Mavic 3 Range test - 30,000 ft - REPORTED TO FAA

[dirkclod]

Guys I didn’t mean to lock the thread. Sorry but I don’t see this going any farther

 

[BigAl07]

Well going back to the topic. The FAA officer will be sending over the mail some documentation and mention to keep a paper he is going to send me in case another officer try to contact me, show that document. I am not sure what he is talking about. I assume will be the warning.

If it's the same "documentation" I got back in 2016 (before Part 107 was available) it will be, IIRC, a certified letter documenting the interaction between you and the FAA representative. It shows you are acknowleging the rules you've broken and you have been "educated" about how to fly within the regulations,.

 

[zeusfl]

I will update once I receive that.

 

[justcruisin]

Thank you for posting about your experience.

I wonder which self appointed “drone police” on this forum turned you in?

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I wonder which self appointed “drone police” on this forum turned you in?

Could have easily been any of the YouTube subscribers or visitors too, there were a lot of subliminal comments going on there.
And FAA do apparently monitor this forum (came up in an earlier post here or on other recent thread), so I guess posting flights showing one not following drone rules is at the pilots risk.

It looks like the OP is getting educated by FAA, rather than fined, so that's good, seems to be at least wanting to fly responsibly now and avoid issues with airspace authority (and manned aircraft).

 

[zeusfl]

I am not blaming anybody. Is my full responsibility what happened. I do not know and do not even ask who did it or where source was the person who report me if forum or YouTube. That is not important.

The important is that there is a lesson learned and this do not end up in a fine that I can’t afford.

Much blessings for who did it.

 

[MS Coast]

I wonder which self appointed “drone police” on this forum turned you in?

I hear that the FAA shut down their drone crimes hotline when Larry from the mailroom started doing Youtube searches for "range test" during his coffee breaks.

 

[BigAl07]

Thank you for posting about your experience.

I wonder which self appointed “drone police” on this forum turned you in?

LOL! You do realize that it's been known for a long time that the FAA frequents our forums and that many of us on the forum have some degree of FAA Affiliations . . . . Self Police or not it's a matter of fact when you post something on the INTERNET everyone can see it . . . .

I'd like to add that many of us who have a lot of skin in the game take it very seriously when those who ignore the laws do things to increase the laws on the rest of us. I come from a time when we Self Policed and never heard a PEEP from the FAA. It's also key to point out you had to learn to fly, build the aircraft, and have some degree of common sense back in those days. Now all you need is a credit card and able to his he "Take Off" button.....

 

[zeusfl]

They don't Joke.

 

[sar104]

They don't Joke.
View attachment 141742

Interesting that they would comment on the altitude (416 ft) given that it's not AGL, and so could have been compliant. How did the letter end - just asking you to agree not to do that again?

 

[zeusfl]

Interesting that they would comment on the altitude (416 ft) given that it's not AGL, and so could have been compliant. How did the letter end - just asking you to agree not to do that again?

Technically I do not violate the AGL.

 

[zeusfl]

Here is the full letter for people's benefit.

 

[sar104]

Technically I do not violate the AGL.
View attachment 141743

It's not a matter of "technically". You either do or you do not exceed 400 ft AGL. In this case you didn't, so that's not a violation. It's interesting in that it rather implies that, as we discussed earlier in this thread, the Orlando FSDO person dealing with this doesn't fully understand that the regulations are about AGL, not height above the takeoff point.

 

[BigAl07]

I may be wrong but if you took off at 47' and the furthest point (assuming highest point of the flight) is 84' and you're aircraft is showing 414'AGL then your "adjusted altitude" would be roughly 330'AGL. Or am I missing something here ?

 

[zeusfl]

Just before take-off, I am at 47ft Sea level or 0ft AGL.
The max altitude reported by the aircraft is 414ft wherein that point is 84ft Sea Level. My math was 84-47= 37FT AGL then
414FT - 37FT = 377FT AGL (not 397 as shown)

 

[sar104]

I may be wrong but if you took off at 47' and the furthest point (assuming highest point of the flight) is 84' and you're aircraft is showing 414'AGL then your "adjusted altitude" would be roughly 330'AGL. Or am I missing something here ?

Altitude AMSL = takeoff point height AMSL + indicated altitude above takeoff point

Altitude AGL = Altitude AMSL - Ground height AMSL

So at the point in question, Altitude AGL = 47 + 414 - 87 = 377.

 

[smashse]

On the 6300' for distance... I can't see my phantom that far away for sure, so I believe they are considering larger drones. But also remember, it isn't just that you can see a dot in the sky, you also have to be able to determine attitude and speed. On my Mini2, That's about 750'. On my phantom, I get a lot more, maybe 2500' before I start to lose it depending on the sky. I am also aware that someone else may have eyes that can pick up drones easier, but I plan my missions to take my vision into consideration. A half mile in each direction, making up a mile diameter range I felt was pretty good for most of what I do. No where near 6300'. I suspect that they looked at the largest drone under 55lbs and determined that is the furthest someone with excellent eyes could see it adequately enough to legally operate.

Call your local FSDO and run your statement "re:cliff" by them and get their official statement.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/bos/

Phone: (781) 238-7500
Fax: (781) 238-7550

Better yet email them so you have it in writing for safe keeping:

>>>>> Contact FSDO by email <<<<

I did exactly that. And the email I have from the FAA specifically states that cliffs ARE NOT structures in their rules. Scientifically, a structure is anything really with multiple parts (the air we breath is a structure in science, O2). The dictionary definition could be used to say a cliff or butte is a structure, however the FAA definition is clear, in their rules, a cliff is NOT a structure. Only man made objects are considered structures. The rest is ground.

However, they also said the measurement was not "directly below" the drone, just below it. They sent a graphic, while not made by the FAA, and said it applied. When I asked about it being from a drone website, they said again that it applied, and that it was measured in distance from the nearest ground (i.e. the cliff face).

This to me means you can't be 400' over ground and go out over a cliff without being in violation, but you can be at 200' and fly out over a 400' cliff edge a bit and be legal. Asked that exactly to the FAA, and they agreed that it would be fine.

However, specifically, I agree in this instance, I do not see anywhere that the drone should be considered over 400' AGL. 416' over take off point yes, but I am also going to assume he just watched the video and the altimeter to get that number. Honestly I would get 100% sure of it, and then correct him so that other people aren't hassled by his misunderstanding.

Even though we all do not agree on "Directly below" or "Below" the aircraft for reading AGL, I think we do all agree in this instance that it is ~377' AGL at the location it was reading 416' over the take off point. Otherwise flying up a sloping 400' tall hill would be illegal which makes no sense.

 

[RayOZ]

I haven’t been in this forum for a while. But I think the 400’ AGL from take off point makes sense as it is your only ‘accurate’ reference that you can see from the drone’s telemetry. Beyond that, you are guesstimating your drone’s current height AGL while flying, unless you are on completely leveled ground. Or have a very good mental map of the ground level around you (1.2 mile radius) and be able to calculate your drone’s actual height in your head while flying.

 

[eEridani]

This to me means you can't be 400' over ground and go out over a cliff without being in violation, but you can be at 200' and fly out over a 400' cliff edge a bit and be legal. Asked that exactly to the FAA, and they agreed that it would be fine.

The logic starts to say that if the nearest ground is the reference, then 51% up a cliff the nearest ground is above you.

 

[zeusfl]

If you check I posted the google earth ground level information in the trajectory.