How high have you guys gotten?
- Thread starter AlexPunturi
- Start date
- Status
N017RW
Premium Pilot
DJI's firmware 400m cap is not overridden by Apps. It's internal to the MC.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 366
- Reaction score
- 81
- Age
- 24
My highest flight was 237 meters to video some fireworks, being so close to them, there shouldn't be any helicopters or planes that I would need to worry about, but still good to look out.
Regular flights I rarely fly above 120 meters.
Regular flights I rarely fly above 120 meters.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Messages
- 3,591
- Reaction score
- 1,540
- Age
- 44
This is the Max height I do e using litchi. I lost signal so I had to pre-programme it and let litchi fly for me. This is 400 metres
I think as you know... no. The FAA defines very clearly what VLOS means.
In your defense (and to argue against my post), the screwed up this whole issue. It's a fact that they are not above lying to the public. They have put out info that regulations did not allow hobby flight above 400'. They were then called on this and admitted that it was not a regulation. Then they sold everyone a bill of goods on the "registration" but worked the 400' limit into that (people had to agree to a 400' limit in order to register their drones). CLEARLY they were not allowed to impose additional regugulations on _flight_... but they attempted to do it anyway.
So does anyone really know what is legal and not? Even the FAA has made this a moving target of confusion and lies. We are not even taking into consideration all of the local regulations (legal and not legal) being set up.
It's 500m, not 400. 500m is 1640', which is the limit imposed by the firmware.
400 feet what you may be confusing this with.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
This type of thread comes up often and it never goes well. Someone mentions height, another person jumps all over them, that person is wrong about the regs and then there are tons of posts giving out the correct information. There are then posts where it's confirmed that 400' is not a regulation in the US but it's a good idea, questions about flying higher than 1640, is this above ground level, how nearby object affects this, etc, etc, etc.
Same thing each and every time.
My 2 cents... if someone wants to fly higher than 400', ask them to do it safely. Don't reprimand them for not being safe and not be critical of all the other people who actually do break the FAA and CAA regulations (VLOS).
Same thing each and every time.
My 2 cents... if someone wants to fly higher than 400', ask them to do it safely. Don't reprimand them for not being safe and not be critical of all the other people who actually do break the FAA and CAA regulations (VLOS).
Did the same thing myself awhile back. Msinger corrected me. I remember as I consider that a badge of honor.
This is the most recent FAA interpretation that I've seen, in the form of a response to the AMA when admitting that there is no 400 ft regulation in regard to flights under the Special Rule:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf
UAV registration, that included the 400' "agreement", went into affect right after the date of that letter.
Odd, huh.
I don't blame the FAA for trying, especially in the context of a couple of generations of UAVs with no altitude limits built in. Their hands were really tied by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act that I doubt ever anticipated the proliferation of such capable consumer UAVs.
How are their hands tied by Congress telling the FAA what they can and can't do? Congress also gave them a deadline to implement regulations which they did not meet. If I told you that you needed to dig a ditch and that ditch needed to be 10' deep, 5' wide and 20' long, would you say I'm tying your hands?
The FAA continued to flat out lie to people. That is a fact. They spread propaganda to make it look like drones were going to end the world. They then claimed that the registration of drones would solve the problem of matching up illegally flown drones to their owners (yet another lie). They told us that this did not go against the Reform Act... yet they attempted to add in a 400' limit to the registration. The US Supreme Court then told the FAA that they were wrong about the registration that it could not be done.
That is a short list.
Yet you don't blame the FAA? They are trying? You are kidding right? Please tell me that you forgot the LOL emoji in your post.
If you interfere with say a rescue helicopter or hit a plane you will be in deep ****.
I actually did a test to see if I could push the altitude max on my P3S.
All limits were removed in Go ... so I had max possible of any axis.
First it has to be remembered that zero altitude is Home Point - not the topogaphic height ...
Anyway - this was in an open area with no risk.
First I flew vertically from home point and she started losing comms at about 250m or so .... no surprise as we know vertically above pilot is bad antenna orientation.
Then for second test - I flew out about 200m from home point before going vertical. I hit 480m and she wouldn't go higher ... I dropped her back and repeated the climb ... she would literally cross the 480m mark and drop back to it.
This was with GO ..... next flight session - I will try with Litchi. I have feeling that App is important factor in this. Because Geofencing such as airport vicinity etc. is from App. I can fly at my local airport with Litchi but not with Go. I have agreement with local airport ...
Nigel
All limits were removed in Go ... so I had max possible of any axis.
First it has to be remembered that zero altitude is Home Point - not the topogaphic height ...
Anyway - this was in an open area with no risk.
First I flew vertically from home point and she started losing comms at about 250m or so .... no surprise as we know vertically above pilot is bad antenna orientation.
Then for second test - I flew out about 200m from home point before going vertical. I hit 480m and she wouldn't go higher ... I dropped her back and repeated the climb ... she would literally cross the 480m mark and drop back to it.
This was with GO ..... next flight session - I will try with Litchi. I have feeling that App is important factor in this. Because Geofencing such as airport vicinity etc. is from App. I can fly at my local airport with Litchi but not with Go. I have agreement with local airport ...
Nigel
No, I'm not kidding, and I find your attitude disturbing and ignorant. The protections for model aircraft in the special rule were enabled by AMA lobbying to avoid regulation. When that really only applied to the limited and localized traditional activities of model aircraft use it was, perhaps, not a big deal, even if it was an unreasonably broad exemption. But traditional model aircraft activities have never been much of a threat to the NAS, and so congress went along with it.
That changed with the proliferation of long-range, relatively high-altitude, semi-autonomous consumer UAVs. In place of the enjoyment of flying a model aircraft in controlled locations and fully within VLOS, we now have a much larger and more diverse community of pilots for whom the primary thrill appears to be how high or how far they can go, in polpulated and congested areas, around airports, wildfires, and other "attractions". And the FAA has almost no power to regulate them as long as they are doing that for fun, other than bringing a full on charge of endangering the NAS. They cannot set any specific, enforceable rules.
The deadlines that congress gave the Department of Transportation and the FAA, set out in sections 332 and 334, were to develop plans to integrate civil and public UAS operations into the NAS, not regulate recreational use because, as you keep pointing out, the FAA has no power to regulate recreational use. Part 107 was the initial action in that direction. Their attempt to bring even a semblance of accountability and regulation to recreational use, via the registration process, was struck down, corrrectly, because it breached section 336 of the Act that specifically excludes model aircraft:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.......etc.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.......etc.
They have not been tasked with implementing recreational regulations - they have been specifically forbidden from doing so, and that is the sense in which their hands are tied. You can whine about the FAA as much as you like but, while they are responsible for the safety of the NAS, they are faced with a growing class of users over whom they have no regulatory power - with only the vague threat of "don't do anything dangerous or we may be able to prosecute you" available to them. That's why I don't blame them for trying to be creative in their interpretation in order to give them some regulatory powers. On this issue they have been set up to fail by congress.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
And UAVs still are not much of a threat to planes. Today, will hundreds of thousands of drones and millions and millions of flights, how many drones have hit planes? Why do you think more regulations would change anything? Most of encounters with planes are already in direct violations of existing regulations.
Yet,, as I pointed out, they _still_ attempted to create further regulations against hobby use from within the registration.
What you fail to realize is that a lack of more regulations against UAV's has _not_ been shown to be an issues. As I mentioned above, pretty much all (if not all) of the issues with UAV and planes are where the UAV flier is in violation of already existing regulations. These are facts based on actual real world data. Everything I mentioned before are real world facts... that the FAA has lied to people time and time again, that they put our propaganda to make UAV's appear as an issue, that they have overstepped their legal limitations, etc.
You seem to indicate that the FAA needs to do more to prevent issues. These "issues" simply don't exist.. as those situations seldom occur and existing regulations already address those issues.
The FAA has a _lot_ of options to help guard against any issues. What they have done is almost nothing. They came out with the worst pile of crude app in an attempt to help show people where they can and cannot fly. I could go on and on about how terrible that app is but it would make this post too long. They did not even make this same crappy information available online until a few months ago. It took them years to come out with that app. I think any 10 year old with app knowledge could have made it in a week. Actually, DJI has probably done the most to help their customers fly safely. Certainly _much_ more then the FAA. DJI's approach has been different though. They sought to put out _good useful_ information that fliers could actually use every day. Unlike the FAA who's approach was to lie to people, take illegal actions and even lie again about how a registration was going to solve the worlds problems with UAVs.... and bill us for this farce at the same time.
Yes, without a doubt, the FAA has been a major reason why there are issues with UAV flying right now.
Hey guys ... OP asked about how high you fly .... not how 'high you get on your own hot air !'
Nigel
Nigel
- Status
Similar threads
