will the FAA know if i fly over 400Ft?

[the88man]

This guy explains it well. Pretty much when ever you are going to make money 107 is needed. Government looking for there as always.

 

[tcope]

The problem, I think, is not the overregulation of Part 107 but the lack of regulation of Part 101, and that stems directly from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that prevented the FAA from regulating hobby UAV flight.

Bingo!

The FAA is in charge of regulating aircraft, which include drones. Congress put a limit on this for hobby use. That is, Congress was saying if a person just wants to fly a model plane for fun, they should not need to jump through 50 million hoops that the FAA creates.

Times have changed.

 

[geigy]

The FAA will not know if you fly over 400'. This is not why I fly below 400 feet, though. I do it because I want to maximize the safety of manned aircraft, and I accept the FAA to give good advice in this regard. I risk losing $1000 every time I fly. Manned pilots risk losing their lives.

 

[tcope]

The FAA will not know if you fly over 400'. This is not why I fly below 400 feet, though. I do it because I want to maximize the safety of manned aircraft, and I accept the FAA to give good advice in this regard. I risk losing $1000 every time I fly. Manned pilots risk losing their lives.

So you never fly further then 400' away nor out of sight?

 

[tracer bullet]

I think you added "out of sight "to his statement, which he did not mention.

Anyhow, I haven't been asked, but I don't go over 400' from my take-off point (120 meters set in my app). It's not tough to stay below that and have fun, that's pretty high to start with.

I do fly outside LOS, but only when I can see the airspace above and around where my drone is. It may be 1/4 mile away or behind a tree in a field, and in both cases I can't see it. But I can see the open airspace above it and anything else there or headed there, so that I could immediately stop forward motion and begin descending if needed. Also not tough to do this and have a lot of fun.

Rules or no rules, as mentioned by others if you don't know WHY they are in place for others even if not for you, then there's a good chance you are putting others in danger. For me it's built-in nature to understand that I am in control of something in the air that is big enough to hurt someone, and to do what I can within reason to not have that end up as a result.

 

[FatherXmas]

I think you added "out of sight "to his statement, which he did not mention.

Anyhow, I haven't been asked, but I don't go over 400' from my take-off point (120 meters set in my app). It's not tough to stay below that and have fun, that's pretty high to start with.

I do fly outside LOS, but only when I can see the airspace above and around where my drone is. It may be 1/4 mile away or behind a tree in a field, and in both cases I can't see it. But I can see the open airspace above it and anything else there or headed there, so that I could immediately stop forward motion and begin descending if needed. Also not tough to do this and have a lot of fun.

Rules or no rules, as mentioned by others if you don't know WHY they are in place for others even if not for you, then there's a good chance you are putting others in danger. For me it's built-in nature to understand that I am in control of something in the air that is big enough to hurt someone, and to do what I can within reason to not have that end up as a result.

I do not understand why folks find it hard to believe someone can have fun and follow the rules. I had a guy on another forum flat call me a liar. I, like you, have 120 meters set as max height. Between myself and whoever happens to be my Visual Observer, as the FAA calls it and is usually my wife or one of the grand-kids, the AC is ALWAYS in line of sight.

 

[tcope]

Between myself and whoever happens to be my Visual Observer, as the FAA calls it and is usually my wife or one of the grand-kids, the AC is ALWAYS in line of sight.

So you are flying under 107 and not for hobby?

 

[tcope]

I think you added "out of sight "to his statement, which he did not mention.

He did not. I asked to show a point.

I do fly outside LOS, but only when I can see the airspace above and around where my drone is. It may be 1/4 mile away or behind a tree in a field, and in both cases I can't see it. But I can see the open airspace above it and anything else there or headed there, so that I could immediately stop forward motion and begin descending if needed.

So you _do_ break the rules and that is okay as long as it's the rule that you feel can be broken. Odd how that works. If I were at 400', I can see the airspace around the Mavic. If I'm at 450' I can see that _exact_ same airspace. If I'm at 500, 600, 800'... I can see that _exact_ same airspace. So by your own admission, this is perfectly fine. Actually, it's actually better as its also 100% legal. Unlike what you are doing.

With that said, do I care one bit that you are flying out of VLOS? Nope. I'm sure you _are_ flying in a safe manner. My point is that a person can fly beyond VLOS and be safe _and_ a person can fly over 400' and be safe. But flying over 400' would not automatically make you legally flying in an unsafe manner.... beyond VOL will. I don't see how someone can fly beyond VOL, say they are doing it in a safe manner but then somehow say that a person can't fly over 400' and also be flying safely.[/QUOTE]

 

[FatherXmas]

So you are flying under 107 and not for hobby?

I have my 107 and fly for fun most of the time.

 

[sar104]

I have my 107 and fly for fun most of the time.

That doesn't quite answer the question. When you are flying for fun, are you flying under Part 107 or Part 101?

 

[tracer bullet]

He did not. I asked to show a point.

Curious what point that was going to be? That he was a liar or something else?

So you _do_ break the rules

Do I, or do I not follow the guideline? It seems you think i'm breaking the rules by not following the line of sight guideline, while you advocate not following the 400' guideline.

FWIW I really don't disagree with anything you said, maybe the combative opinionated nature of it but not the gist of it. And I'm still learning and may just be wrong on the guideline thing.

 

[tcope]

I have my 107 and fly for fun most of the time.

If you are flying with a spotter, you are flying only under your 107. Not for hobby use. So all other 107 limitations apply at that time.

 

[tcope]

Curious what point that was going to be? That he was a liar or something else?

My point was to see what the reply would be and go from there. i have no need to call anyone a liar or be critical of the way they fly. I have _no_ issues with people flying beyond VLOS. What I am critical of is the people who want to tell people they are unsafe for flying above 400' (100% legal) yet they fly beyond VLOS (100% illegal).

Do I, or do I not follow the guideline? It seems you think i'm breaking the rules by not following the line of sight guideline, while you advocate not following the 400' guideline.

You are now arguing semantics. You need to bring semantics in because what I said was correct and it goes against what you stated. As I mentioned above, I have no need to criticize anyone on the way they fly, only in tell others not to do what they are doing. You choose to break the law and you think that is fine because _you_ think it's safe. Yet when someone else flies above 400' legally, you say they are unsafe. Odd that you get to be the judge in all cases. I'm not hear to correct you or anyone else, only let people see this form themselves and think about it. So I won't dwelling it.

FWIW I really don't disagree with anything you said, maybe the combative opinionated nature of it but not the gist of it.

Point taken and you are correct. It's something I'm working on. I'm less diplomatic and too brief. What I said above is true... I have no issues with people flying beyond VLOS (I do it _all of the time_). I also seldom fly above 400 (probably 10 times in... 700 flight). I do think people can do both and be safe. I do think flying to 1640' is a bit crazy though but I don't see it as really an issue. I think flying straight up 1640' is probably much more safe then flying out 1,2 or 3 miles.[/QUOTE]

 

[FatherXmas]

If you are flying with a spotter, you are flying only under your 107. Not for hobby use. So all other 107 limitations apply at that time.

That would be a true statement. With the exception of flying my Spark inside the house, not sure if that would fall under either one.

 

[sar104]

That would be a true statement. With the exception of flying my Spark inside the house, not sure if that would fall under either one.

That's correct - indoor flight is not regulated at all by the FAA because it is not in the NAS.

 

[tracer bullet]

Yet when someone else flies above 400' legally, you say they are unsafe. Odd that you get to be the judge in all cases.

I'm pretty sure I've never said anything to anyone that they shouldn't do that. I said you could have plenty of fun below it, but never said you shouldn't go above it or judged anyone on it. I guess my post did perhaps imply that, but it wasn't my intent, if it seemed that way then sorry for that.

I guess what I was trying to get at, albeit poorly, was that a person needed to understand why the guidelines (I said rules earlier, oops) were in place. If you didn't get the intent of the guidelines, and what was trying to be prevented, then you were likely flying in an unsafe manner. I feel I'm safe but will concede an argument to the contrary because something always could indeed happen.

 

[geigy]

So you never fly further then 400' away nor out of sight?

No - I didn't say either of those things. The FAA recommendation is a max of 400 feet above ground level, and I think this is a good idea because it provides a 100 foot buffer between my aircraft and manned aircraft. Safety first.

 

[MavPro75]

If you are flying with a spotter, you are flying only under your 107. Not for hobby use. So all other 107 limitations apply at that time.

A visual observer (spotter) is optional under 107 AND Hobby

 

[Steve Reed]

Or we just know that as a hobby flier, you can legally fly over 400'. No need to be an AMA member.

It does not matter what kind of member you are. You can not fly over 400' legally unless you are within 400' of a structure or tower then you can fly 400' over it.

 

[sar104]

It does not matter what kind of member you are. You can not fly over 400' legally unless you are within 400' of a structure or tower then you can fly 400' over it.

No - you are confusing Part 101 with Part 107. There is no legally binding altitude limit at all for hobby (Part 101) flights - only suggested guidelines.