Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at Night

[dkatz42]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

Oh this is AWESOME, I am leaving for Vegas tomorrow and staying at the Stratosphere to do precisely this. I want to get some good footage.
I came across this post researching if there were any laws or ordinances preventing me from doing so. Looks like if I stay below 400 ft (very hard for me to do) then I will be with in the law.
LOVE IT!
Stay tuned.......

Keep in mind that the strip (and a very large part of Las Vegas) is Class B airspace down to the surface, and there are lots of helicopters operating pretty low over the strip and elsewhere. Whether formally legal or not, it's way more questionable than flying in uncontrolled airspace, and is guaranteed to be illegal once the FAA gets around to regulating these things.

 

[ladykate]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

Not weighing in on the strip drive, I would like to know where people are getting the idea that there is a 400 ft altitude rule? That is for the UK but right now my understanding is that the FAA is only recommending 400 ft as the ceiling. If someone has a link to something to the contrary, I would like to see it. Thanks!

 

[CRuss]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

Not weighing in on the strip drive, I would like to know where people are getting the idea that there is a 400 ft altitude rule? That is for the UK but right now my understanding is that the FAA is only recommending 400 ft as the ceiling. If someone has a link to something to the contrary, I would like to see it. Thanks!

You are correct, it’s not Technically a LAW, however the FAA is a government entity I wouldn’t mess with them. If you are in an unpopulated area, go for it (as I often do) I would think twice in a city or near aircraft. I wouldn’t want to be the first "DRONE" to collide with a commercial aircraft and try to explain that one.

For Vegas, it’s NOT possible to take this think up to the top of the stratosphere, you basically go through airport security/metal detectors before getting on the elevators. And in Vegas, there are a TON and I mean a TON of super quiet helicopters all over at all times. I didn’t dare take it above 400 ft. and the strip was just too busy for me to do.

However, we had a party at the speedway. I did take it (below the naval Airbase jets practicing touch and goes all night) as far as I could. Here is an edited version of the vid.


http://vimeo.com/88796025

 

[ladykate]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

Understand not wanting to pull the Tiger's tail but in normal circumstances (not high profile, in your face stunts) I don't think there is a worry. Worst you will get is a question and I really doubt even that.

When I mentioned Stratosphere, I was talking about taking a GoPro in my hand up there (I know the other post was talking about launching from there). I'm not a fan of flipping the bird at authority unless there is an upside. No upside to that for me - other's miles may vary. Pick your battles.

 

[Visioneer]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

As far as I can determine, ladykate is correct:

There are two well known "source" documents that make reference to the 400' threshold. The first is FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 (Google it if you like. It's only a single page). It is clearly titled "advisory" and specifically "encourages voluntary compliance". It's not a law or a regulation ... it's advice. The relevant meat reads as follows:

OPERATING STANDARDS

c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.

The FAA has taken a lot of heat for making statements which imply, if not outright state, that compliance with this advisory is mandatory. However the bulk of their recent efforts have been with regard to commercial use of UAVs. The 400' threshold, for the most part, just gets mentioned in passing. The Administrative Law Judge's ruling of March 6, 2014, pretty well nixes all of the FAA's claims that their existing "documents" regards UAVs are legally enforceable. Of course the FAA has appealed the ruling to the full NTSB - but few folks give them much chance of prevailing there.

The second "source" document is the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) National Model Aircraft Safety Code. The AMA is a private organization for model fliers - it's been around since 1936. Obviously, it has no legal authority. The relevant phrasing is

2. Model aircraft pilots will: (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.

AMA members who fly in accordance with the Safety Code (not just this one item) get the benefit of secondary liability insurance for whatever may result from their flights. [An aside - I haven't yet found anything in the AMA Safety Code or their insurance document which requires insured flights be on an approved RC flying field as some have claimed]

However, all the brouhaha regards the FAA's enforcement efforts and their failure to prevail before a judge seems to have prompted many to simply cast the FAA's advice aside as irrelevant. But just because it's not legally binding does not mean it's bad advice that should be summarily ignored. Read on ...

In the midst of all this discussion there were several claims made that the FAA restricts manned aircraft to flying above 400' (obviously other than on takeoff & landing). Full scale pilots responded that this limit is not a mandatory regulation. I've no source document either way.

But the bottom line seems to be that if there is no binding restriction on how high a UAV can go nor binding restriction on how low a full scale, manned airplane can go, we have the makings for a spectacular demonstration of the physical restrictions of the space - time continuum, i.e., that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. Should that come to pass, it would probably be better to be flying within the bounds of the FAA's advice than beyond it. From what's been revealed to us so far, neither airplane nor UAV may have the clearly defined "legal" right of way so whichever has been operating most prudently (i.e., following published advice) may have the advantage. Just sayin' ...

 

[Visioneer]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

I saw a half dozen aircraft legally flying at much less than 400' this weekend.

14 C.F.R.§137.49

"§ 137.49 Operations over other than
congested areas.
Notwithstanding part 91 of this chap-
ter, during the actual dispensing oper-
ation, including approaches, depar-
tures, and turnarounds reasonably nec-
essary for the operation, an aircraft
may be operated over other than con-
gested areas below 500 feet above the
surface and closer than 500 feet to per-
sons, vessels, vehicles, and structures,
if the operations are conducted without
creating a hazard to persons or prop-
erty on the surface.
[Amdt. 137–3, 33 FR 9601, July 2, 1968]

That's out of an Agricultural Aircraft Operations section regards "dispensing" stuff like chemicals. I would hope a plane spraying a field would be pretty obvious to a UAV pilot as a place to avoid. Is there something similar regards general operations?

 

[ladykate]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

It seems that some want to make the 400' a rule when it is not. I do think that it is a good idea in many cases. However, it is not, in the information I have found, a direct violation of any rule/code/law.

 

[Visioneer]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

It seems that some want to make the 400' a rule when it is not. I do think that it is a good idea in many cases. However, it is not, in the information I have found, a direct violation of any rule/code/law.

Nope, it's not a rule. It's just advice. All are free to take it or leave it.

Personally, having only had my P2V for a couple months, I get uncomfortable when I can no longer see my $1200. In a bright sky that happens before 400' ... so I may never get there, much less beyond.

 

[ladykate]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

Personally, having only had my P2V for a couple months, I get uncomfortable when I can no longer see my $1200. In a bright sky that happens before 400' ... so I may never get there, much less beyond.

Tell me about it. The P2 can disappear really quickly. I was losing it at about 300-340 meters and not seeing it until it was about 250 meters on a bright day. My F550 can be seen all the way out to 600 on a bright day - it's that black ugly spot in the sky . Just glancing down at the monitor means you won't see the P2 when you bob your head back up.

Having said that, I'm not that into long distances either. 600 meters is the farthest I have gone and that made me a nervous wreck. I went 600 meters up once but that was a test and not something I would normally do. For filming, I have never had to go beyond a couple hundred distance and maybe 300 high for a panoramic (that's feet.. not meters).

 

[Visioneer]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

Just as a follow-up to the "manned airplane" restrictions, I just spoke to a friend who's a full scale pilot. He started in gilders, moved up to powered, and then to multi-engine and is a glider instructor. Basically he said that in uncongested areas, flying a full scale aircraft under 500' can get a pilot in a boatload of trouble ... and it's 1000' for a congested area. The reasoning is that at under 500' you've no real option (read adequate altitude?) to locate space and land if you have to. There MAY be some wiggle room if you're in a position that you could land (my interpretation of our conversation). What the FAA would come after such a pilot with is a charge of reckless flying. A pilot flying under 500' is probably looking at some big time trouble if he's caught.

So that would suggest that, in general, if full scale is following their guidance (500'), and model scale is following their guidance (400'), there's 100' safety margin between them. Talking "guidance" here, not necessarily law.

 

[Visioneer]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

Your next mission:
Go talk to some crop dusters for some more education.

As you already posted the regulation specifically for "crop dusters" (14 C.F.R.§137.49), which I acknowledged and which ONLY applies to "crop dusters", your above post is irrelevant and makes no positive contribution to the discussion.

Had you truly been interested in an informative discussion you would have responded to my inquiry regards the regs for general flight. You did not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For others who may be interested, the altitude reg for general flight (14 C.F.R.§91.119) follows:

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (law)

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

§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.

From this it would appear that there is an exemption from the 500' limit "over open water or sparsely populated areas" provided 500' is maintained from "any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." Evidently open water, sparsely populated areas, and agricultural fields (being sprayed) are areas where UAV pilots could expect to see manned planes at less than 500'. If your "person" is in a sparsely populated area, manned planes should not be within 500' of you (good luck with that). Of course there could be other exceptions buried in the regulations as well, but the general minimum limit seems to be 500'.

 

[Visioneer]

Re: Low Altitude FPV Flight Down Entire Las Vegas Strip at N

As you already posted the regulation specifically for "crop dusters" (14 C.F.R.§137.49), which I acknowledged and which ONLY applies to "crop dusters", your above post is irrelevant and makes no positive contribution to the discussion.

Had you truly been interested in an informative discussion you would have responded to my inquiry regards the regs for general flight. You did not.

Change your diaper already. I am interested in an informative discussion but that does not extend to doing your home work for you silly. Stop being lazy.

No, you'd rather post misleading information. Then, when challenged that it's not the whole story, you bail. Turns out I did the homework for you.

Hmmm ... you've been a member for two days. Wonder how many you'll last before everyone stops reading your posts and you have to join again with yet another name.