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

Max flight altitude inspire1

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.

+1
 
Former pilots? I'm not an airline pilot, nor am I a former pilot. I am a helicopter pilot, I fly regularly.

This is, whether you like it or not, like trying to explain to a child that running across the freeway is a bad idea, and the child responding that they have done it before and it was fine.

There is taking calculated risks, and then there is stupidity. I have been in Iraq, Afghanistan, flown in numerous other countries. I've had near misses with jets, single engines, multi, and kites. I am simply letting you know that first and foremost you are risking someone else's life when you fly a drone. That is the calculated risk. Boffing the guidelines to minimize that risk is stupidity. This is for the safety of myself, as well as other pilots, crew members, and passengers.

You, hopefully, are an adult. You can choose to ignore the cautions and warnings. An attitude like that will eventually end with you, and the rest of the general public, not being able to operate UASs, and then you'll really be upset about being treated like a child.

The fact that you don't want to hear and gain information from such professionals speaks volumes.
 
Last edited:
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.

I guess I fit your profile as a retired airline pilot, part-time flight instructor for Boeing on the 787, and an avid multi-rotor flyer. I'm not a lawyer - Nobody needs those, right? Well, not until those calculated risks result in an unintended consequence.......:eek:

No one is interested in being your parent, or "harshing your buzz." When it's only your own life that you are taking a calculated risk with, I have no problem with that. Work yourself out. Go for it.

But when you talk about doing something that can endanger others because you refuse to abide by rules that this society (yeah, the FAA does represent our "parental supervision" here) has agreed are needed to govern the airspace above our pointy heads, then I respectfully disagree.

There's an old saying in aviation: "There are old pilots, there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots."
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Editor
The fact that you don't want to hear and gain information from such professionals speaks volumes.

Hearing and gaining information is one thing, but it seems the attitude of pilots are "do as we say". Society is changing. It's already clear that guidelines need to be revised (or implemented), but existing ones also need updating for these new markets.

I don't think anyone here is going to say that they don't respect what you do, or that you shouldn't be able to fly safely. But so should we, and maybe the RC pilots were fine being shoehorned to the same field over and over, but quads, with their multitude of abilities over standard aircraft, completely change the game.

I don't think anyone (who can see past their noses) wants it to be a 'wild west' scenario, but the FAA has its head up its ***, and the current AMA self-regulations are just not equally applicable. So right now, we only have ourselves to govern.

We need to be pushing for more personal accountability and less for overarching restrictions. A 400 ft ceiling may work in one area, but is completely asinine in another. DJI's implementation of a max ceiling is concerning, but not (yet) a cause for alarm, because 1600' is a much more reasonable ceiling than 400. But the concern was raised because they're afraid DJI would start completely dictating (or come under pressure to dictate) flying habits, instead of allowing people to make informed choices. This is a very valid concern.

So nobody's trying to say your input isn't valid or unwanted, but you can't just say "because I say so". There needs to be a discussion of compromise, something that we don't see a lot of from the 'incumbent' aviation community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbodronepilot
I agree completely that there needs to be a dialogue and a real effort made to create suitable and safe regulations for multi rotors. That is why part of our exemption is to report and work with the FAA to help grow the industry. I am very interested in getting a real working set of guidelines for UASs, but doing it the proper way.

Does no one realize that first the FAA has to investigate whether the general public has the ability to adhere to the guidelines, or whether they really need to mandate a license. And a few of the Has UAS pilots are going to ruin that quick.

The discussion you want to have is a real one. First, though, it has to be proven its a discussion worth having. Wanting to fly doesn't equate a right to fly. It must first be shown that you possess the responsibility and foresight to follow the regulations as they stand before anyone is going to welcome change
 
Hearing and gaining information is one thing, but it seems the attitude of pilots are "do as we say". Society is changing. It's already clear that guidelines need to be revised (or implemented), but existing ones also need updating for these new markets.

I don't think anyone here is going to say that they don't respect what you do, or that you shouldn't be able to fly safely. But so should we, and maybe the RC pilots were fine being shoehorned to the same field over and over, but quads, with their multitude of abilities over standard aircraft, completely change the game.

I don't think anyone (who can see past their noses) wants it to be a 'wild west' scenario, but the FAA has its head up its ***, and the current AMA self-regulations are just not equally applicable. So right now, we only have ourselves to govern.

We need to be pushing for more personal accountability and less for overarching restrictions. A 400 ft ceiling may work in one area, but is completely asinine in another. DJI's implementation of a max ceiling is concerning, but not (yet) a cause for alarm, because 1600' is a much more reasonable ceiling than 400. But the concern was raised because they're afraid DJI would start completely dictating (or come under pressure to dictate) flying habits, instead of allowing people to make informed choices. This is a very valid concern.

So nobody's trying to say your input isn't valid or unwanted, but you can't just say "because I say so". There needs to be a discussion of compromise, something that we don't see a lot of from the 'incumbent' aviation community.


I agree w/ the spirit of the above comment - I see, frequently, on these fora, helicopter pilots who state that they might often "need" to fly lower than 500 feet for certain reasons. And I suppose that, since forever, they only needed to be concerned for stationary objects less than 500 feet and that there was a spirit of "well, it's no one elses, so it is mine (the airspace)." Well, perhaps that is no longer going to be the issue. I see helicopters doing it often in the suburbs of Philadelphia, highly populated.

So, whether it's about UAV's, model rocketry, blood alcohol levels, the speed limit on roads, or other, in the United States, we have the privilege of being able to converse about these issues. And not conversing with a paternalistic approach from one group to another. But thoughtfully, thinking about the needs of the many, and not defaulting to a draconian immediate solution. Why isn't the legal limit of an alcohol level zero? Because it has been validated that it is not necessary to be that draconian. Same general idea here, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys. .I personally appreciate the different perspectives from the different people on here,even though I might not agree with them..
some people think it's ok to fly up high and some people think it's ok to fly long fpv flights ..
I personally think there's a time and place for these types of activities. .
I don't think it's ok to bash someone who wants to push the envelope. .it might not be you cup of tea ,but to say people need a iq test to fly because they do it differently than you do is just lame. .
I personally believe that any dji product could fall out of the sky at any moment. .ya that's rite.. so does it really matter if you push the limits out over the ocean or in the desert ?? Not to me..but if you fly over any populated area at any hight or distance to me you are putting them at risk..
the biggest problem I see with these machines is quality control which often leads to a crash..quality control or lack of is what's going to cause accidents because people think it's safe as long as you fly a certain way..just not true in my opinion. .
 
  • Like
Reactions: catware
but to say people need a iq test to fly because they do it differently than you do is just lame. .
Actually, I'd kinda be okay with this. :) Okay, maybe not an 'IQ' test specifically, but moreso a "demonstrate that you're not a complete tool" test.

On the Phantom boards, people used to say how they would vehemently oppose any kind of registration/certification/"documentation" that you own a quad, but I'd spring for a (reasonably-priced) certification if it grants additional benefits like a higher flight ceiling (once you've demonstrated you know how to check), and automatic commercial-use exemption.
 
Helicopters operate in that area out of necessity... In aviation, especially with helicopters there is very very little done without very good reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keks
Hearing and gaining information is one thing, but it seems the attitude of pilots are "do as we say". Society is changing. It's already clear that guidelines need to be revised (or implemented), but existing ones also need updating for these new markets.

I don't think anyone here is going to say that they don't respect what you do, or that you shouldn't be able to fly safely. But so should we, and maybe the RC pilots were fine being shoehorned to the same field over and over, but quads, with their multitude of abilities over standard aircraft, completely change the game.

I don't think anyone (who can see past their noses) wants it to be a 'wild west' scenario, but the FAA has its head up its ***, and the current AMA self-regulations are just not equally applicable. So right now, we only have ourselves to govern.

We need to be pushing for more personal accountability and less for overarching restrictions. A 400 ft ceiling may work in one area, but is completely asinine in another. DJI's implementation of a max ceiling is concerning, but not (yet) a cause for alarm, because 1600' is a much more reasonable ceiling than 400. But the concern was raised because they're afraid DJI would start completely dictating (or come under pressure to dictate) flying habits, instead of allowing people to make informed choices. This is a very valid concern.

So nobody's trying to say your input isn't valid or unwanted, but you can't just say "because I say so". There needs to be a discussion of compromise, something that we don't see a lot of from the 'incumbent' aviation community.

The operative word there is "informed" choices.

How "informed" is the choice to fly more than a couple of hundred feet at the most above the ground? What purpose does it serve? What problem does it solve? Taking images or video at that height with a wide angle lens results in - what?

If your aim is FPV flying, to get a thrill out of feeling as if you're soaring like an eagle at great heights, then your choice to do so is no longer "informed" by the necessity to appropriately separate various forms of heavier-than-air craft. And your MR is exactly that. Aircraft of a certain size have collision avoidance systems to prevent midairs; those smaller, including most helicopters, do not and fly "See and Avoid" under Visual Flight Rules to provide separation. So how in the world are you, the operator of the "other" aircraft in a potential midair, exercising your responsibility to "See and Avoid?"

It's not that I or other posters in this thread "just say so." We have, you'll have to admit, a bit more experience with being in the air than you do. That's not being smug, or superior. Our experience ought to be valued. If you want to do more than just dabble in this field and are considering turning it into a line of work, then start with becoming familiar with the rules of the road. You'll eventually have to prove yourself competent not to me, but to a representative of the FAA, someone far less interested in cutting you any slack.
 
Here's the bottom line.. if you're flying and inspire 1 over populated areas you are putting everyone and everything in its path at risk..to fly over New York or populated areas with an unproven aircraft is taking a huge risk to the people down below. .it has nothing to do with long distance or elevation flights ( extreme flights )..not everyone is a tool on here..
 
I'm not calling anyone a tool, I don't think anyone here is. We all want the same thing, you don't think I want to be able to fly at 1000 agl if the mission calls for it, or pilot out a good distance? I want to see UASs reach their full potential. What we are saying, because we have the experience and have dealt with the FAA and all the regulations is that there is a way to do it.

If you want to be able to fly like that, if you want to operate commercially, if you want a bright future then there is a way to obtain it. First thing is to show the FAA that you respect them as a regulatory authority, that you don't pose an unnecessary risk because you are willing to operate under regulations. If you won't follow the rules already in place then what sense does it make for them to open more operational freedom to you? Seriously, you think that they are going to determine that loosening the reigns on you is the answer when you haven't shown them that you're willing to follow the guidance in place?

We are trying to assist you in getting what you want and all that you have to say is rules are stupid so I'm not following them if they don't suit me. All this will ensure is that the FAA will make you get a certificate so you have something to lose when you don't follow the regs. Then you'll have check rides and tests and medicals to look forward to before you can even turn it on regardless of the reason.
 
The operative word there is "informed" choices.

How "informed" is the choice to fly more than a couple of hundred feet at the most above the ground? What purpose does it serve? What problem does it solve? Taking images or video at that height with a wide angle lens results in - what?

If your aim is FPV flying, to get a thrill out of feeling as if you're soaring like an eagle at great heights, then your choice to do so is no longer "informed" by the necessity to appropriately separate various forms of heavier-than-air craft. And your MR is exactly that. Aircraft of a certain size have collision avoidance systems to prevent midairs; those smaller, including most helicopters, do not and fly "See and Avoid" under Visual Flight Rules to provide separation. So how in the world are you, the operator of the "other" aircraft in a potential midair, exercising your responsibility to "See and Avoid?"

It's not that I or other posters in this thread "just say so." We have, you'll have to admit, a bit more experience with being in the air than you do. That's not being smug, or superior. Our experience ought to be valued. If you want to do more than just dabble in this field and are considering turning it into a line of work, then start with becoming familiar with the rules of the road. You'll eventually have to prove yourself competent not to me, but to a representative of the FAA, someone far less interested in cutting you any slack.

I like footage at 500-550', and they do look different than 400'. I'd probably like pictures at 1000', too. They serve a purpose. Expression is a purpose. Enjoyment is a purpose. They may not do anything for you, just like Picasso's work may not do anything for you. This doesn't mean it's not important, or worthwhile.

Your experience is certainly valued. But I don't want you speaking for me, or telling me what I "should" be doing. There's a big uptick in "drone spotting" by pilots that most of us don't consider genuine. We cannot have discussion until quads stop being vilified.

As for 'the rules of the road', even you have to admit that those rules need to be looked at and adjusted. These are not 1-ton helicopters or planes that require a lot of vertical space. They're small, agile, and very different from traditional aircraft. Nobody wants to see anyone hurt, but this isn't just as simple as 'playing in YOUR space' anymore. Stop treating quads as second-class. There's enough space for everyone.

Here's the bottom line.. if you're flying and inspire 1 over populated areas you are putting everyone and everything in its path at risk..to fly over New York or populated areas with an unproven aircraft is taking a huge risk to the people down below. .it has nothing to do with long distance or elevation flights ( extreme flights )..not everyone is a tool on here..
Being in public carries a risk. Cars, frisbees, golf balls, baseballs, footballs, hockey sticks, camera phones, binoculars, knives, guns, computers, food, scalding coffee, rocks, paper airplanes, hedge trimmers... These are all things that put you at risk when you're in public. Sometimes it's malicious; the overwhelmingly vast majority of the time, it's an accident. You cannot ask that the government hold your hand and pass laws to keep you safe 100% of the time, because then all of the above would be banned or severely restricted. While we do see people who have issues, they're a very small percentage of pilots.

These quads are generally pretty safe. The pilot should face severe consequences if he damages life or property, but I cannot personally agree that we should outright ban their use if a person is nearby. The one guy flying his Phantom in and out of girders at a soccer game - that guy is kind of a ****, I won't disagree. But taking some images in public in a city, assuming the quad is generally in open space, is not any more unsafe than any of the above things I've mentioned.

It's time to put away the blankets - we live in a world where one general size does not fit all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: catware
First thing is to show the FAA that you respect them as a regulatory authority,
Genuine question: How can anyone do that at this juncture, given their recent behavior? Especially when they claim to own everything that isn't expressly bolted down to your personal property?
 
I like footage at 500-550', and they do look different than 400'. I'd probably like pictures at 1000', too. They serve a purpose. Expression is a purpose. Enjoyment is a purpose. They may not do anything for you, just like Picasso's work may not do anything for you. This doesn't mean it's not important, or worthwhile.

Your experience is certainly valued. But I don't want you speaking for me, or telling me what I "should" be doing. There's a big uptick in "drone spotting" by pilots that most of us don't consider genuine. We cannot have discussion until quads stop being vilified.

As for 'the rules of the road', even you have to admit that those rules need to be looked at and adjusted. These are not 1-ton helicopters or planes that require a lot of vertical space. They're small, agile, and very different from traditional aircraft. Nobody wants to see anyone hurt, but this isn't just as simple as 'playing in YOUR space' anymore. Stop treating quads as second-class. There's enough space for everyone.


Being in public carries a risk. Cars, frisbees, golf balls, baseballs, footballs, hockey sticks, camera phones, binoculars, knives, guns, computers, food, scalding coffee, rocks, paper airplanes, hedge trimmers... These are all things that put you at risk when you're in public. Sometimes it's malicious; the overwhelmingly vast majority of the time, it's an accident. You cannot ask that the government hold your hand and pass laws to keep you safe 100% of the time, because then all of the above would be banned or severely restricted. While we do see people who have issues, they're a very small percentage of pilots.

These quads are generally pretty safe. The pilot should face severe consequences if he damages life or property, but I cannot personally agree that we should outright ban their use if a person is nearby. The one guy flying his Phantom in and out of girders at a soccer game - that guy is kind of a ****, I won't disagree. But taking some images in public in a city, assuming the quad is generally in open space, is not any more unsafe than any of the above things I've mentioned.

It's time to put away the blankets - we live in a world where one general size does not fit all.
Did someone suggest a ban on uav's near people? ? I didnt..Also most of the things you posted are visible to the people who might be injured from them..most people probably are not aware that a uav is flying above them and could come crashing down..just saying..
 
They do own the airspace, this is not a claim. If I came and hovered over your house you would have to go through the FAA for recourse.

You respect it, by as a community, making it a huge no no to fly outside what the FAA allows. Take it on yourselves to be more safe than necessary. Give the FAA no reason to wonder if UAS pilots are willing to follow regs.

No pilots are out to vilify UASs. They are aware of the extensive damage and threat they present. No pilot had it out for laser pointers, it's the idiots on the ground blinding pilots that caused the problem.

The skies work currently. So if you want them to change, first show that you can work within them, not against them
 
Genuine question: How can anyone do that at this juncture, given their recent behavior? Especially when they claim to own everything that isn't expressly bolted down to your personal property?

The FAA has a dual, and sometimes contradictory mission: To oversee safety in the National Airspace, and to promote the business of aviation. In order to do the former, it publishes rules, regulations, Notams, TFRs, and a whole alphabet soup of acronyms to which anyone operating in the NAS is expected to adhere. In order to accommodate and account for the paradigm shift engendered by the evolution of this new technology (the integration of autonomous and semi-autonomous aircraft operating without a human physically at the controls) it has been mandated by Congress to come up with new rules, the construction of which seems constantly to be out-raced by the technology advancements themselves. What was possible when the FAA first received its marching orders 5 years ago seems ancient now, so imagine where we will be 5 years hence. In that environment, the FAA will, by institutional inertia and by tradition, err on the side of caution in implementing that integration. Remember, we are not just talking about sUAS weighing up to 55 lbs, but craft approaching the size of small aircraft (like Cessnas) deployed on much more complex missions than going out for an FPV spin in the park. It's much easier to justify loosening the rules based on (eventually) historical data that justify doing so, than discovering that looser rules result in a demonstrated decrease in the level of safety based on that same data, and must therefore be tightened.
 
I found DJI's banner for the Inspire 1 quite misleading. Fixed.

newad.jpg
 
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.

I am only too happy not to provide free legal guidance to ungrateful members. Thank you for voicing your appreciation.

What you are wholly ignorant about is when you break the rules, you take risks for people other than yourself. But, judging from your selfish demeanor, you don't really care about the well-being or safety of others---cyber bullying seems your top priority. Face to face I'm certain you're afraid of your own shadow. We live in a society of laws. If you consider it parenting, it sucks to be you when you face charges. Hope your Mommy is still there for you by then. Not everybody has your superhero skills or "uncommon sense," so these people need laws to guide them.

Sorry, fellow members, just don't understand why there have to be verbally violent members like this and a bunch of others that support such an ingrate. This member is telling us he has the wherewithal to be mature enough and responsible enough, yet he writes an uncalled for mean post like this. Why? It is juveniles like this I would fear most in this hobby. The know-it-alls that have no respect for others. I've done nothing to this guy to warrant so immature a response. Just tried to provide some FREE legal guidance. Guess anybody can own and fly a dangerous quad. Trust me, it is going to be self-righteous members like this one who are going to put the legal screws to this hobby. Enough said. I will never voice another "parenting" voice on this site. It's one thing not to get paid for your legal services; its a whole other thing to have to take **** for it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pottertown

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

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