Line of Sight - Really?

[ajkm]

I have a pair of the Race Edition goggles and prefer that to line of sight. FPV is so much fun that I got a 3 inch race/freestyle quad to fly with them.

“Prefer that to line of sight”? The VLOS we’re talking about here is, I believe, a regulation; personal preference isn’t an option.
Also, as soon as goggles are used for a 250+g RPA, a VO is required to be used - a person who keeps physical unaided sight on the RPA and is in direct communication with the pilot.

 

[Prmath]

Legality aside I prefer to be able to see where my expensive toys are when in the air.

Amen to that, partner

 

[MacCool]

“Prefer that to line of sight”? The VLOS we’re talking about here is, I believe, a regulation; personal preference isn’t an option.
Also, as soon as goggles are used for a 250+g RPA, a VO is required to be used - a person who keeps physical unaided sight on the RPA and is in direct communication with the pilot.

Right ...that's what I meant.

 

[VegasFlyer]

Dji is supposed to be putting in ADS B in their drones. I was wondering if ADS B tells you anymore than the fact that an aircraft is in the area. Does anyone know?

Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[VegasFlyer]

Yes on the Enterprise level they do have some built-in ADS-B receivers. And they do work surprisingly well. Here's a video showing it in action but also take note of how much screen Real Estate and Operator Attention is now required for mere Conflict Avoidance. Note: The Text Balloons etc are for Demonstration only and not part of the program

I don't know that ADS-B is going to be the answer for the delivery drone issue. Back in '81, I had a long layover at Chicago's O'Hare airport. I walked over to their ATC facility where I managed to wrangle a tour of their radar operations. (I was in uniform) Even 38-years ago, the amount of traffic each controller was responsible for was mind-boggling! I can't imagine air traffic controllers being tasked with accounting for delivery drone targets popping up on their displays as well. Adding more requirements to a job that already demands 100% focus seems foolish to me, but I'm biased. I've always wondered just how much thought Bezos and others have given to this venture.

 

[GadgetGuy]

"Aircraft with transponder only, or no transponder at all, will not be shown.
Pilots who become complacent or overconfident in this system are thus a safety problem, not only for themselves but for other transponder only-aircraft, and glider aircraft without transponder."

 

[VegasFlyer]

"Aircraft with transponder only, or no transponder capability at all will not be shown. Pilots who become complacent or overconfident in this system are thus a safety problem, not only for themselves but for other transponder only-aircraft, and glider aircraft without transponder."

Huh? What did I miss?

 

[GadgetGuy]

Huh? What did I miss?

That was a prescient quote from the Wikipedia article you cited above, under the heading of Security Risk.

 

[VegasFlyer]

I'm not trying to open yet another can of worms here, but...

Here we are in an uproar over flying a drone, weighing 2-3 pounds or less, BVLOS in a time where autonomous vehicles weighing tons are being allowed on our roads today. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen cars marked as autonomous test vehicles roaming the streets here. A drone operates in an environment that is orders of magnitude less congested than the roadways and therefore endangers far less people. And no one flying a drone has ever tried to do so while asleep! I'm just sayin...

 

[Mavic madness]

Ill throw my 2 cents worth in, forget the rules for a second. why fly in vlos? Safety? Alot of people crash their drones within vlos, mainly people doing silly things or trying somthing new, if you dont pre start aircraft properly eg make sure battery is in securely check imu and compass and re calibrate as needed anything can happen vlos. Its all in the end users hands.
Im in australia and yes we have the vlos rule too, but i have a drone with ridiculous range m2z litterally cannot fly out of range with a standard battery with full live hd.
I go well away from society to do that to a dry lake and never put the bird over 100m in height after doing this you learn to use and trust inapp flight data, im in the process of getting casa approval to do this also. Even though i do fly illegally in the vlos respect i do fly with full Los and believe it to be safe to fly bvlos.
Its all about being sensible and minimizing the risk.

Think about it an airline pilot does not have vlos he is in fpv, whats the difference? Training and strict adherence to the rules.

In regards to remote data transmission the m2 series do have that, but still an option to turn it off at this stage..

 

[Thomas B]

Ill throw my 2 cents worth in, forget the rules for a second. why fly in vlos? Safety? Alot of people crash their drones within vlos, mainly people doing silly things or trying somthing new, if you dont pre start aircraft properly eg make sure battery is in securely check imu and compass and re calibrate as needed anything can happen vlos. Its all in the end users hands.
Im in australia and yes we have the vlos rule too, but i have a drone with ridiculous range m2z litterally cannot fly out of range with a standard battery with full live hd.
I go well away from society to do that to a dry lake and never put the bird over 100m in height after doing this you learn to use and trust inapp flight data, im in the process of getting casa approval to do this also. Even though i do fly illegally in the vlos respect i do fly with full Los and believe it to be safe to fly bvlos.
Its all about being sensible and minimizing the risk.

Think about it an airline pilot does not have vlos he is in fpv, whats the difference? Training and strict adherence to the rules.

In regards to remote data transmission the m2 series do have that, but still an option to turn it off at this stage..

It is for all the things you can’t see that could present off camera.
An airline pilot has radar input and an approved route and altitude in coordination with air traffic control and any deviation requires direct communication and approval.
You are correct in that most solo crashes are drone pilot error.
We all have our preferences and beliefs... now we have yet another set of new laws pending because of not flying by the rules made already.
Fly safe down under! Avoid the rules we face in the U.S.

 

[VegasFlyer]

It is for all the things you can’t see that could present off camera.
An airline pilot has radar input and an approved route and altitude in coordination with air traffic control and any deviation requires direct communication and approval.
You are correct in that most solo crashes are drone pilot error.
We all have our preferences and beliefs... now we have yet another set of new laws pending because of not flying by the rules made already.
Fly safe down under! Avoid the rules we face in the U.S.

It is convenient to blame the new laws the FAA has in mind on those not flying by the current rules. But how much truth is really behind that statement? Is the prime motivation behind the FAA's proposal really due to the actions of a few bad actors? I don't think so. The latest numbers I've seen says there are 1.5 million drones in the U.S. If that's true, and flight safety is the key issue driving the FAA, where is the data to show that flight safety is really being compromised? Yes, there have been a few cases where drones have been involved in airport/airspace incursions--we've had two happen here--and a few have involved aircraft directly, but those numbers are extremely low. Now, there is a big difference between possibility and probability. The current state of sUAS technology certainly makes negatively impacting aircraft safety a possibility, but the probability of that occurring on a scale large enough to become a major concern is, again, extremely low. Why? Because the vast majority of operators don't want to come into contact with a manned aircraft let alone become a safety issue for them. To be sure, it's a good talking point, and it is definitely an important issue that all of us need to keep in mind, but it simply doesn't justify the FAA's endgame.

No, I do not believe that flight safety is the primary concern with respect to the FAA's pending rule changes. Flight safety has nothing to do with allowing communities to decide where we get to fly, and it will just open the door to vigilantism. This isn't the place for a point-by-point discussion of the Remote ID requirement, so I won't get into that. But the overarching reasons behind it have less to do with flight safety and far more to do with our ability to peer into areas that were previously unobservable even if it was done so unintentionally. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, but money talks in this country and there are many large corporations that would rather not have us know what they do on their property.

The bottom line is that in a post-9/11 world, we were going to see these new rules no matter what. It was just a matter of time.

 

[WithTheBirds]

It is convenient to blame the new laws the FAA has in mind on those not flying by the current rules. But how much truth is really behind that statement? Is the prime motivation behind the FAA's proposal really due to the actions of a few bad actors? I don't think so. The latest numbers I've seen says there are 1.5 million drones in the U.S. If that's true, and flight safety is the key issue driving the FAA, where is the data to show that flight safety is really being compromised? Yes, there have been a few cases where drones have been involved in airport/airspace incursions--we've had two happen here--and a few have involved aircraft directly, but those numbers are extremely low. Now, there is a big difference between possibility and probability. The current state of sUAS technology certainly makes negatively impacting aircraft safety a possibility, but the probability of that occurring on a scale large enough to become a major concern is, again, extremely low. Why? Because the vast majority of operators don't want to come into contact with a manned aircraft let alone become a safety issue for them. To be sure, it's a good talking point, and it is definitely an important issue that all of us need to keep in mind, but it simply doesn't justify the FAA's endgame.

No, I do not believe that flight safety is the primary concern with respect to the FAA's pending rule changes. Flight safety has nothing to do with allowing communities to decide where we get to fly, and it will just open the door to vigilantism. This isn't the place for a point-by-point discussion of the Remote ID requirement, so I won't get into that. But the overarching reasons behind it have less to do with flight safety and far more to do with our ability to peer into areas that were previously unobservable even if it was done so unintentionally. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, but money talks in this country and there are many large corporations that would rather not have us know what they do on their property.

The bottom line is that in a post-9/11 world, we were going to see these new rules no matter what. It was just a matter of time.

“I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, but”...... LOL

What might you suggest might be called major concern probability wise? Some may argue the chance of one incident is one too many.

 

[VegasFlyer]

“I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, but”...... LOL

What might you suggest might be called major concern probability wise? Some may argue the chance of one incident is one too many.

No, I'm really NOT a conspiracy theorist! I'm just being observant. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a zero probability rate, but we all know that's unrealistic. Without adequate data, there's no way for any of us to know what's behind the proposed rules. But the changes the FAA wants just don't make sense. They're extreme. To borrow a phrase, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

 

[VegasFlyer]

“I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, but”...... LOL

What might you suggest might be called major concern probability wise? Some may argue the chance of one incident is one too many.

Ok, so let's assume 1.5 million drones are flown an average of twice per week--a very conservative number. That's 12 million flights per month. If 1% of those (120,000) endangered an aircraft, or wandered into an airport, then I'd say that's a major cause for concern and I could better understand the FAA's actions. But that would mean 1.44 million flights per year fall into that category but yet we hear nothing? I can't buy that.

 

[anotherlab]

Ok, so let's assume 1.5 million drones are flown an average of twice per week--a very conservative number....

That's also a number with no actual data to back it up.

For the US, right now we have just one NTSB confirmed drone strike. There have been multiple incidents where drones crashed into or near people. So there is a legitimate concern over the use and operation of drones.

....If 1% of those (120,000) endangered an aircraft, or wandered into an airport, then I'd say that's a major cause for concern and I could better understand the FAA's actions. But that would mean 1.44 million flights per year fall into that category but yet we hear nothing? I can't buy that.

That gets back to the numbers that you are using...

The LOS issue is more than dealing with other aircraft, it's everything else around the drone.

 

[deleted member 877]

So, has this thread now gone off-topic to become another endless back and forth about the FAA Drone-ID Proposal?

 

[VegasFlyer]

That's also a number with no actual data to back it up.

For the US, right now we have just one NTSB confirmed drone strike. There have been multiple incidents where drones crashed into or near people. So there is a legitimate concern over the use and operation of drones.

That gets back to the numbers that you are using...

The LOS issue is more than dealing with other aircraft, it's everything else around the drone.

I'm well aware of what the LOS issue is about.

1) There isn't enough data to support the FAA's proposal or the exaggerated claim that drones are dangerous to others. The numbers I used were an effort to answer a question put to me in an earlier comment. As you can tell, they were purely hypothetical.

2) There are legitimate concerns over the use of a great number things in life that have the potential to cause harm to others--many have proven track records in that regard. This has never been a sound argument.

Time to move on...

 

[deleted member 877]

I'm well aware of what the LOS issue is about.

1) There isn't enough data to support the FAA's proposal or the exaggerated claim that drones are dangerous to others. The numbers I used were an effort to answer a question put to me in an earlier comment. As you can tell, they were purely hypothetical.

2) There are legitimate concerns over the use of a great number things in life that have the potential to cause harm to others--many have proven track records in that regard. This has never been a sound argument.

Time to move on...

The thing that needs to be understood about the airspace regulators is that they, and this is a massive understatement, always err on the side of caution. They would not take much notice of a claim that there isn't enough data to suggest that drones are dangerous to others. Even a tiny little bit of data or evidence is enough to convince them that they are on point in terms of the regulations either already in place or proposed.

Furthermore, the airspace regulators are big on implementing rules designed to prevent or mitigate potential risks. This is how they work and will always work - period. There are some things, and the VLOS rule is currently one of them, that are simply non-negotiable with these guys - period.

 

[Floater]

There are plenty of what-if scenarios that can be brought up, but if you're at or below 400 feet, or within a max of 400 feet above another object such as a building or mountain, there's no way you should encounter any aircraft other than a drone. Of course there are exceptions to this such as a medical helicopter landing at a hospital helipad. But as far as I know, even the police don't fly below 400 feet. My point here is that we need to remember that other aircraft have limits, too, below which they are not allowed to operate. That is typically 400 feet.

For rural areas there is no altitude restriction for manned aircraft (sparsely populated areas). See FAA FAR part 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes. (c) reads "Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

Beyond 50 feet I would challenge anyone to be able to accurately range any drone. Walk 50 feet from your landing pad and try to land on it without reference to the controller. The idea that anyone will be able to maneuver to avoid another aircraft of obstacle at 800 feet by doing anything other that rapidly loosing altitude is ludicrous. My plane's wing tips are only about 15 feet away and it is near impossible to determine where they are in comparison to poles or hangars within 2 or 3 feet without resorting to tricks like observing shadows.