How high and how far can I safely take the Mavic Pro?

[JB-Mavic Pro]

When 107 is passed?

Just a question not being smart *** fyi

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Right on. Completely agree with the 400' AGL guide for hobbyists. Learning to fly is something I'd like to do one day as well. Safe flying!

It should apply to all UAV pilots of course.
Unless a waiver is sought for specific needs, and it’s deemed safe to fly to whatever further altitude is agreed ok for the specific time needed.
Perhaps when more stringent rules / testing etc are imposed, this could be considered for both commercial and hobbyist flights.

 

[tcope]

Right on. Completely agree with the 400' AGL guide for hobbyists. Learning to fly is something I'd like to do one day as well. Safe flying!

So a plane is going to hit my drone here?



There is simply no reason to apply one set of rules to non hobby flight and another to hobby flight. Either both are a safe place for a drone other both are not. The FAA keeps adding on (pointless) rules which make the old one's pointless.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

At what point does a person graduate from a hobbyists to get his wings in your eyes?

Just because you have your 107 does not mean you know how to fly your drone although its a great start.

What really is more important is that you have learned how to Negotiate wind , weather and proper take off areas and
have some understanding of Remote landings when all that you have learned fails you.

Learning the Limits of what your drone is capable of and what it is not is also essential, as well
of having a good knowledge of the tools provided by different apps and tools for the drone.

These real life skills along with the 107 is when you really should get your wings !



Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in and out of the storm
Coal

 

[JohnnyD913]

The only way in a congested city or suburb environment to get distance with a stock radio
Is to go higher..

At least in my experience...

I have a heard from a very reliable source right here in my small town of 30,000 with lots of homes and businesses that a guy took his Mavic Pro out to a distance over 15,000 feet
ONE WAY...
He showed me the actual distance was over
33,000 feet round trip at between 709-800 feet high..

He also personally showed me he could take his stock Mavic to 1,640 feet in altitude before
The limiterers kicked in...

I would NEVER condone this behavior.

Just trying to give u some possible REAL preformance data u seek...

 

[Freightdawg747]

Just a note, the 400' limit is a _recommendation_ to hobby fliers and only a requirement to those that fly under Part 107 (commercial). I'm not condoning or recommending flying higher than 400'. Just pointing that out.

This is totally inaccurate. I am both a CFI and airline pilot. That 400' limitation is to avoid General Aviation aircraft. Flying near 500 ft or above in sparsely populated areas may not just result in someone hitting your drone it could also result in an aircraft accident and deaths. An aircraft such as a 172 taking a Mavic in the windshield would have a good chance of killing the pilot.

 

[JohnnyD913]

When I took my 8 hour course for part 107 we watched videos of drone/airplane impacts..
One p4 torn nearly all the way thru a Cessna 172..
The wind tunnel test will show u why..

 

[tcope]

This is totally inaccurate. I am both a CFI and airline pilot. That 400' limitation is to avoid General Aviation aircraft. Flying near 500 ft or above in sparsely populated areas may not just result in someone hitting your drone it could also result in an aircraft accident and deaths. An aircraft such as a 172 taking a Mavic in the windshield would have a good chance of killing the pilot.

It was correct in 2017..... when I made that post.

 

[bushie]

Is simple to answer her in Oz.

Height 400ft
Distance VLOS.

That is the L-A-W law.

 

[tcope]

Just because you have your 107 does not mean you know how to fly your drone although its a great start.

Not according to a few people here. It makes no sense that any time above 400' is dangerous yet someone flying under Part 107 is legally allowed to fly in that airspace when close to another object. All of a sudden that airspace becomes less dangerous because someone is charging for a photo? I'm told, nope... it is because someone who's passed the Part 107 has shown to be more safe when flying.

My point is... no... and there should simply be _one_ set of rules. It makes no sense at this point to have separate rules to protect airspace depending on whether you are charging for a photo or not. The airspace is the same and the risk is the same.

It is like allowing people driving a truck under a CDL to legally drive over the speed limit.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Not according to a few people here. It makes no sense that any time above 400' is dangerous yet someone flying under Part 107 is legally allowed to fly in that airspace when close to another object. All of a sudden that airspace becomes less dangerous because someone is charging for a photo? I'm told, nope... it is because someone who's passed the Part 107 has shown to be more safe when flying.

My point is... no... and there should simply be _one_ set of rules. It makes no sense at this point to have separate rules to protect airspace depending on whether you are charging for a photo or not. The airspace is the same and the risk is the same.

It is like allowing people driving a truck under a CDL to legally drive over the speed limit.

I do agree with you 100% I feel like some of these Regulations our kind of like a Pacifier for the FAA.
Two things I am amazed at : That people our allowed to fly at 400 ft without a 107 and that People were not forced to wear gloves and a mask. Blows my mind KABOOM.?