M2P flying through clouds

[boblui]

Tried it for the first time, nothing unusal except for the warning message about the bottom sensor. The thick cloud did not have much effect on the GPS and RC signal in such distance.

 

[THE CYBORG]

Was the Mavic wet when you landed ?
I flew in fog once and my drone was literally dripping wet when I landed, I won’t be doing it again.

 

[boblui]

Was the Mavic wet when you landed ?
I flew in fog once and my drone was literally dripping wet when I landed, I won’t be doing it again.

Just a few drops of water on the body. It was drier than what I have expected. The internals should be dry as the temperature inside is a lot higher.

Base on numerous reports I have seen, these drones may be able to withstand wetness much better than we think. Here is an example. The guy claimed that the drone is still flying OK after a few months :

 

[PhantomFandom]

Tried it for the first time, nothing unusal except for the warning message about the bottom sensor. The thick cloud did not have much effect on the GPS and RC signal in such distance.

That was indeed beautiful footage. It is ill advised though on many fronts:

• Moisture inside the drone may not cause any immediate issues, but long term corrosion could be a factor.
• Blocking the VPS underneath the drone (as with fog or clouds) has caused issues with other drone models in the past. If it somehow thinks it is close to an object below it, the drone will keep climbing. This has happened.
• You have broken at least wo regulations in Hong Kong. You should keep the drone within visual line of sight at all times, which obviously was not the case. You should also never exceed 90 meters in altitude, and you were more than 3 times higher than that.

 

[boblui]

• You have broken at least wo regulations in Hong Kong. You should keep the drone within visual line of sight at all times, which obviously was not the case. You should also never exceed 90 meters in altitude, and you were more than 3 times higher than that.

I am not aware of that. Can you quote the regulation ? which law, which chapter, etc ? Relevant links in the official website of Department of Justice ( Department of Justice - Laws of Hong Kong ) will be appreciated

 

[THE CYBORG]

I am not aware of that. Can you quote the regulation ? which law, which chapter, etc ? Relevant links in the website of Department of Justice ( Department of Justice - Laws of Hong Kong ) will be appreciated

Drone regulations and links for people flying drones in Hong Kong. HERE

 

[PhantomFandom]

I am not aware of that. Can you quote the regulation ? which law, which chapter, etc ? Relevant links in the official website of Department of Justice ( Department of Justice - Laws of Hong Kong ) will be appreciated

How's this?...

Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department General Safety Guidelines for Flying UAS

 

[boblui]

Drone regulations and links for people flying drones in Hong Kong. HERE

Dont trust everything you see on the internet, I think that's common sense. In the link you have provided, there is not even any reference to relevant laws of Hong Kong, which chapter, which article etc. I am not sure why it is so convincing to you.

If you are interested in the aviation law of Hong Kong in relation to unmanned aircrafts, I can take you through it but pls, don't spread incorrect information any further.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Dont trust everything you see on the internet,

I didn't pick a random website like "Joe's Random Facts About Drones". It is the governing body over aviation in your country. If I can't trust their site then I don't know what to trust.

In the link you have provided, there is not even any reference to relevant laws of Hong Kong, which chapter,

I don't know how regulations and laws work in your country,; that is true. However, if I see something posted on the FAA website here in the USA, I take that as the official word since they are the authority over aviation here. The CAD is your aviation authority there and it is clearly stated on their website.

I can take you through it but pls, don't spread incorrect information any further.

The CAD specifically states " Any person who operates UAS shall observe the following general safety guidelines, unless otherwise permitted by CAD."
So were you otherwise permitted to break those guidelines by the CAD?

You may be correct if indeed the CAD holds no jurisdiction and their website is incorrect. If so, then it should be corrected and made clear that drone pilots do not need to follow those guidelines.

 

[boblui]

How's this?...

Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department General Safety Guidelines for Flying UAS

The key word here is "guideline". That means it just suggestions, recommendation, advices the violation of which will NOT automatically constitute infringement of laws.

The real law governing unmanned aircraft of weight below 7 kg can be found in the official website of the Department of Justice : Hong Kong e-Legislation

The only relevant article is 48 :

Endangering safety of any person or property (L.N. 77 of 2008)
A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

The guideline provided by CAD is not mentioned at all. If I am taken to the court, the prosecutor has to convince the magistrate that my flying practice could indeed endanger person or property. May be you should provide some substatiaion on your accusation along this line ?

 

[PhantomFandom]

The only relevant article is 48 :

Endangering safety of any person or property (L.N. 77 of 2008)
A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

Thank you for the relevant law. That document is from 1995, so obviously it is not comprehensive enough to sufficiently give guidance for UAs flights. Even so, if an accident were to occur on the flight you took, a case could definitely be made that you were flying at least negligently if not recklessly. You had zero sight of the drone once it penetrated the clouds. If a helicopter or fixed wing airplane were to have crashed into it, then it could be considered reckless of you.

The key word here is "guideline". That means it just suggestions, recommendation, advices the violation of which will NOT automatically constitute infringement of laws.

Yes it does say guidelines. Yet it also says " Any person who operates UAS shall observe the following general safety guidelines, unless otherwise permitted by CAD." So that means nothing at all to you? Does tha mean that the CAD has zero jurisdiction? Would a competent prosecutor not use that language to say that you were flying outside of accepted safety guidelines, and thus you were negligent?

I do not know how the legal system there works. I totally admit that. As such I may be wrong on the flight being illegal. However, if the CAD has no jurisdiction over UAS safety, then something is really wrong. Even if you did nothing wrong per official Hong Kong law (from 1995 !!), it was still not a prudent and safe way to fly.

 

[Horsefly]

The key word here is "guideline".

The only relevant article is 48 :

Endangering safety of any person or property (L.N. 77 of 2008)
A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

Thanks for posting the video. It was beautiful and legal.

People generally need to stop being subservient to useless government bureaucrats and take their own freedom back. The currently escalating game of "Simon Says" is getting ridicules.

 

[Bsnyder]

Thanks for sharing your video it was beautiful.

 

[Blakey01]

Tried it for the first time, nothing unusal except for the warning message about the bottom sensor. The thick cloud did not have much effect on the GPS and RC signal in such distance.

As a flight instructor and IFR pilot, when I saw this video it scared the (Mod Removed Language)out of me, but I did not want to comment without checking the facts first. I have reviewed the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department information, sectional charts, IFR and VFR, GA aircraft routes, controlled airspace profiles and the general Hong Kong drone flying rules.

To start with, there is nowhere in Hong Kong that you can legally fly a drone without permission above 300 feet and you were at least 4 times that height. Unless you have authority to fly BVLOS you must also maintain visual contact at all times. Hong Kong has very busy and complex airspace and the minimum level of control is class G which is used extensively for light aircraft including helicopters flying VFR and IFR that can be as low as 500 feet above terrain. Drones will easily penetrate light aircraft structures and windscreens.

Forget the semantics, It does not matter how you have interpreted the rules or what area of Hong Kong you were in, this flight was irresponsible at best, probably illegal and you were in direct conflict with low flying aircraft and this had the potential to end in disaster.

 

[PhantomFandom]

As a flight instructor and IFR pilot, when I saw this video it scared the hell out of me,

EXACTLY !!! Poor IFR pilot flying in clouds that runs into a drone. It is drone pilots that have no regard for airspace and rules (OK in this case he calls them guidelines!!), that really can cause disasters. From the cockpit it is already nearly impossible to spot a small drone in perfect VFR conditions. Add IFR conditions to the mix and it gets even more dangerous.

To start with, there is nowhere in Hong Kong that you can legally fly a drone without permission above 300 feet and you were at least 4 times that height

Exactly what I pointed out but an irresponsible drone pilot will try to make any excuse possible to justify reckless flying.

Drones will easily penetrate light aircraft structures and windscreens.

The only point I will make (and I am totally in agreement with you about how irresponsible this was), is that the video you posted has previously been discredited as it was set up in very precise conditions to cause the maximum possible damage. Although a drone can indeed damage an aircraft, that was an extreme and somewhat unrealistic demonstration. I try my best to be unbiased on both sides so that needed to be said.

 

[Blakey01]

EXACTLY !!! Poor IFR pilot flying in clouds that runs into a drone. It is drone pilots that have no regard for airspace and rules (OK in this case he calls them guidelines!!), that really can cause disasters. From the cockpit it is already nearly impossible to spot a small drone in perfect VFR conditions. Add IFR conditions to the mix and it gets even more dangerous.


Exactly what I pointed out but an irresponsible drone pilot will try to make any excuse possible to justify reckless flying.


The only point I will make (and I am totally in agreement with you about how irresponsible this was), is that the video you posted has previously been discredited as it was set up in very precise conditions to cause the maximum possible damage. Although a drone can indeed damage an aircraft, that was an extreme and somewhat unrealistic demonstration. I try my best to be unbiased on both sides so that needed to be said.

Hi Phantom Fandom, Thanks for agreeing with my safety concerns, if you are also a pilot I am sure you understand the risk. I am however a little curious why you believe the video was unrealistic? Some of the aircraft I fly are faster than the 206knots test speed, the speed limit at that height is 250knots and the leading edge of a Mooney is tougher than many light aircraft windscreens? It's the drone through the windscreen that will kill someone!

 

[PhantomFandom]

Hi Phantom Fandom, Thanks for agreeing with my safety concerns, if you are also a pilot I am sure you understand the risk. I am however a little curious why you believe the video was unrealistic? Some of the aircraft I fly are faster than the 206knots test speed, the speed limit at that height is 250knots and the leading edge of a Mooney is tougher than many light aircraft windscreens? It's the drone through the windscreen that will kill someone!

Hi,

No problem. The safety concerns are such that all of us should be aware and call out the pilot who decides that there are no such concerns.

I am very analytical and I think that any time a study like this is done, it should be done in a controlled scientific way with both the methodology and all of the data published. That was not the case here. They only published a very sensationalized video showing the damage a drone can do to an airplane.

To your point about windscreen damage, I think you'll find that a windscreen is more durable than you believe. This is only my opinion but we can only know with some scientific tests. Due to the hard, yet very durable multi-layer construction of windscreens, and the rake angle on most airplanes, I would think that a drone strike would do less damage than hitting the leading edge of a wing. It would more likely just graze off the windscreen and over the top of the fuselage. Again just my hypothesis.

Back to the video, I think that a 238 MPH impact for a GA aircraft was very unrealistic. At the altitude that drones should be flying at (max 400 feet), a GA aircraft would generally not be at cruise velocity. It may be more of a pattern speed, or final approach.

Even at cruise speed a Mooney might top out at around 170 knots. Why pick a Mooney? Was it because it is a faster GA aircraft? Why not pick a Cessna 172 which must far outnumber Mooneys in the sky? Cruise speed would then be around 122 knots. However more realistically at 400 feet, the airspeed of GA aircraft would most likely be below 100 knots.

Anyway let's say the Mooney is cruising at 170 knots. How is it that the speed of the drone is above its maximum speed and heading exactly opposite that of the plane? Again just to get the maximum impact. If this was Mythbusters, then yes they would try and try to get the biggest bang they could. In scientific tests, we should either do a range of tests under different conditions or test under conditions which more closely approximate the most likely scenario. That certainly is not a head on impact dead-center at 238 MPH.

Now if a drone pilot does something stupid and starts flying at altitudes far above normal, then we have a much greater potential for scenarios like this test. We had another drone pilot (term used loosely) on these forums who flew up to 5,200 feet !!! At that altitude you start endangering commercial turboprop and jet aircraft. We also would easily have GA aircraft at full cruise speed. So it all depends on the test conditions and what they were trying to simulate.

My point is always look at both sides of the story. There is always a bit of a slant and someone has a point to prove.

In any case, this particular flight in Hong Kong was at the very least negligent and most likely reckless. Flying into IFR conditions at any altitude is just ridiculous for a drone. Trying to justify it is even worse.

 

[boblui]

.... If a helicopter or fixed wing airplane were to have crashed into it, then it could be considered reckless of you.

Right next to to the takeoff point is a peak that is about 250 m above the takeoff. The entire area was covered by thick cloud as can be seen from the footage. Do you think any man-carrying aircraft pilots are stupid enough to fly so close to the terrain under zero visibility ? For your information this is the track of the drone in that flight :

Yes it does say guidelines. Yet it also says " Any person who operates UAS shall observe the following general safety guidelines, unless otherwise permitted by CAD." So that means nothing at all to you?

The law is the law. CAD is just the adminstration, they are NOT the law, I hope you can at least understand the difference. In the court CAD will have to convince the magistrate that what I did could have ended up in injurying people or damaging the others' properties.

Applying your understanding, it will be perfectly legal to fly a drone 10 meters above a 100 meter tall cliff but as soon as the drone goes beyond the edge of the cliff, it will be 110 meters above the terrian and the flight will suddenly become illegal ! Does it make any sense ?

I read from the news that in the recent social unrest in US, some people burned the American flag. The behavior clearly violates the United States Flag Code but those people were not convicted at the end because the action was seen by the judge as a way of expressing opinions which is the right of the people of America. This could never have happened if your understanding about laws applies.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Right next to to the takeoff point is a peak that is about 250 m above the takeoff. The entire area was covered in thick cloud as can be seen from the footage. Do you think any man-carrying aircraft pilots are stupid enough to fly so close to the terrain under zero visibility ? For your information this is the track of the drone in that flight :

Without a scale and dimensions, that representation of your flight is meaningless. No, a manned aircraft pilot should not be flying that close to terrain and especially in those conditions...agreed. However it could happen. By your own admission and from the video it is evident that you were at times more than 300 meters AGL. So your point is that it is reckless and dangerous for a manned aircraft to fly in that area under those conditions, yet it is not reckless for you to do so? What kind of logic is that?

In the court CAD will have to convince the magistrate that what I did could have ended up in injury to people or damage to the others' properties.

Yes you already made that point. I believe that it would and should be very easy to convince a magistrate that you were reckless by flying in that manner. Especially with clear "guidelines" published by CAD and which you chose to disregard.

Applying your understanding, it will be perfectly legal to fly a drone 10 meters above a 100 meter tall cliff but as soon as the drone goes beyond the edge of the cliff, it will be 110 meters above the terrian and the flight will suddenly become illegal ! Does it make any sense ?

Yes that is how the law works. It is always better to err on the side of caution and safety. In such a real life example, if one were to do that at the edge of a very large and deep canyon then you could hit aircraft flying in the canyon (tourism, etc). Under your interpretation how far past the cliff would you be able to fly safely?

I read from the news that in the recent social unrest in US, some people burned the American flag. The behavior clearly violates the United States Flag Code but those people were not convicted at the end. This could never have happened if your understanding about laws applies.

That may be the absolute worst analogy I have ever heard or seen. Burning the flag does not put someone else's physical safety at risk. I guess you could hurt someone if you threw the burning flag at them but that would be assault. With a drone you have the very real risk of hurting innocent people flying in the sky above you.

Furthermore your example is deeply flawed because the SCOTUS has already ruled that flag burning is protected under expression of free speech, as outlined in the first amendment. Please see Texas v Johnson and then United States v Eichman. Is your drone flight protected by some freedom to fly law in Hong Kong?

 

[boblui]

So your point is that it is reckless and dangerous for a manned aircraft to fly in that area under those conditions, yet it is not reckless for you to do so? What kind of logic is that?

The difference cannot be more obvious ! The same action of flying in cloud, the pilot and passengers of the aircraft will get killed and I will just lose my drone in the worst scenario. No one injured, no others' properties damaged, hence no breaking of the laws.

Loss of human lives vs loss of a toy, I am amazed that they are the same to you ......