FAA FLIGHT OVER 400 ft ??

[rich_schultz]

As part 61 planes are allowed to operate at 500 feet above sparsely populated areas and 1000 feet above populated areas the "safety of the national airspace" will be used against you if you go over 400 feet. You also put lives at risk as a plane at 500 feet is unlikely to be able to see and avoid a drone that is blending in to the ground. Just not worth the risk to the hobby to fly above 400 feet. One aircraft goes down because of a drone and we will be flying inside only if at all!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[sar104]

Ah, but the DMV doesn't allow unlicensed drivers on the road driving as they like, verses those holding a DMV license (Irrespective of their license class category.) and driving according to the DMV rules.

The current FAA setup allows for unlicensed drone operators, and those with a license are more restricted to follow their rules; hence it's backwards, imho. Class of being a professional or amateur rating isn't part of the FAA ruling as there are some non-licensed pilots who fly better than the 107 licensed ones, i.e. the FPV racers. FAA could have 107A, 107B, etc. but not even holding a license and being allowed to fly willy-nilly is where I'm upset with their thought process against those holding a 107 and "You must do it this way."

A 107 should have less restrictions like maybe night flight, closer to airports, people, altitude ceiling, etc. than those sans license who do it anyway with some CBO blessing. Only 107 benefit is ability to charge as in commercial use; after that it all goes downhill other than bragging rights.

There are some 107 advantages. For example, you can fly closer to many airports with Class E airspace, since there is no 5-mile requirement under 107 and you don't have to notify the airport. And some of the other restrictions, such as maximum altitude, controlled airspace, and around people, are waivable.

It seems to me that the inconsistencies stem more from the inability, under law, of the FAA to restrict model aircraft flight than from any desire to over-restrict non-recreational UAS operations.

 

[joet]

I don't believe Part 101 applies to sUAS. That's why Part 107 was created.

It absolutely does. The difference between Part 101 and 107 is the nature of the flight - for recreation (101) or anything else (107).

§101.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States, of the following:

(5) Any model aircraft that meets the conditions specified in §101.41. For purposes of this part, a model aircraft is an unmanned aircraft that is:

(i) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(ii) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(iii) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes.




§107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.

(b) This part does not apply to the following:

(1) Air carrier operations;

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter; or

(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.

 

[nssdrone]

When I registered my Phantom with the FAA to fly recreational, they made me agree to fly below 400 feet. It was a check box I had to mark to continue.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I'm sorry but this is 100% incorrect. It's not even close.

As mentioned above, a hobby flier can fly over 400', period. The AMA does not come into play _at all_.

This has been discussed to death in prior threads and there was even a very long one about a week ago. All of the information about this is in that thread.

If you are not a member of the AMA anything they say does not apply to you, period.

Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box saying otherwise on the federal registration website?
A: Yes. 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. Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safety program. You can read a letter from the FAA that recognizes our community-based safety program and flight over 400 feet

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

Lemme know how flying over 400' works out for you if you are on your own and have an incident. You can bet the lawyers will eat you alive.

 

[Richard R]

Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box saying otherwise on the federal registration website?
A: Yes. 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. Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safety program. You can read a letter from the FAA that recognizes our community-based safety program and flight over 400 feet

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

Lemme know how flying over 400' works out for you if you are on your own and have an incident. You can bet the lawyers will eat you alive.

Actually, I believe that the FAA wants us to follow the guidelines/rules of a CBO like the AMA. No requirement to be a member. That would constitute the FAA endorsing or 'mandating joining' the AMA.

 

[joet]

Actually, I believe that the FAA wants us to follow the guidelines/rules of a CBO like the AMA. No requirement to be a member. That would constitute the FAA endorsing or 'mandating joining' the AMA.

Correct. As much as the AMA would like you to join, that is not a requirement.

 

[tcope]

Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box saying otherwise on the federal registration website?
A: Yes. 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. Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safety program. You can read a letter from the FAA that recognizes our community-based safety program and flight over 400 feet

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

Lemme know how flying over 400' works out for you if you are on your own and have an incident. You can bet the lawyers will eat you alive.

As I mentioned above, the AMA loves to make themselves look so very important (which I can understand... they want people to join and pay a membership fee) but they also take a lot of liberties in representing their "authority".

Nothing you quoted applies to non-AMA members, period. No one... the FAA, local law enforcement, etc. can say otherwise. The AMA took the vague mention of the AMA being a CBO and pretty much mislead people into thinking it makes them into some governing body.

First, nothing from the AMA's website applies to anyone who is not a member. Second you really need to break down the AMA's own statement to find the actual truth:

"Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline."

So right here the AMA confirms it's just an FAA recommendation and not a regulation.

Lastly, when you post a quote and then list a "source" the source is documentation/information where the quote was obtained. It shows that what you quote was not made up. Your link is, at most, a support, not a source. As you link to the letter that the AMA likes to show as the FAA calls them a CBO. This is what the AMA uses to make themselves look more important than they are (and ues a fault in the regulations). Being a CBO does not mean the CBO has any further control over people than they had is they were not a CBO. The reason this is mentioned in the statute is to allow people and organizations the same abilities that they had before the regulations. For example, if the AMA wants to host a racing drone event they can require participates to, let's say, fly no faster then 30mph. The AMA can't trump FAA regulations but they can create their own as long as they have some existing control over that person anyway. In this case, the person is required to agree to the rules or they cannot participate. It does not mean that the AMA can regulate airspace in general for everyone. Likewise, AMA members are not able to ignore current FAA regulations. What the AMA is really saying is, if you are a member you _can_ fly higher than the 400' recommendation. Gee, want to know why they can do this? Because anyone can as it's only a recommendation.

It's not just me who agrees... it's pretty much a well accepted fact.

What is mentioned above is more on point with the thread. So feel free to stop reading here. What follows is my peeve against the AMA:​

"However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safety program."

Um.... NO! That's for giving your opinion as to what the US government was thinking when they wrote that US Code. What the AMA does not make clear is that they are still speaking of a guideline (the 400' guideline that even the AMA states is just that, a guideline). So this is a guideline aimed at people outside of the AMA???? Seriously? That is what they were thinking when they wrote it? What the AMA is doing is taking great liberties in what was actually stated. I could do the same thing..... I start up the National UAV Fliers Club. I'm a CBO. I say to my members that they can't fly higher than 600'. The FAA regulations states a CBO can create their own "rules". So now I claim when the 400' recommendation was created it was aimed at non-NUAVFC members. Wow... I'm claiming members don't need to follow a recommendation from the FAA. What sweet power does my club have! Such a sleazy claim. Does the code mention a CBO? Yes. Is my club a CBO? Yes. So... they must have been thinking about my club when they wrote the code! This is where I think the AMA goes into sleazy mode. It's misleading. But hey, that is fine.

I'm not knocking the AMA as a whole. I'm not a member and don't plan on being one but I have nothing against them as a whole or anything bad to say about anyone who is/wants to be a member. The AMA gets to bend the ear of the FAA when it comes to regulations. The same is true of DJI. I like to think that both do a good job in representing UAV fliers.

 

[Bendix]

With the number of sUAS drone operators mushrooming I think it's only a matter of time before a competing network of Community Based Organizations with a national umbrella organizational structure emerges. Probably sooner rather than later.