The Clubhouse If it doesn't fit in any other category and is about general RC stuff then post it here at the Clubhouse.

Quad altitude record

Reply
Old 03-23-2014, 12:38 AM
  #1
tonywayne
Thread Starter
 
tonywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boulder City, NV
Posts: 478
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Quad x350

This is the highest I have had my X350. Fail safe kicked in at about 1:04 and return to home mode started automatically. I took over about half way through the decent.

Last edited by tonywayne; 03-23-2014 at 01:37 PM.
tonywayne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 05:38 AM
  #2
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,919
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywayne View Post
This is the highest I have had my X350. Compared to previous test with a smart phone app its estimated about 1400 feet here. Fail safe kicked in at about 1:04 and return to home mode started automatically. I took over about half way through the decent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZjh0BfGbAQ
And I'm sure , that BEFORE you went that far over the FAA allowed 400 foot limit , you got written permission from the air traffic control in your area so as to not put any full scale flights at risk for your little "record" right ? If you have no written permission from your local air traffic control , I wonder what makes you think you've got the right to endanger full scale craft with your illegal incursion into airspace reserved for things other than your toys ? Once one of you "record setters" puts one through the windshield of a full scale and ruins the hobby for everyone else , please , publicly identify yourself so the EVERYONE knows who the culprit was , will ya ?

You have NO "RIGHT" to be endangering ANYONE in the manner your doing , and posting such video on the internet is about the same as the people who post while breaking other laws , not all that bright if you think about it .......
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 08:15 AM
  #3
Hemikiller
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Killingworth, CT
Posts: 589
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Wow...

...and Boulder city has a municipal airport not 3 miles away from where you did this. Brilliant...
Hemikiller is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 09:36 AM
  #4
Propworn
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,414
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

And is there any wonder why all the outcry to regulate and ban them.

Dennis
Propworn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 11:15 AM
  #5
Hoghunter12
 
Hoghunter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Holyoke, MA
Posts: 35
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=init4fun; please , publicly identify yourself so the EVERYONE knows who the culprit was , will ya? [/QUOTE]

Just in case the FAA needs a little help.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	I found you.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	405.8 KB
ID:	1980817  
Hoghunter12 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 05:41 PM
  #6
tonywayne
Thread Starter
 
tonywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boulder City, NV
Posts: 478
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I obviously wasn't aware of the 400 foot rule or i wouldn't have done that and posted it for the world to see. Looks like drones are regulated similar to part 103. Last thing i want to do is ruin this hobby for myself and everyone else. Sorry to cause such a stir and being a jackass. Lesson learned.
tonywayne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 06:38 PM
  #7
DadsToysBG
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Posts: 2,497
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

If your interested look at the AMA site.
DadsToysBG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2014, 06:55 PM
  #8
tonywayne
Thread Starter
 
tonywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boulder City, NV
Posts: 478
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Yes i have read through the safety code. Wasn't aware of the 400 foot within 3 miles of an airport rule. I realize the quad/drone boom is a sensitive subject right now. Its funny how we have been attaching cameras to our machines for years but as soon as the non r/c general public hears the word "drone" everyone panics. Flying any other fixed wing or heli that has just as much capability, cam mounted or not, people hardly turn a head, but when people see the four legged flying robot its the most amazing thing they have ever seen. I have never got so much attention from the hobby before.
tonywayne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 05:58 AM
  #9
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,919
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywayne View Post
Yes i have read through the safety code. Wasn't aware of the 400 foot within 3 miles of an airport rule. I realize the quad/drone boom is a sensitive subject right now. Its funny how we have been attaching cameras to our machines for years but as soon as the non r/c general public hears the word "drone" everyone panics. Flying any other fixed wing or heli that has just as much capability, cam mounted or not, people hardly turn a head, but when people see the four legged flying robot its the most amazing thing they have ever seen. I have never got so much attention from the hobby before.
Hi tonywayne ,

First and foremost , You have my apology for being so blunt in my original post to you . The fact that you seem to care about doing the right thing is obvious by the "sorry for being a jackass" that you posted . Now , insofar as the 400 foot thing , I feel a bit of clarification is in order here . To begin , we must look past the AMA safety code and any language within with regards to 400 feet . I would like to direct your attention instead to the FAA document ; "Advisory Circular 91-57" as published back sometime in 1981 . This document , specifically addressing model aircraft operations , calls for a 400 foot limit REGARDLESS of any proximity to any full scale airfield and then goes on to request communication with the tower for ANY model aircraft operations that will be conducted within 3 miles from any airport . There is no language whatsoever about ; "if your going higher than 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport THEN you have to contact said airport" , as most folks seem to want to interpret it ! The FAA's position is plainly obvious , NO model airplanes above 400 feet . Period . Now I also realize that some folks want to interpret the language of "voluntary compliance" to mean "optional" , but this is not the case either , they are encouraging voluntary compliance with the implied overtone that if you don't comply the FAA will enforce compliance on those who choose not to "volunteer" . This language can and will be used in any prosecution of a criminal case involving a higher than 400 feet model aricraft that ends up going through the windshield of a full scale , and you can take that to the bank . Now , for further reading , I will attempt to link AC 91-57 to this post so that all can see the language contained within it is perfectly clear .....
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2014, 11:03 PM
  #10
Rob2160
 
Rob2160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywayne View Post
This is the highest I have had my X350. Fail safe kicked in at about 1:04 and return to home mode started automatically. I took over about half way through the decent.
As a 36 year RC Modeller who has a 350QX with GoPro, I think the video / altitude flight attempts are cool..

As a 33 year professional pilot though I have to agree with those who posted concerns about breaching FAA regulations.

Overall, it was an honest mistake and you have the right attitude towards safety.

In Australia the CASA regulations are more relaxed, allowing greater freedom to fly our models. (CASA is the Aussie version of the FAA)

Our 400 feet rule only applies in controlled airspace, and since Australia is a big empty country compared to the USA, in most places CTA is at least 8500 feet above ground level. (or higher @ FL185)

Which means this is perfectly legal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERpCqXNh3rY On another note, you did the right thing taking over when fail safe kicked in. Many people who try altitude records are relying on the RTH mode which descends far too slowly and the battery dies before it gets down.. EG this guy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_yeW_IG5p0 Aussie regulations here...

7.2 Models weighing up to 25 kg 7.2.1 Unless approval has been obtained beforehand, model aircraft should only be flown:
(a) when the weather is suitable;
(b) clear of the movement areas or runways of an aerodrome;
(c) below 400ft above ground level unless: (i) clear of controlled airspace, and (ii) further than 3 nautical miles from any aerodrome:
(d) within sight of the operator at all times;
(e) well clear of populous areas;
(f) at least 30m clear of persons, vessels, vehicles or structures. This can be reduced for persons behind the direction of take off. Other model operators and any assistants or officials may be within this distance; as may vessels, vehicles or structures under their control.

Last edited by Rob2160; 03-26-2014 at 01:48 AM.
Rob2160 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2014, 04:12 AM
  #11
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,056
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywayne View Post
I obviously wasn't aware of the 400 foot rule or i wouldn't have done that and posted it for the world to see. Looks like drones are regulated similar to part 103. Last thing i want to do is ruin this hobby for myself and everyone else. Sorry to cause such a stir and being a jackass. Lesson learned.
Glad you feel this way. Your one in a million. There's just so many of these things in the hands of people who don't care that are putting all of us a risk.

Mike
rcmiket is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2014, 09:32 AM
  #12
K-Bob
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Anytown
Posts: 1,287
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob2160 View Post
As a 36 year RC Modeller who has a 350QX with GoPro, I think the video / altitude flight attempts are cool..

As a 33 year professional pilot though I have to agree with those who posted concerns about breaching FAA regulations.

Overall, it was an honest mistake and you have the right attitude towards safety.

In Australia the CASA regulations are more relaxed, allowing greater freedom to fly our models. (CASA is the Aussie version of the FAA)

Our 400 feet rule only applies in controlled airspace, and since Australia is a big empty country compared to the USA, in most places CTA is at least 8500 feet above ground level. (or higher @ FL185)

Which means this is perfectly legal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERpCqXNh3rY On another note, you did the right thing taking over when fail safe kicked in. Many people who try altitude records are relying on the RTH mode which descends far too slowly and the battery dies before it gets down.. EG this guy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_yeW_IG5p0 Aussie regulations here...

7.2 Models weighing up to 25 kg 7.2.1 Unless approval has been obtained beforehand, model aircraft should only be flown:
(a) when the weather is suitable;
(b) clear of the movement areas or runways of an aerodrome;
(c) below 400ft above ground level unless: (i) clear of controlled airspace, and (ii) further than 3 nautical miles from any aerodrome:
(d) within sight of the operator at all times;
(e) well clear of populous areas;
(f) at least 30m clear of persons, vessels, vehicles or structures. This can be reduced for persons behind the direction of take off. Other model operators and any assistants or officials may be within this distance; as may vessels, vehicles or structures under their control.
Seems as though you were in violation of at least two of those provisions. Why was it necessary to fly it over the heads of, and around those pedestrians?
K-Bob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 07:29 AM
  #13
eddieC
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
And I'm sure , that BEFORE you went that far over the FAA allowed 400 foot limit , you got written permission from the air traffic control in your area so as to not put any full scale flights at risk for your little "record" right ? If you have no written permission from your local air traffic control , I wonder what makes you think you've got the right to endanger full scale craft with your illegal incursion into airspace reserved for things other than your toys ?
If you read the AMA code, it says to advise the local airport operator if you're flying above 400' within 3 miles of an airport, you're not restricted to stay below 400' and nothing is mentioned about getting it in writing. I've flown above 400' on an airport with an active control tower, just made a phone call to advise the tower I was there. The controllers enjoyed watching us, and we stayed low when full-scale birds were being operated.
eddieC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 08:51 AM
  #14
eddieC
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The AMA Safety Code says:
Quote:
Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
So one is OK within 3 miles of an airport below 400', no notification is needed. Above 400' within 3 miles, you should notify the airport operator.

In the US, there are areas of uncontrolled airspace that extend from the surface to 14,500' and much of the controlled airspace begins 700-1,500' above the ground, so that's plenty of airspace for our models. The 400' term is only within 3 miles of an airport and is not an overall limit.

The Safety Code also has warnings about reckless operation, and aircraft must be visible to the unaided eye:
Quote:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.(b) See and avoid all aircraft
Thus, flying near the 14,500' limit is probably impossible and might even be considered reckless.
eddieC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 01:46 PM
  #15
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,919
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddieC View Post
If you read the AMA code, it says to advise the local airport operator if you're flying above 400' within 3 miles of an airport, you're not restricted to stay below 400' and nothing is mentioned about getting it in writing. I've flown above 400' on an airport with an active control tower, just made a phone call to advise the tower I was there. The controllers enjoyed watching us, and we stayed low when full-scale birds were being operated.
Um , Eddie , your missin something here ..........

The A M A , aka the Academy of Model Aeronautics has NOTHING to do with the height limit I refer to !

Now the F A A , You know , the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION , The governmental agency in charge of EVERYTHING that flys in our US of A's airspace , has put out a directive known as Advisory Circular 91-57 and is quoted in my above post . It is them , the F A A , that clearly specify NOTHING model airplane wise , flys higher than 400 feet regardless of what you , the AMA , or 100000 different "safety codes" that are not F A A endorsed , have to say about it . You can scream , rant , call me anything you want to , but the simple fact of the matter is that the sentence in 91-57 is quite clear to anyone who cares to actually click on it and read it . That IS a period at the end of the sentence "Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400' above the surface ." with no caveat of anything to do with being allowed to fly higher . We RCers (and free flighters too !) have gotten a free pass on this since 1981 when the directive was first published cause no particularly notorious high altitude accidents have happened . Now iffin you go puttin one through the windshield of a jetliner at 5 or so thousand feet , it WILL be 91-57 that the F A A will trot out in your trial , and no AMA or slick lawyer is gonna save ya ! Now , bear in mind , I DO think the 400 foot absolute limit is absurd and unenforceable , but untill I see specific info from the F A A saying different , my "official" answer is that "No Sir , MY models do NOT fly higher than 400 feet" ..........

Last edited by init4fun; 03-28-2014 at 01:54 PM.
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 02:55 PM
  #16
eddieC
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Init, I'm somewhat familiar with AC's and FAR's, having taught and dealt with them over the past 35+ years as a flight instructor, charter and corporate pilot.
The Advisory Circulars are just that, advisory, and are used to present good operating procedures. They have been upheld in court, and also have been overturned in court. This is why they are not FAR's, and not regulatory by definition.
I agree the AC is specific on the 400' limit, yet you must read and understand what the AMA Safety Code says which is above 400' within 3 miles of an airport. They could have said '...400', or within 3 miles...', but they made no such distinction.

I too too will 'abide' by the 400' rule *wink*, but the regs and AC's are two distinct animals.

Review the case of the FAA trying to fine the quad pilot $10K. No law on the books, so no fine.

Please note I've replied in a neutral, respectful tone. No childish s p a c e s between letters, nor talking down to you. You might try it for a change.
eddieC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 03:45 PM
  #17
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,919
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Hi Eddie , Sorry for getting all "spaces between letters" , It's a knee jerk reaction to folks putting forth the notion that the AMA is the only regulatory body in charge of model aircraft operations , and if you wern't doing that than my apologys to you . I too am well versed in ACs and FARs being an A/P mechanic (retired) myself . I always took the wording "encouraging voluntary compliance" as having the implied meaning that if you don't comply , well then if it means enough to em , then they'll force you to "volunteer" to comply . Between you and I , I have been hoping that the new laws coming out actually DO default to the AMA's much more lenient position rather than the FAA's strict wording of 400' (longtime AMA member too , and respect all the AMA has done for our hobby) . I just know that if push came to shove in a high altitude bad accident scenario between a model and a full scale , the FAA would use 91-57 in a heartbeat to charge blame to the guy holding the transmitter , do you agree ?
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:06 AM.