Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Max flight altitude inspire1

It's deletable in the app, so what's the problem?

Actually, my suggestion would be an app feature that would require a quick IQ test before flight (there's no way to test for common sense, but a guy can dream).

With the latest firmware update on the App - it is no longer deletable. Hence my comment.
 
I am not surprised that some people want to complain about this, some people do not want any limitations on their hobby what so ever. We are talking 500 METERS here, not feet. After 400-500 feet, you lose all real detail and there is very little difference as you go higher. I can't imagine any situation where I need to be over 1,600' high.
 
The real issue here is that we are on a slippery slope. If DJI set the max to 500 meters today, what will they set it to in a couple of months?

I've decided that today's package is perfect for me, but what if the specs get worse over time as DJI decreases maximum values in their app?

It doesn't help that DJI have the ability to force updates now. They have total control over us now and can change max flight distance or altitude whenever they feel like it.
 
Wonder what happens if I start at the bottom of a hill and start to climb just 40 mtr above ground.What will happen if the hill is over 500 mtr high and I go further away.As far as I know I'm still 40 mtr above ground,but more than 500 mtr above starting point.
 
Wonder what happens if I start at the bottom of a hill and start to climb just 40 mtr above ground.What will happen if the hill is over 500 mtr high and I go further away.As far as I know I'm still 40 mtr above ground,but more than 500 mtr above starting point.

Yes,that is a valid case, and when you run into a situation where the limit actually affects you I would be interested in hearing about it. I fly up to a butte in our city, the top is 600'. If I fly straight out back to the parking lot I am now flying at 600' above the ground versus descending along the way to maintain 400' max. I just have never been in a situation where I was 500 METERS. That's a pretty big distance.
 
I live in a place where I can go up to these kind of altitudes,but the highest is for me 300 mtr.Not interested in more.But I will go to the Alps and want to make video's over there.So the max altitude will be reached in a short distance.
 
It's deletable in the app, so what's the problem?

Actually, my suggestion would be an app feature that would require a quick IQ test before flight (there's no way to test for common sense, but a guy can dream).
Like they say, "Ya can't fix stooopid" and I am beginning to see too many folks here with too much money and too little brains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ems1016
According to AC 91-57 "do not operate model aircraft above 400 feet above the surface". It is true that it is a recommendation, but that is a STRONG recommendation. Aircraft are not required to stay above 500 feet.

I am an attorney and I can assure you it is not a "recommendation" at all.

It simply amazes me that so many members do not appreciate the VERY REAL danger to life and property in flying anywhere near this limit in the U.S. My sincere hope for those in the U.S. who are doing it is that they are apprehended, pay a very heavy fine and maybe even have some nice sexual experiences in prison. Otherwise, this hobby has every reason to be worried about the criminals elected to Congress having a knee-jerk response and severely restricting hobby flying.
 
UK and parts of Europe, this height should be set to 120m (400ft). Below is an extract from one of the UK CAAs air navigation orders

  1. If the System does not have an approved Detect and Avoid capability, the restrictions detailed below will normally be applied to UAS operations outside segregated airspace as part of the CAA permissions and exemptions process. The aircraft shall not be flown:

    • in controlled airspace, except with the permission of the appropriate ATC unit;

    • in any aerodrome traffic zone except with the permission of either the appropriate ATC unit or the person in charge of the aerodrome;

    • at a height exceeding 400 feet above the surface;

    • at a distance beyond the visual range of the Remote Pilot/RPA observer of the said aircraft, or a maximum range of 500 metres, whichever is less;

    • over or within 150 metres of any congested area of a city, town or settlement; or

    • within 50 metres of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the Remote Pilot; during take-off or landing, however, the aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person, unless that person is under the control of the Remote Pilot.
 
I am an attorney and I can assure you it is not a "recommendation" at all.
Yes as an attorney you can better explain how an FAA recommendation is not really a recommendation. As a pilot all I can do is point out that despite it being stated as a recommendation, it is not really a request but a nice way of saying you will; which is what I was trying to explain. Staying at or below 400 feet agl is a must unless given an explicit authorization to the contrary.

On another note, are you an aviation lawyer? If so would you mind pming me your info (assuming you're in the states)
 
Not an aviation lawyer. I would starve! Lol. Our practice is in Upstate New York and we special in commercial law and Federal litigation. We have a couple of clients who are pilots (one a helicopter pilot; the other a Cessna pilot). Our heli pilot has developed certain software that requires FAA approval, so I have some experience there. Would not call myself an aviation attorney by any stretch of the imagination. Given these clients' legal needs and my new hobby here, I hope that qualifies me to give you some sense of the law.

Sir, it is not a matter of my explaining "how an FAA recommendation is not really a recommendation." You are asking me to explain why black is not white. What you quote is simply not a "recommendation" at all; it is what lawyers call "non-precatory" regulatory language, which means it is, indeed, mandatory.

Please explain why you insist on characterizing this as a "recommendation." Federal Agencies never ask nicely for compliance; there is always the threat of fines etc. That's how we supposedly legislate morality and common sense in this country.

I hope you did not take my response personally. I was criticizing only your interpretation of the law as an unenforceable suggestion; it has the force of law as a regulation.

In appreciation for all the free knowledge I obtain here in a hobby that is new to me, I offer my legal services freely to the extent that they serve the betterment of this outstanding site. I do have contacts at the FAA, so if I do not know the answer, I do know where to go to get it.

Yes as an attorney you can better explain how an FAA recommendation is not really a recommendation. As a pilot all I can do is point out that despite it being stated as a recommendation, it is not really a request but a nice way of saying you will; which is what I was trying to explain. Staying at or below 400 feet agl is a must unless given an explicit authorization to the contrary.

On another note, are you an aviation lawyer? If so would you mind pming me your info (assuming you're in the states)
 
Oh, I understand what you are getting at, I say it is a recommendation because in the AC it is written as "The FAA recommends..." Now there are a few things like this in the world of dealing with the FAA, yes they are few and far between, but a recommendation from the FAA is not a recommendation as one might think, it is everything but a recommendation.

Here is a decent explanation of how ACs are not regulatory but going against them would not be pleasant were the FAA to inquire into your actions:
Advisory circular (AC) refers to a type of publication offered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide guidance for compliance with airworthiness regulations. They define acceptable means, but not the only means, of accomplishing or showing compliance with airworthiness regulations.[1] Generally informative in nature, Advisory Circulars are neither binding nor regulatory; yet some have the effect of de facto standards or regulations.[2]
 
  • Like
Reactions: ems1016
"Advisory Circulars are neither binding nor regulatory; yet some have the effect of de facto standards or regulations." Therein lies the contradictory hook, my friend. "De facto" means, though it is "neither binding nor regulatory," in fact, it may be treated as such and have the import and force of law. Personally, I think such "de facto" applications violate Due Process under the Constitution because citizens can not be held accountable for equivocal laws. Due notice of what is against the law is an inherently integral part of due process. You can't tell an American citizen it is not "advisable" to go through a red light when there are no laws prohibiting it and then fine and/or otherwise punish somebody who doesn't stop for a red light simply because an agency "advised" against it. Am I making this concept clear or just muddying things further for everybody? Bottom line, the FAA has virtually unlimited litigative resources, so unless you are Bill Gates, it is an unfair David versus Goliath proposition.
 
There's what I was looking for, the legalese. I am in no way a proponent of going against the ACs, was just trying to make the point to anyone that may mistake the FAA suggesting 400 feet as them not having to adhere. If the FAA says to do it, do it. Emergencies not withstanding.
 
Every time a thread like this appears, it is being spammed with negativeness by (former) airplane pilots and lawyers pretending they are our parents and know everything better.

Let me teach you guys a lesson about life: Life is about taking (calculated) risks and having fun.

Yes, I break the rules sometimes. Does that make me irresponsible? No, it does not. As long as you use your awareness and do silly things at the right times and places, there is nothing wrong with it. It's all about being smart about it and knowing your tools inside out.

Finally, I'd like to propose adding an "Airline pilots and lawyers" section to this forum so we can freely talk about what life is really about without being parented.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
22,273
Messages
210,620
Members
34,253
Latest member
cleaningbyjen