If you didn't have a 400ft rule would you fly like this?

[AyeYo]

Too Easy just type FAA 400ft rule here's just one with the Actual FAA Suggested Guideline Max altitude - law or guideline? & I do not condone breaking the rules just to be clear

Not a guidleline... right from your linked thread...

In January of this year, the AMA requested that the FAA clarify the 400-foot issue in writing. We are happy to share that in a recent letter to the AMA, the FAA recognized AMA’s role as a community-based organization and acknowledged our safety program, including allowing flight above 400 feet under appropriate circumstance. The primary AMA requirement is that you must maintain visual contact and be prepared to avoid collision with AC. Also stay below 400' when within 3 miles of an airport.

In this letter, dated July 7, 2016, the FAA states:

1. “…model aircraft may be flown consistently with Section 336 and agency guidelines at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization’s safety guidelines.”
   
   
   “Community-based organizations, such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics, may establish altitude limitations in their safety guidelines that exceed the FAA’s 400 AGL altitude recommendation.”

Essentially, this letter confirms that sailplanes, large model aircraft, turbines, and other disciplines can responsibly operate above 400 feet if the AMA member is operating within our safety programming. Equally important, the FAA again acknowledges AMA as a community-based organization.

You know what's part of the AMA's "safety programming"? Flying at an AMA approved RC airfield ONLY.

In other words, you can break the 400ft rule if you're AMA member flying within the bounds of an AMA approved airfield.

 

[dronesky]

You know what's part of the AMA's "safety programming"? Flying at an AMA approved RC airfield ONLY.

In other words, you can break the 400ft rule if you're AMA member flying within the bounds of an AMA approved airfield.[/QUOTE]
Well if that's the case the AMA's rank must have swelled from the FAA.GOV site says Part 107 must stay below 400ft The hobbyist must stay within community guidelines the key word is Guideline not Law
Getting Started

 

[Clipper707]

You missed this part...
It could say "suggestion" and it wouldn't matter one bit. The part that matters is the completely non-ambiguous "YOU MUST". You don't follow an absolute demand with something voluntary.

Your quote does say must, but you haven't cited a source from where you got it. The FAA website contains the word must several times, as well as the equally mandatory word never. None of these apply to the 400' guideline on their page. See here:

Fly for Fun

I'm not saying the 400 foot rule doesn't exist, but if it does it's not clear from your quote, which lacks a source or their page which you cited and refers to it as a guideline.

 

[AyeYo]

Your quote does say must, but you haven't cited a source from where you got it. The FAA website contains the word must several times, as well as the equally mandatory word never. None of these apply to the 400' guideline on their page. See here:

Fly for Fun

I'm not saying the 400 foot rule doesn't exist, but if it does it's not clear from your quote, which lacks a source or their page which you cited and refers to it as a guideline.

It IS a guideline. It's a guideline you voluntarily agree that you MUST follow as a condition of registration - which is a legal requirement.

It's pretty easy to find, because it pops up when you go the hobbyist page to register a sUAS - which you must not have done. In fact, you even need to confirm that you agree to abide by it in order to register.

Do you want to push it? Go right ahead. The awesome thing about adulthood is that you're allowed to believe anything you want to believe, but it doesn't make you right.

 

[AyeYo]

Well if that's the case the AMA's rank must have swelled from the FAA.GOV site says Part 107 must stay below 400ft The hobbyist must stay within community guidelines the key word is Guideline not Law
Getting Started

Maybe you should reread the quoted section. That isn't what it says.

 

[dronesky]

Do you want to push it? Go right ahead. The awesome thing about adulthood is that you're allowed to believe anything you want to believe, but it doesn't make you right.[/QUOTE]
You left out where it starts with Please Remember The Safety Guidance

 

[AyeYo]

You left out where it starts with Please Remember The Safety Guidance

How does that alter the line "YOU MUST operate according to the safety guidance"?

 

[Richard R]

Let's see the proof.

On the Faa's web page (Getting Started) "The rules for operating an unmanned aircraft depend on why you want to fly". No mention of 400 ft for recreational flyers.

 

[AyeYo]

On the Faa's web page (Getting Started) "The rules for operating an unmanned aircraft depend on why you want to fly". No mention of 400 ft for recreational flyers.

Check the previous 20 posts.

 

[blackcrusader]

I'll be the Drone Cop with a gentle word of caution: Keep in mind that manned aircraft have no way of detecting your drone when its up there, and a collision could quite easily result in tragedy. That's why there's a ceiling.To answer the OP's question, I'd absolutely love to go up that high and shoot some footage. There have been countless times I cursed the universe when the perfect video was sitting before my eyes.

Yet, I'm just not willing to turn on the news after a huge air disaster and know I caused it.

Where I fly there are NO passenger planes allowed. Nothing to crash into, maybe the sun.

 

[dwallersv]

Once again, people are focusing on the wrong thing.

It doesn't matter whether its a suggestion or a hard rule with the Death Penalty as a consequence.

A drone hovering at 1000' AGL can kill a family in their Cessna 172 flying around for fun on a weekend over the same interesting POIs that you may be wanting to look at with your drone.

This is not some ridiculous over-caution. The reason this isn't happening a whole lot more because the vast majority of drone flights are below the 400' ceiling. I'll bet the amount of time any hobby drones spend above 500' is exceedingly small. For this reason, we haven't had collisions.

If hobby pilots get the idea that its cool to routinely go up that high, a collision is inevitable with a small manned AC. As a (now non-current) private pilot, I can attest to spending plenty of recreational time in a Cessna 152 flying 1000-2000' AGL over interesting sights. It's not uncommon at all.

So get over the technical legal aspects of this, folks -- it's a distraction. Stay below 400' so you don't spend the rest of your life in despair having killed someone. You're taking that risk every time you go over 400'.

We don't flirt with driving on the left side of the road in the US for thrills, not because its against the law but because its dangerous. Same thing here.

 

[Clipper707]

I remember the saying "Speed kills." That's not actually true and I'm not trying to be facetious here when I say, "No, it doesn't. Impact does."

Obeying the rules isn't always safe, disobeying the rules isn't always unsafe, and driving on the left hand side of the road isn't always dangerous.

 

[microlinux]

I remember the saying "Speed kills." That's not actually true and I'm not trying to be facetious here when I say, "No, it doesn't. Impact does."
View attachment 78434

And what is impact the result of? That kind of reasoning is just a semantic game.

Part of the reason for rules is to enforce some measure of consistency. Unpredictability is often an element of danger.

 

[Clipper707]

Impact is the result of several factors, one of which is another object. Speed itself doesn't kill. There isn't a magic number where, if you exceed it, all life in your car is extinguished.

I don't recommend driving fast through a school zone at 8am, but one can drive 80mph through a school zone at 3:30am and not come close to hitting anything.

 

[dwallersv]

I remember the saying "Speed kills." That's not actually true and I'm not trying to be facetious here when I say, "No, it doesn't. Impact does."

Obeying the rules isn't always safe, disobeying the rules isn't always unsafe, and driving on the left hand side of the road isn't always dangerous.

And the sky is blue, and water is wet.

Nothing is learned by stating the obvious. Of course we're not talking about the flights when nothing happens. We're talking risk.

And if your drone is over 400', the risk increases that it may collide with a manned aircraft. Taken up to the firmware-enforced limit of 1500' AGL increases that risk dramatically.

Finally, there is simply no way to completely eliminate that risk, and in the opinion of some (myself being one), no way to reduce it to a socially acceptable level. One of the first things you learn as a Private Pilot is to constantly scan the skies all around you, all the time. This is beaten into you by the instructor. It is the first, and most essential skill when flying VFR in small aircraft.

Something that is impossible to do with a drone. The risks that are being mitigated with all this visual monitoring of the airspace around you simply can't be done while flying a drone remotely.

 

[microlinux]

ISpeed itself doesn't kill.

Purchasing alcohol doesn't make you drunk, should we let children buy alcohol?

 

[dwallersv]

Purchasing alcohol doesn't make you drunk, should we let children buy alcohol?

Yes of course, and we should let them drink it too. After all, drinking alcohol doesn't make you drunk either.

 

[Clipper707]

I absolutely agree there is limited situational awareness through FPV. I'm simply stating there are places and circumstances where exceeding 400' or pushing up through the overcast are risk-free. Our OP in Taiwan can attest to that.

Safety is definitely more important to me than cool video.

 

[blackcrusader]

I absolutely agree there is limited situational awareness through FPV. I'm simply stating there are places and circumstances where exceeding 400' or pushing up through the overcast are risk-free. Our OP in Taiwan can attest to that.

Safety is definitely more important to me than cool video.

Firstly safety is foremost when I fly. Firstly I am flying in National Parks and wilderness areas where no people live. I also fly my drone to view landslides and roadworks for county government officials. Local tea and coffee farmers ask me to take photos and video's of their organic farms to show their clients. There are no private aircraft in Taiwan so we don't have the issue of small airports dotted around the country. Some of the areas I launch from are over 3000m in height. Flying up at 11,000' altitude does not mean that I always fly above 400' when there is a sheer precipice going down 2000'

Last weekend I flew over the rooftop of our local elementary school as they have covered it with solar array panels as the school Principal wanted to see if they needed cleaning. Much safer to fly nearby with a drone and take video and photos. Just hover around 50' above and 50' away to get nice clear photos. It's a sloped rooftop to sending someone up to inspect takes a much longer time.

I live in ALISHAN / YUSHAN. You can see where that is in the south east on the map. You can also see aircraft flight areas. They are nowhere near where I fly for obvious reasons. The shot of my village I got from flying off a mountain range higher up then flying about a mile out to my valley. Sure is pretty. Bit of haze that day but never mind. 4000' above.

 

[dwallersv]

I absolutely agree there is limited situational awareness through FPV. I'm simply stating there are places and circumstances where exceeding 400' or pushing up through the overcast are risk-free. Our OP in Taiwan can attest to that.

Worldwide, I suppose so, but I'm pretty naive and ignorant regarding airspace rules and regulations outside the US.

Within US airspace, I respectfully disagree. Anywhere you can fly above 400' (i.e. absent an NFZ, TFR, etc.) a private pilot can too. And that's the problem: There's no way to guarantee a pilot hasn't decided to do exactly the same thing you are -- except with a small manned aircraft. Unless you know of some way to be sure, there's no possibility to be above 400' confident that no plane is going to fly in the same airspace.

Not trying to be difficult, just real. If you know of some way to guarantee risk-free, I want to know -- I'd like to go up there and shoot so footage and take some pics too!