Line of Sight - Are most flights illegal?

[BigAl07]

As far as I know, I don't think that was ever verified. I worked on helicopters that were a lot less robust then a Blackhawk and the damage I seen the photos looked very repairable.

Still have to agree with your points

Yes I'm afraid it has been confirmed and there is an ongoing NTSB investigation surrounding it. Many think the "powers in charge" will try to use this single incident as a "See I told you so" event to tighten our regulations and potentially remove the Part 101 loophole/mistake from 2012.

The blade could have been repairable but they were replaced ASAP and the helo put back into service immediately. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they removed them for "intense testing" to get an idea of the true depth of damage and then try to "apply" it in theory to other components.

*NOTE*
@sar104 beat me to it LOL

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was confirmed:

The article said the blade was replaced. I'm betting it was repairable or maybe repaired later.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes I'm afraid it has been confirmed and there is an ongoing NTSB investigation surrounding it. Many think the "powers in charge" will try to use this single incident as a "See I told you so" event to tighten our regulations and potentially remove the Part 101 loophole/mistake from 2012.

The blade could have been repairable but they were replaced ASAP and the helo put back into service immediately. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they removed them for "intense testing" to get an idea of the true depth of damage and then try to "apply" it in theory to other components.

*NOTE*
@sar104 beat me to it LOL

LOL, answered SAR. Agree on all points.

Oh yea, no doubting this happened, been all over the news. I grew up a few miles away from where this happened.

 

[Chirp]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned but aren't we permitted to have a Visual Observer who can keep LOS for us as long as we are communicating? Such as Cell Phones...

 

[BigAl07]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned but aren't we permitted to have a Visual Observer who can keep LOS for us as long as we are communicating? Such as Cell Phones...

Negative. The VO can assume the line of sight role of the aircraft only for a moment to allow the RPIC to devote full attention away from the aircraft in order to secure Aircraft Safety. This would facilitate a situation like concentrating on the display device (changing settings, reacting to an on-screen warning etc) or anyting that would take the RPIC's eyes off of the aircraft but only for a moment. The interpretation stipulates that the RPIC can at any given moment see the aircraft with his/her very own eyes (corrective lens are allowed but not scopes/binocs etc) in order to operate within the rules.

The RPIC is responsible for See & Avoid so they must always see the aircraft and know it's orientation in order to manipulate it's flight to avoid aircraft conflict. By the time the VO recognizes the problem, explains it over comms, figures out how to tell the RPIC which way to maneuver the AC to avoid conflict it could already be too late. RPIC must have VLOS unless operating under a set of rules allowing otherwise (Public Safety COA for SAR might allow this I'm not sure).

The role of the VO is to enhance Situational Awareness not alleviate the requirement for RPIC to have eyes on the aircraft at all times.

There will be revisions to this to allow for "hand off" off control etc for daisy chain operations but those are not yet allowed.

 

[sar104]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned but aren't we permitted to have a Visual Observer who can keep LOS for us as long as we are communicating? Such as Cell Phones...

This is explicitly permitted under Part 107 (14 CFR 107.33), but not mentioned in Part 101. However, if you take the 2014 AMA Safety Code to be your set of "community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" as required by 14 CFR 101.41 (b), then B 9 (a) does not permit anyone except the pilot to fill that role.

 

[MountainMan2017]

How are drone pilots interpreting the line-of-sight requirement in 107 and how is the FAA enforcing this requirement?[/QUOTE] My LOS is when I look back through my Head Play FPV goggles and notice how small I am on the screen. This is when I say "I better head back Im way out there " My FPV mini quads are small and fast and can cover a 1/2 mile in no time. 4 to 6 minutes of insane speed with nothing but a timer, flight mode read out, and battery voltage on my OSD. Dont go to far or you can get lost real easy . 0' to 400' height can happen as fast as what feels like a Estes rocket. LOL But with my MP LOS is LOS. I check often and I dont push it. Most of my flights are with in a couple of hundred yards max. Im surprised DJI doesnt limit that too to keep us all legal . But then again Im sure its coming . P.S .....I do carry Binoculars with me when I fly my MP. Just in case I need them.

 

[RC5728]

I'm not sure how that argument stands up to any kind of logical scrutiny.

There have been several documented cases of quite serious head and neck injuries to people on the ground being hit by falling UAVs.

There have not been many aircraft collisions with UAVs but there have been a few, including at least one with documented damage that required the replacement of a main rotor on a UH-60, and there have been numerous near misses, which is not surprising since people have been doing as you mention, ignoring the rules and guidelines, and flying in airspace where conflict is likely. We can conclude from those observations that as UAVs become even more commonplace, there will continue to be plenty of opportunities for collisions with manned aircraft, and it would be foolish to assume that none of those will result in serious damage or worse.

Uhhh, good job proving my point.

So there have been millions of drone pilots flying around for half a decade now, and the worst you can come up with is a few reported injuries?

Like I said, selfies hurt and kill more people. Lightning strikes do too. Enough said.

The drone phobia is sensational BS. Drones are not a significant safety risk. The stats have already proven it.

 

[sar104]

Uhhh, good job proving my point.

So there have been millions of drone pilots flying around for half a decade now, and the worst you can come up with is a few reported injuries?

Like I said, selfies hurt and kill more people. Lightning strikes do too. Enough said.

The drone phobia is sensational BS. Drones are not a significant safety risk. The stats have already proven it.

I didn’t prove your point at all, except in the technical meaning of the word. If you think that vastly exaggerating the historical use of drones and then baldly asserting that statistics permit your conclusion then I can’t help you. It’s moot anyway. They will be increasingly regulated, as they should have been back in 2012 - the prevalence of cavalier attitudes like yours will ensure that it happens.

 

[RC5728]

I didn’t prove your point at all, except in the technical meaning of the word. If you think that vastly exaggerating the historical use of drones and then baldly asserting that statistics permit your conclusion then I can’t help you. It’s moot anyway. They will be increasingly regulated, as they should have been back in 2012 - the prevalence of cavalier attitudes like yours will ensure that it happens.

Yes you did.

And if they're increasingly regulated, it’s because of freedom hating fearmongers who drum up sensational stories and ignore the facts.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes you did.

And if they're increasingly regulated, it’s because of freedom hating fearmongers who drum up sensational stories and ignore the facts.

While you make great points, the "freedom hating fearmongers" are being fueled by almost DAILY reports of sUAVs operating in controlled airspace. I just attended an FAA safety seminar and this was a major topic. The FAA maintains a database of daily reports of airspace incursions and near misses, and right now a great majority of them involve sUAVs. These reports are being submitted by all facets of aviation - airlines, military, GA and corporate. Here is one example;

VFR ROBINSON R66, REPORTED NMAC WITH UAS WHILE AT 1,500 FEET 2 NW DEKALB-PEACHTREE ARPT, ATLANTA, GA 211838E. Closest proximity 0 vertical, unkn lateral.

No evasive action reported. (E-ROC 11/29)

The FAA presenter was actually a sUAV enthusiast and owns a drone.

I seen dozens of others that were very recent. The FAA does maintain a "dated" data base that is usually about 120 days old. I don't know why they don't display the most current information but the numbers don't look good for our community.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:20:0::NO:::

Bottom line the potential is there and as long as there is a potential for sUAVs to endanger the NAS, the clamp will continue to tighten, especially if idiots continue to do things that get them on the national news!

 

[zorr0]

Make sure u don’t have any box cutters on ya

 

[ToasterDrones]

"My LOS is when I look back through my Head Play FPV goggles and notice how small I am on the screen. This is when I say "I better head back Im way out there "

...see that pixel there, that's me... VLOS

 

[787steve]

Uhhh, good job proving my point.

So there have been millions of drone pilots flying around for half a decade now, and the worst you can come up with is a few reported injuries?

Like I said, selfies hurt and kill more people. Lightning strikes do too. Enough said.

The drone phobia is sensational BS. Drones are not a significant safety risk. The stats have already proven it.

Playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[787steve]

I didn’t prove your point at all, except in the technical meaning of the word. If you think that vastly exaggerating the historical use of drones and then baldly asserting that statistics permit your conclusion then I can’t help you. It’s moot anyway. They will be increasingly regulated, as they should have been back in 2012 - the prevalence of cavalier attitudes like yours will ensure that it happens.

You are absolutely correct. I was in a Navy squadron in 1977 which won the Chief of Naval Ops Safety Award. That was due to the massive number of hours we flew without an accident. And it was by far the most unsafe squadron I ever flew in. As an instructor, I averaged 12 hour days 6-7 days a week. We tried to institute a program yo give each instructor one weekend off per quarter, but it didn't work out. As instructors, we were all exhausted. But we were accident free! Do you think that was a measure of how safely we were operating? It wasn't.
There is a significant difference between operating safely, and being accident free. And if you don't take safety seriously, it will eventually bite you.
.

 

[Enorats]

I've wondered about this topic myself quite a bit. So many of the rules (regulations? laws? mild suggestions? God, what are they even?) here in the US make no sense at all.

If you're trying to fly a modern DJI drone using LOS.. you're doing it very, very wrong. The only time I ever actually look at my P3A is if it's within ~100 feet of my location and also quite low to the ground. That generally only happens during takeoff and landing, and even that really isn't necessary. Just typically easier when it's close enough I can practically reach out and touch it. For the rest of the flight (whether it's 100 feet out or 15,000), I'm looking at my camera POV and instruments. Why would I ever need to see anything else?

If you're worried about hitting something, why are you flying so darn low? If you're worried about something hitting you.. what are you doing flying so high, or in that area at all? You really shouldn't have to worry about an aircraft flying at ~200 feet unless you're hovering over an airport (holy hell) or out in a field currently being cropdusted. The minimum safe altitude for planes ranges from 500 to 1000 feet depending on what they're flying over - one of the reasons drones are limited to 400 feet. I'd argue that if your drone collides with a plane, the pilot of the plane is the one likely at fault (unless they're landing, or doing some other legitimate low altitude flight like cropdusting). If a car drives up on a sidewalk and mows down a pedestrian we don't blame the pedestrian for not having a partner to keep LOS on them and watch their back for incoming cars. It's the same logic here, planes have no business flying in areas drones may be and drones have no business flying in areas planes may be.

Helicopters are allowed to forgo those rules, but in many areas those are extremely rare. I see a helicopter fly in my area maybe once or twice a year, and that's typically coming and going from the hospital and even then they don't typically fly anywhere near that low outside of takeoff and landing.

 

[sar104]

I've wondered about this topic myself quite a bit. So many of the rules (regulations? laws? mild suggestions? God, what are they even?) here in the US make no sense at all.

If you're trying to fly a modern DJI drone using LOS.. you're doing it very, very wrong. The only time I ever actually look at my P3A is if it's within ~100 feet of my location and also quite low to the ground. That generally only happens during takeoff and landing, and even that really isn't necessary. Just typically easier when it's close enough I can practically reach out and touch it. For the rest of the flight (whether it's 100 feet out or 15,000), I'm looking at my camera POV and instruments. Why would I ever need to see anything else?

If you're worried about hitting something, why are you flying so darn low? If you're worried about something hitting you.. what are you doing flying so high, or in that area at all? You really shouldn't have to worry about an aircraft flying at ~200 feet unless you're hovering over an airport (holy ****) or out in a field currently being cropdusted. The minimum safe altitude for planes ranges from 500 to 1000 feet depending on what they're flying over - one of the reasons drones are limited to 400 feet. I'd argue that if your drone collides with a plane, the pilot of the plane is the one likely at fault (unless they're landing, or doing some other legitimate low altitude flight like cropdusting). If a car drives up on a sidewalk and mows down a pedestrian we don't blame the pedestrian for not having a partner to keep LOS on them and watch their back for incoming cars. It's the same logic here, planes have no business flying in areas drones may be and drones have no business flying in areas planes may be.

Helicopters are allowed to forgo those rules, but in many areas those are extremely rare. I see a helicopter fly in my area maybe once or twice a year, and that's typically coming and going from the hospital and even then they don't typically fly anywhere near that low outside of takeoff and landing.

Unfortunately aviation safety is more complex than that. Staying below 400 ft should keep you out of conflict with most manned aircraft but that's not true for helicopter operations, which are both permitted below 400 ft AGL and regularly occur there. Hence the VLOS requirements, the purpose of which you have clearly entirely missed. FPV gives you only a very limited view of the surrounding airspace and VLOS is required to see, hear and avoid nearby aircraft. And the requirement to yield to manned aircraft is entirely on the UAV pilot - if you collide with an aircraft you will be held at fault, even if the other pilot was breaking CFR 14 Part 91 rules.

 

[Enorats]

Unfortunately aviation safety is more complex than that. Staying below 400 ft should keep you out of conflict with most manned aircraft but that's not true for helicopter operations, which are both permitted below 400 ft AGL and regularly occur there. Hence the VLOS requirements, the purpose of which you have clearly entirely missed. FPV gives you only a very limited view of the surrounding airspace and VLOS is required to see, hear and avoid nearby aircraft. And the requirement to yield to manned aircraft is entirely on the UAV pilot - if you collide with an aircraft you will be held at fault, even if the other pilot was breaking CFR 14 Part 91 rules.

I did note that helicopters can forgo those rules, but you must not have noticed that. In my area helicopters are an extreme rarity. You only see one flying a couple of times a year, so they're not much of a concern.

Beyond that, so long as I've got a clear view of the area I'm flying (which I really should, or I'll likely be losing signal) it's not hard to see incoming aircraft miles out. I really don't need to keep my drone hovering over my shoulder to watch for incoming aircraft. It can be well past the point that I can no longer see it and I'm still perfectly capable of flying by watching the screen while also keeping an eye on the sky.

Finally, yeah - the camera only looks one way. So do your own eyes. The solution is the same for the drone as it is for you. Turn around, and look. If you're flying in an area where there's a risk of hitting something (which you really shouldn't be) and you're not keeping an eye out for things to hit (which you should be) then yeah, you're doing it wrong.

My only point is that I don't need to keep the aircraft right next to me to fly safely, and that a rule that can be broken by simply allowing the aircraft to hover 10 feet up and 10 feet behind me behind me in an open field really isn't a very good measure of safety.

 

[sar104]

I did note that helicopters can forgo those rules, but you must not have noticed that. In my area helicopters are an extreme rarity. You only see one flying a couple of times a year, so they're not much of a concern.

Beyond that, so long as I've got a clear view of the area I'm flying (which I really should, or I'll likely be losing signal) it's not hard to see incoming aircraft miles out. I really don't need to keep my drone hovering over my shoulder to watch for incoming aircraft. It can be well past the point that I can no longer see it and I'm still perfectly capable of flying by watching the screen while also keeping an eye on the sky.

Finally, yeah - the camera only looks one way. So do your own eyes. The solution is the same for the drone as it is for you. Turn around, and look. If you're flying in an area where there's a risk of hitting something (which you really shouldn't be) and you're not keeping an eye out for things to hit (which you should be) then yeah, you're doing it wrong.

My only point is that I don't need to keep the aircraft right next to me to fly safely, and that a rule that can be broken by simply allowing the aircraft to hover 10 feet up and 10 feet behind me behind me in an open field really isn't a very good measure of safety.

You mentioned helicopters but stated that it is extremely rare in many areas. The rules were not written just for those "many areas", wherever those might be. You also mentioned flying 15000 ft away. 3 miles. So you think you can see a low-flying helicopter at 3 miles? That's not even faintly credible. And a 90° FPV field of view with no sound and no upward vision is not even remotely as good as a UAV pilot scanning the sky visually and listening for aircraft. If a helicopter can sneak right up on you in an open field just because you are looking in the other direction (i.e. not doing your job and scanning for traffic) then you probably shouldn't be flying at all.

Why are you even arguing these things? Not only are they patently ridiculous positions to take but you are also railing against established aviation law.

 

[Enorats]

The rules were not written for many areas, no. They were written for all areas, which is part of the problem. Even "established aviation law" for actual manned aircraft has different rules for a variety of situations and aircraft types. Drone laws are blanket all aircraft and all situation type laws that more often than not are senseless.

If I have a drone hovering ten feet in the air in an open field, I really shouldn't be legally required to be scanning the sky for low flying aircraft and be keeping vlos on my aircraft. There's nothing to hit, and no aircraft could be reasonably flying that low.

The same is true of my 15,000 foot flight. If I'm 50 feet up flying over a creek system in a several mile wide valley area with no tree in a 5 mile radius I can see any incoming aircraft a long way off.. and I'm really not remotely worried about hitting anything bigger than a bird.

I'm still looking around and keeping an eye on the area, but such a flight is perfectly safe.