400 ft altitude .. and topography?

The FAA regulation limits altitude over ground to exceed 400'. Over ground altitude does not refer to takeoff point altitude once the UAV has moved away from that point. So if you fly up a mountain you don't violate the rule even if the mountain makes you climb 1000' as long as the copter is not more than 400' over ground level (which may be the top of the mountain).
Here is a perfect example were the P3P climbed over 800' from the takeoff point legally.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
Dunno where you live but I routinely see planes in my area around 1000' AGL. Yesterday alone I saw 1 at 500' doing turn around a point then two more in tandem doing gods knows what at 500' maybe a touch higher. Point is lots of air traffic can be at or below 1000'. Can you live with the after math if that 1 in 100,000 scenario happens.

That being said as long as your somewhere between 400' and 0' AGL you should be okay nearly all the time. I'd be more worried about signal loss or something.

What area do you live in that you routinely see aircraft at less than 1000' feet ? What are they doing? Only times I've seen this is crop dusting and VERY near an airport.
 
For me. I live 2 miles from tiny island Airport. So I see them in their twin pipers. also 1.4 mile from a hospital with 2 helicopters. So I can't fly near home. It will start for sure but I prefer to go elsewhere. I see them all the time At 150 ft agl.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
It looks like the forum is a good place to get bad information.
The answer is YES .. of course
The magic 400 feet is 400 feet above the ground.
It's not 400 feet above launch point, 400 ft above sea level or 400 ft above anywhere else.
It's 400 feet above the ground that is directly below your Phantom.

Exactly what I thouht. 400" above ground level.
 
DJI doesn't limit your altitude as far as I can tell. I have flown at more than 400 ft above my home point several times. No warnings, no limitations imposed by the software. .
Interesting. I recently changed my max altitude to 500 feet to fly from a canyon floor, up the canyon walls to fly above the plateau. I got a warning on my P3P, something to the effect that I was changing a setting above the limit set by FAA and [something like] do you want to continue. I simply clicked ok and no problems, but there was a warning.
 
Interesting. I recently changed my max altitude to 500 feet to fly from a canyon floor, up the canyon walls to fly above the plateau. I got a warning on my P3P, something to the effect that I was changing a setting above the limit set by FAA and [something like] do you want to continue. I simply clicked ok and no problems, but there was a warning.

Yes, you are correct. There is a one-time notification when you change the preference. When I wrote "no warning" I was referring to actual flight. As you pass through 400 ft in flight there are no warnings. Also note the "max altitude" preference setting is in meters, regardless of your "imperial/metric" setting. While you may have changed your setting to 152.4m (500ft) a setting of 500 will enable an altitude of 1,640 feet.
 
What area do you live in that you routinely see aircraft at less than 1000' feet ? What are they doing? Only times I've seen this is crop dusting and VERY near an airport.


I live out in the suburbs of Seattle. South East. There are about 5 - 10 small fields, most of which are little grass strips within probably 30 miles of my house. Tons of inbound and outbound traffic right around 1000'. Also practicing S turns, turns around a point, engine out landing practice. I'm sure it's a hot zone for student pilots in the area to get away from the city and practice. Sometimes the ceiling can be low and you will see VFR traffic staying underneath it. I do think my area has way higher than average small aircraft traffic. I've also known some idiot rule breaking pilots, my late uncle being a prime example. My point here isn't to praise the almighty FAA. I think common sense should dictate you'd want to stay below 500' at minimum. Personally whatever gains from breaking the "suggested" altitude restrictions will never outweigh the risks to me personally (fines, ect) or most importantly to any air traffic I may encounter.
 
I live out in the suburbs of Seattle. South East. There are about 5 - 10 small fields, most of which are little grass strips within probably 30 miles of my house. Tons of inbound and outbound traffic right around 1000'. Also practicing S turns, turns around a point, engine out landing practice. I'm sure it's a hot zone for student pilots in the area to get away from the city and practice. Sometimes the ceiling can be low and you will see VFR traffic staying underneath it. I do think my area has way higher than average small aircraft traffic. I've also known some idiot rule breaking pilots, my late uncle being a prime example. My point here isn't to praise the almighty FAA. I think common sense should dictate you'd want to stay below 500' at minimum. Personally whatever gains from breaking the "suggested" altitude restrictions will never outweigh the risks to me personally (fines, ect) or most importantly to any air traffic I may encounter.

What does this have to do with the environment that was being described? The guy said if there is a plane flying at <500 feet anywhere near my house it's got a bigger problem than running into my drone(paraphrased). You think the physical environment you described above is a valid cross comparison ?????????????
 
If you are concerned enough and there is a airport nearby let them know and it can even be NOTAM'd.

It would be no practical difference than me erecting a tower crane on a building to that total height at that site. a NOTAM would suffice if anywhere near an airport.

Otherwise see and avoid, check weather, understand nuances with mountain flying, keep VLOS for safety and to prevent signal loss.
 
What does this have to do with the environment that was being described? The guy said if there is a plane flying at <500 feet anywhere near my house it's got a bigger problem than running into my drone(paraphrased). You think the physical environment you described above is a valid cross comparison ?????????????

As in what the OPs original question was? I guess nothing as I was answering you as to where I see all this air traffic.

I think yes if an airplane is below 500' it may or may not have more problems than potential drones. My point was, it may not necessarily, depending upon your environment. Then I gave an example of air traffic in an afternoon I've personally witnessed below 1000' and my reasoning for my personal limit of 400' AGL unless I'm trying to climb a cliff face or something. You are correct, in the OP's scenario it's very true that if he was only 200' AGL of the tallest hill, he should theoretically have zero interactions with any traffic, and if he did they would be in a lot more trouble than the drone could cause them.
 
(its a slow day at work)

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but does the max altitude limit/law allow ANY wiggle room for topographic elevation increases above ground level? Can I fly higher as the elevation of a hill increases, to greater than 400 feet?

Take the image below, can I fly my desired path to the red X? Is there any possible way, legally, to do this? (Outside of in a real helicopter)

pUZDTEY.jpg
I know @Meta4 already provided some great (and accurate) answers to this but the topic bears reinforcing because there are so many misinformed people, pilots and law enforcement officers alike. The "To" flight path is consistent with the FAA Part 107 Summary dated June 21, 2016:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

Under Operational Limits, 10th bullet point:
  • Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure.
So, in the OPs diagram (nice job with that, btw), the "To" path is consistent with the 107 rules. The "Return" path looks to be mostly below 400 ft and may even be within 400 feet of the tallest peak, so flying >400 ft direct AGL is still consistent. Trees don't count as structures, but a radio tower or tall building would.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Digdat0

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers