mavic pro height limit modification

[tcope]

I'm not sure where your getting you information from but it is quite clear, and I quote, "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" to be considered a recreational flyer and as such don't fall under the FAA's rules. as for belonging to the AMA, the FAA has stated several time, the the key wording is, and again I quote, "within the programming" And here is an interptation of the law you quoted...https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Yes, I do know what it says. I won't go into details within this thread as this has been beat to death already in my other threads and you can read those for more information. Wording of laws such as these can be very poorly written and that is true in this case. According to the wording itself, if I great a CBO, you and everyone needs to follow my rules. According to the way you read it, a person is required to pick a CBO and follow their rules. I'm following the CBO, American's Who Fly UAVs (the AWF). They only have 1 rule.... we don't talk about the AWF. The FAA has not said that the AWF is not a CBO. Catch where I'm going with this? Those interpretations mentioned don't make sense.

What section 336 _really_ means when it mentions CBO's is that local CBO's _can_ apply their rules to flight as long as it has that power over the person. So if you _join_ the AMA, they can make rules that govern airspace (which is normally only allowed by the FAA) that apply to their members. The FAA can't charge the AMA with a violation of US Code (stating that only the FAA can regulate airspace). But if that CBO has no power over the person, that person does not need to follow those rules. As you read Section 336, everyone would somehow need to know about every CBO in the US and follow all of those CBO's rules. Clearly that makes no sense. A person is not only required to know all US law but also follow that to find out who all of the CBO's are? Nope.

 

[qbert]

20 U.S. Code Chapter 70 is for "STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS". I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure this applies to model aircraft.

I'm wondering why you are struggling here, yes 20 USC is talking about strengthening schools, but it lays out very clearly what a CBO is. That is a definition written into US LAW. what's so hard about understanding that.

 

[qbert]

Yes, I do know what it says. I won't go into details within this thread as this has been beat to death already in my other threads and you can read those for more information. Wording of laws such as these can be very poorly written and that is true in this case. According to the wording itself, if I great a CBO, you and everyone needs to follow my rules. According to the way you read it, a person is required to pick a CBO and follow their rules. I'm following the CBO, American's Who Fly UAVs (the AWF). They only have 1 rule.... we don't talk about the AWF. The FAA has not said that the AWF is not a CBO. Catch where I'm going with this? Those interpretations mentioned don't make sense.

What section 336 _really_ means when it mentions CBO's is that local CBO's _can_ apply their rules to flight as long as it has that power over the person. So if you _join_ the AMA, they can make rules that govern airspace (which is normally only allowed by the FAA) that apply to their members. The FAA can't charge the AMA with a violation of US Code (stating that only the FAA can regulate airspace). But if that CBO has no power over the person, that person does not need to follow those rules. As you read Section 336, everyone would somehow need to know about every CBO in the US and follow all of those CBO's rules. Clearly that makes no sense. A person is not only required to know all US law but also follow that to find out who all of the CBO's are? Nope.

What part of Nation Wide do you not understand. You really really need to read the the PDF I posted earlier in the thread that clearly gives you a legal interpretation of what you can and can't do even after putting CBO's aside.

 

[tcope]

I'm wondering why you are struggling here, yes 20 USC is talking about strengthening schools, but it lays out very clearly what a CBO is. That is a definition written into US LAW. what's so hard about understanding that.

That is not how US Code or other laws work. You can't take the meaning from one unrelated section and apply it to another. Airplane is also defined, this same definition does not always apply to UAVs. At least those share some relationship. Not like US code that addresses schools and Section 336.

 

[msinger]

what's so hard about understanding that

I'm struggling because it seems nobody who studies US law professionally has explained this topic in detail. As a Canadian, I'm assuming you don't study US law professionally either. If that's the case, I really don't feel comfortable accepting your assumptions.

 

[qbert]

I'm struggling because it seems nobody who studies US law professionally has explained this topic in detail. As a Canadian, I'm assuming you don't study US law professionally either. If that's the case, I really don't feel comfortable accepting your assumptions. That is now how US Code or other laws work. You can't take the meaning from one unrelated section and apply it to another. Airplane is also defined, this same definition does not always apply to UAVs. At least those share some relationship. Not like US code that addresses schools and Section 336.

Never Assume anything, get the facts, but no I am not a lawyer but I can read legalese. Again, incorrect, it has bee given in multiple different sets of law both by the FAA and US government. And yes, that is how US and most other countries laws work, they do not have multi definitions for a word or set of words unless the wording "in the case of so and so law this is the definition of X. X is only applied to that law. And as for the interpitation of 336, well I got it from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf and to make it a little more clear for you.

Section 336(a)(2) requires model aircraft to be operated within a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community based organization. Congress explained that it intended “nationwide community-based organization” to mean, in part, a “membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the Unites States; [and] provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground.

Read the rest of the PDF, you might learn something.

 

[tcope]

And yes, that is how US and most other countries laws work, they do not have multi definitions for a word or set of words unless the wording "in the case of so and so law this is the definition of X. X is only applied to that law. And as for the interpitation of 336, well I got it from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf and to make it a little more clear for you.

Actually if you look at laws and regulations they actually do give definitions as they apply to that one section. This only makes sense as, for example, someone's definition now of "aircraft" was completely different then it was 50 years ago.

 

[msinger]

And yes, that is how US and most other countries laws work, they do not have multi definitions for a word or set of words unless the wording "in the case of so and so law this is the definition of X. X is only applied to that law.

So, you first convinced yourself that a CBO means:

"a public or private nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that--(A) is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and (B) provides educational or related services to individuals in the community."

And, you're now saying it could mean (according to the FAA of course):

"membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community with in the Unites States; [and] provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground"

I applaud your effort and Googling skills, but I don't think you've helped to clear anything up. It's all still very vague.

 

[qbert]

So, you first convinced yourself that a CBO means:

"a public or private nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that--(A) is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and (B) provides educational or related services to individuals in the community."

And, you're now saying it could mean (according to the FAA of course):

"membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community with in the Unites States; [and] provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground"

I applaud your effort and Googling skills, but I don't think you've help clear anything up. It's all still very vague.

You had better learm how to read

So, you first convinced yourself that a CBO means:

"a public or private nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that--(A) is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and (B) provides educational or related services to individuals in the community."

And, you're now saying it could mean (according to the FAA of course):

"membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community with in the Unites States; [and] provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground"

I applaud your effort and Googling skills, but I don't think you've help clear anything up. It's all still very vague.

I can't help it if you can't make the simple connection between the two but for the rest of those reading this I will make one last effet, The two are the same thing, one being more defined by "aeromodeling community" than the other.
It's all there in black and white, if you want to say it's one thing when it's really another I can't do much about it. There are people that are convinced the earth is flat too.

Beleave me, I'm not trying to ruin anyone's day, I use to do BVLOS flights in both fixed wing and quadcopters all the time and I understand the "want" to do it. However, if the community at large continues to break laws and push the envelopes then you can only blame yourselves when they ban drone flights from anything but your own private property. I don't right the laws, I just them to follow them so that 20 years down the road my 18 year old grandchild can do the same thing I'm doing, fling a drone in Canadian airspace. It might be nice if you left the legacy to your grandkids too for the US airspace..

 

[qbert]

Actually if you look at laws and regulations they actually do give definitions as they apply to that one section. This only makes sense as, for example, someone's definition now of "aircraft" was completely different then it was 50 years ago.

No that again is not correct. a simple google tells you...

49 U.S. Code § 40102 - Definitions

(6)“aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.

Key word, and they were looking ahead, "invented".and while it's a rather broad scope, it's still applicable.

 

[tcope]

No that again is not correct. a simple google tells you...

49 U.S. Code § 40102 - Definitions

(6)“aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.

Key word, and they were looking ahead, "invented".and while it's a rather broad scope, it's still applicable.

I'm not sure you are following even your own rational.

I never even came close to saying that US Code did not give one definition of "aircraft". So I'm unclear why you point this out. What I _did_ day was that your statement about each section of law not listing their own definitions was incorrect. They _do_. A response showing me that there is a definition contained in US Code does correlate with this at all.

I'm sorry but the US Court systems spends countless hours hearing arguments as to what certain words mean in different regulations. Actually, Canadian courts do the exact same thing and I suspect it's true in hundreds of countries. You can't take one type of regulation (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) and automatically apply what it talks about to some other regulation (Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). They talk about two different things. Just because one uses the same phrase or term does not mean that that phrase or term applies across the board to every regulations or act past present and future.

I'll just leave my comment on the topic at that.

 

[qbert]

I'm not sure you are following even your own rational.

I never even came close to saying that US Code did not give one definition of "aircraft". So I'm unclear why you point this out. What I _did_ day was that your statement about each section of law not listing their own definitions was incorrect. They _do_. A response showing me that there is a definition contained in US Code does correlate with this at all.

I'm sorry but the US Court systems spends countless hours hearing arguments as to what certain words mean in different regulations. Actually, Canadian courts do the exact same thing and I suspect it's true in hundreds of countries. You can't take one type of regulation (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) and automatically apply what it talks about to some other regulation (Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). They talk about two different things. Just because one uses the same phrase or term does not mean that that phrase or term applies across the board to every regulations or act past present and future.

I'll just leave my comment on the topic at that.

Sorry it took so long to reply, I had to confirm with the law clerk, (the wife) in the house that it was the same on both side of the border for the second part of my answer.

First, it doesn't matter if the law was put in place before something was thought of because, and the point I was trying to make was, INVENTED was applied within the terminology of the law meaning all future types of airplanes. Yes, innovation has outpaced the present laws, but that does not mean the present laws are not valid.

I agree that a lot of different laws have different definitions for the same term, but in the US as in Canada once a precedent is set then it's up to the different laws to to restate the definition of a term or to abide by the definition that has already been written into law. Since there was no definition given, It's a pretty solid case for that definition standing up in court.

 

[genesimmons]

This hack will remove the limits set by firmware -

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Where this is needed and is legal is when flying up a landscape or valley and perhaps over a structure. It would be easy under these conditions to require flying over 1600 feet yet still be withing the 400 foot rule.

is it really that easy? i am assuming this vid is old and firmware has prevented this or is this similar to an apple jailbreak? has any one tried these mods or better yet is any one ready to admit they have tried them? i am all for modding but a bit scared changing software things scared of bricking the unit but i must say i am curious

 

[v8juice]

is it really that easy? i am assuming this vid is old and firmware has prevented this or is this similar to an apple jailbreak? has any one tried these mods or better yet is any one ready to admit they have tried them? i am all for modding but a bit scared changing software things scared of bricking the unit but i must say i am curious

I had absolutely no trouble doing it.

 

[Rnl]

It is that easy. I'm not computer savvy and I got it done, more for the speed not the height.

 

[genesimmons]

It is that easy. I'm not computer savvy and I got it done, more for the speed not the height.

wow good to know, so u changed the parameter from 10 to 20, how do u likke the changes, i am very curious about this

 

[Rnl]

Fly's with more speed in GPS mode and return home is faster. Sport mode I've hit 58, I think you would like it.

 

[Rnl]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[genesimmons]

Fly's with more speed in GPS mode and return home is faster. Sport mode I've hit 58, I think you would like it.

awsome ok u have conviced me haha ok didnt take much confincing hahha, i will maybe try from 10-15 first, also curious about the altitude mod

 

[Rnl]

I did everything just like he did. It also got wind alarm to go away.