400 and BELOW!!!

ianwood · Jun 1, 2015

chase45 said:
Ill do as I please while being cautious of the airspace around me. Thanks for your concern.

You're seriously deluding yourself. You have no way or method to be "cautious". All I can recommend is that if you insist on flying into airspace that you are not qualified to fly in, please do keep posting about your exploits. Just as KillerCut did. He boasted about flying to 980m and then the FAA paid him a little visit. He's edited all his posts and hasn't posted anything about it since. Maybe he learned his lesson. Let's hope you do too.

chase45 · Jun 1, 2015

ianwood said:
You're seriously deluding yourself. You have no way or method to be cautious. All I can recommend is that if you insist on flying into airspace that you are not qualified to fly in, please do keep posting about your exploits. Just as KillerCut did. He boasted about flying to 980m and then the FAA paid him a little visit. He's edited all his posts and hasn't posted anything about it since. Maybe he learned his lesson. Let's hope you do too.

980 meters and 900 feet are vastly different.

I am violating no regulation or law by flying over 400 feet. The FAA has only proposed a law/regulation about it. Until this actually goes into effect I am in no trouble

ianwood · Jun 1, 2015

chase45 said:
980 meters and 900 feet are vastly different.

I am violating no regulation or law by flying over 400 feet. The FAA has only proposed a law/regulation about it. Until this actually goes into effect I am in no trouble

That's exactly what KillerCut thought. Pretty sure he's singing a different tune now. I'll see if I can get GovMan to log back in and set you straight on what the FAA thinks.

loganboyd · Jun 1, 2015

louforgiveno said:
Wait....so to be considered a toy it must not cause death if dropped from 3000ft....guys wtf?? Where is this thread heading.....how can i add this thread to my ignore list :/

What about Lawn Darts?

Adam Kontras · Jun 1, 2015

ianwood said:
You're seriously deluding yourself. You have no way or method to be "cautious". All I can recommend is that if you insist on flying into airspace that you are not qualified to fly in, please do keep posting about your exploits. Just as KillerCut did. He boasted about flying to 980m and then the FAA paid him a little visit. He's edited all his posts and hasn't posted anything about it since. Maybe he learned his lesson. Let's hope you do too.

Woah. Did he mention the FAA contacted him? I noticed he was absent lately...

EDITH: oh from Govman on the boards? That's not exactly a "visit" (unless you have more info than I do)

chase45 · Jun 1, 2015

ianwood said:
That's exactly what KillerCut thought. Pretty sure he's singing a different tune now. I'll see if I can get GovMan to log back in and set you straight on what the FAA thinks.

Do what you must.

Again I have violated zero laws or regulations.

damitjim · Jun 1, 2015

Good luck to Govman getting enough warrants to track me down, so he can talk to me about something there is no proof of me doing.

chase45 · Jun 1, 2015

damitjim said:
Good luck to Govman getting enough warrants to track me down, so he can talk to me about something there is no proof of me doing.

Exactly

Boasting online doesn't mean I actually did anything.

Oh wait, and even if I had there are still zero regulations or laws I have broken....

jlo · Jun 1, 2015

chase45 said:
Do what you must.

Again I have violated zero laws or regulations.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

AS far as I can tell HR 658 was made law in 2012. Specifically states LOS, and under 400ft.

damitjim · Jun 1, 2015

jlo said:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

AS far as I can tell HR 658 was made law in 2012. Specifically states LOS, and under 400ft.

Did you miss this part of your link?

"Individuals flying for hobby or recreation are strongly encouraged to follow safety guidelines, which include:" Strongly encouraged does not equal LAW

jlo · Jun 1, 2015

damitjim said:
Did you miss this part of your link?

"Individuals flying for hobby or recreation are strongly encouraged to follow safety guidelines, which include:" Strongly encouraged does not equal LAW

Keep reading...

The statutory parameters of a model aircraft operation are outlined in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012) Individuals who fly within the scope of these parameters do not require permission to operate their UAS; any flight outside these parameters (including any non-hobby, non-recreational operation) requires FAA authorization.

chase45 · Jun 1, 2015

damitjim said:
Did you miss this part of your link?

"Individuals flying for hobby or recreation are strongly encouraged to follow safety guidelines, which include:" Strongly encouraged does not equal LAW

Thank you. Finally someone who understands how to read laws and know the difference between proposed regulations/laws and an actual regulation/law

ianwood · Jun 1, 2015

jlo said:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

AS far as I can tell HR 658 was made law in 2012. Specifically states LOS, and under 400ft.

You beat me to it. I was just going to quote this:

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 said:
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

AMA: 400ft. FAA AS 91-57: 400ft.

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 said:
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;

No way to safely give way at 900ft. Impossible without sense and avoid system.

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 said:
(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

It means the FAA can go after you if they think you are doing something dangerous.

chase45 · Jun 1, 2015

Kinda weird that they would be proposing laws to actually limit the ceiling to 400 feet if this "law" from 2012 was in effect. The proposal was from Feb this year as well.

Oh Im no lawyer, but this guy is, and this is more current than the 2012 "law" you are posting

http://wtnh.com/2014/02/07/lawyer-drones-completely-legal-laws-non-existent/

damitjim · Jun 1, 2015

ianwood said:
No way to safely give way at 900ft. Impossible without sense and avoid system.

What? How does one avoid stationary objects then? Are flying something so stealth Cessna's ? As long as I'm maintaining LOS, you're not going to sneak up on me.

Hasan Ahmad · Jun 1, 2015

Ill be honest, I would like to have the option of going beyond 400 feet in all locations except near airports, hospitals which use helicopters etc but I go up to 250 feet and I am afraid of going any further. I dont know how some people go beyond 1000 feet.

damitjim · Jun 1, 2015

The new proposal actually requests a 500 foot ceiling

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18295

ianwood · Jun 1, 2015

damitjim said:
What? How does one avoid stationary objects then? Are flying something so stealth Cessna's ? As long as I'm maintaining LOS, you're not going to sneak up on me.

You have no idea what altitude I'm flying. You don't know if I'm climbing, descending or steady. You have no comms. At 900ft, it would take you about a minute to descend a Phantom to below 400ft if you dropped it hard (which you won't want to do because of VRS risk). I'm closing at close to 200MPH. I'll cross you in about 20 - 30 seconds if you saw me early enough.

chase45 · Jun 1, 2015

damitjim said:
The new proposal actually requests a 500 foot ceiling

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18295

And we should probably put the word proposal in bold for those who are having problems understanding

ianwood · Jun 1, 2015

And seriously, even if there were absolutely zero regulations, why would you do it? Do you seriously think your little adventure is worth putting people's lives at risk. Get over yourself.