If you didn't have a 400ft rule would you fly like this?

[NoTech64]

I am not in the USA. So sad that in the great outdoors you can't have unrestricted flights where there are no aircraft. I had to clear 1400' just to get this. However I am not in an aircraft flight zone and am over a wilderness area. Just me and my P3S and Argtek Antenna.

Would you do flights like this if you could? Please no drone police answers. Where I fly it is legal to do so.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yes

 

[SDODD]

I disagree. The reason we havent had accidents is it takes a confluence of incredibly bad luck for a mid-air collision to occur. I'm willing to bet you couldn't hit a Cessna with your "drone" at 500 feet if you tried to.. I'd even give you 100 chances and my bet is your success rate would be 0. Heck I'd even spot you the altitude and say you could radio the pilot and tell him to flay at exactly 500 feet. You still couldn't do it.

Thats why we dont have accidents. There are enough careless folks out there. Statistically speaking though it is incredibly unlikely. To the side issue.... you are only flying as a hobbyist in the US if you are flying within the rules. When you fly higher than 400 feet AGL you better have a 107. You actually have it backwards. You can fly higher than 400 if you have a 107 by 1) you can fly 400 feet above a structure as long as you are within 400 feet of the structure..for example if a tower is 300 feet tall you can fly 700 feet if you are within 400 feet of the tower... 2) you can apply for a waiver to exceed 400 feet.

This is also good input. Pilots learn things others don't. The FAA not only divides up the sky in miles but altitude layers. As young pilots people are often amazed that there are so many airplanes in the air and they can speak with them or Control on the radio and they pass by at different altitudes a small distance apart in space and never see any of them. It is very tough to see a drone more than 400 feet high. And if you loose it you may not see it again except through video. We are supposed to have visual reference. So that may be violated below 400 feet in some cases. Anbyway, you have to think very carefully about what you do.

I was glad to read the details about spatial distance from tall objects and how that relates. It gets more complicated with slopes or cliffs.

 

[chadrob30]

I'm really not understanding your thinking. Does it matter to you that there are manned aircraft with a floor of 500', and it's not uncommon to find small planes (2 and 4 seaters) flying at 1000' AGL?

Does this figure into your judgement at all?

I'm not asking about what the rules are, what the law says, or anything else. I'm asking about your judgement given the reality of the circumstances.

Birds have caused fatal crashes of small aircraft. This is not some theoretical risk. We're talking about killing people here.

It will only take ONE accident like this to bring down the hammer of rules far more onerous than what we have now. A few times, and private hobby drone flying will be outlawed.

It's not about MY judgement. It's about what the FAA sets as GUIDELINES. Did you read the rest of the thread? I will fly where I want, when I want, within reason. I will NOT fly within a few miles of airports or at 2000' altitude. I will not fly above a stadium. Do I challenge a private party or an agent of the FAA to attempt to have me arrested or my bird confiscated for flying at 403 feet? Absolutely.

 

[SDODD]

It's not about MY judgement. It's about what the FAA sets as GUIDELINES. Did you read the rest of the thread? I will fly where I want, when I want, within reason. I will NOT fly within a few miles of airports or at 2000' altitude. I will not fly above a stadium. Do I challenge a private party or an agent of the FAA to attempt to have me arrested or my bird confiscated for flying at 403 feet? Absolutely.

I'll add on those occasions where I have flown high in the wilderness or over rough territory to perhaps 1,200 feet, such a flight is an extremely risky thing for the phantom alone. I think long and hard about where I want to be every foot up and down. If you loose sight at that altitude you may not regain it ... ever.

 

[m0j0]

This is also good input. Pilots learn things others don't. The FAA not only divides up the sky in miles but altitude layers. As young pilots people are often amazed that there are so many airplanes in the air and they can speak with them or Control on the radio and they pass by at different altitudes a small distance apart in space and never see any of them. It is very tough to see a drone more than 400 feet high. And if you loose it you may not see it again except through video. We are supposed to have visual reference. So that may be violated below 400 feet in some cases. Anbyway, you have to think very carefully about what you do.

I was glad to read the details about spatial distance from tall objects and how that relates. It gets more complicated with slopes or cliffs.

ok but do realize this exception is for Licensed pilots only not hobbyist,

 

[SDODD]

It's not about MY judgement. It's about what the FAA sets as GUIDELINES. Did you read the rest of the thread? I will fly where I want, when I want, within reason. I will NOT fly within a few miles of airports or at 2000' altitude. I will not fly above a stadium. Do I challenge a private party or an agent of the FAA to attempt to have me arrested or my bird confiscated for flying at 403 feet? Absolutely.

It is not all about being challenged in one's rights. Many people have nothing to loose. All very well until there is an incident. As with anything a wrongful death charge could get you a quick five years besides the civil suit. Lots of people learn that the hard way in a car. For instance using prescription drugs under a prescription. You go to emergency when you too are injured and get tested and no matter what anyone told you, you can get time. I know of several cases here in Oregon. One is never without responsibility in our society where anyone can file a suit. I speak of this from other sport hobbies. I was a dive instructor. Loose somebody while outside the rules and insurance will walk away from you. Kill someone on skis and have been drinking. You could loose your house.

 

[blackcrusader]

Is flying through heavy cloud cover\fog detrimental to the inner workings of the aircraft? Just wondering and yes beautiful footage that is something I would like to capture.

You need to be careful. Too much moisture and you get a wet lens, or wet motors. Electric motors and water, well that can end in disaster.
If flying up through clouds one tip, have the camera pointing to the earth after launch.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[blackcrusader]

Let's remember it IS possible to get at least SOME shots like the OP...we'd just need to find a hill and fly less than 400 feet AGL...Bill

I must admit that if I was limited to 400' this video would not have been possible.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[blackcrusader]

I'll add on those occasions where I have flown high in the wilderness or over rough territory to perhaps 1,200 feet, such a flight is an extremely risky thing for the phantom alone. I think long and hard about where I want to be every foot up and down. If you loose sight at that altitude you may not regain it ... ever.

Try spotting your white drone in this milky white sea of clouds. On this flight I only flew perhaps 350ft distance from launch but around 600ft to get enough clearance over the clouds.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SDODD]

You need to be careful. Too much moisture and you get a wet lens, or wet motors. Electric motors and water, well that can end in disaster.
If flying up through clouds one tip, have the camera pointing to the earth after launch.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yes that is true as well. Pilots know that clouds are often not fog but ice and sleet. Temperatures generally fall as we go up. In some cooler weather, even small additional cooling could be big trouble.

 

[dwallersv]

It is not all about being challenged in one's rights. Many people have nothing to loose. All very well until there is an incident. As with anything a wrongful death charge could get you a quick five years besides the civil suit. Lots of people learn that the hard way in a car. For instance using prescription drugs under a prescription. You go to emergency when you too are injured and get tested and no matter what anyone told you, you can get time. I know of several cases here in Oregon. One is never without responsibility in our society where anyone can file a suit. I speak of this from other sport hobbies. I was a dive instructor. Loose somebody while outside the rules and insurance will walk away from you. Kill someone on skis and have been drinking. You could loose your house.

We all see things from our own perspective, and I understand and accept that. My last post above stands: I, from my perspective, do not understand the thinking of some here at least as how what seems to be of greatest priority to them based on what they're talking about.

Honestly, what the law says and what may or may not happen to me if I fly over 400' is of near trivial concern to me compared to the fact that there are manned aircraft routinely flying at the altitudes people here are talking about taking their drones to. As one who has been on the other side of this -- flying a 152 at 1000' AGL for fun, many times -- I am quite concerned. As I said, people in small planes have crashed been killed by bird hits.

Seems to me some here are concerned about their own hides, and have little concern or care about those they might kill.

I find this deplorable. I don't fly my drone over large crowds because I'm afraid of what the law might do to me. I don't do it because I'm concerned I might have an accident and hurt somebody. That's the ONLY reason I don't do it. I actually have some social values, and care about what risk and harm I might present to an innocent person.

That's what's at stake here. The 400' rule is not just some nanny state control for the sake of control. THAT sort of crap I defy all day long. On the other hand, I'll go beyond the law to observe restrictions on my flying activity if its a reasonable trade-off to mesh well with my local neighbors and authorities.

If you look at all of this as some sort of exercise in staying just inside the official rules you're going to be in SOCIAL trouble all the time. Conflict. Disliked. Hassled.

Ironically, if you take an attitude of cooperation and inclusivity with the community around you -- at all different levels -- you'll find you can do MORE than you could otherwise.

Getting along is a very powerful tool to getting your way.

 

[SDODD]

We all see things from our own perspective, and I understand and accept that. My last post above stands: I, from my perspective, do not understand the thinking of some here at least as how what seems to be of greatest priority to them based on what they're talking about.

Honestly, what the law says and what may or may not happen to me if I fly over 400' is of near trivial concern to me compared to the fact that there are manned aircraft routinely flying at the altitudes people here are talking about taking their drones to. As one who has been on the other side of this -- flying a 152 at 1000' AGL for fun, many times -- I am quite concerned. As I said, people in small planes have crashed been killed by bird hits.

Seems to me some here are concerned about their own hides, and have little concern or care about those they might kill.

I find this deplorable. I don't fly my drone over large crowds because I'm afraid of what the law might do to me. I don't do it because I'm concerned I might have an accident and hurt somebody. That's the ONLY reason I don't do it. I actually have some social values, and care about what risk and harm I might present to an innocent person.

That's what's at stake here. The 400' rule is not just some nanny state control for the sake of control. THAT sort of crap I defy all day long. On the other hand, I'll go beyond the law to observe restrictions on my flying activity if its a reasonable trade-off to mesh well with my local neighbors and authorities.

If you look at all of this as some sort of exercise in staying just inside the official rules you're going to be in SOCIAL trouble all the time. Conflict. Disliked. Hassled.

Ironically, if you take an attitude of cooperation and inclusivity with the community around you -- at all different levels -- you'll find you can do MORE than you could otherwise.

Getting along is a very powerful tool to getting your way.

We all see things from our own perspective, and I understand and accept that. My last post above stands: I, from my perspective, do not understand the thinking of some here at least as how what seems to be of greatest priority to them based on what they're talking about.

Honestly, what the law says and what may or may not happen to me if I fly over 400' is of near trivial concern to me compared to the fact that there are manned aircraft routinely flying at the altitudes people here are talking about taking their drones to. As one who has been on the other side of this -- flying a 152 at 1000' AGL for fun, many times -- I am quite concerned. As I said, people in small planes have crashed been killed by bird hits.

Seems to me some here are concerned about their own hides, and have little concern or care about those they might kill.

I find this deplorable. I don't fly my drone over large crowds because I'm afraid of what the law might do to me. I don't do it because I'm concerned I might have an accident and hurt somebody. That's the ONLY reason I don't do it. I actually have some social values, and care about what risk and harm I might present to an innocent person.

That's what's at stake here. The 400' rule is not just some nanny state control for the sake of control. THAT sort of crap I defy all day long. On the other hand, I'll go beyond the law to observe restrictions on my flying activity if its a reasonable trade-off to mesh well with my local neighbors and authorities.

If you look at all of this as some sort of exercise in staying just inside the official rules you're going to be in SOCIAL trouble all the time. Conflict. Disliked. Hassled.

Ironically, if you take an attitude of cooperation and inclusivity with the community around you -- at all different levels -- you'll find you can do MORE than you could otherwise.

Getting along is a very powerful tool to getting your way.

We all see things from our own perspective, and I understand and accept that. My last post above stands: I, from my perspective, do not understand the thinking of some here at least as how what seems to be of greatest priority to them based on what they're talking about.

Honestly, what the law says and what may or may not happen to me if I fly over 400' is of near trivial concern to me compared to the fact that there are manned aircraft routinely flying at the altitudes people here are talking about taking their drones to. As one who has been on the other side of this -- flying a 152 at 1000' AGL for fun, many times -- I am quite concerned. As I said, people in small planes have crashed been killed by bird hits.

Seems to me some here are concerned about their own hides, and have little concern or care about those they might kill.

I find this deplorable. I don't fly my drone over large crowds because I'm afraid of what the law might do to me. I don't do it because I'm concerned I might have an accident and hurt somebody. That's the ONLY reason I don't do it. I actually have some social values, and care about what risk and harm I might present to an innocent person.

That's what's at stake here. The 400' rule is not just some nanny state control for the sake of control. THAT sort of crap I defy all day long. On the other hand, I'll go beyond the law to observe restrictions on my flying activity if its a reasonable trade-off to mesh well with my local neighbors and authorities.

If you look at all of this as some sort of exercise in staying just inside the official rules you're going to be in SOCIAL trouble all the time. Conflict. Disliked. Hassled.

Ironically, if you take an attitude of cooperation and inclusivity with the community around you -- at all different levels -- you'll find you can do MORE than you could otherwise.

Getting along is a very powerful tool to getting your way.

It is not an attitude issue in my opinion. Do everything perfectly in cooperating and you will get a great job as a bartender. I know plenty of people who do ridiculous things in aircraft like fly through the Boeing hanger. Yet any actual pilot of live aircraft MUST be aware of the need to cooperate or they could not have become liscneced or still flying. There are probably very few areas in the US today where one can fly without sharing the air with dozens of aircraft which he never sees. Think about that as a student and feel the paranoia of wondering what is going to ht you ad you can see why most are concerned about little objects buzzing around. The 400 foot limit is a poorley explained (to drone crowd) and seemingly arbitrary rule. It is not arbitrary to the flying crowd who previously had exclusive rights to the airways. But if you look at the publications on the web by the FAA yo will find they wish to encourage drone flying. It is unfortunate people are not self-regulating. But they are not. But the regulatory agency(s) also fail to make their edicts clear in most possible cases. But I think they realize there are going to be far more drone hobbyists than regular pilots. Expense is a driving issue. It's cheap to do. Many imagine robotics will take over everything. Dare I suggest self-piloted airplanes. We hobbyists could probably improve upon live pilots in most instances. Anyway, the FAA fully admitted they were scrambling to create rules and their current product is a work in progress. The current FAA rules are pretty easy to poo poo if you have duitifully called the local airport before flying as required in some instances and be told to quit bothering them.

 

[dwallersv]

Honestly, I'm having trouble following you on this. Not sure what you're trying to argue.

The issue is pretty simple: Flight rules prohibit operations of manned craft below 500' AGL (except for takeoff and landing, of course). UAV rules have a 400' AGL ceiling. This provides for a 100' separation. The reason behind this is obvious.

Violating those rules risks a collision between a UAV and a manned aircraft. Do you dispute this risk exists when flying higher than 400' AGL? Do you dispute that the risk above 500' is substantially greater than below 400'?

That's the only meaningful issue here. That is, if you have any care about risking killing other people. It's not about what what holes can be found in the rules, whether or not they apply to hobbyists, etc. This is either ignorance, or carelessness.

Manned craft have a floor of 500'. That's the only "rule" that matters. Period. It matters not whether hobbyists are restricted to 400'. Go above 500, and you risk a collision with a manned aircraft.

It really is that simple, and anyone arguing they are going to go to 1000' because the 400' rule doesn't apply to them is completely missing the point.

This is a classic "cost/benefit" situation. The risk of a collision is relatively small. The cost is too great, however, to take that risk for the benefit. It's the same reason one carries fire insurance on their home, even though the risk of it burning down is extremely tiny.

 

[SDODD]

Honestly, I'm having trouble following you on this. Not sure what you're trying to argue.

The issue is pretty simple: Flight rules prohibit operations of manned craft below 500' AGL (except for takeoff and landing, of course). UAV rules have a 400' AGL ceiling. This provides for a 100' separation. The reason behind this is obvious.

Violating those rules risks a collision between a UAV and a manned aircraft. Do you dispute this risk exists when flying higher than 400' AGL? Do you dispute that the risk above 500' is substantially greater than below 400'?

That's the only meaningful issue here. That is, if you have any care about risking killing other people. It's not about what what holes can be found in the rules, whether or not they apply to hobbyists, etc. This is either ignorance, or carelessness.

Manned craft have a floor of 500'. That's the only "rule" that matters. Period. It matters not whether hobbyists are restricted to 400'. Go above 500, and you risk a collision with a manned aircraft.

It really is that simple, and anyone arguing they are going to go to 1000' because the 400' rule doesn't apply to them is completely missing the point.

This is a classic "cost/benefit" situation. The risk of a collision is relatively small. The cost is too great, however, to take that risk for the benefit. It's the same reason one carries fire insurance on their home, even though the risk of it burning down is extremely tiny.

Honestly, I'm having trouble following you on this. Not sure what you're trying to argue.

The issue is pretty simple: Flight rules prohibit operations of manned craft below 500' AGL (except for takeoff and landing, of course). UAV rules have a 400' AGL ceiling. This provides for a 100' separation. The reason behind this is obvious.

Violating those rules risks a collision between a UAV and a manned aircraft. Do you dispute this risk exists when flying higher than 400' AGL? Do you dispute that the risk above 500' is substantially greater than below 400'?

That's the only meaningful issue here. That is, if you have any care about risking killing other people. It's not about what what holes can be found in the rules, whether or not they apply to hobbyists, etc. This is either ignorance, or carelessness.

Manned craft have a floor of 500'. That's the only "rule" that matters. Period. It matters not whether hobbyists are restricted to 400'. Go above 500, and you risk a collision with a manned aircraft.

It really is that simple, and anyone arguing they are going to go to 1000' because the 400' rule doesn't apply to them is completely missing the point.

This is a classic "cost/benefit" situation. The risk of a collision is relatively small. The cost is too great, however, to take that risk for the benefit. It's the same reason one carries fire insurance on their home, even though the risk of it burning down is extremely tiny.

Obvious to aircraft pilots who believe that their wealth and investment ought to free the skies of others. How about we eliminate small craft which obviously are unnecessary and which every farmer knows fall out of the sky without permission. If we required all pilots to eplain wh they ought to be flying with their flight plan it would be interesting to see the hocus pocus. My point was the FAA has provided no education to the guy in Walmart about how he should play with is kids in the back yard and simply applied the existing altitude layering rules which probably don't apply very well in the hobby environment. Nor are 90% of the guys playing with their kids and paying huge TAXES for regulation going to care about rich guys toys. The FAA states that the drones have a value and perhaps can perform some of the services of small aircraft more safely and economically than airplanes. So aside from aero elitism he FAA is encouraging drones for all sorts of valueable work.

 

[SDODD]

We all see things from our own perspective, and I understand and accept that. My last post above stands: I, from my perspective, do not understand the thinking of some here at least as how what seems to be of greatest priority to them based on what they're talking about.

Honestly, what the law says and what may or may not happen to me if I fly over 400' is of near trivial concern to me compared to the fact that there are manned aircraft routinely flying at the altitudes people here are talking about taking their drones to. As one who has been on the other side of this -- flying a 152 at 1000' AGL for fun, many times -- I am quite concerned. As I said, people in small planes have crashed been killed by bird hits.

Seems to me some here are concerned about their own hides, and have little concern or care about those they might kill.

I find this deplorable. I don't fly my drone over large crowds because I'm afraid of what the law might do to me. I don't do it because I'm concerned I might have an accident and hurt somebody. That's the ONLY reason I don't do it. I actually have some social values, and care about what risk and harm I might present to an innocent person.

That's what's at stake here. The 400' rule is not just some nanny state control for the sake of control. THAT sort of crap I defy all day long. On the other hand, I'll go beyond the law to observe restrictions on my flying activity if its a reasonable trade-off to mesh well with my local neighbors and authorities.

If you look at all of this as some sort of exercise in staying just inside the official rules you're going to be in SOCIAL trouble all the time. Conflict. Disliked. Hassled.

Ironically, if you take an attitude of cooperation and inclusivity with the community around you -- at all different levels -- you'll find you can do MORE than you could otherwise.

Getting along is a very powerful tool to getting your way.

Lets demand the FAA raise the floor for airplanes to 2,000 feet and require they only fly in areas where drones are not allowed. Then we publish maps with their routes throught those areas to other like areas.

 

[NewMexicoFlyer]

I would fly that high if I could, in fact if you just stick close to those mountain tops you could in the US (guideline or rule be dammed)

 

[SDODD]

I would fly that high if I could, in fact if you just stick close to those mountain tops you could in the US (guideline or rule be dammed)

The problem is I doubt any drone pilot is that skilled on a daily basis. Over the Grand Canyon to name an extream you could take off at 3 feet and fly out a hundred yards and be at 5,000 feet.

I think the FAA is regulating to make prosecution and insurance settlements as easy as possible. Lots of situations could be subject to argument. While the airplane guys have everything above 500 feet the drone guys have to thread the needle precisely as ground terrain varies in a thin but highly irregular strip. The road below me is at 20 feet. My hill is 375 and the trees add 100 more.

 

[blackcrusader]

This thread got derailed by a few arguing over US laws. Guys there are many of us who do not live in the USA.
In Australia you can fly to the max height if you are not in controlled airspace, however other rules do apply about how close you can fly to a building or that you cannot fly over crowded places like beaches.

If I am flying in Taipei City there is a 60m max height limit, around 195' and there are places in the city you cannot fly. However I often get people claiming I will hit an aircraft at 10000'. Really? There are no aircraft allowed to fly where I live. So lets say you could climb a mountain to 10000' where aircraft did not fly? Would you fly there. Obviously like the grand canyon you can launch from a mountain and be several thousand feet above the valley floor. That's part of the beauty of being able to fly. I took some photos to get printed. The shop owner knows the area as it's quite famous for tourists. He says wow, I've never seen someone to get these photo's like I have. I explained I flew my drone from near 9500' altitude and maxed out over 11000' with my drone over the Yushan National Park. ( Yeah we can fly National Parks here )

So as I fly where there are no people underneath, no passenger aircraft allowed in the area, and have stunning scenery to photo and video and have laws that allow me to do so I feel quite privileged. I flown 100 miles in the last 6 weeks with around 17 hours of flying time on the drone. I use an Argtek Antenna on my P3S and Argtek now use my distance video on their you tube channel. 12930' distance and 30000' mileage.

Enjoy your flying.

 

[blackcrusader]

 

[SDODD]

This thread got derailed by a few arguing over US laws. Guys there are many of us who do not live in the USA.
In Australia you can fly to the max height if you are not in controlled airspace, however other rules do apply about how close you can fly to a building or that you cannot fly over crowded places like beaches.

If I am flying in Taipei City there is a 60m max height limit, around 195' and there are places in the city you cannot fly. However I often get people claiming I will hit an aircraft at 10000'. Really? There are no aircraft allowed to fly where I live. So lets say you could climb a mountain to 10000' where aircraft did not fly? Would you fly there. Obviously like the grand canyon you can launch from a mountain and be several thousand feet above the valley floor. That's part of the beauty of being able to fly. I took some photos to get printed. The shop owner knows the area as it's quite famous for tourists. He says wow, I've never seen someone to get these photo's like I have. I explained I flew my drone from near 9500' altitude and maxed out over 11000' with my drone over the Yushan National Park. ( Yeah we can fly National Parks here )

So as I fly where there are no people underneath, no passenger aircraft allowed in the area, and have stunning scenery to photo and video and have laws that allow me to do so I feel quite privileged. I flown 100 miles in the last 6 weeks with around 17 hours of flying time on the drone. I use an Argtek Antenna on my P3S and Argtek now use my distance video on their you tube channel. 12930' distance and 30000' mileage.

Enjoy your flying.

Aside from our common cultural background the low population of Austrailia seems to allow things we used to take for granted in the USA. Like laws designed to support the citizens trying to do something wonderful. We gotta like this.