400ft. Rule??? Or recommended?????

[Barmenta]

Maybe I have missed it, but is there an actual law that has been written lately that prohibits Unmanned aircraft to fly above 400ft AGL???
Some statements by the FAA say do not fly above 400 ft, like in the registration form, however that doesn't make it a law or regulation.
This is all I have seen on the FAA website:

The FAA has partnered with several industry associations to promote Know Before You Fly, a campaign to educate the public about using unmanned aircraft safely and responsibly. Individuals flying for hobby or recreation are strongly encouraged to follow safety guidelines, which include:

• Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
• Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
• Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
• Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
• Don't fly near people or stadiums
• Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
• Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

 

[LuvMyTJ]

This was asked in a Q & A with the AMA and they stated AMA members were still allowed 400+ flights under some circumstances. There is no 'law', but it is a strongly recommended but sometimes not feasible. It seems a bit ambiguous at best aside from the fact they allow minors to register themselves. What are you actually agreeing to when registering? No one seems to be able to provide a good explanation.

 

[User Name]

This was asked in a Q & A with the AMA and they stated AMA members were still allowed 400+ flights under some circumstances. There is no 'law', but it is a strongly recommended but sometimes not feasible. It seems a bit ambiguous at best aside from the fact they allow minors to register themselves. What are you actually agreeing to when registering? No one seems to be able to provide a good explanation.

Ambiguity often results from rushed, knee jerk reactions, which this obviously has been.

A cop friend of mine once told me "If you're going to brake the law, just don't brake more than one at a time". I suppose if you have a need/desire to fly over 400 feet, it's not technically illegal, but it'd be advisable to make darn sure you're not pushing the other rules at the same time. If you're near an airport, you can coordinate with them to clear a flight higher, and they'll presumably relay that information to local traffic.

Even with the rules, we're still swimming in uncharted waters.

 

[tomnjfl]

To be honest, I've never really understood the need to fly over 400' anyway. If I put my Solo up to 100', or even 200', the footage from the GoPro loses detail and becomes sort of useless. I admit that when I first got it, I went right up to 400+' on one of my first flights...but since then I don't think I've flown over 100' once.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Maybe I have missed it, but is there an actual law that has been written lately that prohibits Unmanned aircraft to fly above 400ft AGL???
Some statements by the FAA say do not fly above 400 ft, like in the registration form, however that doesn't make it a law or regulation.
This is all I have seen on the FAA website:

The FAA has partnered with several industry associations to promote Know Before You Fly, a campaign to educate the public about using unmanned aircraft safely and responsibly. Individuals flying for hobby or recreation are strongly encouraged to follow safety guidelines, which include:

• Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
• Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
• Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
• Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
• Don't fly near people or stadiums
• Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
• Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

You may want to read the AMA guidelines. The 400' "rule" exists as it provides for a small safety buffer between minimum altitudes for aircraft.
S'cuse my french, but all it's going to take is for one f**kwad to strike aircraft with their drone because "there is no rule, just a recommendation" and we'll all be grounded for a long, long time. Yes, if you file a 7711-1 with the FSDO, and if you follow all the other rules, then you can fly above 400', but it's not a right, it's a privilege, one that must be asked and accomodated by the Flight Services Director's Office/FSDO.

It's already becoming tiring explaining that the air is not free. Pilots have specific rules to follow, and one of them is "you may not fly below 500' when not on approach/takeoff." They too, have specific moments they can fly lower, with permission, just as you may fly your UAV higher than 400' with permission.

Whether it's a rule or recommendation, please observe them/it. Recommendations turn into Advisory Circulars, and AC's eventually turn into "rules" aka laws. If there are no problems, there will be no rush to turn Recommendations into AC's or fast-tracked into laws.

Drone operators could do well to learn what it takes to be a "real pilot." Even the most basic skydiver is required to know the basics of Part 91, Part 105, and Part 65 before they're given licenses to jump. Part 105, although exclusively related to Parachute Operations, would at the least help you understand the minimal guidelines for air activity outside of human-carrying aircraft. Drone owners would do well to understand the FARS/CARS (depending on whether you're in Canada or USA).
Specifically, FAR 103, 105, 101 are applicable to our world.

 

[User Name]

To be honest, I've never really understood the need to fly over 400' anyway. If I put my Solo up to 100', or even 200', the footage from the GoPro loses detail and becomes sort of useless. I admit that when I first got it, I went right up to 400+' on one of my first flights...but since then I don't think I've flown over 100' once.

In the right environment, I can see the need/desire. I live near a ridgeline that's over 250 feet high at points. If I'm in front of it, and want to drop down from above, 400 feet AGL only puts me 150 feet over the top of the ridge.

But yea, for the most part, I'm rarely over 200-250 feet. Only other reason I'd love to go higher to to skim through the edges of clouds. They're just so cool looking up close.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

In the right environment, I can see the need/desire. I live near a ridgeline that's over 250 feet high at points. If I'm in front of it, and want to drop down from above, 400 feet AGL only puts me 150 feet over the top of the ridge.

But yea, for the most part, I'm rarely over 200-250 feet. Only other reason I'd love to go higher to to skim through the edges of clouds. They're just so cool looking up close.

Clouds are indeed, wonderful to fly through. Pity that it's illegal to do so, for aircraft, skydivers, and drone operators.

FAR 105.17 Sec 9

• When the flight visibility or the distance from any cloud is less than that prescribed in the following table:
• Below 10000 feet: 3 mile visibility, 500 feet below/1000 feet above/2000 feet horizontal
• Above 10000 feet: 5 mile visibility, 1000 feet below/1000 feet above/1 mile horizontal

These are an extension/copy of the VFR flight rules, applicable to all persons or objects in the air.

 

[User Name]

Clouds are indeed, wonderful to fly through. Pity that it's illegal to do so, for aircraft, skydivers, and drone operators.

FAR 105.17 Sec 9

• When the flight visibility or the distance from any cloud is less than that prescribed in the following table:
• Below 10000 feet: 3 mile visibility, 500 feet below/1000 feet above/2000 feet horizontal
• Above 10000 feet: 5 mile visibility, 1000 feet below/1000 feet above/1 mile horizontal

These are an extension/copy of the VFR flight rules, applicable to all persons or objects in the air.

Well, once you're inside them, they're not that pretty, but skimming the edges is amazing. Always loved them when I used to fly with my father in his little Cessna. One time we left St. Augustine, Florida, just before sunset on our way to Melbourne from NY. There were broken clouds just above our altitude and when the sun was setting, they all lit up in various shades of orange, gold and pink. It was one of the most beautiful sights I've ever seen.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Well, once you're inside them, they're not that pretty, but skimming the edges is amazing. Always loved them when I used to fly with my father in his little Cessna. One time we left St. Augustine, Florida, just before sunset on our way to Melbourne from NY. There were broken clouds just above our altitude and when the sun was setting, they all lit up in various shades of orange, gold and pink. It was one of the most beautiful sights I've ever seen.

I couldn't agree more. Nothing more beautiful than flying next to a cloud in a wingsuit, one hand in the mist and the other out in the clear air. Some of us chase that very hard, but we don't post the videos; the FAA is indeed watching and they *will* bust any pilot, skydiver, and (I'll assume) dronie that they catch.

Skydivers and pilots have been fined. I don't know of any dronies.

The FAA Says You Can't Post Drone Videos on YouTube

The FAA/Transport Canada is no longer busting people for "commercial flying" but they will bust people if they can demonstrate airspace violations.

 

[User Name]

I couldn't agree more. Nothing more beautiful than flying next to a cloud in a wingsuit, one hand in the mist and the other out in the clear air. Some of us chase that very hard, but we don't post the videos; the FAA is indeed watching and they *will* bust any pilot, skydiver, and (I'll assume) dronie that they catch.

So is simply skimming the edges breaking the rules, even if you don't go inside?

There's a valley right in front of the local ridge line and when the conditions are right, you'll get really low clouds there in the early morning. They'll burn off as soon as the sun gets a ways up in the sky, and I've never managed to get to a location soon enough to fly, but I've wanted to skim the edges with the Solo. They'd probably be well below 400 feet, so there's the possibility to getting some footage above them as well, with the ridge rising above a "floor" of clouds.

 

[erikgraham]

So is simply skimming the edges breaking the rules, even if you don't go inside?

There's a valley right in front of the local ridge line and when the conditions are right, you'll get really low clouds there in the early morning. They'll burn off as soon as the sun gets a ways up in the sky, and I've never managed to get to a location soon enough to fly, but I've wanted to skim the edges with the Solo. They'd probably be well below 400 feet, so there's the possibility to getting some footage above them as well, with the ridge rising above a "floor" of clouds.

That's fog. When does fog become a cloud? I have no clue... but if it's hugging the ground it's fog. Anyway, be careful about flying through fog, especially in winter. Props can ice up making it hard to fly or just straight out causing a crash.

 

[Barmenta]

I agree that someone is going to screw it up for everyone else. I am a commercial helicopter pilot and the most likely target, although I am much more likely to hit a medium size bird. Been flying RC aircraft for 30yrs and there are certainly safe places to fly above 400ft. Unfortunately when things become cheap and easy to fly the morons come out of the woodwork. They don't learn to respect the responsibility. Same reason I will never get to drive a flying car!! Bummer......

 

[EyeWingsuit]

So is simply skimming the edges breaking the rules, even if you don't go inside?

There's a valley right in front of the local ridge line and when the conditions are right, you'll get really low clouds there in the early morning. They'll burn off as soon as the sun gets a ways up in the sky, and I've never managed to get to a location soon enough to fly, but I've wanted to skim the edges with the Solo. They'd probably be well below 400 feet, so there's the possibility to getting some footage above them as well, with the ridge rising above a "floor" of clouds.

If it's ground hugging, as Erik mentions, it's not a cloud, it's fog. When does fog become a cloud? 500AGL
Then there is the "real answer." But it doesn't really properly answer the question, as it's not something aviation would normally be concerned with. Legally, drones must fly in VFR (visual flight rules) conditions only.

 

[Steve K]

There is no federal law to stay 400' and below yet but there will be soon. Be sure to check your local laws. Here in MA there is law that limits the minimum altitude of Helis to 300' daytime and 500' night. It has nothing to do with FAA rules and regs.

Please don't ask me to cite the law in question. This was given to me by local pilots offices in heliports close to me. It is what they follow and is why they tell me not to bother to call them when flying my quad below 300'. I happily cede the extra 100' in the name of safety and convenience of not having to call.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

There is no federal law to stay 400' and below yet but there will be soon. Be sure to check your local laws. Here in MA there is law that limits the minimum altitude of Helis to 300' daytime and 500' night. It has nothing to do with FAA rules and regs.

Please don't ask me to cite the law in question. This was given to me by local pilots offices in heliports close to me. It is what they follow and is why they tell me not to bother to call them when flying my quad below 300'. I happily cede the extra 100' in the name of safety and convenience of not having to call.

According to BVA KBOS ATCT Version F – 1/2/2016, it's actually a 1000' minimum with special exceptions excluded.

Helicopter Routes:

(a). Helicopter routes (found on the “Boston Heli” VFR chart on SkyVector) may be issued to fixed-wing or helicopter aircraft: ie; Boston Class B airspace via the QUARE route, maintain VFR at 1,500, report landing assured at the Boston Medical Center.
(b). When it is necessary to issue an altitude to a helicopter that will be transitioning the Class B airspace and it will not be operating on a published helicopter route, do not assign an altitude below 1,000’ MSL.
(c). Once the aircraft reports “landing assured”, a frequency change may be issued. The helicopter must then call back for a Class B airspace clearance when ready to depart the helipad.​

TRACON guides are published on the web; these are not laws, but rather "rules." Each area may have its own TRACON rules used by that area's offices in order to comply with federal law while keeping the peace with local communities or industries, and keeping air traffic safely flowing in an orderly manner.

It's not harmful to anyone to know about these routes and standard practices, and a good way to learn more about specifics in one's area.

 

[Steve K]

Look closely at paragraph c. It is pretty vague. I do believe this is law.

14 CFR 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Look closely at paragraph c. It is pretty vague. I do believe this is law.

14 CFR 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

CFR Part 91 *is* law. CFR's are governed by the FAA. However, local ordinances and rules may apply so long as they don't attempt to supercede or obviate federal law. CFR's are Code of Federal Regulations and are the backbone of the FAR's.
My point above is that the Boston/BVA KBOS minimum rules are greater/higher than federal requirements except in specific circumstances. The reason is noise abatement.

 

[Anttler]

Just skimming this thread bring shivers down my spine. Skimming clouds, unwillingness to follow FAA recommendations, looking for loop holes in regulations to justify flying outside recommendations. People with no understanding of the national airspace system flying drones within it. This is very scary stuff and the reason the FAA is pushing so hard to further regulate drone use.

Here are some airspace facts. Uncontrolled airspace extends from the surface to 1200' AGL over most of the United states, within 5 miles of an uncontrolled airport the uncontrolled airspace extends from the surface to 700' unless that airport has been designated as having controlled airspace to the surface. If within 4 miles of an airport with an operating control tower controlled airspace also extends to the surface. Within 5 miles of a class C airport the controlled airspace extends to the surface. In most cases if withing 5 miles of a class B airport you will also have controlled airspace to the ground, though class B airspace is tailored for each airports needs. Anyway a drone should never be flown within controlled airspace, there could be conflict with aircraft. Its the complexity of this airspace that has the FAA saying not to be flown within 5 miles of an airport, it would be great if the FAA said you can't fly drones withing controlled airspace, this would open up some flying areas that is now off limits. The thing is you'd have some dork who would correctly claim that a flight 1/2 off of an uncontrolled airport runway at a altitude of 400' was legal, and if the regulation was changed this would be correct, you'd have trouble quickly. Skimming this post I think we are going to have problems soon anyway.

Why do they choose 400'? Well I think it was explained above. There is an minimum aircraft altitude of 500' when flying over uncontested population areas. So by keeping drones 400' or below they are providing airspace separation between aircraft and drones. Over congested areas fixed wing aircraft must remain above 1000' of the surface, yet helicopters are be regulation allowed to fly lower, honestly we are sort of luck they FAA in only asking us to stay below 400' in congested areas, and 2 miles from Heliports.

If drone owner continue to break the rules and not fall into compliance we will end up with a drone certificate, all drones over a certain weight needing to be registered (not drone owners having to be registered,) a FAA drone certificate and testing needed to fly drones, a new section of CFR's for drone operating, and weather limitations.

For God's sake! flying drones through clouds.... scary! You're going to kill someone.

This is from a 30 year pilot, who owns a flight school, holds a CFI and ATP certificate, and is a drone enthusiast.

 

[Anttler]

That's fog. When does fog become a cloud? I have no clue... but if it's hugging the ground it's fog. Anyway, be careful about flying through fog, especially in winter. Props can ice up making it hard to fly or just straight out causing a crash.

Fog is always a cloud. Drones should be flown in VFR conditions and if you see "fog" the visibility is well below 3 miles.

 

[User Name]

Just skimming this thread bring shivers down my spine. Skimming clouds, unwillingness to follow FAA recommendations, looking for loop holes in regulations to justify flying outside recommendations. People with no understanding of the national airspace system flying drones within it. This is very scary stuff and the reason the FAA is pushing so hard to further regulate drone use.

Settle down Skippy.

If you're referring to my comments, please take a moment to step down from your soapbox and re-read them. My example(s) of skimming clouds were A - a desire but not a plan to do it, based on experience seeing clouds close up. I have a desire to experience 200mph on my Hayabusa, but no plan to actually do it. And B - very low level clouds/fog that, in certain weather conditions, get pushed down into a narrow valley and probably top out at maybe 250 feet. I don't mean to be flippant, but if I encounter an airplane, in a cloud/dense fog, at 250 feet AGL, in a narrow valley... my Solo is the least of the pilot's troubles.

My example of flying over 400 feet was in front of a ridge line in excess of 250 feet itself. If I'm 50 feet back from the face and 200 feet above it's peak, I'm technically 450 AGL. Would I be breaking the rules? But for 50 feet, I suppose I would be. But the same would be true of an airplane in that same location - 50 feet to one side, and that airplane would be well below a 500 foot minimum.

And many businesses in this area proudly display aerial photographs of this ridge, taken well before the advent of these drones, and by the views, from planes that were themselves seriously pushing, if not outright violating a 500 foot minimum altitude.

I wholeheartedly agree that everyone involved should act to avoid any interactions with aircraft. But I'm also realistic in that black and white rules/regulations will never cover every possible situation, and in those, people need to very carefully consider the implications of their choices. Rules are pushed all the time be people on all sides of all fences. It's as naive to suggest otherwise as it is to suggest everyone should obey the speed limit at all times, always user their blinker on every turn, never park on a shoulder, etc.

My point was that if there's an occasion where one might want to push a limit, they should make damn sure it's not going to put anyone else at risk. That's not a suggestion that someone should do it, but rather an acknowledgement that people inevitably will do it on occasion. Better to have people push a rule with ample caution and consideration, than to berate them so they go off and do it anyway with no caution or consideration.