Mavic Pro Flyaway

[sar104]

Let me give this a try. It is not the easiest and clearest legislation out there.

On Feb 14, 2012, the congress PASSED Public Law 112-95. ( https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ95/PLAW-112publ95.pdf ) You often see it it referred to on this board as the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. This is the legislation that bars the FAA from passing regulations that affect model aircraft. It also sets up the ability for the FAA to regulate any drone not flown as model aircraft. That is the portion referred to as Part 107. Part 107 requires you to pass a test to operate under it's domain. If you make money with your flying, you are under part 107. If you do so without passing the test, it is similar to driving your Ferrari without a license. You can be charged for any traffic violation you commit, as well as driving without a license. Just because you don't have a driver's license doesn't mean you can't be charged for speeding. Simple enough.

In Public Law 112-95, is where you see Section 336, Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
https://drones.princeton.edu/sites/drones/files/sec-336.pdf

Section 336 is the part which restricts the FAA from controlling model aircraft such as our drones. It does so with this statement:
"Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if--".
Pay very close attention to that last two letter word. "if". This is where most people stop reading when they have posted what you have come to think of as the whole story. But the "if" makes all the difference in the world to you and I and our Mavics.
When you get to the last section of Sec 336, is the catcher. Paragraph (C) defines what a model aircraft is. And remember, the only way to avoid the restrictions of Part 107 is to fly a model aircraft. I will copy paragraph (c) since it is so short.

"(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

By definition of the law, if you do not fly within visual line of sight, you are not flying a Model aircraft. Only model aircraft tare exempted from FAA. If you fly beyond VLOS, you are subject to the FAA regs, and you already have two violations; flying beyond VLOS, and operating under Part 107 without a license.

Do people break this law with impunity? According to this board, some surely do. In fact, I do not know of any board on the web where so many people publicly brag about how they break the law so regularly. You would think that, with the poor public image which our hobby suffers, people would zip it when it comes to such public bragging about purposely and frequently breaking the law. How difficult do you think it would be for congress to change that legislation in a way that would really hurt the hobby?
I hope I presented this is a way that makes it clear. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me, or reply here. I encourage you tp read the whole of Sec 336. It is quite short. That also has the part about the community based set of safety guidelines, of which the AMA seems to be the only one to use.

You bring up a very good point there - I'd completely forgotten that Public Law 112-95, Section 336 (c) (2) included that explicit definition of model aircraft. That did not make it into 14 CFR 101, but still holds, and is a more definitive statement than the guideline in the AMA Safety Code. It unambiguously requires VLOS in order to be covered by Part 101.

 

[motopokep]

I see your guys point here and I did see that section about flying within visual line of sight, but was hoping I can construe the statute to my benefit. I still doubt that cops out there understand this and ticket drone flyers for flying out of sight. I guess it is like speeding, no one goes the exact speed limit, and you only get a ticket if you exceed it by so much more than others. I would have to see cops starting to enforce LOS flying because I would give up on this hobby. It's just not fun flying a regular drone LOS, unless you're into photography/videography and travel to scenic places. But you two proved your point, guess it is the law if you really delve into it.

 

[Radagast]

You bring up a very good point there - I'd completely forgotten that Public Law 112-95, Section 336 (c) (2) included that explicit definition of model aircraft. That did not make it into 14 CFR 101, but still holds, and is a more definitive statement than the guideline in the AMA Safety Code. It unambiguously requires VLOS in order to be covered by Part 101.

I applaud you sar104
If everyone admitted their oversights or mistakes in such a mature way, there would be a lot less BS in many threads here

 

[sar104]

I see your guys point here and I did see that section about flying within visual line of sight, but was hoping I can construe the statute to my benefit. I still doubt that cops out there understand this and ticket drone flyers for flying out of sight. I guess it is like speeding, no one goes the exact speed limit, and you only get a ticket if you exceed it by so much more than others. I would have to see cops starting to enforce LOS flying because I would give up on this hobby. It's just not fun flying a regular drone LOS, unless you're into photography/videography and travel to scenic places. But you two proved your point, guess it is the law if you really delve into it.

Not that I want to confuse the issue but, aside from the point of law, it's pretty clear that, at least for now, non-reckless BVLOS hobby flight is not attracting the attention of the FAA or LE. If you fly carefully, at reasonable altitudes, reasonable range, not near airports and not over built-up or crowded areas then pushing the envelope on that requirement seems to be de facto accepted for now.

 

[sar104]

I applaud you sar104
If everyone admitted their oversights or mistakes in such a mature way, there would be a lot less BS in many threads here

Thanks. I'm here to learn just like everyone else. I prefer not to make mistakes or oversights but if I do then I'd rather find out about it and acknowledge it.

 

[Turn11]

Sounds like a headwind issue. Whenever I plan a relatively long flight I try to set it up so I’m flying into the wind

I have to agree Wholeheartedly.

I live in an Arizona valley and the winds are either from the North or South. Not uncommon to have ground level winds from 20 - 35 mph with gusts as high as 50 mph. I don't even think about flying without looking at the Android app Weather Bug and UAV Forecast to see what is going on at ground level and 100' / 250'.
A benefit of flying out here is the lack of tall trees. I rarely have to set RTH much over 50' so head winds aren't as much of a problem as someone that has RTH set to 100 meters.
I am a newbie and @Franzinator has some really sage advise (for the younger pilots, sage advise is good or wise advice)

Larry

 

[Turn11]

If the headwind increases, or you fly into a layer or area where it is stronger, the app calculations will be thrown off.

So true, it was estimated that the bird was about 1,168' when battery power went to 0. A bit high for dusk / night time flying in my opinion.
That said, right now where I live the ground level winds are about 9 to 15 mph and the winds at 1,000' are 23 - 38 MPH. If it was a tail wind it would move you right along, Head wind might slow you down a bit.

How about buying another bird and recreate the flight and see if the same result holds true.

 

[aksobby]

Lost my Mavic Pro this evening in the Berkeley, California Hills.

I successfully started up the Mavic, locked on to 20+ Satelites and had a fully charged battery and ensured home point was properly set.

It was a little windy, but I got about 11 minutes of flying before it wanted to return home. After 12 minutes, it auto returned home but never made it close to me. I flew about 12,500 feet out and when it auto returned it only made it about 1500 feet before switching to critical low battery and then it landed in a residential neighborhood Quite far from my home point.

I attempted to use “find my drone” but could not see it. I imagine it got stuck in some trees or landed on someone’s roof.

Heading out from Aus in 3 weeks for a 90 day motorhome tour of West USA. Stories such as these give me hope that I will be able to pick up quite a few "flyaways"to sell back home to pay for my trip

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

We've all been there in one way or another with our close call flights but most of us got our Mavic home safely often by the skin of our teeth. My heart goes out to him. It was a brave post subjecting oneself to hindsight ridicule and some of you were pretty harsh - shame on you.. The reason I read these is to educate myself to prevent a similar accident. I would strongly recommend the State Farm Insurance for only $60 to all Mavic Pro fliers. I have the DJI Care Plan but it's not as good as the State Farm Insurance and considerably more expensive (you must have a home or auto polity to get it). I've been flying my Mavic Pro for a year and knock on wood have had no major incidents but many close calls.

I agree with not ridiculing him, but it also appears he did not want to listen to common reasoning from those helping him. So maybe sometimes the message has to be a little harder to get through. His unsafe flying could have cause some heavy damage and or injury, especially from that height.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Unless something has changed recently State farm will not provide that type of insurance in the state of California. I just tried getting it and it doesn't apply in California or the agent I called didn't know what it was.

It also won't pay if you were found to be flying in an inappropriate manner.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

So true, it was estimated that the bird was about 1,168' when battery power went to 0. A bit high for dusk / night time flying in my opinion.
That said, right now where I live the ground level winds are about 9 to 15 mph and the winds at 1,000' are 23 - 38 MPH. If it was a tail wind it would move you right along, Head wind might slow you down a bit.

How about buying another bird and recreate the flight and see if the same result holds true.

That would be a good suggestion if it were not asking him to do the same WRONG actions again, Fly BVLOS, Above Max Alt, At Night, Over Heavy Populated area, Past the point of No Return, AND risk falling from 1,000' this time possibly into someone's house or hitting someone.

 

[787steve]

In Canada it may be 'boring' to fly line of sight, but it is legal and illegal is really expensive if caught and only adds to the negative public image of drones.

After spending many months and $ for ground school, proper insurance and a 65 page company operations manual that passed Transport Canada's approving officer's scrutiny, I finally have a standing Special Flight Operations Certificate for a year.

Don't plan on risking that to fly out of sight. The older I get, the better 'boring' looks. Our lobbying bodies continue to press for better laws in Canada. It's glacial, but sloooowly getting better.

It's illegal and adds to the negative image in the US as well. But some people feel that their desire for entertainment supersedes the law and the safety of other, more boring people.

 

[tjcooper]

There are Air-traffic Police out there!!
For 20 years I have flown at Baylands park in Sunnyvale, CA. We are within 3 miles of the Moffet Field military airport. We are "grandfathered" from the 5 mile flying limit because it is claimed that the Pioneer Flying club pre-dated Moffet field. Regardless, we don't fly over near their area and they don't bother us (except on rare occasions to test out their RF jamming electronics).

But a year ago some of the Moffet tower people came over to our field and held a little "talk" with us. They said we have co-existed for a long time and they wanted to keep it that way. But, they say, a new wrinkle has developed. Homeland Security has tasked them with flying their military drones over our field and photographing our flying styles and methods. They were tasked with getting video of pilots flying FPV without spotters and going outside the limits of the field (which people do often). They were very nice and kind, and said that if we see their drone coming (big, ugly, and brown) that we should immediately stop FPV or get spotters beside each pilot and return to the field area (under 400 feet). They thought that this whole thing was to gather evidence of wide-spread violation of the FAA FPV ban.....which was under lots of discussion at the time. Anyway, I just wanted to say that there are Air-traffic Police and they have been tasked with gathering evidence of pilots breaking the law. Nothing has happened yet, but I know how slow the government is to "spring the trap".

One other point I wanted to make about "beyond line of sight" flying. We have big gliders in the central valley of California that have regular "competition" of flying 24 to 48 hours out of any possible line of sight. They cross mountains and state lines on a regular basis. They use big gliders with GPS and satelite downlinks to show the pilots where the plane is located. The pilots are in SUVs going "bat out of hell" fast to try to keep up with the gliders and guide them to their agreed upon landing zones. This has been going on since the 1960's and I have never heard of any FAA problems with their sport. The biggest problem is that they fly much much much higher than 400' above ground level. The good thing is that they never plan their flights anywhere near cities or airports. So why do we never hear about this type of "recreational model airplane" sport?
tjcooper

 

[motopokep]

TJCooper, interesting read, thanks for sharing. I must admit, and I am glad, that I was educated, through this post, that BLOS flying is illegal. Does same hold true for flying above 400 feet for hobbyists? I've read quite a few discussions that came to an agreement that only Part 107's were restricted to 400 feet, while for Part 101's its only a guideline. Too lazy to go back and re-read the statutes, but I did it awhile back and found nothing restricting to 400 ft for hobbyists. I actually don't care much anymore for high altitude flights. The winds up there are unpredictable and you run the risk of colliding with a helicopter or a small plane. It's much more fun to cruise at 150 feet couple miles out.

 

[787steve]

TJCooper, interesting read, thanks for sharing. I must admit, and I am glad, that I was educated, through this post, that BLOS flying is illegal. Does same hold true for flying above 400 feet for hobbyists? I've read quite a few discussions that came to an agreement that only Part 107's were restricted to 400 feet, while for Part 101's its only a guideline. Too lazy to go back and re-read the statutes, but I did it awhile back and found nothing restricting to 400 ft for hobbyists. I actually don't care much anymore for high altitude flights. The winds up there are unpredictable and you run the risk of colliding with a helicopter or a small plane. It's much more fun to cruise at 150 feet couple miles out.

For hobbyist, 400' is indeed a recommendation, not a regulation. You should remain below 400' when within 3 miles of an airport unless you have permission. But you shouldn't count on me or anyone else to report these items to you. You will get a LOT of bad info that way. I have seen people here claim that Sec 336 was never passed into law, that the law is unenforceable, that Congress can't pass a law that requires you to follow safety guidelines of an organization that you don't belong to, etc. In my research, I found all of those statements to be incorrect. But, I may be wrong about everything I just reported. To really do it right, do your own research. Then you will know you have up to date info.

 

[Crashcraft00]

If you guys never fly out of sight your missing out and boring. Way more people do it then not so I would just not comment. He is looking for help not to be spanked.

i like the way u think! i dont need spanked!!, just a little help

New at all of this?? first time on any type of forums and as a Mavic Pro Pilot.

first flights were great!! then things changed,

1) Now when i hit home it just lands were it is dose not come home, it did confirm home point before take off.

2) Last flight the controls seemed not to work, drone had a mind of its own and flew backwards slowly getting higher into the bushes!!

3) I have a Mavic Pro Alpine White, a Iphone 6s i have extra Batteries ould get more but my phone only last fo maybe 2 batteries, i've seen people complaining that they cant stop theres from charging i know they dont have an Iphone is there any way of getting my Iphone to charge while im flying??

4) I thought when i hooked up to my ontroles the ontroler would own my phone but i still get alls emails tx ect.. during flights, is there a way to stop this??

Thanks Crashcraft00

 

[wytnyt]

4) I thought when i hooked up to my ontroles the ontroler would own my phone but i still get alls emails tx ect.. during flights, is there a way to stop this??

Thanks Crashcraft00

yes,put your phone in airplane mode

 

[ac0j]

and, check your settings in the app on your phone. Make sure it is set to come home.