A Distance and Altitude Question

[MadProphet]

I live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, so there's no shortage of ridges and valleys to fly in. One of the destinations I've considered is a (currently) unmanned fire observation tower. Aside from the numbers I'm about to mention, there's no flight restrictions at either the launch site nor the destination.

My launch would be from one ridge at about (according to Google maps) 2400'. The destination is straight across the uninhabited valley, around 5400' away. It's also at about 3200' of elevation or 800' above the launch.

I know vlos by itself would present some challenges, so I know there's an argument against the idea right there. My real question is the difference in altitude. I could fly across the valley at near the launch altitude, then ascend once I'm near the opposing ridge. Along the way, there's views of the river below, a couple seasonal waterfalls to shoot and then the destination itself for some photo ops.

There's also numerous raptors and treacherous terrain (read: impossible) that would swallow the Mavic whole, never to be seen again. Still, it looks so cool.

So, is this one of those ideas better imagined than realized? And, vlos aside (or loss of same), does it violate any rules?

 

[Mossiback]

Well... you already know about the VLOS rule that will be broken. You are supposed to keep it within 400' of the ground and you did not state how deep the valley is but you could drop down while crossing it to satisfy that rule.

I guess you would have to weigh the benefits against the risks. Personally, I would not risk it but if you do I suggest you travel to the farthest point first and perhaps shoot the waterfalls and other photo ops on a second run. Pay close attention to the winds and remember that they can change suddenly in a mountainous environment. While traveling scope out possible emergency landing sites that you could reach.

 

[MadProphet]

The height above the valley floor I simply skipped over. It's very narrow down there, perhaps 100' across in some spots. The rest of the flight would be over rapidly ascending / descending valley walls. Still, more than likely I'm going to be at least 5-600' over the floor.

 

[Just_nick]

The height above the valley floor I simply skipped over. It's very narrow down there, perhaps 100' across in some spots. The rest of the flight would be over rapidly ascending / descending valley walls. Still, more than likely I'm going to be at least 5-600' over the floor.

You're violating two things, then: VLOS and altitude. If you lose your drone, very few people will sympathize for you, especially since you're here trying to justify and garner support for ignoring the rules. This attitude is precisely why we have bills being passed that will restrict other fliers.

 

[EdM]

There are only two limiting factors that I can see in this. The wind and your experience level. If it was me and I wanted the shot I would go for it in a heartbeat.

 

[MadProphet]

You're violating two things, then: VLOS and altitude. If you lose your drone, very few people will sympathize for you, especially since you're here trying to justify and garner support for ignoring the rules. This attitude is precisely why we have bills being passed that will restrict other fliers.

Did not realize asking a question was either trying to justify an action nor seeking support. And I'm not sure why you think I'd need either. Lastly, I figured stating that it would be lost if crashed kinda said that I wouldn't be looking for a shoulder to cry on.
I had not considered altitude crossing the valley, granted. But it was folks pointing out what I might have overlooked that I was hoping for. I imagine I can descend the requisite distance, then climb again. I'm going on the assumption that AGL on the valley sides, providing it's not more than 400', should address height.
As an aside, I call every airport and seaplane tower I should, I did register with the FAA and I've flown a total of seven days. I know I have some things to learn which is why I'm asking. And I am asking first, not posting a link to my video. So, yeah, I'm the guy driving new legislation.

 

[Mavflyer]

Did not realize asking a question was either trying to justify an action nor seeking support. And I'm not sure why you think I'd need either. Lastly, I figured stating that it would be lost if crashed kinda said that I wouldn't be looking for a shoulder to cry on.
I had not considered altitude crossing the valley, granted. But it was folks pointing out what I might have overlooked that I was hoping for. I imagine I can descend the requisite distance, then climb again. I'm going on the assumption that AGL on the valley sides, providing it's not more than 400', should address height.
As an aside, I call every airport and seaplane tower I should, I did register with the FAA and I've flown a total of seven days. I know I have some things to learn which is why I'm asking. And I am asking first, not posting a link to my video. So, yeah, I'm the guy driving new legislation.

Just do it. Planes aren't going to be flying in between those ridges. You just have to ignore some of the people here.

 

[MadProphet]

Funny. When I called the local tower to tell them I'd be flying in one of the nearby valleys, he said the exact same thing. But thanks for calling.

 

[neggy]

GOOD strobes can solve the VLOS issue, a mile is easily flown with Cree Strobon's properly configured.
You could also argue that if you had people acting as visual observers somewhere below you have met the VLOS requirement .... just gotta be able to communicate.

You could argue that the canyon floor is BELOW " Average Ground Level" if it is that confined an area.

We can argue law and FAR's all day I guess, but safe operation is more of a concern to the FAA than FAR's.
Where the FAA will hang you is for unsafe operation causing an accident or incident. There are no FAA police out there looking for drones.


The thing that will determine if the flight was conducted safely will be your not flying over people, roads, and being able to see and avoid other aircraft. Also you really need to be aware of winds in the area, winds do funny things near changes in elevations, geography, etc. You really want to make sure that if you get out there, and spend some time taking pictures / video, that you are going to have enough battery or motor to get back. More than one sUAV has been lost due to its inability to get thru winds, or burning thru battery reserves attempting to do so.

As for birds..... you are on your own

 

[tcope]

You're violating two things, then: VLOS and altitude.

Not sure why people still think that there is an altitude limit for hobby flight. There is none.

This attitude is precisely why we have bills being passed that will restrict other fliers.

People not knowing what rules apply to their flight is also why new laws are passed. They are confusing... obviously.

 

[tcope]

You could also argue that if you had people acting as visual observers somewhere below you have met the VLOS requirement .... just gotta be able to communicate.

You could argue this for hobby flight... and lose 100% of the time. According to the FAA for hobby flight, VLOS is by the operator. What you are referring to his flying under Part 107 only.

 

[Mad Mavic]

Do it! Remember that descending requires power to keep the drone from exceeding 45 mph. Something I found out the hard way. I watched a YouTube video of a guy that reduced his altitude by shutting down the drone and just before impact, he restarted the drone and went throttle up to reverse the decent. One gutsy move that I have got to get down pat.

I flew up a 400 foot high hill to just under 400 AGL, 1600 ASL. on the climb up I was bucking a head wind and flying a zig zag pattern doing some sightseeing. At the top I got a RTH alarm after using only 35% battery. My Low battery warning was set 50% first warning and 10 landing. I allowed the unit to continue its RTH maneuver. Upon landing, the battery level was 11% which told me i was burning a lot of power going down hill in a tail wind.

I want to attach a safety line that would catch the drone should I fail on the restart . It would definitely give a pilot a lot more battery life if they could perfect the start/stop maneuver.

a rough estimate could be made on the ground by simply shutting the drone down and noting the time it takes to restart. Factor that into the Mavis's rate of decent and I feel this could prove beneficiary,

 

[MadProphet]

The reason I discounted VLOS was because I believed it could be mitigated exactly as suggested. Typing posts on a phone sometimes means leaving out details.

Aside from the rule-based challenges, the things that worry me are wind and a malfunction (for the reason already mentioned). I've had a couple interesting encounters with birds so they too remain a concern, but one that could strike at any distance. The wind, however, is certainly a real issue.

Flying on a day with low winds and going as early in the morning as possible would help. Since sunsets are supposed to be amazing, it would be cool to be there for that and winds typically subside just following sunset but I ain't pushing it! It would have to be soon as our summers are brutally hot and often combine with high winds (one of the reasons for the tower).

Thank you for the food for thought.

 

[RayOZ]

I know rules get thrown around a lot... They are in place to avoid hurting other people or property. In normal urban areas, with open space, there's possibly manned aircraft flying about, usually no less than 500'. Height limit of 400' for UAVs means a 100' gap for safety. VLOS is so you can see if an aircraft might approach your drone.
When you are in the middle of no where, and confirm there's no manned aircraft about, it poses no danger to anyone. If there's a valley, unless it's big and wide that manned aircraft pilots enjoy flying into, it doesn't poses any danger. It doesn't mean you need to descend down the valley to maintain 400' AGL and ascend again at the other side.
Use a bit of common sense. Ensure safety for yourself and others at all times.
Possible risk in this scenario is wind, raptors, loss of connection and loss of drone.

 

[AnzacJack]

Did not realize asking a question was either trying to justify an action nor seeking support. And I'm not sure why you think I'd need either. Lastly, I figured stating that it would be lost if crashed kinda said that I wouldn't be looking for a shoulder to cry on.
I had not considered altitude crossing the valley, granted. But it was folks pointing out what I might have overlooked that I was hoping for. I imagine I can descend the requisite distance, then climb again. I'm going on the assumption that AGL on the valley sides, providing it's not more than 400', should address height.
As an aside, I call every airport and seaplane tower I should, I did register with the FAA and I've flown a total of seven days. I know I have some things to learn which is why I'm asking. And I am asking first, not posting a link to my video. So, yeah, I'm the guy driving new legislation.

Don’t worry. That bloke is a tool.
I don’t see it as a bad attitude to come on here asking advice on a project

 

[neggy]

In normal urban areas, with open space, there's possibly manned aircraft flying about, usually no less than 500'. Height limit of 400' for UAVs means a 100' gap for safety. VLOS is so you can see if an aircraft might approach your drone.
.

In the USA, urban areas are probably going to be 1000' AGL for most aircraft, and you can verify this by looking at the sectional chart and if the area is shaded in yellow, that is a 1000' area, Areas not in yellow are 1000' AGL, but subject to other restrictions that may be shown on the chart or in NOTAMS or TFR's

Just a FYI for the rest, notice the orange TFR, it is a no no to fly near most baseball, football, division 1 football, and NASCAR events......

 

[Mad Mavic]

Good on ya neggy.

The large number in each quadrangle represents the highest point In that quadrangle. This number, depending of if it’s man made or natural terrain, has a certain buffer distance added for safety; which by the way is rounded up from actual.

In the us, a structure 1125 feet tall would be rounded up to 1200 with another 200 feet added. Thus making the recorded height 1400 feet or simply 14, but the 4 would be in a smaller font as shown on

The best I can see is they use ASL so if a pilot gets it wrong, the error would put him/her well above the structure should they assume AGL.