And yet another drone close call

[N017RW]

Hey N,

I was referring to hobbyist. Commercial folks still must do all that

Well your post is confusing then. Saying basically '107 stuff got thrown out' is wrong.

 

[tcope]

it was a safe assumption he notified no one and that is in fact the case so all regs were violated.

That is a different conversation.... and we don't know that it was not done but that does not matter. I'm only mentioning the staements in the article that I mentioned. If he told the airport or not does not change what I stated.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

It's all wrong. 400' AGL is not a regulation, it's a recommendation (been beat to death here). It's not against the law to fly within 5 miles of an airport. I do it all of the time. The correct statement would be that it's illegal without notifying the airport. It's like me stating that it's illegal in all 50 states to drink alcohol.....

and not adding in, unless you are of legal age. Completely changes the statement.

There is also no indication that the person who made the statement even knows that you only need to inform. They got 400' and registration wrong so their track record for knowing what's correct is not stellar.

Again, all 3 statements, as they were made, are incorrect.

I know you're all hung up on what was said. What's more important is what the idiotic drone operator was doing.

In the context of the report, it is unlikely that the drone operator notified the operator and tower as REQUIRED by the FAA:
Airspace Restrictions

400' RULE:
Getting Started yes, it is a strange rule as written and I'm surprised the FAA leave it stand like that.

So, the only thing he got really wrong is the reg requirement. The 400' if not a rule, certainly should be.

Anyone who flies a drone above 400' AGL in the area around LWM and region is an idiot. I've rented airplanes at Beverly (nearby) and that is very busy airspace all around.

 

[tcope]

Wrong. Not sure where you are getting your info. As of 2014 the FAA clarified the airport perimeter reg. This isn't a recommendation as you suggest. Google will quickly help your gaps in knowledge.

Odd... I have to go find the information you mention after I point out that it does not exist. You don't even elaborate on this "airport perimeter reg" and what it is/means. As you use the word "permiter" I'm going to guess that you have an issue with 5 miels or notification to the airport? You _were_ discussing the 400' "limit" prior to this so I'm not clear if you are referring to that still or now raising another issue.Wa

If you are so sure of this info, feel free to post it here. Congress does not allow the FAA to regulate hobby use of drones beyond what is in Section 336 and Section 336 is as follows:

I

Want the info right from the FAA:



Model aircraft operators must follow these rules to fly under this Rule:

Fly for Fun under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

• the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft
• 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])

You can claim that there is something else out there, fail to be clear what that is, don't provide a link and tell someone else that they can search for some unclear information but I've posted the facts above and provided links to confirm.

 

[tcope]

I know you're all hung up on what was said. What's more important is what the idiotic drone operator was doing.

In the context of the report, it is unlikely that the drone operator notified the operator and tower as REQUIRED by the FAA:
Airspace Restrictions

400' RULE:
Getting Started yes, it is a strange rule as written and I'm surprised the FAA leave it stand like that.

So, the only thing he got really wrong is the reg requirement. The 400' if not a rule, certainly should be.

Anyone who flies a drone above 400' AGL in the area around LWM and region is an idiot. I've rented airplanes at Beverly (nearby) and that is very busy airspace all around.

Please read my post above about the drinking age example. What the flyer was doing has nothing to do with my statement. The law enforcement agency states that you cannot fly within 5 miles of an aiport, period. Without adding the easy exception, that statement is incorrect.

400' was not included in section 336 and the FAA cannot make further rules on UAV use. So the FAA cannot change this. They _attempted_ to, by adding it into the registration but we know how that worked out (they basically attempted to illegally change it).

All 3 of their statements were wrong. Still.

I'm not condoning flying above 400'.

 

[tcope]

400' RULE:
Getting Started yes, it is a strange rule as written and I'm surprised the FAA leave it stand like that.

I went back and clicked on the link this time. As I've always said, the FAA is not above lying. They have done it many times in the past. Even the FAA has confined in writing that 400' is not a regulation, only a recommendation. Yet, they leave it on their website. To add to that, there is an asterisk next this this "rule". Follow that to the bottom and it states there are waivers. Click on the waiver link and..... no waiver for 400'. Odd... they state you can get a waiver for 400'... but there is not one. Want to know why? Because there is no such thing.

They lied to the people when they stated the reason for the failed registration. They attempted to circumvent the ruling from Congress on no additional UAV regulations for hobby fliers and made people agree to the 400' rule in order to register their drones. I could go on and on about the many different ways the FAA has lied when it comes to UAVs.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I went back and clicked on the link this time. As I've always said, the FAA is not above lying. They have done it many times in the past. Even the FAA has confined in writing that 400' is not a regulation, only a recommendation. Yet, they leave it on their website. To add to that, there is an asterisk next this this "rule". Follow that to the bottom and it states there are waivers. Click on the waiver link and..... no waiver for 400'. Odd... they state you can get a waiver for 400'... but there is not one. Want to know why? Because there is no such thing.

They lied to the people when they stated the reason for the failed registration. They attempted to circumvent the ruling from Congress on no additional UAV regulations for hobby fliers and made people agree to the 400' rule in order to register their drones. I could go on and on about the many different ways the FAA has lied when it comes to UAVs.

I was speaking to the commercial operations rule. In which case, a waiver would not be a handy button on a website...

"no additional regulation". What was the regulation before the congressional ruling?

 

[tcope]

"no additional regulation". What was the regulation before the congressional ruling?

I quoted it above. Section 336.