Demonstration of why Altitude Limits should be removed

Do you agree or disagree with DJI's over-reaching flight restrictions?


  • Total voters
    151
Since I don't live in Canada. I don't have that concern. If I did I would obey the law. But since here in the USA. I will follow recommendations. As like the AMA. If above 400ft. Will use spotter. If below ok. For sure what you do in Canada and elsewhere is interpreted accordingly. But. You follow your laws. We will choose to adhere or not adhere to guidelines. Wish I could take it up to 5k ft like the old p2.
 
What is the new maximum?
It would be helpful if you could cite a source for this information.

For me, it seems (based on my logs) to be 43mph (vs the stated 45mph), on the P4P. I don't have a Mavic or I2, so can't speak to those; just I've noticed others in various forums complaining that their speeds had been reduced. I could care little about this specific issue, other than I was simply trying to defend rodgerbwg; by pointing out that there's more to specs than altitude limitations.

Granted, I'm probably guilty of assuming other people's conclusions were correct; but I think in many (not all) cases people complaining about lower speeds are not realizing that before they were benefiting from a tail wind, when S-mode on P4Ps weren't limiting to ground speed but pitch angle. At some point, the modes were switched. Early this year, (and late last) I couldn't get a higher ground speed than 36mph in ATTI even with a tail wind, but I could get up to over 60mph in S-mode depending on wind speed. With the latest firmware those limitations have been switched, so that now S-mode doesn't benefit from a tail wind, while ATTI mode does. ***EDIT*** Which is how it should have been to begin with, just like the P3s; ATTI mode shouldn't be concerned with limiting parameters based on GPS). ***

Anyway, I'm not complaining about the slightly lower speed--just trying to point out that other limits (other than altitude) seem to have been lowered (albeit slightly in my case)--probably not an argument even worth bringing up in the first place--in retrospect sorry for the drama.

As for the I2, you can read about that here: DJI reduces the maximum speed of its new Inspire 2 drone | The Verge though in this case they've updated the specs on their website to the new lowered top speed.
 
Last edited:
For me, it seems (based on my logs) to be 43mph (vs the stated 45mph), on the P4P. I don't have a Mavic or I2, so can't speak to those; just I've noticed others in various forums complaining that their speeds had been reduced. I could care little about this specific issue, other than I was simply trying to defend rodgerbwg; by pointing out that there's more to specs than altitude limitations.

Granted, I'm probably guilty of assuming other people's conclusions were correct; but I think in many (not all) cases people complaining about lower speeds are not realizing that before they were benefiting from a tail wind, when S-mode on P4Ps weren't limiting to ground speed but pitch angle. Earlier this year, the modes were switched. I couldn't get a higher ground speed than 36mph in ATTI even with a tail wind, but I could get up to over 60mph in S-mode depending on wind speed. With the latest firmware those limitations have been switched, so that now S-mode doesn't benefit from a tail wind, while ATTI mode does.

Anyway, I'm not complaining about the slightly lower speed--just trying to point out that other limits (other than altitude) seem to have been lowered (albeit slightly in my case)--probably not an argument even worth bringing up in the first place--in retrospect sorry for the drama.

As for the I2, you can read about that here: DJI reduces the maximum speed of its new Inspire 2 drone | The Verge though in this case they've updated the specs on their website to the new lowered top speed.

I see - I thought you were talking about known changes. 43 vs 45 mph is negligible and within all kinds of margins. And people have been complaining for years that their aircraft have slowed down even when there have definitely been no changes. Disregard.
 
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 hell with safety and anyone else". Well played sir. If only you were being ironic.
LOL, the classic argument begins. Fortunately, I as well believe in personal responsibility for ones actions rather than forcing everyone to live under welfare. Not to mention, many are under the false impression that a law exists limiting RC flight to 400 foot. That isn't the case, it's a safety guideline meaning the FAA has provided recommendations. The FAA must have the common sense to realize the vast majority of us follow the guidelines and as Dennis stated, understand the raw data does indeed point to minimum safety concerns, for now. Additionally, you could have made you argument in a more civilized manner sir. IMHO.

Not sure about the laws outside the US.
 
Why ?,and what kind of license does it take to drive a truck ?.
You can drive a semi without a special license unless you making money with it. Then you need a CDL. If you wanted to go by a semi and drive it around as a daily driver, a regular drivers license is all it takes. But I do get you point.
 
LOL, the classic argument begins. Fortunately, I as well believe in personal responsibility for ones actions rather than forcing everyone to live under welfare. Not to mention, many are under the false impression that a law exists limiting RC flight to 400 foot. That isn't the case, it's a safety guideline meaning the FAA has provided recommendations. The FAA must have the common sense to realize the vast majority of us follow the guidelines and as Dennis stated, understand the raw data does indeed point to minimum safety concerns, for now. Additionally, you could have made you argument in a more civilized manner sir. IMHO.

Not sure about the laws outside the US.

I completely disagree (except on the 400 ft guideline), and I would say that you are perpetuating yet more logical fallacies.
  1. Personal responsibility only works well when you are taking responsibility for your own well-being. It doesn't work well when it comes to worrying about the safety of others, as demonstrated by the endless exhibits of reckless flying here, on YT and elsewhere.
  2. It's not the majority (at least I hope it's the majority) who follow the guidelines and rules who are of concern from a safety perspective.
  3. That no major air incident has occurred so far is no reasurrance that it will not occur in the future with many people insistent that they should be allowed to share the airspace with manned aircraft and attitudes as demonstrated in post #104.
  4. The raw data, whatever you mean by those, indicate nothing of the sort since no collision of note has yet occurred. That's just a matter of probability. It will happen.
As for being civilized, I could also have been a lot more blunt.
 
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.

The regulations should work both ways when it comes to safety. A small plane pilot came very close to what might have been a tragedy when he flew below 400 feet and came very close to my P4. I was nowhere near an airport, flying well below 400 feet and just off shore when the pilot came over the tree-tops and surprised me. It’s not appropriate to always blame the recreation drone pilots as one can see in my video.

http://dennisfrantz.com/start/nearMiss.html
 
You can drive a semi without a special license unless you making money with it. Then you need a CDL. If you wanted to go by a semi and drive it around as a daily driver, a regular drivers license is all it takes. But I do get you point.

Without an air brake ticket?
 
I completely disagree (except on the 400 ft guideline), and I would say that you are perpetuating yet more logical fallacies.
  1. Personal responsibility only works well when you are taking responsibility for your own well-being. It doesn't work well when it comes to worrying about the safety of others, as demonstrated by the endless exhibits of reckless flying here, on YT and elsewhere.
  2. It's not the majority (at least I hope it's the majority) who follow the guidelines and rules who are of concern from a safety perspective.
  3. That no major air incident has occurred so far is no reasurrance that it will not occur in the future with many people insistent that they should be allowed to share the airspace with manned aircraft and attitudes as demonstrated in post #104.
  4. The raw data, whatever you mean by those, indicate nothing of the sort since no collision of note has yet occurred. That's just a matter of probability. It will happen.
As for being civilized, I could also have been a lot more blunt.
OK - all valid points.
1) I take responsibility. Worrying about the safety of others argument can't be used, unless you want to pull cars off the road, planes from the sky, fat from our food, alcohol from the tables, the sun from the sky. Not attempting to be facetious, just making a point.
2) Supporting facts would help here - for both our arguments. I guess we're both really making an assumption on this point.
3) I NEVER mentioned anything about flying in airspace I didn't belong. My leading post and point was, I flew to 2400 feet but was never more than about 400 AGL. Additionally, I could have began at the top of the mountain and flew directly away horizontally, never being more than 50 foot high as far as DJI is concerned, yet thousands of feet AGL. The point I'm making is that the restriction is useless.
4) You are correct, it will happen eventually. But we'll also be wiped out by a meteor, eventually.
5) Have you noticed other manufacturers now producing drones with a new feature - 'no-geofencing'? DJI, in my opinion, has done more to hurt the industry than to help.

Finally, why make altitude limits but not VLOS limits? Seems a little hypocritical to me and should us that DJI is concerned about the $$$, not safety. The altitude limit is about ensuring their ability to sell in certain markets while also meeting China's legal requirements. That is my other problem with DJI, they have become two-faced.
 
One question, at 400 feet AGL, how well can you see your drone, straight up, now move it 1,000 feet away, again I ask the same question?
Now move it further, 2,000 feet, can you see it? Now look away to the ground and then back, still have it?
 
I completely disagree (except on the 400 ft guideline), and I would say that you are perpetuating yet more logical fallacies.
  1. Personal responsibility only works well when you are taking responsibility for your own well-being. It doesn't work well when it comes to worrying about the safety of others, as demonstrated by the endless exhibits of reckless flying here, on YT and elsewhere.
  2. It's not the majority (at least I hope it's the majority) who follow the guidelines and rules who are of concern from a safety perspective.
  3. That no major air incident has occurred so far is no reasurrance that it will not occur in the future with many people insistent that they should be allowed to share the airspace with manned aircraft and attitudes as demonstrated in post #104.
  4. The raw data, whatever you mean by those, indicate nothing of the sort since no collision of note has yet occurred. That's just a matter of probability. It will happen.
As for being civilized, I could also have been a lot more blunt.

Also, I would add that the air laws of the world as they exist now, are an evolutionary result of over 100 years of aviation. And that every law on the books started life as a guideline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
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.
You make too many assumptions. One, this was the day before the eclipse, which I had traveled to NC to view totality. Two, this means I had my 1250mm spotting scope with me as I also used it to photograph the eclipse. I had a partner on the scope. I also have a strobe on my AC which I can see for several miles. I was NEVER more that ~400 AGL, a plane coming over the ridge would have been in MY airspace. Not to mention, I don't believe one would hear a plan coming over a ridge anyway. I've had helis appear with no warning over mountains. So I must disagree, this did not "demonstrated a dangerous flying situation". (Highly recommend the Cree strobes for both VOLS and general safety.)
 
The regulations should work both ways when it comes to safety. A small plane pilot came very close to what might have been a tragedy when he flew below 400 feet and came very close to my P4. I was nowhere near an airport, flying well below 400 feet and just off shore when the pilot came over the tree-tops and surprised me. It’s not appropriate to always blame the recreation drone pilots as one can see in my video.

http://dennisfrantz.com/start/nearMiss.html
I'm not so concerned with blame. My concern is taking every measure on my part to avoid the tragedy. I really don't like the tree top flying of ultra-lites or seaplanes around NH lakes, but knowing of the possible hazard, I try to do my part to assure a tragedy doesn't happen.
 
OK - all valid points.
1) I take responsibility. Worrying about the safety of others argument can't be used, unless you want to pull cars off the road, planes from the sky, fat from our food, alcohol from the tables, the sun from the sky. Not attempting to be facetious, just making a point.

Not so. Cars and planes are subject to strict regulation of exactly the kind that you are complaining should be dealt with by personal responsibility.

2) Supporting facts would help here - for both our arguments. I guess we're both really making an assumption on this point.

Supporting facts for what? What are you disputing?

3) I NEVER mentioned anything about flying in airspace I didn't belong. My leading post and point was, I flew to 2400 feet but was never more than about 400 AGL. Additionally, I could have began at the top of the mountain and flew directly away horizontally, never being more than 50 foot high as far as DJI is concerned, yet thousands of feet AGL. The point I'm making is that the restriction is useless.

It's not useless. It does a fine job of mostly preventing idiots like #104 from flying at 5k ft. The fewer instances of that occurring, the lower the probability of a collision.

4) You are correct, it will happen eventually. But we'll also be wiped out by a meteor, eventually.

Please - stop using false equivalencies. We worry about what we have some expectation that we can control.

5) Have you noticed other manufacturers now producing drones with a new feature - 'no-geofencing'? DJI, in my opinion, has done more to hurt the industry than to help.

Hurt the industry how? By attempting to develop some forms of use control to prevent some forms of reckless flying? And how has that hurt manifested itself? They are the industry leader by a country mile.

Finally, why make altitude limits but not VLOS limits? Seems a little hypocritical to me and should us that DJI is concerned about the $$$, not safety. The altitude limit is about ensuring their ability to sell in certain markets while also meeting China's legal requirements. That is my other problem with DJI, they have become two-faced.

That's not an example of hypocrisy, though it may be an example of inconsistency. My guess would be that the risk of collision with air traffic obviously rises rapidly with altitude but much less so with distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Russ43Phantom
On a different note, does anyone know if you can legally fly in the umbra of an eclipse without a night rating on your licence?
 
You make too many assumptions. One, this was the day before the eclipse, which I had traveled to NC to view totality. Two, this means I had my 1250mm spotting scope with me as I also used it to photograph the eclipse. I had a partner on the scope. I also have a strobe on my AC which I can see for several miles. I was NEVER more that ~400 AGL, a plane coming over the ridge would have been in MY airspace. Not to mention, I don't believe one would hear a plan coming over a ridge anyway. I've had helis appear with no warning over mountains. So I must disagree, this did not "demonstrated a dangerous flying situation". (Highly recommend the Cree strobes for both VOLS and general safety.)

It sounds like you are taking many precautions as you should. Because I can't hear low flying aircraft over a ridge, I always fly such that I can see, using VLOS, all airspace within 1000' of my drone. For example, I don't launch from a beach on a NH lake and fly over a 100' ceiling when the narrow strip of sand beach is surrounded by 150' pine trees. My experience, like yours with helis, says unexpected low flying aircraft are now expected. So I act accordingly.
 
I don't agree with DJI's policy making on their software to fly my drone !.
I agree with your objection to an extent, but I can see the other side of this. The majority of pilots are responsible, I am sure. You just need to read this forum to work that one out. But we hear reports of near misses with aircraft by people who think that risking the lives of others is some joke. To those people, I wish that Darwin could reach out to you morons!!

Unfortunately, the minority always spoil things for the majority and one day, there will be a catastrophe caused by such a moron and then the authorities will come down hard and freedom of drone use will be restricted even for recreation.

Maybe DJI are taking the best approach? Are they policing drone use, or just trying to be a responsible manufacturer? Are they trying to avoid a situation where the authorities eventually find enough justification to legislate hard against drone use? If I understand the DJI policy correctly, in the apps only red zones, such as around airports/nuclear plant etc are banned without written proof of permission from the authorities. Is that such a bad thing? Would you fly your drone knowing it could hit an aircraft? In yellow zones, you can overwrite the restriction in the DJI Go 4 app then fly freely. At least by overwriting the restriction, you are aware that is a restricted zone and so it is on you to get the local permissions and fly with respect to the surrounding infrastructure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Russ43Phantom

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic