low AGL airspace questions (RC operations)

Matthew

Matthew

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
19,106
Location
kojc, kixd, k34
Display Name
Display name:
Matthew
A university journalism school a couple hours away is in the news now because of a new program. They are teaching students how to operate these battery powered mini drones that can carry video or other recording devices. What's the deal on RC operations? Max altitudes? Trespassing? Can you actually be trespassing above/below a certain altitude?
 
If they're flying under AMA rules, which everyone I know flys under, 400' AGL is the maximum altitude when within 3 miles of an airport. AMA rules are at http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf, probably some more pertaining to your question in that. Field I fly at now's lucky to not be near an airport, but we are directly under a practice area, which can be pretty cool. Even 400' of altitude's pretty questionable unless you're flying giant scale, anything else and you'll lose sight of it too easily.
 
"Courts have had to consider how far above and below the ground the right to possession of land extends. In United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal government liable for harm caused to a poultry business by low-altitude military flights. The Court concluded that because the airspace above land is like a public highway, ordinary airplane flights cannot commit trespass. In this case, however, the planes were flying below levels approved by federal law and regulations, so the government was held responsible. Its activity was a "taking" of private property, for which the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires just compensation."

No on trespass, unless it causes property damage.
 
So it's not ok for a group of hunters on private property to shoot down a PETA drone when it's snooping on them?
 
Matthew said:
So it's not ok for a group of hunters on private property to shoot down a PETA drone when it's snooping on them?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not OK unless the drone is causing some demonstrable harm. And since "intent follow the bullet," if the bullet shot illegally at the drone causes some other harm, the shooter is responsible for that other harm, too.
 
OK - but what's the low limit? I don't want some news channel RC aircraft hovering outside my kitchen window. How low is too low, and thus 'fair game'?
 
Matthew said:
OK - but what's the low limit? I don't want some news channel RC aircraft hovering outside my kitchen window. How low is too low, and thus 'fair game'?
Click to expand...
The law hasn't caught up with technology on this issue yet. The FAA is still working on the rules, and the courts have yet to establish any significant case law.
 
Matthew said:
OK - but what's the low limit? I don't want some news channel RC aircraft hovering outside my kitchen window. How low is too low, and thus 'fair game'?
Click to expand...

I think Capt Ron answered your question. No specific altitude. You have to demonstrate it is damaging you. Meaning imminent physical harm or otherwise it's a civil case against the operator.

If it were my house, I'd say buckshot range would be about right... Prove who shot it.....
 
Matthew said:
Probably the guy who was the last one recorded on the video...the guy who raised his shotgun right after he raised his middle finger.
Click to expand...

"Your honor, the guy in the hooded sweatshirt is a known community hoodlum."
 
Matthew said:
OK - but what's the low limit? I don't want some news channel RC aircraft hovering outside my kitchen window. How low is too low, and thus 'fair game'?
Click to expand...


"I feared for my life and safety!"
 
I do RC too, and it was my understanding that the 400' limit was everywhere. Though, honestly, I don't know for sure. I always liked that because it gave a nice 100' between the minimum 500' for full scale and the 400' for RC.

Also, it's totally true that at 400' it's almost impossible to see a RC plane unless it's really big.

As far as how low, good question. Much of that stuff is very distance limited, so if it's down low the operator is probably very close. Probably wouldn't be able to locate them either ;p
 
ja_user said:
"I feared for my life and safety!"
Click to expand...

"I wouldn't have been worried, but it was obvious when I saw it hovering there that it hadn't filed a flight plan..."
 
Last edited:
hpux735 said:
Also, it's totally true that at 400' it's almost impossible to see a RC plane unless it's really big.
Click to expand...
Powered planes, yes. I used to fly RC with my dad when I was in jr high and high school. A lot of our flying was gliders with 12 - 14 foot wingspans... we'd have a chaise lounge set up because flights would be limited only by the life of the receiver battery pack. This was in the early days of NiCD batteries, so that was maybe an hour or two if I remember right. Anyway, that 14' glider would be a barely visible speck in the sky; sometimes I had to watch for a while to see which direction it was headed. No way to know how high it was, but I'm guessing maybe 1500 AGL.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it's not OK unless the drone is causing some demonstrable harm. And since "intent follow the bullet," if the bullet shot illegally at the drone causes some other harm, the shooter is responsible for that other harm, too.
Click to expand...

Harassment of hunters who are lawfully engaged in hunting is a crime in my state.

I'd say a drone is harassment, scares away all the tasty critters.

"In North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to interfere intentionally with the lawful taking of wildlife resources or to drive, harass, or intentionally disturb any wildlife resources for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife resources on public or private property."
 
dell30rb said:
Harassment of hunters who are lawfully engaged in hunting is a crime in my state.

I'd say a drone is harassment, scares away all the tasty critters.

"In North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to interfere intentionally with the lawful taking of wildlife resources or to drive, harass, or intentionally disturb any wildlife resources for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife resources on public or private property."
Click to expand...
Unless that law also allows hunters to shoot at harassers, then shooting the drone would not be legal.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's an interesting approach. They're not regulating the airspace (something reserved to the Federal government), but rather making the use of the fruits of the drone surveillance illegal under state law.
Click to expand...

The other interesting thing - it's the University of Missouri J-school that's making the push into drones. Of course they say they will only be used for good...
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless that law also allows hunters to shoot at harassers, then shooting the drone would not be legal.
Click to expand...

No, but while the hunters are liable for damage to the drone, the owners of the drone are going to be charged with harassment if they try to collect on the damages.
 
Matthew said:
The other interesting thing - it's the University of Missouri J-school that's making the push into drones. Of course they say they will only be used for good...
Click to expand...

Currently drones cannot be used for commercial purposes, i'd guess snapping photos for use in articles would be illegal.

There was a case involving a drone where a guy was using it for real-estate - snapping pictures for ads. Ruling was against the operator of the drone.
 
dell30rb said:
No, but while the hunters are liable for damage to the drone, the owners of the drone are going to be charged with harassment if they try to collect on the damages.
Click to expand...
It's going to be a lot harder to prove the harassment than it will be to prove the damage to the drone, and courts in this country tend to pile it on for crimes involving firearms. There won't be any winners, but a) the tree-huggers love the publicity, and b) the hunters will be the biggest losers.
 
dell30rb said:
Currently drones cannot be used for commercial purposes,
Click to expand...
Yes, they can, but it takes a Letter of Authorization from the FAA to do it.

There was a case involving a drone where a guy was using it for real-estate - snapping pictures for ads. Ruling was against the operator of the drone.
Click to expand...
Bet he didn't have an FAA LoA.
 
Here's the article I read that led to my first post:

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/06/4166505/media-zooms-in-on-university-of.html

A cuople of quotes:

>
“You are pioneers,” says Bill Allen, an assistant professor of science journalism at Columbia, where journalism ethics are drilled into the ground pilots along with federal aviation regulations. “You don’t want to blow it by flouting the FAA rules.”
<

>
For now, the Federal Aviation Administration is holding them back, along with hundreds of other business applications, creating frustration over lost opportunities.
<
 
There are many facets to the UAV regulations. Some of them are:

Do you allow traditional model airplanes? The issue here is that many small UAS folks are trying to latch on to the model aircraft exemption. This is to avoid many of the future regulations coming out on sUAS operations. Model airplanes are like porn. We all know what they are, but we struggle to define what it is.

The primary voice of the model aircraft community has been the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). The AMA has safety guidelines that include a 400 ft AGL operating limit. The problem is that this is currently voluntary. Some RC enthusiasts are not members or choose not to follow the guidelines. The question is should the government force you to follow these guidelines or others simular to those of the AMA. RC pilots have had it good for so many years and are upset by the coming changes.

The big issue to me is what privacy protections will we have? Can you peek into my back yard, my bedroom window? Can you fly feet above my head? Can I swat the sUAS out of my face?

In an era of declining budgets, will the FAA be forced to licence, certify and enforce a series of regulations surrounding these planes? Who will bear the cost?
 
General tax fund, more likely it will just be added to the deficit.

And, who knows, it may end up being a TSA deal.
 
When I was active with RC our field had a 400AGL ceiling due to being 3nm from HAO. They are now a half mile closer but I do not know the current ceiling, I have also flown with a 700ft (IIRC) ceiling at an event at the Air Force Museum

FWIW
 
It's 400 AGL anywhere.

Here is a 2007 FAA document that tells the policy at that time. As has been stated, times are a changing, but this gives a base reference for where the FAA has been coming from.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

"The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in
the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public
aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57."

"AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes."


ADVISORY
AC 91-57
DATE June 9, 1981
CIRCULAR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, D.C.
Subject: MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS
L
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary
compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.
2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercise
good judgement when flying model aircraft. However, model.aircraft can
at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to personsand
property on the surface. Compliance with the following standards will help
reduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor environment
with affected communities and airspace users.
3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.
a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated
areas. The selected site should be away from noise sensitive areas such as
parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.
b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until the
aircraft is successfully flight tested and proven airworthy.
CO Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.
When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator,
or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control
tower, or flight service station.
d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale
aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.
 
I was at a UAS demo the other day at a midwest land grant (LG) university. The demo was put on by a seller who flew a quadcopter type UAS and showed a fixed wing UAS. In attendance were an ag media reporter and a scientist from the LG and me. I am a farmer.

The demonstrator made some points of interest to me:
1. The UAS community is more worried about privacy than safety. Initially, they thought to sell civil (not military) UAS to the government. They saw the public backlash over the idea of police getting drones and Big Brother spy-in-the-sky fears and decided to change their focus to agriculture. Thus, the ag press has seen a plethora of articles extolling the virtues of UAS for crop scouting, checking livestock, herbicide application, mapping and so forth. (As a farmer, my question to the ag scientist there was how the UAS looked at the under side of the lower leaves of a soybean plant for certain pests, which is one of the things we farmers do.)

2. In that vein, the UAS makers are working with LGs because LGs have the Extension outreach programs, including researchers who are heavily tied into federal grant money and know how to work the system. Each LG wants to be big in it's area and each can activate local politicians. So - does Kansas have a lot of aviation companies? Does KSU have an active interest in UAS? Does North Dakota State have an active flight program? Are they looking into UAS? Is Iowa State the big LG for corn and soybean production? Where do you think the demo I attended took place? Does Virginia have NASA and other aviation ties? Does Virginia Tech have a UAS interest? So, boys and girls, the UAS industry is going to actively work with agriculture as their safe partner. Ag has lots of connections at the state and federal level. Who can complain about a farmer operating a UAS to check his crops, when the seller says it means more precise application and therefore less pesticide being used? What's not to like? Farmers already have the USDA doing overflights to verify FSA and NRCS program acres, and are as used working with aerial photographs as the local SEAL or Ranger unit. They're already using auto-steer on their $200,000 tractor so a little UAS is just another piece of precision agriculture to them, and kind of fun to operate, too.

3. The demo guy I saw said explicitly that he wished the FAA had a policy out, even a stringent one, because they could "go public". He acknowledged that what he was doing was commercial and could not hide under the AC 91-57 policy. Still, he tried to portray farmer use as a "gray area", even though he knew it was not.

4. The demo guy used as an example the CB boom in which the FCC licensing policies brokek down. Everyone bought a radio and got on the air, license be damned. The FCC eventualy caved. He thinks that will happen with the FAA. I suggested to him that a CB radio with a linear was not quite the same thing as a UAS that got into an aircraft engine on final, but he seemed to think that was not a problem - after all, he was selling to farmers.

As a pilot who is not particularly sympathetic to UAS in the hands of the public, any more than I like to see lasers in the hands of idiots, I was not very impressed with the substance of his arguments but I as impressed with how thoroughly he presented them. It seems to me the leaders in that industry have a game plan and they are active about following it.

In other words, I would not bet that the FAA won't give in to substantial pressure in at least some aspects.

One of his final notes was that the UAS people had proposed that everyone be required to buy a $100 transponder but the AOPA opposed that. I didn't tell hime I had little faith in a $100 transponder and even less that we had radar coverage. And of course, that as soon as the transponder was on board the sky was the limit as far as height was concerned.

If you think I am crying wolf, go to Google News and do a search on UAS, UAV, drones and see how many hits you get from ag media and university PR departments.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top