WOLRLD RECORD with bone STOCK RC 31,000ft/9,400m and back.

You are correct - it registers negative height.

Above sea level (or above mean sea level) is your height with reference to sea level which is, apart from tides, swells, etc the same everywhere averaged out. Above ground level is measured from your current location. The quad starts with a height of zero (ground level) and displays its height above this datum. I have never flown downhill, but I assume that if you did, your height would register as negative. I sit to be corrected of course.

Aviation maps show high obstacles measured both ways, above local ground height and above mean sea level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Man.Of.Kent
Hi guys, world record flight, I believe, for bone STOCK RC. P3P 31,000 ft/9,400m and back. Landed with 20% battery.

Amazing, the negative posters who come out of the woodwork on every posted flight that is somewhat remarkable (or at least the OP thinks it is remarkable enough to post about it). Also, a lot of misinformation is propagated.

At the present time there are no U.S. government regulations on flying hobby RC model aircraft. There are "suggested" restrictions by the AMA which have the approval of the FAA. That said, there are common sense reasons why it is best to follow these "suggested" restrictions. To get around violations of these suggested restrictions the FAA and other government agencies cite people for things like endangerment, and other civil laws, to manned aircraft, property, and people.

These charges are almost all not criminal but civil and as we've seen can be very high civil fines which in the case of the U.S. government can result in collection by attaching any government benefits like income tax returns, SS benefits, welfare, etc. It has been reported that the FAA is mining hobby forums like this and Flytrex flights to trace people who are violating anything they deem as dangerous or specifically finding pilots of sUAVs whose aircraft is suspected as being involved in "sightings" near airports, or sites like forest fires, or other emergency type incidents.

At the present time it's not clear on how the FAA can make the suggested restrictions into part of its rules as in the late 90s the U.S. Congress specifically excluded hobby aircraft from FAA rule making. That could be why there is such a delay in implementing rules for hobby aircraft. I would imagine that Congress in the very new future will change the law to allow the FAA some control of hobby aircraft because too many folks are ignoring the suggested rules. If there is some kind of major accident I can see where the rules could even be more restrictive than the suggest rules and this concerns many in the hobby field.
 
He was 100 meters. 400 foot is about 122m. He started above sea level so it's the total fight above sea level that is the key. He flew under the height of the mountains so there are no commercial planes in that space but total altitude was above 122m so light aircraft could have been. He could have measured his altitude before takeoff and figured out a safe height and still had the range. Not perfect and to the letter but he's also not going to hit a 737. Personally I think they should allow training for drones for personal use. A few evenings or an afternoon course to allow some level of insurance. Most people can fly them properly it's just being aware. Since I have had mine I have become far more aware of the dangers and do a lot more planning. I suspect most people are the same. Get it. Fly it close. Get braver. See how high it can go straight up. Watch some crash videos and tut at the screen. Read a few forum posts. Modify their flying. Become half decent at it.
That's rubbishy. I live near hills and often see planes lower than where I am on the side of the hill as they fly down the valley. Okay not a 737 but light aircraft and the airforce do on a regular basis. Point is it was clearly several hundred metres above the ground
 
I don't think that was anywhere near 400m, sorry that comment and assumption of yours I find outrageous.

Best not to assume, I find assumptions to be the mother of all **** ups. Lol
He was well up the side of that mountain. I could go to the top of Everest and fly my phantom back to the level ground and say look I'm only at 20 feet when in fact I'd be several thousand metres above the ground.
 
He was well up the side of that mountain. I could go to the top of Everest and fly my phantom back to the level ground and say look I'm only at 20 feet when in fact I'd be several thousand metres above the ground.

Yes he was well up but no where near 400m even being ontop of the mountain.

I personally don't think he was anywhere near the 250m mark but I'm not one to assume (only reason I used the 250m remark is because I have been that high and everything looks a lot smaller i.e houses)

But again I say this...

Best not to assume, assumptions is the mother of all [PROFANITY REMOVED]...lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
12th September. DD/MM/YY the proper way round.
 
That's rubbishy. I live near hills and often see planes lower than where I am on the side of the hill as they fly down the valley. Okay not a 737 but light aircraft and the airforce do on a regular basis. Point is it was clearly several hundred metres above the ground


Err that's exactly what I said?!?!?
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,086
Messages
1,467,528
Members
104,965
Latest member
Fimaj