Flying Over 400ft

[Torque]

Exactly why I don't agree with law enforcement to enforce drone laws setup by the FAA. Anyone flying FPV can be cited because the regulations are easily misinterpreted. It doesn't matter what it really says or really means, all that matter is when it comes time to detain and cite you and then when it comes time to convict you. It's totally out of your hands when it comes to local law enforcement and you may stand a fighting chance if this is administrative action under FAA (federal) jurisdiction. Any officer for any reason can simply walk up to you, ask you to land your FPV and take off the goggles, then write you a citation for the dangerous operation of a UAV re: failure to maintain VLOS and walk away with your drone and there's nothing you can do about it [for now]....

I just might buy this for my visual observer so there will be no questions. Also a good idea to record the interaction.

 

[Droning on and on...]

This presents an immediate problem for FPV drones and their goggles, because the drone pilot is viewing the live camera feed and therefore cannot maintain VLOS. The use of FPV drones and goggles is legal in both the United Kingdom and the United States, but to fly an FPV drone you’ll need an observer who can maintain visual line of sight with the aircraft and communicate this with the pilot.

In the US the VO must be co-located with the Pilot, so that the pilot and the VO have the same range of site.

In this way there is no scenario where the VO can see the aircraft (down in a canyon, as in a previous post) but the pilot cannot if removing the goggles.

A VO can not be located far enough away that they can see areas the pilot can't with direct observation.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

You can fly your drone 400 ft above any structure within a 50 ft radius of you.

No, it's 400 X 400 -- and the guy in the video mentions this as well, you need to be within 400 feet of the tallest part of the structure and can then go 400 feet above that tallest part of that structure.

In case anyone is wondering why it's 400 feet: because general aviation starts at 500 feet.

And incidentally, as a former broadcast engineer, don't fly close to active antennas unless you really really know what you're doing. Many of those antenna installations are operating on frequencies very close to those used by the drones and RCs, and the resulting interference could cause a loss of connection with your drone, and other things.

The amount of power in TV, FM, and AM radio installations can be substantial—The entire tower of an AM radio tower can be energized to tens of thousands of volts. The guy wires are thin and hard to see. Telco including cell phone installations and microwave links operate at a much higher power than the drone is expecting——I'm not saying the drones electronics would be damaged necessarily, but a loss of connection, and if it goes in a return to home and then goes and flies up into a guy wire, props stop, drone crashes...

I mention the high voltages, because if something happens where your drone crashes and lands/stuck on the tower, and you think you're gonna climb up and get it, well... ZAP

 

[NightFlightAlright]

By permission I meant for such a tall structure there will need to be a place within 50 ft of the building ( probably lots of people working and wandering about) to take off from I don't know about Pittsburg but a lot of secretaries and business people here in L.A. get nervous when you start buzzing your drone around them. and you know that cool" Nakatomy plaza" (I know spelling!) building used for die hard here in L.A. well don't even think of flying a drone anywhere on that property. yep I tried. the property owners can prevent you from flying on the property yes they can't stop you from buzzing around the building within reason but the building is on their property and if you linger too long on the property with your drone that can be considered harassment .

That's Fox movie studios… but there's plenty of not-Fox-movie-studios around if you actually wanted to buzz around Nakatomi plaza… not that I know anything about that

 

[Droning on and on...]

Not necessarily. As long as you can still communicate with your VO without radios or other aids, they do not need to be right by your side.

True, as long as the pilot can see everywhere they can.

Which is usually only practical in a clear, flat, open area. Every where else, to satisfy the requirement in the FARs that both pilot and VO are able to see the aircraft at all times will usually require them to be standing next to each other.

 

[Torque]

True, as long as the pilot can see everywhere they can.

Which is usually only practical in a clear, flat, open area. Every where else, to satisfy the requirement in the FARs that both pilot and VO are able to see the aircraft at all times will usually require them to be standing next to each other.

There is really no advantage I can think of having my VO within shouting distance. If we don't share the same field of vision where he can immediately help me locate my drone in the sky if needed, then I have no use for a visual observer.

 

[Droning on and on...]

There is really no advantage I can think of having my VO within shouting distance. If we don't share the same field of vision where he can immediately help me locate my drone in the sky if needed, then I have no use for a visual observer.

No argument, qualitatively.

However, that's not what the regs require. To be compliant, you and your VO must be able to see exactly the same everything. There can't be some location that your VO can see that you can't when you lift your goggles.

That's my reading of the regs, at least. If I'm correct, there are few topologies other than open, flat field where that can be satisfied without pilot and VO ccollated.

Of course, anywhere the requirement can be satisfied regardless of topology would be legal.

 

[karlblessing]

Noticing a lot of misinformation in here (and not current at that either).

The current rule, far as a Part 107 certified pilot goes, is up to 400 feet above a manmade structure within 400 feet of it.... in uncontrolled air space.

In controlled airspace, you can't just jump up 400 foot over a building, the limits within controlled airspace are absolutes, if you want to go over the marked AGL for that grid you have to wait for a human review of that authorization request.

All the other rules have to be observed such as staying within visual line of sight as well unless you get a waiver for it (since the visual observer needs to be right next to you, they can't be elsewhere on a walkie or something).

Recreational fliers have to follow the topography. So the literal ground, manmade structures don't count as ground.

 

[Torque]

No argument, qualitatively.

However, that's not what the regs require. To be compliant, you and your VO must be able to see exactly the same everything. There can't be some location that your VO can see that you can't when you lift your goggles.

That's my reading of the regs, at least. If I'm correct, there are few topologies other than open, flat field where that can be satisfied without pilot and VO ccollated.

Of course, anywhere the requirement can be satisfied regardless of topology would be legal.

I think I may have worded my post badly. Let me rephrase, if my VO is not standing next to me where we can easily and quickly communicate, then what use is a VO? I'm not going to shout across the field to him/her to communicate with them. IOW, I can't see any scenario where having the VO positioned shouting distance away is a benefit to my FPV flight.

 

[karlblessing]

I think I may have worded my post badly. Let me rephrase, if my VO is not standing next to me where we can easily and quickly communicate, then what use is a VO? I'm not going to shout across the field to him/her to communicate with them. IOW, I can't see any scenario where having the VO positioned shouting distance away is a benefit to my FPV flight.

Also a VO should know what they should be looking for, kind of pointless to just have a guy standing by if they're not scanning the skies for incoming obstacles. (That's part of how that crash happened in Canada by the police drone).