Possibly Dumb Weird Possible Experiment

[Chaosrider]

Assuming I had hard VLOS for the entire flight, are there any rules against flying a drone out in the cold, while I remain warm behind a sliding glass door?

This is really two separate questions:

1) Is it legal? I'm only interested if it would be legal, at least arguably.
2) If it is, how dumb would it be?

Here's the scenario:

One of my favorite places to visit is a place I call Guardian Rock. On close inspection it looks like it's at least partially the ruins of a structure, rather than mere rock, but I haven't pursued checking that out yet.

From my rear flight deck, Guardian Rock is 600 ft up, and 1000 ft away. I take the 400 ft AGL "envelope" rule pretty seriously, and I have a well established route to Guardian Rock that always keeps me within that envelope. I explicitly did the test with the Arc V strobe, and I can see it's flashy little butt just fine at 1000 ft away.

Is there any legal reason why I couldn't fly up to Guardian Rock, while controlling it from inside the house?

My biggest concern in the "How dumb is it?" realm would be control signal strength. I wouldn't even launch if I couldn't get at least 4 bars of control signal strength while on the ground, and I'd be watching the signal strength indicator like a hawk as I slowly moved toward the objective.

Thoughts?

Thx,

TCS

 

[thispilothere]

No different than controlling from a car. Plenty of people do that without problems.

 

[Chaosrider]

No different than controlling from a car. Plenty of people do that without problems.

Hmmm...I'm "warming up" to this idea...

Perhaps tomorrow, if the winds are light. But if I don't care about how cold it is outside, I could fly early in the morning, when the winds are generally light.

Hmmm

TCS

 

[Clintoops]

People do it doesn't make it legal.
First could be considered unsafe flying if something were to happen.
While in your house you have a big blind spot can't see hazards around you while in the house.
Or hot air balloon floating by if there was one. Just a great question though

 

[manc54]

As far as i can see if you have vlos with the drone I don't see a problem.

 

[AZDave]

I don't see a problem from a legal point of view as long as you maintain VLOS, but you MIGHT get undesirable reflections or refractions of the RF from your surroundings (window frame, walls, nearby objects, etc) that would distort your signal pattern and cause control difficulties. Most likely it won't be a problem, but I would proceed carefully and not simply assume you will have good control at a distance.

Think of how you sometimes find better (or worse) cellphone access by simply moving a few feet within a house, even when you're standing next to a window. Same principle, except that you don't lose the cellphone when you hit a null.

 

[Chaosrider]

People do it doesn't make it legal.
First could be considered unsafe flying if something were to happen.
While in your house you have a big blind spot can't see hazards around you while in the house.
Or hot air balloon floating by if there was one. Just a great question though

My house has a lot of windows. Most of two out of the four walls. Looking SE, across the canyon, I can clearly see Guardian Rock from my recliner, and many degrees around it.

To the north and west, the only thing to see, is granite. Despite paying vigilant attention, I have not yet seen a hot air balloon emerge from the granite...

;-)

This strikes me as a fully acceptable risk, and as a practical matter, this experiment would never rise to an enforceable "feckless flying" action on that basis. It may be illegal for other reasons, and it if is, hopefully that will emerge during this conversation.

I may not be grounded for a week after all!



The other questions is, can I mirror the screen of my phone to the big screen? I think the answer is yes, but that I can test prior to flight. The theory would be, instead of alternating my attention between VLOS on the drone and the phone (perfectly legal), I could alternate my attention between VLOS on the drone, and looking at the big screen. It's hard to see why this wouldn't be legal, but I'm open to suggestions for why it might be.




TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

I don't see a problem from a legal point of view as long as you maintain VLOS, but you MIGHT get undesirable reflections or refractions of the RF from your surroundings (window frame, walls, nearby objects, etc) that would distort your signal pattern and cause control difficulties. Most likely it won't be a problem, but I would proceed carefully and not simply assume you will have good control at a distance.

Think of how you sometimes find better (or worse) cellphone access by simply moving a few feet within a house, even when you're standing next to a window. Same principle, except that you don't lose the cellphone when you hit a null.

This is my concern...control signal degradation.

But if I have 4 or 5 bars at lift off, and only move slowly toward Guardian Rock, I'll be able to just stop, and back-up until I regain the signal.

At the moment, the whole area, including my back deck, is covered with snow. I have a landing pad that I can use to give the visual sensors something to hand their hat on, but I wouldn't be shocked if there were undesirable RF reflection effects from the snow on the ground.

Still, if I have clean control signal at liftoff, and only move slowly away, I think it's unlikely that the signal would suddenly become unusable.

Thx,

TCS

 

[old man mavic]

@Chaosrider ,the very fact that you feel the need to come on this forum, and ask if what you propose to do is legal,to me means that you are seeking reassurance from others to justify doing the flight as you describe
just because others may tell you its legal with regards to the rules ,does not mean that it is something that is not without risks some of which you and others have touched upon
before undertaking any flight the risks and rewards of such a flight need to be weighed up ,and then the decision whether or not to proceed is entirely up to you the pilot in command of the aircraft

 

[pinzmann]

I live on a hill and have several 5x8 panoramic windows. Great view. House was built in the 70’s. Pretty sure glass is single pane. Normally I can fly out to 1k meters and still full bars. So a few weeks ago I pulled up the chair in front of the windows and took off from the patio out front. Barely out 300 meters and signal was dropping big time. Another 50 meters, lost signal and RTH. Not sure if it was the windows or some kind of interference inside. So now I just set on the patio. Hope you have better luck

 

[vindibona1]

I fly from my place, inside or in the car all the time during the winter. In fact I fly from the second floor so I can keep a better eye on it above the tree tops that are about 100 feet away. So, 600' away isn't a problem at all, especially with strobes. However flying to 1000' AGL has some nuance to it. As a recreational pilot your ceiling is a hard 400'. If you have a Part 107 cert once you get within 400' of the structure, you can go above 400', again once you get within 400' of the structure.

 

[Chaosrider]

@Chaosrider ,the very fact that you feel the need to come on this forum, and ask if what you propose to do is legal,to me means that you are seeking reassurance from others to justify doing the flight as you describe
just because others may tell you its legal with regards to the rules ,does not mean that it is something that is not without risks some of which you and others have touched upon
before undertaking any flight the risks and rewards of such a flight need to be weighed up ,and then the decision whether or not to proceed is entirely up to you the pilot in command of the aircraft

No, you completely misunderstand my motivation.

When I ask a question in a group like this, I'm generally looking for two things:

1) An answer
2) Discussion around the issue

I generally don't feel the need to justify things, ever.

I read much of the regs in the course of getting my 107, and taking the Drone Business course that Pilot Institute offers. Off the top of my head I see no reason why it would be illegal, but someone here might see it differently, or refer to some section of the law that I'm not considering. In either case, I want to know that.

I feel pretty well versed in the law at this point, but there are people here who know it greater depth than I do, and if they read it differently, I wanted to know that.

Anytime you're inclined to assume that I have come complex, convoluted, or Machiavellian reason for asking a question, you'll almost always be wrong. I'm pretty much a WYSIWYG kinda guy...

I never abdicate the responsibility to make my own decisions when I ask questions. If everyone here says it's a dumb idea, I might do it anyway. And if everyone here says it's perfectly reasonable, I might not do it anyway. I ask for advice a fair amount in life. I don't remember the last time I asked anyone to make a decision FOR me. My mind just doesn't work that way.

I fully understand that legality and risk are largely unrelated. Legal doesn't mean safe, and safe doesn't require legal.

The reason I'm mostly concerned with confirming legality is that I think the risks are truly trivial. Specifically, the risk is $225, because that's what it would cost to get a replacement under Care Refresh for a Fly-Way. There are zero humans or structures between my back deck, and Guardian Rock.

And given the incremental way I plan to approach, the risk of even that is small. If the control signal degrades, I bring it home, end of story. I'd set the likelihood of an actual loss happening at no more than 10%, meaning the expected value of the risk is $25.

I think I may have misunderstood parts of what you were saying, and if that's the case, I'd welcome any clarification that you might care to provide.

Thx,

TCS

 

[EpicFlight]

In most typical flying situations, you are too far away for any sort of quick action to make any physical difference, so there really isn't any safety or operational reason to be exposed to the elements.

The only issue I can think of is reduced situational awareness because you can't see all around you, but IMO this is not a serious loss.

 

[Chaosrider]

I live on a hill and have several 5x8 panoramic windows. Great view. House was built in the 70’s. Pretty sure glass is single pane. Normally I can fly out to 1k meters and still full bars. So a few weeks ago I pulled up the chair in front of the windows and took off from the patio out front. Barely out 300 meters and signal was dropping big time. Another 50 meters, lost signal and RTH. Not sure if it was the windows or some kind of interference inside. So now I just set on the patio. Hope you have better luck

That's the kind of thing I expect to need to watch for!

I do have double-paned glass, and I'm sure that can't help. Still, I'll either have at least 4 bars when I fire it up, or I won't. If I don't, game over.

If I do, then I'll probably move out 10s of feet at a time, and then re-check the control signal strength.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

I fly from my place, inside or in the car all the time during the winter. In fact I fly from the second floor so I can keep a better eye on it above the tree tops that are about 100 feet away. So, 600' away isn't a problem at all, especially with strobes. However flying to 1000' AGL has some nuance to it. As a recreational pilot your ceiling is a hard 400'. If you have a Part 107 cert once you get within 400' of the structure, you can go above 400', again once you get within 400' of the structure.

I'm 107, so I'm good as far at goes.

On previous close inspection, it looked like it used to be structure, but I'm not sure.

I may have flipped the numbers. It's 600 ft about the launch point, and 1000 ft away from the launch point. My house is about 150 ft above the creek bed at the bottom of the canyon. I fly no higher than 250 ft above the launch point until I get close to the rising cliff wall on the other side, and then I climb up at generally well under 400 AGL.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Sharky05]

I'm 107, so I'm good as far at goes.

On previous close inspection, it looked like it used to be structure, but I'm not sure.

I may have flipped the numbers. It's 600 ft about the launch point, and 1000 ft away from the launch point. My house is about 150 ft above the creek bed at the bottom of the canyon. I fly no higher than 250 ft above the launch point until I get close to the rising cliff wall on the other side, and then I climb up at generally well under 400 AGL.

Thx,

TCS

This is just my thoughts and how I interpret the vlos part of the rules and how it was explained to me when I did my part 102 course. Vlos means you should be able to see the drone and EVERYTHING around the drone which includes the sky above and around the drone. Meaning that you should be able to see any potential problems approaching the aircraft like birds, planes, helicopters etc. This is how I like to fly. Now sitting inside a warm cosy home or vehicle for 1 the roof of said cosy space will be blocking your view either from the side, partly from the front but most definitely from the back of you so by the time you hear a helicopter or a plane especially inside of anything with all distractions going on on it will be to late to react in a safe manner to avoid any incidents that could and may occur without warning. AGAIN just my view on what vlos actually means 360 degrees all round Los top, bottom and sides of the aircraft.

 

[snowghost]

I agree. How are you going to know what's coming from 6 O'Clock? You hear a helicopter and can't see it? Not good.

 

[Chaosrider]

In most typical flying situations, you are too far away for any sort of quick action to make any physical difference, so there really isn't any safety or operational reason to be exposed to the elements.

The only issue I can think of is reduced situational awareness because you can't see all around you, but IMO this is not a serious loss.

I agree, IMNSHO!

;-)

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

This is just my thoughts and how I interpret the vlos part of the rules and how it was explained to me when I did my part 102 course. Vlos means you should be able to see the drone and EVERYTHING around the drone which includes the sky above and around the drone. Meaning that you should be able to see any potential problems approaching the aircraft like birds, planes, helicopters etc. This is how I like to fly. Now sitting inside a warm cosy home or vehicle for 1 the roof of said cosy space will be blocking your view either from the side, partly from the front but most definitely from the back of you so by the time you hear a helicopter or a plane especially inside of anything with all distractions going on on it will be to late to react in a safe manner to avoid any incidents that could and may occur without warning. AGAIN just my view on what vlos actually means 360 degrees all round Los top, bottom and sides of the aircraft.

My interpretation is different.

I've come up with a new way to explain my position on this, that may or may not be more clear than my previous attempts, but I'll give it a shot.

The following does not apply to people who believe that all laws/rules should be followed, just because they're the law/rule. That's a well established and honorable perspective that I respect, buy do not share.

Particularly with new regs, like sUAS now and the SP/LSA additions a bit over a decade ago, it's important to get to a clear understanding of the *effective* law. As a general formulation:

(Effective Law) = ((Text of Law) +/- (Case Law)) * (Enforcement Decisions)

The "+/-" is intended to reflect the fact that sometimes case law expands the range of the text of the law, and sometimes contracts it.

If there's zero enforcement of a law, there is no Effective Law in that case.

I'm a big believer in following the Effective Laws.

The text of a law is only *part* of the way a civilization decides what the Effective Law is. It's neither more nor less valid than the other parts.

When I'm sitting out on the back deck, during the time I'm looking at the drone, I'm only looking at a small number of degrees of view around it. There's not a Fed extant who would bust me for that.

And the view from inside doesn't diminish my ability to do that at all.

Thx,

TCS

 

[slozukimc]

My interpretation is different.

I've come up with a new way to explain my position on this, that may or may not be more clear than my previous attempts, but I'll give it a shot.

The following does not apply to people who believe that all laws/rules should be followed, just because they're the law/rule. That's a well established and honorable perspective that I respect, buy do not share.

Particularly with new regs, like sUAS now and the SP/LSA additions a bit over a decade ago, it's important to get to a clear understanding of the *effective* law. As a general formulation:

(Effective Law) = ((Text of Law) +/- (Case Law)) * (Enforcement Decisions)

The "+/-" is intended to reflect the fact that sometimes case law expands the range of the text of the law, and sometimes contracts it.

If there's zero enforcement of a law, there is no Effective Law in that case.

I'm a big believer in following the Effective Laws.

The text of a law is only *part* of the way a civilization decides what the Effective Law is. It's neither more nor less valid than the other parts.

When I'm sitting out on the back deck, during the time I'm looking at the drone, I'm only looking at a small number of degrees of view around it. There's not a Fed extant who would bust me for that.

And the view from inside doesn't diminish my ability to do that at all.

Thx,

TCS

What the (Mod Removed Language) You ask a question and say that you are all about following the rules and then when someone explains that you may not be within the rules you counter with a “these rules don’t exist because they aren’t being enforced” argument. Sounds like some crazy the rules only apply when I want them to and I am never wrong logic to me.

Mike