Glenn Beer
Active User
Maps were mentioned. Here is another.
faa.maps.arcgis.com
ArcGIS Web Application
faa.maps.arcgis.com
Aloft Forums
Welcome to Aloft Forums. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FAA 400ft Limit
- Thread starter jvaliensi
- Start date
@Skye
Thank you very much, I enjoyed reading the details and your summary.
When I think back to the flying I did as a kid both slope and powered, we would never think of flying over the public, or around things as outlined in the above. Sadly, a few years ago people were sharing videos of them doing this sort of thing all the time. Flying in all sorts of stupid places and doing all sorts of stupid things. Luckily a lot of this seems to have tamed down, but the bottle was opened.. I don't see how the FAA could turn a blind eye to it any longer.
I chatted with a drone pilot a few years ago that flew a commercial drone through a stadium for all of the home games for a local baseball team. These were approved flights until someone came to their senses that a huge carbon bladed drone over grandstands was a really bad idea. Know what they were told they we shut down for? Too close to SFO airspace.
It is so sad the impact this is having on the fixed wing part of the hobby. So many flying sites have been closed down. Heck, the AMA site I currently fly at is under the approach of our local airport. Probably just a matter of time before someone figures that out. N one cares that we have a perfect safety record and are very respectful of the aircraft in the area. Just how close it is too an airport.. Heck, Oakland airport had a hobby port just to the side of their airport runways. Everytime I drive by it is a sad reminder.
Thank you very much, I enjoyed reading the details and your summary.
When I think back to the flying I did as a kid both slope and powered, we would never think of flying over the public, or around things as outlined in the above. Sadly, a few years ago people were sharing videos of them doing this sort of thing all the time. Flying in all sorts of stupid places and doing all sorts of stupid things. Luckily a lot of this seems to have tamed down, but the bottle was opened.. I don't see how the FAA could turn a blind eye to it any longer.
I chatted with a drone pilot a few years ago that flew a commercial drone through a stadium for all of the home games for a local baseball team. These were approved flights until someone came to their senses that a huge carbon bladed drone over grandstands was a really bad idea. Know what they were told they we shut down for? Too close to SFO airspace.
It is so sad the impact this is having on the fixed wing part of the hobby. So many flying sites have been closed down. Heck, the AMA site I currently fly at is under the approach of our local airport. Probably just a matter of time before someone figures that out. N one cares that we have a perfect safety record and are very respectful of the aircraft in the area. Just how close it is too an airport.. Heck, Oakland airport had a hobby port just to the side of their airport runways. Everytime I drive by it is a sad reminder.
Glenn Beer
Active User
When the FAA is talking about a 400 max altitude, is that everywhere or specifically beneath airport zones?
S
Skye
Guest
Controlled airspace initially, then likely everywhere with conditions.
S
Skye
Guest
The sky is literally falling.
Scott Page
Very Strong User
I just don't understand why the AMA is consistently giving a different message than the FAA. On their website https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/ the FAA says "Fly your drone at or below 400 feet when in uncontrolled or "Class G" airspace." The AMA continue to say "the FAA says they will work with us, but they may limit us to 700 or 1200 feet in uncontrolled airspace, however there is NO evidence of this from the FAA. The FAA message has been clear and consistent.
I checked archive.org and this message has been the same from the FAA regarding uncontrolled (Class G) airspace the since at least January 12, 2019. It appears that AMA has been blowing some smoke up our shorts about their supposed discussions with the FAA.
I checked archive.org and this message has been the same from the FAA regarding uncontrolled (Class G) airspace the since at least January 12, 2019. It appears that AMA has been blowing some smoke up our shorts about their supposed discussions with the FAA.
Attachments
S
Skye
Guest
Hmm, seems like Pirker and his Crap Bird lawyer had similar theories....
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Page
Very Strong User
It's as enforceable as a speed limit. Does the speed limit curtail speeding? No. Are all speeders caught? No - not even a tiny fraction. Does getting caught speeding lead to a hefty fine? Ya sure can. Can repeated speeding tickets lead to revocation of a drivers license? yep.
For many years the only instrument police had to enforce speed limit was professional judgement -- tickets were written and fines were levied. Today police have high tech devices that make it even easier to remotely measure speed - but still a majority of speeders are not caught - -yet the fines and penalties do slow down most people so only the egregious violators are nailed.
It's a very simple matter to measure the altitude of a model aircraft with two electronically connected observation positions -- maybe even with a single position. Will all violators be caught? Heck no, Will the fines or potential criminal penalties be sufficient to dissuade - for some - but likely only the most egregious violators will me made an example of.
Think how simple it will be to find and measure RC airplanes. In a community of 100,000 people there might be 4 or 5 locations where the vast majority of the flights occur. FAA can concentrate on these locations easily (if they chose to) and local law enforcement would likely be tasked with enforcement of parks and school yards - as they are in communities like mine where flying in public space is illegal.
The -- they can't catch me -- is classic denial. They can catch us. They won't have the resources to catch us? True -- they will never have the resources to catch all or even most of the violations on the highway speeding -- or on the flying field, flying. But is the price of the penalty going to be worth the risk?? Therein lies the big question for me.
S
Skye
Guest
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea what a massive tragedy it will be when some asswipe brings down a commercial airplane. You seem ignorant of what brought the FAA into existence and why they view any threat or risk, no matter how remote, as one to be regulated or nipped in the bud.
We are now at the stage when for pennies a reckless asswipe, believing enforcement is unlikely, poses a clear and present danger.
We are now at the stage when for pennies a reckless asswipe, believing enforcement is unlikely, poses a clear and present danger.
Konrad
Very Strong User
Hasn't that been true since the beginning of time, with assassins, religious zealots, mob members, gangsters and politicians? Particularly the last one!
The FAA has only one mandate now. That is the regulation of Aviation. Its other mandate promotion was stripped from the agency and never reassigned to any other agency after the Value Jet crash.
All the best,
Konrad
Will they catch you if you fly 450 feet? No probably not. But does that mean this does not have a huge impact on our hobby?
These new rules will close countless legal flying sites. I know the local AMA site we fly our powered planes from will have to close down as we are within site of the local airport. It will be unlikely we will be able to source another site for the club in the area. We have 2 local airports we will need to be 5 miles from, that pushes us out pretty far due to the locations of other airports in the area. This 5 mile rule alone will close MANY flying sites. Heck, I know of a number of flying sites that are near or even on airport grounds and have been there for decades with no issues.
Model aviation is the original grass roots into larger forms of aviation. Most pilots I know started off with model planes, and many still fly model planes.
Is there a threat to passenger jets from model aviation? Yes, but in all honesty it is pretty limited risk. Lets face it, if someone wanted to take down a jet they are very unlikely to use a model plane or drone to do it. The chances of success with such a plan would actually be very low IMHO. Can they upset airport traffic? YES. Birds at the end of a runway are a much more consistent and real threat. IMHO. So why punish so many?
I consider this a poorly thought out excuse to place controls on the low airspace for what I also consider to be ill conceived plans for UAV commercial uses. Reality is they could use modern electronics to make space for UAVs to share the space. ADSB is a reality and works very well and in all honesty with modern electronics we can actually equip our models with ADSB for a moderate price or issues notems pretty quickly as most GA pilots do use ADSB in their flight planning and monitoring already, and by 2020 they all have to (except some historic aircraft..)
Poorly conceived IMHO. Punishing a lot of innocent people in this hobby.
These new rules will close countless legal flying sites. I know the local AMA site we fly our powered planes from will have to close down as we are within site of the local airport. It will be unlikely we will be able to source another site for the club in the area. We have 2 local airports we will need to be 5 miles from, that pushes us out pretty far due to the locations of other airports in the area. This 5 mile rule alone will close MANY flying sites. Heck, I know of a number of flying sites that are near or even on airport grounds and have been there for decades with no issues.
Model aviation is the original grass roots into larger forms of aviation. Most pilots I know started off with model planes, and many still fly model planes.
Is there a threat to passenger jets from model aviation? Yes, but in all honesty it is pretty limited risk. Lets face it, if someone wanted to take down a jet they are very unlikely to use a model plane or drone to do it. The chances of success with such a plan would actually be very low IMHO. Can they upset airport traffic? YES. Birds at the end of a runway are a much more consistent and real threat. IMHO. So why punish so many?
I consider this a poorly thought out excuse to place controls on the low airspace for what I also consider to be ill conceived plans for UAV commercial uses. Reality is they could use modern electronics to make space for UAVs to share the space. ADSB is a reality and works very well and in all honesty with modern electronics we can actually equip our models with ADSB for a moderate price or issues notems pretty quickly as most GA pilots do use ADSB in their flight planning and monitoring already, and by 2020 they all have to (except some historic aircraft..)
Poorly conceived IMHO. Punishing a lot of innocent people in this hobby.
S
Skye
Guest
For the FAA, reckless operation and its risks are the paramount issue, not willful or intentional acts. Do not buy into the conspiracy ********-terrorism isn’t the issue. Again, look why the FAA was formed-positive control to assure idiots, even atp idiots, present diminished risks.
Konrad
Very Strong User
Punishing? I don't see that. I see the airspace as we once saw it is no longer the reality. The FAA is mandated to regulate the airspace for its safe use in the public interest. It is now precieved that the public interest is in drone delivery systems.
Something I learned fighting (sorry interfacing) with the FAA Administrator or his designee on an almost weekly basis was that they are not as stupid as they first appear. After some successful milestone had been reached, I was at some social gathering with some FAA representative. He pulled me aside and said; I know you think we government workers are fools. That may be true, but allow me to explain how government works. Unlike in the private sector there is no incentive in government to take a risk. In the private sector if you take a risk and it works you often get rewarded. Such as a pay raise, promotion or bonus. In government there is no such reward for taking a risk. There are only down sides, like the loss of the cushy government pension. Or worse should things go wrong the official is likely to be hauled in front of congress to explain why he didn’t know that action was fraught with risks. So he said; we government works aren’t stupid, we aren’t going to risk our pensions with no upside.
Now this guy was a good bureaucrat, he was willing to sign off on any idea I might have as long as I could point to a regulation that supported my intended action. He was even willing to help me interpret the reg’s to do what I might want.
In this case of the 400’ rule, it is law. I know of no relief in the latest appropriation bill for the 400’ limit. So the FAA has no choice but to write the regulation with the 400’ limit being the hard legal limit. As asinine as this is, it is the job of the regulators to write the regs to the law as passed by congress. I had thought that there was a waiver process, but this is looking to not be case for general operations.
If someone who knows the law (bill) can show a clear path in the law to operate above the 400’ limit. (This is way above my pay grade!)The FAA administrator should have no issue writing regulation to allow it. The issue as I understand it isn’t with the FAA but rather the Congress. As the bill has passed into law that ship has sailed. Well, until the next appropriation cycle.
We need to show that our toys are in the public's best interest. As it is the bed rock for entry into aviation related fields. That these jobs will add to the federal coffers in the way of higher paying jobs.
All the best,
Konrad
Something I learned fighting (sorry interfacing) with the FAA Administrator or his designee on an almost weekly basis was that they are not as stupid as they first appear. After some successful milestone had been reached, I was at some social gathering with some FAA representative. He pulled me aside and said; I know you think we government workers are fools. That may be true, but allow me to explain how government works. Unlike in the private sector there is no incentive in government to take a risk. In the private sector if you take a risk and it works you often get rewarded. Such as a pay raise, promotion or bonus. In government there is no such reward for taking a risk. There are only down sides, like the loss of the cushy government pension. Or worse should things go wrong the official is likely to be hauled in front of congress to explain why he didn’t know that action was fraught with risks. So he said; we government works aren’t stupid, we aren’t going to risk our pensions with no upside.
Now this guy was a good bureaucrat, he was willing to sign off on any idea I might have as long as I could point to a regulation that supported my intended action. He was even willing to help me interpret the reg’s to do what I might want.
In this case of the 400’ rule, it is law. I know of no relief in the latest appropriation bill for the 400’ limit. So the FAA has no choice but to write the regulation with the 400’ limit being the hard legal limit. As asinine as this is, it is the job of the regulators to write the regs to the law as passed by congress. I had thought that there was a waiver process, but this is looking to not be case for general operations.
If someone who knows the law (bill) can show a clear path in the law to operate above the 400’ limit. (This is way above my pay grade!)The FAA administrator should have no issue writing regulation to allow it. The issue as I understand it isn’t with the FAA but rather the Congress. As the bill has passed into law that ship has sailed. Well, until the next appropriation cycle.
We need to show that our toys are in the public's best interest. As it is the bed rock for entry into aviation related fields. That these jobs will add to the federal coffers in the way of higher paying jobs.
All the best,
Konrad
Last edited:
Scott Page
Very Strong User
In my local local PD already are enforcing WHERE we fly (but not altitude). I'm personally aware of half dozen or so pilots that have had one or more opportunities to interface with police about flying in parks and school yards in Class G airspace. There was a group that flew at a public field in another city 10 miles or so away that were shut down by police. In that instance they were in controlled airspace with a 400' limit (4 miles from airport) - but the reason was city ordnance. The local police won't be enforcing Federal Law, but they will state and local laws.
A great case study of states changing (under duress) their laws to abide by the federal "guidance" comes from the early '80s with the federal mandate for states to lower speeds to 55 mph. When the Fed said the speeds needed to be lowered to 55 for SAFETY reasons. The real reason for lowering the speed limit was our dependence on mid east oil and the lack of a federal reserve of oil. Most states thumbed their noses at Wa. DC. Then the Fed tied 5% of the states federal money for interstate highways to adherence of the 55mph laws. As I recall, 49 of the states quickly changed their speed limits to 55 and eventually all 50. I fully expect that this may be how it plays out again. The public will be fed a SAFETY message regarding the necessity of limiting operations to 400', the states will be provided a financial incentive (penalty) for making state laws, and the <1% of the population that wants to fly over 400' will loose.