Flight distance may exceed line-of-sight warning

[Deleted member 114292]

We don't need Remote ID. As a community we must simply follow the rules set up, which are for the most part, fair and realistic today. The more we 'as a community' break the rules, the more rules will be implemented, making it all that much more difficult and expensive to fly..

We need it and we’re going to get it because too many of us don’t follow the rules.

It’s just a matter of how much of a pain it’s going to be DJ I can add it for two dollars a pop. We’ll see what the FAA comes up with.

We’re also going to have mandatory training for all Drone Pilots something we also need.

Do you follow this forum?
Did you read this post ? he’s complaining that getting warnings because he is breaking the law.

 

[apeel]

Yes, Done. I do follow this forum. My point about not 'needing' Remote ID was more about what it's current proposal is from the FAA. I agree more needs and should be done to stop and prosecute illegal activity by impinging on the rights (ok, more accurately the 'privileges') that we enjoy now. I like the proposal that DJI has put forth, provided the information about the physical location of the pilot is controlled so that only those folks responsible for enforcing the laws have access to the information.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Yes, Done. I do follow this forum. My point about not 'needing' Remote ID was more about what it's current proposal is from the FAA. I agree more needs and should be done to stop and prosecute illegal activity by impinging on the rights (ok, more accurately the 'privileges') that we enjoy now. I like the proposal that DJI has put forth, provided the information about the physical location of the pilot is controlled so that only those folks responsible for enforcing the laws have access to the information.

So you agree we need remote ID.

If you’re out driving on the street in your car everybody can see you and your license plate.

So I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If you’re following the law you should have no problem with everybody knowing your position.

If you don’t want people to know you’re out flying your drone don’t fly your drone.

Like you’re like Driving your car it’s a privilege that comes with certain constraints. Mostly all pilots are required to have adsb.

Are you saying you are more privileged than them?

 

[old man mavic]

well all i can say is i have not, and probably never will see that pop up on my screen,two reasons cant see my drone much beyond 1200 ft, and also here in the UK we are supposed to not fly further than 500m from the home point ,so that lets me off the hook

 

[skiptv]

Maybe if you are getting message that says you are flying beyond line of site, you should actually bring your drone back closer to you. Because flying past line of site is illegal, and screws it up for al the rest of the pilots who are flying legally.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Has anyone been seeing the recent GO4 warning flight distance may exceed line of sight? I started seeing this a couple of months ago. I find it very distracting, as it obscures my screen. Is there a way to disable this or downgrade the firmware?

Nope. Legacy firmware and software means I'll never have to endure DJI's "latest/greatest" warnings, tests, restrictions and limitations.

D

 

[SmileyOr]

I recently flew at the beach on a clear sunny day. At about 300' I was able to fly out just over 2,000'. I looked down at the screen to see how far out the drone was and that was the reading. I looked back up and couldn't see it (find it).

I looked back at the screen and rotated the drone towards me and flew back until I could see it again. About 1,000' I could see it again.

If I had not taken my eyes off it I could have watched it fly farther away. Maybe another 1,000'.

That's where the spotter comes in. Somebody has to keep their eyes on it at all times.

 

[Thomas B]

This is an interesting discussion... of note, my M2P on the most current software has never given me any warning about flying beyond line of site.
As an aside.... I do have 4 ARC XLs on the drone which are certified to 3.5 miles visibility.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Nope. Legacy firmware and software means I'll never have to endure DJI's "latest/greatest" warnings, tests, restrictions and limitations.

D

Perfect example of what I’m talking about

 

[Keule]

certified to 3.5 miles visibility.

Just curious, do you have a TSO (Technical Specification Order) or PMA (Parts Manufacturer Approval) certificate showing it complies with FAA requirements.

 

[raven swe]

Gee on the ham radio sites you got the self appointed frequency police, seems like the same sorta thing is happening here as well, self appointed drone police,

 

[pross]

Gee on the ham radio sites you got the self appointed frequency police, seems like the same sorta thing is happening here as well, self appointed drone police,

Some of us still enjoy the hobby and hate to see people ruining it.

 

[Thomas B]

Just curious, do you have a TSO (Technical Specification Order) or PMA (Parts Manufacturer Approval) certificate showing it complies with FAA requirements.

No is the best answer. Below is copies of what comes in the box from an independent testing agency... my VLOS does vary with ambient lighting.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Gee on the ham radio sites you got the self appointed frequency police, seems like the same sorta thing is happening here as well, self appointed drone police,

And it works quite well called peer pressure I encourage it. Hams have not had any problems with the FCC because they follow the rules for the most part.
Too bad we couldn’t do the same.

 

[raven swe]

You would be surprised at the rules that get broken these days by Hams, and the fines imposed on the rule breakers.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

You would be surprised at the rules that get broken these days by Hams, and the fines imposed on the rule breakers.

That’s good to know I hope the FAA starts doing that.

 

[apeel]

So you agree we need remote ID.

If you’re out driving on the street in your car everybody can see you and your license plate.

So I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If you’re following the law you should have no problem with everybody knowing your position.

If you don’t want people to know you’re out flying your drone don’t fly your drone.

Like you’re like Driving your car it’s a privilege that comes with certain constraints. Mostly all pilots are required to have adsb.

Are you saying you are more privileged than them?

No. I am not more privileged. Frankly, I am not appreciating the tone of your replies. That said, I am now wondering if you have not been following the discussions about the current Remote ID proposals on this and other forums ... specifically about the risk to personal safety if anyone can identify the exact location of a pilot flying a $1000+ piece of equipment. How would you feel if someone used the Remote ID capabilities to locate you, the pilot, and then under threat of personal injury (or at gunpoint), demanded that you land the drone and give them all of your treasured equipment. This is why I propose that only law enforcement have the ability to locate and identify the LOCATION of the pilot.

 

[Thomas B]

All above not withstanding, I hope the final form of the new regs does not include the 400’ hemispherical range limit when there is no internet connection. This is the case in the deep AZ desert which is the safest place for long distance flying.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

No. I am not more privileged. Frankly, I am not appreciating the tone of your replies. That said, I am now wondering if you have not been following the discussions about the current Remote ID proposals on this and other forums ... specifically about the risk to personal safety if anyone can identify the exact location of a pilot flying a $1000+ piece of equipment. How would you feel if someone used the Remote ID capabilities to locate you, the pilot, and then under threat of personal injury (or at gunpoint), demanded that you land the drone and give them all of your treasured equipment. This is why I propose that only law enforcement have the ability to locate and identify the LOCATION of the pilot.

At the present that’s how it is only law Enforcement can buy the DJI tracker.

You make a good point but if you’re driving an expensive car the exact same thing can and does happen.

I know some very wealthy people that won’t drive an expensive car because it’s their choice not to take that risk.

If it turns out that it can be read by anybody then it I suppose you’ll have to make that choice too. Which is what I was trying to say with my comment. Sorry if you took it personally.

I’m not the one making the rules and let’s wait and see how it turns out.

 

[apeel]

At the present that’s how it is only law Enforcement can buy the DJI tracker.

You make a good point but if you’re driving an expensive car the exact same thing can and does happen.

I know some very wealthy people that won’t drive an expensive car because it’s their choice not to take that risk.

If it turns out that it can be read by anybody then it I suppose you’ll have to make that choice too. Which is what I was trying to say with my comment. Sorry if you took it personally.

I’m not the one making the rules and let’s wait and see how it turns out.

Thanks Done.

While it is true that DJI's current proposal is that only law enforcement will be able to determine where the pilot is located, this is not the way the Remote ID Proposal by the FAA is currently written. At the end of the day, I think we both agree that (a) law / air traffic control enforcement should have a way of identifying who is flying illegally somewhere and track them down and fine them heavily for breaking the law and (b) only law enforcement should be able to track down the individual pilots. Let us hope that that message is being heard by the FAA and that they adjust their proposals accordingly.

Another topic which could be discussed (but probably not in this forum or this thread) is the whole question of privacy about where you were and where you were flying, when you were LEGALLY flying. There are constitutional protections about unjustified law enforcement surveillance of legal activities, and the Remote ID proposal is awash in potential violations to those constitutional rights. This is a topic that I do not feel overly concerned about (in today's world where individual privacy is wiped out each time we visit a web site, pay online, google search something, etc., etc.), I think that is a losing battle. Personally, I am not overly concerned if law enforcement is monitoring me as I try to be legal in what I do. Other folks may feel otherwise.

At the end of the day, something needs to be, and likely will be done. My original point was that if we all, as a community, obey the rules that exist today, the implementation of Remote ID need not be as intrusive and constricting as the current proposal is written.

Bottom line ... flight safe and legal. and above all, maintain VLOS. If the new warning banner about exceeding the line-of-site distance is blocking your view of the screen, then don't fly so far away