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

[fiddlepilot]

Not doing it again after read the rule carefully. Rules has been changing. It was legal before. At least I did it in a safe place with spotters thinking the rule still apply in that way. If something went wrong only trees will be affected.

Keep in mind the point of the rule is if there was a conflict with a manned aircraft (possibly in distress). So that, you, the pilot, could yield quickly and correctly. Otherwise the rule would not be needed in lots of unpopulated spaces.

We all have to help watch either others back so that FAA or other communities don’t crack down further on drones.

Because it only takes one freak accident to overreact.

 

[dmcgrew]

Keep in mind the point of the rule is if there was a conflict with a manned aircraft (possibly in distress). So that, you, the pilot, could yield quickly and correctly. Otherwise the rule would not be needed in lots of unpopulated spaces.

We all have to help watch either others back so that FAA or other communities don’t crack down further on drones.

Because it only takes one freak accident to overreact.

And the odds of that happening are probably a million times less likely than hitting the Powerball.

 

[fiddlepilot]

And the odds of that happening are probably a million times less likely than hitting the Powerball.

Low odds is not a justification.

If you justify it that way (to other pilots reading) and they start thinking that way, the odds of something going wrong increases. If every pilot judges their own odds instead of treating it as a clear boundary, things will fall apart. And we’ll all get a bad reputation.

 

[MARK (LI)]

zeusfl,​

Thanks for doing this test. Very impressive.

We are all big boys here and know the rules, safety sallies parroting rules gets old

From the responses it is apparent that we do not all know the rules....People violating rules and spreading wrong information about what is legal brings scrutiny and more rules down on us ...that gets old a lot faster

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Not doing it again after read the rule carefully. Rules has been changing. It was legal before. At least I did it in a safe place with spotters thinking the rule still apply in that way. If something went wrong only trees will be affected.

Dont feel bad Zues as I to was duped and to be honest I blame it on the FAA this whole notion of the word Spotter was stupid on there part.

Do you know how many videos on youtube including mine took the pain staking time to get Spotters ? To many to list

Had there never been the Confusion of Spotters I would have never taken a single long distance flight , but its a hot mess and the FAA seem to love it like that.

To help spread the word I am making these T shirts to help the FAA spread the message .
Will have them posted soon on the website soon with Prices , Let Stop the Spotter Virus dead in its tracks.


Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain , Capture the Lighting and fly in big Circles now.

 

[kodiak]

Fascinating video- thanks for sharing.

 

[bonzo]

Low odds is not a justification.

If you justify it that way (to other pilots reading) and they start thinking that way, the odds of something going wrong increases. If every pilot judges their own odds instead of treating it as a clear boundary, things will fall apart. And we’ll all get a bad reputation.

It's amazing that there is so many civilians operating motor vehicles weighing thousands of pounds at high speeds in close proximity to each other around the world breaking rules daily, that there aren't many more accidents, and the govt still allows it.

Rules are to be respected though, whether it be on the road, in the air, or in a forum.

 

[Alex Baxter]

That's an amazing location, great footage!

 

[Wild Drone Pilot]

You are allowed to operate from a moving vehicle...so if you found enough open road you could do it and follow it

That sir is an excellent point!

 

[Gipper]

I enjoyed the video...thanks for doing it.

 

[Hollywood4092]

Nice Video

 

[Howard70]

Hello Zeusfl:

Thanks for sharing the video and your experiment. I have a couple of technical questions if you don’t mind:

1. Was the return flight done completely via “Return to Home”? I noticed the return speed seemed to be an impressive 30+ mph and am curious if that is what the drone “chose” as an efficient RTH speed.

2. Related to #1 - When the drone is around 6 to 10 thousand feet out, the trajectory seems to be angling down towards the RTH point (altitude decreasing) - which is what I understand the new RTH algorithms do. Interesting to me is that there seems to be point when the drone bumps up a bit apparently to clear some trees surrounded by water (at about 3 to four thousand feet). Is that possible avoidance behavior part of the RTH flight without input from you?

3. I noticed you may have recorded the complete flight at 5K 50 fps. Do you recall how much storage that complete recording took, and was it split up into multiple smaller files?

Thanks! You’re a brave person to make such a flight.

Best Wishes,

Howard

 

[PinpointUAVS]

The only legal way to do this test is to do it from a country which does not have VLOS requirement I guess

Like here in Canada

To clarify, we do have VLOS requirements, but VOs can be used to extend VLOS as long as reliable and timely communication is maintained between the VO and PIC. We use long range two way radios.

 

[Craig Notts]

I do not intend to repeat that test. Is a one time shot to see what the drone is capable to do. As someone mention, we don need 1/10 or that distance for what we do with the drone but is nice to know the capacity is there.

Like having a sport car. Having the capacity of go over 200Mph does not mean you are going to used but is nice is there.

And it's very good you had your wife and 26 friends all perfectly lined up over the route , nudge nudge

 

[Chrislaf]

I agree with others, this was an illegal, risky and irresponsible flight that could have put a manned flight at risk. Also, I do not see how the OP could have had any people along the route (spotters?) as the flight was over swamp, bush and fields - would have taken some planning.

I have had a number of flights all within VLOS in remote locations were I have been surprised by a low flying plane or helicopter in my flight area and have been thankful that I had my craft in sight so I could take necessary action if needed.

Chris

 

[Kirill]

Stock controller was used.

I think this means you weren't doing full Ocusync 3.0, as standard controller is Ocusyncc 2.0 only - which only makes it more impressive.

 

[Chaosrider]

Interesting experiment ...and good that you had spotters...but do you know what VLOS is?...and that it requires the one operating the controls to have the drone in sight without any aids other than glasses?...no spotters, telescopes, binoculars?

Actually, as discussed in another thread, I think the requirement is for the operator to be ABLE to see it, not that they have to constantly have it in sight.

TCS

 

[jonatious]

I think this means you weren't doing full Ocusync 3.0, as standard controller is Ocusyncc 2.0 only - which only makes it more impressive.

The OS2 controller does not reduce the range. I checked this with the DJI customer rep

 

[sar104]

I think this means you weren't doing full Ocusync 3.0, as standard controller is Ocusyncc 2.0 only - which only makes it more impressive.

That actually makes the marketing seem a little deceptive. The M3 specs clearly indicate O3, and yet the stock controller is only O2.

 

[sar104]

The OS2 controller does not reduce the range. I checked this with the DJI customer rep

That doesn't seem likely, if it is only using O2.