Casual FAA Violations

[Evilmorg]

I am new to droning but have a great deal of experience with R/C aircraft. Just purchased a P4P and am just waiting for better weather to break out of simulator mode. In the meantime I've been reading this and other drone sites.

What amazes and disturbs me is the widespread and casual boasting I find here of both altitude and distance-from-pilot violations by hundreds of drone pilots.
It was this outlaw attitude that made me hesitate about getting into the drone world. Not because I'm a compulsive rule keeper or ****-retentive but instead because these regs were put in place to protect others from our activities.
Imagine an unguided drone dropping out of the sky and lacerating your two year old child. Or piloting an ultralight and colliding with a drone at 900 ft AGL. Much more likely events if we don't show some self-discipline as a group.

Getting off my soapbox now. Throw rotten veggies if you want. No rocks or activated drones, please!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Tenly]

Imagine an unguided drone dropping out of the sky and lacerating your two year old child. Or piloting an ultralight and colliding with a drone at 900 ft AGL. Much more likely events if we don't show some self-discipline as a group.

Sure. I'm equally concerned with the widespread disregard and lack of respect for the rules when it comes to driving automobiles! Speeding, rolling through stop signs, changing lanes without signalling! It's everywhere!

Imagine a driver not stopping at a stop sign and plowing through a mother pushing a stroller carrying her newborn twins! Or not signalling their right turn and colliding with a bicycle rider!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Tenly]

I am new to droning but have a great deal of experience with R/C aircraft. Just purchased a P4P and am just waiting for better weather to break out of simulator mode. In the meantime I've been reading this and other drone sites.

What amazes and disturbs me is the widespread and casual boasting I find here of both altitude and distance-from-pilot violations by hundreds of drone pilots.
It was this outlaw attitude that made me hesitate about getting into the drone world. Not because I'm a compulsive rule keeper or ****-retentive but instead because these regs were put in place to protect others from our activities.
Imagine an unguided drone dropping out of the sky and lacerating your two year old child. Or piloting an ultralight and colliding with a drone at 900 ft AGL. Much more likely events if we don't show some self-discipline as a group.

Getting off my soapbox now. Throw rotten veggies if you want. No rocks or activated drones, please!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Those who boast of altitude and distance are usually flying in remote areas - or over water. Places where it would be more likely to win the Powerball lottery 5 times in a row than to lacerate a child. They also don't put their drone in "unguided" mode during their distance runs and most don't press the "drop out of the sky" button until the drone is back within VLOS.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Evilmorg]

Thanks, Tenly. Agreed. But one has to factor in the possibility of equipment failure causing such incidents. My years flying R/C have shown me our technology is still fallible. Better to be able to see a mid-air malfunction and have a chance to save the aircraft or to visually avoid an impending collision with another airborne object.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Toyandgadgetguy]

One also has to consider that the more often these things are romanticized, the more likely it is that people will consider it regular and acceptable behavior. While we believe most are cautious now, that third, or fourteenth generation tends to be less so. The goal should be trying to keep the standards high, and the exceptions rare.

That said, you can't police the world, and sooner or later (hopefully way later), every good thing gets ruined by those who don't really care enough.

 

[BobWare]

I'm not yet a Phantom owner but will probably make the purchase soon. Meanwhile, I've been researching everything I can about drones and FAA regulations. I've seen quite a bit of talk about a 400' AGL restriction yet I cannot find that restriction anywhere in regulations regarding drones flown strictly as a hobby. On the contrary, I did find an FAA Advisory Circular dated Jan 2016 which addresses this (and other) issues. In particular, this circular, AC No. 91-57A, states the following: "Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL)". Note the use of the word "should" instead of "shall"--this makes it a recommendation rather than a mandated requirement. I've attached the actual circular... am I missing something?

 

[Steven Graham]

There is no hard altitude restriction for part 101 hobby operators like there is for part 107 commercial operators. This was fought very hard for by the AMA as a 400 foot ceiling would effectively prevent a number of special interest groups from flying. The AMA maintains a copy of the letter from the administrator acknowledging this.

 

[Steven Graham]

Please do not read the above as carte blanche to fly in a way that would interfere with other users of the NAS. The history of model aviation is one of mutual respect among the various communities. Relatively small numbers of people operating irresponsibly have threatened a relationship that existed long before they showed up. Those of us with a long term interest in the hobby will be suffering the consequences of their actions long after they've moved on to the next distraction.

 

[42FrankZ]

Imagine an unguided drone dropping out of the sky and lacerating your two year old child.

Or imagine the same drone not falling out of the sky (since they don't with any real frequency) and instead that mission it was on it films your two year old being kidnapped and helps find the van before any harm happens.

We are doing a service to the public good every time we fly.

 

[daveisim]

. I've attached the actual circular... am I missing something?

Nope you're not missing anything. Note the big words at the top of the document: Advisory Circular.

Advisory circular (AC) refers to a type of publication offered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide guidance for compliance with airworthiness regulations. They define acceptable means, but not the only means, of accomplishing or showing compliance with airworthiness regulations.

The above explanation was lifted from a wiki as it explains it better than I could.

 

[Steven Graham]

^
Good summary of the purpose of the advisory circular system.

It should be noted that even though advisory circulars are largely informational in nature they have been used in legal proceedings when the FAA was trying to make a claim of careless or reckless operations leading to some type of incident/accident. Alternatively a pilot could argue that he was flying with respect to various AC's and therefore exercising prudent judgement. A thought process that has helped keep full scale pilots out of hot water in the past has been "How would a law judge view my actions if anything were to happen and how would I justify them".

 

[MCTV]

I like the "'drop out of sky' button" Tenly.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[kykazaa]

There is no hard altitude restriction for part 101 hobby operators like there is for part 107 commercial operators. This was fought very hard for by the AMA as a 400 foot ceiling would effectively prevent a number of special interest groups from flying. The AMA maintains a copy of the letter from the administrator acknowledging this.

As a recreational pilot, I registered my drone (UAS) on the FAA website. This site is where the 400' ceiling comes into play, but note, if you read it carefully (the summary of small aircraft rule part 107) you will note it states "Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, ifhigher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure." So long as you stay within 400 feet of a structure, you can go over the 400' AGL limit. Just for everyone reading this, be careful about flying over/around structures where you lose VLOS as you will likely also lose radio contact with your drone, kicking it into auto-return home mode and likely flying you into said structure. Another reason why we are restricted to VLOS as recreational operators - our gear likely is that good to see through/around structures.

 

[joet]

As a recreational pilot, I registered my drone (UAS) on the FAA website. This site is where the 400' ceiling comes into play, but note, if you read it carefully (the summary of small aircraft rule part 107) you will note it states "Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, ifhigher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure." So long as you stay within 400 feet of a structure, you can go over the 400' AGL limit. Just for everyone reading this, be careful about flying over/around structures where you lose VLOS as you will likely also lose radio contact with your drone, kicking it into auto-return home mode and likely flying you into said structure. Another reason why we are restricted to VLOS as recreational operators - our gear likely is that good to see through/around structures.

Part 107 doesn't apply to recreational fliers - Part 107 is commercial fliers. Commercial fliers have a limit of 400' AGL except when flying within 400' of a structure that is taller.

Recreational flying doesn't have the same rules because Congress mandated that the FAA could not impart more rules on recreational UAS flying. The "sternest" part is the requirement to abide by community-based safety guidelines and to notify any airport/tower when you fly within 5 miles of it. That being said, the AMA is the most often/only recognized body with safety guidelines, and they recommend no more than 400'. The idea here is a buffer between the UAS and most manned flight - which is why the same altitude is a requirement for Part 107 pilots.

Incidentally, the "hobbyist" rule is Part 101.

All UAS' are restricted from NLOS operations because you cannot guarantee safety when you are NLOS - which effectively means that you can't properly establish that the aircraft is not flying over people or otherwise into harm's way - for itself or for people in the air or on the ground. If you are looking at the camera view, you cannot be looking both straight ahead and straight down at the same time - both of which would - at a minimum - seem to be required to meet the safety requirements of a flight.

One thing that everyone should also remember is that Part 101 and Part 107 do not only apply to quadcopters - which may have the ability to hover, RTH, etc - but also to model airplanes and other craft that don't have those abilities. Right now, it's one rule for all, even though there are vastly different capabilities and safety implications from type to type. However, the FAA has stated on numerous occasions that the rules can and likely will be relaxed as safety issues are duly considered and accounted for. Remember, they were under a mandate to get something out - and they knew it was essentially just a first draft.

 

[THA]

As a recreational pilot, I registered my drone (UAS) on the FAA website. This site is where the 400' ceiling comes into play, but note, if you read it carefully (the summary of small aircraft rule part 107) you will note it states "Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, ifhigher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure." So long as you stay within 400 feet of a structure, you can go over the 400' AGL limit. Just for everyone reading this, be careful about flying over/around structures where you lose VLOS as you will likely also lose radio contact with your drone, kicking it into auto-return home mode and likely flying you into said structure. Another reason why we are restricted to VLOS as recreational operators - our gear likely is that good to see through/around structures.

Refer to the Seattle Space Needle episode. they have identified the pilot and say there will be charges filed since he flew above 400'. Well, he was within 400' of the structure so what is their violation? I also saw where they were talking about flying over personal since there were workers on top.

 

[N017RW]

Refer to the Seattle Space Needle episode. they have identified the pilot and say there will be charges filed since he flew above 400'. Well, he was within 400' of the structure so what is their violation? I also saw where they were talking about flying over personal since there were workers on top.

If you Google it you'll find a dozen or so articles on possible charges.

 

[Jeff watson]

@Evilmorg. Pilots should take heed of your concern. The FAA has some serious fines for breaking rules. The fine for flying without registering FAA and AMA were $20,000 and heard recently fines are 227,000. Pilots here are voluntarily disclosing their breaking rules. Any agent from FAA could read these posts, come and visit the pilot, the flight information is on your log. Our government is constantly looking for money. These pilots are at risk.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[joet]

Refer to the Seattle Space Needle episode. they have identified the pilot and say there will be charges filed since he flew above 400'. Well, he was within 400' of the structure so what is their violation? I also saw where they were talking about flying over personal since there were workers on top.

Presumably he was flying under Part 101 where there is no such exception to the safety guidelines that I am aware of.

 

[Steven Graham]

Suffice to say there are numerous violations likely occurring regardless of whether he claims he was operating under part 101 OR 107

I suspect the FAA will work with local authorities to wrap this guy up in a tidy little bundle of litigation for a long time to come costing him far more in money and brain damage than he ever could have hoped to gain by flying where he was.

Once again it's important for recreational users to note that under the FAR's a violation of the safety code means you're violating the FAR's.

Know the rules under which your are operating. For recreational operators that means 3 things at a minimum.

The AMA's safety code: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
Part 101 sub part E : eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Local regulations.

Why local regulations? The safety code paragraph A. 1. states in part: "Model aircraft will not be flown at a location where model aircraft activities are not allowed."

 

[FishGeek]

Why local regulations? The safety code paragraph A. 1. states in part: "Model aircraft will not be flown at a location where model aircraft activities are not allowed."

Idaho is one of those locations that have a state law related to UAS operation. Mostly geared toward privacy concerns (i.e. no video or pictures of private property without written permission) but there is also a park here in Boise that is next to the city zoo. It is prohibited to fly there due to the potential for disturbing/harassing the zoo animals.

-Fish