Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Another one just fallen from the sky....

Find that 400' limit in the recreational flyer rules as written in the CFR's. Let us know when you find it. Let us know when you find any limit.

That is incredible if that is the Law the other side of the pond...... like it matters whether you are flying it commercially or as a hobby when you fly in to a paasenger jets engine!? Just to clarify the law in the UK is 400ft above take off level regardless of whether it is comercial or not. All Yuneec software here is natively set at 400 feet in the UK.

Aa for the H being a writeoff.... its unlikely as they sell most components now including all of the exterior of the camera too. Dont forget you still have the St16 and spare batteries, charger etc...
 
Where in AZ are you? I've gotten pretty good at repairing these things. If your main board survived, parts can be cheaper then new unit depending on what took the hit. The camera is another story. Those are not repairable.
In Buckeye normally but currently in Kansas City Missouri on contract with us marines
 
Haven't taken a look at the telemetry data yet, but I see some have already done.. So what's the veredict on this case of mid-air blackout? Sent it too high for too long during too windy conditions?
Battery only lasted 9.5 minutes it seems like some sort of power surge or shot it then went lights out and down
 
Battery only lasted 9.5 minutes it seems like some sort of power surge or shot it then went lights out and down
Winds were non existent the large deviation was mine on the sticks to get it over my property once the lights on board were flashing low battery
 
Yes I had noticed the drone descends a lot slower both on the sticks and in RTH mode since the last major updates.
 
Hi, guys! Is there a recall on Typhoon H batteries? They are so bad! Always goes puffy. 4 month old and can't fit into the Typhoon H chamber!
 
That is incredible if that is the Law the other side of the pond...... like it matters whether you are flying it commercially or as a hobby when you fly in to a paasenger jets engine!? Just to clarify the law in the UK is 400ft above take off level regardless of whether it is comercial or not. All Yuneec software here is natively set at 400 feet in the UK..
Just to clarify, the 400 foot height restriction is required of commercial operators unless by special exemption but is only advisory for hobby flyers and the UK Yuneec software does not place any limits in Angle mode. VLOS is mandatory for all flyers.
 
Hi, guys! Is there a recall on Typhoon H batteries? They are so bad! Always goes puffy. 4 month old and can't fit into the Typhoon H chamber!

Nothing wrong with Yuneec batteries that I'm aware of. I've had three of them for over a year and several more for about half that and all of them are fine. How you have treated them is likely what has caused yours to puff. There have been quite a few threads about how to properly use and care for lithium polymer batteries that you can search through so I won't re-write them again here.
 
Last edited:
You should see the column labels on line one of the spreadsheet.
I haven't dissected any flight data yet, and you say it is readable on a spreadsheet? How???
 
That is incredible if that is the Law the other side of the pond...... like it matters whether you are flying it commercially or as a hobby when you fly in to a paasenger jets engine!? Just to clarify the law in the UK is 400ft above take off level regardless of whether it is comercial or not. All Yuneec software here is natively set at 400 feet in the UK.

ByM,

The sky is not one big passenger jet engine. Never has been. Because one flies above 400' does not mean everyone in a manned aircraft is in peril. For long before I was born there have been no limits in the U.S. for the altitude at which an RC aircraft can be operated. In fact, our so called "national community based organization" has been sponsoring contests for several types of RC aircraft that routinely exceed 400' in altitude. They have even lobbied the government to keep their members exempt from altitude restrictions. Bear in mind they only represent the amateur segment of RC, not commercial. RC aerobatics, RC soaring, and other disciplines bust 400' by quite a margin during the competitions. People from the UK, Europe, and from all over the world come here to compete in these contests. The problem is not so much how high people fly, but where they fly too high.

We should understand the RC disciplines noted above have not contained autopilots to control them. They rely on the people flying them to maintain a visual link with them in order to maintain positive control. Those flying them spent considerable time and effort learning to fly them, recognizing that competence permitted the models they built with their own hands to survive for a long time. Most of them gathered together in different locations to fly and promote their hobby and have fun. They also gathered in groups to learn. Learning to fly was hard, you had to develop an understanding of the controls and how an aircraft's controls worked in order to fly, and it required a considerable amount of time to become successful. Mistakes frequently cause the destruction of the aircraft and those trying to teach themselves without the aid of others more often than not crashed model after model before they ever got to try their first landing. That method of learning was just too expensive to be practical, and continuously having to build another aircraft took a lot of time. Automated flight was not available for people to plunk down a few hundred or a thousand $$ that enabled flight and instant gratification.

They flew their models without posing any threat to anyone, in the air or on the ground. For the most part they still don't. Those that do share a commonality with multirotor operators; they use an aerial camera to enable them to fly at long distances. RC flying using an in flight camera had been done since the 1070's but until wing auto levelers and autopilots came into play the aircraft were kept pretty close to the take off point. If you could not see your aircraft it was in effect "out of control". How can you manually control something you cannot see?;) So we have often flown high, sometimes very high, but we kept our RC aircraft in sight and generally operated them in relatively confined areas. We did and do not try to mix them with manned aircraft or near airports where conflicts are likely to occur. In essence, we have flown our RC aircraft responsibly. There was no reason to limit their altitude of flight back then, nor is there now. They are not a problem. That's not to say they have been problem free, there have been a few incidents with manned aviation. Some were caused by reckless manned aircraft pilots, others by RC flyers mixing it up with parachutists and ultralights.

The advent of the auto wing leveler and later the full autopilot, combined with the use of an in flight camera with active operator feedback, for model aviation is in my opinion, when "RC" became a problem for some. Until that time knowledge and skill were necessary to fly RC. That is not the case with multirotors since many of them can and do fly themselves. They require zero skill, no knowledge or training, and anyone can take one off the shelves and operate them. There's no peer group for people to learn from, no mandatory education and training programs available to educate them, and perhaps worse, at least in this country, is a lack of enforcement and penalty for those that operate recklessly. Having a camera fitted to a fully automated aircraft that allows them to see where the aircraft is flying from a pilot perspective, and for some a useful range that is much too far to be safe in the hands of an untrained person, is were the problems initiate.

Responsible people don't need to be limited by regulation, they take many things into consideration before taking action. That includes flying, which they do safely and responsibly. Those that are not responsible, and we see many of them in forums such as this, do not. That is where problems arise and no altitude limitation is going to curtail that. Their only concern is themselves. Some are vain beyond belief, thinking they are the center of the universe, believing the activities they engage in are interesting and important to all and therefore they want the world to see them in all that they do. They live with an attitude of "Hey, look at me" and don't give a twit for anything or anybody else. Combine their mental state with a fully automated model aircraft and we have a problem. Remove the automated model aircraft and the threat to manned aviation goes away. They would have to put more time and effort into learning how to fly than they are willing to devote. Instant gratification is their lot in life. If they can't do it now it's not worth doing so they move on to something else. Of course we have another group that is often not "part of the herd" that desperately wants to be accepted. Some of those will do pretty outrageous things to get noticed. For them any attention, even if it's bad attention, is desirable. I suppose a lot of the previous comes down to maturity.

Do we need an altitude cap? That's a question that needs to be divided in the answer. For some, absolutely, for others, no. To arbitrarily limit everyone is not the way to do things. Better would be a regulation that mandated manufacturers impose a training requirement that all had to meet before allowing the purchase of a multirotor. Develop a minimum certification standard and credential that all had to meet and present before owning and operating any automated flight system. Incorporate a means to limit a system's functionality in steps, removing limits in a graduated manner as the owners learned, with evidence of learning established though a series of system graded flight tests. Initiate enforcement actions against people that operate recklessly. The UK is doing much better in this than the U.S. Make the punishment very painful for the operator for the first offense. Jail time long enough that other financial ramifications are experienced by a violator, heavy fines, equipment impound, total forfeiture of equipment upon conviction, are things that would make many think before doing. Many don't obey the law just because there is a law, they obey because they fear the punishment.

Sorry, didn't mean to go on for so long. An altitude limit, or not, is not the problem. The problem is some of those flying automated aircraft, and manufacturers that provide them a ready made tool that permits them to do too much, too soon, with too little knowledge, and no skill, too far away.

.
 
Last edited:
I haven't dissected any flight data yet, and you say it is readable on a spreadsheet? How???
When you open a .csv file with a spreadsheet program you should get a pop up window that allows you to select how the data will be displayed. Use a comma for the separation. This is the way it looks with OpenOffice.View attachment 6645 View attachment 6645
 

Attachments

  • Telemetry.jpg
    Telemetry.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 25
That is incredible if that is the Law the other side of the pond...... like it matters whether you are flying it commercially or as a hobby when you fly in to a paasenger jets engine!? Just to clarify the law in the UK is 400ft above take off level regardless of whether it is comercial or not. All Yuneec software here is natively set at 400 feet in the UK.

Aa for the H being a writeoff.... its unlikely as they sell most components now including all of the exterior of the camera too. Dont forget you still have the St16 and spare batteries, charger etc...
According to the U.K. Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016, Article 94, only recreational use Small Unmanned Aircraft weighing more than 7kg are subject to the height limit of 400 feet. The ANO makes no reference to a height limit for recreational use Small Unmanned Aircraft that weighs less than 7kg

Reference
Recreational drone flights | UK Civil Aviation Authority

For the weight category that the TH falls into, then, there is no legal height restriction when conducting a recreational flight other than the need to keep VLOS in the U.K. The height limit of 400 feet for commercial flights, however, does apply.

It is wrong, then, to say that "Just to clarify the law in the UK is 400ft above take off level regardless of whether it is comercial or not.".

HAVING SAID THAT. It is my view that if anyone does fly much above 400 feet on a hobby flight...and gets caught doing it...then there may be a case to answer for not having VLOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dilly Joat
FV,

I can see my H out to about 2000'. The problem with being that far out is I'm so focused on keeping the black dot in view I can't look around to scan for other aircraft. Take my eyes off the dot and I have a hard time finding it again. So I can see the H a long ways out but I can't be maintaining situational awareness of other aircraft to maintain flight safety. Without having a spotter that stuff just isn't safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dilly Joat
Just to clarify, the 400 foot height restriction is required of commercial operators unless by special exemption but is only advisory for hobby flyers and the UK Yuneec software does not place any limits in Angle mode. VLOS is mandatory for all flyers.
Apologies for taking this off topic but according to the link this is quite right, however numerous sources quote the limit of all flights to be 400 feet in the UK and this includes the dronecode website that is made by NATS and the CAA. But the actual regulation does indeed seem to state that there is only a limit for over 7kg so apologies for misleading. My H will not fly any higher than 400 feet in Angle mode. I have had two H's and both stop just short of 400ft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlushVision
FV,

I can see my H out to about 2000'. The problem with being that far out is I'm so focused on keeping the black dot in view I can't look around to scan for other aircraft. Take my eyes off the dot and I have a hard time finding it again. So I can see the H a long ways out but I can't be maintaining situational awareness of other aircraft to maintain flight safety. Without having a spotter that stuff just isn't safe.
Same here.
I recon that up to about 1300' out I can maintain orientation and situational awareness without the need to rely on the screen, but if I'm going to be dead honest, then the fact that it's all to easy to lose site of the aircraft even at that distance if I glance away for a second does put some questions up as to whether I have VLOS. If I don't glance away and am able to keep my eye on it, I have...but what about when I look at my screen to set a shot up and can't find the aircraft when I look back? So yes, at 1300' I maintain that I do have VLOS so long as I'm not taking pictures. 2000' however is far too far for my eyes. I most certainly can't argue that I've got VLOS to that distance. I'm not even sure I'd be able to see it as a black dot in the distance...I've never flown my TH that far out.

Regarding height. For me, when I'm doing a recreational flight, I recon my maximum height I can go to and say that I've still got VLOS is about 500' (this is when using my Phantom since my TH is restricted to 400'), not that I ever fly to those heights these days. I've wondered why it is that I can see my TH at further distances out than I can in height. Obviously something to do with the light...I dunno.

Note that when I'm flying my Phantom I recon the maximum distance out I can claim to still have VLOS is probably less than 1000'
 
ByM,
Sorry, didn't mean to go on for so long. An altitude limit, or not, is not the problem. The problem is some of those flying automated aircraft, and manufacturers that provide them a ready made tool that permits them to do too much, too soon, with too little knowledge, and no skill, too far away.

You know that can be said about almost anything. I have seen too many car crashes resulting with fatalities and it is a simple case of high performance car and low performance driver. I won't even go into the obvious with gun safety.
 
ByM,

With all do respect to the various individuals and groups referring o a mandatory 400' altitude cap, the fact is there simply isn't a 400' limit covering all drone operations in the U.S. Our FAA would like people to think that, and perhaps it's why they frequently reference 400' limit when communicating with the media. The same organization sent cease and desist letters to commercial operators before there was any law restricting them, and sent similar letters to real estate and power generation groups informing them of the large fines they would be subjected to for using drones in commercial operations long before a law providing for such recourse was implemented. They put quite a few commercial operators out of business in one swoop by using threats of punitive actions using a law that didn't yet exist as a basis for their actions.

Essentially, I believe we've been dealing with a government and media smokescreen intended to make people believe such a restriction exists when such does not. Lie to people long enough with the same lie provided by numerous sources and many will soon believe the lie to be truth. Such an action might be called social conditioning. I do believe what has been reported about a 400' altitude limit has been intentionally disseminated to achieve that purpose. Then again, reporters prefer sensationalizing over reporting so it could just as easily be a case of seeking more attention from their editors... The media is rarely concerned with reporting the truth, they just want the visibility. The fact remains our FAA went over the top with the drone registration law and part of that registration requirement was forcing those registering to agree in writing, twice, with a 400' altitude limit that was not part of the law as written and published. The 400' limit still does not exits for U.S. recreational fliers, only commercial, and the commercial operators have a legal means to exceed that limit under the law, either by waiver or when conducting specific types of inspection operations. Some local governing bodies are passing regulations referencing drone operating altitudes but those should prove interesting if and when challenged in court. In the U.S. all airspace is "owned" and controlled by the federal government, local governments do not have the authority to impose altitude or flight restrictions at all. They can control where you can land and take off from, but they cannot restrict airspace.

Toss in that most people are lazy and won't put in the effort to establish a factual basis for what they read on a forum or news article and the presumption of "truth" gains wider traction. We read posts in many social media forums all the time where someone states "I read on such and such site" and because whatever it was was openly posted they believed it to be true. Doesn't matter the person making the original post was not correct, many believe them to be correct. Always remember the cliche "I read it on the internet so it must be true". It's often not, and much of what might limit or qualify a statement is frequently omitted. Law in a way is a funny thing. It's written in the literal sense, and inferring that something is referenced in a law that isn't specifically referenced happens all the time but since law is literal inferences can't be made. It has to be stated to be a legal mandate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dilly Joat
You know that can be said about almost anything. I have seen too many car crashes resulting with fatalities and it is a simple case of high performance car and low performance driver. I won't even go into the obvious with gun safety.

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... :)
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,954
Messages
241,582
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval