They'll fix stupid the day your finally pull that stick out of your backside. Of all the "stupid" and selfish people out there flying their toys there has been one 'possible' incident that did not result in damage or loss of life. So lets put this into perspective and stop over reacting to the hype of perceived danger.
400ft. Rule??? Or recommended?????
- Thread starter Barmenta
- Start date
Just to be clear, I'm not saying drone/rc pilots should be reckless and that the guidelines are not generally advisable. I've been flying RC planes and helis for over 20 years, AMA member, etc... I follow the rules at airfields, stay away from manned traffic, pay my AMA dues so I'm not sure that I am the kind of person you're looking to school.
I keep seeing these posts that assume there is a problem when there isn't. Normally, high altitude flying is not necessary and by choice most people are operating well under 400 ft, but if I want to take a little journey up top to see the world and take a few photos and there is no law preventing me in doing, I don't see an issue with that. Furthermore, there shouldn't be any new laws dreamed up based on fear when there is no evidence this has ever caused injury, loss of property or life.
This thread was starting to sound like a bunch of crotchety old guys in a circle at the field. I'm saying look at the data, and even with all the new UAV traffic which includes reckless kids and newbe pilots, we've still never seen the type of incident take place that the fearmongers are touting.
I think it's funny how his three posts are all in this thread that he dug up from 10 months ago after joining yesterday. Kind of odd if you ask me but with the sales, there will always be new people joining. It's just interesting to see this particular thread brought back from the dead to beat a dead horse.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 731
- Reaction score
- 403
- Age
- 61
Don't you mean AK-47s? 
I see the similarities to Second Amendment issues to, but they're largely ephemeral. This isn't a give-an-inch, take a mile scenario here.
Listen:
If there is a perceived danger from our drones to the general public, real or imaginary and insert virtually any circumstance, there will be a gaggle of misinformed legislators rubbing together their hands and salivating over yet another way to restrict the right of the little man - er, I mean the public.
It has been this way since FDR and I don't see things changing much. People now look out of their way for a reason to cry, whimper, complain - and most of all, blame.
Why not simply do as much as possible to remain out of the public eye? All of us? Why deliberately attract attention by flying as far, as fast, or add high as possible when we know we're being observed? Sure, there are places these things can be done safely enough, but went take the chance? Most of us don't have 100 square acres to be as much of a jackass as we'd like. And never forget the spectre of the dreaded flyaway hanging over our heads like Damoclese' sword? All it takes is one minor accident where Solo might take off and do anything, anything at all.
One thing I know for damned sure: if I were fortunate enough to own my own flying field or club, every member would be tested for competency in the strictest manner possible.
A combo shooting range and flying field: sounds pretty good.
I see the similarities to Second Amendment issues to, but they're largely ephemeral. This isn't a give-an-inch, take a mile scenario here.
Listen:
If there is a perceived danger from our drones to the general public, real or imaginary and insert virtually any circumstance, there will be a gaggle of misinformed legislators rubbing together their hands and salivating over yet another way to restrict the right of the little man - er, I mean the public.
It has been this way since FDR and I don't see things changing much. People now look out of their way for a reason to cry, whimper, complain - and most of all, blame.
Why not simply do as much as possible to remain out of the public eye? All of us? Why deliberately attract attention by flying as far, as fast, or add high as possible when we know we're being observed? Sure, there are places these things can be done safely enough, but went take the chance? Most of us don't have 100 square acres to be as much of a jackass as we'd like. And never forget the spectre of the dreaded flyaway hanging over our heads like Damoclese' sword? All it takes is one minor accident where Solo might take off and do anything, anything at all.
One thing I know for damned sure: if I were fortunate enough to own my own flying field or club, every member would be tested for competency in the strictest manner possible.
A combo shooting range and flying field: sounds pretty good.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 435
- Age
- 61
So...you're aware of the incidents that have occurred when UAV operators don't obey the rules?
I sit on the FAA UAST team. I'm well-aware. I'm also well aware of the tests that have demonstrated total catastrophic failure of a jet engine should a Phantom battery go through it.
Further, most of us are aware of the real reason for the 400' rule. Apparently you're not. Great you once worked at P&W. I own part of an airplane that has two P&W PT6's on it. That doesn't make me an expert in understanding aviation. When I was 15 years old, I swept the floors in the studio while Fleetwood Mac was recording "Tusk." That doesn't make me the manager of the band, either. Working at P&W gives you no credibility at all.
If there is a stick in my ass, it's because over the years as an actual aviator (ranging from flying planes to jumping out of thousands of them, to owning them) I recognize the potential dangers of UAV in the NAS. Guys that are walking, talking examples of Dunning-Kruger affect my safety and my livelihood, and they serve to force restrictions on everyone because of their selfish, narcissistic, and dangerously ignorant "me-first" attitudes towards the rules.
"most people are operating well under 400 ft, but if I want to take a little journey up top to see the world and take a few photos and there is no law preventing me in doing, I don't see an issue with that. "
It is indeed law for commercial UAV pilots. It is currently a recommendation for hobbyists that thanks to people like you with cowboy attitudes, will be law for hobbyists in the next year.
Are you aware of gen-av and their restrictions? Are you aware of how the process works that WILL allow you to fly your drone "into outer space?" You can. There is a process involved. There is a process involved so you get to do what you want without increasing hazards to others. You think that Felix Baumgartner simply jumped out of a space capsule without the NAS being informed? Do you think Luke Aiken exited an aircraft at 25K without a parachute didn't notify ATC well in advance? Or that the Blue Angels simply fly through downtown Chicago without applying for and receiving a permit? Who issues those permits? Who notifies airmen that it's happening?
Do you think that Michael Bay decides to shut down downtown Chicago because he wants to make a film and "goddamnit, it's his right as an American?" Seriously?
I'd rather a stick up my ass than my head up my ass. Truly, being informed and educated is a valuable and useful thing. RIF.
Last edited:
Here are the FAA regulations, if your not a member of AMA, which has basically the same set of guidelines. You can use your own judgement as to what the definition of a guideline is. Fly for Fun
I suppose anyone on the side of personal freedom must be an "AK-50" toting republican. This is a problem with this country, people like to run their mouths without fact checking thus creating a wall of noise and misinformation on a variety of subjects.
The topic question had nothing to do with commercial or public safety operations. It wasn't a question of good practice, morals or responsibility. No one asked about shutting down major us cities to film a movie, or notifying the world of a redbull publicity stunt. So instead of playing internet parent telling people what you think they should do, how about we just discuss the facts?
June 21, 2016 Summary of small unmanned aircraft rule (part 107) - https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
This particular document outlines rules for commercial non-private use of UAS. At the very bottom of this document it clearly states "Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." In other words, the requirements listed in this document including certification as a pilot in command do not apply to the general public. In 112-95 the FAA defines a model aircraft as ..‘‘an unmanned aircraft’’ that is ‘‘(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.".
Here is the interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft from the FAA for section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
"I. Background of FAA Oversight of Model Aircraft Operations Historically, the FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within the statutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices that are ‘‘invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.’’ See 49 U.S.C. 40102 and 14 CFR 1.1. As aircraft, these devices generally are subject to FAA oversight and enforcement. However, consistent with FAA’s enforcement philosophy, FAA’s oversight of model aircraft has been guided by the risk that these operations present. The FAA first recognized in 1981 that ‘‘model aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface,’’ and recommended a set of voluntary operating standards for model aircraft operators to follow to mitigate these safety risks. See Advisory Circular 91–57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9, 1981). These operating standards included restricting operations over populated areas, limiting use of the devices around spectators until after the devices had been flight tested and proven airworthy; restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring that the devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft, and using observers to assist in operations." -- Source / gpo.gov https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-25/pdf/2014-14948.pdf
The simple answer to the question asked is NO, there is no law on the books requiring us to fly under 400 ft above the ground outside of the rules for operating in airspace classified by the FAA for all manned and unmanned flying devices. Keep in mind, to be excluded from the 107 rule you must satisfy all of the requirements including line of sight.
The FAA has a free smartphone app for identifying restricted airspace which as a drone pilot you DO need to be aware of.... B4UFLY Smartphone App
PS... I'm sorry for the earlier drama. I hope this brings some clarity to the topic. As for my aspirations of unmanned space flight, a waiver would be required for anything over 18k feet due to class A airspace restrictions. Rest assured crotchety old men of this forum, I'll request permission before entering into class A space with my unmanned spaceship if I ever make it that far.
The topic question had nothing to do with commercial or public safety operations. It wasn't a question of good practice, morals or responsibility. No one asked about shutting down major us cities to film a movie, or notifying the world of a redbull publicity stunt. So instead of playing internet parent telling people what you think they should do, how about we just discuss the facts?
June 21, 2016 Summary of small unmanned aircraft rule (part 107) - https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
This particular document outlines rules for commercial non-private use of UAS. At the very bottom of this document it clearly states "Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." In other words, the requirements listed in this document including certification as a pilot in command do not apply to the general public. In 112-95 the FAA defines a model aircraft as ..‘‘an unmanned aircraft’’ that is ‘‘(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.".
Here is the interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft from the FAA for section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
"I. Background of FAA Oversight of Model Aircraft Operations Historically, the FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within the statutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices that are ‘‘invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.’’ See 49 U.S.C. 40102 and 14 CFR 1.1. As aircraft, these devices generally are subject to FAA oversight and enforcement. However, consistent with FAA’s enforcement philosophy, FAA’s oversight of model aircraft has been guided by the risk that these operations present. The FAA first recognized in 1981 that ‘‘model aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface,’’ and recommended a set of voluntary operating standards for model aircraft operators to follow to mitigate these safety risks. See Advisory Circular 91–57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9, 1981). These operating standards included restricting operations over populated areas, limiting use of the devices around spectators until after the devices had been flight tested and proven airworthy; restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring that the devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft, and using observers to assist in operations." -- Source / gpo.gov https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-25/pdf/2014-14948.pdf
The simple answer to the question asked is NO, there is no law on the books requiring us to fly under 400 ft above the ground outside of the rules for operating in airspace classified by the FAA for all manned and unmanned flying devices. Keep in mind, to be excluded from the 107 rule you must satisfy all of the requirements including line of sight.
The FAA has a free smartphone app for identifying restricted airspace which as a drone pilot you DO need to be aware of.... B4UFLY Smartphone App
PS... I'm sorry for the earlier drama. I hope this brings some clarity to the topic. As for my aspirations of unmanned space flight, a waiver would be required for anything over 18k feet due to class A airspace restrictions. Rest assured crotchety old men of this forum, I'll request permission before entering into class A space with my unmanned spaceship if I ever make it that far.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 731
- Reaction score
- 403
- Age
- 61
You're presenting an FAA document from 2012.
Well... it's 2016.
No, I don't have an AK-50 - I don't know what one is or even if it exists - but I have plenty of everything else. No one is more vigilant than I at monitoring threats to the Bill of Rights specifically the Second Amendment,
I grew up flying absolutely without abandon. I clearly remember firing up my first control -line PT-19 in 1968 with my big brother making sure the .049 engine didn't take any fingers off. I simply never stopped flying, joined the AMA at an absurdly young age, applied for my student pilot ticket exactly eight hours after I turned 14, and built the very first RC four-channel plane in my club.
You might say, I guess, I know my way around rules and regulations, Nowhere in this thread do I recall reading that flight over 400 feet was illegal.
The vast majority of flyers feel it's stupid, though.
Thanks to mental midgets misusing their drones almost every model aircraft in the United States is now federally regulated, if the owner is following the law and registering himself. It's no longer 2012.
There is a built-in slackness to the new regulations, it seems. There exists room for user interpretation and one hopes adaptation. Since before the late drone mishap phenomenon there has existed no specific need to regulate our craft, or to mandate (by law) flight under 400 feet. Thankfully there still isn't a mandate, but a very strong and obvious suggestion.
Can you take a hint? Can I? Can everyone else flying drones or anything else?
You know, I believe the overwhelming number of fliers can. I'd wager at least 95% of our aircraft are being flown safely and responsibly.
Unfortunately the will always be that five percenter who thinks it's ok just to bend those rules a little teeny bit. And a bit more. And.... oh no, caught! Look at that moron, who would do something that stupid? Film at 11, lawmakers promise to address the issue of model aircraft dangers and their impact on the health care industry!
Sigh and good grief.
You can't fix stupid.
Well... it's 2016.
No, I don't have an AK-50 - I don't know what one is or even if it exists - but I have plenty of everything else. No one is more vigilant than I at monitoring threats to the Bill of Rights specifically the Second Amendment,
I grew up flying absolutely without abandon. I clearly remember firing up my first control -line PT-19 in 1968 with my big brother making sure the .049 engine didn't take any fingers off. I simply never stopped flying, joined the AMA at an absurdly young age, applied for my student pilot ticket exactly eight hours after I turned 14, and built the very first RC four-channel plane in my club.
You might say, I guess, I know my way around rules and regulations, Nowhere in this thread do I recall reading that flight over 400 feet was illegal.
The vast majority of flyers feel it's stupid, though.
Thanks to mental midgets misusing their drones almost every model aircraft in the United States is now federally regulated, if the owner is following the law and registering himself. It's no longer 2012.
There is a built-in slackness to the new regulations, it seems. There exists room for user interpretation and one hopes adaptation. Since before the late drone mishap phenomenon there has existed no specific need to regulate our craft, or to mandate (by law) flight under 400 feet. Thankfully there still isn't a mandate, but a very strong and obvious suggestion.
Can you take a hint? Can I? Can everyone else flying drones or anything else?
You know, I believe the overwhelming number of fliers can. I'd wager at least 95% of our aircraft are being flown safely and responsibly.
Unfortunately the will always be that five percenter who thinks it's ok just to bend those rules a little teeny bit. And a bit more. And.... oh no, caught! Look at that moron, who would do something that stupid? Film at 11, lawmakers promise to address the issue of model aircraft dangers and their impact on the health care industry!
Sigh and good grief.
You can't fix stupid.
Not all of us are crotchety old men. Some of us are still in our early 30's or younger. It's just aggravating to beat a dead horse that's been dead for months only to have the same thing brought up over and over again. I know Part 107, I have certified training for this. These discussions of both sides calling each other whatever just get old seeing it over and over again.
Didn't realize it was picking a fresh scab and should have known better to ignore the trolls but got baited in by the stupidity. I get that you're not all crotchety old men, but lets be honest... there are more than a few floating around here.
Ok this will be my last reply to your dumbass. I'm not sure what exactly your arguing and don't really care. The FAA document was legislation passed and signed by the president in 2012. It doesn't expire and was referenced by the June 2016 part 107 rule. So if you were capable of reading more than just the date at the top you'd know that it was relevant.
You are correct that there is nothing you can do to fix the problem you have with being stupid however, you may have better luck with your anger management issues.
something about that statement seems much less offensive than the rest of the threadTrue... I'm a crotchety old woman!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 731
- Reaction score
- 403
- Age
- 61
I was wrong - I assumed the meaning of my thread was clear. Laws and recommendations have changed considerably since 2012, wouldn't you agree? I've no doubt most folks here "got it" and likely agree with it.
You aren't supposed to fly above 400 feet, You might say that suggestion is printed in bold and italics since the passage of registration requirements and their subsequent guidelines.
I assumed that everyone realized it is simply foolish to pretend the altitude limit doesn't exist, and that there will be no consequences for continually breaking it for whatever reason.
As far as my dumbassery -and lack of reading and knowledge - have you your commercial exemption yet? Me neither, but that'll change in about a month depending on however quickly processing time is running these days. Having built and flown homebuilt aircraft since 1981 doesn't qualify a person for expedited service it seems.We can swap pics of your own personal aircraft too. Then we'll let others decide who if any is the genuine dumbass.
Finally, I don't have problems with anger - but I certainly do become frustrated whilst watching someone who definitely knows better embark on a potentially harmful course.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 9
- Age
- 32
"Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure. "
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
i tried to visualize this for you in MSPAINT
Attachments
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 435
- Age
- 61
Captain Zephyr, the illustration you did is perfect. However, it's important to note that it is relevant only to Part 107 pilots, and not hobbyists. Hobbyists are expected to follow the rules of AMA. Those hobbyists that don't follow the rules of AMA fail to realize their AMA insurance is null and void if they fly outside of that envelope. Hobbyists like the guy upthread are not bound by law, they're merely asked in very strong terms to obey the rules of the AMA or other "nationally recognized organization."
The dude above seems to feel it's his god-given right to fly at whatever altitude he wishes, without regard for others or the impact of his cavalier actions on our industry. "It's never happened before" is not a cogent, intelligent, nor useful report. The FARs are written in blood. Specifically, parts 91, 103, 105 are literally written in blood as we've learned through processes over the years. Currently 107 has only one related loss of life, but apparently there are those that wish to push that envelope. Easy to do, as any loss of life almost assuredly won't be that of the UAV pilot.
Ok I knew I should not open this thread, so I am just going to close it and walk away, Eyewingsuit has it
Similar threads
New Posts
-
-
-
-
Free Music / SFX Resource for Your Videos - Over 2000 Tracks- Latest: Eric Matyas
-
Members online
No members online now.