I had a RTH minimum height of 20 m and I was up at 150 m. It traversed to the home point at 150 m then descended. It would have been much quicker and used less energy if it had descended as it traversed. This is particularly true when it is RTH against the wind as the wind tends to be faster at higher altitudes.
Thanks for your contribution.
If you're saying that making the return trip at or above the minimum RTH height is dangerous then you'll need to explain that as it is too subtle for me.
I already explained why I wanted the function.
I don't think you read my original or subsequent posts correctly "It could still enforce the minimum RTH height"Maybe I am wrong but from what you said your flight went to the RTH height that you had programed into the APP. Corroct?
Then you said you wanted the App to use a descending flight back to the home point. Correct?
If so this is a disaster looking to happen. Anything that is above the descending flight path and in the way will and trust me it will end your flight very fast.
Ahh, typo, I meant 120 m. Actually as it is 120 m above the surface, it is possible to set the operating ceiling above that and still comply, if you are flying up hill. Another reason to descend on the RTH, though that would always need to be set with consideration of gradient and obstacles.Can't you cancel RTH, reduce height to the level which is okay and select RTH again.
P.S. 120M limit in the UK
To get different opinions on your question that is why you started the thread. Not saying mine is right but at least you got to see how others view your problem.why did I ever start this thread.