Demonstration of why Altitude Limits should be removed

[Akaterrr]

I can see your frustration under the mountainous circumstances you describe where you need longer range and much higher altitudes. Such restrictions render DJI drones rather useless in those situations.
it is extremely easy to lose a drone with 400 feet and 4 mile limitations. But if you are not endangering people or property, I don't see why you couldn't have a drone that can fly over mountains and cross continents and oceans.
I myself would not want to be out my $3000 investment, and I Definitely would not want to be the cause of anyone else's loss of property or (gasp) lives.
It really does come down to responsibility. DJI is trying to build responsibility into the product, and of course protect themselves from liability.
Seems to me the simplest solution if you want to get away from the DJI restrictions is to buy a drone from a different company, or even better, build your own.

 

[tcope]

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”.

So you think being able to fly a toy higher then 1640 feet is some how like the threat of terrorism. Also, this is not government regulation... it's simple an private company placing a limit on their merchandise. It's not even close to being similar. it has _nothing_ to do with "rights". DJI can make their product however they want. You, nor anyone else, should be able to tell them how design them. On top of that, there is a reason why DJI limits the altitude and it's to protect them from liability.

 

[Uncle Stumpy]

In fairness to that remark, neither do I. However, all of these implementations, if you will, are all in fact safety related. And do you know who caused all the ruckus? Reckless flyers. If it were not for those operators who continually flew their aircraft at un-safe altitudes, or any other un-safe manner, such as around airports, these implementations would never exist. And for that reason, we are now, paying the piper, so to speak, for other's who deemed it necessary to take unnecessary risks in flying just because they could. Why do you think their are speed limits on highways and roads? Safety. Due to reckless drivers. It's basically the same effect and outcome here as well. As long as "Operators" ( And notice I did not use the term Pilot) continue to operate their aircraft in a reckless manner, these restrictions will continue to worsen, and very soon the FAA itself will have no option but to impose it's own "Legal" and "Mandatory" restrictions for operators and their aircraft, which will include hobby fliers. So, in a nutshell, just get used to it. There is nothing you can do, except to follow current guidelines and fly safe.

I agree with you 100%. BUT, this has been the problem with everything since the begining of time.
Like the old saying that says something like all it takes is one jerk to spoil it all for the rest of us.

 

[tcope]

But if you are not endangering people or property, I don't see why you couldn't have a drone that can fly over mountains and cross continents and oceans.

Keep in mind that it would be 100% illegal in most countries as it's illegal in many to fly beyond VLOS anyway.

 

[Akaterrr]

Keep in mind that it would be 100% illegal in most countries as it's illegal in many to fly beyond VLOS anyway.

Yeah I wasn't really suggesting building one that could do that, just trying to illustrate the the old saying that my rights end were yours begin.

 

[tcope]

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!!

I don't need to read Part 107 as most of us legally fly above 400' anyway. That is a non-point.

When you mention highway speed and ask if FMCC is liable if you go over the speed limit, no... and that is not a correct analogy. First, the limit in many countries is VLOS. DJI obviously does not limit the Phantom to this. In some countries there is a low altitude limit and in the US there is a recommendation of 400'. DJI does not limit the Phantom to this altitude either. So, as it is, we should probably like that DJI places such a high (or should I say "low" ") ) limit on altitude. To me, it's clear that they are worried about the liability associated with unlimited altitude and someone flying in the path of a plane. So they need to be able to show that they did _something_ to limit this exposure (this is how it would work in US courts). But they also want to allow people to do whatever they want with the Phantom. So they place a very broad limit of 500m on the altitude. IMHO, this could have been _much_ lower.

I live next to several mountain ranges and I fly around them all of the time. For me, it's never been an issue. For those that claim it is, I suspect it's a very small limitation.

You bought your P4 with the 500m limitation from the start nothing was ever changed. DJI never advertised the P4 to be able to fly above 500m and this was never changed. If you feel you have a case, feel free to sue DJI over this matter. In the US, and most countries, you would lose as DJI has done nothing wrong. So you can't legally blame DJI for this action.

 

[Tony Cowan]

I too am good with 400' @ 1/2 mi. out.. However, I like the challenge and 1600' is definitely on my bucket list and/or 4 mi. out as well. In the meantime, I'm searching for such a location to do this safely and return the aircraft in one piece, also I admit I'm not at that skill level as yet.

Does not take a certain skill level. I did it within 2 weeks of having it. However did it over water just in case. Took it up as well. Not quite 1600. But let's just say it was like google earth footage. 300 ft in front of me when i went up. Did it only once. Since the highest is about 300 ft.

 

[SoundByte]

I don't need to read Part 107 as most of us legally fly above 400' anyway. That is a non-point.

When you mention highway speed and ask if FMCC is liable if you go over the speed limit, no... and that is not a correct analogy. First, the limit in many countries is VLOS. DJI obviously does not limit the Phantom to this. In some countries there is a low altitude limit and in the US there is a recommendation of 400'. DJI does not limit the Phantom to this altitude either. So, as it is, we should probably like that DJI places such a high (or should I say "low" ") ) limit on altitude. To me, it's clear that they are worried about the liability associated with unlimited altitude and someone flying in the path of a plane. So they need to be able to show that they did _something_ to limit this exposure (this is how it would work in US courts). But they also want to allow people to do whatever they want with the Phantom. So they place a very broad limit of 500m on the altitude. IMHO, this could have been _much_ lower.

I live next to several mountain ranges and I fly around them all of the time. For me, it's never been an issue. For those that claim it is, I suspect it's a very small limitation.

You bought your P4 with the 500m limitation from the start nothing was ever changed. DJI never advertised the P4 to be able to fly above 500m and this was never changed. If you feel you have a case, feel free to sue DJI over this matter. In the US, and most countries, you would lose as DJI has done nothing wrong. So you can't legally blame DJI for this action.

I agree with a lot of what your saying. DJI can do what ever they want with their intellectual property. We buy and own the hardware but they only license us to use their firm/software. If a government puts pressure on a company by introducing laws to force the change. You will usually see a change to the units shipped only to that country. If a company makes a global change to its product it is almost always to maximize profit. DJI has access to a lot more statistical information about their product than any of us. If the majority of the repairs or claims they get are fly-away type claims with altitude as a key factor, they will take steps to curtail the problem.

 

[SoundByte]

Does not take a certain skill level. I did it within 2 weeks of having it. However did it over water just in case. Took it up as well. Not quite 1600. But let's just say it was like google earth footage. 300 ft in front of me when i went up. Did it only once. Since the highest is about 300 ft.

You say you did it over water just in case. In case of what? The federal height restrictions aren't there to keep it from falling on things. They are there to keep regular air traffic and drones from occupying the same airspace. Doing it over water does nothing to mitigate this.

 

[Tony Cowan]

You say you did it over water just in case. In case of what? The federal height restrictions aren't there to keep it from falling on things. They are there to keep regular air traffic and drones from occupying the same airspace. Doing it over water does nothing to mitigate this.

Maybe you should learn the difference. There is no restriction first of all. Period. Guidelines abd restrictions are two different things. Every few months when newbies come on they seem to think it's a restriction. Simple. Just in case as I don't want it to come down on a vehicle or person. Hence over water. Not because of your perceived restriction.

 

[John Locke]

Does not take a certain skill level. I did it within 2 weeks of having it. However did it over water just in case. Took it up as well. Not quite 1600. But let's just say it was like google earth footage. 300 ft in front of me when i went up. Did it only once. Since the highest is about 300 ft.

Are you saying you flew your craft almost 1600' above a body of water? You do realize that's reckless, right? You shouldn't be risking our hobby like that, using the same airspace as human flown craft. If you want to safely ascent to 1600' above launch point it needs to be done while staying within 400' of ground or building, such as climbing a mountain. And that can take some skills to accurately judge your distance from the ground, visually through the Go4 app camera display. These guidelines are put in place to protect people and property. Common sense needs to be used, and doing what you did doesn't show that, flying with no objective other than to see if you can get to 1600'........... in risky airspace, likely without VLOS.

 

[SoundByte]

Maybe you should learn the difference. There is no restriction first of all. Period. Guidelines abd restrictions are two different things. Every few months when newbies come on they seem to think it's a restriction. Simple. Just in case as I don't want it to come down on a vehicle or person. Hence over water. Not because of your perceived restriction.

Restrictions, guidelines, they are both there for the same purpose. I do know the difference, in the US it may be a guideline, here in Canada its law that can carry a $3000 fine. As for damaging property in a fall, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. It'll cause damage either way. I'll ignore the newbie comment, that's just plain petty.

 

[Wessex]

That's correct.. If you believe DJI has unfair imposed rules and restrictions, wait until the FAA gets ahold of this. We may be limited to flying below any aircraft, or below 200'.

I agree. In the U.K. the Governent are already looking into imposing strict Laws concerning the use of drones.

 

[SoundByte]

I agree. In the U.K. the Governent are already looking into imposing strict Laws concerning the use of drones.

Already done here in Canada!

 

[skyeboysteve]

And would be 4.2 minutes from 1000 metres.

Which is why increasing max descent speed is a good idea. I can get down over twice as fast as stock settings and my P4P descends more smoothly now as well. Granted, I never descend at max while in a hover to avoid any possible VRS.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I encourage DJI, in the USA, to have 2 classes of Remote Pilot in Command pilots. Those who passed the Rule 107 test and those who did not. Those who did not should have strict controls of height (less than 100') and distance (less than 500'). For those who passed the test, DJI should be able to report, in real time, violations of FAA rules.

The video shown above was very nice, but it demonstrated a dangerous flying situation. My guess is that you (The Roach) did not have effect VLOS. First, you were too far away from your drone to see anything but a small dot which you loose sight of once and would find it hard to regain visually again. Secondly, you were so far away that you would not have been able to hear a small manned aircraft flying toward your drone from behind the ridge and you definitely did not have VLOS of enough airspace around your drone to react properly if the plane came over the ridge.

To avoid having issues with this kind of disregard of the Rule 107 (in USA) which might cause regulations to clamp down even further, DJI is compelled to engineer some restrictions. I support DJI fully because I don't want my current freedoms restricted further. Again ... very nice video, but unacceptable risk.

 

[skyeboysteve]

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.

I'd welcome the opportunity to jump through hoops and prove skill and knowledge in order to fly with less restrictions.

 

[SoundByte]

I encourage DJI, in the USA, to have 2 classes of Remote Pilot in Command pilots. Those who passed the Rule 107 test and those who did not. Those who did not should have strict controls of height (less than 100') and distance (less than 500'). For those who passed the test, DJI should be able to report, in real time, violations of FAA rules.

The video shown above was very nice, but it demonstrated a dangerous flying situation. My guess is that you (The Roach) did not have effect VLOS. First, you were too far away from your drone to see anything but a small dot which you loose sight of once and would find it hard to regain visually again. Secondly, you were so far away that you would not have been able to hear a small manned aircraft flying toward your drone from behind the ridge and you definitely did not have VLOS of enough airspace around your drone to react properly if the plane came over the ridge.

To avoid having issues with this kind of disregard of the Rule 107 (in USA) which might cause regulations to clamp down even further, DJI is compelled to engineer some restrictions. I support DJI fully because I don't want my current freedoms restricted further. Again ... very nice video, but unacceptable risk.

DJI is interested in one thing, MONEY. If the US government passes a law that mandates the hardware restrictions, they will react, but not before. Apple doesn't Kowtow to Chinese interests. Why would DJI be kowtowing to the US. The only thing that motivates a company to change is a law or the bottom line. Isn't this one of the pillars of capitalist society?

EDIT: fundamentals would probably be a better word choice than pillars, my mistake.

 

[skyeboysteve]

I don't need to read Part 107 as most of us legally fly above 400' anyway. That is a non-point.

When you mention highway speed and ask if FMCC is liable if you go over the speed limit, no... and that is not a correct analogy. First, the limit in many countries is VLOS. DJI obviously does not limit the Phantom to this. In some countries there is a low altitude limit and in the US there is a recommendation of 400'. DJI does not limit the Phantom to this altitude either. So, as it is, we should probably like that DJI places such a high (or should I say "low" ") ) limit on altitude. To me, it's clear that they are worried about the liability associated with unlimited altitude and someone flying in the path of a plane. So they need to be able to show that they did _something_ to limit this exposure (this is how it would work in US courts). But they also want to allow people to do whatever they want with the Phantom. So they place a very broad limit of 500m on the altitude. IMHO, this could have been _much_ lower.

I live next to several mountain ranges and I fly around them all of the time. For me, it's never been an issue. For those that claim it is, I suspect it's a very small limitation.

You bought your P4 with the 500m limitation from the start nothing was ever changed. DJI never advertised the P4 to be able to fly above 500m and this was never changed. If you feel you have a case, feel free to sue DJI over this matter. In the US, and most countries, you would lose as DJI has done nothing wrong. So you can't legally blame DJI for this action.

Not sure why you think you have no issues flying around mountains with the current altitude limit unless you're flying around low hills or launching from the top of a mountain. Some people like to film very rugged terrain that would take specialized gear and extreme rock climbing skills to access. I'm hoping to film an active volcano from a safe distance in a couple months where/when the nearest manned aircraft is likely over 500 miles away, and the nearest village is three days hike away.

As for the advertised specs being limited after purchase--that's a true statement. Horizontal speeds have been reduced with firmware updates, yet the website still lists original spec'd velocities.

 

[sar104]

Not sure why you think you have no issues flying around mountains with the current altitude limit unless you're flying around low hills or launching from the top of a mountain. Some people like to film very rugged terrain that would take specialized gear and extreme rock climbing skills to access. I'm hoping to film an active volcano from a safe distance in a couple months where/when the nearest manned aircraft is likely over 500 miles away, and the nearest village is three days hike away.

As for the advertised specs being limited after purchase--that's a true statement. Horizontal speeds have been reduced with firmware updates, yet the website still lists original spec'd velocities.

You certainly have a legitimate use case that is going to be impacted by the altitude restrictions, and it has affected me a couple of times, but I think we are in a small minority.

Which speeds have been reduced in recent firmware updates?