Flying out of line of sight

[hp7950]

My best range so far is 5km

 

[Fletcher500]

We all need to be responsible to prevent additional regulations.

I think flying over buildings and cities where people are below is a bad idea.

Personally, I routinely go beyond LOS, but it's over the ocean, so if it abruptly falls from the air no harm, no foul, and no one gets hurt, except I am out $1,000.

 

[Defens]

We all need to be responsible to prevent additional regulations.

I think flying over buildings and cities where people are below is a bad idea.

Personally, I routinely go beyond LOS, but it's over the ocean, so if it abruptly falls from the air no harm, no foul, and no one gets hurt, except I am out $1,000.

What if it falls on a poor seagull (fowl!)?

 

[geigy]

I generally have a pair of binoculars around my neck while flying, so if needed I can find the drone that way. It usually takes 30 seconds or more. The app display and RC readout are key and it's time to rewrite the FAA drone regulations to reflect this. The 107 test should include proficiency and situational safety testing, and technology should be updated - using current transponder and web capabilities - to easily locate and identify a drone and its owner at all times.

All of this will all happen, eventually, but the process seems very slow. I spend the last couple of days in some of the most beautiful drone-able scenery, but could not fly because I was surrounded by national parks. My B&B was located in a sliver of land, 500 feet wide or so, where droning was allowed, but I didn't want to take the chance. I am concerned that we will go through a dark ages - similar to Canada's - where recreational, and perhaps professional drone flying is all but prohibited in populated areas, due to a spectacular accident that is waiting in the near future.

The FAA drone regulations are written as if there were no instrumentation or video down-link, which is ridiculous and unfortunate. Ridiculous because it's not the way anyone flies these drones - used to be, but not anymore now that we have HD video feeds and good instrumentation and GPS mapping. And unfortunate because, since the the LOS rule is not reality, the good parts of the rules, situational awareness and SAFETY, tend to get ignored also.

As I concentrate and get better and better on the cinematography side, I am letting go, slowly, of the need to have the dot of my drone always visible. This goes against several years of experience with non GPS tiny drones that could get lost so trivially the instant I took my eyes off of them. Although it's against my instincts, I am becoming comfortable with just a general idea of where my drone is, and would be lost without the instrumentation. The image above was taken in Nicasio, CA (where drone flying is not restricted!) yesterday, and was an ideal location for me at this stage, since there were no buildings or people under me, and I had a large area to maneuver in. I stayed high so as to not attract any attention, and it worked.

 

[Chris.K]

regs will come in no matter what simply because drones are getting cheaper and cheaper and more people will have access to them and fly them around. its that simple. suggesting ONLY flying LOS is a logical or practical control measure is just being totally unrealistic.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Not going back into the debate on operating in LOS. For people a lot smarter than me, a question. Just out of curiosity.
If you take off in an open field, just for an example, and fly straight up to 400', then fly over a forrest of " average height trees", and continue to fly at 400 AGL, at some point/distance the drone will go out of sight...curvature of the earth, etc. What would that distance be?

In nautical miles, about 1.25 x the square root of the height in feet.

So for 400', that's 1.25 x 20 = 25 NM or about 28 statute miles.

Incidentally this made me think about how high you need to be to go out the stock RC range of about 5km. That's 2.7 nautical miles, so 2.7 = 1.25 sqrt X, so X=2.16^2 or a bit more than four and a half feet. AND that's if the RC is on the ground - allowing for the RC being at waist level, the mavic only needs to be a foot or so off the deck 5km away to be in "line of sight". The earth is flat yo.

That assumes no obstructions/terrain at all obviously and is only accounting for the curvature of the earth.

 

[domination]

I bought a PS3 January 2017. Loved it. Dug deeper on the net and found out about the MP. Researched it, ordered it (fly more + refresh) direct from DJI. Got it in Florida in less than 5 days. I have been flying regularly since February 15. I've had zero drone experience prior. I've spent 2 mos, 100+ flights, 1m+ feet and now have the confidence to really enjoy the Mav. I've had 2 very minor crashes (OE) and some nail biting moments - app disconnect, etc...
1. Learn the ins and outs of flying and how the MP behaves.
2. Read this forum.
3. Everything - batts, RC, iPhone, etc are 100% charged.
4. Have a pre-flight checklist.
5. Do not use any flight 'modes' until you are comfortable.
6. It's been said a million times WAIT for SATs to connect (10+) and Check your RTH point.
7. If something arises, keep cool - don't panic. Think of what may happen and anticipate your response should it occur.
8. Respect the MP and it's built in safety features and it's limitations. These are in place by design.
9. Ask yourself - is the squeeze worth the juice? Flying over people and places and traffic and buildings etc - the MP can fall like a rock.
10. Respect rules, regs, your neighbors and those that walk up wondering what you're up to.
I love this hobby. I can easily see that the possibilities and capabilities of the MP and others, are endless. I feel like it's 1978 and I'm in the basement of IBM.
Back to VLOS - seems like there are VLOS police in here but that's OK bc I think it's safe to say that we ALL want this hobby to be around - for a while - as long as it can last, anyway. So, it's only appropriate that we police ourselves. However, look at the views on battery and antenna mods -5k, 10k views etc. So, there is a segment that does wish to push/test the limits. I am not judging at all bc I just may be one of them. However, I wouldn't publish vids on YouTube etc.
In brief, be safe, be legal, fly as much as you can, be respectful and ****** Have Fun!!!!
Back to my Bud Light....

 

[wayy510]

Can you explain the difference between a rule and a restriction in your mind? Rules are generally put in place because people do stupid things. Just watch a youtube compilation of drone crashes and it's pretty obvious why some rules were put in place.

Do not take this as me advocating for banning drones but unfortunately as has been proven many times in our country when people choose to ignore laws already in place the government will make more laws that are stricter. Look to gun regulation if you want a good example of stacking laws on top of other laws. I highly doubt the drone community has the organization or support to fight legislation like the gun community does.

I think you're conflating laws and rules or "guidelines" as the FAA calls them. There are no drone laws in the US, only rules or "guidelines" from the FAA (which are being challenged in court from a few different groups). The FAA cannot make law, that simple.

Yes, people do dumb **** with drones or anything else they get their hands on. People drink and drive but you can't ban cars or alcohol. Most people's negative perception of drones are privacy related, not that it could fall out of the sky and hurt someone.

It's laughable that all the drone police around here regurgitate the FAA "guidelines" ad nauseam but aren't all concerned with a plane or helicopter falling out of the sky. Which do you think would do more damage, a falling helicopter or my 2 pound Mavic?

Drones pose very little danger to anyone or anything. Period. Where are all the horrible drone accidents and fatalities? Out of the millions of drones out there, where are all these horrible doomsday drone events?!

It's all blown far out of porpotion with the drone police making the most noise with their incessant whining about their "hobby". They constantly preach to everyone how they always follow those FAA "guidelines" ( which is complete BS and these hippocrates know it ) and how everyone else are idiots ruining their "hobby".

I'm sure Congess has much better things to worry about than drone regulations.

 

[mravicprilot]

Newbie here with a newbie question.

How comfortable are you flying your Mavic out of your direct line of sight and how many flights did it take you to start venturing farther?

On the whole, this little drone seems relatively straightforward to fly if you're taking it easy and focusing on image capture. But I feel like it'll be a while before I send it out a mile or more.

Any tips for safely operating at a distance? One YouTuber recommended staying behind the vector of a longer flight so you can more easily scan for obstructions.

welcome to "droning" I'm also new, mavic is very reliable to fly out of sight, just make sure the highest obtacle is below your RTH altitude, watch out for power lines, tree branches and birds.

when flying using only fpv make sure you only move forward because the sensors only located in the front, and sports mode is not recommended on low altitude.

Have a safe flight

 

[alexcannas]

No they weren't, they were written so you could see and avoid conflicting traffic.

Which is plainly stupid!

London is jam packed full of heli traffic operating quite legally and safely below 400ft inside controlled airspace where they have every reason to expect not to meet an uncleared, unannounced aircraft being operated by someone who doesn't know or doesn't care about the law.

That's not to mention the many aircraft on approach to land, or in the process of taking off, who also have quite legitimate reason to be there below 400ft

How did you conclude that planes fly lower than 400ft over London? Did you consider the fact that towers like the Shard are 1000ft tall? Could you imagine a plane on approach to Heathrow flying in between the skyscrapers?? Same goes for helicopters. There is a reason they set the 400ft limit and that is to be below this sort of traffic.

London city area is classified as Class D, which is NOT the same as Restricted airspace, like the radius around Heathrow or London city airport. Obviously flying in the city would violate privacy laws, but that is a different matter.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Which is plainly stupid!


How did you conclude that planes fly lower than 400ft over London? Did you consider the fact that towers like the Shard are 1000ft tall? Could you imagine a plane on approach to Heathrow flying in between the skyscrapers?? Same goes for helicopters. There is a reason they set the 400ft limit and that is to be below this sort of traffic.

London city area is classified as Class D, which is NOT the same as Restricted airspace, like the radius around Heathrow or London city airport. Obviously flying in the city would violate privacy laws, but that is a different matter.

What is "stupid" about being able to see conflicting traffic so you can avoid it?

I don't know how close you think Heathrow is to skyscrapers either. A normal 3 degree glide path is about 300 feet per mile. It's totally normal to be at 400 feet over a mile away from the landing threshold. If there's rising ground in the undershoot, then an airplane on the approach could be 400 feet AGL perhaps 2 miles from the landing threshold.

Not to mention how am I going to climb out of the way of your drone when I'm having an engine failure, perhaps due to having just ingested someone else's...

Helicopters routinely operate there below 400'. Have you actually talked to a helicopter pilot who operates in London about this or are you just making it up?

Lastly, Class D is controlled airspace. You are not permitted to be there without a clearance.

Here's what London looks like in the official NATS Drone Assist app.

Your entire post is so ill-informed, I really don't have the words.

 

[alexcannas]

You are allowed to fly in Class D airspace without permission as long as your drone is less than 7kg mass and you are not a commercial operator. It is also stated in the app you mention. Don't just look at the colours on the map, click on them and it will show you the relevant regulations.

See legal snipet below:

The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft: (a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained; (b) within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or (c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.

 

[dirkclod]

Guys continue on but let's not this get
out of hand and stay civil.

Thanks​

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Alex thanks - I apologise, I'll have to read more but I agree - it seems under 7kg there's almost no restriction so far as airspace goes, and only the usual "mustn't endanger ......".

I still wouldn't operate in class D in the South of England without a clearance, and anyone else should probably think very carefully indeed before doing so - you're invariably close enough to an approach, departure routing or other busy airspace for it to potentially be a bad idea.

However, so far as whether you can be there legally without a clearance, I was wrong - under 7kg and for non commercial purposes, it seems you can.

 

[alexcannas]

Alex thanks - I apologise, I'll have to read more but I agree - it seems under 7kg there's almost no restriction so far as airspace goes, and only the usual "mustn't endanger ......".

I still wouldn't operate in class D in the South of England without a clearance, and anyone else should probably think very carefully indeed before doing so - you're invariably close enough to an approach, departure routing or other busy airspace for it to potentially be a bad idea.

However, so far as whether you can be there legally without a clearance, I was wrong - under 7kg and for non commercial purposes, it seems you can.

Good, we agree on that. I don't generally fly in Class D areas either. The important bit is to be in control.

My comment on LOS was because I find it extremely hard to control a Mavic by looking at it. It's a lot easier to orient using the app and map views. I sure do hope future consultations will take that into consideration.

 

[mark_t]

My comment on LOS was because I find it extremely hard to control a Mavic by looking at it. It's a lot easier to orient using the app and map views. I sure do hope future consultations will take that into consideration.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to introduce that as an argument without the obvious response that you just need to fly closer if the aircraft is too small to see clearly...

Also regardless of the Class D not being a problem, it isn't easy (but not impossible) to find places in London where you can meet the other CAA requirements for flying in a built-up area, most notably staying 150m away from people and property not under your control...

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Good, we agree on that. I don't generally fly in Class D areas either. The important bit is to be in control.

My comment on LOS was because I find it extremely hard to control a Mavic by looking at it. It's a lot easier to orient using the app and map views. I sure do hope future consultations will take that into consideration.

Indeed, the law can be confusing and it's not as though the CAA and NATS go out of their way to point out that certain things that breach the voluntary drone-code are in fact legal. I might never use it, but I'd still rather now what the law actually says so thanks for classifying that.

LOS is in my opinion similar - if it hasn't been tested in court, it's difficult to know exactly what it means. I think the key thing is to be able to see and avoid conflicting traffic, so provided you can do that I'm not convinced that losing sight of your drone for a short time whilst it's in "line of sight" is something anyone should be worrying too much about.

 

[bdrowe]

According to the FAA, described in Part 107 section 4.1 flying without LOS falls under part 107 sect. 5.2.3 So if you are going to fly like that, it is in your best interest to pass your 107 exam. https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf

 

[geigy]

An interesting article on the future of the FAA "flying within the line of sight" restriction.
FAA Cautiously Suggests Relaxed 'Line-Of-Sight' Rules For Drones

 

[Lelantos]

If you take off in an open field, just for an example, and fly straight up to 400', then fly over a forrest of " average height trees", and continue to fly at 400 AGL, at some point/distance the drone will go out of sight...curvature of the earth, etc. What would that distance be?

In nautical miles, about 1.25 x the square root of the height in feet.

So for 400', that's 1.25 x 20 = 25 NM or about 28 statute miles.

I disagree. The distance before you lose sight depends almost entirely on how far you are away from the tree line. For example, If you are 200ft away from 200ft tall trees and you fly at 400ft altitude, you will lose sight of the drone after flying 200ft or 0.03 nautical miles into the forest. If you are a thousand feet away, then you will lose sight when you are 1,000ft into the forest.

1,000ft away from 100ft tall trees gets you 3,000ft over the forest until you lose sight.

The equation goes like this;

((Drone altitude - height of trees) / height of trees) x your distance from trees = distance that you will lose LOS.
or written differently;
(Drone height above trees / height of trees) x distance from trees = loss of LOS distance

In other words, the ratio of the height of the drone above the trees to the height of the trees, times the distance you are away from them gives you the distance where you will lose sight.

The effects of the curvature of the Earth are so small and irregular (except over ocean or dry lake bed) that it can be safely ignored.