400 ft Height Restrictions
- Thread starter Prylar Bek
- Start date
Rob,
If it frustrates you to respond to posts like this or to help others in this forum maybe you should just move to the next thread without responding!
If it frustrates you to respond to posts like this or to help others in this forum maybe you should just move to the next thread without responding!
SteveMann said:
Not entirely true. Within 3 miles of an airport it's a mandatory requirement unless you notify the airport operator prior to your flight.
csauer52 said:
No. You don't know what you are going on about.
Stop spreading this crap lest people continue to laugh at you.
LordEvil said:
Wow. The ignorance over the FAA's current regulations regarding flyng model aircraft in the US is amazing.
This was taken directly from the http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/ site.
400' is a suggestion, guideline, not a regulation. Now, in busy airspace I would certainly heed that suggestion. If you are in the middle of no where or know where your airports and flyways are I might venture a little higher. Mine is set at 700' but MY steadfast rule is that if I can't see it, it comes back to me quickly!
Couchie said:
Couldn't agree more, I once bravely took mine to 394ft and it was a spec in the sky, :shock: I don't think I would dare go any higher, mind you the video footage was fantastic (it would have been better if i hadn't set the resolution to its lowest though).
Might one day take a trip to the middle of nowhere and see just how high it can go, but today is not that day
Considering your grammar suggests you're a Brit.....
Taken right from the AMA manual. I've flown RC aircraft for years and have ALWAYS heeded these rules.
Page 4.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/memanual.pdf
2. Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
Know before you fly video - 38 seconds (not a suggestion) DO FLY BELOW 400ft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5Q9JvBhxM
FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 -
3 OPERATING STANDARDS.
a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated
areas. The selected site should be away from noise sensitive areas such as
parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.
b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until the
aircraft is successfully flight tested and proven airworthy.
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.
I don't know what I'm talking about? REALLY?
What baffles me even more is that folks on these forums think it's a joke and fly their UAVs in all manner of unsafe conditions. The videos I've seen of crashes in major cities is truly disturbing and IMO it's just a matter of time before the idiots ruin it for the rest of us.
csauer52 said:
Yes, you're at least a little unclear about what you're talking about and probably shouldn't post on the subject here without better understanding. You're operating under old assumptions from many years ago.
AMA manual is the AMA's opinion. It's not law or regulation. It only applies if you are an AMA member, crash and hurt someone. Their liability insurance won't cover you if you weren't operating according to their guidelines. Outside of that context, there is no legal requirement to pay any attention to the AMA's suggestion.
Model aircraft flying in the US is currently regulated by PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012, otherwise known as the FAA Modernization Act of 2012. Pay attentention to Section 336. It supersedes Advisory Circular 91-57, which is ancient and no longer applicable. The provisions in PL112-95 represent the only "law" associated with flying model aircraft, which includes Phantom 2 drones. Note the definition of model aircraft, that's important because you have to fulfill those few conditions or else your flight is indeed violating FARs. Also note Paragraph B. It's the catch-all that they used to nail Anthony Pirker. It covers a lot of ground, and if you pose a demonstrable danger to the public, you're going to have a problem with the FAA if they catch you, either by someone reporting you, or an imprudent video that you post.
Also note that local governments, state, city, county, etc, can impose their own restrictions, so you have to know those in the area where you're flying. And finally, if someone calls the cops on you, the cops always have the old standby "disturbing the peace" with which the can get you.
But let's not natter on about non-existent FAA regulations. Those may happen soon enough, but not now.
MacCool said:
I'm well aware of the FAA Modernization act of 2012 but thanks for pointing that out. I am an active AMA member which is why I follow their rules to a T. In addition, when reading section a subsection 2, it seems to imply that you should be following AMA guidelines which is how I interpret section 336.
Either way, you can't deny there are far too many examples of P2 pilots flying them in an unsafe manner. What's the harm in following FAA/AMA guidelines when in doing so you'll avoid poking the proverbial hornets nest? Why fly in such a manner where the risks will eventually lead to an accident which ultimately would lead to restrictions placed on all of us?
Why tempt fate? I think we owe it to ourselves as hobbyists to fly safely and with good judgement if we'd like to continue enjoying the freedoms we have today when it comes to piloting UAVs. I don't think it's an acceptable attitude to say well it's just a suggestion so I'll fly however I want.
Just my $0.02 but thoroughly enjoying the discussion.
MacCool said:
According to the FAA AC 91-57 is still in effect. They issued a cancellation a couple of months ago and promptly recinded it.
WIth respect to Section 336 of P.L. 112-95, pay special attention to the part that spells out what must be done to operate legally using that section. For instance:
Since AMA is the only CBO at this time this section clearly defines that you must operate in accordance with the rules of that CBO. In addition,"within the programming " means that one must be a member of that particular organization in order to be within the programming of that organization. Both FAA and AMA agree on this.
P.L. 112-95 did not exist at the time of the Pirker incident and it was no part of the FAA's action against him. In addition, it is also not a part of any of the subsequent decisions in the case. The Pirker case can only be decided based on laws in effect at the time of the incident.
The coming FAA sUAS Rule is largely going to deal with commercial and public agency use of sUAS. I suspect that there will be a section on Non-CBO model aircraft operations to cover those people who choose not to operate under Section 336 of P.L 112-95. This is consistent with the long-held multiple paths to compliance approach of the FAA
Local news, world news etc here in Texas keep stating that you can't fly over 400'. Does not state only if within x distance of an airport. I have broken that rule many times flying around 600 feet cloud level in my area. I hope they do not pass the law but the news is pretty much implying the rule on the general public. I live in a town east of a large city and no aircraft in my town is lower than 10,000' so the law should not apply outside an airport IMO.
Seems news creates rules in these parts. Been going on and on about cell phone use, now in the city you can't even pick up a cell phone and use it unless it's hands free, yet the common police car is full of gadgets to lose focus on driving.
Seems news creates rules in these parts. Been going on and on about cell phone use, now in the city you can't even pick up a cell phone and use it unless it's hands free, yet the common police car is full of gadgets to lose focus on driving.
LordEvil said:
That comes from AC 91-57, which is an advisory circular that carries no weight of law and is voluntary in nature. FAA has never issued a violation under AC 91-57 since they cannot do so.
Right now unless you are an AMA member and operating under Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 the AC 91-57 is the only thing that applies to you. Again, since it is voluntary in nature you can basically operate as you see fit upto the point where you endanger the NAS. Since FAA gets to make that determination, I would err on the side of caution.
SilentAV8R said:
Fairly certain P.L. 112-95 applies to ANYONE flying an RC aircraft, not just AMA members.
csauer52 said:
Common misconception. Section 336 plainly states:
The Conference Committee report for this section states this:
Clearly the law intends that one must be a member of the membership organization in order to operate within the programming.
Then consider this from a footnote in the FAA's INterpretation of Section 336 as published in the Federal Register:
This is speaking of the AMA since there are no other CBOs right now and AMA Rules allow the procedure mentioned in the footnote.
Then look at the FAA's web page for the special Rule: https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/mo ... operators/
It links to the AMA website when talking about rules and operational guidelines. AMA and FAA have also executed a MOU which further makes the case that AMA is a CBO. AMA considers that you must be a member to operate under its programming and the FAA concurs with this view (personal communication).
That's an interesting take. I've always had a different interpretation based on this clause:
As a whole, I took this to mean the FAA has no jurisdiction over you provided you're following the AMA guidelines and an active member. I never took that to mean you had carte blanche to act as you desired if you're not a card carrying member of the AMA.
Clearly there are too many inconsistencies within the existing guidelines which adds to the confusion. This doesn't change the fact that all UAV pilots should err on the side of caution and operate their craft in a safe and responsible manner. i.e. - not flying above a cloud layer, in/around crowded streets, in major metropolitan areas etc. The ignorance of some UAV pilots will eventually impact every one of us in an undesirable fashion.
As a whole, I took this to mean the FAA has no jurisdiction over you provided you're following the AMA guidelines and an active member. I never took that to mean you had carte blanche to act as you desired if you're not a card carrying member of the AMA.
Clearly there are too many inconsistencies within the existing guidelines which adds to the confusion. This doesn't change the fact that all UAV pilots should err on the side of caution and operate their craft in a safe and responsible manner. i.e. - not flying above a cloud layer, in/around crowded streets, in major metropolitan areas etc. The ignorance of some UAV pilots will eventually impact every one of us in an undesirable fashion.
csauer52 said:
I agree that it means in order to be in compliance with Section 336 you must be an AMA member. However, that does not mean you have carte blanche if you are not a member. In that case AC 91-57 still applies, which is why the FAA kept it in force. In either case, compliance is still more or less voluntary and in both cases the FAA can still go after you for reckless or careless operations.
FAA clearly feels the desired path is to operate under Section 336. And until another CBO comes along that means the AMA. And why wouldn't somebody choose that path? You get great insurance coverage and a strong voice representing you.
For those in SOCAL, next weekend is the AMA Expo at the Ontario, CA Convention Center (next to Ontario airport). THere will be a good number of sUAS/UAV companies represented, so it is worth a look.
http://amaexpo.com/
Truer words have rarely been spoken!!
I always fly below the 400 foot limit as there are helicopters that fly over my area at times so it helps to play it safe
Plus if I hear a aircraft of any kind I bring the phantom down to at least 50 feet and no more then 100 feet
Now I have seen my local law(which is stupid of the faa laws) fly within 100 foot of my house from above(they know it's illegal but they did it anyway)
Don't get me started on cops and how distracted they are while driving(it's stupid)
Plus if I hear a aircraft of any kind I bring the phantom down to at least 50 feet and no more then 100 feet
Now I have seen my local law(which is stupid of the faa laws) fly within 100 foot of my house from above(they know it's illegal but they did it anyway)
Don't get me started on cops and how distracted they are while driving(it's stupid)
What law are they violating by flying 100' above your house, assuming of course that it is indeed 100'?
.... and what does their driving have to do with flying over your house?
I'm a little lost... or I'm just misdirected on the hijack....
