During a weekend trip to Chicago, I couldn't resist trying to film the iconic Hancock Tower. Enjoy!
That expresses a desire and opportunity for a 'repeater' drone. One that flies concurrent with the main drone, but establishes a position enroute that optimizes radio reception. Of course, this is fully in disalignment with FAA regs, but, would be a nice to have.I was just having a conversation with Chris Biela over lunch Saturday about doing building fly-overs and the risk of losing a signal on the far side. That narrows it down that you were on the east side of the building. Still, there were a lot of moments that made me a bit twitchy. Good work.
I actually did lose signal briefly a couple of times, but quickly regained it. I had the RTH set at like 1,600 feet, thinking that if it DID do a RTH, it would climb above all those antennas before coming back down.I was just having a conversation with Chris Biela over lunch Saturday about doing building fly-overs and the risk of losing a signal on the far side. That narrows it down that you were on the east side of the building. Still, there were a lot of moments that made me a bit twitchy. Good work.
It's all fun and games until both drones become self-aware!That expresses a desire and opportunity for a 'repeater' drone. One that flies concurrent with the main drone, but establishes a position enroute that optimizes radio reception. Of course, this is fully in disalignment with FAA regs, but, would be a nice to have.
Clear, yes. But still some high wind warnings...and a couple brief signal losses.Obvioiusly a great view from way up there!!! From the Drone selfie (window reflection) to going up the antenna to the look around - Nicely done!!! Looks like you got it on a clear, calm day!
That's actually one of the things Chris was telling me. He lost signal behind a building and it went into RTH which, almost by definition, was through the building. It missed a part of wall by about 6'. Now, he just sets it to hover in situations like that if he loses signal. Figures he will go around the building to re-establish the contact.I actually did lose signal briefly a couple of times, but quickly regained it. I had the RTH set at like 1,600 feet, thinking that if it DID do a RTH, it would climb above all those antennas before coming back down.
Ha! I'm more nervous now reading all of these comments.BTW, sent him the link (he's based in Chicago) and he said "too high for me! And with those wind gusts?" Figuring how long he's been doing this all over the country, you should be... ummm... proud?... that you have made a veteran twitch.
I would disagree... even if he wasn't within 400' of the Hancock, he's less than 400' above some of the other stuff that is in the area.You likely pushed the FAA altitude when you panned back;
Do I dare look at the flight logs? You're right, though. I actually thought of that before the flight. If I was pushing the limits, it wasn't by a lot.I would disagree... even if he wasn't within 400' of the Hancock, he's less than 400' above some of the other stuff that is in the area.
Nah... the FAA isn't as **** as the Internet Drone Police.Do I dare look at the flight logs?
That's why I said "push" instead or "break" ... but ground level has a very definite definition that is not arguable, as does structure. Whacker Tower is 960' - and 475 feet away from Willis, the roof top of Willis is about 1450'; legally speaking - if a drone is above Whacker at 1450', it is operating outside FAA rules, flying 100' higher than legally allowed, 75' outside the 400' buffer around Willis.I would disagree... even if he wasn't within 400' of the Hancock, he's less than 400' above some of the other stuff that is in the area.
Awesome footage.I was just having a conversation with Chris Biela over lunch Saturday about doing building fly-overs and the risk of losing a signal on the far side. That narrows it down that you were on the east side of the building. Still, there were a lot of moments that made me a bit twitchy. Good work.