height limit

[Meta4]

From what I gathered. Recreational allows above 400. Just make sure you are in the clear with the apps like b4youfly or Hoover. I have like 10 apps just to make sure. But if you fly part 107, it's limited to 400. What I don't understand is what prevents people from saying they are flying commercially then switching to recreationally? Seems like a loop hole. Maybe someone knows more.

If you fly in a dangerous fashion, you fly in a dangerous fashion.
It makes no difference whether under 336 or 107, you could still face a charge of reckless endangerment.

 

[Trollistika]

What about the loop hole?

 

[Meta4]

What about the loop hole?

Loophole?
No-one cares is you go to 410 ft.
No-one is checking your flight data.
There's no-one out there on a tall ladder measuring your drone's altitude.
That's the "loophole".
But if you come to the attention of the FAA by causing an incident you won't find a loophole.

 

[Trollistika]

Loophole?
No-one cares is you go to 410 ft.
No-one is checking your flight data.
There's no-one out there on a tall ladder measuring your drone's altitude.
That's the "loophole".
But if you come to the attention of the FAA by causing an incident and you won't find a loophole.

Still didn't answer my question but ok. Research it for me, sure some other people have wondered about that as well.

 

[Meta4]

Still didn't answer my question but ok. Research it for me, sure some other people have wondered about that as well.

Post #84 answers your question

 

[¬Nomad]

crystal-pete I for one, do get your point.
People pushing the Law as it stands are not thinking, but I have faced the same thick-skulled opposition whenever I try to encourage responsible behaviour, the mantra amongst most in here appears to be (it's ok it's legal so bugger off with your anti-drone attitude), they will be the same morons moaning when the law changes.

 

[Trollistika]

crystal-pete I for one, do get your point.
People pushing the Law as it stands are not thinking, but I have faced the same thick-skulled opposition whenever I try to encourage responsible behaviour, the mantra amongst most in here appears to be (it's ok it's legal so bugger off with your anti-drone attitude), they will be the same morons moaning when the law changes.

Agreed. It's best to be respectful and understanding when someone approaches with a attitude. Just being rude, grumpy won't get you far. Make more friends that way.

 

[deleted member 877]

Still didn't answer my question but ok. Research it for me, sure some other people have wondered about that as well.

Sorry, I've been busy and missed your question. The loophole I was referring to is all about how the letter of the law stipulates that Part 107 certified UAS pilots cannot legally fly above 400 ft but that same limitation is not currently in place for recreational UAS pilots. It is all clearly explained in this thread if you care to read back through it.

Maybe "loophole" is not the correct term to use but I can tell you one thing that I have learnt. There are a few unnecessarily pedantic members of this forum who will take every opportunity to hammer you if you don't measure up in terms of their "semantic" standards - so tread carefully. Some of these individuals must also be speed reading because they don't always properly digest the content they disagree with before going on the attack.

 

[Trollistika]

Sorry, I've been busy and missed your question. The loophole I was referring to is all about how the letter of the law stipulates that Part 107 certified UAS pilots cannot legally fly above 400 ft but that same limitation is not currently in place for recreational UAS pilots. It is all clearly explained in this thread if you care to read back through it.

Maybe "loophole" is not the correct term to use but I can tell you one thing that I have learnt. There are a few unnecessarily pedantic members of this forum who will take every opportunity to hammer you if you don't measure up in terms of their "semantic" standards - so tread carefully. Some of these individuals must also be speed reading because they don't always properly digest the content they disagree with before going on the attack.

Thanks dude! I am clear on non com and rec rules. But what stops a person from flying above 400ft with a part 107 and just claiming they are flying rec? There's no way to prove but any footage or video that shows a very high altitude cannot be sold. That's just a scenario I was wondering. And again... Thank you for taking the time to explain to new members. I've gotten incredible response from lots of guys\gals here... But there are 2 or 3 that I just made them upset due to me disagreeing I'm some aspects. But it's ok...... Everyone is good.

 

[Afremont]

Loophole?
No-one cares is you go to 410 ft.
No-one is checking your flight data.

I'm not sure that is true. DJI is offering up info on the guy that flew over the stadium using his apparently hacked firmware. I think it's reasonable to assume that everyone's flight log data is being analyzed for one reason or another.

 

[Trollistika]

I'm not sure that is true. DJI is offering up info on the guy that flew over the stadium using his apparently hacked firmware. I think it's reasonable to assume that everyone's flight log data is being analyzed for one reason or another.

Some members here are in denial. Of course they do. We have to be smart over this.

 

[deleted member 877]

Thanks dude! I am clear on non com and rec rules. But what stops a person from flying above 400ft with a part 107 and just claiming they are flying rec? There's no way to prove but any footage or video that shows a very high altitude cannot be sold. That's just a scenario I was wondering. And again... Thank you for taking the time to explain to new members. I've gotten incredible response from lots of guys\gals here... But there are 2 or 3 that I just made them upset due to me disagreeing I'm some aspects. But it's ok...... Everyone is good.

No worries mate. I'm not going to attempt to answer your question - there are too many grey areas in your scenario. In any case, I wouldn't suggest going to great lengths to get an answer because when the proposed new FAA rules are passed into Law, the 400 ft limit WILL apply for ALL UAS operators, recreational or otherwise, and regardless of whether or not this is currently stipulated in the current version of the FAA Proposal document.

There may be a process where you can submit an application to fly higher than 400 ft at a particular location for a specified time period but anyone who predicts that the 400 ft limit will not be the default limit for all UAS operators when the new laws are passed is not thinking logically.

 

[Trollistika]

No worries mate. I'm not going to attempt to answer your question - there are too many grey areas in your scenario. In any case, I wouldn't suggest going to great lengths to get an answer because when the proposed new FAA rules are passed into Law, the 400 ft limit WILL apply for ALL UAS operators, recreational or otherwise, and regardless of whether or not this is currently stipulated in the current version of the FAA Proposal document.

There may be a process where you can submit an application to fly higher than 400 ft at a particular location for a specified time period but anyone who predicts that the 400 ft limit will not be the default limit for all UAS operators when the new laws are passed is not thinking logically.

This why I like Australians better than my own brethrens.

 

[Meta4]

I'm not sure that is true. DJI is offering up info on the guy that flew over the stadium using his apparently hacked firmware.

Do you have any source for that information?
I can't find any and all the reports I do find are like this one: Police identify juvenile who flew drone at Fenway Park during Red Sox game
No hint there that DJI have any data, which is what you'd expect since the drone and controller can only transmit for a short distance.
How would the data find its way to DJI or anyone else?

I think it's reasonable to assume that everyone's flight log data is being analyzed for one reason or another.

That's not at all likely because DJI don't have the data and no-one is going over bulk flight data searching for infringements.

 

[Trollistika]

Do you have any source for that information?
I can't find any and all the reports I do find are like this one: Police identify juvenile who flew drone at Fenway Park during Red Sox game
No hint there that DJI have any data, which is what you'd expect since the drone and controller can only transmit for a short distance.
How would the data find its way to DJI or anyone else?

That's not at all likely because DJI don't have the data and no-one is going over bulk flight data searching for infringements.

Disagree... DJI does have the data. They won't admit it of course just like every other company does not disclose everything. Just read the fine print from DJI. A court order is needed. Then suddenly "oh here's the data".

 

[Keule]

DJI does have the data.

If someone NEVER connects the device with GO4 to the Internet, how is DJI retrieving the data?
(keyword here is 'NEVER')

 

[Trollistika]

If someone NEVER connects the device with GO4 to the Internet, how is DJI retrieving the data?
(keyword here is 'NEVER')

From other boards. That's the current way to keep your flights private. But that means absolutely no updates. Fly as is.

 

[Meta4]

Disagree... DJI does have the data. They won't admit it of course just like every other company does not disclose everything. Just read the fine print from DJI. A court order is needed. Then suddenly "oh here's the data".

That's a fine conspiracy theory.
But without anything to back it up it's nothing more than an opinion.
And in this case, not a particularly convincing one.

 

[deleted member 877]

I don't see the problem with DJI having my flight data. What are they going to do with it that could cause me any harm?

 

[Trollistika]

That's a fine conspiracy theory.
But without anything to back it up it's nothing more than an opinion.
And in this case, not a particularly convincing one.

Denial isn't a defense, but rather dangerous for the drone future.