Sorry for the misunderstanding. At that point I was not arguing if flying outside VLOS is legal or not. It's not. If you read my original post for this thread you would realize you are just repeating what I said. What I was arguing is that flying above 400' AGL or outside VLOS (a rule broken by almost everyone) is not careless or reckless if done with due caution, such as listening for other low flying aircraft.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-2 13:28
Sorry for the misunderstanding. At that point I was not arguing if flying outside VLOS is legal or not. It's not. If you read my original post for this thread you would realize you are just repeating what I said. What I was arguing is that flying above 400' AGL or outside VLOS (a rule broken by almost everyone) is not careless or reckless if done with due caution, such as listening for other low flying aircraft.

Would that automatically exclude deaf people from flying certain heights,?

"Must" is in there 9 times just in the Part 107 Summary put out by the FAA.

If you're flying where a skydiver is pulling the parachute, then you're too high or the skydiver pulled it too late (since you should be below 400' remember?).  Also, thinking that you've got complete situational awareness is the careless part.  The illusion of knowledge is necessary to keep you from having to face your own incompetence.

As a professional pilot that teaches other professional pilots how to fly very large jets, I feel I've got the experience to see the importance of "following the rules."  There's also no intelligent reason to incriminate oneself.

Again. I will  continue to fly my mavic within the limitations  and restrictions set by DJI

fans90d4f438 Posted at 2017-3-2 15:09
Again. I will  continue to fly my mavic within the limitations  and restrictions set by DJI

Glad you said that, and I'm sure you won't reply,
Because as you said you are going to fly your AC within the limitations and restrictions set by dji.

Well I have news for you, when you go to settings and try to change your height dji puts up a disclaimer, it clearly tells you that if you increase your height above 400 feet you are now acting outside restrictions set down by dji. You are now acting on your own.

So as you said you will fly your AC within the limitations and restrictions set down by dji, good for you..

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-3-2 13:53
Would that automatically exclude deaf people from flying certain heights,?

Well of your deff then it would be careless to fly in an area where you cannot see your drone + other aircraft. This is not that complicated.

DRONE-flies-YOU Posted at 2017-3-2 14:01
"Must" is in there 9 times just in the Part 107 Summary put out by the FAA.

If you're flying where a skydiver is pulling the parachute, then you're too high or the skydiver pulled it too late (since you should be below 400' remember?).  Also, thinking that you've got complete situational awareness is the careless part.  The illusion of knowledge is necessary to keep you from having to face your own incompetence.

Part 107 does not apply to those operating under the 336 exemption from congress. Did you not read the original post?

There was a guy on Reddit a while back that complained about his Mavic experiencing a fly away.  It was "fine" until he got to a certain point and then suddenly took off going north and never cam back, lost forever.  The wind was low, as reported by his weather app.

After a few responses the story became clearer.  He was flying at 1000 ft AGL (or higher as it appears that the remote might not show anything over 1000 ft).  At that point, the Reddit community pointed out that while the wind was only 7 mph at ground level, it was well over 40 mph at 1000ft.  The wind direction matched perfectly with his flight log.  

I think about that story a lot whenever folks start talking about high flying drones.

seeker_ktf_ Posted at 2017-3-2 19:28
There was a guy on Reddit a while back that complained about his Mavic experiencing a fly away.  It was "fine" until he got to a certain point and then suddenly took off going north and never cam back, lost forever.  The wind was low, as reported by his weather app.

After a few responses the story became clearer.  He was flying at 1000 ft AGL (or higher as it appears that the remote might not show anything over 1000 ft).  At that point, the Reddit community pointed out that while the wind was only 7 mph at ground level, it was well over 40 mph at 1000ft.  The wind direction matched perfectly with his flight log.  

THAT is a very good point

seeker_ktf_ Posted at 2017-3-2 19:28
There was a guy on Reddit a while back that complained about his Mavic experiencing a fly away.  It was "fine" until he got to a certain point and then suddenly took off going north and never cam back, lost forever.  The wind was low, as reported by his weather app.

After a few responses the story became clearer.  He was flying at 1000 ft AGL (or higher as it appears that the remote might not show anything over 1000 ft).  At that point, the Reddit community pointed out that while the wind was only 7 mph at ground level, it was well over 40 mph at 1000ft.  The wind direction matched perfectly with his flight log.  

1000' AGL is insane. In order to do that safely you need to know winds at high altitudes (windytv.com is a good source), be flying within VLOS so you can absolutely see any low flying aircraft, and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have some source that allows you to view transponder data of nearby planes. You should also not forget the important step of reconsidering why you are at 1000' AGL.

When I'm talking about going above 400' AGL I'm talking about maybe 600' AGL. Higher than that is starting to push it even if the mavic is capable.

Interesting thread. So there's the law and then there's the judicial branch and how they interpret it. Case in point, property rights don't extend to airspace as FAA has sole airspace jurisdiction - but if you fly over someone's private property and harass them, your local Judge may very easily say "yeah that's trespassing." Or maybe "disturbing the peace" or some such.

So - say you fly above 400' and, heavens forbid, cause an incident. In that case, perhaps, you could be found guilty of "reckless endangerment". The judge may well take into consideration the history of the law, what the FAA website said and the fact that you didn't abide by it. I guess at that point you could appeal and take it to a higher court and interesting things may come out of that too. Maybe we'll see something like that in the future, who knows!

poliakov Posted at 2017-3-3 21:29
Interesting thread. So there's the law and then there's the judicial branch and how they interpret it. Case in point, property rights don't extend to airspace as FAA has sole airspace jurisdiction - but if you fly over someone's private property and harass them, your local Judge may very easily say "yeah that's trespassing." Or maybe "disturbing the peace" or some such.

So - say you fly above 400' and, heavens forbid, cause an incident. In that case, perhaps, you could be found guilty of "reckless endangerment". The judge may well take into consideration the history of the law, what the FAA website said and the fact that you didn't abide by it. I guess at that point you could appeal and take it to a higher court and interesting things may come out of that too. Maybe we'll see something like that in the future, who knows!

I'm overly paranoid about this, especially here in Texas, where "DRONES!" are already being treated like they are made solely for the purpose of breaking the law.  I suspect that over 400 feet or not, that any accident involving a UAS is always going to be blamed on the pilot, no matter what.

The OP has a real and very valid point.  The 400 foot limit is only a suggestion.  He also pointed out that it's really difficult for people to see the dfference beween suggestions and requirements.  It's like when a smll plane crashs and the press reports that the pilot "didn't file a flight plan" as if some sort of law was broken.  There's absolutely no requirement to file a flight plan, but lots of luck to the guy who messes up in his plane without one.

seeker_ktf_ Posted at 2017-3-5 04:23
I'm overly paranoid about this, especially here in Texas, where "DRONES!" are already being treated like they are made solely for the purpose of breaking the law.  I suspect that over 400 feet or not, that any accident involving a UAS is always going to be blamed on the pilot, no matter what.

The OP has a real and very valid point.  The 400 foot limit is only a suggestion.  He also pointed out that it's really difficult for people to see the dfference beween suggestions and requirements.  It's like when a smll plane crashs and the press reports that the pilot "didn't file a flight plan" as if some sort of law was broken.  There's absolutely no requirement to file a flight plan, but lots of luck to the guy who messes up in his plane without one.

No it is not a valid point ,lol  . The link I provided earlier from the FAA website states you MUST follow the guidelines . My link was to the regular hobbyist rules . The part 107 states it even more so .

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-16 14:46
No it is not a valid point ,lol  . The link I provided earlier from the FAA website states you MUST follow the guidelines . My link was to the regular hobbyist rules . The part 107 states it even more so .

Did you even read the original post and what you linked? The only time "must" is used in that link in regards to recreational use is stating that you must follow the 336 rules to be exempt. Exactly what I said in the original post. "Must" is never used in the same area as the 400' guideline except for the part 107 rules for non-hobby use.

My understanding after talking to several manned AC pilots is the FAA 400 foot AGL upper limit for model AC exists to create a 100 foot buffer with the 500 foot AGL lower limit manned AC are required to maintain.  (Although they rarely would go that low for safety reasons) Makes sense. Same as the tiered system around larger airports where there are altitude limits depending on your distance from the airport. One of the FAAs responsibilities is to create rules that create safe distances between all AC.

Bottom line, if you exceed 500 you are in manned airspace. The altitude from 400 to 500 is the safety buffer that neither manned or unmanned AC should enter.

I dunno guys.  I don't guess anyone here is a lawyer so these subtle la points are kinda useless.  I stand by what I said earlier.  In any kind of accident, the copter, and its pilot,  is going to be blamed.  Below 400 ft?  You're still supposed to give right of way to any manned craft.  I still assume any accident will fall under "reckless" and all bets are off.  Which is the more likely headline?

"UAV pilot manages to save the day by avoiding a manned vehicle"

          -or-

"DRONE recklessly causes a near crash endangering the lives of innocent people"


Happy flying, but be safe.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-16 15:28
Did you even read the original post and what you linked? The only time "must" is used in that link in regards to recreational use is stating that you must follow the 336 rules to be exempt. Exactly what I said in the original post. "Must" is never used in the same area as the 400' guideline except for the part 107 rules for non-hobby use.

I'm in agreement with your perspective on this matter --- I do have a question , I live in a mountain range area and I'm on the top of one over looking the ground aprox. 500ft below and my takeoff AGL is 30ft and I fly out off the mountain over the ground 500ft below with no population just a river and farming fields, am I operating my drone recklessly ?

SkunkWerxs Posted at 2017-3-16 17:57
I'm in agreement with your perspective on this matter --- I do have a question , I live in a mountain range area and I'm on the top of one over looking the ground aprox. 500ft below and my takeoff AGL is 30ft and I fly out off the mountain over the ground 500ft below with no population just a river and farming fields, am I operating my drone recklessly ?

Are you above 400' AGL?
Yes

Are you operating recklessly?
Not unless you are  putting on a blindfold and putting earplugs in so you cant be aware of any nearby traffic. Even then I wouldn't call that reckless unless there was an airport down there or something.

fans06b77ccc Posted at 2017-3-16 17:37
My understanding after talking to several manned AC pilots is the FAA 400 foot AGL upper limit for model AC exists to create a 100 foot buffer with the 500 foot AGL lower limit manned AC are required to maintain.  (Although they rarely would go that low for safety reasons) Makes sense. Same as the tiered system around larger airports where there are altitude limits depending on your distance from the airport. One of the FAAs responsibilities is to create rules that create safe distances between all AC.

Bottom line, if you exceed 500 you are in manned airspace. The altitude from 400 to 500 is the safety buffer that neither manned or unmanned AC should enter.

Yup thats exactly why that guideline exists. I'm not arguing that its a stupid guideline. It makes since and I don't go above it unless I know what kind of traffic is in the area and I am within earshot of any low flying aircraft.

However, what I am arguing is that it is legal to do so as the FAA is not allowed to impose a height restriction as long as you are operating within the 336 exemption set by congress.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-16 18:47
Yup thats exactly why that guideline exists. I'm not arguing that its a stupid guideline. It makes since and I don't go above it unless I know what kind of traffic is in the area and I am within earshot of any low flying aircraft.

However, what I am arguing is that it is legal to do so as the FAA is not allowed to impose a height restriction as long as you are operating within the 336 exemption set by congress.

Your argument is interesting from an acedemic point of view. However, from a common sense point of view we really should stick to the FAA rules, guidelines, or laws.....whatever they may be interpreted to be. The are there to help create safety zones. Common sense trumps all. Hopefully pilots that may lack common sense or situational awareness in some situations don't use the possibility of it being Ok, discussed in this thread, as a license  to fly in manned airspace.
It's this kind of thing that only will lead to greater regulations for everyone because of the actions of a few. Look at the new ruling recently passed in Canada. This appears to have teeth. Even more concerning, they are asking the public to report possible infractions, and have created an easy to use form that anyone can use to report the POSSIBILITY of a drone pilot breaking the rules, laws, or guidelines.    https://wwww.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilav ... nt-report-form.html

fans06b77ccc Posted at 2017-3-17 04:05
Your argument is interesting from an acedemic point of view. However, from a common sense point of view we really should stick to the FAA rules, guidelines, or laws.....whatever they may be interpreted to be. Common sense trumps all. Hopefully pilots that may lack common sense in some situations don't use the possibility of it being Ok, discussed in this thread, as a license  to fly in manned airspace. It's this kind of thing that only will lead to greater regulations . Look at the new ruling recently passed in Canada.

In my area where I live see post #57 I have come across Private manned planes and Military helicopters that fly well below the 500-400ft AGL , my actions are to rise above them , the private plane never sees me but the Blackhawk's and Apache helicopters always see me ( cause of there radar ) at one incident a Blackhawk that was below me buzzing the river risen up to my level  on the mountain , I can see the whole crew inside they all gave me a thumbs up and continued on there way ( Cool guys ) I never called the FAA on them nor did they call on me ---- This is why I posted my question to GEOFOX ----- I don't mind sharing airspace with them and they didn't seem to mind sharing it with me either.  

SkunkWerxs Posted at 2017-3-17 04:41
In my area where I live see post #57 I have come across Private manned planes and Military helicopters that fly well below the 500-400ft AGL , my actions are to rise above them , the private plane never sees me but the Blackhawk's and Apache helicopters always see me ( cause of there radar ) at one incident a Blackhawk that was below me buzzing the river risen up to my level  on the mountain , I can see the whole crew inside they all gave me a thumbs up and continued on there way ( Cool guys ) I never called the FAA on them nor did they call on me ---- This is why I posted my question to GEOFOX ----- I don't mind sharing airspace with them and they didn't seem to mind sharing it with me either.

Thats freakin cool.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-17 06:18
Thats freakin cool.

┼┼┼┼┼┼▓▓▓▓▓┼┼┼┼┼┼▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼┼┼┼┼▓▒▒▒▒▒▓┼┼┼┼▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼┼┼┼┼▓▒▒▒▒▒▓┼┼┼▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼┼┼┼┼▓▒▒▒▒▓┼┼▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼┼┼┼┼┼▓▒▒▒▓┼┼▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼┼┼▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼┼┼▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼┼▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
┼▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓

I also will not take pic's or video's and post them do to the fact They have numbers on there AC and Big Brother is watching  ------- There more then likely Breaking the Law , Rules, Regulations or what ever you want to call it , just as much as I am .         FAA please don't lock me up   

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-16 15:28
Did you even read the original post and what you linked? The only time "must" is used in that link in regards to recreational use is stating that you must follow the 336 rules to be exempt. Exactly what I said in the original post. "Must" is never used in the same area as the 400' guideline except for the part 107 rules for non-hobby use.

Yes it clearly states that one Must follow a community set of guidelines . The community is the RC community (AMA guidelines ) that have been the same for decades . Fly no higher than 400 ' is one of them .

You can pick at these things all you want but to any reasonable person that has any knowledge of the RC hobby , what the FAA is trying to do is clear . They want the community to continue to police themselves as they have for decades . This obviously is not going to happen with the larger percentage of drone owners . Canada started off with "Guidelines" and then had to go the step further and enact strict laws .

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-21 16:59
Yes it clearly states that one Must follow a community set of guidelines . The community is the RC community (AMA guidelines ) that have been the same for decades . Fly no higher than 400 ' is one of them .

You can pick at these things all you want but to any reasonable person that has any knowledge of the RC hobby , what the FAA is trying to do is clear . They want the community to continue to police themselves as they have for decades . This obviously is not going to happen with the larger percentage of drone owners . Canada started off with "Guidelines" and then had to go the step further and enact strict laws .

I'm sorry to say -- I have to fly over 400' AGL because if I don't I might
as well have it just hover in front of me and I didn't need to spend $1200.00 USD  

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-21 16:59
Yes it clearly states that one Must follow a community set of guidelines . The community is the RC community (AMA guidelines ) that have been the same for decades . Fly no higher than 400 ' is one of them .

You can pick at these things all you want but to any reasonable person that has any knowledge of the RC hobby , what the FAA is trying to do is clear . They want the community to continue to police themselves as they have for decades . This obviously is not going to happen with the larger percentage of drone owners . Canada started off with "Guidelines" and then had to go the step further and enact strict laws .

"Fly no higher than 400 ' is one of them ."
Nope. Only applies within 3 miles of an airport and even allows you to do so if you call them. It's even less restrictive than the "call within 5 miles" rules set by the 336 exemption.

Guideline 2(c) "Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator"


Not trying to argue as to whether you should follow the guideline or not, but just argue that "The FAA's 400' "rule" is not a rule, but a guideline."

seeker_ktf_ Posted at 2017-3-21 18:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl0hMfqNQ-g

Lol love that

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-2 12:56
try the actual FAA site .

https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/

And, as seen at that link, recreational pilots "must" also

Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
Give way to manned aircraft

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-21 17:08
"Fly no higher than 400 ' is one of them ."
Nope. Only applies within 3 miles of an airport and even allows you to do so if you call them. It's even less restrictive than the "call within 5 miles" rules set by the 336 exemption.

A guideline that it clearly states that you "Must" follow .

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-22 04:27
A guideline that it clearly states that you "Must" follow .

Once again, please show me where on FAA's site it says "Must" in regards to those that are flying under the 336 exemption. Every link I have been provided only says must if it is in regards to 107.

mstevens Posted at 2017-3-21 19:08
And, as seen at that link, recreational pilots "must" also

Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight

"Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
Give way to manned aircraft"

Not arguing that you are required to follow those. The 336 exemption lists that. I mentioned both in my original post.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-22 16:39
Once again, please show me where on FAA's site it says "Must" in regards to those that are flying under the 336 exemption. Every link I have been provided only says must if it is in regards to 107.

Fly For Fun:
Must ALWAYS yield right of way to manned aircraft
Must keep the aircraft in sight (visual line-of-sight)
UAS must be under 55 lbs.
Must follow community-based safety guidelines
Must notify airport and air traffic control tower before flying within 5 miles of an airport
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/

Part 336
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
following statutory requirements are met:
• the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower … with prior notice of the operation….

B. Model Aircraft Must Meet the Criteria in Section 336 to Be Exempt from Future
Rulemaking

Although the FAA believes the statutory definition of a model aircraft is clear,
the FAA provides the following explanation of the meanings of “visual line of sight” and
“hobby or recreational purpose,” terms used in the definition of model aircraft, because
the FAA has received a number of questions in this area.

By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).
1 Based on the plain
language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person
view” from the model.
2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby
1 For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model
aircraft’s controls.
2 The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV)
operations during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images
transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to provide
reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some
of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see
the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.
Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be
“flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator
could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id.
(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the
safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.
The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational
purposes.

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-22 17:11
Fly For Fun:
Must ALWAYS yield right of way to manned aircraft
Must keep the aircraft in sight (visual line-of-sight)

You make a great argument that you must fly within VLOS. I don't disagree that it is the law. Earlier in this thread I posted the very links you post below and made the same argument.

I have said that many people break the VLOS rule and that I personally think you can operate safely while outside of VLOS. Your profile picture proves that you believe the same. I have never said that it is legal.
"Fly For Fun: ....  FAA link"
That's all true. The 336 exemption requires that. They even list "Public Law 112-95, Section 336" I don't see 400' there. A nice summary of my original post.

"Part 336 ..... operation..."
Just repeats everything in the first link and my original post.

"B. Model Aircraft Must..... recreational purposes."
Just adds detail to what VLOS is. You can fly above 400' while maintaining VLOS.


A summery of what I have said in this thread if you dont want to read it before posting:
- Flying above 400' AGL is legal if you are flying recreationally. I provided numerous citations proving that.
- Flying outside of VLOS is illegal.
- I personally thing that flying outside of VLOS is safe if you stay within earshot of low flying aircraft. Feel free to argue against that but I am fully aware its illegal.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-22 18:05
You make a great argument that you must fly within VLOS. I don't disagree that it is the law. Earlier in this thread I posted the very links you post below and made the same argument.

I have said that many people break the VLOS rule and that I personally think you can operate safely while outside of VLOS. Your profile picture proves that you believe the same. I have never said that it is legal.

Interesting letter from the FAA to the AMA regarding the 400' rule .

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org ... /07/FAA-400feet.pdf

You can fly above 400' when following a community based organizations safety guidelines .

One of the AMA RC rules are that you never fly over unprotected people , vessels or structures .

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

Where we live here in the foothills, there are 800-2500' hills all around. To fly up to one of them forces you to break 400' agl unless you terrain follow to the top.  Given that the FAA rule for VFR flight is minimum 500' AGL, there is always some risk. We have run into a couple issues when we are flying and some idiot decides to fly at 500' through the area. We even had a few military plane flying that low while we were in their path. Call it a rule or call it a guideline, causing an air disaster would be a real tragedy for all. Just stay safe.

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-23 04:41
Interesting letter from the FAA to the AMA regarding the 400' rule .

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf

Really interesting letter. I'll actually add that to my original post.

"avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others. "
Kind common sense. Good to avoid doing that. Sometimes it's unavoidable.

DesertDave Posted at 2017-3-23 06:58
Where we live here in the foothills, there are 800-2500' hills all around. To fly up to one of them forces you to break 400' agl unless you terrain follow to the top.  Given that the FAA rule for VFR flight is minimum 500' AGL, there is always some risk. We have run into a couple issues when we are flying and some idiot decides to fly at 500' through the area. We even had a few military plane flying that low while we were in their path. Call it a rule or call it a guideline, causing an air disaster would be a real tragedy for all. Just stay safe.

I live in Colorado. There has been a number of times that I have hit the max 500 meters and still can't get over a hill or canyon without hitting it. I'm planning on flying in canyons soon and cant fly in some areas because the max altitude I can set RTH is lower than the top of the sharp canon.

UPDATE: Some people would say "Well the FAA requires me to register my drone and that isn't listed in 336 so how is that allowed?" It arguably is not, but the FAA says that registering any aircraft is a pre-existing condition prior to 336 and thus not "new regulation".  In fact, it was struck down in court yesterday, proving how strong 336 is.