BVLOS ARC Report live webinar

[lookout]

I would like the regulations changed so the real issue of risk can be addressed in a logical fashion.

Where is the highest level of risk? In densely populated areas. If that's the case require waivers for flying BVLOS in those areas. In sparely populated areas no limitations other than the drone has remain in a sparely populated area. ln both instances you need to be able to view the area in which the drone is located, not to see the drone but to see aircraft entering that area.

If an aircraft happens to enter the general area in which the drone is located point the drone camera down so you can see what is below you and descend to an altitude where there is minimal risk that a conflict will occur. This would require having signal strength to control the drone at that distance and have visual feedback from the drone.

Coincidentally, those high density areas are typically the same areas covered by controlled airspace, while the latter is typically uncontrolled airspace. But quads are still limited to the class G. Class E could go on up to 700ft if it doesn't start at the surface.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Good luck with that. "Having signal strength to control the drone"? Its one reason they are controlling BVLOS unless you could prove distance/signal wouldn't be an issue. It would also probably require your drone itself to detect all incoming aircraft and RID to confirm you actually comply to avoiding incoming aircraft which neither exist at this time at hobby (edit equipment) level.

The technology for maintaining control of the drone and having video feed well beyond VLOS is already available. As far as the drone detecting incoming traffic, the operator would be the detector of incoming traffic. If I know the general vicinity of the drone (say double the distance beyond which I can see the drone) I can certainly see a manned aircraft that is 20x larger than the drone and take actions to avoid a collision.

 

[spudster]

If an aircraft happens to enter the general area in which the drone is located point the drone camera down so you can see what is below you and descend to an altitude where there is minimal risk that a conflict will occur.

What happens in the case of autonomous UA where the drone is flying a mission on it's own (as some DJI consumer drones can do) with no connection to the controller which is much more likely to happen BVLOS.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

What happens in the case of autonomous UA where the drone is flying a mission on it's own (as some DJI consumer drones can do) with no connection to the controller which is much more likely to happen BVLOS.

Limit the BVLOS distance to a distance in which video feed can be maintained and the program can be overridden by the PIC. The PIC should always have the ability to override autonomous control of the drone.

Now we could carry the what if's out to the nth degree, which is a tactic used to increase government control. The issues are acceptable level of risk, government control and the freedom to fly. Freedoms are limited when a CLEAR public safety issue can be demonstrated. There is clearly a difference in the level of the public safety interest when flying over Manhattan with a population density of 75,000/sq mile and some remote area that has a population density of 75/sq mile. Does anyone think the rules for BVLOS should be the same for both locations?

 

[dronerdave]

The technology for maintaining control of the drone and having video feed well beyond VLOS is already available. As far as the drone detecting incoming traffic, the operator would be the detector of incoming traffic. If I know the general vicinity of the drone (say double the distance beyond which I can see the drone) I can certainly see a manned aircraft that is 20x larger than the drone and take actions to avoid a collision.

All I can compare to is what has happened to me over the years. During one BVLOS incident, I was flying through a lattice bridge shooting a video. The last shot was a pan pointing down the river. I about jumped out of my chair when I turned the drone to fly back out of the bridge and saw a guy in my monitor standing less than a couple of feet of my hovering drone. The guy had actually walked behind my drone for over 200 feet as I traveled slowly through the bridge composing the shot. Because I was BVLOS (and no spotter), I never knew he was there until I turned the drone camera and saw him. So there is the public safety aspect of BVLOS as well. And while a plane can't fly within a confined space of a lattice bridge, they certainly can sneak up as they did on me due to terrain. Two other more traditional close calls with manned aircraft while I was BVLOS (and I've had a few) were because I could not see the incoming aircraft with my own eyes much less hear the plane. I quit flying BVLOS for those reasons. How on earth can you see a low flying aircraft if it's behind trees or hills blocking your view? Rules should encompass all flight safety possibilities within reason and looking back, neither of my encounters were (IMO) acceptable as a safe procedure. There is no freedom to fly, only a granted privilege and I don't want to lose that. The FAA could stop all drone activity if they felt the need due to safety even though we all know that will probably never happen with the commercial end of drone operations. Again unless the drone itself can identify and alert the operator of a possible close encounter with any aircraft in the vicinity, I just don't see the FAA approving unrestricted BVLOS with hobby grade type drones. Perhaps with added training, specific rules and requirements to follow, plus a way to determine operators fly within compliance, some BVLOS flights might be deemed safe enough to satisfy the FAA without the need for a better aircraft detection system (or waivers) but that is a guess on my part. I certainly don't want to be trained at a level that manned aircraft pilots must maintain to fly a drone.
Actually I'm a bit worried that the recreational side might be hindered more than it is now provided the rules change for the 107 section. I hope not.

 

[lookout]

Before having the real thing like a mavic I had tried some of the toy ones you can get at the grocery store. The thing didn't have a barometer or anything. About like flying the mavic in atti mode, but even then the mavic still felt smooth even then. The little toys are scarier in comparison, the mavic flies smooth as glass and I can at least trust the operation of it to some degree. Obviously the toys aren't really capable of BVLOS but they couldn't be trusted to operate within any given parameters. Still fun to fly, but it is gone with the wind first time the wind blows.

 

[dronerdave]

Before having the real thing like a mavic I had tried some of the toy ones you can get at the grocery store. The thing didn't have a barometer or anything. About like flying the mavic in atti mode, but even then the mavic still felt smooth even then. The little toys are scarier in comparison, the mavic flies smooth as glass and I can at least trust the operation of it to some degree. Obviously the toys aren't really capable of BVLOS but they couldn't be trusted to operate within any given parameters. Still fun to fly, but it is gone with the wind first time the wind blows.

I hope you're not suggesting a Mavic is OK to use BVLOS just because of its smooth flight characteristics. The two traditional encounters I had were about a mile from my launch (home) point using a titan range booster and mavic pro with a 7.5 crystal sky ultra monitor. I never saw either of the approaching aircraft in my monitor and the aircraft were completely out of my visual sight until they had flown well past my Mavic. At the time I hurried to check my video after the fact, but never got the shot. I will say that is the kind of video we (as responsible drone operators) shouldn't be wanting to get.
[Edit] More on topic, it will be interesting if they can find a better method to allow BVLOS for some 107 operations. I have worked with some drone related electrical transmission inspections and see some improvement could be made to help complete the job time wise. Radio coms with spotters sure would be nice.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

All I can compare to is what has happened to me over the years. During one BVLOS incident, I was flying through a lattice bridge shooting a video. The last shot was a pan pointing down the river. I about jumped out of my chair when I turned the drone to fly back out of the bridge and saw a guy in my monitor standing less than a couple of feet of my hovering drone. The guy had actually walked behind my drone for over 200 feet as I traveled slowly through the bridge composing the shot. Because I was BVLOS (and no spotter), I never knew he was there until I turned the drone camera and saw him. So there is the public safety aspect of BVLOS as well. And while a plane can't fly within a confined space of a lattice bridge, they certainly can sneak up as they did on me due to terrain. Two other more traditional close calls with manned aircraft while I was BVLOS (and I've had a few) were because I could not see the incoming aircraft with my own eyes much less hear the plane. I quit flying BVLOS for those reasons. How on earth can you see a low flying aircraft if it's behind trees or hills blocking your view? Rules should encompass all flight safety possibilities within reason and looking back, neither of my encounters were (IMO) acceptable as a safe procedure. There is no freedom to fly, only a granted privilege and I don't want to lose that. The FAA could stop all drone activity if they felt the need due to safety even though we all know that will probably never happen with the commercial end of drone operations. Again unless the drone itself can identify and alert the operator of a possible close encounter with any aircraft in the vicinity, I just don't see the FAA approving unrestricted BVLOS with hobby grade type drones. Perhaps with added training, specific rules and requirements to follow, plus a way to determine operators fly within compliance, some BVLOS flights might be deemed safe enough to satisfy the FAA without the need for a better aircraft detection system (or waivers) but that is a guess on my part. I certainly don't want to be trained at a level that manned aircraft pilots must maintain to fly a drone.
Actually I'm a bit worried that the recreational side might be hindered more than it is now provided the rules change for the 107 section. I hope not.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I think a key phrase in you post is "Rules should encompass all flight safety possibilities WITHIN REASON".

Was it reasonable to believe the individual you encountered would be where he was? Was this a typical place open to the general public where he was allowed to be? You in fact saw him and avoided the contact using the technology available to you. And I don't think you make rules based on things other individuals may be doing illegally.

The second issue was with manned aircraft that were in the vicinity of the drone that you could not see. In my opinion the drone should not be so far out of line of sight that you can't clearly see a manned aircraft in the vicinity. That distance is too far away from the operator. My proposal would be a distance at which you may not be able to see a drone with a small cross section BUT you can clearly see manned aircraft that are operating in that vicinity. I think there is a reasonable distance BVLOS for the drone where manned aircraft can clearly be seen.

When you say "The FAA could stop all drone activity if they felt the need due to safety", I disagree. Drones are going to continue to be flow legally or illegally regardless of what the FAA decides to do. This fact get's back to the issue of making rules that are viewed by most of the flying population as reasonable versus simple clamping down and treating every situation as if you were flying over Manhattan.

 

[lookout]

I hope you're not suggesting a Mavic is OK to use BVLOS just because of its smooth flight characteristics. The two traditional encounters I had were about a mile from my launch (home) point using a titan range booster and mavic pro with a 7.5 crystal sky ultra monitor. I never saw either of the approaching aircraft in my monitor and the aircraft were completely out of my visual sight until they had flown well past my Mavic. At the time I hurried to check my video after the fact, but never got the shot. I will say that is the kind of video we (as responsible drone operators) shouldn't be wanting to get.
[Edit] More on topic, it will be interesting if they can find a better method to allow BVLOS for some 107 operations. I have worked with some drone related electrical transmission inspections and see some improvement could be made to help complete the job time wise. Radio coms with spotters sure would be nice.

But it doesn't have to be BVLOS, it can just be that while you're engaged in flying at any distance, you're not aware of things until you play the video back. I may have grabbed something while the recorder was going on, but was I aware of it while I was too busy keeping the quad in the air?

 

[dronerdave]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I think a key phrase in you post is "Rules should encompass all flight safety possibilities WITHIN REASON".

Was it reasonable to believe the individual you encountered would be where he was? Was this a typical place open to the general public where he was allowed to be? You in fact saw him and avoided the contact using the technology available to you. And I don't think you make rules based on things other individuals may be doing illegally.

The second issue was with manned aircraft that were in the vicinity of the drone that you could not see. In my opinion the drone should not be so far out of line of sight that you can't clearly see a manned aircraft in the vicinity. That distance is too far away from the operator. My proposal would be a distance at which you may not be able to see a drone with a small cross section BUT you can clearly see manned aircraft that are operating in that vicinity. I think there is a reasonable distance BVLOS for the drone where manned aircraft can clearly be seen.

When you say "The FAA could stop all drone activity if they felt the need due to safety", I disagree. Drones are going to continue to be flow legally or illegally regardless of what the FAA decides to do. This fact get's back to the issue of making rules that are viewed by most of the flying population as reasonable versus simple clamping down and treating every situation as if you were flying over Manhattan.

Within reason = reasonable safety measures of what the FAA deems as such...not just your or my views. Every person has an idea in their mind what is reasonable just like I did before and after a few of my encounters. If every safety rule (on anything) revolved around personal opinions, how well do you think that would work? Rules often need to encompass a wide swaths of possibilities and abilities. This includes how well trained a person is but also how safe the average person can perform the task. But just because you are trained to a higher extent and feel confident concerning safety, it doesn't mean everyone can do the job as well as what you think you can. I am glad we agree that working at the distance I did in my examples wasn't/isn't a good idea. But for every person who thinks 1000' is reasonable, there is another person who thinks 3000 is acceptable..and so on and so on. In my line of work, I deal with extremely hazardous conditions and safety measures are made in consensus of a board (government & businesses) who determine what are reasonable safe procedures for the average worker authorized to do the job. I can cut corners and throw out the rule book to get the job done quicker and more convenient to me but it doesn't make it the safest method. Also, if something goes wrong by my cutting corners, because of the rules, I can be held highly accountable for my actions. It would be difficult to be held responsible if the rules were vague or insufficient safety wise in that you might not be held responsible in court. I feel that would be counter productive. So, IMO the FAA is tasked with enacting rules to incorporate drone operations with manned aircraft operations that provides a reasonable safety factor to the NAS and public (in all US areas, not just populated zones) as well as drawing a line in regard to being held responsible to the public... especially in the court of law. But I do think there is room for improvement for some limited BVLOS operations. As I mentioned, I'm hindered to a point when using a drone to inspect high voltage lines. It seems overly protective to suggest I can't fly in a circle behind a tower structure if the drone is out of view for a few seconds. Having to move or set back up at each structure is time consuming and any manned aircraft close to my drone has more to worry about than the drone. But what about ground personnel? Again, there are variables and a need for adhering to specific procedures adopted and sanctioned by the FAA. If I meet those specific procedures that have been amended by the FAA, and follow them to the letter, that is an improvement on what is allowed currently.
"And I don't think you make rules based on things other individuals may be doing illegally." Really? That is one reason why rules are made in the first place...to detour such activity. It seems like some want to do as they please because their opinion is they are safe, but at the same time many also don't want rules with teeth that makes a person responsible in court. A percentage of the public will always violate rules/law but leaving such an open door probably wouldn't detour the average Joe. Rules are one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

During the bridge incident so much could have gone wrong...it just didn't. It had nothing to do with technology other than being able to help me navigate flying through the bridge (thankfully) without crashing into it. However, had I (or my spotter) been in VLOS, the flight would not even had happened and the risk factor to the public wouldn't have been an issue. Same with the other close calls I've had with manned aircraft.

 

[DoomMeister]

Within reason = reasonable safety measures of what the FAA deems as such...not just your or my views. Every person has an idea in their mind what is reasonable just like I did before and after a few of my encounters. If every safety rule (on anything) revolved around personal opinions, how well do you think that would work? Rules often need to encompass a wide swaths of possibilities and abilities. This includes how well trained a person is but also how safe the average person can perform the task. But just because you are trained to a higher extent and feel confident concerning safety, it doesn't mean everyone can do the job as well as what you think you can. I am glad we agree that working at the distance I did in my examples wasn't/isn't a good idea. But for every person who thinks 1000' is reasonable, there is another person who thinks 3000 is acceptable..and so on and so on. In my line of work, I deal with extremely hazardous conditions and safety measures are made in consensus of a board (government & businesses) who determine what are reasonable safe procedures for the average worker authorized to do the job. I can cut corners and throw out the rule book to get the job done quicker and more convenient to me but it doesn't make it the safest method. Also, if something goes wrong by my cutting corners, because of the rules, I can be held highly accountable for my actions. It would be difficult to be held responsible if the rules were vague or insufficient safety wise in that you might not be held responsible in court. I feel that would be counter productive. So, IMO the FAA is tasked with enacting rules to incorporate drone operations with manned aircraft operations that provides a reasonable safety factor to the NAS and public (in all US areas, not just populated zones) as well as drawing a line in regard to being held responsible to the public... especially in the court of law. But I do think there is room for improvement for some limited BVLOS operations. As I mentioned, I'm hindered to a point when using a drone to inspect high voltage lines. It seems overly protective to suggest I can't fly in a circle behind a tower structure if the drone is out of view for a few seconds. Having to move or set back up at each structure is time consuming and any manned aircraft close to my drone has more to worry about than the drone. But what about ground personnel? Again, there are variables and a need for adhering to specific procedures adopted and sanctioned by the FAA. If I meet those specific procedures that have been amended by the FAA, and follow them to the letter, that is an improvement on what is allowed currently.
"And I don't think you make rules based on things other individuals may be doing illegally." Really? That is one reason why rules are made in the first place...to detour such activity. It seems like some want to do as they please because their opinion is they are safe, but at the same time many also don't want rules with teeth that makes a person responsible in court. A percentage of the public will always violate rules/law but leaving such an open door probably wouldn't detour the average Joe. Rules are one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

During the bridge incident so much could have gone wrong...it just didn't. It had nothing to do with technology other than being able to help me navigate flying through the bridge (thankfully) without crashing into it. However, had I (or my spotter) been in VLOS, the flight would not even had happened and the risk factor to the public wouldn't have been an issue. Same with the other close calls I've had with manned aircraft.

Well stated!

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Within reason = reasonable safety measures of what the FAA deems as such...not just your or my views. Every person has an idea in their mind what is reasonable just like I did before and after a few of my encounters. If every safety rule (on anything) revolved around personal opinions, how well do you think that would work? Rules often need to encompass a wide swaths of possibilities and abilities. This includes how well trained a person is but also how safe the average person can perform the task. But just because you are trained to a higher extent and feel confident concerning safety, it doesn't mean everyone can do the job as well as what you think you can. I am glad we agree that working at the distance I did in my examples wasn't/isn't a good idea. But for every person who thinks 1000' is reasonable, there is another person who thinks 3000 is acceptable..and so on and so on. In my line of work, I deal with extremely hazardous conditions and safety measures are made in consensus of a board (government & businesses) who determine what are reasonable safe procedures for the average worker authorized to do the job. I can cut corners and throw out the rule book to get the job done quicker and more convenient to me but it doesn't make it the safest method. Also, if something goes wrong by my cutting corners, because of the rules, I can be held highly accountable for my actions. It would be difficult to be held responsible if the rules were vague or insufficient safety wise in that you might not be held responsible in court. I feel that would be counter productive. So, IMO the FAA is tasked with enacting rules to incorporate drone operations with manned aircraft operations that provides a reasonable safety factor to the NAS and public (in all US areas, not just populated zones) as well as drawing a line in regard to being held responsible to the public... especially in the court of law. But I do think there is room for improvement for some limited BVLOS operations. As I mentioned, I'm hindered to a point when using a drone to inspect high voltage lines. It seems overly protective to suggest I can't fly in a circle behind a tower structure if the drone is out of view for a few seconds. Having to move or set back up at each structure is time consuming and any manned aircraft close to my drone has more to worry about than the drone. But what about ground personnel? Again, there are variables and a need for adhering to specific procedures adopted and sanctioned by the FAA. If I meet those specific procedures that have been amended by the FAA, and follow them to the letter, that is an improvement on what is allowed currently.
"And I don't think you make rules based on things other individuals may be doing illegally." Really? That is one reason why rules are made in the first place...to detour such activity. It seems like some want to do as they please because their opinion is they are safe, but at the same time many also don't want rules with teeth that makes a person responsible in court. A percentage of the public will always violate rules/law but leaving such an open door probably wouldn't detour the average Joe. Rules are one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

During the bridge incident so much could have gone wrong...it just didn't. It had nothing to do with technology other than being able to help me navigate flying through the bridge (thankfully) without crashing into it. However, had I (or my spotter) been in VLOS, the flight would not even had happened and the risk factor to the public wouldn't have been an issue. Same with the other close calls I've had with manned aircraft.

The FAA's recommendations are a matter of someone's opinion. It may be an informed opinion, a consensus opinion but opinions none the less and according to the ACR report those opinions are based on some suspect (IMHO) assumptions.

You mentioned the FAA has to consider issues that "encompass a wide swaths of possibilities and abilities". True, but I disagree that the SAME RULES should applied to a swath that encompasses population densities from 75 to 75,000 people per square mile. Whether we are talking about training or the capabilities of the equipment the same rules shouldn't apply when the risk factors are extremely different. The FAA recognizes the different levels of risk in other areas of aviation. There are vast differences in the training requirements mandated for a recreational pilot flying an ultralight aircraft versus someone flying a 767 but there seems to be no differentiation with respect to a 1 pound drone flying over a rural area versus a 25 pound drone flying in the skies over Manhattan.

I wanted to get back to the scenario you were involved in to highlight another point. Was the person you encountered on the bridge authorized to be there? I ask because the idea that the FAA has to come up with rules that cover every possible scenario is a set-up for failure as far as use of the national airspace for the maximum number of people. Rule make requires some expectation that other rules are going to be followed.

It has been mentioned to alleviate some of the risk manned aircraft should be required to fly in the airspace above 500' unless there is some operational reason to be flying lower. In fact, absent some pressing operational reason flying below 500' is reckless in it provides no options to deal with a mechanical emergency if one should occur. You can also argue the operational reasons for manned aircraft to fly below 500' are decreasing, given in many cases drones can do the job, it should become a hard restriction that manned aircraft remain above 500' and yet all the restrictions are being place on the drone pilot rather than putting a hard restriction on manned aircraft to remain above 500' absent a pressing operational reason to fly lower. If safety is the ultimate objective make that a hard restriction.

The argument for the one size fits all approach to this issue is irrational, defies logical and can't be supported by any empirical evidence. The never ending "what if" arguments are an excuse to avoid the critical analysis of what actually has occurred. Opinions about what is or isn't a publicly acceptable risk do not trump individual rights and freedoms. Majority public opinion is not always rational, fair or in proper balance with individual rights and personal freedom.

Public safety is the catch all excuse for limiting individual rights even in cases where the public safety argument runs into the hard wall of reality.

 

[BigAl07]

Ok guys... I think we've EXTENSIVELY debated this topic to ad nauseam. It's obvious neither side is going to change opinions and we're just going round and round and round with no end in sight. I'm going to pull the plug on this one. @Vic Moss if you need me to re-open this thread to add to the original post just let me know.

Allen