Demonstration of why Altitude Limits should be removed

[SoundByte]

We'd see lots more cases of flyers getting into more trouble if there was a 1000 metre limit.
We already see plenty of cases of flyers that go up 1000 ft or more and have their drone blown away because they don't understand how high level winds can be very different from what they experience at surface level.
Without a 1640 ft limit, we'd see even more drones blown away.
Descent time and battery life is another important factor
If you climb to 1640 ft just getting down requires 2.8 minutes but if you went twice as high you now need 5.6 minutes just for a max speed descent

DJI have given you the ability to fly to 1640 feet above launch point and that is more than enough for most people, most of the time.
The number of times users would be inconvenienced by a limit of 1640 ft above launch point would be very small.
If you have a real need to climb higher, there are other drones you can do it with.

Descent time is around 2 minutes in sport mode.

 

[Meta4]

Descent time is around 2 minutes in sport mode.

And would be 4.2 minutes from 1000 metres.

 

[rstekeur]

I agree pilots should be able to make that decision, too bad the idiots have ruined it for us and that's not going to change

 

[John Locke]

We'd see lots more cases of flyers getting into more trouble if there was a 1000 metre limit.
We already see plenty of cases of flyers that go up 1000 ft or more and have their drone blown away because they don't understand how high level winds can be very different from what they experience at surface level.
Without a 1640 ft limit, we'd see even more drones blown away.
Descent time and battery life is another important factor
If you climb to 1640 ft just getting down requires 2.8 minutes but if you went twice as high you now need 5.6 minutes just for a max speed descent

DJI have given you the ability to fly to 1640 feet above launch point and that is more than enough for most people, most of the time.
The number of times users would be inconvenienced by a limit of 1640 ft above launch point would be very small.
If you have a real need to climb higher, there are other drones you can do it with.

I think you've made my point. Big brother is in play here, and we don't need it IMO. Go4 provides you with battery life estimation. If the pilot is dumb enough to not consider wind, and they don't take an elevated wind measurement (ATTI), that's their problem, a mistake they'll learn from. It's call personal responsibility, and DJI is taking it away. There's no doubt some people would make mistakes, just like today, but that's their responsibility, kinda like walking across a street, you've got to be aware of the risk and do it right. All DJI would have to do is provide an option in GO4 to extend max height to 750M and I'd be happy. They could even provide a paragraph dialog, warning of the risks. I'm OK with that, at least until P5 provides a 40min battery (I can only wish) and then I'd need a 1000M max height.

I'll be addressing this limitation soon and get what I need, but I just think it's silly DJI limits it to 500M IMO, along with 65% of this forum. It should be tailored to the ability of the battery to fly the distance and height, and that's more than 500M with the P4P battery.

 

[sar104]

I think you've made my point. Big brother is in play here, and we don't need it IMO. Go4 provides you with battery life estimation. If the pilot is dumb enough to not consider wind, and they don't take an elevated wind measurement (ATTI), that's their problem, a mistake they'll learn from. It's call personal responsibility, and DJI is taking it away. There's no doubt some people would make mistakes, just like today, but that's their responsibility, kinda like walking across a street, you've got to be aware of the risk and do it right. All DJI would have to do is provide an option in GO4 to extend max height to 750M and I'd be happy. They could even provide a paragraph dialog, warning of the risks. I'm OK with that, at least until P5 provides a 40min battery (I can only wish) and then I'd need a 1000M max height.

I'll be addressing this limitation soon and get what I need, but I just think it's silly DJI limits it to 500M IMO, along with 75% of this forum. It should be tailored to the ability of the battery to fly the distance and height, and that's more than 500M with the P4P battery.

It's not a matter of people making mistakes - it's a matter of deliberate disregard, by numerous users, of any and all safety guidelines. And it's nothing like walking across a street, because that carries the personal risk of your own injury or death. Flying a drone at the physical altitude limits of its capabilities carries no such concerns, as evidenced by the endless "look how high I managed to fly" threads that we were treated to back in the days of the NAZA FCs, or more recently on YT with the hacks to disable altitude restrictions.

This is not, in general, an adult, responsible community of pilots. DJI are trying to protect their own business from being severely curtailed by draconian regulation by taking a proactive approach that is not a problem for most customers. Sooner or later the capability to use altitude AGL, rather than ATO, will be included and will solve legitimate (at least in terms of altitude AGL) use cases such as yours.

 

[Razorback1]

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.

That's a very liberal view, how about we keep our freedoms and leave it up to adults to make the right choice.We don't want to give up any freedoms willingly

 

[nomnomnom]

Can someone explain how the height limit works? I'm new to the drone.

It sounds like I shouldn't fly above 400' due to regulations, but 400' from where? If I fly from the top of a building, is it counted from there? How far away are the planes? Are the planes literally 400' from the ground and I have to subtract the building's height?

 

[John Locke]

It's not a matter of people making mistakes - it's a matter of deliberate disregard, by numerous users, of any and all safety guidelines. And it's nothing like walking across a street, because that carries the personal risk of your own injury or death. Flying a drone at the physical altitude limits of its capabilities carries no such concerns, as evidenced by the endless "look how high I managed to fly" threads that we were treated to back in the days of the NAZA FCs, or more recently on YT with the hacks to disable altitude restrictions.

This is not, in general, an adult, responsible community of pilots. DJI are trying to protect their own business from being severely curtailed by draconian regulation by taking a proactive approach that is not a problem for most customers. Sooner or later the capability to use altitude AGL, rather than ATO, will be included and will solve legitimate (at least in terms of altitude AGL) use cases such as yours.

I'm thinking if DJI was trying to protect their interests, the height elevation limit would be limited to 250M and only a 500M range, so the craft adhere's to FAA guidelines and will ALWAYS have VLOS. Since that's not the case, and anyone can get in the same trouble with 500M elevation as 750M elevation, I don't agree that it helps much to limit to 500M. If someone wants to do something stupid, you can't fix stupid, unless you resort to a height elevation limit of 250M and 500M range, and I'm sure NONE OF US want that, right?

 

[John Locke]

Can someone explain how the height limit works? I'm new to the drone.

It sounds like I shouldn't fly above 400' due to regulations, but 400' from where? If I fly from the top of a building, is it counted from there? How far away are the planes? Are the planes literally 400' from the ground and I have to subtract the building's height?

For beginners, 400' AGL is a good rule to follow, generally meaning 400' above your take off point, assuming you don't launch from a balloon. Legally with Part 107, flying within 400' of the ground or any object is acceptable practice, which includes buildings, bridges, towers, mountains, measured in any direction, vertically or horizontally.

 

[sar104]

I'm thinking if DJI was trying to protect their interests, the height elevation limit would be limited to 250M and only a 500M range, so the craft adhere's to FAA guidelines and will ALWAYS have VLOS. Since that's not the case, and anyone can get in the same trouble with 500M elevation as 750M elevation, I don't agree that it helps much to limit to 500M. If someone wants to do something stupid, you can't fix stupid, unless you resort to a height elevation limit of 250M and 500M range, and I'm sure NONE OF US want that, right?

Well, as I said before, I think they tried to strike a balance. A limit of 250 m vertical would likely have annoyed many more users than 500 m. I agree that 250 m would make more sense, but only if it were 250 m AGL - for the reasons already discussed in this thread. 500 m horizontal would also be a significant restriction for many recreational users, and unreasonable for Part 107 users with a VLOS waiver.

 

[Meta4]

Can someone explain how the height limit works? I'm new to the drone.
It sounds like I shouldn't fly above 400' due to regulations, but 400' from where? If I fly from the top of a building, is it counted from there? How far away are the planes? Are the planes literally 400' from the ground and I have to subtract the building's height?

All altitude rules relate to the height above ground level (AGL)
That is the height your Phantom is above the ground (or buildings etc) directly below it.
Your Phantom cannot measure this height and displays the height above (or below) the level of your launch point.

 

[Flying Pilgrim]

I will be looking for drone pilots to be forced into classes to obtain a license. Just like a car. Just like a big truck.

 

[Older_Man]

I will be looking for drone pilots to be forced into classes to obtain a license. Just like a car. Just like a big truck.

Why ?,and what kind of license does it take to drive a truck ?.

 

[Older_Man]

Wrong forum sorry.

 

[mschore]

Coming from a family and friends as long time pilots.. WE are not "Pilots".. We (or most of us) flying drones have not had near the training that pilots (private or commercial) have had, if any at all. There are flight limitations and regulations for every aircraft that is airborne. Drones are no exception and are capable of flying at altitudes of small planes and commercial jets on approach or in hold patterns, other aircraft (including drones) should be held to the same restrictions, but, they (drones) are not. I acknowledge DJI's efforts. DJI attempts to be clear about safety to drone operators and understand that collisions are very real and inevitable. The years I have spent in aviation, I'm just beginning to understand airspace and regulations.

And what of aircraft that don't abide by the rules? I live in the flight path of RDU (sometimes) and also have a EAA neighborhood nearby. I have had commercial aircraft as low as 600 feet over my house. Who do I get to complain to over that? Since I have flown my drown to 400 +/- feet I have a really good idea of what those heights are.

 

[rodgerbwg]

I want a unicorn. Won't really make a difference if I ask people here if I should have one.

Do you think people want the limit removed? Do you think more people would buy a Phantom if it were removed? If so, why would DJI go out of their way to limit their sales.

There _is_ a reason.

My 2 cents (and it makes sense) is that its a liability issue. DJI needs to be able to show _some_ form of limitation when it comes to altitude. When you look into liability cases, which I'm sure DJI has, they need to show some limit.

Here is what you (and everyone) _should_ be considering... the limit could me _MUCH_ lower. Personally, I think you should be thankful it's not far lower.

To address the example you posted. I'm not sure how you flew 2400' above the take off point as th limit would be 1640.

You could attempt to sue DJI over the limit. You would lose. it's 100% within their right and there are a _ton_ of manufactures that do this. If you have a vehicle made in the past 20 years (or so), there is a rev limiter based on the orginal tire rating.

The highway speed limit is 65 MPH for an automobile and the vehicle is capable of 120 MPH is Ford Motor Company liable if the operator exceeds the speed limit and has or causes an accident? Read Part 107 and you will find that in order to avoid an accident you can exceed the 400' AGL height in an emergency situation. I bought my Phantom 4 Pro because of the advertised specifications and now that DJI has my money they are restricting and removing the advertised specifications. I don't see any new advertising with the restrictions!!

 

[gizmoking]

In Canada they limit distance to 500 meters, about a half mile. They also require VLOS at all times. While it is possible to get a permit to fly beyond visual sight, it would require a separate permit for each flight. I don't know if they would issue a blanket permit to fly beyond visual range. If they did it would require a lot of safety measures to be in place and a complete understanding of regulations. I don't know Part 107 because it doesn't apply in Canada. If it is similar to Canadian regulations then DJI's next step is to limit distance. Based on a distance of 500 meters, a height limit of 500 meters wouldn't cause any problems. However if you have a permit to fly beyond sight then yes, they shouldn't have a height restriction. I believe the FAA and similar in Canada do not want drones flown beyond VLOS.

 

[Jimbbo.12]

I can't talk about how I got to 2400 feet here, just know that I did. I'm one that believes in personal responsibility and believe this should be enforced by the justice system. Harsh judgements are the key, not manufacturer interference. As for car manufacturers, limiting speed based on tire capability does make sense - it will prevent a failure of the hardware when pushed past the maximum. Altitude restrictions don't prevent hardware failures. I do however respect your opinion.

It does limit the failure of hardware though such as signal loss ending in a flyaway..

 

[Dennis Frantz]

I want a unicorn. Won't really make a difference if I ask people here if I should have one.

Do you think people want the limit removed? Do you think more people would buy a Phantom if it were removed? If so, why would DJI go out of their way to limit their sales.

There _is_ a reason.

My 2 cents (and it makes sense) is that its a liability issue. DJI needs to be able to show _some_ form of limitation when it comes to altitude. When you look into liability cases, which I'm sure DJI has, they need to show some limit.

Here is what you (and everyone) _should_ be considering... the limit could me _MUCH_ lower. Personally, I think you should be thankful it's not far lower.

To address the example you posted. I'm not sure how you flew 2400' above the take off point as th limit would be 1640.

You could attempt to sue DJI over the limit. You would lose. it's 100% within their right and there are a _ton_ of manufactures that do this. If you have a vehicle made in the past 20 years (or so), there is a rev limiter based on the orginal tire rating.

I absolutely want the limits removed. It’s scary to me, that so many here are so willing to give up freedom in the name of safety. That’s how we got the “Patriot Act”. If you don’t think that regulation, sponsored by our government, is scary; just read the “Patriot Act”. Let’s not be so quick to ask for more regulation, as our government’s officials will be only too willing to over regulate your life. Ask instead to see the statistics, proving that recreational drone flying is creating a danger to either the public or to aviation. If recreational drones were really a danger to either small or large aircraft, you would see the statistics published every day. The reason that we see only infrequent suspicious reports that drones are interfering with aircraft, instead of real statistical reports, is that those incidences are so rare that they are statistically zero. Birds are, by far, much more dangerous to aviation than recreational drones will ever be.

 

[sar104]

I absolutely want the limits removed. It’s scary to me, that so many here are so willing to give up freedom in the name of safety. That’s how we got the “Patriot Act”. If you don’t think that regulation, sponsored by our government, is scary; just read the “Patriot Act”. Let’s not be so quick to ask for more regulation, as our government’s officials will be only too willing to over regulate your life. Ask instead to see the statistics, proving that recreational drone flying is creating a danger to either the public or to aviation. If recreational drones were really a danger to either small or large aircraft, you would see the statistics published every day. The reason that we see only infrequent suspicious reports that drones are interfering with aircraft, instead of real statistical reports, is that those incidences are so rare that they are statistically zero. Birds are, by far, much more dangerous to aviation than recreational drones will ever be.

This is a truly great post. It effortlessly combines just about every ignorant assertion and logical fallacy that I've seen to try to advance the barely disguised motivation of "I just want to do whatever I please and to **** with safety and anyone else". Well played sir. If only you were being ironic.