding your other certificates, they don't care about what you do with your drone.

 

[787steve]

RECENTERING.
I started this thread as a noob. I have been a professional pilot for 45 years. Yes, I know. Let me know when you are through laughing at the old geezer with a Mavic. Ok. The first thing I did was to try to find out what regs and laws I needed to be aware of. As a professional, I have a thing about flying safely AND legally. On this board I found a lot of totally contradictory statements about what the laws were, and even statements saying that there were no laws affecting hobbyists. I set out to find "THE Rules". I found a little here, a little there. I thought I had all I needed, but I did not know if I had misinterpreted some of what I found, or if I had missed other docs that I should have read.. The FAA site was no great help.

I posted what I had found, and what I thought it meant. I stated what I thought it meant to me. I then asked input validating my understanding, or correcting me. I asked for links to the original docs. I was not looking for opinions, or thoughts on how well thought out the laws were. Just what ARE "THE RULES".

I have learned several new things here. For instance, no one can find a doc that says 400'AGL is a "LEGAL" limit for hobbyists. (AMA says not above 400' within 3 miles of airport without notifying first).
I learned today that if you don't follow the rules in SEC 336, you are held to be under Part 107. I had erroneously thought as Part 107 as being strictly for commercial applications. (Thanks FLYBOY, SAR, and others)

My hope was that this thread would be a good place for noobs to come if they want to know what "THE RULOES" are. With the facts and links to the docs provided.

I am afraid we (including me) have drifted a bit from making this the source I hoped it could be. Perhaps this isn't the best way to go about producing what I hoped would come to be. AND I KNOW THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THEY THINK. This is not an attempt to limit free speech, but I would like to request that we try to concentrate on the original idea. If someone wants to start a thread of how they disagree with the law, or think it is poorly constructed, I am sure it would be popular. Knowing what people feel about how to operate, or how they feel about the reasonability of the laws and regs doesn't really help people in search of facts as to what "THE RULES" are. So could we (including me) try to avoid conjecture and opinionstick to the subject as best we can. as bes

If I remember the original post, I think I closed with "Fire Away!"
Fly safe, fly legal, and have fun.
Fire AWAY!

 

[postman061]

Kudos.

You just demonstrated with this one post, that you know more than most will ever know.

Folks, it’s called common sense.

 

[zezrum]

Folks, it’s called common sense.

Too bad that item isn't sold as part of the fly more package.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

RECENTERING.
I started this thread as a noob. I have been a professional pilot for 45 years. Yes, I know. Let me know when you are through laughing at the old geezer with a Mavic. Ok. The first thing I did was to try to find out what regs and laws I needed to be aware of. As a professional, I have a thing about flying safely AND legally. On this board I found a lot of totally contradictory statements about what the laws were, and even statements saying that there were no laws affecting hobbyists. I set out to find "THE Rules". I found a little here, a little there. I thought I had all I needed, but I did not know if I had misinterpreted some of what I found, or if I had missed other docs that I should have read.. The FAA site was no great help.

I posted what I had found, and what I thought it meant. I stated what I thought it meant to me. I then asked input validating my understanding, or correcting me. I asked for links to the original docs. I was not looking for opinions, or thoughts on how well thought out the laws were. Just what ARE "THE RULES".

I have learned several new things here. For instance, no one can find a doc that says 400'AGL is a "LEGAL" limit for hobbyists. (AMA says not above 400' within 3 miles of airport without notifying first).
I learned today that if you don't follow the rules in SEC 336, you are held to be under Part 107. I had erroneously thought as Part 107 as being strictly for commercial applications. (Thanks FLYBOY, SAR, and others)

My hope was that this thread would be a good place for noobs to come if they want to know what "THE RULOES" are. With the facts and links to the docs provided.

I am afraid we (including me) have drifted a bit from making this the source I hoped it could be. Perhaps this isn't the best way to go about producing what I hoped would come to be. AND I KNOW THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THEY THINK. This is not an attempt to limit free speech, but I would like to request that we try to concentrate on the original idea. If someone wants to start a thread of how they disagree with the law, or think it is poorly constructed, I am sure it would be popular. Knowing what people feel about how to operate, or how they feel about the reasonability of the laws and regs doesn't really help people in search of facts as to what "THE RULES" are. So could we (including me) try to avoid conjecture and opinionstick to the subject as best we can. as bes

If I remember the original post, I think I closed with "Fire Away!"
Fly safe, fly legal, and have fun.
Fire AWAY!

First of all, no one is laughing at someone getting involved with one of the fastest growing, useful , and downright fun, technologies to come along in decades, be you a manned pilot, bus driver or anything else. I know personally of manned pilots of every variety who are now flying UAS, both recreationally or commercially. I did a bit of flying myself, in my younger days.

The reason you are having difficulty getting additional input, is because you pretty much compiled everything there is on the subject, at the present time. And IMO, it does indeed contain ambiguities and grey areas.

This is part of the frustration of being involved in an evolving industry/field although it is to be expected, and probably for the best. I would rather see some ambiguity, grey area, and downright lack of regulation, than the "creating a solution before there is a problem" approach.

That said, until congress revises their view on recreational UAS, there is going to be a lot of inconsistency and void.

You did a good job finding what there was to find.

 

[Mad Mavic]

One major difference between the pilot flying on instruments and the quad pilot flying FPV or on a display is that the airplane pilot is on an IFR clearance. He has a transponder that allows ATC to be his eyes for traffic all around him. The drone pilot can see only a small portion of the sky.

There is a lot of confusion about VLOS. I wonder if you know that to be VLOS does not mean that you cannot also look at your screen. You only have to be able to see the aircraft, not never look away.

Just wanted to give my two cents worth:

VFR or IFR, drone pilots are safe as long as they stay at their max AGL or below. HOWEVER, there are the evac helos and ultralight pilots, the latter being the most vernable to drone traffic, due mostly to their flighing low and slow.

I’m not looking through the eye of a young man either so VLOS would mean I get to sit at my kitchen table and look at what I think is my drone sitting in front of me LOL. I’m 60, have a private pilots license, single engine land. I have a fair amount of data gathering sites with which I use to tell me where aircraft are in my area, which are on average far above1000 feet AGL.

There are two evac helos in my area, unless approaching an LZ ( I once served as a first responder with the local fire department and have been involved in several airlifts whet I was in command of LZ prep) are in no way near my choices of flight paths. LZ’s for example, are for obvious reasons, in open areas as near a crash site as possible, not long distances from roads. Otherwise EMS personell would be trekking over rough turrain with critical patients strapped to their gurneys.

I bought my Mavic to fly. I’ve stretched the limits of distance which go far beyond VLOS rules but at some point we have to be allowed to use our learned knowledge and common sense.

I know a few VFR pilots who tried to duck under the clouds only to crash into power lines. Those are the pilots a drone is more likely to incounter at 400 feet AGL.

Then there is the big sky rule; which by the way is the only reason we can safely fly in the first place. Imagine two fruit flies in the Super Bowl. The chances of them colliding are slim to none. The same goes for aerospace, but as aviation has advanced there are a lot more fruit flies out there, but it’s still a big sky.

In summary, I suggest if you’re going to fly a drone, educate yourself on what’s in your airspace. If you can’t resist flying above the designated altitude limit, then get another hobby.

For every 500 feet you assend, you engage invisible highways in the sky. Each having aircraft flying in different directions based on their altitude as to not crash into each other in head on collisions. Most of all, stay away from airports, period. Clearance or no clearance. There are young student pilots learning maneuvers and all they need is a drone smashing into their aircraft during a white knuckle approach to land. Better yet, go out to your local airport and pay the $50 for an intro flight give it a go. Hopefully in doing so, you’ll walk away with a new perspective of air traffic, and what it’s like to be in a real aircraft as opposed to an airplane.

Happy flying and think before takeoff

 

[gvg3]

Hi 787steve (#1),..... most of your questions are addressed in FAR/AIM which is from the U.S. Dept. Of Transportation- Titles 14 and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. For example the 400 ft/agl rule is covered under 14 CFR 107.51. The rules are real and readable.... [emoji106]. Happy, safe flying,....

 

[usrmesarge]

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

agreed: didn't get to be this age by making questionable decisions. Well ever since I turned 39, sometimes we take chance when young as I did served 20 yrs in the ARMY.

 

[Classic flyer]

agreed: didn't get to be this age by making questionable decisions. Well ever since I turned 39, sometimes we take chance when young as I did served 20 yrs in the ARMY.

Thankyou for your dedicated service to our country...be smart fly safe