Busting the 500m 1600' barrier

[SRJ_Phantom_4_Pro]

LOL! Too funny!!

 

[smiller]

Of course, we're talking AGL here. I meant that I like to climb mountains (fly to the top) with my P4, staying within 400'AGL.

Ah, OK, I gotcha. It's too bad that you can't identify yourself to DJI and override the height limitation by acknowledging/certifying that you are flying safely, as you can with 'authorization' zones.

 

[smiller]

Surely they can make it law no?

The FAA doesn't really have the legal authority to regulate noncommercial, private model aircraft use (beyond the catch-all ban against operation of any aircraft in a 'careless or reckless manner', which has only been used in the most egregious circumstances.) The 400' altitude or line-of-site 'limits' are advisory only and it would take some major changes in the law to put private UAVs clearly under FAA control. But that being said, laws can always be changed and if a million drones start causing big problems then something will happen that both we and the industry we won't like. That's probably why DJI imposes their own restrictions, i.e. to try to prevent big problems from happening and thus avoiding draconian government control.

 

[jpk1018]

I actually don't live in Colorado, but I enjoy traveling there on vacation and business. The end of this video below is the Loveland pass flight, 13k+'. I'll post the latest Flatirons video in a week or so, after I return from Hawaii. But there is an old Flatirons video in this YT channel from October '16.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Incredible video brings back lots of old memories being A Basin was the first place I ever skied after moving to Colorado. Can't wait to go up into the mountains after I get my drone. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Dejan Smaic]

Per the original poster, I disagree with the height restriction embedded in the software as I live in Colorado. At this time, I would think finding a spot to land at or near the altitude restriction, then resetting your home point with a altitude of Zero is the next best thing until a hack is developed.

 

[Mier]

Per the original poster, I disagree with the height restriction embedded in the software as I live in Colorado. At this time, I would think finding a spot to land at or near the altitude restriction, then resetting your home point with a altitude of Zero is the next best thing until a hack is developed.

Exactly what I was thinking. Find a spot, land, reset home point, and take off. The only real issue is making sure you still have LOS to the drone to get it off the ground again. I'd have to wonder how much battery would be left after hopping up a mountainside. You may end up having to climb it anyway to get the drone back.

Unless this is recording you then hey bring extra batteries and remember rate of acceleration is 32.2ft/s2 (9.8m/s2 for those other types)

 

[vcinfio]

I bet we see a 400 feet max coming soon as the FAA presses the drone manufacturers..

fakes news

 

[Dejan Smaic]

Exactly what I was thinking. Find a spot, land, reset home point, and take off. The only real issue is making sure you still have LOS to the drone to get it off the ground again. I'd have to wonder how much battery would be left after hopping up a mountainside. You may end up having to climb it anyway to get the drone back.

Unless this is recording you then hey bring extra batteries and remember rate of acceleration is 32.2ft/s2 (9.8m/s2 for those other types)

I would assume the camera live view is still working, so I'd return on visual. Here is another interesting question: "Hypothetically" you were to fly into teh Grand Canyon and your HR is the rim...can you descent >500 meters?

 

[John Locke]

Per the original poster, I disagree with the height restriction embedded in the software as I live in Colorado. At this time, I would think finding a spot to land at or near the altitude restriction, then resetting your home point with a altitude of Zero is the next best thing until a hack is developed.

Resetting the home point of the craft doesn't reset the altitude, nor does it give you this option. You must turn off the craft to reset the barometer for altitude reset..

 

[ianwood]

The FAA doesn't really have the legal authority to regulate noncommercial, private model aircraft use (beyond the catch-all ban against operation of any aircraft in a 'careless or reckless manner', which has only been used in the most egregious circumstances.) The 400' altitude or line-of-site 'limits' are advisory only and it would take some major changes in the law to put private UAVs clearly under FAA control. But that being said, laws can always be changed and if a million drones start causing big problems then something will happen that both we and the industry we won't like. That's probably why DJI imposes their own restrictions, i.e. to try to prevent big problems from happening and thus avoiding draconian government control.

Let me clear this up a bit. The FAA is responsible for the National Airspace System (NAS) and everything that can sustain flight within it. This includes your Phantom even if you only use it as an amateur. The limitations you are referring to are based on the special rule in section 336 of the 2012 FMRA (see below). There is no mention of 400ft AGL mostly because Congress doesn't understand aviation. This special rule was put in place to prevent the FAA from imposing Draconian measures way back when before they could hash out reasonable regulations. It limits the steps the FAA can take to fully regulate amateur use drones.

That notwithstanding, I would refer you to sub-section (b) which empowers the FAA to take action if you do something they deem to be dangerous which could include flight above 400ft AGL. And now with FAA Part 107 fully incorporated into the regulations, they now have a framework on which to hold you accountable.

So, once you fall outside of section 336 and/or do something the FAA deems to be dangerous, they can apply Part 107 rules to you.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
​

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; H. R. 658—68
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.​

​

 

[ianwood]

P.S. With amateur use proliferating and towns, cities, and states all trying to put their own brand of control over it, the FAA will be pushing quite hard to replace section 336 with a framework of comprehensive amateur use rules. I haven't been following FAA policy and renewal activities lately, but I would imagine this is in the works.

The reason for this is the FAA does not want to allow a patchwork of local laws to contradict it's plans for the NAS. The NAS is federal. Towns, cities, and states laws are technically pre-empted by federal law set by Congress and the FAA. In all other respects (airports, noise abatement, etc.) the local entities can only regulate their patch of airspace through the FAA.

 

[P4PCommander]

Yawn.... no.

Been discussed to death. Might want to use the search feature to see years worth of posts on this very same question.

It is beyond me why ANYONE! would come to a public site like this one and ask questions about breaking the LAW! LOL......There are other means to acquire this kind of info! you can bet Someone! DJI, HOMELAND SECURITY, INSURANCE COMPANYS, ETC. Are taking notes and taking Names! of folks on this site......

 

[bkushner]

I agree beat to death but is it actually a law not to fly that high?

 

[John Locke]

It is beyond me why ANYONE! would come to a public site like this one and ask questions about breaking the LAW!

Don't forget, flying up the terrain of a mountain and staying within 400' AGL (Above Ground Level) is within the FAA guidelines. That's why we want to go higher than 1600' from launch point. I estimate the P4 craft has enough battery power to climb a 3000' mountain, all the time staying within 400' AGL, but the s/w won't allow it. Hence, we want to break that barrier somehow, and legally fly.

I agree beat to death but is it actually a law not to fly that high?

Absolutely not, if you are within 400' AGL, such as climbing a mountain, or 400' above a building, or ABL (Above Building Level..... I just made that up) , or within 400' a 2000' tall radio antenna for inspection purposes (Above Antenna Level.....AAL ). As we all know, the altitude in the Go app is based on take off point as zero, it's not MSL (mean sea level). So when talking about elevation guidelines you need to always say AGL or MSL to clarify what you're describing. It's important people realize the app will not give us AGL numbers (which is what drone pilots and the FAA care about), the RC only provides elevation from take-off point. Eevation data from the RC is kinda useless when you're flying up a mountain to the top, other than knowing how much higher you can climb today, up to 1640'. I do this quite often, max out to 1640 ATOP (Above Take Off Point.... yeah I made that up too).

In an ideal world future drones will include miniature laser range finders pointed straight down to provide pilots with accurate AGL numbers. Or, maybe someday soon DJI will be able to match the MSL elevation data from the craft, comparing GPS coordinates and GPS derived MSL altitude (accurate to about 60' today) with Googles land elevation MSL data, and with simple math provide us with real time AGL altitudes, accurate to within 60', wouldn't that be nice. 60' accuracy is way more accurate than I can eye-ball through the RC display. Today we must use our "experience" to stay safe, eye-balling to stay within 400' AGL when in mountain areas.

I've flown at 13,000' MSL, (Loveland Pass, CO) but I was always below 400' AGL, within FAA guidelines.

 

[Spike_151]

FAA and CAA in UK both have visual line of sight 500 metre limits, but DJI drones will fly multiple miles kilometers, and DJI do not hardcode all their drones sold to USA and UK to have a 500 metre from the controller limit. This tells you that nobody really believes that the 500 metre line of sight is a serious problem. The height limit is set at 400 feet, 122 metres because low flying aircraft like microlights can fly at 500 feet minimum. The idea is to create a 100 foot break between aircraft and drones, so the two dont meet.

 

[smiller]

That notwithstanding, I would refer you to sub-section (b) which empowers the FAA to take action if you do something they deem to be dangerous which could include flight above 400ft AGL. And now with FAA Part 107 fully incorporated into the regulations, they now have a framework on which to hold you accountable.

That is what I said in my original post. I paraphrased subsection B as 'operation in a careless or reckless manner' rather than pasting the entire section, but yes, of course there is a catchall for severely egregious behavior. I'm only noting that there is no statutory 400' limit and I don't believe it is possible for the FAA to cite you for the isolated act of flying at 450' alone, unless of course that or any other act, at any altitude, results in some other mayhem that can also be deemed to 'endanger the safety of the national airspace system'. I'm certainly not advocating exceeding the 400' advisory limit and no, you don't have carte blance to do whatever you like with a drone, just noting the legal distinction regarding the 400' 'limit.'

 

[phxbird57]

Let me clear this up a bit. The FAA is responsible for the National Airspace System (NAS) and everything that can sustain flight within it. This includes your Phantom even if you only use it as an amateur. The limitations you are referring to are based on the special rule in section 336 of the 2012 FMRA (see below). There is no mention of 400ft AGL mostly because Congress doesn't understand aviation. This special rule was put in place to prevent the FAA from imposing Draconian measures way back when before they could hash out reasonable regulations. It limits the steps the FAA can take to fully regulate amateur use drones.

That notwithstanding, I would refer you to sub-section (b) which empowers the FAA to take action if you do something they deem to be dangerous which could include flight above 400ft AGL. And now with FAA Part 107 fully incorporated into the regulations, they now have a framework on which to hold you accountable.

So, once you fall outside of section 336 and/or do something the FAA deems to be dangerous, they can apply Part 107 rules to you.

​

So well said.

 

[ianwood]

So well said.

Thanks! Now if only we can get everyone to read and understand it, the debate can be put to rest once and for all.

 

[phxbird57]

Thanks! Now if only we can get everyone to read and understand it, the debate can be put to rest once and for all.

Yea the old saying " you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink it".