Control range > Video range?

[Diirk]

Something I have been wondering for a while:
Knowing that the range of the video link is 2 km, does this mean that the control range is 2 km as well? Or are both ranges independent (like it is on a Phantom)? If independent, how much would the control range be? Is this something we would be able to boost through mods?

Hoping to get some information about this.

 

[ctp]

Lightbridge is a two-way communication mechanism, meaning the control and video are carried together and dependent. You might get some additional control where the video is intermittent. For good examples, helipal has some youtube videos pushing the lightbridge out to 3+ km that demonstrate what happens at the farthest range.

 

[turbodronepilot]

Hey guys ..was reading the manual for the inspire 1 and it seems like the maximum height allowed is just under 400 ft and the max operating distance is around a mile..not 100 % positive about the operating distance, but the elevation is accurate. .

 

[turbodronepilot]

I think the controle range is going to be less than 2km which Is what I've been told the old version of lightbridge maximum range is..

 

[Morgon]

Hey guys ..was reading the manual for the inspire 1 and it seems like the maximum height allowed is just under 400 ft and the max operating distance is around a mile..not 100 % positive about the operating distance, but the elevation is accurate. .

When DJI had their live Q&A on Facebook last week, someone asked this. Eric Cheng said that it is settable in the software.
Maybe the default is 400 and allows user modification much like the P2V does?

I just can't see them hard-coding it to something that isn't bound by law (or has any logical sense). Their market share would plummet. Ever flown at 500ft? It doesn't seem like much, but the perspective difference is quite stunning. I've always been curious how high Eric Cheng's Hawaii test flight was, because it does not seem like 400.

 

[turbodronepilot]

I'm not sure ..the manual says that in all modes the ceiling is set at around 400 feet..regardless of what mode you're in, if you're in gps dIsabeled mode there is no radius limit. .wonder how well it will fly without a gps signal??

 

[ultraturtle]

Remember that the FAA voluntary safety standard of 400' is measured AGL (above the ground), so the limit set for the Inspire 1 needs to be adjustable to a barometric altitude much higher in order for flight in mountainous terrain to be possible.

Page 19 of the manual states that with GPS enabled, you can fly to whatever maximum altitude you set, but with GPS disabled you are limited to 120 meters (roughly 400 ft).

 

[turbodronepilot]

Remember that the FAA voluntary safety standard of 400' is measured AGL (above the ground), so the limit set for the Inspire 1 needs to be adjustable to a barometric altitude much higher in order for flight in mountainous terrain to be possible.

Page 19 of the manual states that with GPS enabled, you can fly to whatever maximum altitude you set, but with GPS disabled you are limited to 120 meters (roughly 400 ft).

Ok..I get it know ..thanks for clearing that up ..

 

[Diirk]

I hate it when they put in these limits. Very offputting. Don't limit my artificial freedom bitchess!

 

[ultraturtle]

Don't limit my artificial freedom bitchess!

I side with the bitches. With freedom comes responsibility.

Hopefully a 400' AGL ceiling (with reasonable exceptions for licensed commercial operators flying TCAS or ADS-B equipped unmanned vehicles) will become law, and law enforcement will have teeth to prosecute those who endanger aircraft and their occupants's lives by violating our currently voluntary safety guideline of 400'. Aircraft may legally fly as low as 500' (lower over sparsely populated and open water areas), and 400' provides the sort of defacto procedural separation that has worked to keep folks alive for more than 30 years now. With new capability comes new idiots, and a quick scan through YouTube proves an explosion in the number of boneheads either not knowing about, or not understanding the importance of compliance with simple safety rules.

With the tremendous growth of remote controlled aerial vehicles, it is only a matter of time before a UAV/aircraft collision takes place. Hopefully when that day comes, no lives will be lost, and a regulatory structure will be in place to prosecute either the UAV pilot or aircraft pilot for breaking the law. As it stands right now, the FAA can effectively prosecute the aircraft pilot for violating a fairly clear regulation - 500 ft. As there is no current law clearly and unambiguously regulating the UAV pilot, he or she does not have clearly enforceable responsibility commensurate with the freedom currently enjoyed.

Simple, unambiguous, regulations that are limited to safety and do not over reach are needed for everyones' benefit.

 

[Morgon]

I don't get why people are okay with 400'? These quads are stable and don't require the same clearances as RC aircraft, so they should not be shoehorned into those same guidelines. 1000' feet is much more reasonable.

Where are aircraft regularly flying 500' AGL? Within flight paths? That's solved with airport restrictions.

 

[ultraturtle]

Where are aircraft regularly flying 500' AGL?

Just off the top of my head, pipeline maintenance, power line maintenance, sightseeing, mapping, forestry, medical evacuation, news, police, wildlife survey, aerial photography, and aerial cinematography (licensed operators fully complying with all FAA rules). Probably hundreds more. I seldom look up in the sky without seeing some form of aircraft. Point is that they all are trained and licensed to operate in an unbelievably safe environment - orders of magnitude safer than our silly two dimensional automobile environment.

My question to you would be what recreational value is there to be gained by flight above 400'? I've never seen a compelling still or video shot taken more than a hundred feet or two above the ground. Is there a compelling reason to risk the lives of thousands of airborne workers and travelers just to suit the whims of those ignorant that they have not only a legitimate reason to be there, but a legal right?

 

[Morgon]

Just off the top of my head, pipeline maintenance, power line maintenance, sightseeing, mapping, forestry, medical evacuation, news, police, wildlife survey, aerial photography, and aerial cinematography (licensed operators fully complying with all FAA rules). Probably hundreds more. I seldom look up in the sky without seeing some form of aircraft. Point is that they all are trained and licensed to operate in an unbelievably safe environment - orders of magnitude safer than our silly two dimensional automobile environment.

My question to you would be what recreational value is there to be gained by flight above 400'? I've never seen a compelling still or video shot taken more than a hundred feet or two above the ground. Is there a compelling reason to risk the lives of thousands of airborne workers and travelers just to suit the whims of those ignorant that they have not only a legitimate reason to be there, but a legal right?

Fixed-wing aircraft flies at 500' for pipeline and power line maintenance? That sounds like quite a trick. If you are talking about helicopters, that's fine - but I think the overwhelming majority of quad pilots understand that they're not going to get anywhere near a helicopter's flight path. As for survey, photography, etc - quads are filling that niche. Just look at all the stories lately about how Hollywood and search-and-rescue organizations are utilizing quads (not to mention police and their drones, but that's a different discussion). Medical evac is flying a lot lower than 500' (at least on approach), and this goes back to the whole helicopter thing - the draft is going to bat that thing out of the sky before there's ever any danger of collision.

As far as recreational value, there's plenty. Have you ever seen perspectives at 500'+? It may not seem like there would be much from 400, but there is (subjectively, of course). Add another few hundred feet and I'm sure there's more to see. Not to mention that industries like brushfire mapping and S&R would benefit from the 'big picture' view. Besides, that vertical space will be of great benefit once more quads are in the air. I just don't think shoehorning a relatively new technology into antiquated laws/guidelines will be good for the

Let go of the old RC aircraft rules. These are very different beasts. We need more personal accountability and fewer laws. Laws that deal in heavy consequence for the stupid and oblivious, rather than preventing intelligent and safe people from their hobbies, is a MUCH more sane way to operate our society.

 

[ElGuano]

The guys beta testing the Inspire have confirmed that outside of the restricted fly zones (near airports) you can turn off any flight limits, or set them as you do on the P2-series. So high flyers in open fields don't have anything to worry about.

 

[ultraturtle]

... high flyers in open fields don't have anything to worry about.

I'm not at all worried about pilots of high flying UAVs in open fields. My concern is about what their vehicles crash into, who they injure and kill, and the over-reaching backlash of legislation that will swiftly result.

...this goes back to the whole helicopter thing - the draft is going to bat that thing out of the sky before there's ever any danger of collision.

Think about that statement for just a moment. Aviation threats are 3 dimensional, that is they come from above, below, and all around. Do you seriously suggest that a 3 kilogram, carbon fiber object getting sucked into a helicopter's rotors, or worse yet, its turbine inlet, will do no damage?

Laws that deal in heavy consequence for the stupid and oblivious, rather than preventing intelligent and safe people from their hobbies, is a MUCH more sane way to operate our society.

Absolutely agree. As this thread and many others have demonstrated, there are a huge number of unlicensed citizens that are oblivious to what takes place in the airspace above 400', and should not be allowed to fly their vehicles there until properly trained, licensed, and equipped.

 

[Morgon]

Think about that statement for just a moment. Aviation threats are 3 dimensional, that is they come from above, below, and all around. Do you seriously suggest that a 3 kilogram, carbon fiber object getting sucked into a helicopter's rotors, or worse yet, its turbine inlet, will do no damage?

Read what I wrote again, in context. I said nothing about the quads being sucked into the rotors - of course that will have a measurable impact if the quad comes down from above one; but I truly believe the more likely scenarios (and by 'more likely', I still mean extremely rare) are the ones where quads are nearby when a helicopter descends, or a stupid person who tries to use their quad to approach one.

 

[ElGuano]

Remember that the FAA voluntary safety standard of 400' is measured AGL (above the ground), so the limit set for the Inspire 1 needs to be adjustable to a barometric altitude much higher in order for flight in mountainous terrain to be possible.

That's not how the barometer works. When you power on the Inspire, the baro is zero'd to whatever altitude you are currently at. So the baro is AGL and not ASL.

 

[ultraturtle]

That's not how the barometer works. When you power on the Inspire, the baro is zero'd to whatever altitude you are currently at. So the baro is AGL and not ASL.

And exactly why you would need to set a higher limiting altitude. Say you want to limit yourself to 400' AGL over a 200' hill nearby, you would need to set 600', since the the vehicle knows only barometric altitude, and (in its current form) has no idea of its height above the ground directly below until it is within approximately 2.5 meters of it.

 

[ElGuano]

It's already been established that outside of a restricted fly zone, you can already set your height limit (or not) as you wish, so you can do exactly as you describe (and all current DJI FCs use baro and height limits the same way so this isn't new or unique to the Inspire). But to be clear on the technical details, the barometer is NOT set to ASL (nor can it reasonably be) as suggested above.

 

[ultraturtle]

... to be clear on the technical details, the barometer is NOT set to ASL (nor can it reasonably be) as suggested above.

I was unable to locate your reference in any of the above posts of anyone suggesting that the barometric altimeter in the craft was set to MSL, but we are in agreement that it does register a (in the Phantom's case a rather inaccurate) zero AGL reference at the launch point from which to calculate and comply with any altitude limits the user chooses to program with GPS enabled, and the 120 meter limit imposed when GPS is disabled.