Altitude question ???

[PRMath]

I fly and photo a 400ft tower.........
Am I allowed to go 400 ft Above the tower ?
Arguement at work ‍‍‍

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Thats my understanding

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Not the best example of it I can show but here you go.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Not sure how this might apply to recreational flying now as things might have changed but it still is the same for Part 107 pilots.

§ 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft: (1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and (2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit.

There was no reference to the 400 foot rule in part 336 but things might have changed.

 

[yrless]

Not sure how this might apply to recreational flying now as things might have changed but it still is the same for Part 107 pilots.

§ 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft: (1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and (2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit.

There was no reference to the 400 foot rule in part 336 but things might have changed.

Community based rules under 336 have always maintained 400 foot above ground max with no exceptions...that's always been very clear to long time AMA members...I wouldn't think the gentleman in the video would get much sympathy from a certain govt agency if he wasn't operating under part 107 at the time

 

[Jagerbomb52]

What U.S. operators should clearly understand is that the phrase "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" was extended to any and everyone that flies an aircraft, be it full scale, model, or multirotor, with no distinction between amateur and professional. That phrase is very poorly defined and has been a point of contention between the FAA, NTSB, and pilots for at least a generation. Careless and reckless can be whatever they want it to be and is often used as a common "catch all" to assure a violation is secured against a pilot. The NTSB is the appellate court one goes to after losing a violation case with the FAA, and it should be noted the NTSB rarely overturns a careless and reckless charge. The penalty for careless and reckless operation often runs in the tens of thousands of $$ and can bring jail time, and always carries a suspension of a pilot certificate for some period of time.

Bottom line, personal responsibility is required and drone operators really need to pay attention to what they are doing. The responsibility for maintaining public safety rests squarely on the shoulders of the drone operator, as does maintaining separation from manned aircraft. The drone operator, amateur or pro, is 100% responsible for maintaining safe separation from manned aircraft and avoiding any conflict.