How High Can The P3S Go With Litchi App?

[solentlife]

I got my private pilot's licence years ago. I remember in the ground school portion a particular individual that had failed the FAA written exam something like 6 or 7 times. Talking to his instructor, I found out he had over 70 hours of dual instruction (actual flight time with instructor) and still had not done his first solo flight, the average was something like 10 or 12.This guy had no common sense.
My point is that there is a certain amount of common sense built into the testing requirements. The above person was being subsidized by a rich Arab uncle, any normal person would have run out of money long before ever receiving a license.

My Father put a 'block' on any further repeat applications of a guy who wanted CPL rating out of UK. My Father was Chief Flight Ops and Investigation for CAA UK - reported only to Director CAA and Minister ..... the guy went to 'Florida' for 'Offshore' Certificate and was issued. He flew BA146 for a an Arab Sheik ...... till he got grounded by 'The Arab State' ...

I remember him in my Fathers house pleading for another chance ...

Nigel

 

[Plane Mack]

Just remember that when discussing FAA rules you need to specify whether you are referring to a Part 107 operation or someone operating under the model aircraft exemption (hobby and recreation). Part 107 strictly limits the altitude to 400 AGL from takeoff point plus the tower caveat. However, the model aircraft exemption, which is now part 101, says nothing about 400 feet. That "guideline" comes from the AMA safety guidelines for operations within 5 miles of an airport. You must follow a set of nationally recognized safety guidelines in order to qualify to operate under the model aircraft exemption (part 101). Flying above 400 AGL isn't necessarily in violation of the rules. It depends on the operation and determination that it isn't a safety hazard in the national airspace system. It is far more important to ensure we all understand the circumstances and the regulatory guidance instead of just railing on someone based on assumptions. I will agree that the FAA "guidelines" on the website and on the drone registration certificate say to stay at or below 400 feet. But again, those are safety guidelines and not based on law or regulation.

 

[solentlife]

USA rules .......

YEE HAH !

Sorry ... there is a rest of world .... and this forum is part of that wider concept ?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ !

Nigel

 

[Plane Mack]

That's why I specified FAA due to the differing comments.

 

[Plane Mack]

And while this forum may be part of that wider concept, if you'll notice, many of the posts in the THREAD were specifically referencing locations and/or rules in the good ole US of A. Which again, is why I specified my post to address the inaccuracies of the posts concerning those rules (FAA). You really shouldn't take offense at an attempt to correct misunderstanding of rules even if it doesn't include your part of the world. I don't get miffed at folks who go on about CAA rules in other countries and neither should you.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!

 

[SkyHog]

l fly drones, and I also fly manned aircraft. I have a good understanding of the US national airspace system for both, and I have flown internationally as well, (with nearly identical regulations in many nations). Believe me when I tell you that I don't want to see a 2+ lb drone at a closure rate of more than 200 mph smashing through my wind screen in a manned aircraft.

At the same time, I am a Phantom pilot and I don't see any harm at all in Phantom operations below 400 ft AGL, which is not the same thing as setting an altitude limit of 400ft from takeoff point, as some have alleged in this forum. When I am cruising at 200+ mph in a manned aircraft, I cannot see and avoid drones, in the same way I normally avoid other VFR aircraft. Drones will be in my windscreen before I ever see them coming. Similarly, I cannot fly nap-of-the-earth and follow every minor contour in ground elevation, so I'll generally be at least 500 ft above the ground, and usually much more, until final approach for landing near the airport. So if there are trees, I'm at least 500 ft above ground, plus the tree height, and if there are any nearby hills, I'm more than 500 ft above ground, plus terrain variation (hills), plus trees and other obstacles within 2000 ft on either side of my flight corridor. As long as drones are less than 400 ft above the ground immediately below, (regardless of their takeoff point), everybody is happy.

I agree with the others that have emphasized using some common sense. The whole system depends on separation of traffic. If your Phantom launches from foothills along a mountain ridge, you cannot blithely fly over the valley below just because you are lower than your takeoff point. Your takeoff point is irrelevant. The important point is maintaining flight below 400 ft AGL. Similarly, there is no problem flying well above 400 ft over takeoff point, flying upslope, if you are still within 400 ft of the ground. No manned aircraft will be there. And this is generally true all over the world because faster manned aircraft do not fly that close to the ground except for takeoff and landing near airports.

 

[Plane Mack]

Skyhog....yes, in the US under Part 107, UAS operations are restricted to at or below 400 AGL REGARDLESS of takeoff point elevation (except for structure caveat). So yes, upslope - downslope, stay at or below 400 AGL. Sorry if my post inferred otherwise. However, the 400 AGL rule does not apply to part 101 operators (hobby and recreation) at all times. I personally don't think drones should be operated above 400 feet either, but my opinion is not the rule. I was simply clarifying the differences between the two rules. It would make much more sense if the software determined altitude using something like a radar altimeter instead of height above takeoff.

 

[Loz]

Interesting and valid points being made here, to chime in on the international flavour, here in Australia it's 400 ft (120M) too - that being height BELOW THE AIRCRAFT regardless of pilot position. So flying off a 401 ft cliff (say) is technically illegal flying (permissions, waivers etc aside). I personally liked the 'below aircraft' clarity, it fits with common sense approach too.

 

[solentlife]

And while this forum may be part of that wider concept, if you'll notice, many of the posts in the THREAD were specifically referencing locations and/or rules in the good ole US of A. Which again, is why I specified my post to address the inaccuracies of the posts concerning those rules (FAA). You really shouldn't take offense at an attempt to correct misunderstanding of rules even if it doesn't include your part of the world. I don't get miffed at folks who go on about CAA rules in other countries and neither should you.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!

No need to go all red ...

Its just that so often forums like this forget there is a Rest Of World ... and odd times its good to just shake the tree a bit ...

Nigel

 

[solentlife]

Interesting and valid points being made here, to chime in on the international flavour, here in Australia it's 400 ft (120M) too - that being height BELOW THE AIRCRAFT regardless of pilot position. So flying off a 401 ft cliff (say) is technically illegal flying (permissions, waivers etc aside). I personally liked the 'below aircraft' clarity, it fits with common sense approach too.

Doesn't that line indicate you are implying SEA LEVEL as reference ? Which is plainly an impossible factor.

Nigel

 

[solentlife]

Here was a test flight to see how high she would go .... unfortunately with 'height' she came too close to overhead to continue the climb and she did a RTH ... I will try again with greater horizontal distance at start next time.

Area used was well away from any possible aircraft etc. Excuse the 'chat' as I was also demonstrating modified P3S to a new Latvian P3S owner ....

Nigel

 

[DanMan32]

l fly drones, and I also fly manned aircraft. I have a good understanding of the US national airspace system for both, and I have flown internationally as well, (with nearly identical regulations in many nations). Believe me when I tell you that I don't want to see a 2+ lb drone at a closure rate of more than 200 mph smashing through my wind screen in a manned aircraft.

At the same time, I am a Phantom pilot and I don't see any harm at all in Phantom operations below 400 ft AGL, which is not the same thing as setting an altitude limit of 400ft from takeoff point, as some have alleged in this forum. When I am cruising at 200+ mph in a manned aircraft, I cannot see and avoid drones, in the same way I normally avoid other VFR aircraft. Drones will be in my windscreen before I ever see them coming. Similarly, I cannot fly nap-of-the-earth and follow every minor contour in ground elevation, so I'll generally be at least 500 ft above the ground, and usually much more, until final approach for landing near the airport. So if there are trees, I'm at least 500 ft above ground, plus the tree height, and if there are any nearby hills, I'm more than 500 ft above ground, plus terrain variation (hills), plus trees and other obstacles within 2000 ft on either side of my flight corridor. As long as drones are less than 400 ft above the ground immediately below, (regardless of their takeoff point), everybody is happy.

I agree with the others that have emphasized using some common sense. The whole system depends on separation of traffic. If your Phantom launches from foothills along a mountain ridge, you cannot blithely fly over the valley below just because you are lower than your takeoff point. Your takeoff point is irrelevant. The important point is maintaining flight below 400 ft AGL. Similarly, there is no problem flying well above 400 ft over takeoff point, flying upslope, if you are still within 400 ft of the ground. No manned aircraft will be there. And this is generally true all over the world because faster manned aircraft do not fly that close to the ground except for takeoff and landing near airports.

I could have sworn a manned helicopter was below me when I was doing a POI just under 400ft in G airspace about 10 miles from nearest airport. When I pointed out I didn't think a manned aircraft was allowed that low, lots had countered me on that point.

 

[Unit505]

My dad warned me about flying near pipelines and highlines. Dad said that when he worked for Shell Oil, they would fly pipelines doing inspections and often below 500 feet. That made me remember a company locally that sprays pesticides on these pipelines. You never know when a helo might pop up over the treeline in an area miles from any airfields. They were looking for discoloration of the ground and any unauthorized construction. Something to keep in mind.

 

[SkyHog]

I could have sworn a manned helicopter was below me when I was doing a POI just under 400ft in G airspace about 10 miles from nearest airport. When I pointed out I didn't think a manned aircraft was allowed that low, lots had countered me on that point.

Yes, but I bet that helicopter wasn't at cruise speed. Even helicopters will not be cruising at high speed that low to the ground, and would never be assigned an altitude that low for cruise. If the helicopter was that low for hovering or autorotation emergency landing practice in VFR conditions, there would be plenty of time for both pilots to exercise basic see and avoid maneuvers, which is not problem when the closure rates are so low.

 

[Loz]

Doesn't that line indicate you are implying SEA LEVEL as reference ? Which is plainly an impossible factor.

Nigel

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, and obviously no. What I was trying to make clear is legal height (here anyway) is below AC to ground (or sea level if that is starting height) whilst it is flying, not height from take off point. Although DJIGO app only shows height above or below take off point (as it only can, using barometer) - just explaining and with hindsight probably repeating points made earlier in this post.

 

[solentlife]

Hi Loz.....

My point was you used the line "410ft cliff" and said it would be illegal.

The 401ft is referenced to MHWT (Mean High Water Tide) for Sea Level ....

I was just trying to clear up what basically is two different references you use ... 400ft BELOW A/C ..... and a 401ft cliff.

For our purposes with the P3 ... we can only take the point we take off from as the Zero mark. And I am sure if it became a matter of Official action - that point would be taken into account as we have no other means to work with.

But I appreciate your point.

Nigel

 

[DocDiggler]