If only there was a little more weight allowance after 250g!

[vindibona1]

So I add prop guards which is a payload, which puts me over the weight on a mm because there are no category 1, but it limits the range. So because I have prop guards on over people, and the range is limited, I just have keep flying over people. Brilliant.

The thing is that the rule about flying over people without a waiver requires BOTH total launch weight under 250g AND be laceration proof. Prop guards, if it takes your drone over 250g does not qualify. I've maintained that increasing the maximum weight to 300 grams under certain conditions would improve safety. Strobes, allowing people to better maintain VLOS. Prop guards, to protect people and things. All could be added with a minimum amount of weight over 250g. At least in the US, aside from flight over people, we have some leeway in terms of weight as long as we do an easy and cheap registration with the FAA.

Personally, and again, I think that the FAA and EU countries were short sighted to have a hard un-negotiable 250g limit without consideration of how safety equipment like prop guards spread the impact over a larger area as well as protect for lacerations or damage to property.

Example/illustration. Which would you like to be hit in the chest with going 20mph; a basketball or a hardball (baseball)? Me? I'd prefer the larger basketball at 22oz rather than the hardball at 5oz.

 

[lookout]

The thing is that the rule about flying over people without a waiver requires BOTH total launch weight under 250g AND be laceration proof. Prop guards, if it takes your drone over 250g does not qualify. I've maintained that increasing the maximum weight to 300 grams under certain conditions would improve safety. Strobes, allowing people to better maintain VLOS. Prop guards, to protect people and things. All could be added with a minimum amount of weight over 250g. At least in the US, aside from flight over people, we have some leeway in terms of weight as long as we do an easy and cheap registration with the FAA.

Personally, and again, I think that the FAA and EU countries were short sighted to have a hard un-negotiable 250g limit without consideration of how safety equipment like prop guards spread the impact over a larger area as well as protect for lacerations or damage to property.

Example/illustration. Which would you like to be hit in the chest with going 20mph; a basketball or a hardball (baseball)? Me? I'd prefer the larger basketball at 22oz rather than the hardball at 5oz.

Some of those prop guards are flimsy that keep from breaking the blades off more than they protect from lacerations. Adds a little weight so that if it becomes a falling rock it makes it just that much more of a falling rock. Like an SUV with a cattle bumper in the city. Doesn't prevent damage to the vehicle in an accident but makes you feel tougher.

But yeah, love having to work inside of tight tolerances. We want you to know how flexible we are with our rigid blueprints. If we had to do it, maybe we'd realize how difficult we're being. It looked good on paper, though.

 

[MS Coast]

So I add prop guards which is a payload, which puts me over the weight on a mm because there are no category 1, but it limits the range. So because I have prop guards on over people, and the range is limited, I just have keep flying over people. Brilliant.

The "250 g" drones were designed to comply with the regulations. It might be more appropriate to blame the manufacturers for not designing in enough "slack" to add prop guards rather than blame the regulators.

To make the ball example more relevant, put a sharp edge or corner on each ball at the point of impact. The basketball, with more than four times the energy, would do a lot more damage.

 

[vindibona1]

The "250 g" drones were designed to comply with the regulations. It might be more appropriate to blame the manufacturers for not designing in enough "slack" to add prop guards rather than blame the regulators.

To make the ball example more relevant, put a sharp edge or corner on each ball at the point of impact. The basketball, with more than four times the energy, would do a lot more damage.

You seem to miss the point of the prop gurds protecting those "sharp edges". And the fact of the matter is, no matter how strict the regulations are you cannot reduce risk to zero or even close. IMO, again, prop guards would, in most cases greatly reduce the chance of lacerations. Sure, it depends on what type of prop guards you install. But almost always, hard and fast rules are one-size-fits-few. So why not create a small carve-out in the regulation?

 

[MS Coast]

You seem to miss the point of the prop gurds protecting those "sharp edges". And the fact of the matter is, no matter how strict the regulations are you cannot reduce risk to zero. Ever.

Well, I certainly understand the function of prop guards.

I wasn't thinking of the props in my comment, but the edges and corners of the battery and hard structure of the fuselage. I should have said "acute" rather than "sharp" to describe the more non-deformable, higher density mass components of a drone most likely to cause damage or injury.

I doubt that anyone on this forum believes that the risks of a falling or uncontrolled drone can be reduce to zero. Has someone suggested that it's possible?

 

[lookout]

The "250 g" drones were designed to comply with the regulations. It might be more appropriate to blame the manufacturers for not designing in enough "slack" to add prop guards rather than blame the regulators.

To make the ball example more relevant, put a sharp edge or corner on each ball at the point of impact. The basketball, with more than four times the energy, would do a lot more damage.

I think they are having enough trouble staying within the 250g. A decent battery wipes out half of that.

Well, I certainly understand the function of prop guards.

I wasn't thinking of the props in my comment, but the edges and corners of the battery and hard structure of the fuselage. I should have said "acute" rather than "sharp" to describe the more non-deformable, higher density mass components of a drone most likely to cause damage or injury.

I doubt that anyone on this forum believes that the risks of a falling or uncontrolled drone can be reduce to zero. Has someone suggested that it's possible?

It's just a statement of fact that given a lost quad, the risk for a given condition in which something, somebody or the quad all make it out alive cannot typically be reduced to zero.

 

[MS Coast]

I think they are having enough trouble staying within the 250g. A decent battery wipes out half of that.


It's just a statement of fact that given a lost quad, the risk for a given condition in which something, somebody or the quad all make it out alive cannot typically be reduced to zero.

Per post #85: "I doubt that anyone on this forum believes that the risks of a falling or uncontrolled drone can be reduce to zero. Has someone suggested that it's possible?"

 

[lookout]

In Japan the limit is 200g. And they make a lighter battery for the mini which you might be able to squeeze in the prop guards.

 

[Bob in Savannah]

It's all relative. That is NOT a reasonable selection of accessories, imo. Prop guards? And even the landing gear? Velcro and strobes, yes. But obviously, what I see as reasonable additional weight will inevitably be different than what someone else thinks is. So, I understand that. I learned how to hand catch and launch my mini 2 and that really helped with where I could fly.. not to mention not having to have landing gear or a pad...

And since I have to register my current m3 anyway, I have that thing lit up like a Christmas tree with strobes.

 

[Robert Prior]

So why not create a small carve-out in the regulation?

Because simple regulations are easier to understand and enforce. Any limit is going to be arbitrary, and there will always be edge cases. If the limit was 259 g you would be making the same argument — because DJI's mini drones would be 259 g.

Why don't manufacturers build 249 g drones with prop guards and strobes? Or 200 g drones to give people the headroom to add those items themselves and still stay under the 249 g limit?

Would you be happier if the regulation was 249 g, with required prop guards and strobe lights for extra safety? DJI could do that, at the cost of reduced flight time… just as they do in Japan.

In Japan the limit is 200g. And they make a lighter battery for the mini which you might be able to squeeze in the prop guards.

You could. I want to buy a Japanese battery so I can legally fly with prop guards near my house, but DJI won't sell me one and my local DJI dealer said they can't get them.

 

[lookout]

It's all relative. That is NOT a reasonable selection of accessories, imo. Prop guards? And even the landing gear? Velcro and strobes, yes. But obviously, what I see as reasonable additional weight will inevitably be different than what someone else thinks is. So, I understand that. I learned how to hand catch and launch my mini 2 and that really helped with where I could fly.. not to mention not having to have landing gear or a pad...

And since I have to register my current m3 anyway, I have that thing lit up like a Christmas tree with strobes.

Safety becomes a menu then. Would you like prop guards or just the ability to fly around without RID or registration? How about strobes to announce your presence?

 

[MS Coast]

Safety becomes a menu then. Would you like prop guards or just the ability to fly around without RID or registration? How about strobes to announce your presence?

A designer could certainly use a lighter, lower capacity battery to reduce weight to allow for add-ons. But longer flight times sell more drones. DJI chose to go with the larger battery and cut the margin for users to add gadgets.

With adequate demand, they might offer reduced-capacity batteries to provide additional margin below the weight limits. I wouldn't count on that happening, though. Instead, I suspect they'll develop new models with integral prop guards designed to meet the flight-over-people standard and either reduce battery capacity, remove features, or increase prices to cover carbon fiber or other materials for lighter construction.

It's all a compromise. Like people say about sailboats. There's comfort, speed, and low price. Choose two.

 

[Bob in Savannah]

Safety becomes a menu then. Would you like prop guards or just the ability to fly around without RID or registration? How about strobes to announce your presence?

I'm not sure if I understand this.
I definitely want the strobes to announce my presence so my old eyes can see it but prop guards are complete nonsense TO ME and RID is an "obstacle" that Im not concerned with unless you're assuming a 3rd party RID attachment that may be required to attach to your drone.
I'm assuming that my m3 will automatically conform to RID requirements with zero extra attachments... I could be wrong. Not sure if the sub 250g devices will "automatically" conform to new laws or not without adding a device... I would just think using the native GPS module might be able to transmit this info?? i dunno

 

[lookout]

I'm not sure if I understand this.
I definitely want the strobes to announce my presence so my old eyes can see it but prop guards are complete nonsense TO ME and RID is an "obstacle" that Im not concerned with unless you're assuming a 3rd party RID attachment that may be required to attach to your drone.
I'm assuming that my m3 will automatically conform to RID requirements with zero extra attachments... I could be wrong. Not sure if the sub 250g devices will "automatically" conform to new laws or not without adding a device... I would just think using the native GPS module might be able to transmit this info?? i dunno

ADS-B had similar hurdles. You could have an add on to your current transponder and tie in your GPS if you had one, or go with a complete replacement of your transponder. That may not work so well with an add on rid module with an embedded GPS on the quad. Now you have to wait for two GPS to figure out where they are before liftoff. Prop guards do seem to be a secondary matter as opposed to a free falling rock. Strobes are probably not going to extend VLOS.

But they've constrained what safety features can be squeezed into a tiny package and still be legit. So then you get to choose carefully as you literally have to weigh the options. I think I pulled a pun.

 

[lookout]

A designer could certainly use a lighter, lower capacity battery to reduce weight to allow for add-ons. But longer flight times sell more drones. DJI chose to go with the larger battery and cut the margin for users to add gadgets.

With adequate demand, they might offer reduced-capacity batteries to provide additional margin below the weight limits. I wouldn't count on that happening, though. Instead, I suspect they'll develop new models with integral prop guards designed to meet the flight-over-people standard and either reduce battery capacity, remove features, or increase prices to cover carbon fiber or other materials for lighter construction.

It's all a compromise. Like people say about sailboats. There's comfort, speed, and low price. Choose two.

Might have to refine the aerodynamics to accommodate the prop guards. But then they break like a rubber bumper.

 

[Bob in Savannah]

ADS-B had similar hurdles. You could have an add on to your current transponder and tie in your GPS if you had one, or go with a complete replacement of your transponder. That may not work so well with an add on rid module with an embedded GPS on the quad. Now you have to wait for two GPS to figure out where they are before liftoff. Prop guards do seem to be a secondary matter as opposed to a free falling rock. Strobes are probably not going to extend VLOS.

But they've constrained what safety features can be squeezed into a tiny package and still be legit. So then you get to choose carefully as you literally have to weigh the options. I think I pulled a pun.

I agree with everything you say except thar strobes "probably dont" extend VLOS. They 100% definitely do. For my eyes. Not sure why you would argue that.

A real strobe like the firehouse undoubtably extends VLOS. Actually, I would venture to say it's a fact that any flashing light is easier to see than nothing at all. lol

 

[lookout]

I agree with everything you say except thar strobes "probably dont" extend VLOS. They 100% definitely do. For my eyes. Not sure why you would argue that.

A real strobe like the firehouse undoubtably extends VLOS. Actually, I would venture to say it's a fact that a flashing light is easier to see than nothing at all. lol

There was one guy on here wanting to use it to extend BVLOS and it was argued that it wouldn't be able to use strobes (especially during the daylight) in order to do that. Not a problem about the vision, just that FAA may frown on it.

 

[Bob in Savannah]

There was one guy on here wanting to use it to extend BVLOS and it was argued that it wouldn't be able to use strobes (especially during the daylight) in order to do that. Not a problem about the vision, just that FAA may frown on it.

ahh.. understood.

 

[MS Coast]

Might have to refine the aerodynamics to accommodate the prop guards. But then they break like a rubber bumper.

Something like the Avata comes to mind.

 

[lookout]

Maybe to reduce weight they'd have to take out the folding quad arms thing. Extra weight and structure in those joints.