There's no general threat using Google Assistant with Go 4 app. "DJI Drone could kill…"

[ac0j]

If its illegal to use the BT-300's then its also illegal to wear sunglasses while flying.

OK.....
What do you say about driving down the interstate with youir BT-300's on?? Never is the obvious answer, why would piloting a dangerous drone be any different than driving a car?

 

[WithTheBirds]

OK.....
What do you say about driving down the interstate with youir BT-300's on?? Never is the obvious answer, why would piloting a dangerous drone be any different than driving a car?

In only one of those scenarios might a reasonable argument be offered that the AR glasses enhance safety. Think about how often visual on the drone is completely lost to look at the phone tablet being used to fly with.

I use the BT-300’s so I don’t need to loose direct VLOS to the drone under any circumstances.

 

[Amarand]

Goggles- yes.... AR glasses? Are you sure about that position. The BT-300's allow direct unaided view of the drone at all times. That would seem to satisfy the FAA requirements.

Humans have a very limited depth of field when focusing in-close. If you're focusing on a screen an inch in front of your face, it's literally impossible to see a drone further than a few inches away from your eye. It's all physics.

I realize that our eyes can auto-focus rather quickly, shifting between the screen and the aircraft, but you cannot be looking at both at the same time. Physically impossible.

But I will absolutely leave this discussion up to the experts (and the FAA) because I can't stand obstructing my view in any way shape or form while I'm flying, except maybe for actual corrective lenses, if I needed them, for distance vision, which I don't. (Yet.) So the discussion of goggles versus AR glasses are a moot point for me.

 

[Amarand]

Arguably I might be more sure- simply because I have experience flying with and without the BT-300’s. Not having to take my eyes off the drone to check telemetry/map and to frame shots gives me greater comfort.

The drone is within my direct unaided vision at all times. Looking down at a phone tablet must be considered a distraction, perhaps a greater one than having a transparent depiction of GO or another flight app in view. It requires that your eyes are taken off the drone completely.

Agreed the benefit of a clear ruling issued by the regulators would be nice. Particularly given EPSON suggests in their advertising and promotion of the BT-300’s that VLOS requirements are satisfied while their product is being used to operate drones.

Experience flying with impaired vision as the PIC does not make your position any more or less valid, or wearing your devices any more or less legal in the eyes of the FAA.

 

[Amarand]

In only one of those scenarios might a reasonable argument be offered that the AR glasses enhance safety. Think about how often visual on the drone is completely lost to look at the phone tablet being used to fly with.

I use the BT-300’s so I don’t need to loose direct VLOS to the drone under any circumstances.

I would argue - as a photographer who knows the physics of depth of field, distance to subject, and how our eyes and brains work - that it's actually just as distracting to stare at a screen in front of your eyes. You have a field of vision about the size of your thumbnail at a foot or two away. How large is that field of vision when it's a few centimeters. You can't see the aircraft in-focus, can you? You can either see the aircraft OR you can see the screen, but you can't see both at the same time.

That's why we have dual-diopter lenses in cinematography: so you can get close-ups in one-half of the frame, and distance in the other half. Or why people wear bifocals. Do your "AR glasses" split the field of vision? Hmm....

 

[JoeDimwit]

It amazes me that so many people claim the language the FAA uses is unclear. Newsflash people, it’s only unclear if you’re trying (hard) to find ways to avoid complying with it.

 

[brett8883]

It amazes me that so many people claim the language the FAA uses is unclear. Newsflash people, it’s only unclear if you’re trying (hard) to find ways to avoid complying with it.

I agree. The law says that “the aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” So if you can see with your own two eyes then it is being flown within VLOS. I don’t understand when it got more complicated.

 

[JoeDimwit]

I was curious and tested this and he is right. I spoke to DJI and they denied it. I just sent a video to them and still they deny that assistant is causing it but told me to turn off google assistant while flying but I cant because I need it while flying to take notes..

If the aircraft manufacturer told you to disable your assistant, I would follow their recommendations. If something goes horribly wrong, the lawyers aren’t going to care about your note taking needs, they’re going to say that you knew there was an issue, you were told by the manufacturer to disable the assistant while flying, and you ignored that advice. Guess who they are going to point the finger at...

On a side note, what notes are you taking while you’re flying? Would it be possible to have an assistant running on a device that isn’t being used to fly the craft? Would a cheap dictation device work for that?

 

[WithTheBirds]

I would argue - as a photographer who knows the physics of depth of field, distance to subject, and how our eyes and brains work - that it's actually just as distracting to stare at a screen in front of your eyes. You have a field of vision about the size of your thumbnail at a foot or two away. How large is that field of vision when it's a few centimeters. You can't see the aircraft in-focus, can you? You can either see the aircraft OR you can see the screen, but you can't see both at the same time.

That's why we have dual-diopter lenses in cinematography: so you can get close-ups in one-half of the frame, and distance in the other half. Or why people wear bifocals. Do your "AR glasses" split the field of vision? Hmm....

You have almost certainly completely failed to understand how the BT-300's work.

Your analogy has no relevance. No splitting field of vision required.

I have the common age related presbyopia with associated difficulty focusing on very close objects without the aid of what most would call reading glasses. I don't need any form of optical correction to see the display depicted in the BT300's as razor sharp. The virtual screen does not appear to be directly in front of your face. The virtual screen looks like you are 5 feet or a little more from an 80" panel which comes nowhere close to occupying the full visual field. If the screen was

Yes you can focus on the drone and the screen at the same time, or at least it seems that way. There I absolutely no perceived difficulty in switching between drone and screen. You think AR hasn't progressed to the point where the projection can appear to be in the natural field of view without constant need to focus on both seperately? I'm sure EPSON had the need for natural integration of the projection and reality at the top of the design criteria list.

In the absence of actually trying the glasses for yourself you might be unlikely to be convinced. It is difficult for you to maintain a valid opinion though.

 

[Lon Denard]

OK.....
What do you say about driving down the interstate with youir BT-300's on?? Never is the obvious answer, why would piloting a dangerous drone be any different than driving a car?

Nah, then heads up displays would be a problem in cars.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Humans have a very limited depth of field when focusing in-close. If you're focusing on a screen an inch in front of your face, it's literally impossible to see a drone further than a few inches away from your eye. It's all physics.

I realize that our eyes can auto-focus rather quickly, shifting between the screen and the aircraft, but you cannot be looking at both at the same time. Physically impossible.

But I will absolutely leave this discussion up to the experts (and the FAA) because I can't stand obstructing my view in any way shape or form while I'm flying, except maybe for actual corrective lenses, if I needed them, for distance vision, which I don't. (Yet.) So the discussion of goggles versus AR glasses are a moot point for me.

Make sure you don't look down at your phone/tablet while PIC. I wear the AR glasses so I don't need to.

 

[brett8883]

Nah, then heads up displays would be a problem in cars.

And fighter pilots.

 

[Lon Denard]

I would argue - as a photographer who knows the physics of depth of field, distance to subject, and how our eyes and brains work - that it's actually just as distracting to stare at a screen in front of your eyes. You have a field of vision about the size of your thumbnail at a foot or two away. How large is that field of vision when it's a few centimeters. You can't see the aircraft in-focus, can you? You can either see the aircraft OR you can see the screen, but you can't see both at the same time.

That's why we have dual-diopter lenses in cinematography: so you can get close-ups in one-half of the frame, and distance in the other half. Or why people wear bifocals. Do your "AR glasses" split the field of vision? Hmm....

As someone who has used weapon systems that overlay data heads up, I had no problem tracking targets and monitoring tone lock/ iff data.

 

[Lon Denard]

And fighter pilots.

And air defense systems...

 

[AnzacJack]

I’d love to try these BT glasses. From what I read of them, i feel that I would love them. But I’m concerned that the screen/video from drone would appear to be to small or hard to see detail? I just have trouble imagining how good they could be in practice. The theory sounds great, but big $ outlay without being able to check first. I also where glasses. I feel I want these, but want to check them first and I can’t seem to find any to play with where I am

 

[WithTheBirds]

I’d love to try these BT glasses. From what I read of them, i feel that I would love them. But I’m concerned that the screen/video from drone would appear to be to small or hard to see detail? I just have trouble imagining how good they could be in practice. The theory sounds great, but big $ outlay without being able to check first. I also where glasses. I feel I want these, but want to check them first and I can’t seem to find any to play with where I am

The image quality (having regard to the 720 vertical resolution quoted in the specs) is ridiculous. No problems seeing all the settings displayed in GO4. With the controller mounted on the Mavic RC it’s a breeze to change settings without taking your eyes off the drone also. FPV is crystal clear, framing shots is a dream.

 

[Kilrah]

Humans have a very limited depth of field when focusing in-close. If you're focusing on a screen an inch in front of your face, it's literally impossible to see a drone further than a few inches away from your eye. It's all physics.

Except you're completely ignoring that the screen isn't an inch from your face, it's optically projected at a distance precisely so you don't need to refocus.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Except you're completely ignoring that the screen isn't an inch from your face, it's optically projected at a distance precisely so you don't need to refocus.

I expect that is the case and a deliberate engineering decision. It is quoted (and certainly appears to be the case in practice) the virtual screen is 80 inches at 5 m - 320 inches at 20 m (16:9) format with an apparent FOV of 23deg. The assumption you might be focussing on a .43” OLED panel directly in front of your eyeball is ridiculous... The reality probably is that the first time the image is focussed is on the back of your eyeball.

 

[Amarand]

You have almost certainly completely failed to understand how the BT-300's work.

Luckily, I am not the judge nor jury you’ll have to convince if the FAA finds you in violation of the “unobstructed vision” rule.

As to the other folks comparing these glasses to a car’s heads-up display, those went away decades ago. Maybe they’ll make a resurgence? Cars are not SUAV. SUAV Do Not fall under the same rules.

Fighter pilots. Okay, well, that’s a manned aircraft. You’re inside the jet (or other aircraft) flying. You have peripheral vision. You are not flying under SUAV rules, you’re flying under a completely different set of rules.

I’ll be interested to see how these devices hold up in the field, and how they are accepted by the legal community and the FAA rule makers as relates to SUAV operation. (Again, not a judge or jury or police officer or random stranger on the street. We are not likely to ever meet in person.)

 

[ac0j]

Nah, then heads up displays would be a problem in cars.

Only if the heads up was playing a movie and showing your social media pages as you were driving.
I cannot relate to using the goggles because I am not going to spend that kind of money on something of no use to me. Mostly just curious how the FAA will eventually rule on them. Pretty sure a commercial pilot would not be allowed to use them.