400 Foot Altitude Quiz

[AAPhoto]

Where have you seen a negative altitude limit of 200ft for the Phantom.?

The following thread has a video that certainly does not support that claim.
Take off + land at different altitudes? | DJI Phantom Forum

I had posed the question in another post and people responded saying there is a limit and that it was documented elsewhere in the forum. On that day, I found the answer fairly quickly, and it was said to be 200 feet (I guess it could have been 200 meters, which would be my mistake) but today, I can't seem to find it. Since I can't confirm it at the moment, I will remove it from my post. As is true with everything else, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true. My apologies for posting unconfirmed information.

 

[JFHughes08088]

As I was going to St. Ives,
I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats,
Eachcat had seven kits:
Kits, cats, sacks, and wives,
How many were there going to St. Ives?

The answer to the original question is 500 meters above the launch point.



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

1 was going to St. Ives. Says so in the first sentence. All the rest is math about a person you met.

 

[88VMX12]

I don't think a pilot should be flying in that valley anyways let alone flying under the bridge! I am pretty certain that would be illegal or at least it is where I live. I have flown our Snake River Canyon and the depth is 486'. Planes are forbidden to fly the canyon or under the bridge. Years ago there was a hot air balloon that tried to fly under it and got hung up. Huge fine

 

[DAP-UAV]

I hate to say this, but I actually know more about firearms and gun safety than I do about drones. I am taking what you guys say about the FAA's "Rules" could be likened to the "Rules of Gun Safety." Always treat a gun as if it is loaded. Never point a fun at something you don't want to shoot, keep finger out of trigger well, etc. Are there laws saying that you check your gun to see if it's loaded before you clean it? Not to my knowledge. So what your saying is FAA rules are like that I guess? You can't get locked up or lose your drone to the Feds if you fly over 400' or at night,they just don't like it?

Thank you. FYI there DB, when those big birds fall out of the sky, people are held accountable. Accountability and responsibility. These things seem absent in you verbiage.

 

[StumbleBee]

Well IF you should have one of those battery failures and your aircraft drops like a rock onto a moving vehicle that then crashes into someone else and so on.......You will not be flying very much after that. I find it interesting how some put other peoples lives and well-being at stake with not another thought. Your "guideline" reference and disregard of others safety is why the FAA is involved. I am comforted by the knowledge that certificated pilots do not perceive the FAA rules & regulations as "guidelines". I am not comforted knowing people like you are out there doing what they please and disregard the rest of us. IF the above mentioned, completely plausible, scenario should occur. It would make us ALL look bad.

You really took the ball and ran with it there didn't you DAP? What I said is that I would fly 400 feet over the bridge road bed. And then you go into a rant about how I am endangering drivers, disregarding guidelines and accusing me of doing whatever I please. Quite a fertile imagination you have.
It is legal to fly 400 feet over a road. In fact, since it is against guidelines to fly over private property what choice does one have? If I fall from the sky at 300 feet, 200 feet or 400 feet I venture a guess that the impact will be no different. So why the rant about my altitude causing all kinds of scary scenarios?
Did you not notice that I specifically stated up front that my post was for PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION in regard to trying to work out some of the finer points about what is "altitude"?
And in closing, I scrupulously follow all FAA guidelines whenever I fly. I also try to make sure I have actually read and understood a post before I respond.

 

[snowghost]

The biggest problem I see is that it's within the California State Park system, so technically you cannot fly there. If a ranger comes along it will be up to him if he allows you to fly. I almost got booted once, but after a polite discussion he allowed me to fly... I have flown there several times... just be safe and out of the way... and maybe on a weekday with little activity.

And the idiot L.A. city council and mayor who signed an onerous bill that forbids night flying and has strict 400' ceiling. Be interesting to see if it's enforced.

 

[DAP-UAV]

Wow. Must take a couple legs up to get down of that horse you're riding there?



A violation? Of what? A guideline? A suggestion? An encouragement?????



You're in greater risk driving to the bridge. Pretty sure the odds of that scenario are quite slim? If it does, play the Powerball. It's your week. Aren't we always responsible for our actions? Aren't they called accidents for a reason? What if he lost control driving over that bridge with his car and caused an accident? I'm sure we all know we are responsible for our actions. We're all big boys here.



You can fly as high as your craft will allow. It's been going on for decades. It will continue to go on and the FAA will amend their knee-jerk reaction. If you are in a safe place, it's safe to fly above 400'.







You're the one who has a problem "delineating what is legal". The FAA's recommendation is just that, not a law by any means. Like I said, there are plenty of RC aircraft that fly above 400', and they all do it safely and will continue to?



You couldn't have stated it better. ALL of us. RC aircraft and GA aircraft. It's been going on safely at flying fields across the country for a very long time.

SD

It's like talking to a wall. Logic alludes you. Time will tell as always. If trying to spread the concepts of safety in the NAS is riding a high horse, then so be it. I am sorry that you can not just go fly as high and as far as you like in the NAS without any rules, regulation or TRAINING. IF you are going to share the airspace with others, you must share the same knowledge base so everyone is on the same page. FOR SAFETY. This is why the FAA is doing what it's doing. To those who think the FAA has no authority, GOOD LUCK with that. I guess airline pilot's consider the FAR's as just a recommendation. Right? I don't know how else to implore safety to someone whom has threatened a helicopter's pilot's life with a rock. Like it or not, the UAS community is going to be integrated into the NAS. If you are going to fly where manned aircraft can fly, there are going to be RULES. I am not here to pick a fight, but when I read someone suggest to everyone something that is, to me, unsafe, and disregards the rules, I feel a need to say something about it.

Now you can tell me more about that horse you were referring to. I like horses.

 

[Solar Deity]

It's like talking to a wall. Logic alludes you. Time will tell as always. If trying to spread the concepts of safety in the NAS is riding a high horse, then so be it. I am sorry that you can not just go fly as high and as far as you like in the NAS without any rules, regulation or TRAINING. IF you are going to share the airspace with others, you must share the same knowledge base so everyone is on the same page. FOR SAFETY. This is why the FAA is doing what it's doing. To those who think the FAA has no authority, GOOD LUCK with that. I guess airline pilot's consider the FAR's as just a recommendation. Right? I don't know how else to implore safety to someone whom has threatened a helicopter's pilot's life with a rock. Like it or not, the UAS community is going to be integrated into the NAS. If you are going to fly where manned aircraft can fly, there are going to be RULES. I am not here to pick a fight, but when I read someone suggest to everyone something that is, to me, unsafe, and disregards the rules, I feel a need to say something about it.

Now you can tell me more about that horse you were referring to. I like horses.

Wow. Took you a couple days to get back. It's not a wall. You're spewing misinformation. It's been clearly stated in the above posts. I can assure you, logic does NOT allude me. Been flying a very long time, in all disciplines, RC and GA. I've been training since '87.

I agree with the rock thing, but that was Reed's decision . Foolish, maybe but nothing happened and who am I to say. He would have that on his conscience if something did. Worse accidents have happened. I've done some things I wished I hadn't when I was younger. I'm sure we all have.

Two of the fields I fly at are AT GA airports. We fly giant scale IMAC/3D planes with 10' wingspans that weigh 40+ lbs. They cost $5000+ and many hours to build, and we don't want to lose them to any incident. We've been flying higher than 400' for a very long time, SAFELY. The IMAC schedule cannot be done BELOW 400', plain and simple. Is that facet of RC grounded now? Nope, because it's a guideline and is done safely and will continue to. Ever been to Joe Nall? That's 2000+ aircraft, 2000+ pilots, 10,000 people and held at an AIRPORT. It's been happening SAFELY for 30+ years.

How about Top Gun? All the turbine guys I know don't fly below 400'. The jets are too fast and must be flown upwards. These are 5K- $20,000 model aircraft flown by pilots higher than 400', SAFELY. Are all these guys grounded? Frank Tiano better cancel Top Gun this year. Nope, it's just a guideline. All these pilots with thousands invested in aircraft and countless hours of time can't fly any more. Yes they can, at a place where it's safe, like the airport they fly at.

How about a soaring meet? Ever been? It would be hard to keep those guys below 400'. The winch line lets go about 600'. Are all of us grounded? Nope, it's just a recommendation. Not a law. It can be done SAFELY. It has been and will continue.

How about IRCHA? That's at the AMA headquarters in Muncie, IN. Was in Ohio before that. I've seen autorotations from 1/2 mile up. How do they get away with it at the home of responsible RC flying? Probably because it's a guideline, not a law. Many times, full scale aircraft fly by to check out the event. We did have a full scale helicopter crash, but that was due to power failure and not FOD.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight either. The high horse is you telling everyone it's a "violation" of some imaginary law. Sorry. It's not, not yet, not today. Maybe in the future? We follow rules. We've been "registering" for years, with the AMA. We can't fly at an event without an AMA membership. We ALWAYS have a spotter, a second set of eyes. We always let the tower know we are out there. Close down the runways with giant "X"'s at each end during the large events. Our aircraft are large and much easier to see than a P3, but are classified just the same. From my training, experience and common sense, I know we won't be the first one to get in the paper from an incident. We are aware of our surroundings. We aren't trying to cause problems and safety is our main concern. I'm not afraid of the FAA. They have been around a long time, and have coexisted without issue. Probably more so the FCC taking our frequencies away. Then everyone is grounded.

DAP-UAV, I understand your safety concern and fully agree with it. But..........the 400' altitude guideline is just that, and not a law, just a recommendation. You can fly above 400' safely. I've seen it, done it and will continue to safely.

SD

 

[Gsujeff55]

[emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91]

 

[Rumbaar]

I don't think a pilot should be flying in that valley anyways let alone flying under the bridge! I am pretty certain that would be illegal or at least it is where I live. I have flown our Snake River Canyon and the depth is 486'. Planes are forbidden to fly the canyon or under the bridge. Years ago there was a hot air balloon that tried to fly under it and got hung up. Huge fine

When you say planes are you referring to full sized commercial planes or remote controlled planes, as a drone isn't a commercial plane and wouldn't have even the slightest amount of issues a plane would have flying at hundreds of knots.

 

[DAP-UAV]

Wow. Took you a couple days to get back. It's not a wall. You're spewing misinformation. It's been clearly stated in the above posts. I can assure you, logic does NOT allude me. Been flying a very long time, in all disciplines, RC and GA. I've been training since '87.

I agree with the rock thing, but that was Reed's decision . Foolish, maybe but nothing happened and who am I to say. He would have that on his conscience if something did. Worse accidents have happened. I've done some things I wished I hadn't when I was younger. I'm sure we all have.

Two of the fields I fly at are AT GA airports. We fly giant scale IMAC/3D planes with 10' wingspans that weigh 40+ lbs. They cost $5000+ and many hours to build, and we don't want to lose them to any incident. We've been flying higher than 400' for a very long time, SAFELY. The IMAC schedule cannot be done BELOW 400', plain and simple. Is that facet of RC grounded now? Nope, because it's a guideline and is done safely and will continue to. Ever been to Joe Nall? That's 2000+ aircraft, 2000+ pilots, 10,000 people and held at an AIRPORT. It's been happening SAFELY for 30+ years.

How about Top Gun? All the turbine guys I know don't fly below 400'. The jets are too fast and must be flown upwards. These are 5K- $20,000 model aircraft flown by pilots higher than 400', SAFELY. Are all these guys grounded? Frank Tiano better cancel Top Gun this year. Nope, it's just a guideline. All these pilots with thousands invested in aircraft and countless hours of time can't fly any more. Yes they can, at a place where it's safe, like the airport they fly at.

How about a soaring meet? Ever been? It would be hard to keep those guys below 400'. The winch line lets go about 600'. Are all of us grounded? Nope, it's just a recommendation. Not a law. It can be done SAFELY. It has been and will continue.

How about IRCHA? That's at the AMA headquarters in Muncie, IN. Was in Ohio before that. I've seen autorotations from 1/2 mile up. How do they get away with it at the home of responsible RC flying? Probably because it's a guideline, not a law. Many times, full scale aircraft fly by to check out the event. We did have a full scale helicopter crash, but that was due to power failure and not FOD.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight either. The high horse is you telling everyone it's a "violation" of some imaginary law. Sorry. It's not, not yet, not today. Maybe in the future? We follow rules. We've been "registering" for years, with the AMA. We can't fly at an event without an AMA membership. We ALWAYS have a spotter, a second set of eyes. We always let the tower know we are out there. Close down the runways with giant "X"'s at each end during the large events. Our aircraft are large and much easier to see than a P3, but are classified just the same. From my training, experience and common sense, I know we won't be the first one to get in the paper from an incident. We are aware of our surroundings. We aren't trying to cause problems and safety is our main concern. I'm not afraid of the FAA. They have been around a long time, and have coexisted without issue. Probably more so the FCC taking our frequencies away. Then everyone is grounded.

DAP-UAV, I understand your safety concern and fully agree with it. But..........the 400' altitude guideline is just that, and not a law, just a recommendation. You can fly above 400' safely. I've seen it, done it and will continue to safely.

SD

Everything you described above sounds extremely organized and safe. When one of these large events occur, are there NOTAM's issued? Do any of these model aircraft fly higher than 400 ft AND fly out of sight for miles using an egocentric type of vision (FPV)? Do any of these aircraft at these events fly over traffic and bridges, other people's homes? No I don't think so. I would bet many of the members of these events are certificated pilots like you and I, and understand the NAS and how it works. It's all the others whom have no understanding of the NAS and fly in it that I worry about. The first person who exceeds the 400 ft limit and causes a mishap will find out how much power the FAA really has. Not to mention the law suits that will follow. You as a pilot referring to the FAR's as just guidelines is misinformation. Tell that to those whom have lost their privilege to fly and fined $$$$ when they broke the "guidelines". If the 400 ft limit is just a recommendation, then so is the 5 mile radius from airports and all the rest of it. The notion that I have a flying toy and I can fly it wherever I like and no one has any right or authority to tell me otherwise is nonsense. That is what I am talking about. I do not think that the FAA's motive is to ground anyone, R/C or otherwise. But are you saying that a 1/3 scale P51 Mustang or better yet a jet powered model aircraft flying around in the NAS is no danger to anyone and requires NO regulation, NO rules, NO cooperation with ATC? The FAA has NO SAY? They just recommend and you can decide what you want to follow? No. You described a highly organized event, with certificated pilots present. NOTAMs issued, a 3D box is described in the air for boundaries in which to fly. Rules were followed and safety prevailed. At this point I really do not understand your argument. So YOUR message is the FAA really has no authority. They are not laws, rules or regulations, but just guidelines. Your position is that anyone should be able to fly anything in the NAS without any training or knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. Without any knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. How is that possible?.

 

[wooglin]

Everything you described above sounds extremely organized and safe. When one of these large events occur, are there NOTAM's issued? Do any of these model aircraft fly higher than 400 ft AND fly out of sight for miles using an egocentric type of vision (FPV)? Do any of these aircraft at these events fly over traffic and bridges, other people's homes? No I don't think so. I would bet many of the members of these events are certificated pilots like you and I, and understand the NAS and how it works. It's all the others whom have no understanding of the NAS and fly in it that I worry about. The first person who exceeds the 400 ft limit and causes a mishap will find out how much power the FAA really has. Not to mention the law suits that will follow. You as a pilot referring to the FAR's as just guidelines is misinformation. Tell that to those whom have lost their privilege to fly and fined $$$$ when they broke the "guidelines". If the 400 ft limit is just a recommendation, then so is the 5 mile radius from airports and all the rest of it. The notion that I have a flying toy and I can fly it wherever I like and no one has any right or authority to tell me otherwise is nonsense. That is what I am talking about. I do not think that the FAA's motive is to ground anyone, R/C or otherwise. But are you saying that a 1/3 scale P51 Mustang or better yet a jet powered model aircraft flying around in the NAS is no danger to anyone and requires NO regulation, NO rules, NO cooperation with ATC? The FAA has NO SAY? They just recommend and you can decide what you want to follow? No. You described a highly organized event, with certificated pilots present. NOTAMs issued, a 3D box is described in the air for boundaries in which to fly. Rules were followed and safety prevailed. At this point I really do not understand your argument. So YOUR message is the FAA really has no authority. They are not laws, rules or regulations, but just guidelines. Your position is that anyone should be able to fly anything in the NAS without any training or knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. Without any knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. How is that possible?.

You are both right to some degree. I can say with authority that model aircraft have been flying on club fields across the US at altitudes far above 400 feet legally for years. As it stands today if the guidance is interpreted as written (and it does not just apply to UAV's but all craft above 1/2 pound) no remotely controlled model may fly above 400 feet. That means:

1. No more gliders (well perhaps they are okay under 1/2 pound which many are)
2. No more ducted fans
3. No more large scale RC
4. Etc, Etc, Etc

At some point all of these details will be sorted out. I am looking forward to the Phantom model x or other drone that weighs .499 pounds loaded up. Is it completely exempt from all regulation? As the rule is written today it is. What about my RC craft that I own that currently weigh under 1/2 of a pound and are capable of flying to crazy high altitudes. I have a Zagi that is quite old that weighs under 1/2 pound and I have dotted that guy out in thermals for hours at a time.

 

[Solar Deity]

Everything you described above sounds extremely organized and safe. When one of these large events occur, are there NOTAM's issued? Do any of these model aircraft fly higher than 400 ft AND fly out of sight for miles using an egocentric type of vision (FPV)? Do any of these aircraft at these events fly over traffic and bridges, other people's homes? No I don't think so. I would bet many of the members of these events are certificated pilots like you and I, and understand the NAS and how it works. It's all the others whom have no understanding of the NAS and fly in it that I worry about. The first person who exceeds the 400 ft limit and causes a mishap will find out how much power the FAA really has. Not to mention the law suits that will follow. You as a pilot referring to the FAR's as just guidelines is misinformation. Tell that to those whom have lost their privilege to fly and fined $$$$ when they broke the "guidelines". If the 400 ft limit is just a recommendation, then so is the 5 mile radius from airports and all the rest of it. The notion that I have a flying toy and I can fly it wherever I like and no one has any right or authority to tell me otherwise is nonsense. That is what I am talking about. I do not think that the FAA's motive is to ground anyone, R/C or otherwise. But are you saying that a 1/3 scale P51 Mustang or better yet a jet powered model aircraft flying around in the NAS is no danger to anyone and requires NO regulation, NO rules, NO cooperation with ATC? The FAA has NO SAY? They just recommend and you can decide what you want to follow? No. You described a highly organized event, with certificated pilots present. NOTAMs issued, a 3D box is described in the air for boundaries in which to fly. Rules were followed and safety prevailed. At this point I really do not understand your argument. So YOUR message is the FAA really has no authority. They are not laws, rules or regulations, but just guidelines. Your position is that anyone should be able to fly anything in the NAS without any training or knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. Without any knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. How is that possible?.

DAP-UAV,

I'll try and adress your points. You are correct. At the largest events when held at an airport with a control tower, NOTAM's are issued as the event is 10 days long. The models NEVER fly out of sight or we would lose them, and have much time and $ invested. They do NOT have any FPV capabilities, and you can't control and fly what you cannot see. As safety is the main concern, we do not fly over traffic, bridges or other people's homes. Always VLOS as we are actually restricted to the property we are flying on, but at the largest event, this is over 400 acres and doesn't present a problem. Actually, the largest problem is noise, and there have been measures and enforcement to control it. We don't want to lose our flying sites and try to keep the neighbors happy, engaged and involved. At this level, everyone is experienced. These events are the high end of the RC hobby. You don't go out and buy, build and try to fly a $5K-20K aircraft without extensive knowledge and experience. It would be like getting a Phantom for your first MR. Oh wait, that happens, a lot which is why we are discussing this.

I agree it's the inexperienced flyers creating the drama and stories. The experienced RC pilots know better, in regards to safety and flying ability. The first person to exceed the 400' limit and causes a mishap may or may not get fined. If they were flying at an AMA field and under the AMA's safety guidelines, I'm not sure they would? With so few mishaps concerning RC aircraft and full scale aircraft, it's hard to determine from our history. I'll reference the below article.

The AMA Safety Code Trumps FAA's Acknowledgement of Safety Guidance - FlyingGiants

Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box saying otherwise on the federal registration website?

A: Yes. AMA members who abide by the AMA Safety Code, which permits flights above 400 feet under appropriate circumstances, and are protected by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft under the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the 400' altitude limit. I never disputed location and restricted areas like active airports, National parks or Washington DC. I only disagree with flying over 400' being a law. Again, it's NOT a violation. I'll reference the above article again.

"Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safey program."

I never insinuated there weren't rules, cooperation or regulations for a P-51 (1/3 is small in todays kits) or turbine. I am not suggesting nor conveyed anyone can fly their toy WHEREVER they want to and that there are no rules. Just that 400' max altitude isn't one of them. Again, it's a guideline. Flying a jet around NAS is a danger to everyone on the ground and the air, but it's slight and when done in a safe place with rules, guidelines and safety precautions in place, it is SAFE. Accidents can happen, and have but it's part of life. Last year for example, a turbine jet taking off veered in to the pits at Top Gun and sent a gentleman to the hospital with a lacerated leg. It can happen and there are rules we all follow as we don't want our priveledge taken away.

"So YOUR message is the FAA really has no authority. They are not laws, rules or regulations, but just guidelines. Your position is that anyone should be able to fly anything in the NAS without any training or knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. Without any knowledge of the NAS, just be safe. How is that possible?"

No not at all, and never was. I'm not sure where that was inferred? The FAA is the authority of the NAS. I don't know how all the other above notions were concluded? I was referring to you typing it was a violation to fly above 400', which it is NOT.

SD

 

[m0j0]

And the idiot L.A. city council and mayor who signed an onerous bill that forbids night flying and has strict 400' ceiling. Be interesting to see if it's enforced.

The answer is no it will not be enforced. First who would do it. Since it is a LA bill that would be who has responsibility for enforcing it. They simply do not have the means to do it. That's like telling the police to enforce the speed limits without providing radar. Yes police officers are trained to estimate speed without radar... But it won't stand in court.


Phantom 3 Pro / iPad Air 2

 

[CactusJackSlade]

Hi Cactus, The ASRA is not State Land or a State Park, though the Rangers won't tell you that because they want you to think that they have control over that land - that legally they have very little control over.. It's mostly private land with some BLM managed land and it was the failed Auburn dam project that caused this mess. Unfortunately we must know the laws and protect our own rights against these rogue rangers that have some hands in the ASRA. Not all of the rangers are bad by any means. I used to be able to drive and have driven on all of those dirt roads in the area at one time, the ASRA rangers have an agenda and have gated or blocked access to every road to the American River that they can whether actually legal or not.

The State manages the federal non designated recreation area under a management contract. In that contract minerals and mining are excluded from State management and we can all legally enjoy the BLM land and even fly there. But the private land is still private.

Once the real nature of the ASRA is understood, people could have a very good shot at getting new claims made on the areas that are not private land. The withdrawals in the ASRA are contrary to law and a sham that profits several very powerful groups. The first step is to get people to understand that the ASRA is not State land and not a State park. You have a right to be on that public land.

Interesting, and of course they do not like to be called out on stuff like that ;-) I do know one of the rangers, I'm going to quiz him next time I see him! It will be interesting hearing his explanation

 

[skyhighdiver]

Which after climbing over your 400' from start point you never knew the actual AGL of your drone throughout the flight.


But it can't be the drone, as the drone is 'dump' device that only knows high above it's start point. Which it has no topographical data or NOE pathing. The limit is in place to avoid collisions with commercial aircraft, and our drones have a modest range of only a few miles.

Doesn't matter I was literally less than 100 feet above trees as far as I know there's no 300 foot trees anywhere so I was below the 400 feet AGL at all times not that it really mattered as the FAA has no jurisdiction in Jamaica

 

[88VMX12]

When you say planes are you referring to full sized commercial planes or remote controlled planes, as a drone isn't a commercial plane and wouldn't have even the slightest amount of issues a plane would have flying at hundreds of knots.

Sorry clarification: Planes either small aircraft like a 172 Cessna or large aircraft

 

[snerd]

 

[Colorado68]

I'd say you can fly 1,300 ft from the river bottom and comply.
just read the first question and skipped to last post.

deal with the terrain gain here all the time in the mountans and canyons.
like asking about flying off a cliff thats got a 900 ft drop off.

 

[CptPhantomFlyAway]

1500 ft? I was never good on tests