I’m not speaking FOR FAA. I am stating what they make you agree to when registering with them.
Altitude
- Thread starter Daniel Lindsey
- Start date
I’m not speaking FOR FAA. I am stating what they make you agree to when registering with them.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 126
- Age
- 63
I call it what the FAA says it is. It is a guideline and not a law. There is no penalty for flying above 400ft as it is not a law but it is recommended to stay below 400ft. I only follow what the FAA states not what someone else thinks. The paper requests you follow community guidelines which again are not laws.
"There is no legal requirement to fly under 400ft for those operating under Section 336."
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2017
- Messages
- 108
- Reaction score
- 33
- Age
- 53
fixed wing aircraft should not be flying below 500', and if you are near an airport then you have to notify them. These two precautions should pretty much prevent collisions.
Helicopters are the big exception to that (as in not fixed-wing), and probably represent the greatest risk of collision.
Notifying them prevents collisions how? If someone arbitrarily flies at whatever altitude they want since it's just "guidance and not the law"... It's not like the airport is telling all fixed wing'd aircraft in the area (there is a kid flying a hobby drone in your flight line).
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2017
- Messages
- 108
- Reaction score
- 33
- Age
- 53
The UNICOM at local airports often give weather, advisories etc to aircraft in the area. If you are near an airport or hospital (helipad) you should always be extremely cautious, but again below 400' you should have little traffic to deal with unless you are on short-final at an airport.
I was assuming we were staying under 400' in my previous comment.............if you want to "arbitrarily fly at whatever altitude" then I doubt you are advising airports or following any of the other rules/guidelines.
I'm a private pilot, I know my area, and I know where aircraft fly, especially where they fly low. I feel very comfortable that no one will be flying near me below 400'.
I was assuming we were staying under 400' in my previous comment.............if you want to "arbitrarily fly at whatever altitude" then I doubt you are advising airports or following any of the other rules/guidelines.
I'm a private pilot, I know my area, and I know where aircraft fly, especially where they fly low. I feel very comfortable that no one will be flying near me below 400'.
I was referring to all of the talk about “it’s only guidance, ignore the agreement you make when registering, fly whatever you want” messages on this thread. I am in agreement with you and was somewhat being sarcastic (which I should not be) to those that think it’s fine to break the agreement because “it’s guidance and not law”. I apologize.
Contact the FAA directly if you have any questions. I specifically asked them about the 400' limit. I received a written response stating there is no legal requirement for people flying under hobby rules to stay below 400' AGL. I'll take their word in writing over someone posting on the internet
Great. It’s not law yet. I get that. Do what you want. Doesn’t make it safe or smart just because it isn’t written law and you can. It’s FAA guidance and in a lot of cases very good guidance IMHO.
Again, I ask why they make you agree not to fly over 400’ when you register if they don’t intend on enforcing it. Basically, it makes a lot of people liars (they agree and then break their agreement on purpose).
Ironic, some rules apply to 107 licensed fliers but hobbiest can choose to be jackwagons if they so choose just because it’s not written law. SMH
Last edited:
Unfortunately so. The FAA made a valiant effort in the registration process to get hobbyists to agree to stay below 400 ft. However, you can't be prosecuted for breaking a promise and there is no specific law to back them up here. Endangering the NAS (101.43) is the best they can do if the case can be made.
OK so, from the standpoint of a person not owning a drone yet and still trying to sort things out ...when part 101 states that a person must fly within a "community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" ...I assume that means I would have to have an AMA membership to qualify right? Sorry if that's a dumb question.
While I am typically conservative in interpreting the rules, I actually agree with post #33's interpretation that you don't have to be a member of a community-based organization (CBO) but rather you just need to follow the guidelines.
I will try to clarify some confusion regarding the language that, in order to satisfy the conditions of 14 C.F.R. § 101.41 and PL 112-95 § 336(a)(2) regarding operation of a model aircraft, the aircraft is operated (1) in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines, and (2) within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization. (1) is rather obvious. (2) generates some confusion.
Some people have interpreted "within the programming" to mean that membership in a CBO is required, but according to someone who asked the FAA to clarify, "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a)(2) as requiring membership in a CBO . . . ." The FAA Says AMA Membership Is NOT Required To Fly Your Model! - Drone Business Center
The word "programming," I believe, was not intended to mean "membership," but rather as any additional "content" that the CBO develops to guide its own members. Discussion in a conference report sheds some light on the intent of Congress in including this language:
"Lastly, language is added that will ensure that nothing in this provision will
interfere with the Administrator's authority to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system. In this
section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is
intended to mean a membership based association that represents
the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides
its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that
underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National
Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general
public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually
supportive programming with educational institutions,
government entities and other aviation associations; and acts
as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its
members." U.S. House, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Conference Report (to Accompany H.R. 658), 112 H. Rpt. 381 (Feb. 1, 2012).
Thus, programming, in the sense that Congress was discussing before implementing the law, I believe refers to any additional "content" that is "develop[ed] and maintain[ed]" by the CBO in conjunction with the entities listed. In other words, in order to satisfy the "within the programming" language, you must look beyond just the explicit guidelines that a CBO propagates, but also operate in accordance with any other content that the CBO provides.
I will try to clarify some confusion regarding the language that, in order to satisfy the conditions of 14 C.F.R. § 101.41 and PL 112-95 § 336(a)(2) regarding operation of a model aircraft, the aircraft is operated (1) in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines, and (2) within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization. (1) is rather obvious. (2) generates some confusion.
Some people have interpreted "within the programming" to mean that membership in a CBO is required, but according to someone who asked the FAA to clarify, "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a)(2) as requiring membership in a CBO . . . ." The FAA Says AMA Membership Is NOT Required To Fly Your Model! - Drone Business Center
The word "programming," I believe, was not intended to mean "membership," but rather as any additional "content" that the CBO develops to guide its own members. Discussion in a conference report sheds some light on the intent of Congress in including this language:
"Lastly, language is added that will ensure that nothing in this provision will
interfere with the Administrator's authority to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system. In this
section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is
intended to mean a membership based association that represents
the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides
its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that
underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National
Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general
public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually
supportive programming with educational institutions,
government entities and other aviation associations; and acts
as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its
members." U.S. House, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Conference Report (to Accompany H.R. 658), 112 H. Rpt. 381 (Feb. 1, 2012).
Thus, programming, in the sense that Congress was discussing before implementing the law, I believe refers to any additional "content" that is "develop[ed] and maintain[ed]" by the CBO in conjunction with the entities listed. In other words, in order to satisfy the "within the programming" language, you must look beyond just the explicit guidelines that a CBO propagates, but also operate in accordance with any other content that the CBO provides.
To answer the original question, although I agree that there is no specific rule for model aircraft operating above 400 feet AGL assuming you are operating in accordance with guidelines of a CBO, you should consider the following:
1. General Part 91 regulations that the FAA may attempt to enforce against you to show that you are endangering the NAS.
2. AC 91-57A, which states "[m]odel aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL)." And, before you get too fancy with me, although I recognize the "should" language, the advisory circular is simply setting the standard for indicia of endangering the national airspace system or operating in a careless or reckless manner.
3. While the FAA may not be able to prosecute you for a promise to fly below 400 feet AGL, its purpose is not to bind you contractually to the promise, but rather to serve as evidence of your knowledge of what constitutes "best practices" when the FAA decides to prosecute you for endangering the NAS. I.e., it serves the purpose of helping to prove "recklessness or carelessness."
My advice is to fly below 400 feet AGL.
1. General Part 91 regulations that the FAA may attempt to enforce against you to show that you are endangering the NAS.
2. AC 91-57A, which states "[m]odel aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL)." And, before you get too fancy with me, although I recognize the "should" language, the advisory circular is simply setting the standard for indicia of endangering the national airspace system or operating in a careless or reckless manner.
3. While the FAA may not be able to prosecute you for a promise to fly below 400 feet AGL, its purpose is not to bind you contractually to the promise, but rather to serve as evidence of your knowledge of what constitutes "best practices" when the FAA decides to prosecute you for endangering the NAS. I.e., it serves the purpose of helping to prove "recklessness or carelessness."
My advice is to fly below 400 feet AGL.
Last edited:
I just looked at mine again, it says that under " safety guidelines for flying your unmanned aircraft".. Where I come from, guidelines and rules are two different things. I'm going to rush right home and max that setting out ASAP...
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 126
- Age
- 63
