Are you trying this?

[spiderpig]

Interesting thread here. Looking at the initial complaints though....can DJI drones fly reliably at that altitude for long periods of time? I know I get can get 400 feet pretty quickly and still have plenty of battery left...but going up takes more power and especially the higher you go you lose lift capability because of thinner air. So do we know what kind of drones these are that are sitting at these super high altitudes?

 

[Cookedinlh]

Interesting thread here. Looking at the initial complaints though....can DJI drones fly reliably at that altitude for long periods of time? I know I get can get 400 feet pretty quickly and still have plenty of battery left...but going up takes more power and especially the higher you go you lose lift capability because of thinner air. So do we know what kind of drones these are that are sitting at these super high altitudes?

and . . . by the time you get to 3000ft or more the winds aloft can easily exceed 30kts and simply . . . .take you away
There is one interesting YouTube from Turkey . . looks legit but cannot imagine doing that and ever finding your Phantom again .. the video is only 5 min but must have taken 15 min + just to get there. Looks like 12,000feet but we do not see the data. He'd have to average 600ft/min to get there in 20 min . . then what? You can't fight winds at idle power on the way down so seems a bit sketchy. . . but still it's very high obviously with these cloud shots . . .

 

[Cookedinlh]

and . . . by the time you get to 3000ft or more the winds aloft can easily exceed 30kts and simply . . . .take you away
There is one interesting YouTube from Turkey . . looks legit but cannot imagine doing that and ever finding your Phantom again .. the video is only 5 min but must have taken 15 min + just to get there. Looks like 12,000feet but we do not see the data. He'd have to average 600ft/min to get there in 20 min . . then what? You can't fight winds at idle power on the way down so seems a bit sketchy. . . but still it's very high obviously with these cloud shots . . .

This is a fun exercise in fact checking . . . I can now debunk this 12,000ft altitude claim, myself. . . as was done on the comments section of the video itself. The max climb rate of the Phantom4 is around 7m/s. It cannot sustain that rate as it gets higher but if it could then it would take take 10min to get to 12,000ft ASL . . so more likely it took 18-20min then at max decent of another 20 min so the myth is BUSTED! . . . he definitely got well above the clouds . . highly illegal in any jurisdiction, but he never made it above likely 5000ft and the Youtube debunk crowd put it at around 4900ft.

Here's a full engineering/scientific explanation done by some German guys who took it to a detailed level with Phantom 2 maximum climb altitude of a drone
A Phantom 4 may be able to take-off above 12,000ft but it can't climb there from sea level. Couple of other quick clues. The "rec" screen is not anything dji and the "Phantom 4" graphic in the bottom left corner shows Phantom 3 gold bars. . . and there is no sound with a Phantom 4 so the whole think is just a hoax.

 

[spiderpig]

Not to mention at higher altitudes the weather is going to be a lot colder then at ground. So while you might takeoff in 75 degree weather, at 10000 is going to be colder. At some point way below the tolerances of DJI machinery.

So the real question is what drones are pilots seeing at those altitudes?


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[enigmamdw]

IMHO, the answer as to why regulatory agencies are so pessimistic in their risk assessments of birds vs. aircraft has little to do with safety. Sure, that's the catch all phrase, and the nobel intent behind the rule making process, but without a single incident of a drone striking a manned aircraft - let alone doing damage or taking one down - the "if it saves only one child" mentality is at a fever pitch.

Who benefits from drone regulations? Well, we could argue that the flying public does - but if the science proves the risks are minimal (if not zero), then we should look to the next benefactor. Certainly not the drone producers. Arguably, the drone market in the US has been stifled by both uncertainty of pending regulation, and now over regulation. With the near-hysteria levels of ant-drone media reports (i.e. trash bags at 10k feet are reported as drones and aircrew are injured by evasive actions taken to avoid impact, etc), the public clearly feels a visceral fear and repulsion to drones. Whether it's a direct threat to safety, or someone losing their privacy, the public has been conditioned (if not outright brainwashed) into believing that a drone, any drone, is used only for nefarious purposes.

So with the aid of media, and the perpetual fear drum being beaten by the FAA (remember, it was a .gov employee who crash landed his Phantom on the White House lawn), a perceived problem exists that only the government can solve. This is the equivalent to someone breaking your leg, and then when you can't walk, you thank them for giving you crutches. So, again, IMHO, the benefactor is .gov. Their own actions have created the fear we witness, and now, they arrive as heroes to save us. Political points for new regs.

The ability to force all operators to bow and comply (register and pay a fee), showing the populace once again that they cannot safely exist without government protection, is an added perk.

Color me cynical, but I don't for a second think these regs have anything to do with safety. Just like TSA has nothing to do with protecting passengers. It's theater. And we're buying patrons. /rant off.

FINALLY, someone else says it.