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

[Cosber]

I've had a few times where a helicopter has flown over the area I was flying, under 400 ft. Who's to blame if it hits my drone flying in my legal space?

 

[LuvMyTJ]

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.

I for one would do away with the current registration and require the operator be licensed. Education is key and handing over $5 to a website will not accomplish anything but making you $5 poorer. A training course similar to a hunter safety course should be mandatory for any UAV that has more than 30m range. Only upon completion would you receive the privilege of using a UAV in the NAS.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I've had a few times where a helicopter has flown over the area I was flying, under 400 ft. Who's to blame if it hits my drone flying in my legal space?

You are, you must always yield right of way to full scale aircraft. Also, helicopters do not have the same regulations as fixed wing aircraft so they are allowed to be under 500' if they choose. Also watch for crop dusters if you live near agricultural areas.

 

[User Name]

You are, you must always yield right of way to full scale aircraft.

Yep, I might question the justification to prohibit my access to a given part of the airspace simply because my vehicle isn't directly piloted, but in practice, I understand why and the vehicle carrying people will and should always have the right of way. Maybe if/when an active collision avoidance system exists, we'll be allowed a little more freedom, but until then, if I hear an aircraft, my quads head for the deck.

Also, helicopters do not have the same regulations as fixed wing aircraft so they are allowed to be under 500' if they choose.

That's interesting. Are there any restrictions at all? Last summer, I was on top of a local ridge and all of the sudden, a police heli came tearing over a nearby hill, past the ridge and on through a little valley. We were looking almost level at it as it passed. It was seriously LOW and it was hauling you know what. And we didn't hear it coming until seconds before it passed, it startled everyone.

It was pretty cool to see, but if a collision occurs in situations like that, I think it'd be hard to really blame the drone operator - there would have just been little to no time to react.

 

[Anttler]

I've had a few times where a helicopter has flown over the area I was flying, under 400 ft. Who's to blame if it hits my drone flying in my legal space?

You are.

 

[Cosber]

Yep, I might question the justification to prohibit my access to a given part of the airspace simply because my vehicle isn't directly piloted, but in practice, I understand why and the vehicle carrying people will and should always have the right of way. Maybe if/when an active collision avoidance system exists, we'll be allowed a little more freedom, but until then, if I hear an aircraft, my quads head for the deck.



That's interesting. Are there any restrictions at all? Last summer, I was on top of a local ridge and all of the sudden, a police heli came tearing over a nearby hill, past the ridge and on through a little valley. We were looking almost level at it as it passed. It was seriously LOW and it was hauling you know what. And we didn't hear it coming until seconds before it passed, it startled everyone.

It was pretty cool to see, but if a collision occurs in situations like that, I think it'd be hard to really blame the drone operator - there would have just been little to no time to react.

My thoughts exactly. Of course I would yield "right of way" to a manned vehicle but if we're following the rules/laws, would we be criminally liable for such an accident.

 

[User Name]

You are.

Yea, I think the problem here lies with thinking that it's "my legal airspace". It doesn't "belong" to anyone, or rather, it belongs to everyone. People have a right to use it for various purposes, but it doesn't "belong" to any one person at any particular time. No one would say "I'm driving on MY legal roadway, so if someone walks out in front of me, I can just go ahead and run over them".

We have the right to use a portion of the airspace with certain restrictions depending on the vehicle. We don't own the part we're allowed to use and we must grant the right of way to other vehicles.

My thoughts exactly. Of course I would yield "right of way" to a manned vehicle but if we're following the rules/laws, would we be criminally liable for such an accident.

If it was an inadvertent collision like the scenario I described above - airplane or heli comes flying along at barely more than tree-top level, giving no warning or time for the drone pilot to react, I don't think the drone pilot could be held liable - they were using the airspace in compliance with the rules.

If a plane or heli is flying at 300-400 feet, circling around, making multiple passes and the drone pilot continues to fly at the same altitude, refusing to yield right of way, then yea, I think he/she could potentially be held liable and rightfully so.

But let's be realistic here. How often do you really think a situation like this will occur? Very, very infrequently, if ever. It's just not worth making some kind of stand over. As someone said earlier, we're using the airspace for total recreation, not bodily transport. Someone's personal, physical safety will always trump my enjoyment of a hobby.

 

[Steve K]

I question my responsibility if I notified the proper channels before flight and was sticking to my intended area and altitude....

I do not believe it would be my fault if litigated and proven.

Would I cede airspace? Absolutely. But these quads don't really maneuver all that quickly compared to Helis.. A fast moving chopper could overtake us in moments and as ground operators WE are the disadvantaged ones. No real viewing plane to avoid collision. I see new minimum ceiling requirements for low flying manned aircraft as the only safe course of action. Seriously.

And let's face it...those Hot Shot Heli pilots racing around at 300' are quite annoying anyways. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and to be honest it is solely in their best interest to fly a little higher.

 

[Anttler]

I've had a few times where a helicopter has flown over the area I was flying, under 400 ft. Who's to blame if it hits my drone flying in my legal space?

You are.

I question my responsibility if I notified the proper channels before flight and was sticking to my intended area and altitude....

I do not believe it would be my fault if litigated and proven.

Would I cede airspace? Absolutely. But these quads don't really maneuver all that quickly compared to Helis.. A fast moving chopper could overtake us in moments and as ground operators WE are the disadvantaged ones. No real viewing plane to avoid collision. I see new minimum ceiling requirements for low flying manned aircraft as the only safe course of action. Seriously.

And let's face it...those Hot Shot Heli pilots racing around at 300' are quite annoying anyways. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and to be honest it is solely in their best interest to fly a little higher.

The manner aircraft have the right of way. This plainly points out the problem the, " I told them I was flying here. I known I killed the guy, but he should be flying higher anyway." attitude will get us regulated.

Grey areas... There are none. The clouds we're in a valley and I was only skimming them, who'd be flying there anyway.

Just follow the rules. Be sure someone in the Fed is paying attention to forums like this, and after an accident they will use these hazardous attitudes against the drone community.

 

[Steve K]

Antler, really? Are you really going to pretend to put words in my mouth? Nice try but no dice.

Just follow the rules is exactly what I said and I do believe I have a better grasp on them than you. I actually have written statements from all the local pilots offices with me when I fly. Do you? Can you prove you made contact without them?

I'm not sure why you are playing here but let me tell you, I never shoot for the clouds and am not a little boy. I am also aware that accidents DO happen and the only real way of avoiding them is to keep your drone right there on the shelf in your bedroom.

Now, we can have an adult conversation about what would help mitigate the risk. Things like increasing the margins. Things like setting minimum altitudes for manned aircraft. Things like announcing your flights...but sorry....this isn't all gonna come from reducing the RC crowds 400' max. There will need to be adjustment to manned craft regulations (that I posted above). There has to be adjustments to that.

And, oh, the Feds are watching. I hope they are but I doubt it. They might be enlightened if they were. I will not be silent, no sir. It is all of our airspace to share. That doesn't mean that I don't have a say. Of course we all could just shutter up and hunker down and do nothing. Refuse to be a part of it all but not me. I will not be scared of the FAA reading my posts...LOL!

Curious though. Do you think we have a chance at NOT being regulated? I don't.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Yep, I might question the justification to prohibit my access to a given part of the airspace simply because my vehicle isn't directly piloted, but in practice, I understand why and the vehicle carrying people will and should always have the right of way. Maybe if/when an active collision avoidance system exists, we'll be allowed a little more freedom, but until then, if I hear an aircraft, my quads head for the deck.



That's interesting. Are there any restrictions at all? Last summer, I was on top of a local ridge and all of the sudden, a police heli came tearing over a nearby hill, past the ridge and on through a little valley. We were looking almost level at it as it passed. It was seriously LOW and it was hauling you know what. And we didn't hear it coming until seconds before it passed, it startled everyone.

It was pretty cool to see, but if a collision occurs in situations like that, I think it'd be hard to really blame the drone operator - there would have just been little to no time to react.

Well if it is a police heli you already know the answer to that... as far as other heli traffic 500' (I routinely see much lower aircraft fly overhead by me and I am in an suburban area) or 1000' feet, depending on whether you are over an uncongested area or not, except in emergencies and while taking off and landing. Helicopters have an addition exception of being able to operate at less than the minimums if you "present no hazard to peoples or property on the ground", so this is somewhat at the pilots discretion. What this means, for practical purposes. They can land anywhere in an emergency, and with the land owner's permission on private property. This means that more or less, they are allowed to land anywhere as long as a) they don't piss people off, b) they have someone's permission, c) they aren't in controlled airspace.

 

[Anttler]

Curious though. Do you think we have a chance at NOT being regulated? I don't.

With the idiots out there running hobby drones into the Empire State building, friends of mine reporting seeing drones on final while flying 100+ passengers, drones on the white house lawn, people breaking guidelines because they are not regulations... We don't have a chance.

 

[Skyhawg]

The only person that "owns" airspace is an air traffic controller within their radar sector or airport traffic area.
Controller to UAL B787...make a right 360 and reduce speed to 180kts for spacing into LAX.
UAL pilot to controller...unable, this is a waste of time and fuel. I'm the PIC of "my" aircraft!
Controller to UAL B787...it may be your aircraft captain, but you're in "my" sky!
UAL pilot to controller...United 15 Heavy, making a right 360 and reducing to 180.
Skirting clouds, breaking altitude records with a toy, thinking you have rights to airspace. Foolish!
I sure don't want to be the drone pilot the FAA makes an example of. They can and will do it!

 

[Robert Rose]

If you are flying for commercial purposes then without question the Conditions of your Section 333 Exemption will limit you to 400 AGL. Violate that and you risk losing your commercial exemption. If you are flying for recreational use then if you exceed 400 AGL you are fodder for the anti-drone crowd that is pushing for anti-drone local laws, and Exhibit A that we cannot regulate ourselves. The FAA does have enforcement authority to prohibit model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the national airspace, and while they move erratically and slowly, do not assume that the last shoe has dropped.

 

[Anttler]

The only person that "owns" airspace is an air traffic controller within their radar sector or airport traffic area.
Controller to UAL B787...make a right 360 and reduce speed to 180kts for spacing into LAX.
UAL pilot to controller...unable, this is a waste of time and fuel. I'm the PIC of "my" aircraft!
Controller to UAL B787...it may be your aircraft captain, but you're in "my" sky!
UAL pilot to controller...United 15 Heavy, making a right 360 and reducing to 180.
Skirting clouds, breaking altitude records with a toy, thinking you have rights to airspace. Foolish!
I sure don't want to be the drone pilot the FAA makes an example of. They can and will do it!

This guy gets it.

 

[Steve K]

Ya, the FAA are already rolling back their 30 mile UAV restrictions in DC tomorrow at 12:00. Finally some sense.

Meanwhile licensed manned aircraft pilots are crashing tragically into each other "off radar vector" in CA.

There are now more registered UAV pilots than registered manned aircraft in the USA

There needs to be more regulation and exclusions of low altitude manned flights for safety sake. Those days are numbered.

 

[Robert Rose]

The Notices to Airmen are very detailed, and it is a harbinger of where regulation is heading.
The 400 AGL ceiling is there, so if you are looking for "where is it written" then just be patient, it will be in stone for the whole country before the year is out. In general, it seems that recreational users in the donut ring Special Flight Rules Area will need to follow most of the rules now applicable to Commercial sUAV use, and Commercial users have to comply with their Certificate of Authorization, plus file a flight plan. The 15 mile donut hole at the center is a Flight Restricted Zone.

 

[dbdrop]

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.

A little over dramatic don't you think??? We're not talking about 1/2 scale RC aircraft, these are 2 pound foam and plastic circuit boards. I worked out at Pratt & Whitney 20 years ago where they had test stands for shooting frozen chickens into running engines. You're a thousand of times more likely to get taken out by a flock of geese than some kids 2 lb toy but neither scenario is likely. If it really becomes a problem, which at this point it has not, we'll end up equipping drones with transponders identifying them to manned and other unmanned traffic.

The question has been asked, why do people want to fly above 400 ft? Well for one because not everyone likes to fly around in circles and shouldn't be required to jam themselves in a box because other are uncomfortable with progress. Human nature is to explore and push the boundaries of whats possible. Forget about 400 ft, I want to fly my drone into space and if I can figure out how to make it happen I should have every right to do so.. and for no other reason than it being out of this world cool.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

A little over dramatic don't you think??? We're not talking about 1/2 scale RC aircraft, these are 2 pound foam and plastic circuit boards. I worked out at Pratt & Whitney 20 years ago where they had test stands for shooting frozen chickens into running engines. You're a thousand of times more likely to get taken out by a flock of geese than some kids 2 lb toy but neither scenario is likely. If it really becomes a problem, which at this point it has not, we'll end up equipping drones with transponders identifying them to manned and other unmanned traffic.

The question has been asked, why do people want to fly above 400 ft? Well for one because not everyone likes to fly around in circles and shouldn't be required to jam themselves in a box because other are uncomfortable with progress. Human nature is to explore and push the boundaries of whats possible. Forget about 400 ft, I want to fly my drone into space and if I can figure out how to make it happen I should have every right to do so.. and for no other reason than it being out of this world cool.

I wonder if the day will come when we can fix "stupid" and more importantly, "selfish ignorance."

 

[Marich]

A little over dramatic don't you think??? We're not talking about 1/2 scale RC aircraft, these are 2 pound foam and plastic circuit boards. I worked out at Pratt & Whitney 20 years ago where they had test stands for shooting frozen chickens into running engines. You're a thousand of times more likely to get taken out by a flock of geese than some kids 2 lb toy but neither scenario is likely. If it really becomes a problem, which at this point it has not, we'll end up equipping drones with transponders identifying them to manned and other unmanned traffic.

The question has been asked, why do people want to fly above 400 ft? Well for one because not everyone likes to fly around in circles and shouldn't be required to jam themselves in a box because other are uncomfortable with progress. Human nature is to explore and push the boundaries of whats possible. Forget about 400 ft, I want to fly my drone into space and if I can figure out how to make it happen I should have every right to do so.. and for no other reason than it being out of this world cool.

Solo is definitely not a 2 pound piece of foam and various circuit board, it's a roughly four-pound flying brick that could cause almost inconceivable damage it certain cases.
The entirety of your post suggest you're of the very breed of flyer we're trying to educate. Unfortunately I doubt you'll ever listen.
There are very few folks here who simply fly around in circles boring themselves to tears. We're doing some pretty serious and complex stuff, we're doing it for a concrete reason, and not because we're determined to push the extreme limits of our machines and the law.
It is true that human nature dictates that we push boundaries - boundaries of our machInes, not the laws.
Off the top of my head the only drones I can think of like your device are those made by Parrot, maybe the Bebop or AR. Rest assured you'll quickly get into a lot more trouble if you start hotshotting around with a Solo... Likely way more trouble than you can handle.