Flying above 400ft is a little scary and pointless
- Thread starter stulpin300m
- Start date
- Status
Yes you definitely have mistaken. Much thought toward flight planning and drone safety is hardly necessary for many a back yard flight but if the intention is bigger then that, and you could potentially hurt someone then 'look before you leap' and prepare properly.
Potentially dangerous hobbies I enjoy regularly and I personally feel that I have performed all of them safely toward myself and others.
Use your head for better things than analyzing sentence structure.
Like safety.
Maybe we won't get the [EXPLETIVE OMITTED] regulated out of us.
Potentially dangerous hobbies I enjoy regularly and I personally feel that I have performed all of them safely toward myself and others.
Use your head for better things than analyzing sentence structure.
Like safety.
Maybe we won't get the [EXPLETIVE OMITTED] regulated out of us.
Last edited:
Yes, all pilots should do whatever it takes in order to stay in compliance. If that means checking maps, way-points ect... so be it. I wish the faa would rethink the line of site part, at least when you are no where near civilization or something. But the altitude recommendations are there for a **** good reason. As popularity of uav's grow, so will the likeliness of something terrible happening with people flying thousands of feet in the air.
I'll bet less than 1% of DJI Phantom drone pilots maps out every flight and cross reference with topo to get the correct heigh to fly and pre-program it with so they are at the right height at the right place including you.
Unless of course you are saying you do that every time you take your drone out into the air.
Anyone in the air is trained to respond to a threat like your life depends on the outcome of the encounter. A close encounter of any object moving nearby would illicit that response from me. Little things do big damage in collisions. Air traffic is the only real concern or interference really. There are left and right handed landing patterns and other generally known safety guidelines followed whenever air traffic is present or at designated areas.
People not used to the z-axis views will not check airspace before initiating any type of maneuver that cannot be immediately stopped.
Movements in the air all have an INPUT-COAST-INPUT cycle due to inertia that will continue minus friction. This means you can't stop immediately, well... ever.
Makes multiple objects in any airspace require strict rules to exist safely.
At least if you want to be realistic about it.
People not used to the z-axis views will not check airspace before initiating any type of maneuver that cannot be immediately stopped.
Movements in the air all have an INPUT-COAST-INPUT cycle due to inertia that will continue minus friction. This means you can't stop immediately, well... ever.
Makes multiple objects in any airspace require strict rules to exist safely.
At least if you want to be realistic about it.
Last edited:
It would make sense for a licensing body to get insurance for the members similar to a CSPA (canadian parachuting license) If we damage something in an offsite landing or put a car off a road or whatever we have an organization that protects us covered by a yearly due. If that happened it'd probably be the best thing for uav community by showing responsibility for indefinite damage is managed.
I have 20+ acres of property in middle-TN. The north-most property is on a bluff line that is at 1800' above sea-level. The south-most property is at 800' above sea level. I have a house at the top, and a cabin at the bottom (by a river). The horizontal distance (straight line) is right at 1 mile.
Given the remoteness of the property (and lack of any RF pollution), I have no problem taking off from one point, flying to the other, and landing using my P2V+. I have no restrictions, and can literally use the drone to shuttle light-weight stuff between the two properties when I have family/guests at opposite ends.
So, if I were to upgrade to the PV3, I could conceivably still use it to fly from the lower to the upper property. But from what I've read, there is also a below-home-point limit of 120m. If that is true, then I would not be able to get to the lower property from the top.
Either way, if/when DJI gets done servicing the .gov regulators, who's to say they won't make the 400m limit, a 400' limit?
Given the remoteness of the property (and lack of any RF pollution), I have no problem taking off from one point, flying to the other, and landing using my P2V+. I have no restrictions, and can literally use the drone to shuttle light-weight stuff between the two properties when I have family/guests at opposite ends.
So, if I were to upgrade to the PV3, I could conceivably still use it to fly from the lower to the upper property. But from what I've read, there is also a below-home-point limit of 120m. If that is true, then I would not be able to get to the lower property from the top.
Either way, if/when DJI gets done servicing the .gov regulators, who's to say they won't make the 400m limit, a 400' limit?
Excellent discussion, I saw that the FAA Advisory Circular was referenced. Advisory Circulars are not regulatory, they are recommendations, a way to comply with a regulation but not the only way. So, the 400 foot altitude in the AC is a recommendation. But as we know, there is a regulatory tie in. It's incorporated by reference in Section 336 of the Public Law, FAA Modernization and Reform Act. The basic message is that if you fly below 400 feet, you are likely not going to interact with manned aircraft, but no guarantee. Manned aircraft do fly below 400 feet, particularly near airports for the purposes of take off and landing. Also, as someone else posted, the minimum safe altitude restrictions of 14 CFR Part 91.119, do not apply to helicopters, so they may operate lower, such as is often the case with EMS helicopter operations. In my opinion, the best course of action for any drone pilot is to learn the airspace for your area of operation. Manage your risk and make informed decisions!
The problem is that children do fly these things, and fly them recklessly. Just last week in California a kid almost hit a police helicopter at night at 700ft.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/insurancesummarymembers.pdf
If you're not a member, you should consider it. The AMA has been around for decades.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 10
"flying above 400ft is ignorant and dangerous" You might rephrase that to flying over 400 feet above the highest ground level is ignorant and dangerous.
I live in an area of very high hills towering over narrow valleys. If an airplane or helicopter flies under 700 feet they're likely to stop very, very quickly. So might my Phantom, therefore my RTH is set at 650 feet when launched at valley level.
If you read your UAS registration, it is not posted as a Law. It is merely a guideline for safe flight.
The 400 feet limit is only a guideline, it is not a federal law.
Where I am in Oregon the hills are 3,000 feet. Anybody below them in a conventional craft is already dead. By hills I mean hill after hill after hill with forests. I have a lot of beautiful landscape pictures from about 1,000 feet. I can easily make those in less than five minutes, above 400 feet. There is no battery problem. I am not one of those people who gets up in the morning and goes through rules books looking for something else to obey. The only Feds that show up around here are trying to confiscate resources anyway.
I take those reports with a grain of salt. I'm sure it CAN happen, but there is also the very real flip-side. Take, for example, the two guys in NYC that were using their drone to take pictures of the George Washington bridge. Shortly after starting their run, a NYPD helicopter spotted the drone and started to follow it. The guys, realizing the NYPD was getting closer, immediately brought it back for landing. In no time at all, they were swarmed by NYC's finest, and arrested. The news reported this as a near-miss, with a reckless drone pilot endangering the helicopter.
Here's a clip from Photography is not a Crime (PINAC.org)
There is a HUGE PR push by government to paint these multi-rotors in the worst possible light - to poison public opinion. Unfortunately, whether willing, or just simply ignorant, the media regurgitates the 'official' police narrative as fact.
In the case cited above, here's how the NYPost described the incident:
The charges, incidentally, were dropped once the facts came out. That, though, was not printed front page.
Here's another account of a police helicopter intentionally trying to drown a Phantom by flying over it as it flew over a river...
Last edited:
Everyone keeps saying guideline guideline but the reality is if we don't self regulate in an effective manner then we will be regulated without input about it. Thanks for the hobby craft insurance link. I will be asking them about drones.
Meters-Feet--What's the difference? Ha-ha-ha. Just kidding. It's amazing the ignorance of some people.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2015
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
- Age
- 63
But Sir, I was flying inverted Sir. Doesn't that account for anything Sir? It made the Russian pilot bug out.
- Status
Similar threads
