I'd like to point out that I'm a complete novice and trying to understand these threads.
Please forgive a Nig's question.
( A NIG in this case is British Army slang for a total beginner who knows nothing.)
Demonstration of why Altitude Limits should be removed
- Thread starter The Roach
- Start date
-
- Tags
- over 400 feet
Please forgive a Nig's question.
( A NIG in this case is British Army slang for a total beginner who knows nothing.)
Sometimes its not easy for those that have been around for a while either.
t
To explain further, my understanding is that someone is flying over a mountain range and is not above 400 feet height.
400 feet above (or smash into dirt) ground level or geometric sea level?
Before take-off on a manned flight I had to set 0 (zero) before take-off, and change that setting before landing at a different aerodrome.
The ground zero was different in every case. It varied with weather, height above sea level and was reliant on the on board barometer.
I’m NOT looking for an argument, just help.
To explain further, my understanding is that someone is flying over a mountain range and is not above 400 feet height.
400 feet above (or smash into dirt) ground level or geometric sea level?
Before take-off on a manned flight I had to set 0 (zero) before take-off, and change that setting before landing at a different aerodrome.
The ground zero was different in every case. It varied with weather, height above sea level and was reliant on the on board barometer.
I’m NOT looking for an argument, just help.
I'm not ok with 1/2 mile. Living in the Rockies there are many places I just can't access reasonably unless I'm able to fly 3+ miles. Sometimes not even then.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
Can I ask why you have this need to get up to 1,600 feet? Is there a real reason, or is it just because you think you need to, even though you may endanger lives, break laws and risk your equipment? I have flown real craft much higher than that, but it was because it was necessary or the rule, not just because I thought I might find it interesting.
In the US, the FAA "Guideline" is 400ft AGL maximum. This is not a definitive requirement, but a "guideline" for hobby fliers. The home point of the aircraft is always considered "Zero" altitude ( Although the barometer at that point may be slightly off) If in the instance of this thread, the operator had a home point on the top of the mountain, so to speak. That would be considered "Zero" and the 400ft above that point would be the max.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2017
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 83
- Age
- 64
In my case I launched from a hotel parking lot in the valley. Within a mile was a ~3000 foot mountain. Starting from the parking lot and remaining somewhere in the 400 foot above ground level range, took the AC to a height of about 2400 feet from the take off point, even though I was never more than about 400 above the ground. The same is applicable in reverse. If I take off on top of a 10,000 foot mountain and fly out over a valley I'm at 10,400 feet above the ground but only 400 foot above my take off point. This all renders altitude limitations pointless. The rule is there as common sense direction, directing pilots to stay within 400 feet of the ground. The manufacturer shouldn't play law enforcement here. Education is the key. To tell you the truth I was disappointed the FAA lost the battle to require registration as this is where awareness starts. What I believe we have ended up with are a bunch of idiots flying around with no clue, thinking the aircraft will keep them out of trouble and other people safe. We all know this isn't the case.
At play is the "deep pockets" aspect in any situation where there is damage or injury. If there was to be an aircraft incident and someone died their family's attorneys would sue everyone they could think of and this includes a $250 million company like DJI who would be at the top of the list. When a lawsuit is filed most companies have to set aside funds for legal costs and also a portion of what might need to be paid out in a settlement and that in effect freezes those funds which are not available for other uses.
DJI is understandably trying to minimize its future liability and the amount of manpower and funds it would take to manage a flood of lawsuits that could put the company out of business. Think about the Takata airbags problems and their impact on that company and the others that used their product.
My understanding is that the DJI 400 foot ceiling is AGL or above ground level which is not a new concept in aviation airspace management. My only problem with the 400 foot ceiling is that over wildlife areas there are federal requirements to fly no lower than 1000 feet or it is presumed that you are harassing the wildlife and subject to the penalties for doing so. Studies have shown that aircraft at low altitude, including drones, greatly stress animals on the ground and they have spikes in adrenaline that is easily measured.
The problem with selling guns to the general public is the wide range of people that encompasses. Same issue with 50 MPH drones sold by DJI and others. It is probably for the best that DJI has made it difficult for stupid people to do stupid things with the company's drones. I wish the cell phone manufacturers would make an effort to do likewise and keep people from texting while driving.
DJI is understandably trying to minimize its future liability and the amount of manpower and funds it would take to manage a flood of lawsuits that could put the company out of business. Think about the Takata airbags problems and their impact on that company and the others that used their product.
My understanding is that the DJI 400 foot ceiling is AGL or above ground level which is not a new concept in aviation airspace management. My only problem with the 400 foot ceiling is that over wildlife areas there are federal requirements to fly no lower than 1000 feet or it is presumed that you are harassing the wildlife and subject to the penalties for doing so. Studies have shown that aircraft at low altitude, including drones, greatly stress animals on the ground and they have spikes in adrenaline that is easily measured.
The problem with selling guns to the general public is the wide range of people that encompasses. Same issue with 50 MPH drones sold by DJI and others. It is probably for the best that DJI has made it difficult for stupid people to do stupid things with the company's drones. I wish the cell phone manufacturers would make an effort to do likewise and keep people from texting while driving.
The altitude restrictions are all relative to the takeoff point which, when you power up the aircraft, it sets as zero altitude barometrically. It does also know the absolute elevation from GPS, and it records that in the log files throughout the flight, but does not display or care about absolute altitude.
The altitude guidelines (recreational) and restrictions (Part 107 in the US) are indeed relative to altitude above the ground below the aircraft (AGL), not above the takeoff point, and so it is perfectly possible to have the situation that the OP describe where the firmware prevents what would otherwise be a legal flight up the side of a mountain. But until the software/firmware includes a digital elevation model of the earth (such as that used in Google Earth), there is no realistic way for the FC to know its altitude AGL.
The way you are now wording this, you did exceed the 400ft. The 400ft is based on the takeoff point, not AGL past that reference point. You even stated it yourself that you went to a "height" of 2400 feet from the takeoff point.
True you were most likely less then 400ft from the "ground" at most points during the flight. But the altitude is referenced to the "takeoff" point, not from any other "ground" reference.
But the law and guidelines are referenced to AGL, not the takeoff point. A (unavoidable at this stage) mismatch between the rules and the implementation.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
AGL is the level above ground, not where you took off, I flew yesterday at 5,600 feet, that means I should not exceed 6,000 feet, which I did not.
DJI's restrictions are not AGL, they are above takeoff point. The aircraft does not know its altitude AGL.
Unless the ground level varies in the vicinity. If it rises - for example if you launch at 5,600 ft and then fly over a 5,900 ft hill, then then you can exceed 6,000 ft without breaking any rules or guidelines.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
Of course, when I flew over a hill, I flew higher, near 400 AGL to avoid tree tops, but legally, I could have gone over the top of the hill at 400 feet AGL, not a problem or illegal.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2017
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 83
- Age
- 64
