P3 Facebook group to start banning members?!

The FAA has said that flying over 400ft is against their regulations. This would, ipso facto, make it illegal (and therefore against forum guidelines). Whether or not the FAA's assertion is enforceable is academic. When a government agency indicates something is illegal, it is so until someone with higher authority says otherwise.

That's how the government wants to operate (and no offense, but your acquiescence will help speed that along). However, that's not how the country works (yet).

The 400ft guideline is a carryover from model aircraft regulations, of which UAS' like Phantoms are not (logically or legally). FAA employees can believe anything they want. As of now, I don't believe any of their proposed UAS guidelines are in force (except the government's usual over-reach into "commercial activity").

I'm not trying to be combative or imply it should be a Wild West scenario, but it's imperative that all government entities strictly follow proper administrative procedures, and that you, as a citizen, hold them to that. The less hand-holding you ask the government to do, the better (and more truly 'free') we can become.

Let's all agree to practice safe flying, no matter what altitude.
 
The FAA doesn't make laws. It makes regulations that are enforceable by laws. The FAA has made it very clear that they strongly believe flights above 400ft are against their existing regulations.

This is excerpted directly from an FAA rep on this site:

Thanks and I get that. The question still stands though. Are we going to see this group go in the same direction as the Facebook groups? Are you guys going to become enforcers of regulations that aren't laws and start banning members that may or may not fly above 400' and share here?
I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I feel it's important to be clear on this so we as members know
 
I would bet the owners of this forum are discussing the subject as we speak. They could potentially be opened up to some liability issues for hosting a site that disregards current FAA recommended guidelines, and doesn't reign in those who are posting to ignore the guidelines. Your fight against big government isn't with the site owners, this is their forum and you have to abide by their rules. It isn't Democracy here, it's a private Internet forum.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro
 
I can't speak on behalf of this site. It hasn't been done so far but the terms of use prohibit discussing illegal acts. I doubt anyone would get banned but they may get a warning and threads closed and/or deleted.

My personal advice would be to not post. We know the FAA reviews this site and has on at least one occasion investigated flights above 400ft. And personally, I'd rather this site be an example of people who conduct their flights within the regulations.
 
The FAA doesn't make laws. It makes regulations that are enforceable by laws. The FAA has made it very clear that they strongly believe flights above 400ft are against their existing regulations.

This is excerpted directly from an FAA rep on this site:
That post was from a person who either claimed or implied he was with the FAA. I could claim the same thing and tell people it's illegal to fly any drone. That is, the post is meaningless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyhighdiver
That post was from a person who either claimed or implied he was with the FAA. I could claim the same thing and tell people it's illegal to fly any drone. That is, the post is meaningless.

Incorrect. He was from the FAA. If you read the full thread, you would see that I confirmed his identity.
 
The FAA doesn't make laws. It makes regulations that are enforceable by laws. The FAA has made it very clear that they strongly believe flights above 400ft are against their existing regulations.

This is excerpted directly from an FAA rep on this site:
I remember that conversation. When I asked the unidentified "rep" 'What regulation'? he disappeared.

The FAA doesn't just invent regulations when they feel like it - they go through an NPRM process that can take a year or more to finalize. There is NO FAA regulation prohibiting flight above 400 ft. (There is a rule that requires you get permission if you plan to fly above 18,000 ft).

Also worth noting the FAA has been on this site investigating reports of drone flights in US airspace above 400ft.

Same imaginary "FAA Rep"?

Time to educate the fear mongers. The US 4th and 5th amendments should be enough to prevent this kind of snooping, but how about, the FAA enforcement division is seriously understaffed and they have a lot more important things to do than look for people not breaking any rules. One FAA enforcement inspector tried to tried to shut down one drone operator for posting videos on YouTube and the head lawyer at the FAA enforcement division in Washington shut down that nonsense pretty quickly. He reminded the field offices that we still have a first amendment right to post drone videos on YouTube.
 
Incorrect. He was from the FAA. If you read the full thread, you would see that I confirmed his identity.
You seem to be the only person here who has seen this "proof" of identity, and your imaginary FAA rep hasn't been back to the forums.

If someone really from the FAA wanted to participate in these forums then they would be welcomed, but it would be highly unlikely because 14 CFR Part 11, Appendix 1 requires all ex-parte communications be documented. That's a lot of paperwork that everyone I know in the FAA want to avoid.
 
Just to be crystal clear about the reason for this post. I didn't start it to rehash the FAA rules and regulations OR to promote unsafe flying practices. Nor did I start it to "pick a fight" with the owners of the forum as mentioned above.
I posted to ask the question are we going to become a Facebook nanny state forum? I voluntarily left the Facebook group that decided to put such a harsh rule on it's members and I hope others follow suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry Kangas
Incorrect. He was from the FAA. If you read the full thread, you would see that I confirmed his identity.
Even given that, the FAA does not officially operate by posting to forums. That is, even if he was a FAA employee he was not posting officially for the FAA. He would have been stating his own opinion.

However, the FAA has also claimed a 400 foot limit but this is highly questionable.
 
Just to be crystal clear about the reason for this post. I didn't start it to rehash the FAA rules and regulations OR to promote unsafe flying practices. Nor did I start it to "pick a fight" with the owners of the forum as mentioned above.
I posted to ask the question are we going to become a Facebook nanny state forum? I voluntarily left the Facebook group that decided to put such a harsh rule on it's members and I hope others follow suit.
I don't think anyone misunderstands that. What is being questioned is the claim that flying higher the 400 feet is illegal. If it's not, then the people who have that FB page are clueless. However, it's not like just anyone can create a FB page.
 
There are many reasons to fly over 400'. I'm surrounded by 900' mountains. I regularly fly between 400-1200 ft. The 1600' limit on the P3 is reasonable as long as you're safe and use common sense. The 400' suggestion by the FAA is unreasonable except in certain places. If a nanny group has such rules, I'll gladly not be a part of that group. If they decide to impose that restriction on the aircraft, I won't buy the product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyhighdiver
Even given that, the FAA does not officially operate by posting to forums. That is, even if he was a FAA employee he was not posting officially for the FAA. He would have been stating his own opinion.

However, the FAA has also claimed a 400 foot limit but this is highly questionable.

Participation by FAA employees is really discouraged by their superiors because any government employee of a rulemaking authority such as the FAA or FCC may be quoted in a rulemaking process, and that would be considered an ex-parte communication that could be a legal challenge to a new rule. Even if the employee says, "this is my opinion", it's still the opinion of a government employee and it does not release him from the reporting requirements.

No one from the FAA has ever said that 400 ft was a rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyhighdiver
There are many reasons to fly over 400'. I'm surrounded by 900' mountains. I regularly fly between 400-1200 ft. The 1600' limit on the P3 is reasonable as long as you're safe and use common sense. The 400' suggestion by the FAA is unreasonable except in certain places. If a nanny group has such rules, I'll gladly not be a part of that group. If they decide to impose that restriction on the aircraft, I won't buy the product.
I don't disagree but any height limit would be from the drone to the ground below it. So if you were to fly up the side of a mountain, the height would decrease with the rise of the mountain.

I read that again and now understand. Going with what I posted, the app could report that you were 1000 feet above take off height but you could be 10 above current ground level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acherman
The 400' rule is AGL, not ASL or your take off point, when would I ever need to be more than 400' AGL? How many more times are we going to re-hash this old argument?
Yah, but the P3 takes it's ground level at it's home point. As others have mentioned, if you are flying up the the side of a mountain you run out of 400' pretty quickly. I have flown my P3P to over 2300' beside local mountains and wasn't even close to the top, but only in a movie would another aircraft be that close to those mountains.
 
The 400' rule is AGL, not ASL or your take off point, when would I ever need to be more than 400' AGL? How many more times are we going to re-hash this old argument?

If I want to film 50' above the top of an 600' mountain, I could go 650' AGL from the bottom of the mountain, or I could climb to the top of the mountain by foot over 4 hours time, fighting bears and coyotes along the way, and then fly 50' AGL from the top of the mountain. Tough choices, tough choices.
 
If I want to film 50' above the top of an 600' mountain, I could go 650' AGL from the bottom of the mountain, or I could climb to the top of the mountain by foot over 4 hours time, fighting bears and coyotes along the way, and then fly 50' AGL from the top of the mountain. Tough choices, tough choices.
Unless that mountain is a shear vertical wall that is not true, drop a plumb bob straight vertical down from the bird to the ground and I bet you will never be more than 400AGL. I don't see why people don't get this, if the bird is 1000' from you and 1500 feet up the side of the mountain and you are acceding at an angle to the ground the P3 might be 1500 above YOU, and still be only 200' AGL. AGL is measured from the P3 to the ground DIRECTLY below it, not the take off point. I have had my P3 at 7000', but at no time was it more than 400' aGL
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyhighdiver
when would I ever need to be more than 400' AGL
When you want to, given it is safe to do so. End of (that particular) discussion.

If you're in a remote area with informed knowledge that there is no airline cross-traffic, why shouldn't you be able to fly higher than such an arbitrary altitude? I've taken a picture at 500'. It is noticeably different than 400', and it may be enjoyable to some to take/see pictures from that perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zobiwu

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers