Dewey3 Posted at 2017-4-24 09:01
400 feet AGL PERIOD.  This is why flying above 400 feet was one of the charges against the person who crashed into the 605 foot Seattle Space Needle: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/ ... eedle-228337-1.html.  I know flying above people was included, but busting 400 feet was also a charge.

This is incorrect.  Please see Part 107.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-4-24 13:00
This is incorrect.  Please see Part 107.

Correct when looking at the short version of 107 when it was proposed.  Supposedly, the structure + 400 foot rule was added for commercial operators performing inspections on those structures where flying manned aircraft would be unsafe.  This article explains the revisions from the proposed July 2016 Part 107 that probably all of us are familiar with to the "Final UAS Rule" released in August 2016: 10 Things to Know About Part 107.  The linked Airmap article links to the newer August 2016, 624 page Part 107 here (PDF document).  There are several places in the 624 page Part 107 that talked about structure + 400 feet and they don't specifically say "commercial", but most do mention as being part of inspection of the structure (just search 400 feet).  With all of this said, I think the best answer would be to watch for the outcome of the Space Needle crash pilot.

Dewey3 Posted at 2017-4-24 09:01
400 feet AGL PERIOD.  This is why flying above 400 feet was one of the charges against the person who crashed into the 605 foot Seattle Space Needle: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/ ... eedle-228337-1.html.  I know flying above people was included, but busting 400 feet was also a charge.

You'll need to reread your own link, he may be charged with.....
I'm sure the space needle is in restricted airspace, that maybe his only charge.
If FAA in forced this violation that is....

All I can say it is legal for a commercial pilot to fly above and up to 400ft above any structure
*making sure not in restricted airspace
*making sure not going into restricted airspace

Dewey3 Posted at 2017-4-24 15:54
Correct when looking at the short version of 107 when it was proposed.  Supposedly, the structure + 400 foot rule was added for commercial operators performing inspections on those structures where flying manned aircraft would be unsafe.  This article explains the revisions from the proposed July 2016 Part 107 that probably all of us are familiar with to the "Final UAS Rule" released in August 2016: 10 Things to Know About Part 107.  The linked Airmap article links to the newer August 2016, 624 page Part 107 here (PDF document).  There are several places in the 624 page Part 107 that talked about structure + 400 feet and they don't specifically say "commercial", but most do mention as being part of inspection of the structure (just search 400 feet).  With all of this said, I think the best answer would be to watch for the outcome of the Space Needle crash pilot.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

dronist Posted at 2017-4-24 08:36
DJI, had to comply with US laws so they can keep selling in the US. That is why they have been adding all kinds of restrictions incrementally in each update and one of them was the 500 meters becasue people ABUSED IT and bragged ABOUT IT ON YOUTUBE etc. and most of the time caused failure of the drone dropping down like a bomb.

That is why new pilots need to read the manual, practice in the academy, fly around in open fields until they really master flying those birds and then you still need to act and behave like a real pilot. Check your drone before and after take off and landing. Check every part, propellers, sensors for any dust, insect smudges etc... Check your environment where you want to fly, wind speed, directions, KP etc...

Not sure where all of that came from but thanks for helping me make my point.

Cobra44Magnum Posted at 2017-4-25 04:13
Not sure where all of that came from but thanks for helping me make my point.

The issue is NOT going above 500' but are there responsible pilots to use it or if P4 can handle it or the P4 has enough battery to come back down safely. All those factors forced DJI to restrict so no more idiots can cause a real disaster that would shrink their market shares.

Ken has a youtube to explain the 400ft rule.

Please check youtube with title "KEN HERON - How To fly ABOVE 400 feet LEGALLY with your Drone"

Minnesota Q. If you check the FAA.gov site you will see that it reads if you are within 400 feet of the object you can go 400 feet plus the height of the object. I think you can find your answer by searching the FAA site, I have looked this up a couple of times. Just remember you have to be within 400 ft or less of object itself. (Horizontal distance to the object.)

hmmm... Everything being said. My 400' warning comes from the DJI GOAPP.

If you look at the FAA Advisory Circular   Date 6/21/16  AC No. 107-2 by John S. Duncan. Director, Flight Standards Service On Page 5-8 section 5.10 you will find the answer about 400 feet plus the height of the object.

I ask same question, I'm at 1500 feet above sea level if I go to the 400ft may I'm in flight plans

dronist Posted at 2017-4-22 22:00
Simple example.

You take off to 50'' then fly north ascending to a hill that is 1000' away from you but with a height of 400' than your drone hover above the hill. So the drone is hovering at a height of 50' above the hill.

Yes it Will

Labroides Posted at 2017-4-23 15:41
It's not any kind of Phantom 4.
The video is a hoax and there are lots of clues
Look at the horizon when the camera is tilted at 38 seconds - fisheye lens - it's a Phantom 2.

if you are within 400ft radius of a 500ft building your max alt is 900ft.

Dewey3 Posted at 2017-4-24 09:01
400 feet AGL PERIOD.  This is why flying above 400 feet was one of the charges against the person who crashed into the 605 foot Seattle Space Needle: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/ ... eedle-228337-1.html.  I know flying above people was included, but busting 400 feet was also a charge.

I checked the story and it is obviously another sparsely factual story that is full of speculation brought to you by "the talking heads"  for the purpose of selling the evening news.  I love it when ignorant people get on the media and spout like they are  experts.  Pretty entertaining.  

It seems to me the guy that crashed into the space needle in that video was most likely a hobbyist - I would hope a 107 pilot would have better sense.   It looks like he flew above it, then came down, went around, lost signal due to the obstacle, and it RTH'd into the tower.  So yeah, that's a violation since he flew into the tower - doesn't matter that he was in RTH and he didn't mean to do it.  There are several hobbyist rules broken including the 400' AGL guideline (the 900' example two posts up is well-stated for 107 pilots but doesn't apply to hobbyists), none of which have to do with this thread since this is a 107 thread.  OTOH, the second he violated Part 101, his flight became a 107, which means he's in even deeper doodoo because he likely doesn't have a 107 certificate.  In other words, he's gonna need an attorney for this one.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-11-29 08:02
It seems to me the guy that crashed into the space needle in that video was most likely a hobbyist - I would hope a 107 pilot would have better sense.   It looks like he flew above it, then came down, went around, lost signal due to the obstacle, and it RTH'd into the tower.  So yeah, that's a violation since he flew into the tower - doesn't matter that he was in RTH and he didn't mean to do it.  There are several hobbyist rules broken including the 400' AGL guideline (the 900' example two posts up is well-stated for 107 pilots but doesn't apply to hobbyists), none of which have to do with this thread since this is a 107 thread.  OTOH, the second he violated Part 101, his flight became a 107, which means he's in even deeper doodoo because he likely doesn't have a 107 certificate.  In other words, he's gonna need an attorney for this one.

Everything you say is true and relevant however very little of it was stated or substantiated in that particular story.  just sayin' sparsely factual. Typical talking heads, tip of the iceberg, presentation.  btw, the video is worth a chuckle.  

Yeah, you're right, I'm speculatin' ... haha