3DR Solo Maximun altitude without limit ?

[Lon Denard]

Well flying above 400 ft is just totally irresponsible. ...enough said

Meh, I'm not sure that I understand that way of thinking. What exactly is the danger above 400 feet? Where I'm flying an aircraft wouldn't be allowed to fly under about 1,300 feet or so. Not to mention that I've never even seen an aircraft off any kind in this area. It would be an extraordinary circumstance to be sure.

It's like when were doing 150+ on our bikes. Of course I know it's against the rules and there's always someone that has to point that out and complain that it "reflects on all bikers"... Maybe but any consequences will be mine alone so... The guy asked a question and I answered it. As apparently the only person to ever fly above 400 feet of the ground, I guess I'm the only one qualified to answer.

 

[Lon Denard]

As far as why you might want to fly that high, well you get some incredible footage for sure. I'd post some but considering how many Girl Scouts we have here, I'd probably get narc'd on.

For what it's worth, just like riding motorcycles at high speeds, you have to pick your spots to minimize the risk.

 

[Lon Denard]

Btw...

 

[bokaevieja]

Meh, I'm not sure that I understand that way of thinking. What exactly is the danger above 400 feet? Where I'm flying an aircraft wouldn't be allowed to fly under about 1,300 feet or so. Not to mention that I've never even seen an aircraft off any kind in this area. It would be an extraordinary circumstance to be sure.

It's like when were doing 150+ on our bikes. Of course I know it's against the rules and there's always someone that has to point that out and complain that it "reflects on all bikers"... Maybe but any consequences will be mine alone so... The guy asked a question and I answered it. As apparently the only person to ever fly above 400 feet of the ground, I guess I'm the only one qualified to answer.

Thanks, I got new propellers, and new battery, and Alfa antenna for this moment.

 

[Deleted member 7413]

I agree 100%. I believe that for the most part, this is why authorities have placed restriction that have limited flying our 'toy' for recreation use and spoiled it for those of us who do fly responsible :O

 

[Bilge]

Flying responsibly would not be over 400 ft AGL......it is going to take one incident by those reckless & irresponsible few that fly over this limit to ruin it for everyone.....Period

Lon,

Pic of your girlfriend or wife.....do you pop wheelies & lane split at the same time on that cycle of yours too.....just curious....

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Presumably, if you followed the Solo up in a helicopter or by being otherwise lifted up, the battery would be your only limitation.

It would run out of air density long before it runs out of battery. Although when it reaches that point, it will be at 100% throttle just to hover and the battery will die very fast.

 

[pyrate]

Meh, I'm not sure that I understand that way of thinking. What exactly is the danger above 400 feet? Where I'm flying an aircraft wouldn't be allowed to fly under about 1,300 feet or so. Not to mention that I've never even seen an aircraft off any kind in this area. It would be an extraordinary circumstance to be sure.

It's like when were doing 150+ on our bikes. Of course I know it's against the rules and there's always someone that has to point that out and complain that it "reflects on all bikers"... Maybe but any consequences will be mine alone so... The guy asked a question and I answered it. As apparently the only person to ever fly above 400 feet of the ground, I guess I'm the only one qualified to answer.

the thumb your nose at the rules people are why the hobby is already regulated too much and sadly one of the clowns who thinks it is ok to fly a drone into altitudes occupied by manned aircraft will eventually do something epically stupid and ruin it for everyone. But they don't care, it is all about them

 

[Lon Denard]

Flying responsibly would not be over 400 ft AGL......it is going to take one incident by those reckless & irresponsible few that fly over this limit to ruin it for everyone.....Period

Lon,

Pic of your girlfriend or wife.....do you pop wheelies & lane split at the same time on that cycle of yours too.....just curious....

If I didn't learn anything else when I was in airborne, I learned this. How to balance risk vs reward. I rode in such a way that I fulfill my goals while minimizing my risk.

The thing for me is that everyone plays the goody goody but have you ever broken the speed limit? Ever have a couple drinks and drove? Got high and drove? Had unprotected sex? Etc,etc,etc... I won't sit in judgement of you...

Like I said before, 400 feet is some number they pulled out of their butts. What does it represent? By an airport it makes sense, out in the middle of no where, not so much. This notion that you all will be punished based on my actions is ridiculous and an argument I've heard a hundred times. From motorcycles to guns it's always the same. "All it takes is one irresponsible person, baaahhh, bleat." Like somehow it'll be okay if some dude crashes his drone into a crowd but was flying under 400 feet. Yeesh.

 

[Lon Denard]

Here's another thing, "ruin" what exactly? You all keep saying that, I'm just not sure what you're talking about. People die on motorcycles every year and they're not illegal. They die from cigarette smoking, guns, fast cars, alcohol, sex, etc. I want to know what planet you're from that makes you think that it's possible for a Solo to crash a commercial aircraft over 5 miles away from an airport. What would those circumstances even be?

 

[Lon Denard]

What's funny to me is when I pointed out how dangerous the Solo is inherently because of its many design problems. It's sudden failures, fly aways, etc. You all told me to suck it up and that it was part of Solo ownership. I only fly where there's almost no people because I'm just waiting for the next failure or fly away. Somehow you seemed convinced that this thing is safe at 400 feet but 405? DANGER, DANGER, DANGER!

 

[Whirlygig]

If I didn't learn anything else when I was in airborne, I learned this. How to balance risk vs reward. I rode in such a way that I fulfill my goals while minimizing my risk...

The thing for me is that everyone plays the goody goody but have you ever broken the speed limit? Ever have a couple drinks and drove? Got high and drove? Had unprotected sex? Etc,etc,etc... I won't sit in judgement of you...

Like I said before, 400 feet is some number they pulled out of their butts. What does it represent? By an airport it makes sense, out in the middle of no where, not so much. This notion that you all will be punished based on my actions is ridiculous and an argument I've heard a hundred times. From motorcycles to guns it's always the same. "All it takes is one irresponsible person, baaahhh, bleat." Like somehow it'll be okay if some dude crashes his drone into a crowd but was flying under 400 feet. Yeesh.

I thought one rationale for 400 feet ceiling is that navigable airspace begins at 500 feet so you have a buffer zone. I am curious what you mean by when I was in airborne? As in when I was flying my drone at 1300 feet or when I was a Ranger?

 

[Lon Denard]

I thought one rationale for 400 feet ceiling is that navigable airspace begins at 500 feet so you have a buffer zone. I am curious what you mean by when I was in airborne? As in when I was flying my drone at 1300 feet or when I was a Ranger?

I wasn't a "Ranger" although I tried it for Delta, didn't make it. Just regular Airborne. 11B, B4 cert, jump cert, 16R gunner.

I understand the stated bologna, but I know for a fact that commercial aircraft, which is what these guys keep talking about, fly in the thousands of feet above the ground. In fact, it's unusual to fly below 8 or 9 thousand feet unless there's a problem, ie cabin pressure, landing gear, etc. Some of you talk as if there's 747s passing overhead at 500 feet. It's like when people freak out if you fire a gun in the air. What exactly do you think is going to happen 30+ miles from the nearest airport?

 

[Lon Denard]

In any case, the guy asked a question and I answered it honestly. I promise I won't criticize you the next time you're driving 40 mph in a 35 mph zone. Oh wait, that can't happen because you all follow the rules to the letter 24/7.

 

[Whirlygig]

...Just regular Airborne. 11B, B4 cert, jump cert, 16R gunner...It's like when people freak out if you fire a gun in the air. What exactly do you think is going to happen 30+ miles from the nearest airport?

Airborne is airborne! Thank you for service. I agree that 400 feet may seem overly conservative if you are out in boonies where you know other aircraft never fly. But, everyone benefits from nice, clear rules that can be evenly and objectively applied. If the rule said we recommend you fly below 400 feet but feel free to fly as high as you think appropriate on that particular day and circumstance, we would have chaos.

Now, I have to point something out with all due respect. Your example of firing a bullet into the air is actually a classic example of reckless endangerment under state criminal law because you have no way to know where bullet will land. I researched this once and was surprised how many times people have been injured or killed by randomly falling bullets. Of course, this is typically in urban environment but still.

 

[Whirlygig]

In any case, the guy asked a question and I answered it honestly. I promise I won't criticize you the next time you're driving 40 mph in a 35 mph zone. Oh wait, that can't happen because you all follow the rules to the letter 24/7.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Lon, I use this one a lot myself. But, in my experience it only goes so far. BTW at 1300 feet were you above any heavy cloud cover? Im kidding. Please do not tell me. I really dont want to know!

 

[Lon Denard]

Airborne is airborne! Thank you for service. I agree that 400 feet may seem overly conservative if you are out in boonies where you know other aircraft never fly. But, everyone benefits from nice, clear rules that can be evenly and objectively applied. If the rule said we recommend you fly below 400 feet but feel free to fly as high as you think appropriate on that particular day and circumstance, we would have chaos.

Now, I have to point something out with all due respect. Your example of firing a bullet into the air is actually a classic example of reckless endangerment under state criminal law because you have no way to know where bullet will land. I researched this once and was surprised how many times people have been injured or killed by randomly falling bullets. Of course, this is typically in urban environment but still.

Sorry, my example was in reference to aircraft. I'm saying that someone could have commercial aircraft anxiety over guys duck hunting or skeet shooting. I fully understand that bullets have to return to the ground eventually. I'm talking probability of occurrence.

I like using the speed limit as a reference because based on a lot of guys here, flying over 400 feet in the middle of no where is irresponsible but I guarantee that many of them break the speed limit every day by some degree without a second thought. I promise you that the probability of an occurrence is exponentially higher in your car in a 2d matrix than mine in a 3d matrix with an 2x2x1 object.

 

[Lon Denard]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Lon, I use this one a lot myself. But, in my experience it only goes so far. BTW at 1300 feet were you above any heavy cloud cover? Im kidding. Please do not tell me. I really dont want to know!

I think the "he without sin" quote refers to the fact that we'll all be judged by a higher power that is without sin. My other favorite is "when you point a finger at someone else, you have three fingers pointing back at you".

In reference to your question, I almost never fly out of site. Any time I've done this I've been able to watch the unit all the way up.

 

[User Name]

I understand the stated bologna, but I know for a fact that commercial aircraft, which is what these guys keep talking about, fly in the thousands of feet above the ground.

But aren't you then arguing that only large commercial aircraft are the focus of the law, as opposed to all aircraft? My father had a small Cessna, and we rarely flew more than 1500 to maybe 2500 feet, and it was not uncommon to be well below 1000.

Laws have to be somewhat blanket, it would simply be too difficult to adhere to them if they attempted to maximize people's freedom while addressing every possible eventuality. I do agree with you that under the right circumstances, flying above the 400 foot maximum is perfectly safe, or as safe as flying an aircraft incapable of controlled descent in a failure situation can be. But that's why you CAN request and be granted permission to do this. I wouldn't do it just for s*&ts and giggles, but if I had a reason - film opportunity, research, etc., I could and would request permission from local authorities to do it legally.

I do roll my eyes a bit at the 400 foot Nazis who blast every video though, even without checking to see if it was from a country without such rules. There's nothing magical about the US's laws, and if other countries have established different laws, or who's population is responsible enough to not have forced their government into making such laws, then they're entirely within their rights and shouldn't be criticized.

 

[Lon Denard]

But aren't you then arguing that only large commercial aircraft are the focus of the law, as opposed to all aircraft? My father had a small Cessna, and we rarely flew more than 1500 to maybe 2500 feet, and it was not uncommon to be well below 1000.

Laws have to be somewhat blanket, it would simply be too difficult to adhere to them if they attempted to maximize people's freedom while addressing every possible eventuality. I do agree with you that under the right circumstances, flying above the 400 foot maximum is perfectly safe, or as safe as flying an aircraft incapable of controlled descent in a failure situation can be. But that's why you CAN request and be granted permission to do this. I wouldn't do it just for s*&ts and giggles, but if I had a reason - film opportunity, research, etc., I could and would request permission from local authorities to do it legally.

I do roll my eyes a bit at the 400 foot Nazis who blast every video though, even without checking to see if it was from a country without such rules. There's nothing magical about the US's laws, and if other countries have established different laws, or who's population is responsible enough to not have forced their government into making such laws, then they're entirely within their rights and shouldn't be criticized.

To an extent you're right and I can appreciate your reasoning. I also appreciate the fact that in several countries this 400 foot law is meaningless and can not be applied. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet that the op is not in this country but it's hard to say.

As far as the commercial aircraft question goes. They keep using the words "commercial aircraft". Words mean things and "commercial aircraft" are not allowed to fly below 1000 of the top of the tallest building within a 1000 foot radius. Whether or not your father took his presumed private aircraft below 1000 feet isn't germaine to the conversation about commercial aircraft. I know it's fun to pick apart someone's post to find fault. Btw if your father was flying his plane below 1000 feet in a populated area, I'm pretty sure he was breaking some rules himself.

Like I've said many times, the probability of a collision between my solo at 401 feet is immeasurable. Even at 1000 feet, for the very few minutes you might risk it given Solo's battery life, weak wifi, spotty gps and proclivity for sudden failure. I contend that the possibility of an aircraft flying below 1000 feet, in a city, at the same exact time, in the same exact place as the 2x2x1 Solo AND you couldn't see it coming. Well from a risk management standpoint, I am certain that it's much more likely that your Solo will fly off and crash causing a car accident a few miles away.

Seriously, if the argument is that "it's the rules" then okay but I'll go back to the speed limit argument. If for some reason, you're convinced that 400 feet is somehow the magic safety height because of your own research, I'd like to hear how you independently came to this conclusion. If you're just bleating this number because all of the rest of the sheep do, well that's just sad.