BVLOS Progress

[dronerdave]

Inevitably in these BVLOS discussions the arguments tend to focus on manned aviation as being the only conflict that needs to be resolved in order to ensure BVLOS safety, but that is only one part of the picture.

I wonder how the FAA would tally near misses or even if they could be estimated? How many did I have without knowing if I couldn't see my drone much less not being able to see approaching aircraft?

@Chaosrider
I almost always fly where manned aircraft would be allowed to fly just off the surface. If my BVLOS encounters over a specific time period (in the type areas I fly at) are an indication of the "chance of having a collision", wouldn't that be taken into consideration? I felt it was a risk after those few encounters and why I quit flying BVLOS before they even changed the rules. It was my choice to fly safer. I'd like to believe that if the statistics show nothing has happened yet, it never will, but that is on the backs of those making the rules. With more advancements in manned aircraft detection and maybe UAV remote ID, maybe we'll see some kind of allowance for limited UAV BVLOS flights in the near future.

 

[Chaosrider]

You can say that but it's not necessarily true. What if you're deaf/hearing impaired or; are in an environment where you sense of hearing plays very little or no role in your situational awareness?

Like a large construction site where machinery of all kinds masks your hearing? I had this happen a few years back where I was shooting a hospital construction from 300 feet and never heard a sheriff's helicopter coming straight over the site. I was able to see it, before I could hear it; and was able to reduce height and fly adjacent to the helicopter's flight path. Had I been just 1000 feet down range, that may not have been possible.

Inevitably in these BVLOS discussions the arguments tend to focus on manned aviation as being the only conflict that needs to be resolved in order to ensure BVLOS safety, but that is only one part of the picture.

Statistically, it is true. Individual exceptions don't change the statistics. Absolute statements are always wrong...

;-)

And, playing Captain Obvious for a moment, if you have bad hearing, you shouldn't rely on it. If you're in a noisy environment, don't rely on sound.



TCS

 

[sar104]

I agree with you.

Statistically, the odds of needing VLOS to dodge manned aircraft, are vanishingly small. It just won't happen enough to matter.

Is it possible a situation like that might happen? Sure. But that's irrelevant.

The relevant question is, what are the odds?

Thx,

TCS

You are simply making stuff up to support your opinion. Even on just these forums you will find plenty of examples of pilots reporting that they took evasive action due to low traffic. I've done it myself. And yet you blindly assert that it won't happen enough to matter? Provided there are only infrequent collisions between aircraft and drones controlled by pilots who have no situational awareness that will be okay in your book? And does that take into account the projected explosion in the use of sUAS, or is that just at current use levels?

 

[Ty Pilot]

Statistically, it is true. Individual exceptions don't change the statistics. Absolute statements are always wrong...

How? In post #23, dronerdave showed three (3) examples/photos of aircraft: a sheriff's helicopter, a biplane and a high wing - all below 400 feet; as a clear example as to why BVLOS is dangerous due to the fact that manned aviation flies below 400 feet regularly, and not necessarily when landing or taking off.

To this you replied in post #37 - 'And, in all the examples provided so far for low flying aircraft not on final, those suckers are going to be loud. They're not going to sneak up on you.'

To this I replied that; 'you can say that but it is not necessarily true'. I gave a clear and first hand account of how 'hearing' cannot be counted on for situational awareness - even when the drone and the pilot (me) are literally co-located, much less when the drone is BVLOS. You blanketly said that aircraft will not be able to get near you with out it being heard - I gave a clear example that this is not true.

In three pages of this thread there are clear examples, photos and testimony that show why VLOS is currently the rule. Those that want to argue that they can fly BVLOS (safely) with a typical consumer drone and no training are kidding themselves. They might get away with it for a long time and this only serves to bolster their argument - but it does not mean they are flying safely.

 

[Chaosrider]

You are simply making stuff up to support your opinion. Even on just these forums you will find plenty of examples of pilots reporting that they took evasive action due to low traffic. I've done it myself. And yet you blindly assert that it won't happen enough to matter? Provided there are only infrequent collisions between aircraft and drones controlled by pilots who have no situational awareness that will be okay in your book? And does that take into account the projected explosion in the use of sUAS, or is that just at current use levels?

And you, sir, are spewing insulting nonsense, that YOU are making up.

Explain to me the difference between possibility and probability. If you don't understand the difference, I will happily provide remedial instruction.

Explain to me how probabilities are used to allocate scarce resources in a risk mitigation environment. Don't understand the question? I can help with that.

Despite your obvious knowledge of things drone, you, sir are an insulting bully. When you don't understand something, you resort to calling it nonsense, and calling whoever wrote it a liar. It gets tiresome.

The first time you tried that crap on me, it worked, because I was astounded that anyone could be such jerk in a supposedly friendly environment.

It won't work on me again. I'll call you on it, every time, and I'll do it in such a way that the vast majority of the audience here will understand, even if you don't.

Perhaps, you could consider that winning an argument in a statistical sense...

;-)

Have a nice day. You be nice, and I'll be nice.



TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

How? In post #23, dronerdave showed three (3) examples/photos of aircraft: a sheriff's helicopter, a biplane and a high wing - all below 400 feet; as a clear example as to why BVLOS is dangerous due to the fact that manned aviation flies below 400 feet regularly, and not necessarily when landing or taking off.

To this you replied in post #37 - 'And, in all the examples provided so far for low flying aircraft not on final, those suckers are going to be loud. They're not going to sneak up on you.'

To this I replied that; 'you can say that but it is not necessarily true'. I gave a clear and first hand account of how 'hearing' cannot be counted on for situational awareness - even when the drone and the pilot (me) are literally co-located, much less when the drone is BVLOS. You blanketly said that aircraft will not be able to get near you with out it being heard - I gave a clear example that this is not true.

In three pages of this thread there are clear examples, photos and testimony that show why VLOS is currently the rule. Those that want to argue that they can fly BVLOS (safely) with a typical consumer drone and no training are kidding themselves. They might get away with it for a long time and this only serves to bolster their argument - but it does not mean they are flying safely.

A civilized question deserves a civilized answer.

It's difficult to explain this clearly without dipping into statistical jargon. Perhaps someone else here can do that better than I can, but I'll give it another shot, from a slightly different perspective.

Since I've lived in Nevada for over a quarter century, it shouldn't be surprising that I use an example from the gambling world.

The concept of expected value is essential in this discussion. Suppose you put a dollar in a slot machine that pays off even money 20% of the time. The expected value of that dollar bet, is 20 cents. Sound like a bad bet? That's because it is, and a substantial fraction of the Nevada state government budget comes from the fact that vast numbers of people don't understand that.

So let's move over to the question of insurance. Suppose you want a $100K auto liability policy. What should the insurance company charge you, if they want to both make money and be competitively priced? It depends on how big a risk you present. If you're a good driver, you pay less. If you're a bad driver, you pay more. If you want a $200K policy, you'll pay more regardless.

If the company perceives you as a zero risk, they can charge 10% over just their their admin cost, and still make money. If they perceive you to be an infinite risk, they'll charge you $100K for your $100K policy, plus admin costs.

Knowing the level of risk is essential to deciding how much it's worth spending to mitigate that risk.

That's not complete, but I hope it helps some. Please feel free to ask (civilized) questions if you want me to go into anything further.

Also consider: Insurance actuaries don't lose their shirts gambling in Nevada.

So, I'll answer your specific questions as best I can.

The most critical part is easy to say, and had to understand. In a statistical analysis, anecdotal evidence...people who have seen stuff...is always irrelevant. Not just in this case. Every time.

This is seriously counter-intuitive the way humans naturally think and reason, and with rare exception, people without any statistical education, even exceedingly smart people, just don't get it. The response is usually along the lines of "Buy I saw it happen once!". Maybe so, but that's irrelevant to a statistical analysis.

"To this I replied that; 'you can say that but it is not necessarily true'. I gave a clear and first hand account of how 'hearing' cannot be counted on for situational awareness - even when the drone and the pilot (me) are literally co-located, much less when the drone is BVLOS. You blanketly said that aircraft will not be able to get near you with out it being heard - I gave a clear example that this is not true."

Oh, spare me. Yes, you did say that, and yes, I acknowledged that a deaf person shouldn't use sound as part of their situational awareness regime. It was a valid point that you made, although a minor one. A generality can be generally true, even if it's false in some details.

Your "typical consumer drone" comment deserves some clarification on my par as wellt. I've said at numerous points in this conversation that extra equipment should be required for a drone to be able to fly BVLOS. A drone without GPS, shouldn't be allowed to fly BVLOS. A drone without a GPS driven RTH function, should not be allowed to fly BVLOS. And a drone without advanced control synchronization technology, should not be allowed to fly BVLOS.

Under these restrictions, a Mini-2 should be allowed to fly BVLOS, and a Mini SE should not be allowed to fly BVLOS.

I hope that helps at least a bit. I really do welcome any civilized questions that you may have.

Thanks,

TCS

 

[Ty Pilot]

@Chaosrider my intent in these threads is to pass on a lifetime of remote flying experience that is not acquired in a year, or two, or five, or ten. My only question of 'how' was a rhetorical one. As I read this BVLOS thread and others like it, I keep seeing the same themes - one argument is that sound (hearing), is more important than sight, when it come to situational awareness. It simply is not, it can bolster SA in some occasions but it does not replace sight.

The FAA has been in the airspace deconfliction business for a very long time as well, it's what they do. When it comes to 'Risk Management of the NAS' - they wrote the book, and for good reason.

I've said it before but it bares repeating: there was a time when 'drones' fell outside of all rules frameworks. The FAA never wanted to regulate the RC community so that duty was relegated to a CBO - the AMA. Pilots of drones needed zero experience and could take off from anywhere - hence they didn't need to be part of the AMA and no one was around to explain the rules. It didn't take long before some very high profile crashes (most all of which were BVLOS), such as landing in 'Old Faithful', crashing into Seattle's Space needle and many many more - put drones squarely in the sights of the FAA.

Simply put, we are where we are rule-wise because new drone pilot's, left to their own good-willed intentions, can, do and will, make costly errors because they cannot possibly understand all the risks they will face. I think these discussions are good and my hope is that new pilots can learn from other's experience without having to learn the hard way.

 

[Chaosrider]

@Chaosrider my intent in these threads is to pass on a lifetime of remote flying experience that is not acquired in a year, or two, or five, or ten. My only question of 'how' was a rhetorical one. As I read this BVLOS thread and others like it, I keep seeing the same themes - one argument is that sound (hearing), is more important than sight, when it come to situational awareness. It simply is not, it can bolster SA in some occasions but it does not replace sight.

The FAA has been in the airspace deconfliction business for a very long time as well, it's what they do. When it comes to 'Risk Management of the NAS' - they wrote the book, and for good reason.

I've said it before but it bares repeating: there was a time when 'drones' fell outside of all rules frameworks. The FAA never wanted to regulate the RC community so that duty was relegated to a CBO - the AMA. Pilots of drones needed zero experience and could take off from anywhere. It didn't take long before some very high profile crashes (most all of which were BVLOS), such as landing in 'Old Faithful', crashing into Seattle's Space needle and many many more - put drones squarely in the sights of the FAA.

Simply put, we are where we are rule-wise because new drone pilot's, left to their own good-willed intentions, can, do and will, make costly errors because they cannot possibly understand all the risks they will face. I think these discussions are good and my hope is that new pilots can learn from other's experience without having to learn the hard way.

I don't see that we're in much disagreement here, except perhaps on one point.

Restricting everyone because of a small number of bad apples is simply a completely wrong-headed approach.

Find the bad apples. Turn them into apple cider vinegar. Lock them up. Off with their heads!

But restricting everyone because some people are irresponsible, is just wrong.

As an illustration of our areas of agreement, I fully support the RID requirement (minus the neighborhood snitch feature). If you're going to fly a drone, the FAA and law enforcement need to know who you are, where you are, and which aircraft you're flying.

All good. That will make it much easier to burn the miscreants at the stake, which works for me.

But restricting everyone for the bad actions of a few, is just wrong. The fact that governments do it all the time notwithstanding.

As I've said before, the FAA deserves credit for actively looking at the issues. I believe they are doing that in good faith, and that the result will be eventual motion in the right direction.

RID is necessary for BVLOS, no doubt about it.

I'd buy RID in a heartbeat NOW, if I could then legally fly BVLOS.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Ty Pilot]

According to the FAA, in order to get a VLOS waiver, you'll still need to provide the same type of situational awareness, albeit BVLOS. In addition to the tech involved, training is also a big part. If you look at the three points below you'll see that RID is only part of what is currently required (cut and paste from an article I found)

• Detection tech: The FAA expects that your drone is equipped with technology that can identify other aircraft in the airspace — and respond by moving safely away. That system should have a minimum range of three nautical miles in a 360° field of regard.
• Drone tracking: Your drone should have hardware and/or software-based systems that transmit its own live trajectory information of itself.
• Real-time Manned Aircraft Data Feed: This feed would have to be a low-latency feed of cooperative aircraft, and their location and trajectory. It would present alerts — visual and audible — to the pilot.

Currently, none of this exists in our consumer drones, but if it does in the future, and the path opens up to get a waiver for the average, (perhaps well funded) Joe, that satisfies all requirements - then I am all for it.

As I said before, my intent is to help new pilot's understand why the rules are in place and even if they seem overly intrusive - I believe it helps to have these discussions so we as UAV pilots are better informed.

I don't see that we're in much disagreement here, except perhaps on one point.

Restricting everyone because of a small number of bad apples is simply a completely wrong-headed approach.

I guess because of my background as an RC pilot (we had to see and recognize orientation so as not to crash), prior to flying drones, that I will admit - I do not see the VLOS rule as a restriction.

 

[Chaosrider]

According to the FAA, in order to get a VLOS waiver, you'll still need to provide the same type of situational awareness, albeit BVLOS. In addition to the tech involved, training is also a big part. If you look at the three points below you'll see that RID is only part of what is currently required (cut and paste from an article I found)

• Detection tech: The FAA expects that your drone is equipped with technology that can identify other aircraft in the airspace — and respond by moving safely away. That system should have a minimum range of three nautical miles in a 360° field of regard.
• Drone tracking: Your drone should have hardware and/or software-based systems that transmit its own live trajectory information of itself.
• Real-time Manned Aircraft Data Feed: This feed would have to be a low-latency feed of cooperative aircraft, and their location and trajectory. It would present alerts — visual and audible — to the pilot.

Currently, none of this exists in our consumer drones, but if it does in the future, and the path opens up to get a waiver for the average, (perhaps well funded) Joe, that satisfies all requirements - then I am all for it.

As I said before, my intent is to help new pilot's understand why the rules are in place and even if they seem overly intrusive - I believe it helps to have these discussions so we as UAV pilots are better informed.



I guess because of my background as an RC pilot (we had to see and recognize orientation so as not to crash), prior to flying drones, that I will admit - I do not see the VLOS rule as a restriction.

Very good information, much appreciated!

This is completely consistent with my sense that the FAA is oozing in the right direction. I've said from the outset that BVLOS should require special aircraft equipment and additional pilot training. I think the specific requirements you list are a bit excessive, but in the overall context of this conversation, that's a quibble. It's motion in the right direction.

The VLOS restriction is definitely a restriction. If a restriction is a good idea, it's still a restriction.

But another question is prompted by this info. People get BVLOS waivers now. Do those waivers require all of the equipment described above?

Again, thanks for this!



TCS

 

[sar104]

And you, sir, are spewing insulting nonsense, that YOU are making up.

Explain to me the difference between possibility and probability. If you don't understand the difference, I will happily provide remedial instruction.

Explain to me how probabilities are used to allocate scarce resources in a risk mitigation environment. Don't understand the question? I can help with that.

Despite your obvious knowledge of things drone, you, sir are an insulting bully. When you don't understand something, you resort to calling it nonsense, and calling whoever wrote it a liar. It gets tiresome.

The first time you tried that crap on me, it worked, because I was astounded that anyone could be such jerk in a supposedly friendly environment.

It won't work on me again. I'll call you on it, every time, and I'll do it in such a way that the vast majority of the audience here will understand, even if you don't.

Perhaps, you could consider that winning an argument in a statistical sense...

;-)

Have a nice day. You be nice, and I'll be nice.



TCS

What never ceases to astound me is how people like you get offended when you discover that you cannot post wild and ignorant opinion as fact without anyone objecting. It's become very clear that explaining stuff to you is a completely futile exercise, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it. The good news is that you are now on my ignore list and I suggest you do the same for me - that way you can prevent direct injections of reality from hurting your feelings.

 

[Chaosrider]

What never ceases to astound me is how people like you get offended when you discover that you cannot post wild and ignorant opinion as fact without anyone objecting. It's become very clear that explaining stuff to you is a completely futile exercise, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it. The good news is that you are now on my ignore list and I suggest you do the same for me - that way you can prevent direct injections of reality from hurting your feelings.

You are astounded by a phenomena that exists largely in your mind.

I'm happy to have people question what I say, as should be obvious to even the casual observer from the other posts I've made on these issues.

The fact that you may disagree with me (or with anyone else), doesn't mean we're ignorant. It means we disagree.

If you (or anyone else) argues with what I say, absent any insults, I welcome that, as is obvious from the overall body of my posting here.

Your suggestions that I might prefer to avoid "direct injections of reality" is the clearest example of projection I've seen in quite a while. If you're unfamiliar with the term "projection" in this context, here you go:

Projection | Definition, Theories, & Facts

Projection, the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds. The concept was introduced to psychology by Sigmund Freud. In contemporary psychological science the term continues to have the meaning of seeing the self in the other.

www.britannica.com

By providing such a clear example of projection, you've done a public service of sorts.

I'm not going to put you in my kill file. After all, you may end up insulting others in some of your pious rants, and perhaps, I'll come to their defense as well.

It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it...

;-)

TCS

 

[maelstrom]

Statistically, the odds of needing VLOS to dodge manned aircraft, are vanishingly small. It just won't happen enough to matter.

Is it possible a situation like that might happen? Sure. But that's irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. Safety regulations in real-world aviation are often based on the potential for something to happen rather than the historical data of it having happened. The more dangerous the potential outcome, the less the need for data to support the regulation. It's better to introduce legislation to prevent a disaster than to wait for it to happen before doing so.

 

[DoomMeister]

This thread is at its end, the personal bashing in it is out of control.


Thread closed.