Getting to 500 meters (1,640 feet)

[Just Mark]

In order for my drone to pose a hazard to your virtual Cessna, he would have to be well below 400 feet above the lake and/or the mountain during my flight.

My comment was made toward another poster who seemed to imply that it was "fair game" to interfere with crop sprayers or GA that are in trouble. So I am not sure why you quoted me.

I tried re-reading your original post and the follow up. It left me a bit confused. I think you are saying that you never flew above 400' AGL , but it is hard to tell. When you wrote:

"My flight path took the drone across a lake and up to the summit of a mountain, reaching a net altitude of 500 meters above ground level, remaining an altitude no higher than 400 feet above the side of the mountain as it ascended. "

Does that mean you were at 500 meters AGL (around 1,500 ft AGL) or does that mean you were 400 ft (or lower) AGL???

Or were you trying to say that you were flying at 500 meters MSL which was still only 400 ft AGL???

 

[BigAl07]

In order for my drone to pose a hazard to your virtual Cessna, he would have to be well below 400 feet above the lake and/or the mountain during my flight. I adhere to all FAA rules while flying my drones- if the guy wants to play lawnmower man putting his initials into the treetops, first of all, he would have to be maintaining an airspeed very close to stalling, slow enough that my drone would probably detect him and alter its flight path, whether he sees it or not. I was flying in open, unrestricted airspace, low to no wind, and unlimited visibility at a 6,000 foot stable, overcast cloud cover.

My family has owned this enormous take off and landing area since 1931, 3½ acres of woods and 700 foot private waterfront. Nothing moves in or out of there without express permission.

I saw no other aircraft around while I was flying, manned or.not. If anybody piloting anything within the airspace I occupied as I made my beautiful footage, I’m sure that if anyone might be breaking the law, I am not the guilty party.

You DO realize that manned aircraft can fly well below 400' in many instances and over water would be a likely place.

If an sUAS to Manned aircraft incident happens you've violated (assuming you're flying as a hobbyist)
" Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 101, which includes not interfering with any manned aircraft. "

 

[African wildlife]

The OP provided almost no detail when requesting help. Nor since. It wasn't even clear if this 500m distance was horizontal or vertical; I assumed the latter because it's the maximum permitted elevation. And I'm all for flying safely, thinking of others. But we have gone up to the maximum of 500m (over 1,500ft) on several occasions. We have had no VLOS, being above the clouds. However, we had clear sight ahead via the bright screen of the P4P+ and excellent visibility both before and once through the low cloud - with two of us avidly focused on the screen, looking ahead.

Before anyone immediately also jumps down my throat, it was done above our own huge expanse of land in South Africa. We are in a very remote area. The chances of encountering a military helicopter are close to zero. There are no crop sprayers, small aircraft, or commercial helicopters (other than one occasionally hired by us for game capture). There are commercial aircraft very high above, at 35,000-40,000ft - which leaves a safety gap of approximately 28,000ft or more from the drone.

Like almost everyone else, I too make assumptions (which are mostly correct, but only a starting point that sometimes need correcting when wrong or inexact). But to repeat, none of us know the OP's particular circumstances. Dronesolace has only posted a few times - and I hope some of the responses above on this thread haven't put him/her off from continuing to post or visit this excellent forum.

Rules and regulations are sadly necessary. And they can't always provide a perfect match to each and every situation in life. But there's also common sense - even if it's far from being common. Exceptions do exist, especially when your standards are high. Safety isn't always dependent just on rigidly sticking to the rules and regulations. The dangers of flying a small drone thankfully are much less than flying a light manned aircraft, for example, when sticking rigidly to the aviation rules should be a given and those pilots bragging how they have ignored them whilst sitting/drinking in the club house afterwards are merely lucky to have got away with it.

I've flown with British RAF pilots many times during the Ethiopian famine of 1984/1985. They broke the rules many times, adjusting to circumstances, usually (but not always) with good reason. And C-130s are a bit bigger than our wee drones. They were brilliant and safe. These were calculated exceptions.

I've written the above, not to start further argument. Nor am I in any way suggesting there should be a cavalier attitude to flying our drones. If someone with such outstanding experience and thoughtfulness like BigAl07 was to reprimand my above-the-clouds actions, I'd listen/consider/learn. As of now, I'd do exactly the same again (if required) with a clean conscience.

 

[MOBLUE]

My comment was made toward another poster who seemed to imply that it was "fair game" to interfere with crop sprayers or GA that are in trouble. So I am not sure why you quoted me.

I tried re-reading your original post and the follow up. It left me a bit confused. I think you are saying that you never flew above 400' AGL , but it is hard to tell. When you wrote:

"My flight path took the drone across a lake and up to the summit of a mountain, reaching a net altitude of 500 meters above ground level, remaining an altitude no higher than 400 feet above the side of the mountain as it ascended. "

Does that mean you were at 500 meters AGL (around 1,500 ft AGL) or does that mean you were 400 ft (or lower) AGL???

Or were you trying to say that you were flying at 500 meters MSL which was still only 400 ft AGL???

i had to read douggieboy's post a couple of times too. while only douggieboy knows exactly what he meant, i believe he was staying below 400ft agl at all times. his reference to 500meters NET agl means from his take off position. like he said, he was flying up the side of a mountain, so the drone can stay within the 400ft max above the ground it is flying over while still be 500meters above his take off point.

i'm not even going to get into african wildlife's issues, which are plenty. excess altitude, no vlos, flying in and above clouds. he's in remote africa and may be right that it's no issue over there. if i ever go that way, i'll worry about him then.

i do still wish the OP would respond since this horse doesn't seem to want to die. maybe if he'd speak up we could put this one to rest.

 

[With The Birds]

My comment was made toward another poster who seemed to imply that it was "fair game" to interfere with crop sprayers or GA that are in trouble. So I am not sure why you quoted me.

I tried re-reading your original post and the follow up. It left me a bit confused. I think you are saying that you never flew above 400' AGL , but it is hard to tell. When you wrote:

"My flight path took the drone across a lake and up to the summit of a mountain, reaching a net altitude of 500 meters above ground level, remaining an altitude no higher than 400 feet above the side of the mountain as it ascended. "

Does that mean you were at 500 meters AGL (around 1,500 ft AGL) or does that mean you were 400 ft (or lower) AGL???

Or were you trying to say that you were flying at 500 meters MSL which was still only 400 ft AGL???

He might not have realised sloped terrain forming the sides of a mountain qualifies as ground- notwithstanding it was very easy to understand what he meant.

 

[solentlife]

I find it ridiculous that my comment gets twisted into not caring about how I fly !

For majority of areas - it would be a very rare event to have any aircraft flying down at the level we fly in.

It may surprise - but I am actually a full member of the LARPAS group who discuss / compile / advise to the Latvian CAA about UAV use. So if anyone wants to argue about safety .. I can say here clearly. We compare and consider rules / guidelines made in other countries to compile our advisorys.

Various flights I made were testing functions

My post that seems to have 'upset' some was in direct reply to original question.

Nigel

 

[MOBLUE]

It may surprise - but I am actually a full member of the LARPAS group who discuss / compile / advise to the Latvian CAA about UAV use. So if anyone wants to argue about safety .. I can say here clearly. We compare and consider rules / guidelines made in other countries to compile our advisorys.

Various flights I made were testing functions


Nigel

maybe including this information in your previous post from sunday would have helped avoid any backlash. simply mentioning you are friends with airport management and stay in contact with them does not convey the same message. if you have a legitimate reason and authorization to go outside the established rules, then you should make that clear when posting such activities on this forum. my apologies if you found my post 'ridiculous'.

 

[solentlife]

Not only was the reply ridiculous ... but it also is extremely selective in its attack ... using only PART of the actual statement - which alters it significantly for those who may not have read my original ... which I paste here :

"Best area to do it is out in the country well away from everything and with clear space. This also means that its unlikely to have any other craft in the sky at such level apart from another RC hobbyist ! Aircraft that low are either in trouble or crop sprayers !! "

For anyone hard on understanding ... the comment advises that if you want to do it - make sure its in a well clear area that is highly unlikely to have any other aircraft ...

As to posting my position and reasons ref LARPAS ... why ? I do not need to qualify a reply to the original question.

It is also obvious from various other posts - that the original post asks about 500m with a P3S ... if it was horizontal - why would he ask ?? It is plainly obvious he is asking about vertical - which the P3S has difficulty actually achieving ...

I'm done with this one ... cheers Guys and Gals

Nigel

 

[MOBLUE]

Not only was the reply ridiculous ... but it also is extremely selective in its attack ... using only PART of the actual statement - which alters it significantly for those who may not have read my original ... which I paste here :

"Best area to do it is out in the country well away from everything and with clear space. This also means that its unlikely to have any other craft in the sky at such level apart from another RC hobbyist ! Aircraft that low are either in trouble or crop sprayers !! "

For anyone hard on understanding ... the comment advises that if you want to do it - make sure its in a well clear area that is highly unlikely to have any other aircraft ...

As to posting my position and reasons ref LARPAS ... why ? I do not need to qualify a reply to the original question.

It is also obvious from various other posts - that the original post asks about 500m with a P3S ... if it was horizontal - why would he ask ?? It is plainly obvious he is asking about vertical - which the P3S has difficulty actually achieving ...

I'm done with this one ... cheers Guys and Gals

Nigel

i was not trying to be selective in my "attack" to mislead anyone, but for brevity and to highlight the points i was responding to. personally, i do not post on a thread until i have read every post that proceeds it. perhaps i am mistaken when i presume everyone else does also.
i cannot disagree that it is likely the op was referring to altitude, but it was not clear in his question. this is why several times it has been brought up that it is regrettable the op will not reply back to clarify. as to your question of "if it was horizontal - why would he ask??" seems to me that if his trouble was indeed horizontal distance, that would be a good enough reason to ask.
i believe i'm done stepping back into this discussion also.

 

[Goodaggie]

Do you guys have any suggestions on getting to 500 meters? I’ve tried doing it. I was 400 feet away and I had the antenna pointed right. When I get past 1000 feet, I lose signal. Have any tips.

I'm pretty sure your antenna should be pointed away from the back of the controller. My P 4 pro + does fine at 1000 feet.

I wondered who has gone higher which is high I can't see it. I fly on my ranch so there is no air traffic. I would like to go higher to get aerial shot of all my ranch.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but there's definitely one big reason it's useful for a photographer to fly that far. Accessibility. If you find a good take off spot and draw a 1,500' radius around it, you're rather limited on what you can actually get good shots of. However, if you draw a 3,000' radius around that spot, you've GREATLY increased what subjects you can shoot. Of course some places it isn't hard for a drone photographer to launch close to whatever they want to shoot. And some places it is.

Once again, I'm not condoning anything here, just putting that thought out there.

Agreed ... there are many places I want to fly where there are great vistas waiting to be photographed but don’t because I can’t claim VLOS. I am extra sensitive to VLOS because of the frequency of small private airplanes in NH that fly at the tree top level ... well below 500’.

 

[Douggieboy]

Douggieboy here— I just found this thread, and it looks like I should clarify…

The drone was never more than 400’ above ground (or lake) level. It flew across the lake, and then ascended the mountain on the other side, always below 400’ as it went up.

Arriving at the summit, it maxed out 500 meters. As far away as it was, it never flew beyond line of sight. Distance reached 2km, and I still had 4/5 bars of signal. Over 40% left on the battery after flying 22 minutes and nearly 5km in total distance.
I’ve been on that lake all my life— never once saw an airplane [emoji574]️ flying low.