Flying over mountain

[christian0707]

Its just frustrating to fly to the mountains, not cliff, in a gradual ascend scraping the tree tops to keep AGL below 400 just to be stop by the app with a maximum height reached warning when in fact the mavic is at 50' height. Then if you try to increase the height in the app it warns you when in fact you are almost scraping the trees.

 

[aesculus]

Its just frustrating to fly to the mountains, not cliff, in a gradual ascend scraping the tree tops to keep AGL below 400 just to be stop by the app with a maximum height reached warning when in fact the mavic is at 50' height. Then if you try to increase the height in the app it warns you when in fact you are almost scraping the trees.

Do yourself a favor. Set Max Flight Altitude to 500m. Then the app won't bother you anymore about reaching the max height. When you fly up the mountain, keep it well above the terrain so you aren't in unnecessary danger of flirting with the trees. As always, watch for nearby aircraft. Have fun!

 

[christian0707]

Thanks, i will upload a pick for you to see my example of gradual ascending

 

[aesculus]

I see what you mean. The peaks in the distance look like they might be over 500m above you. You might not even be able to fly that high [emoji6]
It would be fun to find out. Keep in mind the Mavic descends slower than it ascends, so watch your battery when flying that high.

 

[Strafe1]

This should put to bed all the drone police assumptions for "hobby" flying!! Seems black and white, you can fly at night and above 400 feet! But what I am not sure of is the "within 5 miles" does that mean you can as long as you make two phone calls?

Here you go, from the FAA website:

 

[christian0707]

Thanks guys! Is always valuable to have these informative discussions [emoji6]

 

[Steve1966]

You guys should get as much flying in as possible before they change your rules to. Ours up here in the north are law now, no flying at night, no higher than 90 meters (300ft) not near people or animals and so on and so forth. And word on the street is your army shot down a drone with a 2 or 3 million dollar missile so I figure your laws will be changing to.

 

[aesculus]

You guys should get as much flying in as possible before they change your rules to. Ours up here in the north are law now, no flying at night, no higher than 90 meters (300ft) not near people or animals and so on and so forth. And word on the street is your army shot down a drone with a 2 or 3 million dollar missile so I figure your laws will be changing to.

First, you have an overly-zealous Transportation Minister Marc Garneau who was responsible for these knee- jerk laws.
Second, it was a U. S. ally that shot down a $200 drone with a $3 million Patriot missile, not the U. S.

 

[andy966]

The FAA created SEPARATE guidelines for sUAS's. Hobby fliers have different guidelines from commercial fliers. See post above. Recreational fliers are strongly discouraged from flying in restricted airspace as endangering NAS is a big no-no and you can (and likely will) be held accountable. Above 400 AGL is not restricted airspace for recreational fliers, if that is what you are referring to. If you wouldn't mind posting FAA regulations to the contrary, I would love to see it. I state these facts to help eliminate incorrect information, especially from posters trying to "police" others for their own enjoyment, particularly with those that make up rules to help make their case. I happen to believe that safety comes first, and flying with complete understanding of your surroundings and the airspace you occupy is paramount. Reckless flying is absolutely intolerable and should be pointed out when needed, hammered home if required. But with factual information.
Andy, if you don't already know, there is Public Law referencing all this information, and there is FAA interpretation of that law. From that, FAA guidelines have been established. Since this is all fairly new, many people are confused between the two groups of sUAS pilots. Understandably so. But the distinction is real, and recognized by the FAA.

Not sure where you got that document. Can you post the actual link? Here is one that contradicts that.
Fly for Fun
And that is the actual link from the FAA website not just a copy paste.

I am not saying you are wrong but the information seems contradictory at best.

 

[Strafe1]

Not sure where you got that document. Can you post the actual link? Here is one that contradicts that.
Fly for Fun
And that is the actual link from the FAA website not just a copy paste.

I am not saying you are wrong but the information seems contradictory at best.

Not sure what is contradictory. Here is the FAA link: Getting Started
This page lists actual RULES. These are the same rules in the Public Law enacted by Congress.
Please note the last column "Legal or Regulatory Basis".

You might be referring to the safety guidelines at the bottom page of your link? If so, I see where that can be confusing. It certainly is a great safety practice to adhere to those recommendations. It's just not part of the actual enforceable Public Law or official FAA regulation though. The FAA regulation is derived from the Public Law, which you can find under Public Law 112-95 Sec. 336. Although recommendations are very good to follow, there is a distinction between regulation/law and recommendations. However, my feeling is the same as yours.....that flying safe and being aware of your airspace is very important.....more important than testing the limits of questionable flying, just because there is no law to stop you....yet!

 

[andy966]

Not sure what is contradictory. Here is the FAA link: Getting Started
Two types of fliers as I was saying. Please point out the contradiction.

The 400 feet rule.

 

[andy966]

Also for the record not trying to police anyone. You can go break the rules or laws if you want. I'm not the one that will be fined. Just trying to understand the information. And I am more than happy to say I am wrong if I am. I just don't understand how the FAA can say fly 400 or under in one doc and then in another not mention that rule at all.

 

[andy966]

Unless they are saying that is just a guideline and you don't really have to follow that unless you are flying commercial.

 

[Strafe1]

Unless they are saying that is just a guideline and you don't really have to follow that unless you are flying commercial.

That's it Andy. Your post is of a guideline and not a rule. It is a good guideline though. But going up a mountain like the op stated is not an issue as long as he can see where he's going!

 

[tcope]

Not sure what is contradictory. Here is the FAA link: Getting Started
This page lists actual RULES. These are the same rules in the Public Law enacted by Congress.
Please note the last column "Legal or Regulatory Basis".

These are _not_ the actual regulations (far from it). It's 1) the FAA's interpretation of the regulations and 2) _extremely_ vague. To put this into perspective, for years the FAA claimed that UAV fliers could not fly higher than 400'. They have now corrected themselves. What applies more is the actual regulations:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

 

[Strafe1]

These are _not_ the actual regulations (far from it). It's 1) the FAA's interpretation of the regulations and 2) _extremely_ vague. To put this into perspective, for years the FAA claimed that UAV fliers could not fly higher than 400'. They have now corrected themselves. What applies more is the actual regulations:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

I believe these are the actual rules stated in 336, just put in that table. In fact, it's darn near verbatim! I even noted the actual reference in the bottom row of the table. How is what's stated in the FAA's Getting Started link far from the actual? And since the FAA is the primary enforcement agency for our hobby, I would think this would carry more weight than you implicate?

 

[halley]

I just don't understand how the FAA can say fly 400 or under in one doc and then in another not mention that rule at all.

They say "fly according to community safety guidelines" which means AMA rules. (Since AMA is not a government organization they don't name this explicitly but it's pretty much the only organization that meets regularly with Congress and the FAA.) The AMA guidelines are summarized explicitly on the other page, including no night-flights, visual contact, and 400ft AGL.

 

[tcope]

I believe these are the actual rules stated in 336, just put in that table. In fact, it's darn near verbatim! I even noted the actual reference in the bottom row of the table. How is what's stated in the FAA's Getting Started link far from the actual? And since the FAA is the primary enforcement agency for our hobby, I would think this would carry more weight than you implicate?

What I'm saying is that for the best information you should never the abbreviated version of the FAA's interpretation of the regulations.

 

[Strafe1]

They say "fly according to community safety guidelines" which means AMA rules. (Since AMA is not a government organization they don't name this explicitly but it's pretty much the only organization that meets regularly with Congress and the FAA.) The AMA guidelines are summarized explicitly on the other page, including no night-flights, visual contact, and 400ft AGL.

We must be reading something different......because the AMA guidelines allow night flights, and over 400'AGL (except w/in 3 mi. of an airport).

 

[AyeYo]

This should put to bed all the drone police assumptions for "hobby" flying!! Seems black and white, you can fly at night and above 400 feet! But what I am not sure of is the "within 5 miles" does that mean you can as long as you make two phone calls?

You cannot, because the part that keeps intentionally getting left out is the "following community guidelines" stipulation of Section 336. That means you can either follow the FAA guidelines (which includes the 400ft rule) or you can follow some other group's guidelines (like the AMA's, which only allow flight at AMA airfields). What set of community guidelines are you following that allow flight above 400ft?