No Height restriction

[BobLWH]

First let Me say, I am Not a drone pilot. I Own 7 3/4 acres of Desert land. It is basically surrounded By Federal lands, outside of Palm Springs. If a Person were to Open a Drone Port with No Height limit would that be something of interest to Drone Pilots as a Vacation Destination?
I thought maybe Having some sort of Yearly height competition or Red Bull sponsored event.
I'm Just wondering if it's a Viable Idea or if there would even be any interest at all.
any input would be awesome. Thanks for Reading.

Nice idea but I believe the rules still apply and there would still be a height limit. Would the FAA make an exception probably not.

 

[dan.utinske]

First let Me say, I am Not a drone pilot. I Own 7 3/4 acres of Desert land. It is basically surrounded By Federal lands, outside of Palm Springs. If a Person were to Open a Drone Port with No Height limit would that be something of interest to Drone Pilots as a Vacation Destination?
I thought maybe Having some sort of Yearly height competition or Red Bull sponsored event.
I'm Just wondering if it's a Viable Idea or if there would even be any interest at all.
any input would be awesome. Thanks for Reading.

To say it simple; you do not own the sky above your land. You cannot authorize or permit violating the height restrictions currently in place. Idea is not viable or valid!

 

[Xitor]

Well, the knee jerk reaction is no, the FAA would never do that, too many restrictions, etc. Meanwhile if you were a billionaire who wanted to start a rocket company you could effectively get this for controlled dates and times. Granted those billionaires also have lots of resources to file all the necessary paperwork, etc. but one could make a case, the sky isn't just for billionaires, and observing similar restrictions, planned events, times, etc. you should be able to what you are looking for. "Should" and "can" are sometimes very far apart. Seems like it also would depend if you're in a major flight path (Flightradar24 | Track Planes In Real-Time | Flight Tracker) and a host of other things, but I wouldn't discount it out of hand if you have the time and resources. Hey, us drone folks need our own Sturgess or Burning Man, just probably with no alcohol or naked people (at least during flight times).

 

[Mavic Ron]

I believe if I can show a specific use My Grandfather's Patent from 1961 does give Me the ability, since technically I own from the center of the earth to infinite of space. I believe I could get a 5 mile no fly zone awarded.

 

[Xitor]

To say it simple; you do not own the sky above your land. You cannot authorize or permit violating the height restrictions currently in place. Idea is not viable or valid!

Unless you are a billionaire and you want to launch rockets. Then someone will find a way to grant you that space.

 

[KJC Imaging]

First let Me say, I am Not a drone pilot. I Own 7 3/4 acres of Desert land. It is basically surrounded By Federal lands, outside of Palm Springs. If a Person were to Open a Drone Port with No Height limit would that be something of interest to Drone Pilots as a Vacation Destination?
I thought maybe Having some sort of Yearly height competition or Red Bull sponsored event.
I'm Just wondering if it's a Viable Idea or if there would even be any interest at all.
any input would be awesome. Thanks for Reading.

I don’t think it’s a viable idea because you would need to legislate a Special Use Airspace zone over your property from 400’ up to whatever maximum altitude / Flight Level you’re thinking of. I don’t think you’d get this through red tape.

 

[Frieda]

First let Me say, I am Not a drone pilot. I Own 7 3/4 acres of Desert land. It is basically surrounded By Federal lands, outside of Palm Springs. If a Person were to Open a Drone Port with No Height limit would that be something of interest to Drone Pilots as a Vacation Destination?
I thought maybe Having some sort of Yearly height competition or Red Bull sponsored event.
I'm Just wondering if it's a Viable Idea or if there would even be any interest at all.
any input would be awesome. Thanks for Reading.

You may find the 'Foremost UAS Test Range' interesting.

Airspace

Airspace The Foremost UAS Test Range is available to gain operational RPAS experience or to prove the capabilities of the systems you are operating when flown under BVLOS conditions. The Transport Canada approved Foremost UAS Test Range is available for anyone to fly. Advice concerning...

foremostuasrange.ca

 

[Dmcvey]

I believe if I can show a specific use My Grandfather's Patent from 1961 does give Me the ability, since technically I own from the center of the earth to infinite of space. I believe I could get a 5 mile no fly zone awarded.

That went out with Causby, 1946 SCOTUS said that thinking had no place in the modern world.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Unless you are a billionaire and you want to launch rockets. Then someone will find a way to grant you that space.

Oh please.

Take that crap to a political site.

 

[bodywise007]

The AGL is totally misunderstood. It is AGL from the take off point. If you fly from a bluff overlooking a deep valley, then as soon as you fly away you have already exceeded 400 ft AGL. It is AGL! Similarly if you fly up a mountainous slope you could fly above 400 ft AGL (from the point of origin). It is the same with VLOS. What precisely is this distance?

 

[Droning on and on...]

The AGL is totally misunderstood. It is AGL from the take off point. If you fly from a bluff overlooking a deep valley, then as soon as you fly away you have already exceeded 400 ft AGL. It is AGL! Similarly if you fly up a mountainous slope you could fly above 400 ft AGL (from the point of origin). It is the same with VLOS. What precisely is this distance?

Kinda deflates your point about proper terminology when you don't use proper terminology

AGL stands for "Above Ground Level". It it the height of the aircraft above the ground directly below it. Not the height above the takeoff point.

What you trying to say above, and failing, is it's possible to exceed 400' AGL while flying away from a mountain while the height above the Home Point altitude can read less than 400ft.

You have presented a confused, wrong definition of AGL while trying to explain AGL.

 

[Torque]

Kinda deflates your point about proper terminology when you don't use proper terminology

AGL stands for "Above Ground Level". It it the height of the aircraft above the ground directly below it. Not the height above the takeoff point.

What you trying to say above, and failing, is it's possible to exceed 400' AGL while flying away from a mountain while the height above the Home Point altitude can read less than 400ft.

You have presented a confused, wrong definition of AGL while trying to explain AGL.

I respectfully disagree. He accurately states in the first sentence "...it is AGL from the take off point." which I understand is the reference to the screen display - which is always going to show AGL from take off. This sentence makes the OP's intended point a little clearer: "Similarly if you fly up a mountainous slope you could fly above 400 ft AGL (from the point of origin)."
I think his point is that the displayed AGL doesn't reflect terrain changes if the ground suddenly drops at the edge of a cliff, your displayed AGL may say 38 ft while you are actually 656 ft AGL now that you've flown beyond the cliff face.
It was a confusing post, but that is my interpretation.

 

[mobilehomer]

I respectfully disagree. He accurately states in the first sentence "...it is AGL from the take off point." which I understand is the reference to the screen display - which is always going to show AGL from take off. This sentence makes the OP's intended point a little clearer: "Similarly if you fly up a mountainous slope you could fly above 400 ft AGL (from the point of origin)."
I think his point is that the displayed AGL doesn't reflect terrain changes if the ground suddenly drops at the edge of a cliff, your displayed AGL may say 38 ft while you are actually 656 ft AGL now that you've flown beyond the cliff face.
It was a confusing post, but that is my interpretation.

The mistake here is that AGL is NOT shown in the app. It IS height above take off point. Above Ground Level, NOT takeoff level!

 

[Torque]

The mistake here is that AGL is NOT shown in the app. It IS height above take off point. Above Ground Level, NOT takeoff level!

I believe that is what I just posted? What is displayed is the current height above your take off point, not the current height above the terrain below you after the terrain raises or drops below the take off point's height.

 

[Xitor]

Oh please.

Take that crap to a political site.

Your the one making it political (and insulting). I'm simply stating that with enough resources, coordination and knowing the correct people it is POSSIBLE to get such waivers and every one shouldn't pile on the OP.

 

[mavic3usa]

I respectfully disagree. He accurately states in the first sentence "...it is AGL from the take off point." which I understand is the reference to the screen display - which is always going to show AGL from take off. This sentence makes the OP's intended point a little clearer: "Similarly if you fly up a mountainous slope you could fly above 400 ft AGL (from the point of origin)."
I think his point is that the displayed AGL doesn't reflect terrain changes if the ground suddenly drops at the edge of a cliff, your displayed AGL may say 38 ft while you are actually 656 ft AGL now that you've flown beyond the cliff face.
It was a confusing post, but that is my interpretation.

"AGL from the take off point" is not a real thing.
There is a such things a height about take off point.
The is no AGL anywhere on the display. IMO it is improper to reference "AGL from take off point" which is confusing.

 

[mavic3usa]

I believe that is what I just posted? What is displayed is the current height above your take off point, not the current height above the terrain below you after the terrain raises or drops below the take off point's height.

Yeah I would call it that.
I would call it "current height above your take off point" rather than "AGL from your take off point."
Sorry that seems like nitpicking....

 

[Droning on and on...]

I respectfully disagree. He accurately states in the first sentence "...it is AGL from the take off point." which I understand is the

How can you refer to what he accurately states while leaving out what he says?

Here's the entire initial statement:

"The AGL is totally misunderstood. It is AGL from the take off point."​

​

Is that your understanding, @Torque, of the very common aviation abbreviation, AGL? When an aircraft has moved away from the takeoff point, it's AGL is it's height relative to the takeoff point?

This is what you are saying is accurate.

I say it is not, and instead misleading. It looks much more like AGL is misunderstood by @bodywise007 (and by what is written here, you too, but I know better ).

Here are the correct definitions of "altitude-stuff" with DJI equipment, in my understanding:

• Altitude: Height above sea-level. Altitude is not accessible in DJI Fly.
• AGL: The height of the aircraft over the ground directly below it. VPS sensors measure this below 30ft (45 in some newer models), and display this on the lower left in red in DJI Fly.
• Height: The vertical height above the Home Point altitude regardless of horizontal position relative to the HP. Height is the main elevation datum displayed in DJI Fly, in the lower left, labeled "height".

 

[Droning on and on...]

Your the one making it political (and insulting). I'm simply stating that with enough resources, coordination and knowing the correct people it is POSSIBLE to get such waivers and every one shouldn't pile on the OP.

And your belief that that is what gets SpaceX permission screams politics and hatred of Elon Musk.

Me? I don't give a rat's a** about Elon Musk, but I'm not so naive and foolish to think some sort of Billionaire Boogie gets SpaceX clearances.

Hint: NASA gets the same clearances. Why do they?

 

[Droning on and on...]

Yeah I would call it that.
I would call it "current height above your take off point" rather than "AGL from your take off point."
Sorry that seems like nitpicking....

It's never nitpicking to correct mistakes in common terminology. Especially terms that are so common and time-worn to essentially be indistinguishable from "official".

One could even make the case that since the FAA uses AGL all over the place in the regs and defines it in a glossary, it is arguably official.

We gotta all speak the same jargon.