Can you?? Fly to 5000 feet??

[port107]

Hmm.
Just did a tiny search and it appear it might be possible to get a custom unlock from DJI if one has an FAA waiver.
Again, hmm.

So, this summer I'd like to do a small, informational, flight.

My original idea was to use a rocket but I'd rather use a drone.

Anyhow, it requires a camera to go up 5000 feet.

Is it possible to get a temporary clearance to fly that high with a drone via contact with the FAA?

The entire flight would be less than a half hour. It's a straight up and back down plan.

I work at an airport and we file for an unlock with our airspace authorization. If you get the FAA waiver DJI can unlock the geofence limits.

 

[DoomMeister]

Without being §107 certified I doubt the FAA will even consider looking at a waiver, and if he were the chances of having a waiver to that altitude approved are as good as a snowball in Death Valley.

I still find it hard to believe a recreational drone operator would post something like this. Kind of like asking how to rob a bank or steal a car.

 

[port107]

Without being §107 certified I doubt the FAA will even consider looking at a waiver, and if he were the chances of having a waiver to that altitude approved are as good as a snowball in Death Valley.

I still find it hard to believe a recreational drone operator would post something like this. Kind of like asking how to rob a bank or steal a car.

Valid point. I wasn't thinking about the lack of 107.

 

[hiflyer201]

So, this summer I'd like to do a small, informational, flight.

My original idea was to use a rocket but I'd rather use a drone.

Anyhow, it requires a camera to go up 5000 feet.

Is it possible to get a temporary clearance to fly that high with a drone via contact with the FAA?

The entire flight would be less than a half hour. It's a straight up and back down plan.

I would guess that there is no chance to be granted permission.
I’m curious as to what information you would expect to gain.
My air 2 flies fine at a density altitude of 5000 ft. That’s often the ground level altitude in the desert in the summer.

 

[Bad Santa]

I spoke with my contact who works with the FAA (and is quite knowledgeable in his own right and could actually be the proctor of a part 107 testing session) and his first inclination is (well, first it was WHY) that the waiver would probably be granted if all the conditions were met.
Advised, of course, to be away from a frequented flight path.

Having said that, I will have a license by summer (which is when I want to do this thing).

I will have a spotter with binoculars.
I plan to have about 50g of weight allowance for keeping it observable.
I want to make a lighting system that will share a battery to save weight.
I'm going to see if I can make a 4 foot diameter "ring" below the drone that can be fitted with something easy to see. (I have 2mm carbon fiber rod material for this)
I considered streamers but, well, that's asking for a crash.

The entire plan is to have a flight that lasts for no more than 10 minutes.

I'm not asking for advice to do anything illegal so why not just stop with the false narrative?

 

[EricJT]

Been there, done that.
Not from the top, though.

So for my edification, and possibly other forum members, what is your purpose of your "informational" flight?

 

[Bad Santa]

So for my edification, and possibly other forum members, what is your purpose of your "informational" flight?

Well, it has a purpose but nothing ground breaking. My purpose is somewhat scientific in nature.
Other than that, WHY I want to do it isn't the issue here. But I can guarantee some in this forum will appreciate it after it's done.

 

[EricJT]

Well, it has a purpose but nothing ground breaking. My purpose is somewhat scientific in nature.
Other than that, WHY I want to do it isn't the issue here. But I can guarantee some in this forum will appreciate it after it's done.

Well, a young lad up here near Toronto attached a video camera to a helium balloon with a GPS locator attached and ascended to a crazy altitude. Actually recovered the camera very far away.

 

[Bad Santa]

Well, a young lad up here near Toronto attached a video camera to a helium balloon with a GPS locator attached and ascended to a crazy altitude. Actually recovered the camera very far away.

When I was less than 5 I wanted to fly with balloons. I even took some money and bought a bunch of balloons but when I blew them up they didn't float.
Stupid #!*?%% cartoons lie!

For this, the rate of ascension is critical. The mini 4 will do it but just barely. Anything slower wouldn't cut it.

 

[offtheback]

You have to be a 107 pilot, and then apply for a §107.51(b), and a 107.31 waiver. The 107.31 waiver is a possibility, but the 107.51(b) for 5000' is extremely unlikely to to happen.

If you apply, you'll need to answer the follow questions for the .51 application:

"1. Describe how the small unmanned aircraft (sUA) will not pose a hazard to aircraft,persons on the ground, and others’ property when operating at altitudes other than those prescribed in § 107.51(b).
a. How will the Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC) and Visual Observer(s) (VO), ifused, see and avoid other aircraft when flying over 400 feet above ground level (AGL)?
2. Describe the anti-collision lighting used on the sUA, in order for it to be seen by crewmembers in other aircraft from a distance of at least 1 statute mile(sm) during daytime operations and 3sm if conducting nighttime operations.
a. Will the sUA be sufficiently visible by crewmembers in other aircraft in the location where the RPIC will operate? 1) If yes, how will you accomplish this?
2) If no, why do crewmembers in other aircraft not need to be able to see yoursUA?
3. Describe how the RPIC will be able to accurately determine the sUA altitude and direction of flight.
a. How will the RPIC know, while keeping eyes on the sUA, the current real-time:
1) Geographic location,
2) Altitude (AGL), and
3) Direction of flight of the sUA
b. How will the RPIC maintain visual line of sight with the sUA (i.e., meet the requirements of § 107.31) at the maximum altitude and distance requested inthe waiver application?
4. Describe the area of operations using latitude/longitude, street address,identifiable landmarks, or other maps to include the distance from and direction tothe nearest airport (e.g., 4.8 miles SE of XYZ Airport).
5. In addition to filing a NOTAM, describe how the RPIC will communicate/coordinatewith Air Traffic Control (ATC) if required by a Special Provision in your Certificate ofWaiver and based on the complexity of your operation."

You'll need ATO to sign off on it as well, and they're a hard nut to crack.

That needs more answers than the SAT's did

 

[Meta4]

For this, the rate of ascension is critical. The mini 4 will do it but just barely. Anything slower wouldn't cut it.

For your drone's top secret, somewhat scientific mission, its ascent rate dragging a 4 foot diameter ring fitted with something easy to see, is likely to be significantly less than that of drone on its own.
The hi-vis contraption will also have an interesting interaction with whatever winds it encounters up there.

 

[Bad Santa]

For your drone's top secret, somewhat scientific mission, its ascent rate dragging a 4 foot diameter ring fitted with something easy to see, is likely to be significantly less than that of drone on its own.
The hi-vis contraption will also have an interesting interaction with whatever winds it encounters up there.

Yes, that's why I am using 2mm diameter frame for the ring. There's a sacrifice in ascension but I don't know that variable.
I also need to work on some more math numbers. The ones I have were supplied by ChatGPT and I already found a flaw the first time I ran the numbers.

 

[DougMcC]

Flying near mountains in California can be very interesting.
I once was flying a Bonanza in the Owen’s Valley at about 5000 feet AGL and entered the updraft area of a lenticular cloud formation above me. Up I went! I pulled power but kept the engine at low power to keep it warm, slowed to gear speed, dropped the gear, and dropped the nose. Minimal power, high drag and I STILL was ascending - just at a reduced rate. A drone at that altitude under these conditions would truly be a quick “fly away” and I’m not sure how you on the ground would monitor the sudden changes.
Shortly after the above, I entered the accompanying downdraft area and reconfigured the aircraft for max climb. I finished the flight a wiser and more humble pilot and very glad to be back on Terra Firma.

 

[rwilliam99]

Yes, that's why I am using 2mm diameter frame for the ring. There's a sacrifice in ascension but I don't know that variable.
I also need to work on some more math numbers. The ones I have were supplied by ChatGPT and I already found a flaw the first time I ran the numbers.

I would never rely on something ChatGPT gave you - I've found so many times what it tells you is flat out wrong - it SOUNDS really good, but is nothing more than a hallucination.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Rules, safety and bureaucracy are three different and independent parameters.

Rules and safety are highly interdependent parameters.

While Vic explains the papers you must fill to comply with the rules in the US, he doesn't say anything about temperature, wind or battery, which are the things that will get your drone lost.

Put frankly, no one gives a d*mn about the drone, including the FAA, other than the pilot. As such, the FAA doesn't waste their time on advising or regulating protecting the pilot's wallet.

What the FAA is concerned with is safety. At this altitude VLOS is impossible, and it's not an environment where BVLOS can be characterized as zero risk.

While the risk of collision with a manned aircraft is tiny, it's not zero. Most of us morally do not think it acceptable to put others at risk like this, no matter how unlikely.

As surprising as it is, incredibly there are others that do.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I would guess that there is no chance to be granted permission.
I’m curious as to what information you would expect to gain.

Some people are so strongly motivated to climb El Capitan they actually do it

Others ask the above question

It's like debating whether pistachio ice cream is good or not. Debating subjective motives is always fruitless, and pointless.

 

[Bad Santa]

Rules and safety are highly interdependent parameters.



Put frankly, no one gives a d*mn about the drone, including the FAA, other than the pilot. As such, the FAA doesn't waste their time on advising or regulating protecting the pilot's wallet.

What the FAA is concerned with is safety. At this altitude VLOS is impossible, and it's not an environment where BVLOS can be characterized as zero risk.

While the risk of collision with a manned aircraft is tiny, it's not zero. Most of us morally do not think it acceptable to put others at risk like this, no matter how unlikely.

As surprising as it is, incredibly there are others that do.

Please explain the "risky" part of your statement if the FAA is aware of a possible drone flying to a maximum altitude of 5000ft AGL within a one half hour window of time and is able to alert all other aircraft in the area?

VLOS is something I wonder about the definition. Is it required to see the actual drone or is it intended to be able to see the area the drone occupies to watch for other aircraft.
I know that's a can of worms but I'd bet a lot of drone pilots fly beyond where they can actually see the drone (I've seen youtube videos where I'm 100% sure this is common). So, if a pilot is flying 5000 feet away horizontally and it's "accepted", why would it be different if the pilot (with FAA approval) is flying 5000 feet vertical?

 

[Droning on and on...]

Please explain the "risky" part of your statement if the FAA is aware of a possible drone flying to a maximum altitude of 5000ft AGL within a one half hour window of time and is able to alert all other aircraft in the area?

It's a big answer I simply don't feel like writing. In short, aircraft that fly above 500ft are equipped with instruments and communications gear essential to avoiding collisions with other aircraft. In addition to talking to ATC, aircraft talk to each other as well.

You lack the radar, transponder, radio, and much more that prove critical regularly to avoiding collision. Your perspective, from the ground is extremely limited. Simply review the questions Vic posted to get an idea of what you need to do.

Do all that, and you're good to go. It's my opinion that meeting those requirements is impossible with a retail DJI drone, and further the plan you have to improve visibility will severely compromise maneuverability reducing the likelihood of approval.

Just my opinion.

 

[YRauste]

Rules and safety are highly interdependent parameters.

I think the safety is achieved by airspace reservation (e.g. by a NOTAM). As far as I know, that is how the air control organizations treat scientific UAS flights (those that do not fit to open category) here (Finland).

 

[Droning on and on...]

VLOS is something I wonder about the definition. Is it required to see the actual drone or is it intended to be able to see the area the drone occupies to watch for other aircraft.
I know that's a can of worms but I'd bet a lot of drone pilots fly beyond where they can actually see the drone (I've seen youtube videos where I'm 100% sure this is common). So, if a pilot is flying 5000 feet away horizontally and it's "accepted", why would it be different if the pilot (with FAA approval) is flying 5000 feet vertical?

There's no need to wonder, it's not unclear, nor is it a can of worms. It's spelled out in the regulations, has been posted here many times, and is easy to Google if you so desire.

In summary, it says you must be able to see the drone with no visual aid other than prescribed glasses well enough to determine it's attitude, orientation, and direction of movement at all times. This includes whether it is moving toward or away from you.

In practice, this amounts to 1000-2000ft depending on individual visual acuity. The limit of being able to discern attitude is far shorter than the limit at which one can say they see a spec in the sky.

The problem with VLOS is not a fuzzy definition, it's that people don't like it. Me among them. I break that rule all the time, mostly flying FPV without an observer. I have absolutely no concern the FAA is coming to my door, as there's no risk to anyone. Whenever there is, I have a VO.

Cameras on drones changed the situation w.r.t. VLOS, and the FAA is working on it. Vic posts about it now and then. More flexibility is coming, at a typical government glacial pace.

So, can you maintain VLOS as defined in the regs with a 5000ft AGL flight? No, you will not.