I am pretty sure that that limit is because once you get up to 500m, you'll barely have enough battery left for a normal descent and landing.
I hit the Max Height limit! 1654.2 FT!!!
- Thread starter Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I am pretty sure that that limit is because once you get up to 500m, you'll barely have enough battery left for a normal descent and landing.
Is it a cavalier attitude to point out that there is no rule restricting personal drones below 400 ft? I only push back on the altitude when someone makes up nonexistent rules that we're all supposed to be following.
Just read your post, OP. And a BIG thanks to you for helping to propagate the coming restrictions that will be placed upon those of us with some common sense.
Please stop flying. NOW.
Please stop flying. NOW.
That can't be it. I can get up to 500 meters and back using less than 20% of the available battery power. Not that I know from personal experience... ;-D
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
When will the staff here start directly addressing those who insist on exceeding the limits placed upon responsible flight?
Perhaps I'm not getting your post correctly. It has been known to happen before. But it almost seems like you're condoning this flight by asking others to remain civil. I was pretty civil myself. Evidently, some think this is backwoods NASCAR racing though.
The thing is, aircraft, when damaged, do not simply come to a stop on the side of the road.
You're correct - I just did the math. It would take you 100 seconds up and 167 seconds down, which is 4.45 minutes total flight time.
I put the specs into a spreadsheet and the P3 operational ceiling is 2600 m (8350 ft.). That trip would take 23 minutes (the battery spec).
The absolute ceiling, according to the spreadsheet (not that I would ever encourage trying it) is 6900 m (22,638 ft) before battery exhaustion. But the critical battery trigger will initiate a landing before reaching that altitude. But, wow, the crater that landing would make....
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Understood. I cannot speak on Jacob's behalf, but I can safely say this site doesn't condone irresponsible behavior.
Personally, I would like to ban posts the break FAA regulations such as those boasting flights above 400ft. After all, the FAA told this site directly it is against current regulations (cue Steve and other wannabe lawyers to counter the FAA's official position).
That, however, is only my opinion and not the position or remit of this site at present.
I would advise those that do want to post about their exploits above 400ft to be consider both the flight and the posting of it. Anyone can report it to the FAA and the FAA will investigate it. We've seen it already. It may go nowhere or they may decide to pursue with fines and/or other legal action.
And, whom gets to define "responsible flight"?
They are called GUIDELINES. Not limits.
All I ever asked your imaginary friend from the FAA was, "what rule?", and he disappeared from the forum.
Flight above 400 ft is not illegal. There is no FAA rule limiting flight to 400 ft. If you or your imaginary friend can fill in the blank: FAR 91._____ with a rule that limits my flight to 400 ft AGL, I will shut up.
When the FAA Enforcement and Compliance division sends a civil penalty letter to a person charged with a violation, the civil penalty letter will contain a statement of the charges, the applicable law, rule, regulation, or order. Please tell me what law, rule, regulation or order would be indicated on the letter for flying above 400 ft.
Really! just tell me what rule says I can't fly over 400 ft AGL and I will shut up about people fabricating nonexistent rules.
From this thread it's easy to see why guidelines become enforced laws; some people just don't like suggestions and think they should do whatever they want.
Today I've gone for the lightly buttered popcorn.
Today I've gone for the lightly buttered popcorn.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2015
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 295
Honestly, I don't see the point in arguing. IMO, the current FAA guidelines or regulations (whatever you want to call them) are not set in stone. To fly responsibly should be the #1 goal of each pilot. The FAA released their proposed regulations a few months back. I agree with them and abide by them currently and believe we all should as well to keep crashes and "Drone flies into building" news stories at a minimum.
That being said, as far as I know, the FAA has not came out and said "These are the rules and the law" yet with a document that has been approved.
That being said, as far as I know, the FAA has not came out and said "These are the rules and the law" yet with a document that has been approved.
No, that is not even remotely right. There is more than enough battery life to not only fly a couple km out and back and then to fly up over 500m for a minute or two and still have plenty of battery left over.
I have never endorsed not flying responsibly. I never endorsed irresponsible flights or altitudes. I just push back when people who should know better start making up rules that don't exist. You can follow future unwritten rules all you like (Minority Report?) . Every operator should have their own personal limits that they are comfortable with. But today there is no FAA rule limiting flight to 400 ft. Where there are rules I will encourage following them.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
When my "imaginary friend from the FAA" joined the site, I asked for his less than imaginary FAA email address and to respond on it so I could verify he was actually from the FAA. If he wasn't from the FAA, he sure did a great job of getting access to their mail servers in under 10 minutes:
Code:
Delivered-To: [redacted] @gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.171.136 with SMTP id au8csp1860025lbc;
Fri, 15 May 2015 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.229.122.138 with SMTP id l10mr13505618qcr.26.1431701210515;
Fri, 15 May 2015 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: < [redacted] @faa.gov>
Received: from relay2.faa.gov (relay2.faa.gov. [155.178.252.45])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 14si1615005qht.82.2015.05.15.07.46.49
for < [redacted] @gmail.com>;
Fri, 15 May 2015 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [redacted] @faa.gov designates 155.178.252.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=155.178.252.45;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of [redacted] @faa.gov designates 155.178.252.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail= [redacted] @faa.gov
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2BlBADcBVZVgTP8sptZA4JFIX1eBsw3AoE5TAEBAQEBARIBARYzLoQkBS1GGAEVFXwBBBMIDIgYAQSierQbAQsBH4xdgzFJBYMBgRYFnnuGVosqg1iBBIMXb4FFgQEBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,434,1427774400";
d="scan'208,217";a="290818041"
Received: from unknown (HELO email.dot.gov) ([155.178.252.51])
by relay2.faa.gov with ESMTP; 15 May 2015 11:46:03 -0400
Received: from 006FCH1MPN2-011.006f.mgd2.msft.net ([fe80::28e6:b49c:54b:5b8f])
by 006FCH1MMR2-014.006f.mgd2.msft.net ([fe80::d404:97af:57f3:30f6%11]) with
mapi id 14.03.0224.003; Fri, 15 May 2015 15:45:32 +0000
From: < [redacted] @faa.gov>
To: < [redacted] @gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Username "govman" on PhantomPilots.com
Thread-Topic: RE: Username "govman" on PhantomPilots.com
Thread-Index: AdCPHcoW90OvyW3jTXecz57G3eQ+kA==
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:45:32 +0000
Message-ID: <05F0419F5A7358488DFF981DF72849A8BEF4B4@006FCH1MPN2-011.006f.mgd2.msft.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.128.120.110]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_05F0419F5A7358488DFF981DF72849A8BEF4B4006FCH1MPN2011006_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected HQ2
--_000_05F0419F5A7358488DFF981DF72849A8BEF4B4006FCH1MPN2011006_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableNot sure what else I can do to convince you short of conducting a DNA test.
Now my "not so imaginary friend from the FAA" could be a janitor for all I know but it seemed pretty clear he came to PhantomPilots to investigate a report received by the Garden City FSDO of someone flying over 400ft. Everyone here treated him horribly. So no wonder he has not come back. I don't blame him. He had this to say about flying over 400ft:
Pretty clear to me he is stating that the official position of the FAA is that flights over 400ft are illegal. You may not agree. You may not like it. But that is the word on high directly from a government official.
P.S. Steve I think we should change your username to Pavlov.
There is no "basically". It is either this or it is that. Looks like he couldn't quote the specific "law" that prohibits it, so he phrased it as "basically".
There have been "several" agents of the FAA that have had to be reigned in recently, too. From perusing YouTube to look for violations to spouting off things that just aren't true. I'm sure he saw what was happening here, with his involvement, and decided he had better protect himself from his overzealous attitude and skeedaddled. IMHO, of course.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Who's Pavlov ?When my "imaginary friend from the FAA" joined the site, I asked for his less than imaginary FAA email address and to respond on it so I could verify he was actually from the FAA. If he wasn't from the FAA, he sure did a great job of getting access to their mail servers in under 10 minutes:
Code:Delivered-To: [redacted] @gmail.com Received: by 10.112.171.136 with SMTP id au8csp1860025lbc; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.122.138 with SMTP id l10mr13505618qcr.26.1431701210515; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: < [redacted] @faa.gov> Received: from relay2.faa.gov (relay2.faa.gov. [155.178.252.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 14si1615005qht.82.2015.05.15.07.46.49 for < [redacted] @gmail.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [redacted] @faa.gov designates 155.178.252.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=155.178.252.45; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [redacted] @faa.gov designates 155.178.252.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail= [redacted] @faa.gov X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2BlBADcBVZVgTP8sptZA4JFIX1eBsw3AoE5TAEBAQEBARIBARYzLoQkBS1GGAEVFXwBBBMIDIgYAQSierQbAQsBH4xdgzFJBYMBgRYFnnuGVosqg1iBBIMXb4FFgQEBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,434,1427774400"; d="scan'208,217";a="290818041" Received: from unknown (HELO email.dot.gov) ([155.178.252.51]) by relay2.faa.gov with ESMTP; 15 May 2015 11:46:03 -0400 Received: from 006FCH1MPN2-011.006f.mgd2.msft.net ([fe80::28e6:b49c:54b:5b8f]) by 006FCH1MMR2-014.006f.mgd2.msft.net ([fe80::d404:97af:57f3:30f6%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.003; Fri, 15 May 2015 15:45:32 +0000 From: < [redacted] @faa.gov> To: < [redacted] @gmail.com> Subject: RE: Username "govman" on PhantomPilots.com Thread-Topic: RE: Username "govman" on PhantomPilots.com Thread-Index: AdCPHcoW90OvyW3jTXecz57G3eQ+kA== Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:45:32 +0000 Message-ID: <05F0419F5A7358488DFF981DF72849A8BEF4B4@006FCH1MPN2-011.006f.mgd2.msft.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.128.120.110] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05F0419F5A7358488DFF981DF72849A8BEF4B4006FCH1MPN2011006_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected HQ2 --_000_05F0419F5A7358488DFF981DF72849A8BEF4B4006FCH1MPN2011006_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not sure what else I can do to convince you short of conducting a DNA test.
Now my "not so imaginary friend from the FAA" could be a janitor for all I know but it seemed pretty clear he came to PhantomPilots to investigate a report received by the Garden City FSDO of someone flying over 400ft. Everyone here treated him horribly. So no wonder he has not come back. I don't blame him. He had this to say about flying over 400ft:
Pretty clear to me he is stating that the official position of the FAA is that flights over 400ft are illegal. You may not agree. You may not like it. But that is the word on high directly from a government official.
P.S. Steve I think we should change your username to Pavlov.
- Status
Similar threads
