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

[Amarand]

I do believe it makes a difference, legally, if you're flying non-commercial/hobbyist versus Part 107, commercially. The rules are slightly different, and not to be confused.

Also, while I do see your point (that Goggles are different from the Epson Moverio BT-300FPV), I'm not sure I completely agree that the Moverio aren't a distraction, nor that they aren't vision-impeding, and I can't imagine trying to focus on something virtually "five feet away" and still being able to clearly maintain visual focus on an object, say, 100 or a 1000 feet away.

Amazon.com: Epson Moverio BT-300FPV Smart Glasses (FPV/Drone Edition)

Amazon.com: Epson Moverio BT-300FPV Smart Glasses (FPV/Drone Edition)

www.amazon.com

But, again, technology is moving way too fast for a regulatory agency as large as the FAA. Hopefully they won't restrict the hobby more, but they are much more likely to do so, as more and more SUAVs are purchased and flown with little to no training or discipline.

Anyone treating an SUAV like a military fighter pilot is missing the point - and years of training, practice and military support (personnel and resources) that go into each manned flight.

Anyone treating an SUAV like a ground-based vehicle forgets that you can stop a car (truck, bicycle, motorcycle, unicycle) within a few seconds, pull off to the side of the road. And if your vehicle stops, you're probably fine. With an SUAV, that can fall on someone. That's why there are increased safety rules in place.

You aren't a fighter pilot when you are flying an SUAV.

 

[Amarand]

It's also interesting, when posting in these forums, to see that there's a nice spectrum of people ranging from "IDGAF about the rules, I fly how I want!" all the way over to "I follow the rules very closely, to the letter of the law, because safety is paramount in my log book."

My guess is, if you ever get dragged into court due to your SUAV flying habits, where you lie on that spectrum will impact how you're viewed by the jury.

Just something to consider....

 

[Simmo]

What was the OP on about??
Oh yeah... Using Google Assistant or similar...

 

[Amarand]

What was the OP on about??
Oh yeah... Using Google Assistant or similar...

I think this shifted a bit into distractions in general, and how they're "frowned upon" by the FAA when you're the PIC.

 

[Kilrah]

As to the other folks comparing these glasses to a car’s heads-up display, those went away decades ago.

Many recent cars have HUDs and those are available as third party add-ons as well.

 

[ac0j]

What was the OP on about??
Oh yeah... Using Google Assistant or similar...

While connected to a phone and goggles.

 

[ac0j]

Many recent cars have HUDs and those are available as third party add-ons as well.

Yes I saw them in Mazda’s a year or so ago BUT, it displays minimal information. Like speed and warnings.

 

[Amarand]

Yes I saw them in Mazda’s a year or so ago BUT, it displays minimal information. Like speed and warnings.

With distracted driving being fairly high on the list of things law enforcement are trying to crack down on, I imagine HUDs and the like are going to get simpler and simpler for the driver.

Major players like Apple (CarPlay) and even Spotify the past few weeks has a "Car Mode" which simplifies the interface to reduce distractions.

So I think you're going to see fewer features in HUDs, to reduce or even eliminate the distraction factor.

Seeing the Moverio "example" picture on Amazon makes me feel like it's just a huge distraction from actually flying the SUAV as intended. (This does not look safe.)

 

[ac0j]

With distracted driving being fairly high on the list of things law enforcement are trying to crack down on, I imagine HUDs and the like are going to get simpler and simpler for the driver.

Major players like Apple (CarPlay) and even Spotify the past few weeks has a "Car Mode" which simplifies the interface to reduce distractions.

So I think you're going to see fewer features in HUDs, to reduce or even eliminate the distraction factor.

Seeing the Moverio "example" picture on Amazon makes me feel like it's just a huge distraction from actually flying the SUAV as intended. (This does not look safe.)

View attachment 72621

It isn’t. But the owners of these things will disagree until there is a problem because of them and it makes the news.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I do believe it makes a difference, legally, if you're flying non-commercial/hobbyist versus Part 107, commercially. The rules are slightly different, and not to be confused.

Also, while I do see your point (that Goggles are different from the Epson Moverio BT-300FPV), I'm not sure I completely agree that the Moverio aren't a distraction, nor that they aren't vision-impeding, and I can't imagine trying to focus on something virtually "five feet away" and still being able to clearly maintain visual focus on an object, say, 100 or a 1000 feet away.

http://[URL]https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B01MTETURM/phantomhelp5-20

[/URL]

But, again, technology is moving way too fast for a regulatory agency as large as the FAA. Hopefully they won't restrict the hobby more, but they are much more likely to do so, as more and more SUAVs are purchased and flown with little to no training or discipline.

Anyone treating an SUAV like a military fighter pilot is missing the point - and years of training, practice and military support (personnel and resources) that go into each manned flight.

Anyone treating an SUAV like a ground-based vehicle forgets that you can stop a car (truck, bicycle, motorcycle, unicycle) within a few seconds, pull off to the side of the road. And if your vehicle stops, you're probably fine. With an SUAV, that can fall on someone. That's why there are increased safety rules in place.

You aren't a fighter pilot when you are flying an SUAV.

View attachment 72604

I should have said 5m. That is the virtual image is 5 Metres away. I went from metric to imperial without doing the conversion.

You don't have to agree. It would be nice to think you fully understood the product (preferably experienced the actual performance) prior to forming such a strong view.

EPSON and many others are arguing the VLOS requirement is maintained. On a literal interpretation of the statute this is certainly true, unaided direct observation of the sUAV is maintained while they are being used. A fact that can be easily demonstrated.

That is the end of the story.

Your personal preference as to whether they might suit you is irrelevant to the question of legality of use.

Btw- even if the screen was totally opaque simply tilting your head forward and looking directly over the top of the frame gives a completely unobstructed view.

 

[ac0j]

I should have said 5m. That is the virtual image is 5 Metres away. I went from metric to imperial without doing the conversion.

You don't have to agree. It would be nice to think you fully understood the product (preferably experienced the actual performance) prior to forming such a strong view.

EPSON and many others are arguing the VLOS requirement is maintained. On a literal interpretation of the statute this is certainly true, unaided direct observation of the sUAV is maintained while they are being used. A fact that can be easily demonstrated.

That is the end of the story.

Your personal preference as to whether they might suit you is irrelevant to the question of legality of use.

Btw- even if the screen was totally opaque simply tilting your head forward and looking directly over the top of the frame gives a completely unobstructed view.

I still argue that anything that projects a display screen directly in your field of view playing video and data streams could hold your attention would be considered an obstruction.
So, opaque or not You are saying that until you tilt your head to look over them your view was at least partially obstructed?

 

[WithTheBirds]

I still argue that anything that projects a display screen directly in your field of view playing video and data streams could hold your attention would be considered an obstruction.
So, opaque or not You are saying that until you tilt your head to look over them your view was at least partially obstructed?

Reframe your argument to include "distraction" rather than "obstruction" and it would seem to have more merit. A distraction arguably of less consequence than having to take your eyes off the drone entirely while looking at the App screen.

To the extent the question remains one of whether use of the BT-300's would satisfy VLOS and looking at your earlier posting including the relevant provisions;

(1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft

Both conditions are satisfied.

I was saying that looking over the glasses to have a completely clear view is a trivial exercise. I wasn't suggesting it has been necessary in practice.

I wouldn't fly with goggles even if their use was approved simply because maintaining a real time visual on the drone is critical to me. I can do this with the BT-300's.

@EpsonMoverio Any chance you might provide any clarification on what the FAA and/or other aviation regulatory authorities position is with respect to the Moverio's and the VLOS's requirements?

 

[ac0j]

Reframe your argument to include "distraction" rather than "obstruction" and it would seem to have more merit. A distraction arguably of less consequence than having to take your eyes off the drone entirely while looking at the App screen.

To the extent the question remains one of whether use of the BT-300's would satisfy VLOS and looking at your earlier posting including the relevant provisions;

(1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft

Both conditions are satisfied.

I was saying that looking over the glasses to have a completely clear view is a trivial exercise. I wasn't suggesting it has been necessary in practice.

I wouldn't fly with goggles even if their use was approved simply because maintaining a real time visual on the drone is critical to me. I can do this with the BT-300's.

@EpsonMoverio Any chance you might provide any clarification on what the FAA and/or other aviation regulatory authorities position is with respect to the Moverio's and the VLOS's requirements?

I have researched the BT300 and now understand what they are. I dont see the need for them, but I get what you are saying. Distraction IS a better would I agree. but still as relevant as an obstruction I would think. If you have the video stream of the flight right in your face, that is what you will be drawn to most of the time (I think I would) otherwise, they seem like a waste of money if you arent using that projected image all the time.....
Again, I dont mean to tell anyone what to do with their money and equipment, just that I could foresee a legal issue at some point in the future because of them.. Maybe the user walking off a cliff or in front of traffic while using them.
Until something happens as a result of using goggles or fpv glasses it is a non issue for now!

 

[WithTheBirds]

I have researched the BT300 and now understand what they are. I dont see the need for them, but I get what you are saying. Distraction IS a better would I agree. but still as relevant as an obstruction I would think. If you have the video stream of the flight right in your face, that is what you will be drawn to most of the time (I think I would) otherwise, they seem like a waste of money if you arent using that projected image all the time.....
Again, I dont mean to tell anyone what to do with their money and equipment, just that I could foresee a legal issue at some point in the future because of them.. Maybe the user walking off a cliff or in front of traffic while using them.
Until something happens as a result of using goggles or fpv glasses it is a non issue for now!

All good and fair enough- they won't be for everyone obviously.

It still would seem purely from a literal interpretation of the regulations that the fact you can maintain an unaided visual connection with the drone VLOS is satisfied.

I spend a lot of time while flying tweaking camera settings and framing shots so for my use case I now spend a lot more time looking at the drone than I did without the glasses.

 

[Simmo]

@ac0j I think mate people already have walked into traffic or similar by looking down at their phone. People looking straight ahead, I'm sure that the numbers are less.....

 

[ac0j]

@ac0j I think mate people already have walked into traffic or similar by looking down at their phone. People looking straight ahead, I'm sure that the numbers are less.....

You are right LOL! Totally on-obstructed view but totally distracted. Just did a youtube search tons of hits like this;

 

[gnirtS]

From what I've read in these forums, using Android with DJI is riskier in general, compared to iOS.

Mark

I wouldnt believe everything you read online.

Android makes up 80% of the mobile device market and most of us are flying without issue and have been for years on countless devices.
A tiny number of devices (usually Samsung) have some issues (because they're a long way from true android in terms of altered OS) but thats about it.

This entire thread is junk - using an assistant in no way affects the app or drone control.

 

[DRM001]

I still argue that anything that projects a display screen directly in your field of view playing video and data streams could hold your attention would be considered an obstruction.
So, opaque or not You are saying that until you tilt your head to look over them your view was at least partially obstructed?

Not sticking up for the OP as he obviously panicked and was not in control but with the correct training a HUD must be the best way of receiving valuable information because... wait for it... Fighter Pilots! If they can fly at supersonic speeds without crashing I’m sure we can manage the confines of sport mode haha

 

[Deleted member 94047]

This is like the undying thread.

 

[DRM001]

This is like the undying thread.

Yeah I’m close to unsubscribing but I think it’s just morbid curiosity that keeps me here now lol