Altitude limit: how can I do this?

I have property in middle-TN, with a vacation home at the top of a bluff line. It sits at 1800 feet. There is a river at the bottom of the bluff, at 800 feet. After reading this thread, I think I just convinced myself not to upgrade from my P2V+. What a bummer.
 
I have property in middle-TN, with a vacation home at the top of a bluff line. It sits at 1800 feet. There is a river at the bottom of the bluff, at 800 feet. After reading this thread, I think I just convinced myself not to upgrade from my P2V+. What a bummer.
It's hard to see the reasoning there
You'd be missing out on a lot more than you think you'd gain.
 
....and the P2 is no P3P!
Not sure if this still works but you used to be able to hold down the RTH button and then use the up control and climb as high as you like. I think it was in there to let you avoid hitting objects over 500 feet.
 
.......and this coming from a guy whos parents didn't give you enough allowance to purchase a laptop that can handle 4k.
If you knew anything about the P3 then you would know it is very safely capable of more than 500m, as many here on this forum still do. Meanwhile you can concentrate on converting 4k to 1080 backyard recordings, and leave the higher photography to more experienced.
Is it really necessary to be so rude?

Can't you make your points and still be polite?
 
  • Like
Reactions: erkme73
It's hard to see the reasoning there
You'd be missing out on a lot more than you think you'd gain.

I can now fly my P2V+ from the upper acreage all the way the cabin at the river. If someone is down there, I can literally attach things to the quad and fly it down land it and return it back to the house on the bluff. I have plenty of range and it works great.

Sure, I'd love the 720 FPV and longer range. 4k wouldn't hurt either. But from a usability standpoint, it would be a huge step backwards to not be able to fly it on my property, top to bottom. Reminds me of why I don't own any iFruit gear.
 
The FAA cannot mandate hardware or firmware in an uncertified aircraft. Airworthiness Certification is remarkably expensive and accounts for a significant portion of certified aircraft costs. Since there are no passengers at risk the FAA has wisely decided that UAS do not need airworthiness certification.

From the preamble to the Part 107 NPRM:
The FAA then examined the entire small UAS category of aircraft (unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) and determined that appropriate operational risk mitigations could be developed to allow the entire category of small UAS to avoid airworthiness certification.​
Good to know. However, I have no doubt that DJI and other drone manufacturers, who were part of the recent task force, assigned to research what could be done, may have offered to impose restrictions on flight capabilities, that would assist the FAA in enforcing compliance with any impending FAA Rules, even if the FAA cannot mandate so under current law. The legal liability issues are clearly a contributing factor in the newest DJI flight restrictions, especially as it relates to autonomous flight.
 
Good to know. However, I have no doubt that DJI and other drone manufacturers, who were part of the recent task force, assigned to research what could be done, may have offered to impose restrictions on flight capabilities....
The task force was made up of representatives of a diverse group of organisations and were given only 3 days to do what the DOT asked of them.
They weren't there to discuss what could be done to assist the FAA in enforcing compliance with any impending FAA Rules, even if the FAA cannot mandate so under current law.
All they were there to talk about was how to to develop a process for registering drones and if they were asked to discuss how to make restrictions, they'd still be discussing and would never come to any consensus.

They had a specific brief which was:
The FAA charged the Task Force with the following three objectives:
1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered.
Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator.​
2. Develop and recommend registration processes.
Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: electronic means for registration, data retention and storage, fee collection, and information required to be submitted for registration.​
3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and marking.
Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: how certificates will be issued and how a UAS will be able to be identified with the registered owner.
You can read the task force report to see the diverse group that made up the committee and what they actually did here:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/RTFARCFinalReport_11-21-15.pdf
 
The task force was made up of representatives of a diverse group of organisations and were given only 3 days to do what the DOT asked of them.
They weren't there to discuss what could be done to assist the FAA in enforcing compliance with any impending FAA Rules, even if the FAA cannot mandate so under current law.
All they were there to talk about was how to to develop a process for registering drones and if they were asked to discuss how to make restrictions, they'd still be discussing and would never come to any consensus.

They had a specific brief which was:
The FAA charged the Task Force with the following three objectives:
1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered.
Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator.​
2. Develop and recommend registration processes.
Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: electronic means for registration, data retention and storage, fee collection, and information required to be submitted for registration.​
3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and marking.
Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: how certificates will be issued and how a UAS will be able to be identified with the registered owner.
You can read the task force report to see the diverse group that made up the committee and what they actually did here:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/RTFARCFinalReport_11-21-15.pdf
Thank you for that clarification and link. I don't think it's a huge stretch to imagine a similar committee formed at the request of the FAA to explore the capabilities of the manufacturers of drones to create firmware and software restrictions to comply with flight parameters the FAA later decides to implement in the U.S.. I see the registration committee as a dry run for the FAA sitting down with DJI and other drone manufacturers. Clearly, DJI is being very proactive in this regard. They might even solicit from the FAA as to which flight parameters the FAA would like to control and limit. There are far too many entities clamoring for restrictions for us to believe that major changes aren't coming, beginning with registration tomorrow morning. It's not whether, but when, and DJI wants to play nicely with the regulators, and is now in a position to put restrictions in as necessary, both here in the U.S. and abroad. Any idea what percentage of DJI business the United States comprises and what percentage is outside the U.S.? My guess is that the U.S. market is 25-50% or more of DJI's business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmyers
a series of balloons on one teather and a way to cut said tether which I wont detail, but is possible. have the bird running during ascent.
 
Anyone using Litchi 2.3.1 or 2.2.2 with FW 1.4? Mine crashes when launching the app if the P3 is connected. If it's not, it doesn't, but once I turn on the P3, it crashes - so in essence 2.3.1 is not usable. I tried with two tablets, one Android 6.0 and one 5.1. Anyone have better luck?

EDIT: it's probably because I upgraded my RC to 1.5.70. Dammit.
 
This is probably so stupid I am just going to get flamed, but when you reset home position dynamically whist in the air does this alter the +500M/-200M levels ? I'm guessing not as you could potentially then not be able to land, but I used this on P1 to adjust RTH altitude (which wasn't adjustable) when flying, so thought occured to me.

I'm pretty certain the firmware can never be hacked, DJI will be ensuring no-one modifies firmware - so they can ensure they don't have to compete for spares/smart batteries - they overcame the clone battery issue with P2 I believe, and I'm sure they have hardened their firmware validation significantly since the Naza-Lite/V2 firmware hacks as clearly that could be costing them money, which is obviously not acceptable ;)

Luckily I live in a pretty flat area, so +500M isn't an issue for me, and I was planning some over cliff flights, but -200M is way more than I need for that too (I'd be fine with +120M/-50M), but hopefully DJI can come up with a more sensible way to manage AGL flight levels than this for people in mountainous area's to conduct perfectly safe flights within the AGL limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huntjock
I understand some pilots wanting to to get video or stills high in the mountains, are some wanting to be at cloud base or above without any features around? if so why?
Just curious
 
I understand some pilots wanting to to get video or stills high in the mountains, are some wanting to be at cloud base or above without any features around? if so why?
Just curious
Same reason you opt to take video of what you record. Same reason 2 photographers have 2 different views.
 
when you reset home position dynamically whist in the air does this alter the +500M/-200M levels ?
It's unlikely that something so simple would have been left like that , but it's easily tested for anyone innterested.
I'm guessing not as you could potentially then not be able to land.
The Phantom won't have that problem.
You just descent until it can't descend any more (landed).
It doesn't matter if that is higher or lower than the takeoff point or by how much.
 
Anyone using Litchi 2.3.1 or 2.2.2 with FW 1.4? Mine crashes when launching the app if the P3 is connected. If it's not, it doesn't, but once I turn on the P3, it crashes - so in essence 2.3.1 is not usable. I tried with two tablets, one Android 6.0 and one 5.1. Anyone have better luck?

EDIT: it's probably because I upgraded my RC to 1.5.70. Dammit.

Lithchi 2.3.1 / FW 1.4.10 works just fine for me; but my RC is on 1.4.3...........
 
Is the minus 200m documented anywhere? Do we only know because someone tried it?

Yes. Here are a couple of (developer) references:

(the first one you may need to expand the "altitude" link)
DJIWaypoint Class Reference

Generated Documentation (Untitled)

To me, it doesn't make sense that you can scale up the side of a mountain rising up to 500m above the point where your flight started and return to the takeoff location, but you could not do the reverse - i.e. you could not start at the higher elevation and fly your bird down the side of the mountain and back up again.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,355
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.