Flying over the Shanghai Tower - 1000m Altitude! with a Mavic Air

[Imagineimagery]

Assume you might be flying recklessly and potentially endangering others- might that prevent you from having and perhaps expressing an opinion on my bad driving? That is a rhetorical question. The answer is, or at least should be, obvious.

I again am confused, sorry. Maybe you could dumb down your responses for me.
In my hypothetical scenario, you were driving poorly, risking my life to watch a video, and then you wanted to make sure I didn’t risk hurting you with my drone.
So I posed the hypothetical in order to try to show how weird it is for me, how truly difficult it is for me to see this exact thing basically happening in here.
(It’s like cutting off a car on the highway and then holding the door open for the driver at the gas station... Are we all sure we know why we are upset over this?)

I feel, and maybe I am the only one on earth, but I feel the average driver, at their best, is pretty bad. And that is a very important thing to me, so much so that I go and look like a troll simply trying to remind people that what they may find dangerous, like flying high possibly over heads, may be totally inconsequential to how they drive when they are at their very best driving. I think it is worth my time typing all this diatribe trying to let people know they may want to reconsider their own dangerous actions when talking about the dangerous actions of others, but I’m done now. Sorry if anyone read it. Drive safe all, aspire to drive better even maybe?

 

[Thomas B]

Gentlemen we need to stay on topic. The automobile discussion has gone long enough. Thanks.

 

[Imagineimagery]

Yes, sorry all.

 

[Bryce steiner]

This is not to the previous poster but to anyone.

Instead of going back and forth about what if's, how about we analyze this video and go with what we know.

What laws do you think he violated or do you believe it was just reckless?

1. Was he in line of sight, "Do not fly beyond your visual line of sight."?
What is "line of sight"? If he can see the top of the building, which is in his line of sight, does that mean he could fly to the top of the building?
Does it mean that you must always have your eyes on the craft and never look down at the screen? Or, does it mean literally it must be not blocked by something that when (such as trees, etc.) you do look up you could/would be in the line of site?

2. Was his drone too high?
Laws are similar to US in China from what I read. It does appear to be too high (100 meters, 400 feet, over the tallest building) to me but I can't know for certain so that one is iffy.

3. Was he in a densely populated area? This one is also interesting as he took off from a park where it appears no one is at. "Do not fly in densely populated areas." is one of the rules but it does not look like a residential or a populated area, but there is clearly high rise buildings which, assumingly have a lot of people.
This rule, to me, appears to be the one could be applied, but without seeing lots of people, I'm not sure it could be called densely populated.

 

[Bruce Lythe]

This is the end of this story:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[The Editor]

This is the end of this story:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I wish it was.
At least he lost his aircraft.......but I fear this Darwin Award Candidate will simply get another UAV and do the same thing all over again.

 

[lolo780]

At least it was only an Air. WiFi is for toys.
Hope to see him back with a Mavic 2 Pro.

This is the end of this story:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[WithTheBirds]

At least it was only an Air. WiFi is for toys.
Hope to see him back with a Mavic 2 Pro.

You do realise occusync is only glorified wifi?

What’s your point.

The Mavic is just a bigger toy.

 

[lolo780]

You do realise occusync is only glorified wifi?

What’s your point.

The Mavic is just a bigger toy.

On stock FCC power the M2 will get out 11.8km with 3-4 signal. In the same area the best I've seen with wifi/FCC is 4.8km and that is down to 1 bar. Glorified or not, Occusync 2 out ranges the stock M2 battery.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[WithTheBirds]

On stock FCC power the M2 will get out 11.8km with 3-4 signal. In the same area the best I've seen with wifi/FCC is 4.8km and that is down to 1 bar. Glorified or not, Occusync 2 out ranges the stock M2 battery.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

True. So your point then is you might enjoy seeing what antics this clown may perform with a more capable toy- that is absent the range limitation. Fair enough. I’m sure it will eventuate if he doesn’t have his wings clipped.