Rules when flying

[HueJorgan]

seems our friends across the water in the US of A are getting a bit of a bum deal? will there come a point when the restrictions are just TOO much?

what is the general opinion from the states?

How long before it happens here in the UK?

 

[Helijoc]

I'm a licensed helicopter pilot in the US. The FAA of all government agencies is probably the less restrictive of all agencies. The FARs make sense but as a pilot in command you can deviate from such restrictions in emergencies and even if you violate certain restriction it is your responsibility to avoid causing harm to people and property . There would be times when I would fly below minimum altitudes but in areas where I could guarantee no harm to people or property in the case of an emergency . Just be smart about where you fly. I'm sure minimum clearances are going to come down from the FAA where UAVs are concerned if they don't already exist.

 

[NEair]

I'm less worried about the FAA then what local and state governments try and come up with. It's easy for a city to pass a knee-jerk law to satisfy some overly vocal citizens. Plus local laws have more enforcement involved. Either way I'll have fun flying for as long as I can.

 

[Mario_SB]

I'm a licensed helicopter pilot in the US. The FAA of all government agencies is probably the less restrictive of all agencies. The FARs make sense but as a pilot in command you can deviate from such restrictions in emergencies and even if you violate certain restriction it is your responsibility to avoid causing harm to people and property . There would be times when I would fly below minimum altitudes but in areas where I could guarantee no harm to people or property in the case of an emergency . Just be smart about where you fly. I'm sure minimum clearances are going to come down from the FAA where UAVs are concerned if they don't already exist.

Question. So I was flying my P3P at the beach the other day and on the same day there came by was a low flying airplane at around 500 - 600 ft and then a helicopter at around the same low altitude. It kinda freaked me out because I quickly had to lower my altitude. Would you agree that the drone pilot would be at fault if an accident or collision would occur in this situation?

 

[Mario_SB]

I'm less worried about the FAA then what local and state governments try and come up with. It's easy for a city to pass a knee-jerk law to satisfy some overly vocal citizens. Plus local laws have more enforcement involved. Either way I'll have fun flying for as long as I can.

Totally agree with this! Take the City of Los Angeles for example. You cannot fly at any public park in the city, you can't fly at night and there comes hefty fines and jail times for those who like to break the rules.

 

[HueJorgan]

wow that's incredible

its no where near like that here Is it? am I wrong UK people? obviousley flying over built up areas is a NO NO but pretty much any open space away from airfields is fair game?

 

[retrodog]

Question. So I was flying my P3P at the beach the other day and on the same day there came by was a low flying airplane at around 500 - 600 ft and then a helicopter at around the same low altitude. It kinda freaked me out because I quickly had to lower my altitude. Would you agree that the drone pilot would be at fault if an accident or collision would occur in this situation?

If the sea rules carry any precedents then yes, the drone would be at fault. I have a sneaking suspicion that at least for the near-term future, the drone will always be at fault for just about any conflict or accident.

 

[JustinJ]

wow that's incredible

its no where near like that here Is it? am I wrong UK people? obviousley flying over built up areas is a NO NO but pretty much any open space away from airfields is fair game?

Hi Hue,

Yes - we're pretty safe in the uk (obviously CAA rules apply)

But we have nowhere near as much BS to contend with.

 

[JustinJ]

... keep calm & carry on flying ! Haha

 

[WetDog]

Question. So I was flying my P3P at the beach the other day and on the same day there came by was a low flying airplane at around 500 - 600 ft and then a helicopter at around the same low altitude. It kinda freaked me out because I quickly had to lower my altitude. Would you agree that the drone pilot would be at fault if an accident or collision would occur in this situation?

The current flight rules for unmanned vehicles are clear that all manned craft have right of way at all times.

You need to get out of the way. Sounds like you did the right thing.

 

[kphantom]

I'm a licensed helicopter pilot in the US. The FAA of all government agencies is probably the less restrictive of all agencies. The FARs make sense but as a pilot in command you can deviate from such restrictions in emergencies and even if you violate certain restriction it is your responsibility to avoid causing harm to people and property . There would be times when I would fly below minimum altitudes but in areas where I could guarantee no harm to people or property in the case of an emergency . Just be smart about where you fly. I'm sure minimum clearances are going to come down from the FAA where UAVs are concerned if they don't already exist.

I like your comment about "just be smart about where you fly." Risk avoidance is the best approach.

 

[HueJorgan]

Common sense should prevail

Of course like anything there are gonna be people who are reckless and if there are enough of them it will spoil it for the majority

 

[Helijoc]

Question. So I was flying my P3P at the beach the other day and on the same day there came by was a low flying airplane at around 500 - 600 ft and then a helicopter at around the same low altitude. It kinda freaked me out because I quickly had to lower my altitude. Would you agree that the drone pilot would be at fault if an accident or collision would occur in this situation?

Helicopters have to maintain 500 ft. It would be their fault if you were below 500 feet. No matter where you are in the US you are most likely in "controlled". There are very few uncontrolled airspace. You will see planes in uncontrolled airspace practicing acrobatics as it is the only airspace you are allowed to do it. Read the FARs on airspace if you have any questions. TCAs, Class B, C. Different rules apply. TCAs go almost the way to the ground depending where you are in relation to an airport. Think of an upside down wedding cake. You cannot even enter a TCA without two way communication with the tower and specific permission to enter the airspace.

 

[tcope]

Helicopters have to maintain 500 ft. It would be their fault if you were below 500 feet. No matter where you are in the US you are most likely in "controlled". There are very few uncontrolled airspace. You will see planes in uncontrolled airspace practicing acrobatics as it is the only airspace you are allowed to do it. Read the FARs on airspace if you have any questions. TCAs, Class B, C. Different rules apply. TCAs go almost the way to the ground depending where you are in relation to an airport. Think of an upside down wedding cake. You cannot even enter a TCA without two way communication with the tower and specific permission to enter the airspace.

So I spent all of 30 seconds on the Internet to find FAR Part 91.119d which would state you are incorrect. Helicopters can operate at less than minimum altitudes as long as the operation is conducted without hazzard to person or property. But even as the OP mentioned, the helicopter was at 500 to 600 feet. A UAV is required to always avoid any manned aircraft. In the real world any time a UAV collides with The manned aircraft it will be deemed the UAVs fault. The only exception I'd make to that is if it can be shown that the manned aircraft pilot was extremely reckless.

 

[ianwood]

I'm less worried about the FAA then what local and state governments try and come up with. It's easy for a city to pass a knee-jerk law to satisfy some overly vocal citizens. Plus local laws have more enforcement involved. Either way I'll have fun flying for as long as I can.

This. With the generally negative public sentiment towards drones, local politicians can't resist it. They use it to demonstrate that they're "getting tough" and protecting their constituents. And they draft legislation that makes little or no sense.

Gov. Brown (CA) vetoed a cadre of stupid bills put up by the state legislature and signed one that actually made sense. Thankfully. It simply extended existing privacy laws to cover drones. Other states have let some pretty ridiculous measures pass (e.g. Florida, Texas). The city of Los Angeles enacted an ordinance carrying criminal charges for violating the terms of a Federal "advisory" (AC91-57a) and actually alters the nature of the advisory to be more restrictive. How a city can effectively come up with it's own regulations for aircraft us in the federally regulated airspace is beyond me.

 

[RVD98072]

I used to sail a lot and it's mostly common sense. Even with standard right of way rules, smaller ships are expected to move out of the way of larger ships (i.e., it's stupid to expect a big aircraft carrier to change course simply because you're in the right of way).

I would expect that with UAV like a quadcopter, you really need to move and get out of the way if there's a big helicopter, glider, parasailer, etc.

If there is another UAV (quadcopter, plane, etc.), then we should just stay away from each other.

 

[ianwood]

It seems the FAA agrees with me. This out today:

http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf