will the FAA know if i fly over 400Ft?

[tcope]

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

Spotters don't qualify as VLOS under hobby flight. So if the operator themselves does not have VLOS, they are flying outside Section 336.

 

[tcope]

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.

That is incorrect. It's been pointed out _many_ times on this forum... and I think even right in this thread (I think 1/2 of this thread shows this to be true). There is no such regulation and the FAA has confirmed this in writing. It's black and white.

 

[Joely-Bird]

Although DJI will not 'report' you, it clearly says in the T&Cs that they will provide information and logs to relevant authorities if they are requested.

So at your own risk.

 

[sar104]

That is incorrect. It's been pointed out _many_ times on this forum... and I think even right in this thread (I think 1/2 of this thread shows this to be true). There is no such regulation and the FAA has confirmed this in writing. It's black and white.

It's not as if this is hard to figure out. 14 CFR Part 101 is readily available to read, and very short. The FAA determination is easy to find via a simple search. Multiple posts in this thread alone discussed it. And the link was in post #75.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf

 

[MavPro75]

Spotters don't qualify as VLOS under hobby flight. So if the operator themselves does not have VLOS, they are flying outside Section 336.

Qualification was NOT my point. Under part 107, the "visual observer", (correct term) must be qualified and briefed by the PIC. However, the hobbiest can still have a visual observer (not qualified). Both positions (VO) are optional

 

[sar104]

Qualification was NOT my point. Under part 107, the "visual observer", (correct term) must be qualified and briefed by the PIC. However, the hobbiest can still have a visual observer (not qualified). Both positions (VO) are optional

I think the distinction being made was just to clarify that while a visual observer can act as the person with VLOS under Part 107, that is not the case under Part 101, where the remote pilot must personally maintain VLOS.

 

[tcope]

It's not as if this is hard to figure out. 14 CFR Part 101 is readily available to read, and very short. The FAA determination is easy to find via a simple search. Multiple posts in this thread alone discussed it. And the link was in post #75.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf

I think part of the problem is many of the FAA webpages are misleading and even incorrect. A year ago they had been lying to people about this. They then even tried to make it a rule by adding it into the registration. You then have some people putting out bad videos (one is link in this thread)... they quote this as it applies to them as commercial use and never explain it does not apply to hobby flight. It does get a little frustrating saying the same thing over and over but I can also see why people don't know and I am here to (try to) help people.

 

[tcope]

Qualification was NOT my point. Under part 107, the "visual observer", (correct term) must be qualified and briefed by the PIC. However, the hobbiest can still have a visual observer (not qualified). Both positions (VO) are optional

You can have anything you like when hobby flying. I thought we were talking about what qualifies as VLOS under hobby flight. Saying something is "optional" is kind of misleading in that context.

 

[sar104]

I think part of the problem is many of the FAA webpages are misleading and even incorrect. A year ago they had been lying to people about this. They then even tried to make it a rule by adding it into the registration. You then have some people putting out bad videos (one is link in this thread)... they quote this as it applies to them as commercial use and never explain it does not apply to hobby flight. It does get a little frustrating saying the same thing over and over but I can also see why people don't know and I am here to (try to) help people.

It's true that the FAA webpages imply that various guidelines are rules. They also muddy the distinction between conditions that must be met to qualify as a Part 101 operation and rules that must be followed.

 

[MavPro75]

I think the distinction being made was just to clarify that while a visual observer can act as the person with VLOS under Part 107, that is not the case under Part 101, where the remote pilot must personally maintain VLOS.

Agree. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but even when a VO is used (Part 107) the PIC is still required to maintain VLOS. The duties of the VO are not only to maintain VLOS but to advise the operator of the controls/PIC of safety considerations, obstacles, traffic, etc, etc.

 

[sar104]

Agree. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but even when a VO is used (Part 107) the PIC is still required to maintain VLOS. The duties of the VO are not only to maintain VLOS but to advise the operator of the controls/PIC of safety considerations, obstacles, traffic, etc, etc.

No - under Part 107 the VO can replace the PIC for VLOS purposes.

Note the "or" in 107.31 (b)

§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;​

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.​

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or​

(2) A visual observer.​

 

[MavPro75]

No - under Part 107 the VO can replace the PIC for VLOS purposes.

Note the "or" in 107.31 (4) (b)

§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:​

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or​

(2) A visual observer.​

You have definitely cleared up an important distinction for me. Thanks

 

[MavPro75]

You can have anything you like when hobby flying. I thought we were talking about what qualifies as VLOS under hobby flight. Saying something is "optional" is kind of misleading in that context.

I was not trying to be misleading. Apologies for being misleading

 

[msinger]

That is incorrect. It's been pointed out _many_ times on this forum... and I think even right in this thread (I think 1/2 of this thread shows this to be true). There is no such regulation and the FAA has confirmed this in writing. It's black and white.

While it's true there is no 400 foot rule for hobbyists, we are required to operate "in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" (per Public Law 112-95, Section 336). Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means (the FAA will play dumb if you ask them to explain it). If you think it means you must follow the AMA Safety Code (for example), then you might be restricted to flying below ~400 feet AGL.

 

[tcope]

Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means (the FAA will play dumb if you ask them to explain it). If you think it means you must follow the AMA Safety Code (for example), then you might be restricted to flying below ~400 feet AGL.

Of course they don't want to explain... just leave it open to their advantage when they need. Odd.

I agree, it's unknown how that will be "interpreted". My 2 cents has always been, to allow someone to "manage" airspace but not contradict the FAA's authority. Though, that can actually make matters worse. The intent, IMHO, was to allow such things, lets say a racing quad event, to set rules for people participating. You can fly over 20' and you can't fly faster than 30mph. The FAA is not allowed to go after this even for governing the airspace. Look at Section 336... it's Congress telling the FAA what the _cannot_ do. It's saying, leave these simply hobby fliers alone if they are not bothering you.

But the AMA simply has _no_ power over non-AMA members.

 

[sar104]

Agree. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but even when a VO is used (Part 107) the PIC is still required to maintain VLOS. The duties of the VO are not only to maintain VLOS but to advise the operator of the controls/PIC of safety considerations, obstacles, traffic, etc, etc.

No - under Part 107 the VO can replace the PIC

While it's true there is no 400 foot rule for hobbyists, we are required to operate "in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" (per Public Law 112-95, Section 336). Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means (the FAA will play dumb if you ask them to explain it). If you think it means you must follow the AMA Safety Code (for example), then you might be restricted to flying below ~400 feet AGL.

Two observations though:

(1) the FAA has explicitly acknowledged that hobby flights may go above 400 ft when following community-based guidelines:

As stated in the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, and in historical references below, the 400 foot altitude limit is recommended and not a requirement of Section 336. Model aircraft may be flown consistently with Section 336 and agency guidance at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization's safety guidelines.​

(2) the AMA guidelines that you reference only refer to an altitude limit within 3 miles of an airport:

A.2 (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
​

Since Part 101 operations within 5 miles of an airport require notification to the airport operator anyway, that doesn't make much practical difference.

 

[msinger]

the AMA guidelines that you reference only refer to an altitude limit within 3 miles of an airport

They go into a little bit more detail here:

"AMA members who abide by the AMA Safety Code, which permits flights above 400 feet under appropriate circumstances, and are protected by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft under the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act."

I guess all that's left is to figure out what "appropriate circumstances" means. And that of course only applies to those following the AMA Safety Code.

 

[sar104]

They go into a little bit more detail here:

"AMA members who abide by the AMA Safety Code, which permits flights above 400 feet under appropriate circumstances, and are protected by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft under the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act."

I guess all that's left is to figure out what "appropriate circumstances" means. And that of course only applies to those following the AMA Safety Code.

That does not seem to add to or contradict anything in the actual AMA Safety Code that you linked earlier. Appropriate circumstances presumably require following the rest of the safety code, not endangering the NAS, and notifying the airport operator if within 3 miles (for flights over 400 ft) of an airport.

 

[Slayerstwin]

Only if you run it into an airplane and airport or something to that affect other than that no

 

[Rogue.Aircraft]

No they won't know. Also you don't have to register them anymore, that way if it goes down for some reason and causes a scene, it's not linked to you, and you're not on another government list.