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

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.


^^^^^ Nailed it!!

In aviation we are often giving it our best "Estimate" and erring on the side of caution. The only time I know when my altimeter is exactly correct is when my wheels are sitting on the ground.
 
Whether you fly in a reckless manner and endanger other users of the national airspace is.
Exactly my point. Much of this causes great confusion. But there is no confusion or alternate than flying safely..........Use good judgement....
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndrewCCM
Am not sure, but structure + 400'
may apply to man-made structures...?
400' may also mean height above ground altitude...?
Something that seemingly never comes up in these Sec 336 discussions is subparagraph (a)(2). It seems to be always ignored and I have no idea why.

But if one reads it, looks into it, and understands it, he'll see that the 336 operator must "show" he abides by AMA's Safety Code.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

And since B.1. of that document states All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures, that removes any ambiguity regarding what a 107 pilot can do vs what a 101 pilot can do.

As far as Ken Heron's video above, he didn't mention it in the video, but in his description area of the youtube video on the youtube site, he writes: This rule is for United States Part 107 certified 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.
 
Just remember that §135.19 Emergency Operations states: "(a) In an emergency involving the safety of persons or property, the certificate holder may deviate from the rules of this part relating to aircraft and equipment and weather minimums to the extent required to meet that emergency."

And this relates to sUAS how?

PART 135 - OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT (§§ 135.1 - 135.621)
 
my hobbyist $5 FAA "Small UAS Certificate of Registration" issued Jan 9 2017 on back:

"Safety Guidelines for flying your unmanned aircraft:
  • Fly below 400 feet"
 
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+)


I talked to a guy who gives the FAA Part 107 test and he said you must be within 400' of a structure, and have permission to fly over that structure, and then you can fly 400' above that structure. So if the approved tower is 1000', then you can legally fly 1400' AGL. You do not need a FAA Part 107 Commercial Cert to do this. Anyone can.
 
I talked to a guy who gives the FAA Part 107 test and he said you must be within 400' of a structure, and have permission to fly over that structure, and then you can fly 400' above that structure.

Something off about that???
As hobbyist, am already legally flying over structures WITHOUT owner permission whilst flying UNDER 400'.
Theoretically, I could fly over 50' tall auto repair shop & then ascend to 450' without issue...?
(auto repair shop property has no expectation of privacy -- except bathrooms...)
 
I talked to a guy who gives the FAA Part 107 test and he said you must be within 400' of a structure, and have permission to fly over that structure, and then you can fly 400' above that structure. So if the approved tower is 1000', then you can legally fly 1400' AGL. You do not need a FAA Part 107 Commercial Cert to do this. Anyone can.
It's probably the same 107 instructor who told me a rogue 336 flight doesn't default to 107
 
Last edited:
Something off about that???
As hobbyist, am already legally flying over structures WITHOUT owner permission whilst flying UNDER 400'.
Theoretically, I could fly over 50' tall auto repair shop & then ascent to 450' without issue...?
Please tell us about the CBO safety guidelines you follow...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fly Dawg
Something off about that???
As hobbyist, am already legally flying over structures WITHOUT owner permission whilst flying UNDER 400'.
Theoretically, I could fly over 50' tall auto repair shop & then ascend to 450' without issue...?
(auto repair shop property has no expectation of privacy -- except bathrooms...)

I’ve often wondered how you determine, from the air, whether the occupants of any building have an expectation of privacy and the legal backing of said claim.
 
Businesses have right to privacy, ie trade secrets. Not sure I’d know that, in the air or on the ground.
 
I talked to a guy who gives the FAA Part 107 test and he said you must be within 400' of a structure, and have permission to fly over that structure, and then you can fly 400' above that structure. So if the approved tower is 1000', then you can legally fly 1400' AGL. You do not need a FAA Part 107 Commercial Cert to do this. Anyone can.


You may want to find someone else to get FAA suggestions from. If they are "Giving the test" then they are an
FAA- approved testing service provider authorized to conduct high-stakes examinations for the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. If they really are this and giving that information they need to get audited. I suspect the person you mention is probably more of a "study/practice test" type organization as as such they are merely a 3rd party taking people's money for nothing. They are giving bad/WRONG information.

That's like saying, "Someone standing next to a stop sign can give you permission to not stop at it if they happen to be touching the signpost".

PEOPLE don't give you permission to fly 400' over their building/property. As soon as your aircraft leaves the ground/takeoff platform it's operating in the Nationals Airspace System and falls under the FAA and ONLY the FAA.
 
falls under the FAA and ONLY the FAA
Not to get nit-picky, but State rules tend to be forgotten and the FAA has said that there are some operations that can be deemed illegal and outside of the FAA's regulatory power, but can be set by local government and state bodies. This discussion is primarily about national airspace, but for those of us in state's with additional rules, you want to consider those as well.
 
Not to get nit-picky, but State rules tend to be forgotten and the FAA has said that there are some operations that can be deemed illegal and outside of the FAA's regulatory power, but can be set by local government and state bodies. This discussion is primarily about national airspace, but for those of us in state's with additional rules, you want to consider those as well.


Until something is codified giving up the regulatory platform of the FAA nothing is changed. Lot's of things are "in discussion" and being talked about but none of it's official until pen goes to paper.

Most states/provinces that are enacting "Airspace Rules" are merely reiterating the FAA laws which allows them to "enforce" them locally without sending up to the FAA. For instance North Carolina requires the FAA Part 107 for anyone doing any "work" with a UAS. All they have done is copied the Federal ruling but in doing so allows local Law Enforcement to be able to "enforce" it.
 
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.

That's most likely incorrect. Because you may be in violation of one of the rules for hobby flight does not automatically mean you are not flying for hobby. If I'm flying non-commercially and violate one of the rules for hobby slight does not mean I'm flying commercially. I'm not. It only means I'm in violation of the law under hobby flight. if the FAA wants to penalize me for that, they can. The violation does not change the reason why I'm flying.
 
FYI, this video sparked my OP:

no mention of hobbyist vs. commercial intent...?

That is why the video is really garbage. The creator knows it's only for non-hobby flight but then he looses his shock value of the title. So instead he misleads people in order to get more views.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,356
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.