Who will register their Phantom with the FAA?

[Chuck Young]

In my humble opinon the 400 ft rule doesn't make any sense unless you have software that will keep the quad in the prescribed 400 ft space. I can see a day when the FAA requires a reporting chip to monitor position from the GPS of the quad so they can text back to the quad operator flight changes. This will be required by manufacturers all though does nothing about quads built from scratch. Such is government regulations that effects people that are trying to stay within the law and do not effect law breakers because they don't care about law. So yes I will register as I also follow firearm laws that regulate and burden law bidding citizens that want to own a firearm. That is my point, no matter how many regulations the FAA makes they are not enforceable and will not protect anyone. The registration will be just for the honest and will just increase red tape and buocracy. The only thing that will help is education and awareness...

So why do we have speed limits for cars? Some people don't obey those laws either. Do we need software that makes our cars obey speed laws? Don't recall ever having a cop text me to slow down. You don't have to register your car if you don't want to. Simply don't get caught by authorities driving it. Hell I have a pickup truck in my driveway that hasn't been registered in 13 years, and I carry liability on it, what does that say? But I can drive it if I want to.

 

[Jeff48920]

Of course you have to register your car if you intend to drive it. If not you are totally subject to fines etc. please stop going to these extremes. By your logic People don't have to register their guns either. Come on please give this a rest.

BTW the person you respond to has a valid point. At the present time, there is no sensor/software combination on our drones that give us a AGL readout relative to the topography over which we are currently flying. We simply have an AGL based on take off point.

 

[Fyod]

Those who will be persistent enough in wanting to go above 400ft. will find a way to do so, as with any electronic governance. No electronic governor has ever kept all cars' speed under 150mph (factory). I highly doubt anyone will make a UAV with real-time reporting, since it is recommended to fly in rural areas with bad GSM signal, GSM being the only feasible way to send real-time data. All other electronic babysitters can and will be hacked.
The only right way is education. That or building a physical net at 400ft above all US airspace, which is impossible.
Anyone can use their cell phone to sell drugs. That does not mean each and every IMEI should be registered to a person's name in anticipation of the phone being used to sell drugs.

^ A better analogy to the above comments are RC cars. You can drive one on any road if you want to. Could it cause a crash? Sure. So do cyclists. Just about every human activity can cause damage, injury or death to others. Allowing the government to try to solve this is not the way to go. Mandatory insurance would be a different story.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Yes, we need to educate everyone about staying below 400 ft AGL regardless of the terrain and make them aware of the dangers of not doing so.
Great point!
Maybe people aren't aware they have to rely on their telemetry and piloting skills to remain below 400 ft?

Our P3P telemetry is not capable of displaying AGL. That is what DJI owners need to know! DJI does not make this clear at all. The telemetry only displays elevation relative to the launch point. You have to use that displayed information to interpolate AGL, based solely upon your knowledge of the change in elevation over which you fly. AGL is the only thing that really matters! Also, your RTH altitude will put you well above 400 feet AGL if you set it to 400 feet and fly straight out over a lower elevation. The P3P knows absolutely nothing about AGL. It is a major gotcha for anyone trying to respect the 400 foot AGL guideline, while relying solely upon the DJI GO app to keep them compliant.

 

[GadgetGuy]

BTW the person you respond to has a valid point. At the present time, there is no sensor/software combination on our drones that give us a AGL readout relative to the topography over which we are currently flying. We simply have an AGL based on take off point.

Exactly!

 

[SteveMann]

In my humble opinon the 400 ft rule doesn't make any sense ...

Because there is not a 400 ft rule. It's a guideline. It allows for some common sense judgement. If you take off from a hill or bluff and cross over a canyon, you aren't violating any rules, but use your common sense and if there's a chance that a manned aircraft in that valley at 500 ft AGL, then go lower.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Because there is not a 400 ft rule. It's a guideline. It allows for some common sense judgement. If you take off from a hill or bluff and cross over a canyon, you aren't violating any rules, but use your common sense and if there's a chance that a manned aircraft in that valley at 500 ft AGL, then go lower.

You can also easily see such manned aircraft, as they will be far easier to see than your drone! Stay below them!

 

[NYPhantom]

It's the FAA. These are not "suggestions", the FAA doesn't let you pick and choose when to obey the rules. 500' is 500', end of story. Didn't bring topo charts with you and flew to 600'? 700'? Too bad, here's your violation. It is 100% the operator's responsibility to have familiarized him/herself with the flight area before the flight.

No, I don't really think the FAA is looking for the guy flying his quad off a 200' cliff over terrain that drops off 500', but there is no way to put a finer point on it, this is a government organization and this is how the FAA thinks. 99.9% of the time nothing will happen, the rule breaker will never get caught, but expect the book to get thrown at whoever does something to catch their attention.

I see a lot of people postulating "what if...?" situations in an attempt to avoid some responsibility for possible violations. No software to tell height? Buy a topo. Overflew an event that you you shouldn't have? TFR's are freely available. Didn't know the rules (everyone knows the answer to this)? Too bad, should've called the FSDO to ask beforehand.

Sorry gang, there are no excuses. You are responsible for everything. I can understand the frustration, the vast majority have never dealt with the FAA before and have no clue as to how to go about understanding the regs. You're going to have to learn if you want to be on the right side of the law and do due diligence in regard to terrain in your area of operation. I'm pretty irritated that they really haven't put out an easy to understand rule guide for operators, but that's the FAA for you. Complicate it and make it hard to decipher something that should be easy.

Source: my dealing with the FAA in some way since 1991.

Edit: I re-read the NPRM. It's 500' AGL folks, forget 400'.

Maximum altitude of 500 feet above ground level.

. Page 11 of the NPRM, 5th bullet point down. Note that no exceptions are listed.

 

[GadgetGuy]

It's the FAA. These are not "suggestions", the FAA doesn't let you pick and choose when to obey the rules. 400' is 400', end of story. Didn't bring topo charts with you and flew to 600'? 700'? Too bad, here's your violation. It is 100% the operator's responsibility to have familiarized him/herself with the flight area before the flight.

No, I don't really think the FAA is looking for the guy flying his quad off a 200' cliff over terrain that drops off 500', but there is no way to put a finer point on it, this is a government organization and this is how the FAA thinks. 99.9% of the time nothing will happen, the rule breaker will never get caught, but expect the book to get thrown at whoever does something to catch their attention.

I see a lot of people postulating "what if...?" situations in an attempt to avoid some responsibility for possible violations. No software to tell height? Buy a topo. Overflew an event that you you shouldn't have? TFR's are freely available. Didn't know the rules (everyone knows the answer to this)? Too bad, should've called the FSDO to ask beforehand.

Sorry gang, there are no excuses. You are responsible for everything. I can understand the frustration, the vast majority have never dealt with the FAA before and have no clue as to how to go about understanding the regs. You're going to have to learn if you want to be on the right side of the law and do due diligence in regard to terrain in your area of operation. I'm pretty irritated that they really haven't put out an easy to understand rule guide for operators, but that's the FAA for you. Complicate it and make it hard to decipher something that should be easy.

Source: my dealing with the FAA in some way since 1991.

I agree completely. The helicopters are using AGL for their elevation, so if you don't, you will be in their airspace. Makes sense. If you are going to play this game, you need to know and understand the guidelines and why they exist. Break them at your own peril, but at the very least, know you are more than 400 feet AGL whenever you are! Carry and use topo maps where ever you fly!

 

[SteveMann]

Page 11 of the NPRM, 5th bullet point down. Note that no exceptions are listed.

NPRM is the Notice of PROPOSED rule Making.
There is currently no FAA rule limiting UAS flight altitudes.

 

[kenjancef]

NPRM is the Notice of PROPOSED rule Making.
There is currently no FAA rule limiting UAS flight altitudes.

Very true, but what's happening is the general public is hearing that we SHOULDN'T go above 400 feet AGL, but they are thinking that it IS a law, so whenever the public hears something, including the press, it makes them freak out. They don't take the time to actually understand the rules/laws/suggestions...

 

[GadgetGuy]

NPRM is the Notice of PROPOSED rule Making.
There is currently no FAA rule limiting UAS flight altitudes.

Unless you fly with a 333 Exemption, in which case it is a condition of your 333 Exemption...

 

[GadgetGuy]

Very true, but what's happening is the general public is hearing that we SHOULDN'T go above 400 feet AGL, but they are thinking that it IS a law, so whenever the public hears something, including the press, it makes them freak out. They don't take the time to actually understand the rules/laws/suggestions...

Who cares about the facts? They are making headlines and attracting viewers by promoting Drone-a-Phobia. The media is just feeding into this irrational nonsense. They even claimed the Inspire1 had a zoom lens on it, when a video was posted showing a blurry digital crop of the 20mm frame.

 

[kenjancef]

Who cares about the facts? They are making headlines and attracting viewers by promoting Drone-a-Phobia. The media is just feeding into this irrational nonsense. They even claimed the Inspire1 had a zoom lens on it, when a video was posted showing a blurry digital crop of the 20mm frame.

Doesn't matter what they see, it's what they BELIEVE. Look at the Kentucky case... the quad operator couldn't even show his video or flight data... It's a DRONE, it's BAD, and they MUST BE STOPPED!! lol...

 

[GadgetGuy]

Doesn't matter what they see, it's what they BELIEVE. Look at the Kentucky case... the quad operator couldn't even show his video or flight data... It's a DRONE, it's BAD, and they MUST BE STOPPED!! lol...

It started with all the publicity over military drones used for targeted attacks and weapons of death. Once our quads started being called drones, too, no distinction exists in the minds of the public. Drones are evil and must be treated and regulated and registered like loaded guns with a carry permit required! Hey, I'm just an aerial photographer shooting landscapes and architecture and nature from the air!

 

[kenjancef]

I hear ya... when I told my wife I was getting one, I called it a "drone" and she said "ugh... great...". I have an 8 year old son, and he likes to fly with me. But with him I call it a "helicopter". I don;t need to have him hear all the bad stories about drones and have that come back to me somehow. As a "helicopter" it keeps it all away from him, for now anyway...

 

[GadgetGuy]

I hear ya... when I told my wife I was getting one, I called it a "drone" and she said "ugh... great...". I have an 8 year old son, and he likes to fly with me. But with him I call it a "helicopter". I don;t need to have him hear all the bad stories about drones and have that come back to me somehow. As a "helicopter" it keeps it all away from him, for now anyway...

Yea, the attempt to call it a quadcopter with a camera has failed miserably. Even the manufacturers aren't buying into that anymore. They are advertising and selling them as drones. Guess we have to own it, too, with all the prejudice that accompanies it.

 

[SteveMann]

Unless you fly with a 333 Exemption, in which case it is a condition of your 333 Exemption...

The Part 107 NPRM has nothing to do with the Section 333 exemptions.

IF you have a Section 333 exemption and you are not flying for hobby purposes, then the Conditions and Limitations of your exemption letter are the law. However, even if you hold an exemption but are flying as a hobby aircraft defined in Section 336, your Conditions and Limitations don't apply.

 

[GadgetGuy]

The Part 107 NPRM has nothing to do with the Section 333 exemptions.

IF you have a Section 333 exemption and you are not flying for hobby purposes, then the Conditions and Limitations of your exemption letter are the law. However, even if you hold an exemption but are flying as a hobby aircraft defined in Section 336, your Conditions and Limitations don't apply.

Understood. That's what I meant. In order to benefit from and use your Section 333 exemption, you must fly under 400 feet AGL to comply with it.

 

[JMFinch]

Look at all the approved 333 Exemptions online to see what is required. The P3P is a very common aircraft in most of the exemptions. Just copy and paste!

I have my 333. My Phantoms do not have their registrations. Without N-Numbers I cannot request a COA to fly over 200' AGL which I need for a wind farm client or fly within 5 miles of an airport for real estate clients.