Another one just fallen from the sky....

[FlushVision]

Just to clarify for anybody in the UK. This has come directly from the CAA. There is indeed a 400 feet height limit placed on all model aircraft unless you have a specific permission to fly over the 400 feet in a particular instance. Although Articles 94 / 95 do not specifically state the 400 feet limit the drone code does state it and anybody flying above the 400 feet limit would be classed as endangering other aircraft. These aren't my words, they are from the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK. I understand that peoples opinions might differ of what is safe or what is not safe but this isn't about opinion of any individual in the UK.

I hope this clarifies things for UK flyers. I can't really comment on US or European flyers or those down under either. Like all of these things.... You might well get away with it until the day that something goes wrong. My attitude is best to be safe than sorry...

Good post. Can you post a reference to the official CAA legal document that specifies the 400 feet maximum altitude limit for under 7kg recreational use. Remember that the Drone Code is an advisory document which says to fly below 400 feet (or 120m which actually equals 393' 8" so take your pick) to comply with the Drone Code. The Drone code is advisory and is good advice indeed, but it is not the law and so does not form part of the Air Navigation Order (2016) CAP 393 which we should be adhering to.

Please note that I'm not being sarky here. I'm all in favor of staying below 400 feet (my TH is limited to 120m height) and I do agree that flying above 400 feet can be seen as reckless. I'm genuinely interested to see the wording of the law since I've not come across it before.

 

[Dilly Joat]

And if this is the law, why would CAA publish an exemption to allow for FPV flight in which it states that the SUA can fly up to 1000 feet AGL? See CAA document ORS4 No.1226 General Exemption E4457. The Drone Code is an advisory code NOT the law and it makes sense for considerate flyers.

 

[ByM]

And if this is the law, why would CAA publish an exemption to allow for FPV flight in which it states that the SUA can fly up to 1000 feet AGL? See CAA document ORS4 No.1226 General Exemption E4457. The Drone Code is an advisory code NOT the law and it makes sense for considerate flyers.

My post was pretty clear. Don't shoot the messenger. If you are in any doubt whether my post is accurate then give the CAA a call. Their UAV department is pretty easy to get through to. As stated above The CAA's stance is that it is the law that you must not endanger other aircraft.
Their stance on the phone was that they consider this to be below 400 feet as stated in tne dronecode. They consider the dronecode to be legally binding I was told.

I pointed out that the regulation that a drone of over 7kg and under 20kg states the 400 feet limit so it would be fair to assume that under 7kg therr is no specific height. My opinion is that the wording is confusing and needs to be a lot clearer. I made this known to them and they have taken that feedback on board so they might just change that wording.

They were absolutely adament that under 400 feet is legally binding...

My opinion is not relevant as i fly commercially.and its quite clear on my 'permission".

 

[PatR]

We must always take care to qualify the national locations when discussing laws pertaining to our activities. ByM, thanks for posting the info relevant to the U.K.

 

[Dilly Joat]

My post was pretty clear. Don't shoot the messenger.".

ByM, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I worked with the CAA many years ago and understand their attitude. But here in the UK many advisories are issued like the Drone Code that do not have the force of law. I strongly suggest all hobby flyers should follow the Drone Code. Air Navigation Order 2016 for recreational flights states a 400 foot limit if the craft weighs more than 7 kilos. I think that until the CAA makes any changes, we should use common sense and stick to the limit but going higher is not automatically breaking the rules if it is for recreation only and is within VLOS and is in clear airspace.

 

[FlushVision]

My post was pretty clear. Don't shoot the messenger. If you are in any doubt whether my post is accurate then give the CAA a call. Their UAV department is pretty easy to get through to. As stated above The CAA's stance is that it is the law that you must not endanger other aircraft.
Their stance on the phone was that they consider this to be below 400 feet as stated in tne dronecode. They consider the dronecode to be legally binding I was told.

I pointed out that the regulation that a drone of over 7kg and under 20kg states the 400 feet limit so it would be fair to assume that under 7kg therr is no specific height. My opinion is that the wording is confusing and needs to be a lot clearer. I made this known to them and they have taken that feedback on board so they might just change that wording.

They were absolutely adament that under 400 feet is legally binding...

My opinion is not relevant as i fly commercially.and its quite clear on my 'permission".

Says 400' on my commercial permission too, but we are talking about recreational flights in the sub 7Kg category.

...<snip>... As stated above The CAA's stance is that it is the law that you must not endanger other aircraft.
Their stance on the phone was that they consider this to be below 400 feet as stated in tne dronecode. They consider the dronecode to be legally binding I was told.
...<snip>...

Doesn't matter what you were told over the 'phone. Whilst I agree that one should not endanger other aircraft, the fact is that the DroneCode is an advisory and not in itself legally binding. What is legally binding is the Air Navigation Order (2016) CAP 393 categories 94 & 95, which the DroneCode is based upon. The fact that they have chosen to include a blanket 'rule' in that code saying that one must not go above 400' is misleading to the sub 7kg aircraft owner. I suspect this was done so as not to make the DC overly complicated since it covers aircraft of different weight categories. There is no height restriction for the under 7kg category of UAV used recreationally stated in CAP393 and THAT is the law.

However, I say again, that the DroneCode is a good bit of advice and should be followed to avoid breaking the actual law as defined in CAP393. But the bottom line, as far as the sub 7kg category, is as Dilly Joat says...
'going higher is not automatically breaking the rules if it is for recreation only and is within VLOS and is in clear airspace'.

 

[PatR]

We've had similar interpretation problems here in the U.S. with various FAA officials pretty much since FSDO offices and line inspections were implemented. They have made quite a few aviation attorneys financially well, and cost the appellants dearly, even those proven correct. I'm not suggesting that everyone abide by an official's interpretation but winning the argument can be bittersweet. Best to know and understand the laws as written and proceed accordingly while being prepared to defend your actions under the law. Here in the U.S. aviation violations aren't afforded the presumption of innocence.

 

[FlushVision]

We've had similar interpretation problems here in the U.S. with various FAA officials pretty much since FSDO offices and line inspections were implemented. They have made quite a few aviation attorneys financially well, and cost the appellants dearly, even those proven correct. I'm not suggesting that everyone abide by an official's interpretation but winning the argument can be bittersweet. Best to know and understand the laws as written and proceed accordingly while being prepared to defend your actions under the law. Here in the U.S. aviation violations aren't afforded the presumption of innocence.

While I generally agree with the advice given in the U.K. DroneCode, I do have a couple of reservations about it. One being the inaccurate use of the word 'Drone', and the other about the blanket use of the, so called, 400 feet rule to cover all aircraft.

I agree, though, that whatever one interprets the law to be, to question it in a court will only make the lawyers richer. So, while I maintain that the Dronecode is only advisory, it is far better to follow it than not. After all, it's advice is aimed at the pilot not breaking the law, which is a good thing. To be on the 'safe side', so to speak,
which is a mute point since my TH is restricted to 120m anyway.

 

[Aintright]

This is getting frustrating. The bird was flying perfectly mostly just hovering at 500 feet - Took a panoramic and changed a few camera settings while airborne - new battery very few flights - and then I get 1 low battery warning and initiate a decent and the power indicator shows a rapidly depleted battery and lights out and it just drops from the sky. Pretty much totaled.

Who can assist with interpreting the flight logs? Before I contact Yuneec.

I hope that You have better luck with Yuneec than I did.I got fed up. Also, i sent my logs in only to not even get a reply from them, finally decided to fix it myself it voids the warranty but what good is a warranty when they don't honor it? Mine fell from 300 ft it was hovering, and I didn't even have hands on the controller.It came down like a rock, and the props were turning. By the way, I went and installed much better antennas than the crap antennas the H comes with.

 

[Aintright]

500 feet I thought 400 feet is the FAA legal limit???

It is most don't care though. But in the long run it will affect all of Us

 

[AZSteveB]

Well Yuneec is covering mine - folks. The reason - some sort of power surge / drain on the battery - Logs showed battery full at take off, then went low within 9 minutes before dropping out like a rock. I guess its all how you present your case to them...

 

[ArnhemAnt]

^^ Sorry to sound negative, but this sort of thing really annoys me. It is great that Yuneec is offering to replace so many of their machines, but there have been quite a few of them that have been damaged due to factors outside of their actual warranty. From memory, the issue with the crash was a bad battery and the battery you were using wasn't even a Yuneec branded battery. Whilst the company is trying their best to honour warranties, this is certainly putting them more out of pocket than they should be.

 

[AZSteveB]

The issue was determined that a power surge or short caused the battery to deplete in a record time of 9.5 minutes from a full charge. That's all that had been figured out. Whether or not it was yuneec or a third party battery doesn't really matter.

 

[PatR]

Not to be argumentative, but I know I can drain a fully charged battery in less than 9 minutes. Turn the GPS off and fly it full tilt boogie and you'll be lucky to get 8 on a good day.

 

[AZSteveB]

So noted - but wasn't part of the equation - the logs did not indicate this was a factor

 

[ArnhemAnt]

The issue was determined that a power surge or short caused the battery to deplete in a record time of 9.5 minutes from a full charge. That's all that had been figured out. Whether or not it was yuneec or a third party battery doesn't really matter.

Did you disclose to Yuneec that you were using a 3rd party battery when the incident happened?
If so, then that is a 'win' for you. If not, then I think you may have found that the outcome may have been different.

 

[Dr Delta]

Did you disclose to Yuneec that you were using a 3rd party battery when the incident happened?
If so, then that is a 'win' for you.

May well be a win for all Yuneec customers!

And a sign of trust from Yuneec to (some) 3rd party battaries.

 

[glider]

I just trashed a GiFi H battery. What a piece of garbage.

The OEM battery is actually a fairly decent one, but way overpriced. I'm down to 3 batteries, so will buy one soon, probably one of those Tattu repackaged.

 

[betty]

What's a shame.

I just trashed a GiFi H battery. What a piece of garbage.

The OEM battery is actually a fairly decent one, but way overpriced. I'm down to 3 batteries, so will buy one soon, probably one of those Tattu repackaged.

 

[JulesTEO]

Not to be argumentative, but I know I can drain a fully charged battery in less than 9 minutes. Turn the GPS off and fly it full tilt boogie and you'll be lucky to get 8 on a good day.

Wait.. people are getting more than 9 minutes of flight time? Thats about how much I get each time I fly (down to 4.8ish volts anyway) granted I generally fly on fastest rate with not-so-smooth maneuvers and I usually record the full flight (from takeoff to landing) either at 60fps or 4K. (some people forget the camera encoding impacts battery life quite considerably)

Given the way I fly the H, to me 9 minutes sound about right on a good day (without realsense, that RS module is a power hog). I've made myself the habit of bringing the H closer and limit the height and distance I'll send it once I'm reaching the low side of the battery, I used to wait for low battery warnings, but not any more. (Also, if I were to get a low battery warning at 400ft I would seriously doubt my aircraft is coming down at less than 9.8m/s^2)

Greetings!

 

[PatR]

You and I achieve similar results. I don't do battery warnings either after establishing 14.5V is as low as I'll go with a battery.