Line of Sight - Really?

[VegasFlyer]

It's funny that no one mentioned post #23. There are a lot of great comments in that thread, and that's one of them. I guess it doesn't warrant recognition because it doesn't follow the party line.

The problem I have with this topic is that there are some who would like everyone to believe that low-flying aircraft are an everyday occurrence and that that should be the #1 concern. It simply isn't true. It may be true for those living in rural or remote areas, but not for the majority who happen to live in cities. If I see a fixed wing aircraft at ~500 feet and it's not heading to the airport, I'm running for shelter! It's just that rare here. Unless I'm flying up against a very high ridge line or over a mountain, I rarely crack 200' AGL. I'm far more concerned with a bird strike than I am coming in proximity of a manned aircraft. I once had a flock of pigeons chase after my P3P. I was only ~20' up and ~50' away and it freaked me out! Pigeons!

Yes, I do take issue with the LOS requirement. I feel it's too restrictive and doesn't take into account the capabilities of modern drone systems. Ok, so you have a VO with you. How good is that person's sight? I don't care how many flights they may have watched, they will lose track of one. And so will you. And what about flying over people? I avoid people like the plague, but it's next to impossible to fly over any given area without flying over someone. I can show you video of a flight over a mountain where I thought certain no one would be walking and what do you think I saw? I still don't know how those two reached the path they were on.

 

[deleted member 877]

It should be understood that the FAA and most probably all of the other airspace regulators don't expect 100% compliance. They understand that there will be those occasions when the drone operator is doing his/her best to, for example, avoid flying over people but then up pops a couple of trekkers on a bush track that is most of the time deserted.

It's the same with VLOS. Sometimes we are of course going to lose sight of our drones but so long as we do our best to reacquire VLOS then it's all good. On the other hand, it is expected that drone operators don't set out to deliberately breach the regulation. The authorities cannot be blamed for taking a dim view of these sovereign citizens (and I'm going to refer to them as such from now on) blatantly thumbing their noses at the law.

There are historically proven ways to influence change to laws that we disagree with but posting content that exhibits illegal activities on social media platforms is not one of them. Stop whinging about it and start lobbying your senators or councilors or whoever can have some influence over the changes you are hoping for.

 

[Earthman]

Maybe this has already be presented, but just in case, here it is:

My Mavic 2Z has a body roughly 0.25 ft wide. This is the most visible part when flying away or toward the pilot. Now the accepted angular resolution of the human eye is about 1/60 degree or 0.000291 radian.
Calculations:
Distance X Angle (in radians) = Arc length
Distance X 0.000921 = 0.25 ft whence distance = 859 ft or 0.16 mile.

Now even if we up the angular resolution of your eye by a factor of 4, we get about .064 mile straight line.

Note: if the drone is at h=300 ft, the horizontal distance is 804 ft.

I challenge anyone to let someone fly your drone out somewhere randomly to a distance of, say 0.64 mile, while you keep your back turned and then you turn around and see the drone.

Who flies their Mavic 2 drone no farther than 1000 feet? As for myself, I have trouble seeing it four or five hundred feet away.

I agree with you totally.

The farthest I’ve flown my MP on an autonomous survey mission is about 1,130-ft at an altitude of about 180-ft AGL, which is about as far away as I could keep an eye on it if I didn’t look away. The mission was sometime ago so I don’t remember if it was a dot in the sky or if I could make out any detail at all, but I remember being very uncomfortable about the situation since it was getting late and it was windier than I would have liked (with respect to reduced flight time). I waited all day for the wind to subside and I was running out of sufficient daylight for a topo survey. I typically wouldn’t have flown it but the long range weather forecast was worse.

In any case, I agree with your thoughts about VLOS limits.

 

[VegasFlyer]

It should be understood that the FAA and most probably all of the other airspace regulators don't expect 100% compliance. They understand that there will be those occasions when the drone operator is doing his/her best to, for example, avoid flying over people but then up pops a couple of trekkers on a bush track that is most of the time deserted.

It's the same with VLOS. Sometimes we are of course going to lose sight of our drones but so long as we do our best to reacquire VLOS then it's all good. On the other hand, it is expected that drone operators don't set out to deliberately breach the regulation. The authorities cannot be blamed for taking a dim view of these sovereign citizens (and I'm going to refer to them as such from now on) blatantly thumbing their noses at the law.

There are historically proven ways to influence change to laws that we disagree with but posting content that exhibits illegal activities on social media platforms is not one of them. Stop whinging about it and start lobbying your senators or councilors or whoever can have some influence over the changes you are hoping for.

I don't live in Australia, so I'm not going to pretend I know how things are run in your country. I do not take the so-called sovereign citizen's viewpoint on anything. However, I do believe in questioning authority and objecting to rules that I do not fully believe in. I've never once advocated breaking the law in any of my comments. My views are based upon my own experiences flying around the area in which I live. It's just that simple. Debate is a healthy thing, but there can be no debate without dissent. I don't worry about ruffling feathers and I don't need a civics lesson.

 

[BigAl07]

It's funny that no one mentioned post #23. There are a lot of great comments in that thread, and that's one of them. I guess it doesn't warrant recognition because it doesn't follow the party line.

First off don't even go there re:Party Lines. This isn't the forum for that nonsense and that will get this thread shut down just about quicker than anything else. Don't go there period.

Post #23 in that thread mentions rogue manned aircraft pilots. How is pointing the finger at rogue manned aircraft pilots while you're ignoring & breaking the current rules ANY different. Pointing out someone elses's mistakes does not prove your point what so ever.

Of course there are manned pilots that break the rules and if they are busted they can be fined AND lose flying credentials. If you (or anyone) sees a manned aircraft supposedly busting regs get their tail # and report it ASAP! But there are also valid and LEGAL times when a manned aircraft could be below 500'.

The problem with your concept is that low flying aircraft CAN be just about anywhere at any time and in many cases legally. It sounds like what you're proposing is one set of special use Class G airspace around where you live restricting flights so you can fly your toy anywhere and any way you like. We are at the bottom of the totem pole and it's our responsibility to See & Avoid no matter what other circumstances are at hand. That fundamental responsibility isn't optional.

Yes, I do take issue with the LOS requirement. I feel it's too restrictive and doesn't take into account the capabilities of modern drone systems. Ok, so you have a VO with you. How good is that person's sight? I don't care how many flights they may have watched, they will lose track of one. And so will you. And what about flying over people? I avoid people like the plague, but it's next to impossible to fly over any given area without flying over someone. I can show you video of a flight over a mountain where I thought certain no one would be walking and what do you think I saw? I still don't know how those two reached the path they were on.

Part of being a responsible sUAS operator is risk mitigation. If you can't control what's happening on the ground then pick somewhere else to fly. If there were to be a sUAS to Person incident you can bet your bottom dollar the blame will rest fully on your shoulders for not doing your job to avoid flying over people. From the moment the aircraft leaves terra firma everything that happens is on you.

I see people flying beyond VLOS all the time and 100% relying on the telemetry and video link to fly and get the aircraft back. That's unacceptable IMHO because those items are not backed up in any such way. If you're flying 3/4 mile away "via FPV" and you lose radio connection you are now flying blind. You may or may not have control of the aircraft but one thing for sure is you can NOT perform See & Avoid. One such sUAS operator did this very thing in NY/NJ a couple of years ago. He was flying FPV out over the river where he expected NO aircraft to be. I don't remember how far he was but it was much further than VLOS. He lost communication with the aircraft and assumed RTH would kick in and in a few moments his aircraft would come into view and land. 30 minutes later he had not heard or seen it and figured it mush have gone into the river. And he was PARTLY correct. When the aircraft lost communication it DID initiate RTH and made a Bee-Line back to the launch point. Unfortunately there was a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter in the area that the operator was UNAWARE of. The sUAS ended up striking the UH-60 rotor and caused an emergency landing (precautionary) off airport. Fortunately no one was harmed but the rotor assembly was replaced at a mere $250K expense. Thank goodness this was a Combat Prepared aircraft and it resulted in minimal actual damage from the sUAS (which most likely is on the bottom of the river in pieces).

 

[deleted member 877]

I don't live in Australia, so I'm not going to pretend I know how things are run in your country. I do not take the so-called sovereign citizen's viewpoint on anything. However, I do believe in questioning authority and objecting to rules that I do not fully believe in. I've never once advocated breaking the law in any of my comments. My views are based upon my own experiences flying around the area in which I live. It's just that simple. Debate is a healthy thing, but there can be no debate without dissent. I don't worry about ruffling feathers and I don't need a civics lesson.

If I had been directing my comments at you then I would have quoted one of your posts. In any case you don’t need to live in any particular country to be able to research its airspace regulator’s website or be a member of a forum that is hosted there.

 

[Drbobk]

Eventually, drone vehicles (autonomous vehicles) will rule the world, as it is argued that they are much safer than human piloted vehicles. This could also be said of our UAVs. In fact, if you program in an autonomous flight, it is probably much more likely to be executed than if you tried to fly it manually. This is an argument that I'm not sure that I have ever seen in public, but the promoters like Amazon and others would certainly suggest this to be true.

You’re missing the point. No one cares whether your personal flight plan is executed or not. Are you a danger to manned aircraft Is the real question. A Litchi mission without eyes on the drone certainly has the potential to be a hazard. Bad enough that when actively flying you have a very limited field of view, but even worse if you think Litchi is an autonomous autopilot which takes care of everything for you, even though it can’t see any direction other than where the camera is pointing, and has no other sensors to detect other aircraft, or other drones.

 

[Riteguy]

Maybe this has already be presented, but just in case, here it is:

My Mavic 2Z has a body roughly 0.25 ft wide. This is the most visible part when flying away or toward the pilot. Now the accepted angular resolution of the human eye is about 1/60 degree or 0.000291 radian.
Calculations:
Distance X Angle (in radians) = Arc length
Distance X 0.000921 = 0.25 ft whence distance = 859 ft or 0.16 mile.

Now even if we up the angular resolution of your eye by a factor of 4, we get about .064 mile straight line.

Note: if the drone is at h=300 ft, the horizontal distance is 804 ft.

I challenge anyone to let someone fly your drone out somewhere randomly to a distance of, say 0.64 mile, while you keep your back turned and then you turn around and see the drone.

Who flies their Mavic 2 drone no farther than 1000 feet? As for myself, I have trouble seeing it four or five hundred feet away.

I think everyone that flys a Mavic knows they don't always keep a visual eye on the drone and fly using video feed, but no one talks about it. There are other practices used, while not exactly legal, but used all the time.

 

[VegasFlyer]

First off don't even go there re:Party Lines. This isn't the forum for that nonsense and that will get this thread shut down just about quicker than anything else. Don't go there period.

Post #23 in that thread mentions rogue manned aircraft pilots. How is pointing the finger at rogue manned aircraft pilots while you're ignoring & breaking the current rules ANY different. Pointing out someone elses's mistakes does not prove your point what so ever.

Of course there are manned pilots that break the rules and if they are busted they can be fined AND lose flying credentials. If you (or anyone) sees a manned aircraft supposedly busting regs get their tail # and report it ASAP! But there are also valid and LEGAL times when a manned aircraft could be below 500'.

The problem with your concept is that low flying aircraft CAN be just about anywhere at any time and in many cases legally. It sounds like what you're proposing is one set of special use Class G airspace around where you live restricting flights so you can fly your toy anywhere and any way you like. We are at the bottom of the totem pole and it's our responsibility to See & Avoid no matter what other circumstances are at hand. That fundamental responsibility isn't optional.

Part of being a responsible sUAS operator is risk mitigation. If you can't control what's happening on the ground then pick somewhere else to fly. If there were to be a sUAS to Person incident you can bet your bottom dollar the blame will rest fully on your shoulders for not doing your job to avoid flying over people. From the moment the aircraft leaves terra firma everything that happens is on you.

I see people flying beyond VLOS all the time and 100% relying on the telemetry and video link to fly and get the aircraft back. That's unacceptable IMHO because those items are not backed up in any such way. If you're flying 3/4 mile away "via FPV" and you lose radio connection you are now flying blind. You may or may not have control of the aircraft but one thing for sure is you can NOT perform See & Avoid. One such sUAS operator did this very thing in NY/NJ a couple of years ago. He was flying FPV out over the river where he expected NO aircraft to be. I don't remember how far he was but it was much further than VLOS. He lost communication with the aircraft and assumed RTH would kick in and in a few moments his aircraft would come into view and land. 30 minutes later he had not heard or seen it and figured it mush have gone into the river. And he was PARTLY correct. When the aircraft lost communication it DID initiate RTH and made a Bee-Line back to the launch point. Unfortunately there was a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter in the area that the operator was UNAWARE of. The sUAS ended up striking the UH-60 rotor and caused an emergency landing (precautionary) off airport. Fortunately no one was harmed but the rotor assembly was replaced at a mere $250K expense. Thank goodness this was a Combat Prepared aircraft and it resulted in minimal actual damage from the sUAS (which most likely is on the bottom of the river in pieces).

Point taken and warning acknowledged vis a vis party lines. I apologize.

My point in reference to post #23 in that thread is that we can be doing everything right and we'll still be penalized for rogue pilot behavior if a situation goes sideways as evidenced in the comments that followed regarding the collision between the biplane and the RC aircraft. If the facts were reported accurately in that thread, then that biplane pilot should not have been let off the hook. The FAA got it wrong--backwards even. And I think the author of that post made a couple of good points. What about companies that want to deliver packages by drone? (a silly idea if you ask me) How do we handle that if it becomes a reality? Of course we need to see and avoid, but now we're talking about an even smaller target that will be much more difficult to see coming. Having a VO may be useless in that scenario. Who will the laws favor as commercial drones flown by the likes Amazon start to crowd the airspace we fly in?

No, I'm not asking for special use Class G airspace. That's an extreme example. But it is difficult to spend $1300+ on a bird that is fully capable of--by design--flying miles away from you and then restrict yourself to, say, a ~2000 foot radius. Yes, I'm more than fully aware that aircraft can be flying legally below 500' just about anywhere and at any time. But in reality, you just don't see that here. The lowest I've seen a plane flying in my area over the past two years (near the desert's edge and other areas I've been in) is ~1000 feet--once. And you don't see any aircraft at all flying above or near the mountains and ridges that are 1000' or more in height. I'm not making an excuse, I'm just stating my experience.

We can never control what's happening on the ground. People pop up everywhere, sometimes in the strangest places. It's not like we can rope off a perimeter until we've finished flying. I understand your point though. You may find this hard to believe, but safety really is my main concern. I'd fully accept responsibility for my actions if something were to happen, but I would also argue my case that I did everything I could to avoid flying over others.

I think I recall seeing an article on the incident with that Black Hawk. Look, I don't enjoy breaking the rules and I've NEVER advocated doing so. But look at the current trend. We keep seeing smarter aircraft, longer flight times, smarter software that allows for near flawless autonomous flights. At the same time, we're seeing tighter restrictions on where we can fly due to nothing more than a person's perception that we may be spying on them--as if they're lives are that important. Two years ago, I had a guy drive up on his ATV to where I was standing. He followed my sight line and when he saw my P3P in the air, he pulled out his pistol and began waving it around. It didn't matter to him that my drone was 1100' feet from his property hugging a 500' hill (I mapped it out later on Litchi Hub) OR that where I was standing was 400 yards from his property OR that I was on public land. He claimed to be "looking out for my neighbors". So, I landed prematurely after having told him twice "do not shoot at my drone". During the ensuing conversation, I told him ( Mod Removed Comment )I have zero interest in what you do!" No, it's not an excuse to go beyond VLOS, but it's better than having something like that happen again. We are an open carry state with our share of nuts.

 

[BigAl07]

@VegasFlyer thanks for your civil and respectable banter. We may not agree on every aspect of this but for the most part I think we're on the same page re:safety. I just happen to be Old School and see things from a more black & white perspective. While we feel like we are a massive industry with a lot of # on our side, the first time we have a loss of life incident we will see what Big Industry can do when it affects their bottom line.

 

[dronerdave]

I would like to see a realistic "fly free" zone, say something like 100' AGL where applicable, but I seriously doubt the FAA will ever allow for anybody to fly BVLOS just for fun. The idea of a multirotor that has a 7+ mile capability getting away from the operator probably concerns the FAA more than a kid with a Syma x-5. My guess is the FAA will look at rules pertaining to max distance (VLOS), flying over occupied buildings, flying over traffic, and people. But at this time the rules are somewhat vague. DJI products are complex but nothing like a military drone that files a flight path and has the necessary equipment to safely fly their missions. So for now I try to fly w/i the AMA rules, specifically maintaining VLOS (within reason) and to avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied structures.

 

[dwolfe002]

And I think the author of that post made a couple of good points. What about companies that want to deliver packages by drone? (a silly idea if you ask me) How do we handle that if it becomes a reality? Of course we need to see and avoid, but now we're talking about an even smaller target that will be much more difficult to see coming. Having a VO may be useless in that scenario. Who will the laws favor as commercial drones flown by the likes Amazon start to crowd the airspace we fly in?

I agree whole heartedly. When everyone from Amazon to Walmart begins home delivery using drones there will not be any VO's or any VLOS and they will be in the air much more often than we will. Will they be considered dangerous to manned flight? They will no better be able to see or avoid manned flight below 400' any better than we can. In fact probably worse because of BVLOS. Yet they will get what they want because they are big companies. And I don't mind that at all but it is going to be my fault whether it is an Amazon drone, a Piper Cub, or an F15 at 200' and that I don't think is fair at all. All I see is people saying VLOS makes you able to get out of the way. When my M2P is 100 yards away I usually can't tell which way it is pointed although I can see the airframe. Then lets throw in a piper cub coming toward it and noticing it coming. Can anyone tell me they can tell whether their drone is in the line of the plane and which way they need to go to avoid it? How do I avoid an Amazon delivery under the same circumstances? I kind of have a problem with all that being my fault even though I'm in an airspace assigned to me to fly in. I say it needs to be like penalties in a football game. Offensive and defensive penalties on the same play = replay the down.

 

[pross]

I’m not sure why you are thinking amazon will have to play by the same set of rules we have too.
You spend $1000 on a drone and they are spending millions on theirs and their avoidance system.

they will have different rules after lots of very expensive govt trials. Us peons have a set of rules and that it.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I’m not sure why you are thinking amazon will have to play by the same set of rules we have too.
You spend $1000 on a drone and they are spending millions on theirs and their avoidance system.

they will have different rules after lots of very expensive govt trials. Us peons have a set of rules and that it.

That is the reality as suggested by the high level public information from CASA on the current drone delivery trial in Australia.

Wing Aviation Pty Ltd is a licensed and certified drone operator. As part of their application process, Wing was required to submit a safety case which included information about the reliability of their drones. They have met requirements to ensure we're satisfied they operate within an acceptable level of safety.
Following assessment of the safety case, we have permitted Wing to operate in closer proximity to a person than our regulations normally permit.
Wing's delivery system is automated – however a licensed drone pilot is always at the helm.
Operating times
Approved hours of operation are:

• Monday to Saturday from 7am to 8pm
• Sunday and public holidays from 8am to 8pm.

Additional operational restrictions may be imposed by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development.
Your safety
While an accident is unlikely to occur, Wing pilots instantly know if any of their drones operate outside a programmed flight. If this happens and it's safer to do so, pilots may decide to land the aircraft immediately rather than continue the flight.
In the unlikely event a problem occurs, drones are designed to automatically land very slowly and are equipped with flashing strobe lights for clear visibility.
Should an incident occur, Wing's emergency response plan will dispatch a crew vehicle immediately to the landing site.
If a drone lands on your property, simply leave it alone – an operator will be on the way.

 

[dwolfe002]

I’m not sure why you are thinking amazon will have to play by the same set of rules we have too.
You spend $1000 on a drone and they are spending millions on theirs and their avoidance system.

they will have different rules after lots of very expensive govt trials. Us peons have a set of rules and that it.

I agree that we have a set of rules that will be different from Amazon. But if one of the reasons for VLOS is so that we can duck when a plane is flying below 400', I don't think Amazon is going to come up with detect and evade sensors that will get their drone out of the way of a plane traveling 60-120mph. So with BVLOS, they could have as large or larger impact on low flying planes.(not to say I think they will) They are spending millions on drones, operators, buildings, delivery boxes and all kinds of things for their operations. That doesn't mean that they will be able to avoid low flying aircraft at speed. They would basically have to have a radar system in the drone and I don't believe they have anything lite enough to put on a small drone. So, the way I see it, a responsible recreational operator could also fly BVLOS without anymore problems than a Amazon drone.

 

[deleted member 877]

I agree that we have a set of rules that will be different from Amazon. But if one of the reasons for VLOS is so that we can duck when a plane is flying below 400', I don't think Amazon is going to come up with detect and evade sensors that will get their drone out of the way of a plane traveling 60-120mph. So with BVLOS, they could have as large or larger impact on low flying planes.(not to say I think they will) They are spending millions on drones, operators, buildings, delivery boxes and all kinds of things for their operations. That doesn't mean that they will be able to avoid low flying aircraft at speed. They would basically have to have a radar system in the drone and I don't believe they have anything lite enough to put on a small drone. So, the way I see it, a responsible recreational operator could also fly BVLOS without anymore problems than a Amazon drone.

You're making too many assumptions. The big companies like Amazon and Uber will eventually have everything in place to effectively and safely carry out their drone delivery operations - starting with ADS B In and Out, and they simply won't be operating in areas where low flying aircraft are likely to be operating. On the other side of the fence, the FAA (and others) will also make it crystal clear via NOTAM where and when drone deliveries are being conducted. You said it yourself - these guys are spending millions on the tech along with some of the smartest A.I. developers on the planet - they will leave no stone unturned in order to convince the authorities that their endeavours should be allowed to go into full production.

In terms of size- there was never any intention to use small drones. Have you seen the drones that are being used in the trials? They are big machines with heavy lifting capabilities. BVLOS waivers will be approved for the big players who can prove themselves to be worthy of being granted same. It's now only a matter of how soon and it's really not relevant to be comparing recreational drone flyers (chalk) with large corporations (cheese) when discussing airspace regulations.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I agree that we have a set of rules that will be different from Amazon. But if one of the reasons for VLOS is so that we can duck when a plane is flying below 400', I don't think Amazon is going to come up with detect and evade sensors that will get their drone out of the way of a plane traveling 60-120mph. So with BVLOS, they could have as large or larger impact on low flying planes.(not to say I think they will) They are spending millions on drones, operators, buildings, delivery boxes and all kinds of things for their operations. That doesn't mean that they will be able to avoid low flying aircraft at speed. They would basically have to have a radar system in the drone and I don't believe they have anything lite enough to put on a small drone. So, the way I see it, a responsible recreational operator could also fly BVLOS without anymore problems than a Amazon drone.

What they are doing is working directly with the aviation regulators in developing systems which will help to ensure conflicts are avoided in low altitude operations, including automated authorisation for operations near airports. As part of the grant of approval for operation they needed to demonstrate the sUAV were unlikely to present a safety hazard in operation.

To expect we might enjoy any type of consent, as hobbyists, to operate BVLOS with toy grade drones absent any certification or agreed and approved operating conditions requires a significant level of arrogance and ignorance.

 

[GadgetGuy]

One such sUAS operator did this very thing in NY/NJ a couple of years ago. He was flying FPV out over the river where he expected NO aircraft to be. I don't remember how far he was but it was much further than VLOS. He lost communication with the aircraft and assumed RTH would kick in and in a few moments his aircraft would come into view and land. 30 minutes later he had not heard or seen it and figured it mush have gone into the river. And he was PARTLY correct. When the aircraft lost communication it DID initiate RTH and made a Bee-Line back to the launch point. Unfortunately there was a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter in the area that the operator was UNAWARE of. The sUAS ended up striking the UH-60 rotor and caused an emergency landing (precautionary) off airport. Fortunately no one was harmed but the rotor assembly was replaced at a mere $250K expense. Thank goodness this was a Combat Prepared aircraft and it resulted in minimal actual damage from the sUAS (which most likely is on the bottom of the river in pieces).

That is not my recollection of the incident you cite. The drone pilot only lost communication with the aircraft because it was destroyed in the midair collision with the helicopter. He originally assumed, like you, that it had simply lost communication and would RTH. When it did not return, he had no idea what had actually happened, until he heard about it on the news, and responsibly came forward to see if it was his missing drone. When a recovered part of the drone in the helicopter was matched by DJI to his voluntarily supplied drone serial number, everyone knew what had happened. Obviously, this doesn't alter your concerns, nor your sage advice, but the risk of losing communication with current DJI aircraft, while maintaining clear LOS, while remotely possible, is minimal, and a proper loss of signal RTH elevation setting will restore signal lost by any intervening obstructions to the pilot's clear LOS, by elevating above the obstruction, before flying back blindly ever takes place. The done pilot should not have been flying where he was. However, RTH did not cause the collision. RTH never had a chance to take place. The drone died instantaneously at the time of signal loss.

 

[BigAl07]

That is not my recollection of the incident you cite. The drone pilot only lost communication with the aircraft because it was destroyed in the midair collision with the helicopter. He originally assumed, like you, that it had simply lost communication and would RTH. When it did not return, he had no idea what had actually happened, until he heard about it on the news, and responsibly came forward to see if it was his missing drone. When a recovered part of the drone in the helicopter was matched by DJI to his voluntarily supplied drone serial number, everyone knew what had happened. Obviously, this doesn't alter your concerns, nor your sage advice, but the risk of losing communication with current DJI aircraft, while maintaining clear LOS, while remotely possible, is minimal, and a proper loss of signal RTH elevation setting will restore signal lost by any intervening obstructions to the pilot's clear LOS, by elevating above the obstruction, before flying back blindly ever takes place. The done pilot should not have been flying where he was. However, RTH did not cause the collision. RTH never had a chance to take place. The drone died instantaneously at the time of signal loss.

Come on man... you know better than that.... instead of relying on our memory let's consult the official NTSB report for the facts (bold added by Allen for clarity):

"At 1919:15, the sUAS pilot pressed the return-to-home (RTH) button on the control tablet, and the aircraft turned around and began tracking northeast toward the home point. The helicopters had completed a turn toward LDJ, and were just west of Coney Island at 300 ft. At 1919:51, the sUAS battery endurance warning activated, indicating that only enough charge remained to return directly to the home point. The pilot did not have visual contact with the sUAS or the helicopters at that time. As the sUAS was tracking northeast, telemetry data dropped out for about 9 seconds but returned just before the collision. The position of the aircraft was near the maximum range of the remote controller. At 1920:17.6, the data logs ended. The last position and altitude logged correlated with the position and altitude of the incident helicopter's recorded data and ATC radar information; about 300 ft west of Hoffman Island. The sUAS pilot reported that he lost signal with the aircraft and assumed it would return home as programmed. After waiting about 30 minutes, he assumed it had experienced a malfunction and crashed in the water. "

I was wrong in thinking that the aircraft RTH automatically... the operator hit RTH (probably how he liked to get it back home the lazy way).

Keep in mind this information is obtained from DATA recovered from the UAS flight logs.

Here's the full NTSB report for anyone interested:

20170922X54600-20200906-192533

 

[GadgetGuy]

Come on man... you know better than that.... instead of relying on our memory let's consult the official NTSB report for the facts (bold added by Allen for clarity):

"At 1919:15, the sUAS pilot pressed the return-to-home (RTH) button on the control tablet, and the aircraft turned around and began tracking northeast toward the home point. The helicopters had completed a turn toward LDJ, and were just west of Coney Island at 300 ft. At 1919:51, the sUAS battery endurance warning activated, indicating that only enough charge remained to return directly to the home point. The pilot did not have visual contact with the sUAS or the helicopters at that time. As the sUAS was tracking northeast, telemetry data dropped out for about 9 seconds but returned just before the collision. The position of the aircraft was near the maximum range of the remote controller. At 1920:17.6, the data logs ended. The last position and altitude logged correlated with the position and altitude of the incident helicopter's recorded data and ATC radar information; about 300 ft west of Hoffman Island. The sUAS pilot reported that he lost signal with the aircraft and assumed it would return home as programmed. After waiting about 30 minutes, he assumed it had experienced a malfunction and crashed in the water. "

I was wrong in thinking that the aircraft RTH automatically... the operator hit RTH (probably how he liked to get it back home the lazy way).

Keep in mind this information is obtained from DATA recovered from the UAS flight logs.

Here's the full NTSB report for anyone interested:

20170922X54600-20200906-192533

Thank you for the correction and the link. I was basing my recollection upon the early media reports, which clearly should not be relied upon, especially when we now have a full NTSB report! Good information for all of us to learn from! At least it helps corroborate my experience that DJI signal loss initiated RTH and blind returning is extremely rare, when RTH signal loss settings are set properly, and clear LOS is maintained, with VLOS for awareness of any manned aircraft. Flying at the extreme of signal control is always foolish, and risky, and using RTH as your default method of ending a mission establishes the pilot's inexperience. These toys in the wrong hands can be dangerous!