400ft + structure height = well tested hobbyist limit??

Joined
Jan 7, 2017
Messages
504
Reaction score
108
just saw video about this 400ft "trick"
= 400ft height + structure height if within 400ft = allowable "uber height"

e.g., say, a 1000' tower over 5 miles from any airport,
a hobbyist within 400ft of that tower can fly 1400 ft high
(400ft above tower)
& allegedly, no RC interference unless very close to tower...

have any hobbyist done this & been confronted by FAA or other???
(novice flyer P4P+)
 
You will have them argue both ways. I know here in WV. When flying east I have to keep my elevation above 400 ft. or I will hit trees. If I fly west at 150 ft. I am way over 600 ft. above the ground. One place I flew I was -165 ft. and still 1000 ft above the ground. I want to video a cliff that is over 1000 ft. One person told me it would probably be okay, but it was legally wrong. Kinda dumb. If I stand on top I will fly a 1000 ft. down and I’m legal. If I’m at the bottom flying up , I’m illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Kelly
Regardless of how you word it. That 400ft ceiling is based on the "takeoff" point. Also, that altitude is NOT a "Law" for hobbyist. It is a "Guideline" or "Recommendation" for safety purposes. It has nothing to do with structure height, unless the structure is also your takeoff point. If you are on a 500ft hilltop, you are fine to fly 400ft above that point.
 
Am not sure, but structure + 400'
may apply to man-made structures...?
400' may also mean height above ground altitude...?
 
400' may also mean height above ground altitude...?
Correct, but all the Phantom knows is the altitude above the takeoff point. That is the "Zero" reference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndrewCCM
Just for reference purposes:

FAA1.PNG
 
This is Section 336, if interested. Notice that the 400ft ceiling is never mentioned.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) IN GENERAL
Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
(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;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis-
tered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of
an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).
(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.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED
In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
H. R. 658—68
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
 
Kinda dumb. If I stand on top I will fly a 1000 ft. down and I’m legal. If I’m at the bottom flying up , I’m illegal.

If you're being a purest (and I tend to err on that side of the fence) it's not "legal" either way.

While "technically" 336 does not state the 400'AGL requirement there are some caveats that might pose "interesting' should enforcement take place.

A) If you are not following the "Guidelines" you automatically default to Part 107 rules which are codified into law. If any portion of your flight does not meet the requirements you are held to P107.

B) The FAA has purposely left this open worded. It's very common for the FAA to leave us room to "hang ourselves" without even knowing it.

C) Each and every "Hobby/Recreational" flyer who has registered has agreed to the following when you click "Submit" on your registration form. This is quoted (no changes made) directly from the FAA UAS Registration page ~
sUAS Registration - Login
Please remember the Safety Guidance:

  • I will fly below 400 feet
  • I will fly within visual line of sight
  • I will be aware of FAA airspace requirements: www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/airspace_restrictions
  • I will not fly directly over people
  • I will not fly over stadiums and sports events
  • I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
  • I will not fly near aircraft, especially near airports
  • I will not fly under the influence
To operate as a hobbyist, you must operate according to the safety guidance you have acknowledged and in accordance with a community based set of safety guidance. For further information on the safety guidance visitwww.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun

This leaves very little room for "interpretation" since you've agreed to them in writing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ironwolfjt
As a hobbiest, regulations say you can fly 400 feet AGL.

400 feet + structure only applies to commercial pilots.

I'm not 100% sure how that would be interpreted if this were taken into court. It's common for anything in aviation that is depicted in AGL to be "above and beyond" a structure. That's why we have "tall structures" listed on the sectional so we can know how high they are and determine our route and altitude accordingly.

For instance, if I'm flying along and maintaining a very strict 500'AGL flying in a Cessna and I go over a building that is 175 high I would need to clear said building by 500' increasing my AGL to 675'. The same goes for flying a drone off over a cliff. If the ground where you're standing is "Ground Zero" (and per the aircraft it is) and you fly out over a cliff that has a base floor of 900' then to remain "legal" in the purest form you would need to descend below your Ground Zero by 500' to remain at the 400' AGL.
 
I'm not 100% sure how that would be interpreted if this were taken into court. It's common for anything in aviation that is depicted in AGL to be "above and beyond" a structure. That's why we have "tall structures" listed on the sectional so we can know how high they are and determine our route and altitude accordingly.

For instance, if I'm flying along and maintaining a very strict 500'AGL flying in a Cessna and I go over a building that is 175 high I would need to clear said building by 500' increasing my AGL to 675'. The same goes for flying a drone off over a cliff. If the ground where you're standing is "Ground Zero" (and per the aircraft it is) and you fly out over a cliff that has a base floor of 900' then to remain "legal" in the purest form you would need to descend below your Ground Zero by 500' to remain at the 400' AGL.

Well, if I remember correctly when I was studying (over a year now), a commercial pilot can fly 400 feet above the structure as long as they stay with in 400 feet of the structure. I could be wrong as its been a while since I last read a study guide. So if we were applying this to the cliff scenario, as long as you were with in 400 feet of the face, horizontally, you could maintain your elevation as a commercial pilot.

None of this applies to hobby/rec pilots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndrewCCM
Well, if I remember correctly when I was studying (over a year now), a commercial pilot can fly 400 feet above the structure as long as they stay with in 400 feet of the structure. I could be wrong as its been a while since I last read a study guide. So if we were applying this to the cliff scenario, as long as you were with in 400 feet of the face, horizontally, you could maintain your elevation as a commercial pilot.

None of this applies to hobby/rec pilots.


Remember a cliff is not a structure so no you don't have the "leverage" of 400' laterally.
 
Regardless of how you word it. That 400ft ceiling is based on the "takeoff" point. Also, that altitude is NOT a "Law" for hobbyist. It is a "Guideline" or "Recommendation" for safety purposes. It has nothing to do with structure height, unless the structure is also your takeoff point. If you are on a 500ft hilltop, you are fine to fly 400ft above that point.
To follow that line of reasoning, one of these Phantoms is legal and one isn't?
Can you see a problem with that?

i-3NFhcdM-XL.jpg


To follow that logic further, you could fly far, far out from a 1000 ft cliff edge but still be only 1 foot higher than the launch point. Completely legal??

Where you launch from doesn't matter.
Altitude rules never mention the launch point and are based on height above ground.
That is the ground directly below the aircraft.
 
To follow that line of reasoning, one of these Phantoms is legal and one isn't?
That is the problem....AGL is in reference to what? The "Ground" you launch from is "Zero" Altitude, according to the Phantom. For that scenario to be accurate, one would need to know with 100% accuracy, the launch point altitude, and adjust that calculation manually. The "Ground" could be applied at 500ft, in relatively hilly terrain. There is no way that I know of, other than having an on board, radar altimeter to give you such numbers such that the OP would be certain of "Legal" Altitude AGL. I use the term "Legal" loosely for hobby flying, although personally I abide by all of the FAA recomendations for hobby flying, and in fact some of the regulations for Part 107, for safe flying.
 
That is the problem....AGL is in reference to what? The "Ground" you launch from is "Zero" Altitude, according to the Phantom. For that scenario to be accurate, one would need to know with 100% accuracy, the launch point altitude, and adjust that calculation manually. The "Ground" could be applied at 500ft, in relatively hilly terrain. There is no way that I know of, other than having an on board, radar altimeter to give you such numbers such that the OP would be certain of "Legal" Altitude AGL. I use the term "Legal" loosely for hobby flying, although personally I abide by all of the FAA recomendations for hobby flying, and in fact some of the regulations for Part 107, for safe flying.

What I’ve done before is set the camera level and use the cross hairs. If you get close enough with cross hairs, you can determine a close estimate of altitude of what your viewing, which should be acceptable.
 
What I’ve done before is set the camera level and use the cross hairs. If you get close enough with cross hairs, you can determine a close estimate of altitude of what your viewing, which should be acceptable.
Good point, however, this is still based on barometric altitude from the takeoff point for what the Phantom knows and reports back via telemetry. And can vary quite a bit in different weather conditions. It only references from your takeoff point, and not from the terrain in the flight path. That has to be adjusted manually.
 
No way I can fly with such scrutiny. I think about what I’m doing. I fly from one side of a ravine to the other and I’m over 400 ft. It would be illogical to fly down and up the other side. The ravines are so narrow. It would be funny if I did. As I stated earlier, flying to the east I have to continually go up in elevation. I do fly lower as I fly west and judge the best I can not to go higher than 400 ft. I loose. I’m bad. That’s life in the mountains.
 
This topic has been discussed so many times it gets frustrating. When flying, one can only be as safe as possible and observe all precautions to the best of the OP's ability, and to the Phantom's ability. Just fly safe, and you most likely will never be questioned. Rules and laws are really only made and enacted, because of accidents or mishaps that have occurred from carelessness. Nuff said..........Happy Flying.....
 
FYI, this video sparked my OP:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
no mention of hobbyist vs. commercial intent...?
 
That is the problem....AGL is in reference to what? The "Ground" you launch from is "Zero" Altitude, according to the Phantom. For that scenario to be accurate, one would need to know with 100% accuracy, the launch point altitude, and adjust that calculation manually. The "Ground" could be applied at 500ft, in relatively hilly terrain. There is no way that I know of, other than having an on board, radar altimeter to give you such numbers such that the OP would be certain of "Legal" Altitude AGL. I use the term "Legal" loosely for hobby flying, although personally I abide by all of the FAA recomendations for hobby flying, and in fact some of the regulations for Part 107, for safe flying.
AGL is always the altitude above the ground (directly below the aircraft) and has no relation to your launch point unless you fly on a perfectly flat prairie.
You don't have a way to measure this and neither does the pilot of a Cessna but that doesn't matter.
You can estimate it like the Cessna pilot has to.
The FAA is never going to be there with a tape measure and ladder to tell if you are flying at 405 ft or 395 ft.
That sort of detail isn't important.
Whether you fly in a reckless manner and endanger other users of the national airspace is.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31