Multnomah Falls (542 foot drop) in 4K

Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
495
Likes
103
Age
37
Location
Pierre, South Dakota
#2
My wife is from Portland and every time we go back she always wants to stop there. But you got some balls flying it there with how crowded it gets. But i'm the type of guy that shy's away from people for fear of harassment.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
251
Likes
108
Age
36
#10
Great video. I sure miss living in the Pacific NW. I've driven this route many (many) times on my way to Portland and/or the Oregon Coast. Great work!
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
326
Likes
75
Location
Hong Kong
Website
www.aerial-entertainment-studios.com
#14
Hope everyone likes my latest!! :)

This is a nice video, well done. I would be interested in showcasing some of your work on our platform. We specialise in the sale of exotic aerial footage to global production houses and TV studios. If you are interested in selling any of your content, please send me a note at [email protected] Let me know. Cheers. Patrice
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2016
Messages
341
Likes
234
Age
31
Website
www.youtube.com
#15
This is a nice video, well done. I would be interested in showcasing some of your work on our platform. We specialise in the sale of exotic aerial footage to global production houses and TV studios. If you are interested in selling any of your content, please send me a note at [email protected] Let me know. Cheers. Patrice
Email sent
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
23
Likes
10
Age
42
#16
Multnomah Falls is 620' from top to bottom and you have footage well above the top of the falls. What did you have to do to get permission to fly that high and to do it at a national historic landmark?
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
107
Likes
16
Age
40
#17
The height would be subjective. Since the top of the falls could be considered ground level height would start from there. Also once below that level and going down the falls, it would then be counted from the bottom. Now while that does exceed the 400' limit it would likely be excluded due to not being in any fashion airspace for commercial vehicles. Just like flying off the side of a mountain. You would instantly be over 400 feet. While the FAA is strict, common sense ruling comes into play as well. But that's my two cents.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
113
Likes
27
Age
56
#19
The height would be subjective. Since the top of the falls could be considered ground level height would start from there. Also once below that level and going down the falls, it would then be counted from the bottom. Now while that does exceed the 400' limit it would likely be excluded due to not being in any fashion airspace for commercial vehicles. Just like flying off the side of a mountain. You would instantly be over 400 feet. While the FAA is strict, common sense ruling comes into play as well. But that's my two cents.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
The way I understood the rule is that you need to be within 400' of any land mass. In this case I think you need to maintain a maximum of 400' horizontally, you would then need to return to below 400' AGL prior to exceeding the horizontal boundary. Then again I am a complete Noob so might be full of it :)
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
107
Likes
16
Age
40
#20
The way I understood the rule is that you need to be within 400' of any land mass. In this case I think you need to maintain a maximum of 400' horizontally, you would then need to return to below 400' AGL prior to exceeding the horizontal boundary. Then again I am a complete Noob so might be full of it :)
And you are right. I would just say considering the location involved I don't think there would be any interference with commercial air traffic. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
132,399
Messages
1,372,310
Members
96,672
Latest member
alfaromeo166