Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponders?

[ogmios]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

While it may be true that any "restrictions" being proposed now may be based on perceived privacy concerns, most of it comes from media hype. The safety issue, OTOH, is real, and is not being addressed. The flying public takes safety for granted, but once there's blood in the cockpit, and there will be if things continue the way they are now, stand by. It won't be the states in play then, it'll be the Feds, in a big way.

I agree 100% with you. My point is that indeed the focus is unfortunately on the privacy but not on the safety. Trust me, it would disturb me greatly to hear about a major accident (or any accident) caused by some idiot that disregard common sense and safety.

That "grey area" is non-existent.

Apparently, you missed what I said before about "500 ft". Repeating, an altitude of "500 ft" is irrelevant to anything in US aviation, regulatory or operationally.

I like the dead horse icon! Hahaha. Sorry to keep beating that poor dead horse, but I am still not understanding how the altitude is irrelevant since it seems to be used in qualifying what is airspace. Also, how can

an altitude of "500 ft" is irrelevant to anything in US aviation, regulatory or operationally.

be if FAA regulations dictate a minimum safe altitude for aviation http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c= ... 10&idno=14

That's incorrect. Has nothing whatsoever to do with flying. It's a term referring to construction above existing structures. We're not discussing building anything here.

I get your point, but the use of Air Rights is not simply to build things, it is also to define the property ownership boundaries and still has relevance when it comes to airspace. Since a UAV could potentially be flying over a property, why wouldn't it not matter to know where the "ownership" is? I am obviously not the only one wondering (Congress did too: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42940.pdf)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html will also show you that the grey area does exist and air rights are not just for purpose of building.

I see and understand where you are coming from and not arguing with you for the fun of it, but I truly don't feel like anyone has been able to actually give clear explanations (I keep hearing that things don't apply, but not hearing about what does apply). Your answer is that FAA regulates all flying. Not true in case of "drones" and this is again what I refer to the grey area.

I am actually truly interested in what the answers are.

So let me try to be short and to the point:
Who regulates the airspace that a UAV (Like the phantom) is bound to fly in (following FAA recommendations to not be over 400ft)? Considering the fact that FAA doesn't have regulations (Only recommendations) for drones, does that mean that there is no federal oversight, thus left to local? At what altitude is it considered regulated at federal level? When is there preemption?

 

[Racklefratz]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

how can "an altitude of 500 ft is irrelevant to anything in US aviation, regulatory or operationally" be if FAA regulations dictate a minimum safe altitude for aviation ......

Yes, that rule does exist, but that altitude is in US uncontrolled airspace. We're discussing operation in controlled airspace here - at least, I am.

Since a UAV could potentially be flying over a property, why wouldn't it not matter to know where the "ownership" is?

It might if someone used their "drone" in a way that the property owner thought he may have a trespass cause of action. But in my mind, that falls under the category of civil litigation, not aviation law.

Your answer is that FAA regulates all flying. Not true in case of "drones" and this is again what I refer to the grey area.

"Not true" - yet. The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act contains a seven-page provision – known as the Drone Act – requiring the FAA to fully integrate unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System by September 2015. There's no way to know if the final rules will address "hobby" drones, or to what extent. But it's entirely conceivable that the current 400 foot altitude "recommendation" could grow some teeth then.

Who regulates the airspace that a UAV (Like the phantom) is bound to fly in (following FAA recommendations to not be over 400ft)? Considering the fact that FAA doesn't have regulations (Only recommendations) for drones, does that mean that there is no federal oversight, thus left to local? At what altitude is it considered regulated at federal level? When is there preemption?

Let me put it this way:
In the US, the airspace from the ground up to 400ft above ground level is unregulated in terms of aircraft operations. It's uncontrolled airspace, as defined in the US Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). The Feds don't care, and the locals have no jurisdiction. We're not talking about building tall towers here - there are other restrictions for that. We're talking about the aviation rules.

But the crux of my point in this discussion is that the 400ft "FAA-recommended" altitude limitation for "hobby" UAVs is being flagrantly ignored by the people who are routinely flying their RC FPV UAVs to altitudes 10 or more times that high, and bragging about it on YouTube, which goes directly to my assertion that one of 'em's eventually going to wind up a cockpit ornament. The fallout will definitely affect Phantom fliers.

On your last question, I suggest you look up US airspace classifications and their meaning on the site where you looked up minimum safe altitudes. You'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about US airspace, but the bottom line is that the airspace the FAA controls normally begins at 1200 ft AGL, sometimes extending down to 700 ft at uncontrolled airports with instrument approaches. The rules vary on who can be in which airspace and under what conditions, meteorologically and otherwise. And nobody "preempts" the FAA.

 

[TickTock]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

According to my local hobby store, the latest DJI firmware puts a ceiling limit of 400ft. Can someone who has updated confirm this (I'm still at 3.12)?

 

[Racklefratz]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

According to my local hobby store, the latest DJI firmware puts a ceiling limit of 400ft. Can someone who has updated confirm this (I'm still at 3.12)?

I'd ask them where that information came from. The latest NAZA firmware available for download on the DJI Phantom Downloads page is v3.14, and the Release Notes make no mention of adding a ceiling limit. It's all primarily related to the Zenmuse gimbal.

I doubt any kind of "ceiling limit" function will ever be added to the Phantom via firmware or otherwise, for 2 reasons. First, the 400 ft "limit" comes from the US FAA. It does not apply to Phantoms elsewhere in the world. Secondly, in order to enable any kind of "ceiling limit" in the Phantom, the NAZA GPS would require a world-wide geographical database containing elevation data, since "ground level" varies from below sea level to many thousands of feet above sea level. The data's not there now, and I doubt it's technically possible to add it. The Phantom can determine its 3d position in space, but that's about it.

 

[TickTock]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

According to my local hobby store, the latest DJI firmware puts a ceiling limit of 400ft. Can someone who has updated confirm this (I'm still at 3.12)?

I'd ask them where that information came from. The latest NAZA firmware available for download on the DJI Phantom Downloads page is v3.14, and the Release Notes make no mention of adding a ceiling limit. It's all primarily related to the Zenmuse gimbal.

I doubt any kind of "ceiling limit" function will ever be added to the Phantom via firmware or otherwise, for 2 reasons. First, the 400 ft "limit" comes from the US FAA. It does not apply to Phantoms elsewhere in the world. Secondly, in order to enable any kind of "ceiling limit" in the Phantom, the NAZA GPS would require a world-wide geographical database containing elevation data, since "ground level" varies from below sea level to many thousands of feet above sea level. The data's not there now, and I doubt it's technically possible to add it. The Phantom can determine its 3d position in space, but that's about it.

I also am skeptical about the truth behind the comment - people talk, facts get distorted. This is why I want to got confirmation here. However, implementation wouldn't be hard if you assume you take off from the ground. They just limit it to 400 feet above HL. Which is why it is necessary to have an override (if you are flying uphill).

 

[martcerv]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

There is no limit on the 3.14 firmware as you can see in the video below, I can see it wouldn't be a bad idea if there was a user selectable limit we could set for altitude above home point. Also have this able to be overridden by the controller or even just set it to certain modes, in a way where you could say have any mode selectable with or without the altitude limits but only if the user wants it. If there ever was a firmware with set limits people would simply avoid it or start hacking the firmware so that is not the way DJI should approach this issue.

It would help as in cases like this video where my phantom got into an updraft and rose a hell of a lot faster then I expected, I was flying FPV and all flight had full control and video link but it took a while to realize how high I actually was. I only wanted to get above the dam wall to get a look at the water but as the wind was coming straight down the valley towards the wall though only light 5 to 10kmh it caused a large updraft. The dam wall was about 85 meters or so above me to give an idea of the altitude here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv1F2zkqSX4[/youtube]

This video is unlisted as I don't want to brag about the altitude I got and it wasn't at all intentional, once it got so high it was very hard to spot my landing site so there was a bit of panicked spinning trying to find my spot as I cant tilt the camera down. Last thing I wanted was to come down over the water or in the forest. It really didn't want to come down and I didn't lose much altitude until getting well clear of the wall, on that setup my max flight time is 8 minutes but as the lift was so great it would have used less battery and so it didnt die on me on the way down as with those props 8 minutes is really pushing that battery.

Had this not been FPV I may have seen it as a "flyaway" because I wasn't rising anywhere near full throttle and once above the wall seeing the water I pretty much gave it very little throttle beyond that point but it kept going up.

 

[Yeager]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

In my opinion, those who fly RC aircraft should take the time to learn the laws and regulations regarding flying RC aircraft in the locality you are flying in and abide by them. Breaking the rules and flying these aircraft outside the limits of what your local regulations state is irresponsible and could endanger the safety of others and could help ruin the hobby for the rest of us who do follow the rules. Just my 2¢.

 

[BruceTS]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

I want to install DragonLink in my Phantom, then attach a weather balloon to it, send it up and away, hmmm 100,000 ft, after the balloon pops watch it fall back to earth, FPV....then deploy a chute to level the phantom, hopefully enough to get the motors to start, release the quad and make a safe landing. Ceiling limits who needs them. :mrgreen:


Now to get FAA approval...haha

 

[howardmaryon]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

In the UK, we have the Civil Aviation Authority, roughly equivalent to the FAA. They have already made noises about rc aircraft in general, in that flyers are advised to stay within line of sight and below 400feet altitude above takeoff point. If you obtain a licence to fly uav commercially, you must obey those guidelines to be legal, and insured. Of course YT is full of videos of UK flyers ignoring those limits, and sooner or later there will be an incident that makes the papers. The newspapers dont want to see a ban though, because they are all using uavs to get photos of topless celebrities. Common sense is the answer and maybe an industry-wide independent code of conduct, that will ensure that people posting stupid videos of flying up the outside of a block of flats to peer in the windows, for example, or buzzing a childrens swing park, will get the roasting they deserve from the rest of the uav flying community.

 

[Racklefratz]

Re: Should multi's have ceiling limits? Aircraft transponde

Common sense is the answer and maybe an industry-wide independent code of conduct, that will ensure that people posting stupid videos of flying up the outside of a block of flats to peer in the windows, for example, or buzzing a childrens swing park, will get the roasting they deserve from the rest of the uav flying community.

I agree with you, and have posted similar thoughts earlier in this discussion.

But I wish it were that easy. A common-sense approach would work if people would use it. But the majority of "offenders" are young people who often ignore common sense, if they have any to begin with, in favor of attempting things that will get them notoriety, at least in their peer group. Offering them a free, world-wide medium like YouTube with which to display their "accomplishments" only adds fuel to the fire.

It's not that difficult to see the inevitable in all this, and the regulatory action which will result. And, just like the scofflaws on our roadways, we'll still have people ignoring uav regulations once they're in place, since they will be much more difficult to enforce.