Flying high as possible is the stupidest thing ever

[Miika]

After DJI introduced the new no-flyzone policy many Phantom pilots have become frustrated/angry (I'm personally frustrated).

My problem with no-flyzone is that the radius of the no-flyzone does not match the restricted airspace per country/airfield. So DJI restricts flights in areas where its not actually restricted, because they have general no-flyzone classes A and B with a general radius.

Flying in the restricted airspace of an airport is stupid. The other thing that is at least as stupid as flying near airports are the Phantom pilots who do their non fpv or fpv height "test" max altitude flights. I've seen people boasting how they have flown their Phantom above 500 meters and up to 1000+ meters. Ofcourse loosing your Phantom might be the end result of this sort of flying, but people still do it.

It takes only one idiot to crash an helicopter or a an plane to cause something that none of us have seen yet. I know that theres atleast one case where helicopter and drone almost crashed.

"I havent seen any airplanes here, so it must be safe... I also have this FPV so I can dodge with my Phantom..."

 

[2trickpony]

After DJI introduced the new no-flyzone policy many Phantom pilots have become frustrated/angry (I'm personally frustrated).

My problem with no-flyzone is that the radius of the no-flyzone does not match the restricted airspace per country/airfield. So DJI restricts flights in areas where its not actually restricted, because they have general no-flyzone classes A and B with a general radius.

Flying in the restricted airspace of an airport is stupid. The other thing that is at least as stupid as flying near airports are the Phantom pilots who do their non fpv or fpv height "test" max altitude flights. I've seen people boasting how they have flown their Phantom above 500 meters and up to 1000+ meters. Ofcourse loosing your Phantom might be the end result of this sort of flying, but people still do it.

It takes only one idiot to crash an helicopter or a an plane to cause something that none of us have seen yet. I know that theres atleast one case where helicopter and drone almost crashed.

"I havent seen any airplanes here, so it must be safe... I also have this FPV so I can dodge with my Phantom..."

Its funny how these restrictions dont seem to apply to model rockets:

"In the UK, for model rocketry, there are no laws preventing model rocket launches (unless you launch from private land without permission - this is trespass). There are also no aviation laws preventing flight of model rocketry apart from the obvious case of not launching a model rocket within 5 miles of an airfield or airport."

The UK record for an amateur rocket launch is over 21000 feet !!!

 

[BigBadFun]

I've seen people boasting how they have flown their Phantom above 500 meters and up to 1000+ meters. Ofcourse loosing your Phantom might be the end result of this sort of flying, but people still do it.

LOL - you remind me of my Dad - "YOU'LL TAKE SOMEONE'S EYE OUT SON IF YOU"RE NOT CAREFUL!!!" :lol:

 

[Miika]

After DJI introduced the new no-flyzone policy many Phantom pilots have become frustrated/angry (I'm personally frustrated).

My problem with no-flyzone is that the radius of the no-flyzone does not match the restricted airspace per country/airfield. So DJI restricts flights in areas where its not actually restricted, because they have general no-flyzone classes A and B with a general radius.

Flying in the restricted airspace of an airport is stupid. The other thing that is at least as stupid as flying near airports are the Phantom pilots who do their non fpv or fpv height "test" max altitude flights. I've seen people boasting how they have flown their Phantom above 500 meters and up to 1000+ meters. Ofcourse loosing your Phantom might be the end result of this sort of flying, but people still do it.

It takes only one idiot to crash an helicopter or a an plane to cause something that none of us have seen yet. I know that theres atleast one case where helicopter and drone almost crashed.

"I havent seen any airplanes here, so it must be safe... I also have this FPV so I can dodge with my Phantom..."

Its funny how these restrictions dont seem to apply to model rockets:

"In the UK, for model rocketry, there are no laws preventing model rocket launches (unless you launch from private land without permission - this is trespass). There are also no aviation laws preventing flight of model rocketry apart from the obvious case of not launching a model rocket within 5 miles of an airfield or airport."

The UK record for an amateur rocket launch is over 21000 feet !!!

From here you can find more dumb laws of the world
http://www.dumblaws.com/

It takes only one misunfortunate event to a rocket to hit an aircraft and I guess thats it.

To BigBadFun I would reply this: Maybe if you live in some remote location or in North Korea you dont have to worry about air traffic. My point is that theres always a chance to hit something when you fly too high in a restricted airspace. For an example one time i was flying with my friend in lets say "medium altitude" my friend spotted small aircraft not too far away. We flew below the restricted airspace and therefore we were safe. But that time if had flown higher there would had been increased chance of something going badly wrong. We saw three to four small aircrafts that time.

And your father is right about flying safely. There are videos of people flying with drones and causing damage to people.

 

[2trickpony]

So what happens if a light aircraft crashes and hits my car?
Shouldnt the pilot be staying clear of my restricted "driving" space ?

 

[BMEWS]

Its funny how these restrictions dont seem to apply to model rockets:

"In the UK, for model rocketry, there are no laws preventing model rocket launches (unless you launch from private land without permission - this is trespass). There are also no aviation laws preventing flight of model rocketry apart from the obvious case of not launching a model rocket within 5 miles of an airfield or airport."

The UK record for an amateur rocket launch is over 21000 feet !!!

ANO 2009 section 168 for anything over a 1G motor. However, you're right. Nothing really in there to stop you doing it. Nor does there seem to be much of a mention around the countless weather balloons which seem to be sent aloft with go-pros reaching 13 miles up, the most recent one was yesterday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-26948120. Not many aircraft to bump into up there admittedly. But there's zero control during the ascent , still. It's a fun thing to do and as we know. Images from aloft offer us a very different perspective.

Bmews

 

[av8inglife]

So what happens if a light aircraft crashes and hits my car?
Shouldnt the pilot be staying clear of my restricted "driving" space ?

Funny you should say that... I remember this story from a few months back

http://triblive.com/news/washington/5080120-74/nicholson-plane-commission#axzz2yPHo5Q5U

(For those that don't want to read it The Pilot was fined for making an emergency landing on a highway)

 

[Miika]

So what happens if a light aircraft crashes and hits my car?
Shouldnt the pilot be staying clear of my restricted "driving" space ?

Something different than what happens when you fly your Phantom to the turbine of the aircraft.

 

[kydan]

In the U.S., there are "guidelines" for flying less than 400 feet off the ground and no closer than 3 miles to an airport.

From my understanding, if I fly above 400 feet, the police can't fine me since it's basically not a law yet??

Please help me gain some understanding!

 

[OI Photography]

From my understanding, if I fly above 400 feet, the police can't fine me since it's basically not a law yet??

Please help me gain some understanding!

Even if it was a law, it would be the FAA who went after you, not the police...but it's not, at least not at the moment. The class of powered flying machines that our Phantoms belong to does not have any regulations that currently apply to it. So sayeth a federal judge. And so appealeth the FAA.

 

[2trickpony]

So what happens if a light aircraft crashes and hits my car?
Shouldnt the pilot be staying clear of my restricted "driving" space ?

Something different than what happens when you fly your Phantom to the turbine of the aircraft.

Well I presume an aircraft has been tested to survive most turbine hits whereas my car would struggle with an aircraft hit.
Most planes have more than one turbine anyway. They are always going on about being able to fly on one engine.

 

[kydan]

From my understanding, if I fly above 400 feet, the police can't fine me since it's basically not a law yet??

Please help me gain some understanding!

Even if it was a law, it would be the FAA who went after you, not the police...but it's not, at least not at the moment. The class of powered flying machines that our Phantoms belong to does not have any regulations that currently apply to it. So sayeth a federal judge. And so appealeth the FAA.

Thanks Ol P!

 

[cgblack]

I love all the comments about there being no law against flying over 400 feet (FAA Advisory). This may be true, but I'll guarantee that if you were to launch your phantom at any height just outside the fence of any major airport at the end of a runway, you'd be arrested! Better yet, get your phantom sucked into a turbine of a jet and cause it to crash and you'll be facing at a minimum negligent homicide.

There's no law against being stupid, only acting it!

 

[Marc70]

Don't have the link, but pretty sure google will find it.
I've seen videos of people or machines throwing frozen turkeys in a stationary but running turbine engine.
They're designed for that. Mush comes out the other end.
A quadcopter would not crash a jet otherwise there would be an all out ban on them, pretty much as an anti aircraft missile.

 

[Cr8tive_leo]

Something about a lipo battery being sliced up in a turbine just doesn't sound good to me.

 

[SilentAV8R]

A quadcopter would not crash a jet

I am sure that the FAA and most every other aviation regulatory agency on Earth would disagree with this statement. Why do you think they are working on rules, just to screw with us??

 

[Marc70]

http://youtu.be/y2OS2pwrZTI

Google.com

I'm sure they're preparing for the worst, that's why they're coming up with regulations.

 

[dkatz42]

I've seen videos of people or machines throwing frozen turkeys in a stationary but running turbine engine.
They're designed for that. Mush comes out the other end.

And a whole bunch of titanium. The test is to show that the engine will "only" suffer a contained failure (not shooting missiles out of the side of the engine and into the cabin). There is no expectation that the engine will survive.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Ask the folks on US Air Flight 1549 what birds can to to an engine.

 

[Miika]

So what happens if a light aircraft crashes and hits my car?
Shouldnt the pilot be staying clear of my restricted "driving" space ?

Something different than what happens when you fly your Phantom to the turbine of the aircraft.

Well I presume an aircraft has been tested to survive most turbine hits whereas my car would struggle with an aircraft hit.
Most planes have more than one turbine anyway. They are always going on about being able to fly on one engine.

http://www.pddnet.com/news/2014/04/dron ... e=headline

2trickpony u being smart on these safety issues make me wonder... I bet the first one flying his Phantom into a turbine of an Being 767 will be remembered.

"I have this crap definiton fpv system and the planes I fly to can land safely enough after I have flown my Phantom into turbine"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC0iKJzUZWc