Nice day for a high altitude flight 700 feet up

Re: Nice day for a high altitude flight 700+ feet up

race3 said:
Your statements now sound a bit ignorant. I'm relaxed, as are all the other concerned posters... if anything you are TOO relaxed. I suggest you take some real flying lessons to understand airspace. Additionally, most of the reported fly-a-ways have reported flying away at the altitude of which they were at and continuing in a set direction at that altitude. In those rare situations, turning off the transmitter or switching to ATTI mode had no effect.

Regardless, that's not even my main point. The point is that you act as if it's absolutely no big deal to fly 700 feet in a major city like NYC. 500 feet is where General Aviation airspace typically begins. You should approach the topic more cautiously and respectfully... as those who have expressed their concerns have done so simply for the safety of everyone.

I've made my point... I don't feel I need to respond further.

No I wouldn't say I am ever "too relaxed" when flying at any sort of altitude. And I remain very alert and mindful to the surrounding environment and how the aircraft is handling. I am also well aware of the airspace and air traffic above where i'm flying before considering flying at any sort of altitude. And your "taking flying lessons" comment is a little off base. Anyway Happy flying.
 
Re: Nice day for a high altitude flight 700+ feet up

If I were you, I would check the size of the controlled airspace around the three metropolitan airports. Given that Kennedy Airport is a few miles away, and it is protected by Class B controlled airspace, depending where you were flying, you could have been flying in the FAA controlled airspace. The Class B airspace looks like an upside down wedding cake with three layers, with each layer increasing in diameter as it goes further away from the airport. Class B controlled airspace in the area in the vicinity of the airport goes from the surface to 10,000 AGL for the first layer. The next layer floor, I believe at Kennedy starts at 700 feet AGL and also goes up to 10,000 AGL, but I don't know how far it extends horizontally. The third level/layer has a radius of about 15 miles, but starts higher than 700 feet. The shape of the area is determined by air routes, VFR traffic, population density, etc. and it is not a perfect boundary circle. Sorry for the long winded dissertation, but given that you live in Queens, you should check with the FAA or a local pilot to make sure that you do not inadvertently fly where you can't. It is very possible that being in Queens, you were in FAA controlled airspace. And yes, I have a commercial pilot's license, but without going into the controlled airspace charts, I don't know the boundaries of Kennedy/LGA/Newark airspace (it is all one big area).

By the way, I enjoyed your pictures, so this is no in any way a critique. Just trying to help, specially those that live within 7-10 miles of major metropolitan airports or military bases. Happy flying.
 
I too am a licensed pilot since 1985. I was merely trying to prevent you from being "that" drone pilot who brings bad media attention to a fun hobby. (Referencing the idiot who flew his phantom into a crowd of people in ny recently.)
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?id=9270668

The class B airspace directly surrounding JFK starts at the "surface", TO 7000'. I was being polite by giving you the link to the charts site. If you're not a pilot though...it's all Greek. Even if you're a mile or 2 outside that space...you're going to get attention. Unwanted attention. All I'm saying is to be careful of what you post online.

Plus....I'm probably a little jealous that you got to 700' when I can't get mine farther that 150' away. :lol:

Very cool video though.
 
Clue Giver said:
While I appreciate the altitude/FAA suggestions/flyaway paranoia discussion I think the real issue here is the horrible herky-jerky video that is topped off with some sweet rolling shutter/jello artifacts.

If you're going to get that high in an urban area within restricted airspace at least come back with decent video.

Is that you pete? :)
 
Clue Giver said:
Driffill said:
Is that you pete? :)

Yes.

Sometimes the truth can hurt a bit but it remains the truth.

LMFAO!

I'm not in a position to critique other people's videos (my own vids are worse), I only stick to what I know, electronics, rules/regs, physics, math, rev-engineering etc . . .

Maybe one day I'll develop a creative artistic side!
 
Elginet said:
I too am a licensed pilot since 1985. I was merely trying to prevent you from being "that" drone pilot who brings bad media attention to a fun hobby. (Referencing the idiot who flew his phantom into a crowd of people in ny recently.)
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?id=9270668

The class B airspace directly surrounding JFK starts at the "surface", TO 7000'. I was being polite by giving you the link to the charts site. If you're not a pilot though...it's all Greek. Even if you're a mile or 2 outside that space...you're going to get attention. Unwanted attention. All I'm saying is to be careful of what you post online.

Plus....I'm probably a little jealous that you got to 700' when I can't get mine farther that 150' away. :lol:

Very cool video though.

I agree with you. Besides being a pilot, I used to do a lot of FAA regulatory/compliance work. FAA has a long arm and sometimes what gets you is a technicality of "endangering property or person." Anyway, the less attention we attract to UAVs, the better for the hobby and all of us. I am just a traditional chicken pilot, even with unmanned ones. :cool:
 
Elginet said:
I too am a licensed pilot since 1985. I was merely trying to prevent you from being "that" drone pilot who brings bad media attention to a fun hobby. (Referencing the idiot who flew his phantom into a crowd of people in ny recently.)
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?id=9270668

The class B airspace directly surrounding JFK starts at the "surface", TO 7000'. I was being polite by giving you the link to the charts site. If you're not a pilot though...it's all Greek. Even if you're a mile or 2 outside that space...you're going to get attention. Unwanted attention. All I'm saying is to be careful of what you post online.

Plus....I'm probably a little jealous that you got to 700' when I can't get mine farther that 150' away. :lol:

Very cool video though.

Best post of the entire thread!
 
Hey Ben,
Just out of interest at about 8 seconds into your video - is that an aircraft scooting across the frame.
I'm sure it's higher then the 700 ft but maybe near enough to warrant the quote from the desk sergeant in Hill St Blues - 'let's (all) be careful out there! ' -that's shows my age btw.
I'm out in the country and took mine up high last week. half an hour later a police helicopter came over fast at about 500 ft returning to its base about 10 miles away. It did make me think.
Nice vid all the same.
 
I agree. I've taken mine to 1000ft off the deck, but I was eyeball with the aircraft at all times and also scanning for other air traffic. I live within the Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) of an RAF base so I never fly close to home (apart from roof-height test hops in the back garden) - too many Pumas and Merlins recovering home at 500ft off the deck.

Outside the ATZ I still need to be alert as both the regional Police chopper and regional Air Ambulance are based there, and both could be operating anywhere at 500ft (or below if landing). This is why I'm not personally too bothered about extending the range for FPV flight - I like to keep Visual and keep my head "out of the cockpit" with eyes and ears open - old full-scale flying habits die hard!! If I'm just blasting around at under 200ft then trying to fly solely with reference to the screen can be fun, although that fisheye throws your perception of how far away things are!
 
Mactab said:
Hey Ben,
Just out of interest at about 8 seconds into your video - is that an aircraft scooting across the frame.
I'm sure it's higher then the 700 ft but maybe near enough to warrant the quote from the desk sergeant in Hill St Blues - 'let's (all) be careful out there! ' -that's shows my age btw.
I'm out in the country and took mine up high last week. half an hour later a police helicopter came over fast at about 500 ft returning to its base about 10 miles away. It did make me think.
Nice vid all the same.

Yes actually, though it's at least a couple miles out and flying a lot higher. They don't fly overhead or anywhere near enough to be of concern. I also did maintain a visual line of sight of the Phantom during the flight, even at that distance.
 
i love how people break the law and post videos of them doing it. Seems like a great way for the FAA to make an example of someone. Dude think before you post videos of yourself breaking the law.
 
brad90631 said:
i love how people break the law and post videos of them doing it. Seems like a great way for the FAA to make an example of someone. Dude think before you post videos of yourself breaking the law.

Not that I agree with his flight ...but can you cite the statute he violated? Not a regulation or advisory, but the statute itself.
 
http://www.google.com/search?q=freeway+run+youtube

(this analogy will most likely be too subtle for many folks to comprehend)

Guy has nice gloves, I have a pair of the same. I predict he will need his before I do.

There's the brief period in life (about 2 decades) where there's no doubt in your mind that you are immortal. If you make it past that, generally a little wisdom comes a knocking. That comes with seeing a bunch of weird, cool and sometimes gross stuff. Life is good, Merry Christmas everyone!
 
Sidewinder said:
http://www.google.com/search?q=freeway+run+youtube

(this analogy will most likely be too subtle for many folks to comprehend)

Guy has nice gloves, I have a pair of the same. I predict he will need his before I do.

There's the brief period in life (about 2 decades) where there's no doubt in your mind that you are immortal. If you make it past that, generally a little wisdom comes a knocking. That comes with seeing a bunch of weird, cool and sometimes gross stuff. Life is good, Merry Christmas everyone!

And that sidewinder....is true wisdom and a fact! ;)
 
Sidewinder said:
peter nap said:
Not that I agree with his flight ...but can you cite the statute he violated? Not a regulation or advisory, but the statute itself.

FAR Sec 91.131

§ 91.131
Operations in Class B airspace.
(a) Operating rules.


That's a regulation, not a statute.
Breaking a regulation is only enforceable if you fall under the regulatory aegis such as a licensed pilot.

A regulation is a rule an administrative agency makes. There has to be a statute or Constitutional allowance for the agency to make it.

It has to go through a gauntlet of inspections then advertised for public comment, then eventually it can be entered into the administrative code. The Administrative code is not a criminal code. Just rules.

You can't find a statute because I'll bet there isn't one.
 
peter nap said:
Sidewinder said:
peter nap said:
Not that I agree with his flight ...but can you cite the statute he violated? Not a regulation or advisory, but the statute itself.

FAR Sec 91.131

That's a regulation, not a statute.
Breaking a regulation is only enforceable if you fall under the regulatory aegis such as a licensed pilot.

A regulation is a rule an administrative agency makes. There has to be a statute or Constitutional allowance for the agency to make it.

It has to go through a gauntlet of inspections then advertised for public comment, then eventually it can be entered into the administrative code. The Administrative code is not a criminal code. Just rules.

You can't find a statute because I'll bet there isn't one.

Excellent point. A regulation would only matter if you held a license that could be pulled by the administrative agency responsible for those who were licensed by it.

There has to be a law for it to be enforceable to the general public. We can thumb our noses at the regulations. But I think there will be a number of laws governing our quads as the number of them increase.

This is mostly because... As the numbers of "drones" in the sky increase, the profile gets higher. As the profile gets higher, the politicians take note. As the politicians take note, the pollsters poll. As the pollsters poll, they find that the general public has a generic distaste for "drones".

Some idiot(s) in Washington will eventually hang their hat(s) on anti-drone legislation. It's the nature of the beast.

Let's all do our very best to stay under the radar (as it were) and not give any of these Washingtonian aholes a platform to stand on to puke legislative horseshit that they believe will keep their BMW running sweetly, while they have no worries about the implications and ramifications to the general public (who are simply minding their own business and calmly flying their quads)

Namely... US!!!

-slinger
 
gunslinger said:
Excellent point. A regulation would only matter if you held a license that could be pulled by the administrative agency responsible for those who were licensed by it.

There has to be a law for it to be enforceable to the general public. We can thumb our noses at the regulations. But I think there will be a number of laws governing our quads as the number of them increase.

This is mostly because... As the numbers of "drones" in the sky increase, the profile gets higher. As the profile gets higher, the politicians take note. As the politicians take note, the pollsters poll. As the pollsters poll, they find that the general public has a generic distaste for "drones".

Some idiot(s) in Washington will eventually hang their hat(s) on anti-drone legislation. It's the nature of the beast.

Let's all do our very best to stay under the radar (as it were) and not give any of these Washingtonian aholes a platform to stand on to puke legislative horseshit that they believe will keep their BMW running sweetly, while they have no worries about the implications and ramifications to the general public (who are simply minding their own business and calmly flying their quads)

Namely... US!!!

-slinger
[/quote][/quote]

We may have new laws. I can't predict that and I happen to agree that the fellow probably shouldn't have done that. But there are 5 pages here of people telling him the same thing time after time and what they're saying isn't based on fact, just hysterics.

There seems to be a lot of concern over appearances which is admirable. But for heavens sake, correct the kid then let it drop. Why keep tossing the bogyman in the mix.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic