Bird went down. :-(

[HWCM]

i been told its 400 ft above take off point
and i KNOW 400 feet is only recommended

It is not 400 feet from take off point. You are incorrect. It is suggested at 400 feet AGL. This is only a suggestion. Not a law or rule.

 

[Marko9219]

So many people that think they know the "law" or how to interpret the guidelines without really knowing what they are talking about for sure. Too many "I've been told" comments.

 

[Strobing_NYC]

Wow no wonder the FAA is trying to make this difficult for us all when half of you don't even know what the rules are....
400 AGL is the recommended safe max altitude for hobby fliers, it's not a Law. The FAA police are not going to come get you if you go 405 by accident. Now is it smart to go above 400AGL? Hell no plains and other types of AC normally fly above that height, not to mention the UAV would be a missile if it free falls from such a height, also VLOS becomes difficult at higher altitude due to the smaller size of the Mavic.
From the way I read the OP's post he was flying high I didn't read I took of from a mountain top or I flew up the side of the mountain keeping regulations in mind. I read, I he was in the air and the mavic started to free fall from an unknown altitude. Probably lost a prop or bird strike

 

[Rnl]

And to think his question was about refresh, look where it's at, same place different time.

 

[MavicCF]

I'm hearing a LOT of echoes on this post.

 

[Mossiback]

...Question is, has anyone had experience dealing with DJI and Care Refresh either way? Nervous as **** here and worried, mostly because A few rules MAY have been broken, and not sure what they take into consideration when deciding whether or not to honor it, and honestly ive heard a LOT of horror stories...

A tree swatted my MP out of the air (MP stable, tree branch swaying) and it was destroyed on impact. Submitted a Care Refresh claim and was presented with two choices; to have a replacement sent upon receipt of my broken one or have them try to repair the one I sent in. I chose to replace it. It was the faster option and I figured that even if I was given a refurbished MP it probably had fewer hours on it than mine. I sent it off using the shipping label that was emailed to me and the replacement was put in the mail the same day mine was received (with 2 day air shipping). I was back in the air in less than 10 days. This was from Washington state to a repair facility in California.

Bottom line - mine was replaced quickly with no questions asked.

 

[Mossiback]

Upon reflection, you should post your logs and see if someone here can help determine the cause of the crash. If it is still under warranty the repair may be covered and you can save your Care Refresh use and fee.

 

[Qoncussion]

so if i take from a skyscraper,i go 10' in the air but the skyscraper was 10.000 ft. high,then im only flying 10' from top?
id find that hard for the FAA to swallow

This is how it works. You can fly 400' above that skyscraper @ 10,400 and still maintain a flight within the rules. Actual aircraft must maintain a 500'+ ceiling above the skyscraper.

 

[FuzLogix]

A tree swatted my MP out of the air

 

[jaysrmc]

He did not do anything wrong. If he is at the base of a mountain, he can fly up the mountain and still be less than 400ft off the ground. I have to do it every time I fly.
Also, the 400 ft limit is only a suggestion unless he is 107.
Please learn the rules before commenting, you are confusing people and yourself.

I fly a lot in mountains and can say I have had a national forest ranger tell me I could fly above the mountains if I stayed 400 feet above.. Now these locations are very remote and the rangers don't care what you do as long as you don't bother the willife

 

[MavicCF]

Upon reflection, you should post your logs and see if someone here can help determine the cause of the crash. If it is still under warranty the repair may be covered and you can save your Care Refresh use and fee.

+1

 

[MavicCF]

I fly a lot in mountains and can say I have had a national forest ranger tell me I could fly above the mountains if I stayed 400 feet above.. Now these locations are very remote and the rangers don't care what you do as long as you don't bother the willife

What park was that at?

 

[jaysrmc]

What park was that at?

Tonto National Foreset and kaibab National forest.

 

[MavicCF]

Tonto National Foreset and kaibab National forest.

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought it said nation park instead of national forest. I live on the dye of a national forest and fly over it all the time! It's awesome 'cause there aren't any people to bother or worry about! -CF

 

[joejaxvic123]

I don't think dji will give you any trouble with the refresh plan. Make sure you fill out the form to put in the box with the drone. I wrote on my form; " repair or replace, no refurbished, please" it must have worked, I got a new one in less than 2 weeks.

From what I understand, they go through the flight logs to determine what caused the crash and make a decision based on that info.

 

[HassoBoxhead]

Back to what the op was originally asking: I had the same issue with mine with a prop coming off, acted exactly the same way as you describe (but only 100 feet above the ground). It came down on the street and to say it was mangled would be painting too pretty a picture of the damage. I contacted Care Refresh and paid the $79 for a replacement drone and used the care express to expedite the process. I sent the drone carcass to CA (I live on he other coast) using the packing label they e-mailed me, and had the replacement drone six days later. Granted, it’s a refurb, but I fully consider my not checking the props before the flight to be operator error and was glad to get the replacement. I hope this helps.

 

[wytnyt]

This is how it works. You can fly 400' above that skyscraper @ 10,400 and still maintain a flight within the rules. Actual aircraft must maintain a 500'+ ceiling above the skyscraper.

you seem to be about the only one to get somewhat the jist of what im saying so ill respond to your comment.
your right with what your saying however you have to stay within 400' of the structure,you cant just take off and just fly away.
your still 10.400 feet high,still legal AND THIS IS THE PART I FIND STUPID,
if this is too hard for others to understand my reasoning,im sorry its as simple as possible
you may disagree,flame me bait me or whatever,but your'e wasting your time,i wont indulge you with a response

 

[joejaxvic123]

You're all too high! All of you! Too high...I say.

 

[MavicCF]

you seem to be about the only one to get somewhat the jist of what im saying so ill respond to your comment.
your right with what your saying however you have to stay within 400' of the structure,you cant just take off and just fly away.
your still 10.400 feet high,still legal AND THIS IS THE PART I FIND STUPID,
if this is too hard for others to understand my reasoning,im sorry its as simple as possible
you may disagree,flame me bait me or whatever,but your'e wasting your time,i wont indulge you with a response

I think I get what your saying, it's stupid that we can legally fly 10.400' up just because we are within 400' of a tall building. However, I believe the only reason the height limit/suggestions is there is to keep us out of manned airspace. Well, most manned AC (helicopters excluded) should, as @Qoncussion said, have a rout that takes them 500'+ over the building, our rule is 400' above it. Thus the rule is still keeping us out of their airspace and everyone safe even though we are 10.400' up. I'm really not trying to convince or antagonize you, I just want to show you my opinion. -CF

 

[sar104]

I think I get what your saying, it's stupid that we can legally fly 10.400' up just because we are within 400' of a tall building. However, I believe the only reason the height limit/suggestions is there is to keep us out of manned airspace. Well, most manned AC (helicopters excluded) should, as @Qoncussion said, have a rout that takes them 500'+ over the building, our rule is 400' above it. Thus the rule is still keeping us out of their airspace and everyone safe even though we are 10.400' up. I'm really not trying to convince or antagonize you, I just want to show you my opinion. -CF

Absolutely correct. This discussion didn't start with the complexity of flying over tall buildings however - it was just about flying in mountainous terrain. The concept of remaining within 400 ft AGL (i.e. within 400 ft of the ground directly below the aircraft) doesn't seem to me to be either confusing or unreasonable.

The question added in post #9 about taking off from the top of a 10,000 ft building was incompletely posed. While it's only Part 107 that explicitly refers to flying over buildings, it's reasonable to suppose that even under Part 101 you can take off from and fly above a tall building without immediately breaking guidelines, for all the reasons that you mention. Now if you were to fly away from the building then you would be 10,000 + ft AGL, which would break those guidelines, and so that example also effectively makes the point that it is altitude AGL that matters, not altitude relative to takeoff point.

I still don't understand why there is any confusion on this issue.