Who will register their Phantom with the FAA?

[BigAl07]

I had to go back and rethink the 1800 AGL foot thing. I had done that calculation using TOPO USA and figuring I my flight may take me directly over the river but it didn't. Looking at the video the trees directly below my flight path may have been pushing 400 AGL but that could be debatable. I would hate to admit to some violation I never actually committed. lol

The question I would like to pose to some of our in the seat pilots, Where can you fly in canyons and over tops of mountains? Do you need wingtip clearance or can you scrape the canyon walls on the way through? If I am at the top of El Capitan, launch from the top can I expect occupied aircraft to fly within 200 or 300 feet of a vertical cliff? How far out from a cliff can I feel safe I will not encounter a sight seeing group of airplane riders and pilot? I am sometimes concerned when I take off at 12,000 and go up 400 feet AGL, How much clearance do flyboys keep above a 12,000 foot summit?

Maybe @Gantech or @SportPilotAviation could help.

Lots of "variables" in those questions above. Technically going over anything *summit, hilltop etc* the aircraft would maintain required minimums (500', 1000' or whatever their current restrictions allow). In theory the flight path is ever changing to compensate for the varied terrain IF the pilot is "scud running" or trying to fly at the very min allowed flight. To make flight easier and a whole lot safer many GA pilots will find the tallest item on the sectional chart and maintain MIN clearance above that item. That way you're always "in the good". Also keep in mind that the altimeter on the aircraft is only as accurate as the settings dialed into the device. It's not an exact science unless you know some other "local" details and set the altimeter accordingly.

To further muddy the water it depends on what the operation of the aircraft is. MediVac, Forrest Fire etc would have very different operating altitudes than a fly through scenic flight.

Also in regards to "wing clearance" that depends on the pilot. Most will error on the side of safety and not get down into a situation like that but some are braver than others and are willing to sneak in low and close. I'm not sure what the regs are for "Canyon wall clearance" but I would imagine it's something similar to other clearance with a min being preset (500', 100' 1 mile etc) I just don't know what it is.

 

[Chuck Young]

Lots of "variables" in those questions above. Technically going over anything *summit, hilltop etc* the aircraft would maintain required minimums (500', 1000' or whatever their current restrictions allow). In theory the flight path is ever changing to compensate for the varied terrain IF the pilot is "scud running" or trying to fly at the very min allowed flight. To make flight easier and a whole lot safer many GA pilots will find the tallest item on the sectional chart and maintain MIN clearance above that item. That way you're always "in the good". Also keep in mind that the altimeter on the aircraft is only as accurate as the settings dialed into the device. It's not an exact science unless you know some other "local" details and set the altimeter accordingly.

To further muddy the water it depends on what the operation of the aircraft is. MediVac, Forrest Fire etc would have very different operating altitudes than a fly through scenic flight.

Also in regards to "wing clearance" that depends on the pilot. Most will error on the side of safety and not get down into a situation like that but some are braver than others and are willing to sneak in low and close. I'm not sure what the regs are for "Canyon wall clearance" but I would imagine it's something similar to other clearance with a min being preset (500', 100' 1 mile etc) I just don't know what it is.

I think I will run up to my local airport and talk with the folks up there. I started working on aircraft both as an electrician and avionics in the Navy some 30 years ago. The aircraft's instruments including the altimeter was my specialty. Radar altimeter would be the only thing I would trust almost 100% personally for elevation. In my area of Colorado mountain peaks are easily 13,000 feet and many in the area are over 14,000'. I have to assume pilots in this area would prefer to use the large deep canyons as corridors, but I don't know that for sure. I live along a nice canyon from Silverthorne at 8750' to Kremmling Colorado at 7350', mountain ranges on either side are 12-13K. I hardly ever see small planes outside that unless it is a jetliner at 20K+ or Flight for Life/Military. Occasionally we get pilot on the wild side buzzing our lake side community at 100' or less, most are flying at 9-10K through our 6-8 mile wide valley.

 

[BigAl07]

I think I will run up to my local airport and talk with the folks up there. I started working on aircraft both as an electrician and avionics in the Navy some 30 years ago. The aircraft's instruments including the altimeter was my specialty. Radar altimeter would be the only thing I would trust almost 100% personally for elevation. In my area of Colorado mountain peaks are easily 13,000 feet and many in the area are over 14,000'. I have to assume pilots in this area would prefer to use the large deep canyons as corridors, but I don't know that for sure. I live along a nice canyon from Silverthorne at 8750' to Kremmling Colorado at 7350', mountain ranges on either side are 12-13K. I hardly ever see small planes outside that unless it is a jetliner at 20K+ or Flight for Life/Military. Occasionally we get pilot on the wild side buzzing our lake side community at 100' or less, most are flying at 9-10K through our 6-8 mile wide valley.

All I can say for sure is the planes I fly can NOT get over those peaks nor would I ever try. I'd be scud running through the canyons or go the long way around LOL! The 172's I fly would be tapping out anywhere over 10K and even then it would have to be ideal conditions.

Local pilots are a huge resource and you'll find most are very interested (many already involved) in R/C aircraft. I went for my BFR a while back and my instructor loved my P3P and is planning to get one for himself right after CHRISTmas. Most pilots love anything that flies well so long as it doesn't jeopardize their livelihood or safety.

 

[Chuck Young]

All I can say for sure is the planes I fly can NOT get over those peaks nor would I ever try. I'd be scud running through the canyons or go the long way around LOL! The 172's I fly would be tapping out anywhere over 10K and even then it would have to be ideal conditions.

Local pilots are a huge resource and you'll find most are very interested (many already involved) in R/C aircraft. I went for my BFR a while back and my instructor loved my P3P and is planning to get one for himself right after CHRISTmas. Most pilots love anything that flies well so long as it doesn't jeopardize their livelihood or safety.

Thanks for the information @BigAl07 , Maybe I will get an offer of a helicopter ride up to one of our communications sites from our lucky guys with the chopper. This pilot I am sure would love to talk flying! Flown with this guy quite a number of times, he is an excellent pilot and a huge wealth of information, very much trust him with my life. But I bet I will have to ride the Snowmobile or drive the Snowcat instead. We are in for a few feet of fresh powder in the next few days. WooHoo!

BTW, that is the canyon I referred to, our lake and little town on the shore at the base of Eagle's Nest.

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks for the information @BigAl07 , Maybe I will get an offer of a helicopter ride up to one of our communications sites from our lucky guys with the chopper. This pilot I am sure would love to talk flying! Flown with this guy quite a number of times, he is an excellent pilot and a huge wealth of information, very much trust him with my life. But I bet I will have to ride the Snowmobile or drive the Snowcat instead. We are in for a few feet of fresh powder in the next few days. WooHoo!

Insert a JEALOUS smiley here!

LOL!

 

[Chuck Young]

Insert a JEALOUS smiley here!

LOL!

Never really liked flying in those little Cessna but I have taken off in them a bunch, just not landed in them very often, Give me a parachute if I have to fly in one of them. That way I can jump out when it can't climb any higher!

 

[Brad Pierce]

I think it would be an incredible positive experience, if all droners(nonpilots) were to take an online course in the National Airspace System. As a full scale pilot, I'm addicted to aviation. (anything that fly's really..) And learning about the system is exciting and builds confidence in would be pilots. AOPA and the FAA have many free online courses you can take and they'r pretty fun. It's too bad the FAA is not giving the uas people an opportunity to learn more by advertising there courses. I think the reg system is a wast of time and safety would better served offering a type of certification in course offerings. As I'v seen in the past, when someone gets into the RC hobby, usually they go full tilt to learn "everything possible". Cause it's such a fun place to live. Happy to all!

 

[BigAl07]

I think it would be an incredible positive experience, if all droners(nonpilots) were to take an online course in the National Airspace System. As a full scale pilot, I'm addicted to aviation. (anything that fly's really..) And learning about the system is exciting and builds confidence in would be pilots. AOPA and the FAA have many free online courses you can take and they'r pretty fun. It's too bad the FAA is not giving the uas people an opportunity to learn more by advertising there courses. I think the reg system is a wast of time and safety would better served offering a type of certification in course offerings. As I'v seen in the past, when someone gets into the RC hobby, usually they go full tilt to learn "everything possible". Cause it's such a fun place to live. Happy to all!

Very true Brad.

On the plus side the "UAS/NAS" training in something that is being designed but the time frame for implementation is unknown right now. I'm afraid every step the FAA takes in regards to UAS ends up being 1 step forward and 3 steps back.

Ultimately there will be a UAS/NAS training course and once you have that under your belt a lot of the hows/whys of the current regs tend to make more sense.

Aviation tends to get in your blood and take hold LOL!

 

[regdawg]

I think it would be an incredible positive experience, if all droners(nonpilots) were to take an online course in the National Airspace System. As a full scale pilot, I'm addicted to aviation. (anything that fly's really..) And learning about the system is exciting and builds confidence in would be pilots. AOPA and the FAA have many free online courses you can take and they'r pretty fun. It's too bad the FAA is not giving the uas people an opportunity to learn more by advertising there courses. I think the reg system is a wast of time and safety would better served offering a type of certification in course offerings. As I'v seen in the past, when someone gets into the RC hobby, usually they go full tilt to learn "everything possible". Cause it's such a fun place to live. Happy to all!

I can relate to that...LoL. When I got into RC Trucks years ago, I went all out. I got out of it because it was getting to expensive. Welp.....here I am now with drones...LoL. Its not in my blood, but its fun!

 

[GadgetGuy]

The comment was more towards the folks modifying the antennas making the P3S fly further than what was mandated by the FCC. Now that registration is in effect, I was thinking it's somewhat silly to post a video of your modifications and you going well beyond the stock limitation.

I saw this in my manual. It's in there for a reason, right?

Good point, but that has less to do with flying beyond VLOS and is really about modding the transmitter. With the stock unmodded P3P transmitter, even without a windsurfer concentrator, I am reaching over 3 miles, and anything past 1000 feet is completely beyond VLOS, and still 100% legal for hobbyists.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Half right.

I posted my story twice already on this board so I won't repeat my story. Suffice to say.. here's the scenario:

I am taking off from a house on a hill overlooking Pacific ocean. The house is about 650 feet above sea level.

I flew up about 150 feet AGL from the house and head out to ocean to take some video of the coast line and etc.

So.. technically by the time I get down to the coast line, I am 800 feet AGL right? At that point, I don't even know if I trust the altitude reading of my Phantom (and the answer is you shouldn't as I end up crashing into side of the hill about 150 feet below ground level where I took off from (a net lost of 300 feet from flying to ocean and back).

The Phantom has no idea where ground is. It only measures barometric altitude changes from your launch point. It's the responsibility of the pilot to interpolate that displayed elevation change from your launch point into an AGL number, based upon the topography of the terrain you are flying over, using a topo map, which will tell you the difference in ground elevation relative to your launch point. Knowing the MSL elevation of your launch point is critical. It is rarely zero, unless you are on the beach, which is what DJI GO assumes, along with a completely flat earth!

 

[RadRich]

Good point, but that has less to do with flying beyond VLOS and is really about modding the transmitter. With the stock unmodded P3P transmitter, even without a windsurfer concentrator, I am reaching over 3 miles, and anything past 1000 feet is completely beyond VLOS, and still 100% legal for hobbyists.

I think I'll believe what is posted on the FAA site versus someone that makes a blanket statement like you made. Your comment doesn't hold any weight and it goes against what the FAA has stated. They're a reason why DJI called your model the "Professional" model...Just saying.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Again, my original note to self was due to the fact that I'm in the process of modding my Tx so it can fly further. However, now that I'm registered and I'm not ignorant of most of these FAA rules, I'd be stupid to post my videos 1) stating that I modded it, and 2) showing how far it goes. Not calling anyone else stupid, I said "I'd be stupid". I don't care what other people do with their situation.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I think I'll believe what is posted on the FAA site versus someone that makes a blanket statement like you made. Your comment doesn't hold any weight and it goes against what the FAA has stated. They're a reason why DJI called your model the "Professional" model...Just saying.

View attachment 38281
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Again, my original note to self was due to the fact that I'm in the process of modding my Tx so it can fly further. However, now that I'm registered and I'm not ignorant of most of these FAA rules, I'd be stupid to post my videos 1) stating that I modded it, and 2) showing how far it goes. Not calling anyone else stupid, I said "I'd be stupid". I don't care what other people do with their situation.

I believe you are confusing Model Aircraft with our drones. Model Aircraft include fixed wing aircraft flown by modelers under AMA Rules which now have also been classified as UAS's and must also now register with the FAA. Their UAS classification does not change their previous requirement to still adhere to their VLOS Rules. For all drone hobbyists, the Guidelines are still guidelines and not Rules. You cannot be cited for violating a Guideline, unless you are also flying recklessly, in which case it is the reckless flying that you can be cited for, and not the failure to follow any Guideline. If you have any other basis to refute my summary of the current state of the law, please share it.

Enjoy your transmitter mod, and get a battery mod to support the increased range, and you'll be in drone nirvana! Just post your YouTube videos as either private or unlisted, to keep flying safely under the radar!

 

[teaman]

Ah, yes, completely forgot about that lol

So what's the big deal about this whole registration thing anyways? What is there to really be afraid of?

They will allow public searching of your name, address or ID number. That is a huge invasion of privacy! Bad people can find all those with drones and come after you.

 

[fordruid]

They will allow public searching of your name, address or ID number. That is a huge invasion of privacy! Bad people can find all those with drones and come after you.

Got a link? I can find one for N numbers, 333 exempts, but nothing for the new hobby UAS registration. I wanna see what it says about me.

 

[teaman]

Got a link? I can find one for N numbers, 333 exempts, but nothing for the new hobby UAS registration. I wanna see what it says about me.

They say the search feature is not available right away that it will come later. Here's the story link: FAA Finally Admits Names And Home Addresses In Drone Registry Will Be Publicly Available

 

[fordruid]

I just read it, "searchable by registration number". Since my number is inside the battery box, something went wrong for John Doe to get my info. At that point maybe he will contact me so I can get it back or I can take responsibility for my actions as needed.
Am I missing something (not picking a fight, really want to know)

 

[RadRich]

You can pay $2.95 to look up anybody via their license plate: Nationwide Driving Records Search - VehicleDataRegsitry.com

 

[teaman]

I just read it, "searchable by registration number". Since my number is inside the battery box, something went wrong for John Doe to get my info. At that point maybe he will contact me so I can get it back or I can take responsibility for my actions as needed.
Am I missing something (not picking a fight, really want to know)

From the article... "
Not considering this a clear answer, I replied, “my reading of the DOT policy is that if someone requests the name and address of a drone registrant the information will be released by the FAA....”
I got an answer that may not make many hobbyists very happy."

The name/address info apparently would be made eventually available to public search.

 

[teaman]

You can pay $2.95 to look up anybody via their license plate: Nationwide Driving Records Search - VehicleDataRegsitry.com

When I'm flying at a public location such as at the beach, it would be challenging to associate the right vehicle (mine) with the drone owner. Yes if someone was very determined to track you down they probably could. But why make it easy for them?
I think that search should be limited to the ID number only. That way law enforcement can look that up when they possess a crashed drone. But for any Joe to search who have a drone in their neighborhood so they can throw eggs at their house or TP their yard or whatever... why make it easy? It's none of their business.