Failing to follow the Law makes it tough on everyone...

Discussion in 'General' started by robval1987, Jan 24, 2017.

  1. I don't want to sound like I am preaching to anyone, but now a day's when you buy a new Drone (even some of the smaller/cheaper toy style one's) there is a card in the package telling you register your Drone. If you look up at some of the different laws or restrictions on Drones you will find out that as a recreational use you must remain below 400 ft and be with in unassisted eye site (no binoculars). Just recently the FAA revamped it's restrictions on Drones and the came out with Part 107 for sUAS, personally I think that everyone flying a Drone (not at an approved airfield) should have to take the class and be Certified Part 107 for sUAS, this would then help the Drone owners understand why some of these restrictions on Drones exist. The restrictions aren't there to hamper your fun, but to protect the public. A Drone a 1600 ft in altitude is a hazard to aircraft with passengers. Hell if a bird can bring down an aircraft, then a Drone definitely could. There is a video on YouTube showing a Drone that struck the wing of a passenger airline on take off and it did some incredible damage to the plane (destroyed the Drone). I'm sure that if they were able to determine who was flying that Drone, that individual would have some health expenses (fixing the wing of an Airliner isn't cheap, the fines for flying to high, not giving way to a aircraft, not registering the Drone. Well I'm gonna get of my soap box now, but it's all of our responsibility to help educate each other and to keep us in check, it also helps us keep our rights to fly our Drones.
  2. I agree with drone flight safety. I also feel 400 ft is somewhat low, but I do understand the law. If we all fly responsible and stay below the radar, the Feds might focus their attention elsewhere.
  3. Do you have a link to this youtube video? From what I have read there has been no documented accidents of drones and airplanes. They all have been proven to be false. This is why I would like to see this video.

    I believe you don't have to fly above 400 feet as pictures and video after that is just like looking on Google Earth :) not much point to them. With that said there is no law for the hobbyist to stop him from flying above the 400 foot recommendation.

    The only people that have a published height limitation are commercial operators working under Part 333 and 107. The amateurs and hobbyists are simply required to maintain safe separation from manned aircraft and to operate safely. Everyone is subject to the "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" provisions in aviation law but a mandated 400' altitude limit, be it listed as MSL or AGL, is not part of the program.

    Depending on the country you are in, and for this discussion I'll reference the United States, the altitude you can operate at is established by many factors, including the distance relationship with a certificated airport and manned aviation traffic. The so called 400' limit is not a limit at all, nor is it a law or regulation referenced in Title 49 of the CFR's. In no location of the FAR's is a 400' hard limit placed on sUAS or model aviation that blankets the U.S. Such altitude laws generally state you must remain clear of controlled airspace until granted permission to enter, notify an airport operator when planning to operate within "X" distance of the airport, and remain clear and not present a hazard to manned aviation. There are nuances that extend to specific conditions and locations but in general you are not restricted to an altitude <=400'. You are however, limited to operating within line of sight (LOS) as referenced in Part 336 of the CFR's.

    If you intend to function in activities that have laws and regulations you must become conversant in such laws or a couple things will happen; you will deny yourself areas of flight that are perfectly legal to fly in due to ignorance of law, and you will violate laws you did not know existed. The FAA publishes several books to assist in self education. One is the FAR/AIM, another is The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, along with Aviation Weather, and a slew of other self training aids that can be accessed at the FAA website. You don't need to be limited to what someone says on the internet, you can read the laws as published for yourself.
    2 people like this.
  4. Here is the link, () 2ND video () you can clearly see the drone strikes the aircraft, upon further watching of this video I stand corrected as it was landing not taking off. But either way the individual flying the Drone has made several costly errors, first failing to follow the rule of giving a manned aircraft right of way, flying in what is surely airport airspace and finally flying above 400 ft. The second video doesn't show the strike, but is explained in the video what happens.
  5. It seems to me that you have made it clear that you don't care about certain things like AMA and rules about 400 ft, flying above or through clouds (as your video clearly shows) both of which are clear violation of FAA Part 107 for sUAS. Even in your Flying thru the Fog video, to maintain at least 500 seperating below and 2000 feet horizontally. it's clear your above 400 ft without being able to visual see your Drone, and as another member stated "if an airplane is at 400 ft it must be crashing" is a messed up statement or " a plane that low I will be able to hear them if there that low" obviously these statements are not true as both videos are proof in the previous post.
  6. Both your videos have been proven to be false claims. The first one was doctored up to look like a drone hit the wing. The second one they found out it was a plastic bag.
    There is also a report of a drone hitting the nose cone of a air bus but turned out to be weak parts that collapsed the metal.

    As for my video of going through the fog you are absolutely right. Foolish mistake on my part. It was a low lying fog so no I was not up 400 feet but none the less it was a foolish mistake that I would not repeat.

    Since I live in Canada and I am just a hobbyist Part 107 and the FAA rules do not apply to me but I do try to keep up on the different rules.

    I never said I don't care about the AMA, I only tried to offer a different side of things. I think you guys in the States would be grounded if it was not for the AMA. They do a lot of good. They have a couple hundred thousand members to support a hobby organization. That means they can lobby the Government better then you or I. So I have no problem with them but there is always a good and bad side to things.
    2 people like this.

Share This Page