The future of RC aircraft

[Droning on and on...]

Funny how this conversation is unfolding.

I'm much less restrictive in my opinion than the suggested clear LOS standard. I don't think it's that important (or useful) to maintain the ability to see the aircraft from the pilot's location.

In my now over a decade of flight experience, I'm far more "situationally aware" from the remote sensing data -- particularly the camera view -- than I am from direct observation. Some around here claim extraordinary visual acuity, that frankly I'm rather skeptical of. Me, I can't satisfy the full text of the regulated VLOS requirement more than around 500 ft away, and it's getting worse as the aircraft are getting smaller. Forget "seeing" orientation at any usable distance with a whoop-style ducted aircraft like an Avata or Neo.

Speaking only for myself -- but I suspect shared by others -- I'm in far better control of my drones using the camera view to fly it, regularly checking on the other telemetry. Sadly, some other very useful tech in this regard like ADS-B (DJI Airsense) have not been as vigorously implemented as RID, which would have been great benefit to drone pilots for increased situational awareness and safety.

Imagine instead a robust, reliable ADS-B environment where your drone could locate in 3D every aircraft, and give the pilot meaningful telemetry to take defensive action. Makes it possible to avoid a low-flying helo when you can hear it but can't find it in the sky, something I actually experienced a few times back with my Air 2S.

DJI abandoned this technology because the FAA did, and the FAA did because private pilots are a fussy, whiny bunch that refused to installed transceivers. Seeing something on my screen similar to the AR Homepoint direction with additional information like altitude and whether or not there is a risk of collision would be far more useful to me than trying to discern if there's any risk of collision looking at my drone 1000ft away when I can't even find the threatening aircraft in the sky, but can only hear it.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Don't get how making this point necessitated taking a swipe at professional first responders, though, who are a completely different breed all being 107 certified.

It was never intended as a swipe at anyone flying BVLOS, especially not professional first responders. However, it does help make the case that VLOS is not necessary for safety, as otherwise no waivers would be available to anyone. It's really about selectively choosing who will be able to fly BVLOS and even completely without LOS using the cellular network we cannot get access to with a DJI cellular dongle.

I'm also not overly impressed with 107 certification. An experienced hobbyist drone pilot with common sense without a 107 certification is far safer flying BVLOS using telemetry and FPV than a booksmart certified 107 pilot that still has to use RTH to find his way home!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Funny how this conversation is unfolding.

I'm much less restrictive in my opinion than the suggested clear LOS standard. I don't think it's that important (or useful) to maintain the ability to see the aircraft from the pilot's location.

In my now over a decade of flight experience, I'm far more "situationally aware" from the remote sensing data -- particularly the camera view -- than I am from direct observation. Some around here claim extraordinary visual acuity, that frankly I'm rather skeptical of. Me, I can't satisfy the full text of the regulated VLOS requirement more than around 500 ft away, and it's getting worse as the aircraft are getting smaller. Forget "seeing" orientation at any usable distance with a whoop-style ducted aircraft like an Avata or Neo.

Speaking only for myself -- but I suspect shared by others -- I'm in far better control of my drones using the camera view to fly it, regularly checking on the other telemetry. Sadly, some other very useful tech in this regard like ADS-B (DJI Airsense) have not been as vigorously implemented as RID, which would have been great benefit to drone pilots for increased situational awareness and safety.

Imagine instead a robust, reliable ADS-B environment where your drone could locate in 3D every aircraft, and give the pilot meaningful telemetry to take defensive action. Makes it possible to avoid a low-flying helo when you can hear it but can't find it in the sky, something I actually experienced a few times back with my Air 2S.

DJI abandoned this technology because the FAA did, and the FAA did because private pilots are a fussy, whiny bunch that refused to installed transceivers. Seeing something on my screen similar to the AR Homepoint direction with additional information like altitude and whether or not there is a risk of collision would be far more useful to me than trying to discern if there's any risk of collision looking at my drone 1000ft away when I can't even find the threatening aircraft in the sky, but can only hear it.

You are confirming my belief that the VLOS requirement adds nothing constructive to safety, and is only a range limiting regulation, which preceded the RID implementation, which has now made VLOS moot, as locating the pilot is no longer a problem. Hence, the ease with which BVLOS waivers are now readily available, but not to experienced recreational flyers who are far more capable than the average 107 certified pilot who can now request one.

Without a reliable ADS-B environment, for optimum safety, IMHO, it is still necessary to maintain clear LOS (rather than the archaic VLOS requirement), which not only allows seeing larger manned aircraft from a great distance, but also prevents all the loss of signal risks inherent in not maintaining LOS.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I'm also not overly impressed with 107 certification. An experienced hobbyist drone pilot with common sense without a 107 certification is far safer flying BVLOS than a booksmart certified 107 pilot that still has to use RTH to find his way home!

I generally agree.

Would you agree, however, that someone who has simply passed the TRUST test absent some other qualifier (you used "experienced hobbyist drone pilot" to drastically narrow the scope of who we're talking about as a "recreational pilot") is reasonably assumed to be less safe than a certified 107 pilot?

Are you 107 certified, and therefore intimately familiar with the material covered?

As a licensed private pilot (no longer current) that's been through that material, written and flight exams, I found the 107 material covered to be excessive for simply operating a drone, but definitely significant in leading to safer planning and operational behavior than the joke that is TRUST.

I'm not concerned about the "experienced hobbyist drone pilot" for the most part. It's the rest of the recreational users, which I'd guess are the majority, that I think operate ignorantly. And given the huge disparity between number of drones sold in the US and FAA registrations, I suspect the majority are careless idiots who have not even bothered with TRUST.

Can't say that about the population of 107 certified pilots.

As for the VLOS requirement, I don't really think it makes the majority of recreational pilots safer, the idiots in particular, because they don't abide it.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Without a reliable ADS-B environment, for optimum safety, IMHO, it is still necessary to maintain clear LOS (rather than the archaic VLOS requirement), which not only allows seeing larger manned aircraft from a great distance, but also prevents all the loss of signal risks inherent in not maintaining LOS.

I'm mostly unconcerned about fixed-wing aircraft for several reasons that I'll elaborate on if there's interest.

It's helicopters that concern me the most in the 0-400ft airspace. I've had two scary incidents with helicopters, years apart, that convinced me that my remote situational awareness through the camera is far better for operational safety than my naked eyes.

In both cases, different locations, I could see my drone, hear a helicopter, but not see it anywhere. Trees obscured the low-flying heli from my view. Descending was risky for two reasons -- I was likely to lose contact, initiating failsafe RTH, which could result in a collision; also, there's a chance I'd be descending onto the helicopter.

The first time I sweat bullets and the copter rose up over the tree-tops where I could see it. It was lifting something suspended below, too far for me to discern what it was, but it was working some site. Thankfully, I wasn't near it -- my drone was at around 60deg heading (from me), the helicopter around 0, so we weren't anywhere near each other.

The second time this happened in an entirely different locale, years later, I acted differently. Learning from the first pair of soiled underwear, I didn't bother looking around for more than a quick look from my ground location, and when I couldn't find the aircraft, I then focused exclusively on my camera view while I did a careful 360 looking for it, and found it quickly. With that I knew right away where to fly to get away from it, which I did.

We don't really differ much, if at all, on the utility of VLOS as a safety measure. If it were truly important, we couldn't have Air Force pilots in Nebraska flying Reapers in Afghanistan.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Would you agree, however, that someone who has simply passed the TRUST test absent some other qualifier (you used "experienced hobbyist drone pilot" to drastically narrow the scope of who we're talking about as a "recreational pilot") is reasonably assumed to be less safe than a certified 107 pilot?

Agreed. However the 107 certification is complete overkill for recreational flyers, yet almost required, because of the way hobbyists are currently defined

As for the VLOS requirement, I don't really think it makes the majority of recreational pilots safer, the idiots in particular, because they don't abide it.

Exactly. For 107 pilots engaged in commercial activities like inspections in close quarters and around people, VLOS makes a lot more sense. For the hobbyist out for video and stills in the wilderness, not so much.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I'm mostly unconcerned about fixed-wing aircraft for several reasons that I'll elaborate on if there's interest.

It's helicopters that concern me the most in the 0-400ft airspace. I've had two scary incidents with helicopters, years apart, that convinced me that my remote situational awareness through the camera is far better for operational safety than my naked eyes.

In both cases, different locations, I could see my drone, hear a helicopter, but not see it anywhere. Trees obscured the low-flying heli from my view. Descending was risky for two reasons -- I was likely to lose contact, initiating failsafe RTH, which could result in a collision; also, there's a chance I'd be descending onto the helicopter.

The first time I sweat bullets and the copter rose up over the tree-tops where I could see it. It was lifting something suspended below, too far for me to discern what it was, but it was working some site. Thankfully, I wasn't near it -- my drone was at around 60deg heading (from me), the helicopter around 0, so we weren't anywhere near each other.

The second time this happened in an entirely different locale, years later, I acted differently. Learning from the first pair of soiled underwear, I didn't bother looking around for more than a quick look from my ground location, and when I couldn't find the aircraft, I then focused exclusively on my camera view while I did a careful 360 looking for it, and found it quickly. With that I knew right away where to fly to get away from it, which I did.

We don't really differ much, if at all, on the utility of VLOS as a safety measure. If it were truly important, we couldn't have Air Force pilots in Nebraska flying Reapers in Afghanistan.

For the helicopters, you need to know your airspace, but I agree that they are the biggest risk, as they are flying in the same airspace, and can sneak up on you from behind, even when flying VLOS, and can fly unpredictably, unlike the fixed wing aircraft. The military helicopters also frequently turn off their ADS-B transponders, and fly through canyons and low over roof tops, and low along the scenic shoreline, where a long telephoto compression shot back to the shore might put you in their path!

"We don't really differ much, if at all, on the utility of VLOS as a safety measure. If it were truly important, we couldn't have Air Force pilots in Nebraska flying Reapers in Afghanistan"

Exactly! I'll be they don't even have 107 certifications! Probably something far more sophisticated for their type of training!