Drone at 1000 feet in the San Francisco Bay Area

Lndwarrior

Lndwarrior

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
1,196
Display Name
Display name:
Gary
Had a bit of a surprise today departing VFR eastward from Palo Alto, threading the needle between the SF Class B and the San Jose Class C airspace.

After passing the eastern shoreline of the bay I was at 1100 feet when I noticed a small white drone about 30 feet below and within 20 to 30 yards slant range. It couldn't have been much farther because my eyes aren't that good and I could see it clearly.

It didn't really bother me but it got me wondering about the drone regulations. I know that there are some altitude limits, at least in certain areas, but I don't know what they are.

Also, I'm guessing that commercial operators can get permission for higher for certain reasons.

I'm mostly curious about the drone rules and would appreciate some insight.

I was on flight following and considered mentioning it to the controller but he was quite busy, and I had my hands full navigating and dealing with some light turbulence.

Any insight on drone altitudes and related regulations would be appreciated.
 
I think they must also be in G, avoiding E and of course B, C, and D. Which means among other things they can't be in any airport airspaces.
 
WDD said:
I think they must also be in G, avoiding E and of course B, C, and D. Which means among other things they can't be in any airport airspaces.
Click to expand...

not exactly. In controlled airspace that starts at ground level, ATC authorization is required (but still need to stay below 400' agl). For example, with an authorization (e.g., obtained via LAANC), a drone can be operated in class D airspace.
 
Copy that. But without ATC authorization, you’re supposed to stay out of everything except G. I’m assuming a drone that close to traffic wasn’t authorized by ATC.
 
WDD said:
Copy that. But without ATC authorization, you’re supposed to stay out of everything except G. I’m assuming a drone that close to traffic wasn’t authorized by ATC.
Click to expand...
In most places, it's really just notification through LAANC. Operations are essentially preapproved in most places that don't show '0' on the facility grids. You do have to submit through LAANC, but approval is pretty much instantaneous by the system and the controlling ATC is notified. It's also pretty trivial to obtain a waiver, at least in my experience. Assuming that UAS won't be operating in controlled airspace is not a good assumption.
 
Lindberg said:
In most places, it's really just notification through LAANC. Operations are essentially preapproved in most places that don't show '0' on the facility grids. You do have to submit through LAANC, but approval is pretty much instantaneous by the system and the controlling ATC is notified. It's also pretty trivial to obtain a waiver, at least in my experience. Assuming that UAS won't be operating in controlled airspace is not a good assumption.
Click to expand...
Any UAS in an airspace, should be equipped with ADSB out though, should it not?
 
Salty said:
Any UAS in an airspace, should be equipped with ADSB out though, should it not?
Click to expand...




§ 107.53 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out prohibition.​

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with ADS-B Out equipment in transmit mode.
 
So - a model airplane flying at 200 feet in a neighborhood park in class G needs ADSB out?
 
Bob Noel said:

§ 107.53 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out prohibition.​

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with ADS-B Out equipment in transmit mode.
Click to expand...

WDD said:
So - a model airplane flying at 200 feet in a neighborhood park in class G needs ADSB out?
Click to expand...

2-Bit Speed said:
Yep
Click to expand...

This prohibits use of ADS-B transmissions and also operating a transponder (different subpart)
 
The FAA didn't want ADS-B on models - they thought it'd overwhelm the system. The only UAS that need or get ADS-B are large ones that have N-numbers. Hobby models are supposed to have 'Remote ID' - either built in (like DJI drones), or else an add-on module

Spektrum Sky Remote ID Module | Horizon Hobby

The Sky Remote ID Module by Spektrum was designed for the radio control hobby. Shop the best RC transmitters, radio systems, and electronic RC parts online at www.horizonhobby.com!
www.horizonhobby.com www.horizonhobby.com
(for traditional home built/assembled models).
The 'RID' puts out a bluetooth signal that can be monitored on a phone app. The focus of the rule is for law enforcement - not particularly for active flight safety.
I can't see how this would be practical for in-cockpit use. But maybe a new design ADS-B unit could add that function? (Shouldn't be all that hard, I'd guess)
Third option - fly your models only at a 'FRIA' (FAA Recognized Identification Area) - typically the local R/C club field. But, I have yet to see one of those shown on a sectional. Should they be?
 
It's my opinion that they shouldn't be allowed in controlled airspace without an N number or adsb out.
 
Salty said:
It's my opinion that they shouldn't be allowed in controlled airspace without an N number or adsb out.
Click to expand...

You realize that class D extends all the way down to the surface, right?

So you think a small drone (e.g. weighing less than 250grams) shouldn’t be operated even below 400’ agl 4 miles from an airport (i.e. inside the class D)?
 
Bob Noel said:
You realize that class D extends all the way down to the surface, right?

So you think a small drone (e.g. weighing less than 250grams) shouldn’t be operated even below 400’ agl 4 miles from an airport (i.e. inside the class D)?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was thinking above 400', but I did say "in controlled airspace".
 
The UAS rules are clearly still evolving, and they really do need some work.

As it currently stands, since I live within the surface area of the local Class C (about 4 nm from the nearest runway), I need to submit a LAANC request in order to fly my drone 10 feet above my (single-story) roof to check for hail damage. Yes, it's an automated process given the UAS Facility Map, since that would be below 400 AGL in my sector.

But it's still silly, because 10 feet over my roof is still below the tops of my trees. And still below the roofs of the two-story houses in the neighborhood, and still below the tops of numerous buildings and antenna towers that are between me and the airport. So if my drone is a threat to aviation, that means all of those other things are moreso.

Furthermore, what is ATC going to do with this information? Issue a caution to inbound aircraft that there is a drone operating less than 50 feet AGL 4 miles from the runway (and more than a mile off to the side of final)? If the airplane is that low, the pilots have other problems to consider.

I understand everything has to start somewhere, but more analysis and changes are clearly needed here.

I think I would support something like "can't fly higher than XXX (50? 100?) feet above the highest building within some radius (500ft? 1000ft?) without submitting via LAANC". Something like that seems a little more reasonable.
 
Lindberg said:
A waiver is needed anywhere to operate above 400' from the ground or a structure. Which, perhaps coincidentally, is less than 500'.
Click to expand...
A waiver doesn't tell a 172 pilot where the UAS is.
 
RussR said:
The UAS rules are clearly still evolving, and they really do need some work.

As it currently stands, since I live within the surface area of the local Class C (about 4 nm from the nearest runway), I need to submit a LAANC request in order to fly my drone 10 feet above my (single-story) roof to check for hail damage. Yes, it's an automated process given the UAS Facility Map, since that would be below 400 AGL in my sector.

But it's still silly, because 10 feet over my roof is still below the tops of my trees. And still below the roofs of the two-story houses in the neighborhood, and still below the tops of numerous buildings and antenna towers that are between me and the airport. So if my drone is a threat to aviation, that means all of those other things are moreso.

Furthermore, what is ATC going to do with this information? Issue a caution to inbound aircraft that there is a drone operating less than 50 feet AGL 4 miles from the runway (and more than a mile off to the side of final)? If the airplane is that low, the pilots have other problems to consider.

I understand everything has to start somewhere, but more analysis and changes are clearly needed here.

I think I would support something like "can't fly higher than XXX (50? 100?) feet above the highest building within some radius (500ft? 1000ft?) without submitting via LAANC". Something like that seems a little more reasonable.
Click to expand...
The rules are pretty whack, and I think everyone recognizes this. Before DAL was on LAANC, I sought a waiver for a specific job in a specific spot. They actually granted me a blanket waiver to fly anywhere in their airspace.
 
Salty said:
A waiver doesn't tell a 172 pilot where the UAS is.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. Many 172 pilots couldn't find their ass with two hands and a map, so asking them to check NOTAMS is probably too much to ask. Fortunately for them, even with a waiver, UAS are required to avoid all manned aircraft.
 
I don't think the rules are meant to have anything to do with us. Remote ID is meant to give ground based law enforcement a method of identifying and locating the operator of a drone that is either violating an ordinance or causing someone to lodge a complaint of some sort. I guess the assumption is that they are all going to stay under 400 feet and out of airport traffic areas and not be a concern to pilots. Unfortunately the consumer drone community has proven to not be very reliable in regards to obeying rules and in fact have pretty much ignored the remote ID requirements with equipment that was sold without it. They are their own worst enemy.
 
Wow a lot of comments, very little from people who actually fly RC. There is absolutely no push to get ADS-B for RC planes. People are thinking that ADS-B is the cure for everything. No. VFR is still VFR. Now Remote ID is there to provide police a way to find pilots who are operating outside of a FRIA, which is a FAA recognized area for RC pilots. The issue here is 1K altitude. You have to fly it via visual line of sight as a hobby flier. Commercial ops have other regs. Flying my RC sailplane I had a 1K thermal and the plane was pretty much speck'ed out. And it was bigger than a drone. So this drone was probably flying on telemetry and a video feedback to the pilot. Which means they weren't watching for traffic and (shades of people using ADS-B in the traffic pattern) they were flying watching a video screen. I had a drone come by my Aeronca at 1500 AGL a couple of years ago. I turned to try and find it and it had headed for the deck.

So what we have is anti-authority pilots in the RC world too. We long time RC fliers have nothing but disgust over the whole drone industry. RC models were very well self-regulated and flew for decades without an issue until WalMart and Costco started to sell drones to anyone with a credit card. Hey Dad, can I get a drone?
 
Last edited:
My farm is just outside the DC SFRA, but we'll inside the Mode C veil. Yesterday I saw something I've never seen before, a pretty large drone crop dusting the cornfields adjacent to my place. Sucker was pretty large, probably the size of a Miata. Looked like it was staying below 200'. Would I be correct in assuming it would have to be squawking ADS-B out to be compliant with regs?

Was quiet and very precise. Bet we're going to be seeing a lot more of them, and a lot fewer Ag plane operations.
 
Pull out a portable Stratus 3 and see if you get a target..... don't think a transponder is required....He might have ADS-B....he might not also.
 
This is one of the few times when I think the real problem is in the tech. Not tracking, but gyros. What I mean is, in the old days, when electric airplanes were relatively new, RC was just airplanes and you had to actually fly them. (And the handful of people who could actually fly RC helicopters back in the no-gyro days. That would not be me.)

The long version - I had a couple of ham radio friends that flew gas planes years ago and switched to electric. I leaned on them to learn to fly electric. Without someone to help, a beginner then would have an aircraft lifespan of about 8 seconds and exactly one flight. So the "know it all" types mostly dropped out. And even with those that didn't, you could not keep most planes flying unless you have not just sight of the aircraft, but an ability to see it's pitch and direction of flight. Nobody flew most little planes over a couple of hundred feet simply because you couldn't see which way they were going much past that, let alone safety. Add gyros and beyond line of sight, quad-copter drones and first person video to something you can buy off the shelf, and now truly anybody can fly at 1k and cause all sorts of trouble. Meanwhile, the traditional RC guys would be quite happy if they could just fly at treetop to 400' again without all the fuss, but from what I understand those days are almost over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top