FAA Regulations--Please Read

[cleaner1369]

Please invite any state or local self-appointed "Barney Fife's" to research something called the
Supremacy Clause
(Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution known as the Supremacy Clause) which plainly states that Federal Law supersedes state law and municipal ordinance.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

You can tell a drone operator not to fly in "your town" or not to fly over your house...and the drone operator can thank you for your time and then tell you to blow it out your *** regardless of your "badge". Police (and all other government agencies) just enforce the existing laws, they don't get to make them up as they go along.

PS: I am retired from law enforcement.

 

[Ghetto Bird]

I think he has a good post. I think this is the problem. Sure these are model aircraft guidelines and as a drone pilot myself for hobby purposes i think the guidelines should be followed. People are buying theses things and have not read the FAA rules or guidelines and fly their drones near airports and airline pilots are reporting close calls almost weekly. They post their videos on YouTube well over a 1000ft in the air. I think it is very unsafe and if this behavior continues it is only a matter of time before there is going to be in in air collision with a drone and a commercial aircraft. As govman stated it will be catastrophic and the FAA AND THE NTSB will find the owner of the drone and I'm sure he or she will be charged with murder of some sort if lives are lost. As a responsible drone pilot we must self police and stay within the guidlines that are on the books so we don't get over regulated by the government. I would advise everyone interested in this hobby to go to the FAA website and take a look at the proposed rule making. Just my two cents

 

[cleaner1369]

I understand completely. In the absence of existing laws PLEASE use your heads or laws will be written based on idiots' actions.

I also understand that ALL my "fly-boy" friends (private pilots with Piper Cubs and private Cessna's, who like to jerk off to photos of commercial and military aircraft while humming a few bars of "Sky Pilot", etc...) HATE camera UAV's because they fear that quads are going to eat into their hobby, like charging exorbitant fees for aerial surveys and photography (read: "getting to go out and play with their overpriced toys all day") See also: "...my Cessna is TOO a legitimate tax deduction!"

Thus, I promise to use my head and not do anything stupid like fly over airports or try to set new altitude records AND I promise to stick to current FAA regs regarding RC toys like my P3. Otherwise, I won't be worrying myself about personal opinions of pissed-off flyboys or other meaningless, self-important assclowns.

 

[gunslinger]

I agree: Only aircraft taking off or landing fly from 400-1000 feet. But do you know how many reports this office receives every week of drones being spotted by airline pilots as they ARE taking off and landing? Don't you all agree this is a hazard? Why are some drone operators operating near airports and airliners?

There are the few, the proud, the idiotic in any venue. These people are dangerous and this situation should be dealt with harshly. The fact that the FAA has posted "guidelines": over the past two years as multi-copter use has drastically risen, makes me respect them much less as an agency that's supposed to be looking out for my safety in the air. I fly in airliners, my son flies in airliners and my granddaughter will be flying back from St. Thomas next Thursday.

Most of us do take this situation very seriously. Watching a major government agency squirm around ineffectively attempting to deal with this, makes me very uncomfortable...

 

[general01]

Ok I have read multiple posts about us pilots of our small aircraft(most of which I have tended to ignore as I do stick to the flight rule the faa has set)

Now I have to ask who is watching the full size aircraft
I have had multiple reacourences with a **** piper plane flying well below the legal limit for real planes while I am flying

Now answer me this who would be at fault there???
If the faa is really so strict on real aircraft(I am including helicopter pilots too in this) why are they not enforcing the 600 foot limit on them(see I have seen them fly over my property multiple times below the limit to the point you can clearly see the leters of the call signs on the craft along with the people in the craft(this is from the ground)
Because of this I have to pretty much fly below 100 feet to avoid the idoits
I am getting fed up that we are getting a bad rep over the full size aircraft pilots stupidness for flying below the legal limit which is more dangerous then me flying above the limit(yes I said it)

 

[gunslinger]

Why does it matter if I am a government employee or an internet troll? It is WHAT I have been saying that is relevant: the FAA's UAS website, the Model A/C Advisory Circular and the NTSB's decision on the Pirker case. Everyone is too busy slamming me instead of seriously addressing those issues.

You think you're the first/only individual to come out here and try to explain this situation to the "great unwashed?" I'm not looking to argue with you, nor do I really care if you're the real deal or not. Your statement "Basically you are not allowed to fly higher than 400 feet above the ground" in your very first post was incendiary in nature. Is it a law? A guideline? A request? Not allowed? Not allowed by who?

I have spent a lot of time in many forums arguing exactly your case. We need to fly respectfully, intelligently and never put anyone else's safety or property at risk. Those of us who understand and respect this, act accordingly. Those who are out to have fun at any expense... Won't. Any proselytizing on this forum by any one individual will have no effect. Zero.

If the FAA were to get directly involved in this type of forum and generate "precise" answers to our questions, that would have an impact. What are the chances of that happening?

 

[nirvine88]

Every quad forum I've been on is filled with heresay and rumours regarding FAA rules, the arguments go round in circles. They need to release an official set of rules/guidelines for rc owners.

 

[gunslinger]

Ok I have read multiple posts about us pilots of our small aircraft(most of which I have tended to ignore as I do stick to the flight rule the faa has set)

Now I have to ask who is watching the full size aircraft
I have had multiple reacourences with a **** piper plane flying well below the legal limit for real planes while I am flying

Now answer me this who would be at fault there???
If the faa is really so strict on real aircraft(I am including helicopter pilots too in this) why are they not enforcing the 600 foot limit on them(see I have seen them fly over my property multiple times below the limit to the point you can clearly see the leters of the call signs on the craft along with the people in the craft(this is from the ground)
Because of this I have to pretty much fly below 100 feet to avoid the idoits
I am getting fed up that we are getting a bad rep over the full size aircraft pilots stupidness for flying below the legal limit which is more dangerous then me flying above the limit(yes I said it)

I spend a lot of time on a golf course that is approximately twenty miles away from a small airport. Last year, I had a single engine aircraft buzz the golf course at well under 200 feet (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, I could here his passenger screaming over the engine noise.). Came straight at the center of the golf course, pulled up... circled around... and did it again. Four times. We had golfers hiding in the woods, he was so low. As general01 said whose fault would that be? With the current state of media drone hyper-awareness... I'm pretty sure that'd be the feature hadline...

 

[Buzz313th]

yes..within 5 miles. FAA should not limit the height to 400 feet 30 miles from an airport for example. If a plane is flying at 500 feet 30 miles from the airport, that plane is already in trouble.

Not true..

The lower limits of VFR altitude in uncongested areas is 500agl.

This means that airplanes can legally fly that low..

The limit on the Phantom to 400agl is to keep 100ft separation between manned aircraft and UAV.

The FAR that dictates the minimum altitude for VFR flight for aircraft

§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.

 

[Buzz313th]

I spend a lot of time on a golf course that is approximately twenty miles away from a small airport. Last year, I had a single engine aircraft buzz the golf course at well under 200 feet (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, I could here his passenger screaming over the engine noise.). Came straight at the center of the golf course, pulled up... circled around... and did it again. Four times. We had golfers hiding in the woods, he was so low. As general01 said whose fault would that be? With the current state of media drone hyper-awareness... I'm pretty sure that'd be the feature hadline...

The PIC in this case was breaking quite a few Rules.. If you would of reported to the local FSDO office what he did and his tail number, he would of lost his license and received a hefty fine.

 

[gunslinger]

The PIC in this case was breaking quite a few Rules.. If you would of reported to the local FSDO office what he did and his tail number, he would of lost his license and received a hefty fine.

I only wish I'd had the presence of mind to take down his tags.

 

[Suwaneeguy]

Oh shove it.
There have been many instances where an airliner has collided with an object larger than any drone and the airliner never crashed and no one died.
Birds are routinely sucked into the jet engines and very few crashes have resulted.
With our toy helicopters being made of plastic, these toys would most likely be damaged beyond repair and the airliner might have but a minor scratch on it.
As we are now allowed 500 feet, legally, can you please explain why an airliner would be flying 500 feet above ground?
Let alone under 2,000 feet?
The only time that happens is on approach or takeoff at an airport.
And what about the various states enacting laws which prohibit flights even under 500 feet?
Since when do states have authority to control airspace?

If you are in fact an FAA employee, prove it.
Post a video of yourself at your job
We don't take kindly to people who claim to be something when they are not.

 

[Buzz313th]

Oh shove it.
There have been many instances where an airliner has collided with an object larger than any drone and the airliner never crashed and no one died.
Birds are routinely sucked into the jet engines and very few crashes have resulted.
With our toy helicopters being made of plastic, these toys would most likely be damaged beyond repair and the airliner might have but a minor scratch on it.
As we are now allowed 500 feet, legally, can you please explain why an airliner would be flying 500 feet above ground?
Let alone under 2,000 feet?
The only time that happens is on approach or takeoff at an airport.
And what about the various states enacting laws which prohibit flights even under 500 feet?
Since when do states have authority to control airspace?

If you are in fact an FAA employee, prove it.
Post a video of yourself at your job
We don't take kindly to people who claim to be something when they are not.

Airliners don't fly that low, but Helos and Light Aircraft do..

As a drone operator, the FAA has said your cool to fly up to 400agl. They did that so if you listen to them, then you won't be breaking any other FARs and maintaining a 100foot buffer between you and other legally flown manned aircraft.

The 4 hardened metal motors on a phantom will tear apart the compressor section of a turbine..

You don't know what your talking about and your making statements to suit what works best for you.

 

[Suwaneeguy]

By the way, there is on youtube a video where an idiot pilot of a real aircraft, a small cessna(??) buzzed a small private landing strip where an RC show was under way. One RC pilot was demonstrating a vertical maneuver when the idiot pilot came in at high speed and smashed into the RC.
The cessna was barely 5 feet off the ground and the pilot was just showing off.
The impact caused him to land.
I doubt that fool is flying now.

 

[Buzz313th]

By the way, there is on youtube a video where an idiot pilot of a real aircraft, a small cessna(??) buzzed a small private landing strip where an RC show was under way. One RC pilot was demonstrating a vertical maneuver when the idiot pilot came in at high speed and smashed into the RC.
The cessna was barely 5 feet off the ground and the pilot was just showing off.
The impact caused him to land.
I doubt that fool is flying now.

That fool hopefully lost his license and had to pay a large fine...

 

[rgc2005]

LAW ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED UAS OPERATIONS
http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf
The FAA has promulgated regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, and irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating. For example, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 prohibits any person from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. Model Aircraft Operations An important distinction to be aware of is whether the UAS is being operated for hobby or recreational purposes or for some other purpose. This distinction is important because there are specific requirements in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95, (the Act) that pertain to “Model Aircraft” operations, which are conducted solely for hobby or recreational purposes.

While flying model aircraft for hobby or recreational purposes does not require FAA approval, all model aircraft operators must operate safely and in accordance with the law. The FAA provides guidance and information to individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws. Guidance may be found at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/ Section 336(c) of the Act defines “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. Each element of this definition must be met for a UAS to be considered a Model Aircraft under the Act. Under Section 336(a) of the Act the FAA is restricted from conducting further rulemaking specific to Model Aircraft as defined in section 336(c) so long as the Model Aircraft operations are conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 336(a).

Administrative proceedings often involve very technical issues; therefore, we expect our own saIf you have any questions or your agency would like to pursue advance planning on how to address these situations, please feel free to contact your local FAA Law Enforcement Assistance Special Agent or the FAA’s Law Enforcement Assistance Program Office at (202) 267-4641 or (202) 267-9411.

 

[Buzz313th]

You forgot to quote a few paragraphs that also make recreational drone operators responsible for following the same FARs as manned aircraft..


A UAS is an Aircraft that Must Comply with Safety Requirements

A UAS is an "aircraft" as defined in the FAA’s authorizing statutes and is therefore subject to regulation by the FAA. 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) defines an "aircraft" as "any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air." The FAA’s regulations (14 C.F.R. § 1.1) similarly define an "aircraft" as "a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Because an unmanned aircraft is a contrivance/device that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, it meets the definition of "aircraft." The FAA has promulgated regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, and irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating. For example, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 prohibits any person from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.


And, the following basically says that even if you are a recreational UAS operator and operating under 336(a) (c), you still have to respect the Laws that govern the NAS (The FAR's)


Model Aircraft that Operate in a Careless or Reckless Manner

Section 336(b) of the Act, however, makes clear that the FAA has the authority under its existing regulations to pursue legal enforcement action against persons operating Model Aircraft when the operations endanger the safety of the NAS, even if they are operating in accordance with section 336(a) and 336(c). So, for example, a Model Aircraft operation conducted in accordance with section 336(a) and (c) may be subject to an enforcement action for violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 if the operation is conducted in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.


To be honest, the FAA really needs to make these rules clearer.. The FAR's have always been a nightmare to understand.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Oh shove it.
There have been many instances where an airliner has collided with an object larger than any drone and the airliner never crashed and no one died.
Birds are routinely sucked into the jet engines and very few crashes have resulted.
With our toy helicopters being made of plastic, these toys would most likely be damaged beyond repair and the airliner might have but a minor scratch on it.
As we are now allowed 500 feet, legally, can you please explain why an airliner would be flying 500 feet above ground?
Let alone under 2,000 feet?
The only time that happens is on approach or takeoff at an airport.
And what about the various states enacting laws which prohibit flights even under 500 feet?
Since when do states have authority to control airspace?

If you are in fact an FAA employee, prove it.
Post a video of yourself at your job
We don't take kindly to people who claim to be something when they are not.

You do realize that not all drones in the sky are small DJI Phantoms - some are much much larger with far greater payload capacities?
Nor is every manned aircraft in our skies an "airliner," some are much much smaller and fly at lower altitudes.

 

[GoodnNuff]

By the way, there is on youtube a video where an idiot pilot of a real aircraft, a small cessna(??) buzzed a small private landing strip where an RC show was under way. One RC pilot was demonstrating a vertical maneuver when the idiot pilot came in at high speed and smashed into the RC.
The cessna was barely 5 feet off the ground and the pilot was just showing off.
The impact caused him to land.
I doubt that fool is flying now.

What type of RC plane did he hit? A 24 oz balsa wood and tissue model wouldn't even mark the paint on a "real aircraft." A 6lb composite with a gas engine might do some damage.

I don't want to be the idiot that finds out first hand whether my drones have the ability to bring down a manned aircraft or simply scratch the paint, so I follow the 400ft agl guideline.

 

[rgc2005]

You do realize that not all drones in the sky are small DJI Phantoms - some are much much larger with far greater payload capacities?
Nor is every manned aircraft in our skies an "airliner," some are much much smaller and fly at lower altitudes.

The airspace has always been divided into Military, Commercial and General Aviation. "Model Aircraft" and "Light Aircraft" have always shared "General Aviation" airspace under local restrictions including the world famous 400 ft 'rule'. Private plane pilots have been trained that anything less than 500 feet AGL is a very crowded and dangerous place to fly. Police/Rescue/EMS/News Helicopter Pilots are really the most concerned since they are flying single point of failure systems very low to the ground over populated areas.

In the military we always had "Airspace" briefings that have become very contentious over the last 10 years as smaller and smaller recon UAS drones came into service. Ground Commanders want their aerial photographs, Apache/BlackHawk crew chiefs want engines clear of FOD and the attack pilots want as little pucker factor as possible.