H Height Limit Change Problem

[PatR]

400 feet AGL is the max height allowed by the FAA

That is 100% NOT TRUE! Become proactive and read the actual law as published by the FAA. The only people that have a published height limitation are commercial operators working under Part 333 and 107. The amateurs and hobbyists are simply required to maintain safe separation from manned aircraft and to operate safely. Everyone is subject to the "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" provisions in aviation law but a mandated 400' altitude limit, be it listed as MSL or AGL, is not part of the program.

Because someone said it on the internet does not make it true. Perform your due diligence to become accurately informed. I could post links to the law but you would not learn how to do things yourself if I did. I'll provide a hint and suggest starting with Part 336 and expanding from there. When you registered your model with the FAA you agreed at least twice in the registration process to remain below 400' but that is not part of published law.

 

[BlackHawk]

That is 100% NOT TRUE! Become proactive and read the actual law as published by the FAA. The only people that have a published height limitation are commercial operators working under Part 333 and 107. The amateurs and hobbyists are simply required to maintain safe separation from manned aircraft and to operate safely. Everyone is subject to the "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" provisions in aviation law but a mandated 400' altitude limit, be it listed as MSL or AGL, is not part of the program.

Because someone said it on the internet does not make it true. Perform your due diligence to become accurately informed. I could post links to the law but you would not learn how to do things yourself if I did. I'll provide a hint and suggest starting with Part 336 and expanding from there. When you registered your model with the FAA you agreed at least twice in the registration process to remain below 400' but that is not part of published law.

Yes I agree. Please see the table here Getting Started

 

[Nateb006]

I actually contacted Yuneec today in regards to the 400ft issue. They claim that even if sent a link they will not read anything from a forum. They do things on a case by case basis and are supposedly looking into the issue. I inspect towers and ended up down for a week because I couldn't go over 400ft on two of my inspections. After not hearing back from Yuneec from my original call two weeks ago I started looking around and went with version 1.29 on the autopilot and everything has been fixed. It works like it should. I also agree with PatR people need to actually read the laws and know what is law and what is simply suggested.

 

[raptorheli2]

So is this another oversight by yuneec in a firmware or is it locked for good in their eyes?

 

[Nateb006]

So is this another oversight by yuneec in a firmware or is it locked for good in their eyes?

So far they are denying the issue. There will be a fairly heavy amount of them sold if it can't be changed. I'll go back to flying my inspire every day. I bought the Yuneec for smaller jobs and to take some load off the other bird. But because of what I do and where I'm at, the height limit would have killed me.

 

[CVO Larry]

I stand corrected. Part 107 specifically excludes model aircraft flown for pleasure as described in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95. Therefore, unless there is another law we are not aware of, there is no height restriction on drones or other hobby rc aircraft.

 

[CraigCam]

So far they are denying the issue. There will be a fairly heavy amount of them sold if it can't be changed. I'll go back to flying my inspire every day. I bought the Yuneec for smaller jobs and to take some load off the other bird. But because of what I do and where I'm at, the height limit would have killed me.

There is supposed to be an update to remove the angle limit problem soon according to Yuneec tech I spoke with today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Rubik]

I emailed uscs.yuneec.com about this issue today. They assigned a case number. Here's their very rapid response:
"Hello,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This has been forwarded to our programmers to resolve. An update will follow once corrected. Please let us know if you have any other questions."
It sounds a bit generic, but I hope they are planning to correct the problem.

 

[CraigCam]

I emailed uscs.yuneec.com about this issue today. They assigned a case number. Here's their very rapid response:
"Hello,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This has been forwarded to our programmers to resolve. An update will follow once corrected. Please let us know if you have any other questions."
It sounds a bit generic, but I hope they are planning to correct the problem.

I was told they are fixing the error in the last autopilot firmware that restricted height.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Grimsin]

I was told they are fixing the error in the last autopilot firmware that restricted height.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Hope so... Even though I can and am running the 1.29 i much prefer to run the latest updates.

 

[Grimsin]

Its funny how some of you say one thing on one thread and contradict yourselves in another.

 

[PatR]

I stand corrected. Part 107 specifically excludes model aircraft flown for pleasure as described in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95. Therefore, unless there is another law we are not aware of, there is no height restriction on drones or other hobby rc aircraft.

Also review the following: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

There's more but with both 107 and 336 you have more than enough fundamental resources to initiate a deeper information search using official documentation instead of internet hearsay. I don't know about you, but please don't include me in your "we are not aware of" statement. Some of us expend considerable effort to maintain an accurate knowledge base.

Those operating professionally MUST be functionally cognizant of the law as written. Since 336 and 107 publication, there's no longer any excuse for amateurs/modelers/hobbyists to remain ignorant. Search engines on the internet are free but people need to use them correctly to obtain accurate information. The statement "I didn't know" will not be an effective excuse in a court room.

 

[BlackHawk]

Also review the following: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

There's more but with both 107 and 336 you have more than enough fundamental resources to initiate a deeper information search using official documentation instead of internet hearsay. I don't know about you, but please don't include me in your "we are not aware of" statement. Some of us expend considerable effort to maintain an accurate knowledge base.

Those operating professionally MUST be functionally cognizant of the law as written. Since 336 and 107 publication, there's no longer any excuse for amateurs/modelers/hobbyists to remain ignorant. Search engines on the internet are free but people need to use them correctly to obtain accurate information. The statement "I didn't know" will not be an effective excuse in a court room.

The only rule that restricts a lot of possibilities is VLOS. At 400ft I cannot tell the attitude of my model rc plane/multirotor. So even if its the max ceiling per 107, it is still restrictive for my H. Assuming I can get the 8ft mikrocopter under 55lbs, I may be able to visually identify the attitude of my multirotor at 400ft.

 

[PatR]

I also fly GS RC aerobatic airplanes and can assure you that as things become larger visibility at distance improves considerably. A 10' wingspan airplane can be well observed at several thousands of feet. This is what makes the operation of RC Thermal Duration gliders at altitudes of several thousand feet possible. Multirotors, even very large ones, are more difficult because orientation is not as easily established. They often look the same from the front, rear, and sides. They don't have a distinctive tail assembly to differentiate between front and back, and bright colors applied to establish orientation are frequently absorbed or diluted by sunlight. Orange, yellow, and red are the colors that are most frequently used but at distance sunlight can render them useless for the intended purpose. One color we never want to use is grey.

 

[CVO Larry]

Also review the following: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

There's more but with both 107 and 336 you have more than enough fundamental resources to initiate a deeper information search using official documentation instead of internet hearsay. I don't know about you, but please don't include me in your "we are not aware of" statement. Some of us expend considerable effort to maintain an accurate knowledge base.

Those operating professionally MUST be functionally cognizant of the law as written. Since 336 and 107 publication, there's no longer any excuse for amateurs/modelers/hobbyists to remain ignorant. Search engines on the internet are free but people need to use them correctly to obtain accurate information. The statement "I didn't know" will not be an effective excuse in a court room.

Excuse the Fu*k out of me. I am Not a professional and don't plan on becoming one. I fly because it's fun and I enjoy trading info with the other flyers here. I don't need to spend hours researching as I see no reason to ever exceed 400 feet AGL with a drone. As you are obviously a professional operator you were not included in my statement in the first place.

 

[PatR]

Then don't tell people what the law is when you don't know. To many do that and too many more don't question what they read, leaving newbie amateurs with a mind full of crap. It's how falsely represented BS gets started.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grimsin]

Also review the following: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

There's more but with both 107 and 336 you have more than enough fundamental resources to initiate a deeper information search using official documentation instead of internet hearsay. I don't know about you, but please don't include me in your "we are not aware of" statement. Some of us expend considerable effort to maintain an accurate knowledge base.

Those operating professionally MUST be functionally cognizant of the law as written. Since 336 and 107 publication, there's no longer any excuse for amateurs/modelers/hobbyists to remain ignorant. Search engines on the internet are free but people need to use them correctly to obtain accurate information. The statement "I didn't know" will not be an effective excuse in a court room.

Lol. I didnt know still works in the court room for anyone whos a hobbyist. Just because 336 and 107 exist doesn't mean someone has seen them.

 

[Grimsin]

Honestly from what I have seen around here. NONE of you know what the law is. As someone who has dealt with court prolly more then anyone else responding here.... I can tell you right now at least in the US they will make the law what ever they want when ever they want to do what ever they want to whom ever they want. FOR WHAT EVER REASON THEY WANT. I simply follow the US governments example and do what ever I want too. What's that you say? There are repercussions to your actions? Yes I am more than aware... Can't wait for the GOV to learn that one the hard way... ROFL.

Like i said else where... If you don't have anything constructive to say maybe you should shut up. Sorry but pointing out legality's is not constructive. Arguing about a law that will change upon their whim... not constructive.

 

[Grimsin]

Either you know something about actually making it go higher, not the legality's either. Or you don't. If you don't, STFU

 

[Rayray]

Gone too far...