Why do we have drone rules?

[Gagey52]

Gotta have a chuckle at people's interpretation of the rules. One rule, twenty people, twenty versions.
Regards

 

[sar104]

Gotta have a chuckle at people's interpretation of the rules. One rule, twenty people, twenty versions.
Regards

Worrying in fact, given that the rules are written in very plain English. It just turns out that a lot of people never learned to read properly.

 

[hiflyer201]

there's a guy that should know better...I say should

 

[Delenot]

Part 107 states:

§107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.​

A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:​

​

(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).​

​

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:​

​

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and​

​

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.​

​

(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 statute miles. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.​

​

(d) The minimum distance of the small unmanned aircraft from clouds must be no less than:​

​

(1) 500 feet below the cloud; and​

​

(2) 2,000 feet horizontally from the cloud.​

​

So yes - that provision does apply to structures, but not to terrain, and it only applies to Part 107, not recreational flights which must remain within 400 ft of the ground.

So recreational flights are capped at 400ft agl, and this section does not apply?

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.

 

[sar104]

So recreational flights are capped at 400ft agl, and this section does not apply?

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.

It applies to recreational flights flown under Part 107. It doesn't apply to recreational flights flown under the recreational exemption from Part 107, which only allows 400 ft AGL:

§44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft​

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:​

​

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.​

 

[51 Drones]

I'm sure he knows that and should correct it, but the rest of the video is still very informative for new comers. The one rule that seems silly to me is not flying over people period. That, in almost every video on the forum is a rule being broken. The question for me would be, why the rule for drones falling out of the sky, and not for more dangerous aircraft. Of course that would be impossible to do with all aircraft flying over us every day, and they are more dangerous than drones. Hovering over people, yes, flying by no.

Correct. But you can’t repost a YT video. It’s viewicide. It sure is fun to watch everyone tell you when you make a mistake though. ?. Everyone loves to criticize other’s errors. Human nature I guess.

 

[51 Drones]

I watched it until the first rule came up (400 ft AGL) and the speaker promptly got it completely wrong, explaining it as 400 ft above the launch point. But then he had started out by declaring how confusing he found the rules to be, so no surprise I guess.

I made a mistake. If you check out my channel, rules is what I do. I’m allowed one, right?

 

[Vic Moss]

I made a mistake. If you check out my channel, rules is what I do. I’m allowed one, right?

You almost always get things right Russ. We all make mistakes. I have for sure.

But a clarification in the description might not be a bad idea.

 

[Chaosrider]

it’s 400 feet AGL from wherever the drone is correct ?

I sure wish there was a way to display AGL altitude on the screen while flying. It should be doable without any additional HW.

I fly Mini-2. Can you get AGL displayed on any of the larger drones?

Thx,

TCS

 

[SkyeHigh]

I sure wish there was a way to display AGL altitude on the screen while flying. It should be doable without any additional HW.

Not possible without additional hardware. The aircraft has no idea how high it is above the ground other than at the location and point of take-off.

GPS does not provide accurate enough altitude data to be of use.

The solution would require radar, expensive and power hungry or LiDar, which is cheaper but can easily be fooled by plant/tree foliage or surfaces that scatter light or absorb it.

 

[Maviac]

I sure wish there was a way to display AGL altitude on the screen while flying. It should be doable without any additional HW.

I fly Mini-2. Can you get AGL displayed on any of the larger drones?

Thx,

TCS

Not beyond 10 feet or so (don’t know the exact range but not very high.) Beyond that, it would require comparing the location and height to a topographical map or something. There may be drones that can do this but Go 4 certainly doesn’t seem to have that capability, and it’d be limited by altitude accuracy anyway.

 

[sar104]

I made a mistake. If you check out my channel, rules is what I do. I’m allowed one, right?

Yes - I know that's what you do. And the bar is higher for anyone setting themselves up as an authority on a subject. Hence proof-reading and peer review before publication.

 

[sar104]

Not possible without additional hardware. The aircraft has no idea how high it is above the ground other than at the location and point of take-off.

GPS does not provide accurate enough altitude data to be of use.

The solution would require radar, expensive and power hungry or LiDar, which is cheaper but can easily be fooled by plant/tree foliage or surfaces that scatter light or absorb it.

Not beyond 10 feet or so (don’t know the exact range but not very high.) Beyond that, it would require comparing the location and height to a topographical map or something. There may be drones that can do this but Go 4 certainly doesn’t seem to have that capability, and it’d be limited by altitude accuracy anyway.

There are a couple of ways to do this that would be technically workable:

GPS height is mostly good enough, certainly when using WAAS, but probably elsewhere too, especially in locations where height is most important (where air traffic is likely and so there is a good view of the GNSS constellations). It still needs a DEM though in order to compare height with ground elevation, which would be memory-intensive but not completely prohibitive. If the launch point height has been identified by a combination of GPS position, height and DEM, then barometric height above the launch point can be used to refine the data as well. It should be more than adequate to detect significant excursions above the legal limit.

LIDAR is actually quite practical now - we are putting small LIDAR units on Mavic-sized UAVs that do not use much power and are good to a couple of hundred meters. They will give returns off vegetation and structures, but it would still provide a very useful guide on height above ground in most situations.

 

[Chaosrider]

Not possible without additional hardware. The aircraft has no idea how high it is above the ground other than at the location and point of take-off.

GPS does not provide accurate enough altitude data to be of use.

The solution would require radar, expensive and power hungry or LiDar, which is cheaper but can easily be fooled by plant/tree foliage or surfaces that scatter light or absorb it.

I suppose that depends on how accurate is "enough".

For this purpose, +/- 20 ft in the AGL display would be just fine.

If GPS can't do even that, I find that surprising. But if it can't, it can't.

Thx,

TCS

 

[SkyeHigh]

I suppose that depends on how accurate is "enough".

For this purpose, +/- 20 ft in the AGL display would be just fine.

If GPS can't do even that, I find that surprising. But if it can't, it can't.

Thx,

TCS

GPS ‘can’ do that. Generally it’s accuracy ‘can’ be +- 10 to 20-metres. The issue is the number but more importantly the spread of satellites to get sufficient data to give a reasonable measurement. In the middle of a desert you would be ok but trees, mountains, valleys and buildings etc. would restrict satellite visibility and hence spread.

 

[SkyeHigh]

I originally discounted DEM’s due to size and processing requirements but with improvements in processing capabilities and the latest generation of ARM CPU’s such as Apple’s M-series we might not be that far off.

LiDAR would seem to be the way to go and maybe using micro-mirror devices rather than a rotating scan head would keep size and weight to a minimum. As an additional sensor source along with the barometric pressure sensor data you should get enough accuracy for general use.

Mmm, I can feel a new project coming on, while we’re having lockdown extended for a further week, it’ll give me something to do.

 

[NEWorldPhoto]

It applies to recreational flights flown under Part 107. It doesn't apply to recreational flights flown under the recreational exemption from Part 107, which only allows 400 ft AGL:

§44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft​

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:​

​

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.​

It's kind of funny that Part 107 rules allow flying to 400' above the top of a building/tower/structure, while recreational rules don't, and are limited to 400' AGL even if flying close to a tall structure. So here we have 2 pilots next to each other, flying close to a 600' tower: one has Part 107 license, the other doesn't. In this case, the Part 107 pilot can climb the drone to a max altitude of 400' above the 600' tower, essentially reaching an altitude of 1000' AGL! But... the poor unlicensed recreational pilot is restricted to 400' AGL, despite both being at the exact same place. So, Part 107 has an advantage here; however, looking at this situation from a safety point of view, if the licensed pilot can fly to 1000' altitude in this instance and is considered safe to do it, even if he/she is flying recreationally, why should the recreational pilot without Part 107 be limited and not allowed to do the exact same thing? Does it make any sense, since it's exactly the same operation?
From a safety context, there should be no difference if the pilot holds a Part 107 or not. Perhaps because the Part 107 pilot has had some additional flight education, it's assumed that a licensed pilot is better prepared than an unlicensed one, and therefore is in a better position to safely fly higher in this instance than the pilot not having the license?
Now suppose that the one holding the Part 107 actually has never flown a drone! He/she merely took a course to pass the Part 107 exam, and got the license without even touching a drone! That can be possible! On the other hand, the unlicensed recreational pilot has been flying drones for years and has vast flying experience and excellent skills at piloting all sorts of UAV's, including racing FPV's, etc.
Then, when both pilots go to the 600' tower, the experienced one can only fly to 400' AGL because is not Part 107 licensed.. while the novice but Part 107 holder can fly all the way up to 400' above the tower, reaching an altitude of 1000' AGL!!
Again... does this difference in the current rules make common sense???
Oh, there's more to it! Now the unlicensed pilot is able to take the elevator all the way up to the roof of the 600' tower, and while standing on the roof, takes off the drone and climb it straight up until the altitude indicator on the drone app shows "400' Altitude" ? SOO.... now the drone is actually at 1000' AGL!!! ... But of course, at the time of takeoff in the roof, while the drone app is still showing an altitude of 0', it's actually at 600' AGL, being at the top of the tower!
And this is how the recreational unlicensed pilot is able to fly "legally" to the same 1000' "AGL" altitude as the Part 107 one. Because, supposedly, it's not illegal for a recreational non Part 107 pilot to takeoff from the top of a hill or building and fly straight up to 400' "AGL" from there, as the pilot is essentially on the "ground", either the ground in the highest part of a hill, or the "ground" in the last floor of a skyscraper? Oh, is that considered a legitimate "ground"???....
ANYWAY.. as seen in this example, rules can be confusing, complicated, and many times they lack common sense!!
Why not simplify the things and just make the "400' above-a-structure" rule apply equally to both Part 107 and recreational pilots the same way?? That will give recreational pilots more flexibility; after all, safety is NOT being compromised by giving Part 107 pilots the possibility of flying 400' above a tall structure!!
And now that recreational pilots need to get the TRUST safety "certification", why not give them in "exchange" that same added "benefit" that Part 107 pilots enjoy?
Let's hope it happens in the future, with the increasing number of regulations, I think it's fair to at least concede some degree of additional flexibility to everyone ?????

 

[DoomMeister]

I can’t believe you feel the TRUST is even remotely comparable to the 107 exam. They are so completely different it is like comparing oranges and elephants.

Your point on time on the sticks has validity, but part of the 107 certification deals with risk assessment and a new 107 pilot that has never flown would most likely not attempt the flight you discuss.

 

[maelstrom]

I originally discounted DEM’s due to size and processing requirements but with improvements in processing capabilities and the latest generation of ARM CPU’s such as Apple’s M-series we might not be that far off.

LiDAR would seem to be the way to go and maybe using micro-mirror devices rather than a rotating scan head would keep size and weight to a minimum. As an additional sensor source along with the barometric pressure sensor data you should get enough accuracy for general use.

I'd be absolutely amazed if the drone manufacturers haven't looked at this in detail. As most counties impose a maximum AGL height limit, having a reasonably accurate readout or automatic ceiling in the controller app would be a real selling point. I can only think that it's currently either not technically or economically possible.

 

[SkyeHigh]

I'd be absolutely amazed if the drone manufacturers haven't looked at this in detail. As most counties impose a maximum AGL height limit, having a reasonably accurate readout or automatic ceiling in the controller app would be a real selling point. I can only think that it's currently either not technically or economically possible.

Technically it is possible but weight, size and cost are not yet feasible for consumer grade models.

For height measurement at the typical limit of 120-meters requires a larger sensing device than at lower heights and this becomes physically restrictive. A suitable LiDAR would need a true laser source such as:

https://au.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Benewake/TF03-180-Uart?qs=DPoM0jnrROW8MmJZHHPWjA%3D%3D

The cheaper ‘LiDAR’ devices use LED-based light sources that have a range of just meters.