Have you seen this idiot

[Jim622]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Reading through the comments is just as troubling as the unsafe acts.

 

[msinger]

He was on the way to filming a potentially unsafe, illegal flight, but was still likely within VLOS range when he crashed.

Or is there something else we should be looking for here?

 

[Cafguy]

He was on the way to filming a potentially unsafe, illegal flight, but was still likely within VLOS range when he crashed.

Or is there something else we should be looking for here?

I agree with you there BUT was he really flying LOS or was he "Flying the camera", one cannot FPV alone you need a spotter. and even tho he has no goggles constant attention to the screen would be the same thing as having goggles.

 

[msinger]

BUT was he really flying LOS or was he "Flying the camera"

We will never know. But, I'd have to think he was flying LOS (or looking elsewhere) since it was easy to see the tree was fast approaching on the remote controller screen. Either way, it's an easy mistake to make when flying LOS.

As for his original intent for the video though, it looks like the making of an illegal flight.

 

[mavic3usa]

Dustin Dunnill is far from being an idiot.

 

[Jim622]

My point was filming yourself doing a potentially unsafe and questionable illegal flight is not the smartest thing to do.
Drone activity is heavily scrutinized right now. I think most people here are safe and conscientious. Do we need people posting unsafe activity on YouTube? Then, all the comments seem to support illegal activity. Maybe I misread them, but that's what it looked like to me.

 

[msinger]

Then, all the comments seem to support illegal activity

I'm not sure anything illegal happened in that specific video. But, yes, many people in general support long range flight videos as they probably aren't aware it's illegal. Many people do not understand the rules well.

As for Dustin being far from an idiot, that's likely true as he understands how to make viral videos (likely the sole purpose here). That said, his judgment in setting a responsible example might be questionable.

 

[hank970]

A beginner's mistake. If Dunhill isn't an idiot, he's certainly careless and non-observant. What, exactly, is the purpose of a range test other than to tickle the tiger? Is it really necessary to see if a manufacturer's claims of flight duration and distance are entirely accurate?

 

[tstr14]

Dustin Dunnill is far from being an idiot.

And yet his video seems to dispute that statement.

 

[Bad Santa]

So, here's the question on VLOS.
Do you have to be able to see the drone, itself, or the area the drone is in?

I knw people say it's supposed to be able to see the drone itself. Is that in writing in some law? (I'm not saying it's not)

 

[msinger]

Do you have to be able to see the drone, itself, or the area the drone is in?

Per section 107.31:

(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.

 

[Bad Santa]

Per section 107.31:

(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.

#3 requires VLOS
1, 2, 4 can be determined from the screen.

 

[msinger]

1, 2, 4 can be determined from the screen

Unfortunately, we can't negotiate with the FAA on how we believe a screen can be used. That's why they always require VLOS when operating an unmanned aircraft.

"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"

 

[Bad Santa]

I understand that there are snippets of the laws posted from time to time. I'm just wanting to make sure they are all in context at all times.

So, the "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"
is interconnected with
(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.

That is the question.

And how do drone delivery companies get past this? (for example)

 

[msinger]

I understand that there are snippets of the laws posted from time to time. I'm just wanting to make sure they are all in context at all times.

So, the "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"
is interconnected with
(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.

That is the question.

I've linked the actual law above. Please disregard everything I've shared and review the law directly to ensure you don't miss anything important.

And how do drone delivery companies get past this?

They have FAA approval to operate BVLOS. You can do the same by obtaining approval from the FAA.

 

[Bad Santa]

I've linked the actual law above. Please disregard everything I've shared and review the law directly to ensure you don't miss anything important.

Fair enough. So, essentially the regulation for a Mini 4 pro would be about 500 feet maximum distance for most?

Now, back to the OP. I think he should have checked his elevation before starting. Flying below the height of that tree was a dumb move.

 

[msinger]

So, essentially the regulation for a Mini 4 pro would be about 500 feet maximum distance for most?

At 60 years old, that may very well be true. Only you can truly gauge the quality of your eyesight.

 

[Macinfo]

Assuming that the average person's visual range of most or all DJI Drones is perhaps 6-700 feet, maybe farther if you have eagle eyes, but if I had to guess, most everyone in this forum with potentially rare exceptions has gone further than VLOS or lost sight of their drone during their flight, using the screen on their phone on their remote to know where their drone is.. And if people here were totally honest, I suspect that most have done it on one flight or another to get the shot they are looking for..

Many drone videos on YT with exceptions, displays more than likely a flight beyond VLOS of the operator flying it.. And when you look at the comments, if its good video, no one is noting that they may have been beyond VLOS, though its probably happened.

Sure some people do silly things and in some cases it costs them a drone.. thats the cost they bear for breaking or bending the rules.. However we also know you can follow rules to a T and still crash....

 

[GadgetGuy]

Dustin Dunnill is far from being an idiot.

Agreed, but Dustin has gotten way too complacent from all his previous range tests in Hawaii, from an island mountain top to the coast, where all obstacles were always below him, giving him clear LOS at significant AGL heights that were well above all urban wifi interference. It was a range test nirvana.

In the video, he just flew directly into visible tree tops above his launch elevation at a speed of 50mph in Sport Mode, because he initially failed to ascend above them, and was not even watching the FPV feed, nor even concerned that the forest trees are above the top of his deck from which he launched.

There is also now an intervening hilltop between him and his intended destination where signal was lost when the drone descended below that hill but still above the tree tops, which caused his prior range test from his new home to end badly.

His current location is a range test nightmare.

Send him back to HI so we can see some real numbers! LOL!

 

[MS Coast]

I understand that there are snippets of the laws posted from time to time. I'm just wanting to make sure they are all in context at all times.

So, the "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"
is interconnected with
(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.

That is the question.

See the reference - Federal Register :: Request Access

And how do drone delivery companies get past this? (for example)

Waivers.