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

[bobmyers]

A jet flying at 650mph impacting a 2.5 lbs drone, what could go wrong. This is why "drones" are getting a bad rep.

Unfortunately, a lot of these folks don't understand the gravity of violating the laws and regulations regarding air space., and the hobby will suffer for it-- already has.

Folks will keep doing stupid illegal things that only have bad consequences when it comes to this hobby and profession-- for some which will result in the loss of their drones, loss of the right to fly a drone, chance of prosecution and fines, causing property damage, injury or deaths, and possible civil damages. Nothing good will result-- we need to hear more from professionals pilots, especially from those who share the same hobby.
Thank you for your comments.

 

[droneshop]

We did full tests in a perfect inviroment with stock P3P and fpvlr antenna modded non boosted...

You were 27000 ft on stock phantom stock rc? Round trip? . Versus of os saying he did 31000ft out and then back again? (total 62k ft?)

 

[mohan]

I'm an airline captain and I can say that this is totally irresponsible . Don't do this, our hobby is already under fire from all sides. Super dangerous. This is FAA controled airspace and it's totally illegal to do this. Colliding with a jet going 650mph will have disastrous consequences.

Are you sayijg that you are flying at below 400 feet? Do you realise that he has not flown 30000 feet in altitude but in distance. He has remained below 400 feet and is nowhere near a airport. Below 400 feet there is all sorts of obstacles - high tension Power lines, cellular masts, TV masts and trees

 

[Greebo]

Are you sayijg that you are flying at below 400 feet? Do you realise that he has not flown 30000 feet in altitude but in distance. He has remained below 400 feet and is nowhere near a airport. Below 400 feet there is all sorts of obstacles - high tension Power lines, cellular masts, TV masts and trees

He was way over 400 feet though. Notice he took off from a mountain side. The height on the app is the height above your take off point, not to ground. When he was flying over the lake i estimate he was flying at more like 400m not 400 feet.

So illegal (in most countries) and dangerous to low flying aircraft.

 

[J.James]

A jet flying at 650mph impacting a 2.5 lbs drone, what could go wrong. This is why "drones" are getting a bad rep.

yes I agree that would be very bad and it would destroy some ones drone very easy. Tho I dont know what any one would be up so high that any plane is going to be flying that fast.

 

[reboot81]

I'm an airline captain and I can say that this is totally irresponsible . Don't do this, our hobby is already under fire from all sides. Super dangerous. This is FAA controled airspace and it's totally illegal to do this. Colliding with a jet going 650mph will have disastrous consequences.

Where is he flying? There's more countries and regulations than the US/FAA on this planet.

My perception was that he was flying in China.(?)

 

[AirMan]

Can someone explain the difference between: Above Sea Level (ASL), Above Ground level (AGL) Altitudes and how the DJI GO APP calculates your take off altitude with respect to those measurements.

 

[D4T_PoM]

He was way over 400 feet though. Notice he took off from a mountain side. The height on the app is the height above your take off point, not to ground. When he was flying over the lake i estimate he was flying at more like 400m not 400 feet.

So illegal (in most countries) and dangerous to low flying aircraft.

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

 

[mohan]

He was way over 400 feet though. Notice he took off from a mountain side. The height on the app is the height above your take off point, not to ground. When he was flying over the lake i estimate he was flying at more like 400m not 400 feet.

So illegal (in most countries) and dangerous to low flying aircraft.

On the first post of the OP the DJI flight record says max height 344 feet. So how can he have flown above 400 feet? I realise it might not be above sea level but if you are surrounded by mountains and there is a dip surely no commercial aircraft or for that matter any aircraft is going to dip down the river? Not everybody has a sea next to them to make sea level relevant. From the video and screenshots it is obvious he was nowhere near 'controlled air space'

 

[Simonb3526]

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.

 

[pbrain]

What is the fascination with record breaking and irresponsible flying? These threads always tend to be huge.

Don't encourage them

*yawn*

 

[mohan]

What is the fascination with record breaking and irresponsible flying? These threads always tend to be huge.

Don't encourage them

*yawn*

What is irresponsible flying? What happened recently at Shoreham airshow recently tragically?

Life is about thrills and risks - F1, Sky diving, white water rafting, mountain climbing - all unnecessary for day to living. We still do it as life is not for people who 'yawn'. Just because some individuals don't find it fascinating it is not fair to criticise others using yardsticks that have not kept up with evolving technology. Who knows what in 10 years time the airspace will look like.

My friends asked me 25 years ago what the point of a cellular phone was when there were plenty of public phone boxes in an emergency!! Guess they feel sheepish now as all the call boxes are gone ...

 

[Simonb3526]

Without records there would not have been Roy castle. Sad world.

 

[Man.Of.Kent]

So what You had a good run as you say for a P3 unit being stock.

I can tell you the you could not fly that far where I am at and if you did mod the antennas with something that's fine too but the people here are asking you about your battery mod ...

Really the mod is no big deal and I will be posting info to all so that they can see it.

You are not the first to add extra batteries to the P3 your mod in the pic is not showing people here that have asked how you did it....

Your hiding it big deal you made the connection as it looks at the P3 battery but you don't show anything being upside down... YOUR SECRET

People I have talk about the battery mod before you got 3 choices maybe 4 to add batteries in parallel on the P3 #1 is what he did ( OH his Big secret ) soldering some pigtails off the leads on the battery itself you would have to cut that side of the battery to get to it ( THE SIDE HE DOES NOT SHOW in his PIC Big SECRET )

#2 is open up the P3 and solder to the terminals inside the P3 and send out pigtail leads to the batteries
# 3 is to have a connector that slides over the tabs inside the compartment the connects the stock P3 battery

Anyway I think this guy Fanti is deceptive

Sounds like a bag of grapefruits to me

 

[pbrain]

What is irresponsible flying? What happened recently at Shoreham airshow recently tragically?

Life is about thrills and risks - F1, Sky diving, white water rafting, mountain climbing - all unnecessary for day to living. We still do it as life is not for people who 'yawn'. Just because some individuals don't find it fascinating it is not fair to criticise others using yardsticks that have not kept up with evolving technology. Who knows what in 10 years time the airspace will look like.

My friends asked me 25 years ago what the point of a cellular phone was when there were plenty of public phone boxes in an emergency!! Guess they feel sheepish now as all the call boxes are gone ...

Nothing wrong with risk taking as long as it remains within the law, and does not put others at risk.

 

[Man.Of.Kent]

My friends asked me 25 years ago what the point of a cellular phone was when there were plenty of public phone boxes in an emergency!! Guess they feel sheepish now as all the call boxes are gone ...

Weak argument?

My friends asked me 50 years ago what the point of a car was when there were plenty of horses in an emergency!! Guess they feel sheepish now as all the horses are gone ..

My friends asked me 25 years ago what the point of a shopping centre was when there were plenty of corner shops in an emergency!! Guess they feel sheepish now as all the corner shops are gone ..

 

[mohan]

But that is the point - laws can sometimes stifle progress. People become risk averse. None of the inventions that we take for granted would be possible if laws were around 100 years ago. People found out the hard way. Totally agree with keeping to the right side of the law and safety. However laws are not always sensible and drafted by politicians who have agendas of their own. Don't want to start a debate - just pointing out that the laws for UAV's are not clear as the technology is new. Over the next few years these laws could stifle or encourage UAV flights. Pioneers always took risks.

 

[pbrain]

But that is the point - laws can sometimes stifle progress. People become risk averse. None of the inventions that we take for granted would be possible if laws were around 100 years ago. People found out the hard way. Totally agree with keeping to the light side of the law and safety. However laws are not always sensible and drafted by politicians who have agendas of their own. Don't want to start a debate - just pointing out that the laws for UAV's are not clear as the technology is new. Over the next few years these laws could stifle or encourage UAV flights.

I think a law that prevents flying a UAV that migh endanger other aircraft (and in fact any altitude above 400ft, distance 500m, in order to maintain visual sight) is a fairly sensible law! That's all I was saying.

 

[mohan]

You are correct - wasn't trying to be argumentative (apologies if it came across like that ). Fanti flew under 400 feet as evidenced by the screenshot of his DJI flight log first post.

I think a law that prevents flying a UAV at airliner cruising altitude (and in fact any altitude above 400ft, to maintain visual sight) is a fairly sensible law! That's all I was saying.

 

[Man.Of.Kent]

Can someone explain the difference between: Above Sea Level (ASL), Above Ground level (AGL) Altitudes and how the DJI GO APP calculates your take off altitude with respect to those measurements.

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.

FAA and CAA give a max height for SUA as 400ft above ground level. This is why the discussion has led to speculation about his height above the water. This may not in itself be sea level as the water may, in some cases, be a lake which can be at any height. I expect the rules would say you should descend as you fly out so that you are 400ft above the water for the flight out and back, climbing again to maintain a 400ft local height above the ground back up the hill.