Flying your drone 1 to 2 miles away during the day ! : The Trick

[Auminer]

Using a 3000 lumen rated spot light (1500 lumen constant output), in my case the FENIX G35, 5oz, cost 70 U.S dollars. Feel free to buy other lights, this is no ad for fenix. You can achieve VLOS at distances up to 1 mile in total sunlight and 2 miles on overcast days. The experiment was repeatable and duplicated several times. You will have to fly from a place that is high enough to reduce the angle you will need to keep a visual on the drone's light. Also, the light you use must be able to maintain a minimum of 1500 lumens. Some have heat sensors, that drop a light's lumens well below 1500 lumens when they get too hot. Anyway, I Fly from a 2nd and or 3rd story balcony, above the local tree line, so I only need 2-4 degrees of an angle to see the drone 2 miles away on an overcast day. I attach the light to the side of my M2Pro and attach it to the underside of my EVO2Pro. I use 10lb rated velcro to attach the lights. I had to use a stronger adhesive to attach the velcro to the lights because their aluminum housing is kinda slick. I face the lights backwards toward my home point at all times when flying to my destination, then fly home backwards to maintain a visual on the light and drone. This technique is just for those who want to check out stuff further away, it's not for cinematographers who will need to constantly change the position of their drones while in flight. I have also done it with an MAV AIR 2 and AIR 2 S. These two drones can lift the light, but it's weight will reduce the flight time a bit more than the larger M2P and E2P drones. Happy long distance flying. Please attach your lights securely.

Included is a pic from a cell phone (poor quality), eyesight is better to see the light. You can see the light orb in the center of the sky. It's 1 mile away in broad daylight, noon.

Thanks for the tip and I love the thinking out of the box idea.

 

[Mavic 57]

Using a 3000 lumen rated spot light (1500 lumen constant output), in my case the FENIX G35, 5oz, cost 70 U.S dollars. Feel free to buy other lights, this is no ad for fenix. You can achieve VLOS at distances up to 1 mile in total sunlight and 2 miles on overcast days. The experiment was repeatable and duplicated several times. You will have to fly from a place that is high enough to reduce the angle you will need to keep a visual on the drone's light. Also, the light you use must be able to maintain a minimum of 1500 lumens. Some have heat sensors, that drop a light's lumens well below 1500 lumens when they get too hot. Anyway, I Fly from a 2nd and or 3rd story balcony, above the local tree line, so I only need 2-4 degrees of an angle to see the drone 2 miles away on an overcast day. I attach the light to the side of my M2Pro and attach it to the underside of my EVO2Pro. I use 10lb rated velcro to attach the lights. I had to use a stronger adhesive to attach the velcro to the lights because their aluminum housing is kinda slick. I face the lights backwards toward my home point at all times when flying to my destination, then fly home backwards to maintain a visual on the light and drone. This technique is just for those who want to check out stuff further away, it's not for cinematographers who will need to constantly change the position of their drones while in flight. I have also done it with an MAV AIR 2 and AIR 2 S. These two drones can lift the light, but it's weight will reduce the flight time a bit more than the larger M2P and E2P drones. Happy long distance flying. Please attach your lights securely.

Included is a pic from a cell phone (poor quality), eyesight is better to see the light. You can see the light orb in the center of the sky. It's 1 mile away in broad daylight, noon.

In UK maximum VLOS limit is stated at 500 metres by the CAA. That's the law and for good reason.

Why flying BVLOS isn't a good idea . . .

For those who say, "If an airplane/helicopter is flying less than 400' AGL they have problems on their hands and should never be flying in "My Area" that low" you're WRONG! Take a look at a picture snapped right here in western NC yesterday from someone's front deck (This is not a drone/aerial...

mavicpilots.com

 

[Grant Angus Vietnam]

Naughty comment. Expert comes from the word experience. If you got it, you got it.

Expert. X is the unknown. Spert is a drip under pressure.

 

[MMPerrish]

?

 

[kush61]

Uh...
Isn't flying a drone from a "2nd or 3rd story balcony" illegal ?
And how about the people, cars etc. that are below you on the ground ?
You would be a LOSER in court, better retain a very good lawyer !!!

 

[sar104]

Uh...
Isn't flying a drone from a "2nd or 3rd story balcony" illegal ?
And how about the people, cars etc. that are below you on the ground ?
You would be a LOSER in court, better retain a very good lawyer !!!

It would be illegal if there were people or traffic directly below- same as launching from anywhere. But not otherwise.

 

[Chris P. Chicken]

ahh thats someting nice for me!

 

[Romulus Archibald]

So since this was clearly and strongly suggested as well as highly advised against, is there a way OP could have made this flight safer such as adding the correct colored strives on the sides and a few extras for hearing orientation?

 

[Donnie Frank]

But can you tell the orientation of your drone?
I mean other than you can see it .
Know you can tell by looking at your screen on the app but if not
mistaken your still not legal. @BigAl07 can tell you he’s our expert
on such.

Of course the primary means of determining orientation would be to use telemetry. But should one lose that, the tried and true method is to fly forward and eventually yaw left. If the drone moves to the left, it was moving away from you, and you now know your orientation. If your drone moves to the right, you know it was coming toward you, and you now know your orientation. I practice this occasionally just to keep that skill up.

D

 

[maelstrom]

The experiment was repeated and duplicated several times with different operators. None lost site of the drone at the distances described and all had excellent perception of the surrounding airspace.

I have to disagree with you here. Whilst you may well be able to see the strobe at that range, you have little-to-no idea of where it is relative to anything else in the airspace. At that sort of range, you could be several hundred metres out in your estimation of range relative to a passing aircraft. You'd have no way of knowing whether it was closer or further away so would have no way to assess if it posed a danger or not.

As you pointed out yourself in an earlier post, the regulations say that you must be able to:

"(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another."

That's almost impossible by just looking at a distant, isolated point of light in the sky.

 

[Vic Moss]

107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.

(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft’s location;

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer.

I'm not sure why you're quoting regs to me. Nothing in there supports your comment. The regulations say "must be able to see the unmanned aircraft", not the lights on the UAS.

Lights do not extend the VLOS capabilities of the flight crew. And they don't assist at all for 107.31 (a)(3) or (4).

One of two miles out with a Mavic would be a violation of 107.31. Lights or not.

 

[Vic Moss]

But you need lighting that is visible from 3 miles away to fly at night even if you can't fly that far away.

Yes, that is for the benefit of manned (& unmanned) aircraft flying near you. Not for the flight crew of the UAS with the strobe.

 

[sar104]

Yes, that is for the benefit of manned (& unmanned) aircraft flying near you. Not for the flight crew of the UAS with the strobe.

Now I'm starting to wonder how many people have completely misunderstood the purpose of the strobe requirement.

 

[Vic Moss]

Now I'm starting to wonder how many people have completely misunderstood the purpose of the strobe requirement.

In my experience, many! It's one of the most misunderstood aspects of strobe use, and solicits many questions during the Q&A parts of the trainings I do.

 

[sar104]

In my experience, many! It's one of the most misunderstood aspects of strobe use, and solicits many questions during the Q&A parts of the trainings I do.

Of course there is clearly some allowance for lighting, otherwise night flight would be ruled out completely - the navigation lights and strobe(s) are all that is visible. And Part 107 doesn't state that you cannot augment the visibility of the aircraft to the pilot during the day.

Isn't the key issue regarding aircraft visibility in 107.31 (2), [Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight]? A single strobe doesn't achieve that. Multiple bright navigation lights of different colors might arguably help with absolute visibility range that satisfies this requirement. But of course it doesn't help with the quite different constraints of 107.31 (1), since it is hard to assess range, and 107.31 (3), since it becomes increasingly difficult to judge relative position and flight paths of other aircraft as range increases.

 

[Romulus Archibald]

Thank you @Vic Moss and @sar104.

I understand this is no legal interpretation but very wise advice. That being said, just better understand this portion of the regulations, would the OP have been able to argue his point and meet the regulatory requirements had his AC had the correct colored lights on the sides in addition to a few more for navigation? Or is it simply due to what was stated before about have a 3D sense of awareness of the AC (which would be very very difficult to determine at one or two miles out)?

 

[Vic Moss]

Thank you @Vic Moss and @sar104.

I understand this is no legal interpretation but very wise advice. That being said, just better understand this portion of the regulations, would the OP have been able to argue his point and meet the regulatory requirements had his AC had the correct colored lights on the sides in addition to a few more for navigation? Or is it simply due to what was stated before about have a 3D sense of awareness of the AC (which would be very very difficult to determine at one or two miles out)?

I've reached out to my FAA contacts in the Integration Office for the actual language for this. I'll post here once I have it.

 

[Vic Moss]

I just received clarification from one of my FAA contacts. Here is his answer, but it boils down to you need more than just a bright strobe on your drone to extend VLOS flights, and it's under very limited conditions. You also need to have strobes that will show the attitude (orientation) of the UAS as well. You can use typical manned aviation configuration (red/port & green starboard), or use your own configuration. But it MUST show attitude.

And, if you're flying at a distance where you normally couldn't maintain VLOS (1-2 miles with a Mavic would certainly violate this), strobes cannot be used as a substitute for VLOS. So the OP here is still violating 107.31.

He also added a bit about the confusion about the 3SM and VLOS.

His email:

"*deep breath*

Ok…here we go…

When flying under Part 107, you must maintain VLOS of your aircraft to meet the requirements of 107.31(a). The FAA does not state how you can meet those requirements, nor do we prohibit using a lighting system to help meet those requirements.

Where the confusion comes from is with the 107.29 waivers of past where simply seeing the lights on the drone may not have met the necessary risk mitigation for operating at night. However, what we’re talking about here is the ability to comply with 107.31(a).

Here’s the hypothetical:

My drone is painted matte black. I’ve outfitted it with multi-colored LED lights on each of the rotor posts and a strobe on the main body. I’ve memorized the LED color scheme so that at any time, I know the drone’s attitude and direction of flight. I’m also operating at a distance where I can still comply with all other elements of 107.31(a). It’s getting late and (again, assuming I’ve met all the requirements of 107.29), I’m continuing my flight. However, I cannot actually see the physical drone because of the dark sky and moonless night. However, I can clearly see my LED lighting system and I can continue to meet all of 107.31(a).

This flight is legal.

Where we get into problems is people only using a strobe lighting system which does not provide attitude information and (arguably) does not provide direction of flight information. At that point, you no longer are able to comply with 107.31(a)(2) and would be in violation. Additionally, people will try to use a lighting system as a means to operate much farther from the control station than they normally could because they can still “see” their drone. Again, this would most likely not be in compliance with all of 107.31(a).

The “strobe” requirement of 107.29 was not to assist the operator in seeing the drone or meeting 107.31(a), rather that other aircraft can see it. It’s purely a night (twilight) operational requirement for visibility to other aircraft (3sm strobe visibility = 3sm mile visibility operational limitation in 107.51).

Does that help?"

This should settle any confusion about this. As posted, the flights undertaken in the testing by @cgmaxed are a violation of 107.31, and should not be undertaken again w/o a 107.31 waiver.

 

[sar104]

I just received clarification from one of my FAA contacts. Here is his answer, but it boils down to you need more than just a bright strobe on your drone to extend VLOS flights, and it's under very limited conditions. You also need to have strobes that will show the attitude (orientation) of the UAS as well. You can use typical manned aviation configuration (red/port & green starboard), or use your own configuration. But it MUST show attitude.

And, if you're flying at a distance where you normally couldn't maintain VLOS (1-2 miles with a Mavic would certainly violate this), strobes cannot be used as a substitute for VLOS. So the OP here is still violating 107.31.

He also added a bit about the confusion about the 3SM and VLOS.

His email:

"*deep breath*

Ok…here we go…

When flying under Part 107, you must maintain VLOS of your aircraft to meet the requirements of 107.31(a). The FAA does not state how you can meet those requirements, nor do we prohibit using a lighting system to help meet those requirements.

Where the confusion comes from is with the 107.29 waivers of past where simply seeing the lights on the drone may not have met the necessary risk mitigation for operating at night. However, what we’re talking about here is the ability to comply with 107.31(a).

Here’s the hypothetical:

My drone is painted matte black. I’ve outfitted it with multi-colored LED lights on each of the rotor posts and a strobe on the main body. I’ve memorized the LED color scheme so that at any time, I know the drone’s attitude and direction of flight. I’m also operating at a distance where I can still comply with all other elements of 107.31(a). It’s getting late and (again, assuming I’ve met all the requirements of 107.29), I’m continuing my flight. However, I cannot actually see the physical drone because of the dark sky and moonless night. However, I can clearly see my LED lighting system and I can continue to meet all of 107.31(a).

This flight is legal.

Where we get into problems is people only using a strobe lighting system which does not provide attitude information and (arguably) does not provide direction of flight information. At that point, you no longer are able to comply with 107.31(a)(2) and would be in violation. Additionally, people will try to use a lighting system as a means to operate much farther from the control station than they normally could because they can still “see” their drone. Again, this would most likely not be in compliance with all of 107.31(a).

The “strobe” requirement of 107.29 was not to assist the operator in seeing the drone or meeting 107.31(a), rather that other aircraft can see it. It’s purely a night (twilight) operational requirement for visibility to other aircraft (3sm strobe visibility = 3sm mile visibility operational limitation in 107.51).

Does that help?"

This should settle any confusion about this. As posted, the flights undertaken in the testing by @cgmaxed are a violation of 107.31, and should not be undertaken again w/o a 107.31 waiver.

Now that's a clear explanation from your FAA contact that is also fully consistent with any reasonable reading of Part 107. Nice.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

I just received clarification from one of my FAA contacts. Here is his answer, but it boils down to you need more than just a bright strobe on your drone to extend VLOS flights, and it's under very limited conditions. You also need to have strobes that will show the attitude (orientation) of the UAS as well. You can use typical manned aviation configuration (red/port & green starboard), or use your own configuration. But it MUST show attitude.

And, if you're flying at a distance where you normally couldn't maintain VLOS (1-2 miles with a Mavic would certainly violate this), strobes cannot be used as a substitute for VLOS. So the OP here is still violating 107.31.

He also added a bit about the confusion about the 3SM and VLOS.

His email:

"*deep breath*

Ok…here we go…

When flying under Part 107, you must maintain VLOS of your aircraft to meet the requirements of 107.31(a). The FAA does not state how you can meet those requirements, nor do we prohibit using a lighting system to help meet those requirements.

Where the confusion comes from is with the 107.29 waivers of past where simply seeing the lights on the drone may not have met the necessary risk mitigation for operating at night. However, what we’re talking about here is the ability to comply with 107.31(a).

Here’s the hypothetical:

My drone is painted matte black. I’ve outfitted it with multi-colored LED lights on each of the rotor posts and a strobe on the main body. I’ve memorized the LED color scheme so that at any time, I know the drone’s attitude and direction of flight. I’m also operating at a distance where I can still comply with all other elements of 107.31(a). It’s getting late and (again, assuming I’ve met all the requirements of 107.29), I’m continuing my flight. However, I cannot actually see the physical drone because of the dark sky and moonless night. However, I can clearly see my LED lighting system and I can continue to meet all of 107.31(a).

This flight is legal.

Where we get into problems is people only using a strobe lighting system which does not provide attitude information and (arguably) does not provide direction of flight information. At that point, you no longer are able to comply with 107.31(a)(2) and would be in violation. Additionally, people will try to use a lighting system as a means to operate much farther from the control station than they normally could because they can still “see” their drone. Again, this would most likely not be in compliance with all of 107.31(a).

The “strobe” requirement of 107.29 was not to assist the operator in seeing the drone or meeting 107.31(a), rather that other aircraft can see it. It’s purely a night (twilight) operational requirement for visibility to other aircraft (3sm strobe visibility = 3sm mile visibility operational limitation in 107.51).

Does that help?"

This should settle any confusion about this. As posted, the flights undertaken in the testing by @cgmaxed are a violation of 107.31, and should not be undertaken again w/o a 107.31 waiver.

Nice Job Vic!! All understandable and well presented (oh and official). That said the second verification is "common sense". In the manned aircraft world there are plenty who in effect say ..."Ya but I know better!" Thanks for your effort and your contacts as well.