Lost mavic...and found!!

[Strafe1]

Having control isn't the issue; having situational awareness around your aircraft is the main concern.

Personally speaking, given the Mavic's seemingly greater penchant for attracting bird attacks versus other drones, it would seem to be particularly important for Mavic pilots to know what is going on all around the aircraft. Obviously the further out you go, the more risk you take, as you've learned.

Regardless, recreational fliers are required by law in the US to maintain visual contact at all times.

NOT REQUIRED BY LAW. highly recommended and guidelines all should follow. But NOT LAW. Many posted threads about this already.

 

[Evo1668]

I read this forum fairly often, and there seems to be a bit of bias on certain postings. When someone for instance flies a long distance and puts signal boosting antennas on their controller and flies out 3 miles or more. Not one person posts or mentions their stupidity, illegality, or says a jot of derogatory comments about their folly....they are deemed masters.
But when someone posts about a long distance flight and losing their drone, then everyone comes out of the woodwork to comment about how illegal their activity is....so come on play fair forum members, and apply the rules to everyone....

 

[MavicMikeGA]

Only trouble with that is flying at night is also forbidden by the FAA

Sent from my Pixel XL using MavicPilots mobile app

Where did you read that?
According to the FAA, it is only restricted (not banned) for commercial operations. Getting Started

 

[grizzard]

While all of this is technically correct, I would love to meet the person that in the daytime can fly a Mavic 350ft up in the air and 800ft away then look at their screen, fly for a bit and then look back and visually find the Mavic.

I did some tests on the weekend in a very lovely Mountainous area that is a complete jungle. I had 5 people in the group and while everyone could hear the Mavic at 350ft they were all endlessly searching the skies to find it when I was returning. My wife was the first one to spot it. Even with her pointing and showing the others it ended up that I had to do some side to side movements before the rest of them could see it.

I did confirm that on the beach the Mavic is almost impossible to hear at 150 ft high and about 100ft away but in the quiet mountains I could hear it up to 500 ft up and about 400 ft away.

Exactly .. There are rules and then there are laws. Rules are guidelines, laws could get you in trouble. Who hasn't driven over the speed limit when the traffic is light? Common sense will usually keep you out of trouble.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MavicPilots mobile app

 

[joet]

NOT REQUIRED BY LAW. highly recommended and guidelines all should follow. But NOT LAW. Many posted threads about this already.

Um, YES, it's the LAW in the US. If your aircraft is not within line of site - which the FAA has clarified to mean within your sight unaided by anything save corrective lenses, then you are not flying in accordance with Part 101/Special rule for model aircraft. Only Part 101 and Part 107 authorize unmanned small aircraft flight. So if you aren't flying under Part 101 or Part 107, then you are not authorized to fly.

 

[Strafe1]

Um, YES, it's the LAW in the US. If your aircraft is not within line of site - which the FAA has clarified to mean within your sight unaided by anything save corrective lenses, then you are not flying in accordance with Part 101/Special rule for model aircraft. Only Part 101 and Part 107 authorize unmanned small aircraft flight. So if you aren't flying under Part 101 or Part 107, then you are not authorized to fly.

not.

 

[joet]

not.

OK.. Defend your assertion.

 

[KiterTodd]

... When someone for instance flies a long distance and puts signal boosting antennas on their controller and flies out 3 miles or more. ....they are deemed masters..

This is a bit of a tangent from the growing legal debate, but since you brought it up...

...do you need boosters to fly out 3 miles? The listed range is something like 4.2 miles. I figured you could do that without boosters as long as the line of site was clear between you and the mavic?

 

[Evo1668]

This is a bit of a tangent from the growing legal debate, but since you brought it up...

...do you need boosters to fly out 3 miles? The listed range is something like 4.2 miles. I figured you could do that without boosters as long as the line of site was clear between you and the mavic?

I agree, you probably don't need boosters for 3 miles - unless the levels of electrical interference you encounter where you fly, prevents a clear uninterrupted signal. What I am pretty sure of though; I may be able to see the Andromeda Galaxy at night 2.6 million light years away, but I am pretty **** sure I cannot see my Mavic at 3 miles out clear LOS unaided vision. I am not a distance flyer....yet !...Who knows curiosity may get the better of me....

 

[KiterTodd]

Thanks for the reply.

... What I am pretty sure of though; I may be able to see the Andromeda Galaxy at night 2.6 million light years away, but I am pretty **** sure I cannot see my Mavic at 3 miles out clear LOS unaided vision. I am not a distance flyer....yet !...Who knows curiosity may get the better of me....

I had mine out in a snow covered valley recently. As others have said, it was pretty easy to lose sight of the Mavic when you are looking down at the screen... bright blue sky, rolling snow covered hills broken up by the occasional rock or scrub tree.. when you looked up from the controller you had no idea where the mavic was. I mean, I knew the general direction but it'd take some very careful analysis of where you think it is and some movement to pick it out in the sky.

 

[Slantnose79]

Even though I haven't (yet) I guess everyone who flies FPV is breaking the law? Haven't noticed, but are the DP just as active on FPV threads? I sometimes wonder if some of these 'holy-rollers' ever 'look down at the screen' while flying. If so, they've broken the law. I hope they'd admit to that, then I'd give them some credence.

I know a few 'real' policemen. Funny thing is, They break the law, too. My $0.02...


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[joet]

Legally, you cannot fly FPV, but - and here's where my interpretation starts - that doesn't mean that you have to keep your eyes glued to the aircraft from takeoff to touchdown.

The FAA's intention behind the LOS rule is so that you have situational awareness about what is around the aircraft - from obstacles to wildlife to other aircraft. That is almost impossible to do if you cannot see it. FPV can allow someone to successfull navigate, but not to see all potential issues.

However, if you are taking pictures of the roof of a building, for example, and verify by looking at the airspace around the aircraft that there are no imminent safety issues, taking your eyes off the aircraft to line up and take a shot momentarily would not realistically be considered a safety issue.

When I do real estate panoramas, I fly the aircraft to the right altitude and then angle the gimbal down as I move to the right position to ensure that I am not over anybody. Then I engage Litchi to take the images. While it is doing its thing, I am watching the aircraft the vast majority of the time - watching not only for signs of drift or issues, but also for birds. I also look at the screen from time to time to verify that everything is working properly. I consider this to be in line with both reasonable expectations to accomplish the task and the FAA's goals to ensure safe flight.

As far as being labeled the "drone police", I believe that everyone should know the law and follow it. Since so many do not, I think it makes sense to educate whenever possible. Otherwise, someone reads about range extenders and going out 10 miles and thinks it's OK because no one wanted to call the OP out on it.

That being said, I only discuss US law because it is the only one I am intimately familiar with.

 

[Strafe1]

OK.. Defend your assertion.

Nothing to defend because there is no law to cite. Perhaps you should post the law as I can't seem to find it. And please don't cite a regulation....the actual law you are referring to.

 

[joet]

Nothing to defend because there is no law to cite. Perhaps you should post the law as I can't seem to find it. And please don't cite a regulation....the actual law you are referring to.

Public Law 112-95, section 336(c)(2)

FAA's interpretation of that section of the law is in this document:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

 

[Strafe1]

Public Law 112-95, section 336(c)(2)

FAA's interpretation of that section of the law is in this document:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Try reading this thread and the links cited.
FAA Guidelines or Actual Laws

 

[joet]

Try reading this thread and the links cited.
FAA Guidelines or Actual Laws

Found the post. It references two FAA pages, both of which mention the LOS rule.

What exactly are you referring to?

 

[Strafe1]

Public Law 112-95, section 336(c)(2)

FAA's interpretation of that section of the law is in this document:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Ironically, the FAA's interpretation supports the fact that there is no law. See page 6 of the FAA interpretation.
Having said that, I believe the FAA recommendation is one we should all try to follow. But if your flight is over unpopulated terrain, and the air space is safe, and you are not flying in a reckless manner, I wouldn't really care.
It's just that you're calling recommendations LAWS, and that is just not accurate or true. You can caution people about safety without making stuff up or threatening them, even when some pilots seem to lack any common sense whatsoever.

 

[Strafe1]

Found the post. It references two FAA pages, both of which mention the LOS rule.

What exactly are you referring to?

I am referring to the fact that there is no law. Recommendations and regulations. Good recommendations. Not laws. I won't discuss this beyond this post. But you'll never convince me there is a law because Congress said there can't be one. The FAA agrees but says they can intervene if NAS is at risk, but they haven't intervened. Hobbyists don't have laws on the books, beyond what defines a UAV. And I guess I'll never convince you of the difference between laws and recommendations. I probably should have asked you what your definition of LAW is.

 

[cobra46]

While all of this is technically correct, I would love to meet the person that in the daytime can fly a Mavic 350ft up in the air and 800ft away then look at their screen, fly for a bit and then look back and visually find the Mavic.

I did some tests on the weekend in a very lovely Mountainous area that is a complete jungle. I had 5 people in the group and while everyone could hear the Mavic at 350ft they were all endlessly searching the skies to find it when I was returning. My wife was the first one to spot it. Even with her pointing and showing the others it ended up that I had to do some side to side movements before the rest of them could see it.

I did confirm that on the beach the Mavic is almost impossible to hear at 150 ft high and about 100ft away but in the quiet mountains I could hear it up to 500 ft up and about 400 ft away.

This is one reason I like flying around my house when it's windy. It seems to mask the noise a bit so I don't piss off the neighbors.

 

[cobra46]

Only trouble with that is flying at night is also forbidden by the FAA

Sent from my Pixel XL using MavicPilots mobile app

Only for 107 pilots. Hobbyists can fly at night.