So are all these companies that think they can deliver stuff gonna have the drone operator stand outside?
Flying further than LOS
- Thread starter redserv
- Start date
Title III (Safety), subtitle B of HR 302 directs the FAA to update regulations to authorize package delivery by drones.
Mark
I don’t think the Mavic controller works on the dual band (2.4/5.8mHz) Mavic 2 aircraft, so you really don’t have a spare that’ll work anyway.
Huh? I have a Mavic Pro with two remotes which means I have a spare. If I had a remote that didn't work on ANYTHING, it's still a spare or extra remote. What exactly are you talking about? For the record, supposedly the Mavic Pro remote is going to work with the Mavic 2 drones but we'll see about that. I don't really care because 15 seconds after the remote with a display is announced, I'll be ordering one of those too.
You don't need a drone to shoot photos of beautiful landscapes.
Yep, that's me with the tripod at the time I was shooting the photo above it.
Mark
I'm actually OSHA 30 and I'm gonna have to fine you for being too close to the edge of that cliff without any safety railing or fall protection. Expect your fine in the mail.
Donnie Frank
Well-Known Member
I fly LOS (Loss of Signal) all the time. Just make sure your waypoints are set up in such a way that the drone come back INTO signal. With proper flight planning you can fly LOS with no problem. But screw up your planning, and you could easily lose your drone.
D
D
Actually, laws are the same for us all. Including policemen.
Police and other emergency cars, can violate traffic laws only under emergency. And "emergency" is precisely defined (order from above, lights, sirens, etc).
In some countries, law enforcement accepts medical emergency and necessity, for civilians too.
In drone laws and regulations, is "emergency" defined precisely? If not, fireman in my example is illegal.
Is finally dangerous to fly a modern GPS drone blos?
In real life, thousands of drone users (firemen or not) are flying blos everyday, safely.
Technology evolution, must be taken in account, when we regulate the use of machines.
According to Congress, the FAA, and community-based organizations like the AMA, flying your drone beyond your visual line of sight is NOT a safe thing to do. Just because you have flown beyond your visual line of sight in the past without incident does NOT mean it's a safe thing to do in the future.
Mark
Mark
Last edited:
I know what they think, but after so many hundreds of thousands blos flights, there should be numerous accidents, supporting their points.
In the future, I think, technology will make long distance flights safer and easier.
That's like saying that there should be numerous accidents with commercial passenger aircraft before any laws or regulations are considered to improve safety.
If the pilot can't SEE the drone s/he is flying it is inherently less safe. Will there be an accident every time? Of course not. But nobody can deny that it is less safe if the pilot can't see the drone. The camera only points in one direction at any given moment and that gives the pilot a VERY limited view of what is going on around, above and below the drone.
I agree, technology will eventually improve safety. But the people that fly their drones near emergency situations (such as brush fires or rescues) or fly their drones near objects they shouldn't be near in the first place (such as hot air balloons) have already screwed it up for those that take safety seriously. Flying a drone is getting more regulated thanks, in great part, to every moron that has already broken the rules, the law, or demonstrated an utter lack of common sense. And I seriously doubt that more/improved technology will reverse lawmakers' thinking on this for a long time to come.
Mark
There ARE numerous accidents with commercial passenger aircrafts, that forced regulations and technology to be improved.
Flying blos with a modern drone is safe enough. If it wasn't, there would be numerous injuries from thousands who violate"VLOS rule". Also there would be numerous scientific studies, about how dangerous is flying blos.
Flying recklessly over emergency sites, crowds, airports etc, is another matter, don't mess it with what we are talking about, it is dangerous in VLOS conditions too.
Laws must be fair enough and logical. And they must change, following technology evolution, I think.
I have a question about VLOS. Suppose I fly out over a large lake, and I can see the entire surface of the lake. If I fly my drone to the other shore from which I launch, I am unable to see the drone itself, but I have a clear view forever of the sky over the lake. Am I still flying VLOS?
If you can't see it, you're not in VLOS.
If you can see the entire lake, then you should be able to see the AC, unless it is a matter of distance and not obstruction. If it is too far away to see, that's not VLOS. LOS maybe, but not VLOS.
If you can see the entire lake, then you should be able to see the AC, unless it is a matter of distance and not obstruction. If it is too far away to see, that's not VLOS. LOS maybe, but not VLOS.
This thread is funny//// I WONDER how many perfect citizens stare at the screen verses stare at the AC? Its actually comical! If you are suppose to keep your eye on the AC why is the screen even needed?
You look at the screen so you know what the camera sees.
The law is not that you have to be looking at the drone every second and cannot take your eyes off it... the law is that it remains within your VLOS.
How often are you able to track the AC instantly when your eyes move from the screen? How long does it take to acquire the AC?
The interpretation of "VLOS" is going to get interesting...
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
Mavic 2 Pro Brushless Motor Disassembly Bearing and Arbor shaft
- Started by jftman
- Replies: 8
-
-
Air 3s Stunning Beaches on Koh Samui 2025- Started by DroneZone Thailand
- Replies: 1
Forum statistics
