Going high. Wanting to go 1500 ft up

[Bob8619]

"Evenin small
Aircraft you will not have a altitude of 1500 ft constant unless descending for s landing. What I mean is 50 miles from
Airport you will not be at 1500ft unless there is an issue."

That IS clueless.

 

[joeruby]

Do a search for "death wobble vortex".
What are your plans to make sure that there won't be an airplane or chopper in the area during your flight? Think it through. If an accident happens, what will your thoughts be then?
Cheers,

 

[Dirty Bird]

Orbiting Earth are an estimated 500,000 pieces of debris the size of marbles, and more than 20,000 larger than softballs, all traveling at 17,500 mph. This doesn't include the large intact items like satellites, the ISS, etc.. Unlike in the atmosphere where objects quickly fall & clear from the airspace, orbital debris can remain a potential threat for many years or even decades. Yet there are very few collisions. The reason is the area around the Earth encompasses a vast amount of space, as does the atmosphere.

I'm not advocating everyone should go out & fly @ 1640' altitude AGL with reckless abandon, nor that there is zero risk involved in doing so. But there is risk of a collision even when flying below 400'. Millions/billions of birds of various sizes, many MUCH larger than a Phantom, fill the skies each day resulting in ~10,000 bird strikes annually with aircraft. It is estimated that the chance of one of these impacts bringing down a plane to be about 1 in 30 million.

Bird Strikes and Flights: What Passengers Should Know - FareCompare

 

[Bob8619]

If you collided with a plane under 400' then you are either flying near an airfield and they are landing/taking off , the plane is crashing or the pilot of the plane is not following regulations. 500' minimum when flying above a "non congested area" So that whole flying over water thing doesn't remove any of the risks. Which is likely why the FAA suggests not going over 400' with these things. If that plane is below that 500' minimum due to pilot error or negligence thats not your fault. What we are talking about is going up into their airspace and flying our toys.. Always err on the side of caution no matter how slim the chances are. The only reason I keep beating this dead horse is because the OP seems to think he has nothing to worry about because its a "big sky up there" and because of his mistaken belief that airplanes just wont fly at or below 1640' unless landing or crashing.

 

[Dirty Bird]

There are many aircraft that fly below 500' in various situations. Helicopters, gliders, ultralights, etc.. If you are going to always "err on the side of caution no matter how slim the chances" then we would never leave the ground.

Always err on the side of caution no matter how slim the chances are.

 

[Bob8619]

Yeah I was referring to fixed wing. And not sure how you conclude that erring on the side of caution means I would never leave the ground.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Because every time we leave the ground...heck even walking out the door... there is ALWAYS a risk that something MIGHT happen. Risk isn't limited to collision with another aircraft.

Yeah I was referring to fixed wing. And not sure how you conclude that erring on the side of caution means I would never leave the ground.

 

[Bob8619]

I didn't say avoid all risk of all magnitudes at all times did I?

 

[jlummel]

What we are talking about is going up into their airspace and flying our toys.. Always err on the side of caution no matter how slim the chances are.

That pretty much nailed it!

As a community we need to lead by example, and invading controlled airspace with (comparatively speaking) toys is simply the WRONG example. If we want respect, we need to respect the national airspace ourselves.

No excuse not too...

 

[jlummel]

I didn't say avoid all risk of all magnitudes at all times did I?

Ignore him, he's taking the example to the extreme simply in an attempt to undermine the particularly relevant point you made about choosing your actions wisely. Sanity incorporates the ability to understand differences and similarities, and it's senseless to argue with someone who ignores those differences to undermine others (or put another way, never try to argue when the argument being made lacks sanity or is irrational).

 

[Dirty Bird]

"Always err on the side of caution no matter how slim the chances are" seems fairly self-explanatory.

I didn't say avoid all risk of all magnitudes at all times did I?

 

[Bob8619]

I don't think erring on the side of caution translates to refraining from any risk taking.

 

[Dirty Bird]

As I stated earlier, I'm not advocating for people to make a habit of flying above 400' AGL. I am simply pointing out in certain situations the risk is minimal. 400' is a recommendation not a law. I am sorry I'm not a "follow the rules to a T by-the-book" person. If we were we'd never go beyond 1000' as very few people have VLOS on their white Phantom against a bright sky at 1000' distance. As I have pointed out in other posts Phantoms aren't like RC of old where you had no telemetry, no live FPV, & were pretty much compelled by the technology to fly VLOS only.

I don't think erring on the side of caution translates to refraining from any risk taking.

 

[Bob8619]

You aren't advocating that people make it habit nor are you advocating that people not fly at all. I'd say you are erring on the side of caution.

I've flown to the 1640' limit so I'm not one of the rule followers either but I believe in being as safe as possible when taking these risks.

 

[Tony Cowan]

That was the whole point. No one is saying fly with reckless abandon. But to be in total fear is another thing. There are inherit risk with everything we do. Do I want to hit anything. No. Will I not use care. No. Careful as possible. Hence going to a place where the likely hood of an accident is reduced. This is not an argument. A stated fact as to what I will do. You may disagree and I respect that. But it will not change my position on it. I will go up about 2-3 mins. Look around. Test atti. And then bring it back down. Am I gonna get into a panic attack about hitting something. No. As much as we think we are in control we never are completely.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Bob8619]

My only gripe was that you think or thought that planes/copters won't fly between 1000'-2000' feet and that going over water somehow reduces the chance of encountering other aircraft. Those kind of misconceptions could be disastrous. With that said, have fun!

 

[Tony Cowan]

Wrong. I never said that. I see em Ll day long at 1k. Don't make assumptions.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Bob8619]

Assumptions? You said it!

 

[DB4Tim]

I am going to be doing some filming at 13900 feet....... however I am taking off at 12300/12600. There is no airplanes or helicopters because of the high peaks that I am going to be flying around.

I am doing as much research as I can to find out how things work at that altitude with these drones and would greatly appreciate any input from the audience.

 

[Pilot Wings]

As much as I would like to test the waters and go pass the 400' limit, I don't. It's not worth it. It has too much risk for for a small reward. Of course I know there are some people who do and would end up causing some kind of havoc, which spoils it for all the good drone owners. Let's face it... drones have a bad PR wrap, let's just keep it within the guidelines. Who knows good behaviors might ease up on the restrictions.