Using two controllers for 7 mile river crossing

[RadioFlyerMan]

That "should" work.

You do realize you're openly suggesting, on the internet, that you're going to intentionally violate Federal Regulations?

Not me, I’m not going to do it. I was simply pointing out the technical loopholes in drone technology that allows such a thing. No VLOS, lack of continuous control. As I said it’s crazy.

 

[GadgetGuy]

His opening line is ‘I am planning to do a river crossing...’. That is not hypothetical. I am not aware of any country where the drone regs do not state the operator must maintain visual contact with the drone.

I don’t care whether he breaches regs or not but it is clear that of technically possible the flight will be made.

Had he started the whole thing off with for example ‘Suppose someone wanted to fly 7 miles straight out...’ - that would be hypothetical.

@BigAl07's reply was specifically directed to @RadioFlyerMan, @and not the OP.
While this may have been a mistake by @BigAl07 , that's who he addressed his reply to, and not the OP, who wanted to know how he could complete the task, possibly using to controllers and two pilots.

@RadioFlyerMan's sole post was,

"Would this work?...
Use one controller
Plan waypoints to your destination
Set the flight speed to something slow
Set the end point to hover
Start the flight of waypoints
Turn off the controller
Get in your car and drive ASAP to your destination
Turn the controller on to establish connection
Land

(Crazy, man... crazy!)"

This was a hypothetical technical solution to the OP's post, in the form of a question.
@RadioFlyerMan isn't planning on doing anything, and he even said his hypothetical solution was crazy!

As to your other point, VLOS is most certainly not a world-wide requirement.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Not me, I’m not going to do it. I was simply pointing out the technical loopholes in drone technology that allows such a thing. No VLOS, lack of continuous control. As I said it’s crazy.

Exactly!

 

[BigAl07]

With all due respect, the actual poster you are replying to is not going to do anything— his post was merely a hypothetical, technical, feasibility question, of "would this work?". The legality of such a hypothetical flight is a completely separate issue, for which there might be other additional solutions, that would accompany the technical solution. The OP also never provided any location information for the flight, from which one could make a determination that Federal Regulations have any relevance, and the OP has also not publicly listed his location, from which the flight location might even be inferred. We are continually asked to be mindful that we have a global international membership, and that certainly applies here, too. Federal Regulations, assuming they are even applicable, only apply to flights made in the United States. We don't have enough information to make that determination. For all we know, this is a flight for a planned vacation in a foreign country, assuming the OP is an American pilot, for which we also have no basis, other than he writes in English and is using Imperial distances.

You just can't help but try and stir the pot lately sir.

A) I have gone back and edited my post for CLARITY about who my legal comment was referring to. I fully admit that was an oversight on my behalf not pointing that out in my previous post. I'll own that one.

While the OP did not state where he intends to do this flight he IS in the USA (or at least he posted this from the USA) so it is fairly easy to assume, without other clarification, it will be a USA flight. Surely you can agree that most people will state they are planning to travel and fly at XYZ when they post such a question. I believe it's more than fair to make this assumption here as well.

The way I look at it we, as a community that does know (to some degree anyway) what the current laws/regulations are, need to at least MENTION when something is presumed to be a potential illegal and/or dangerous operation. It's not being the Drone Police but rather a good Citizen of the Drone Community trying to inform someone that their idea/suggestion might not be entirely legal.

I stand by what I said regardless.

 

[BigAl07]

Not me, I’m not going to do it. I was simply pointing out the technical loopholes in drone technology that allows such a thing. No VLOS, lack of continuous control. As I said it’s crazy.

I edited my previous post as I did not clarify myself clearly. I was replying to your post AND to the OP and did not make that clear. Sorry about that one.

 

[dannybgoode]

@BigAl07's

As to your other point, VLOS is most certainly not a world-wide requirement.

Genuinely interested; which countries do not require VLOS (and / or have a maximum distance of a few 100 metres)?

They're the kind of countries I'd like to visit.

 

[Kazzaaz]

I have noticed a lot more potentially interesting threads being completely ruined by this sort of peer-policing.
For example, my question about the original post - the controller - was ignored and instead we continue to lurch into the same armchair lawyer chat we see on every thread should someone even think to fly in a way which might not be legal.

These guys are flying over a RIVER, people. No buildings, no people, clear unobstructed vision, and no reason to expect any sort of high-altitude flight.
In such an environment it is entirely possible to maintain VLOS, especially with people on both ends.

And if VLOS was broken in this situation, would that really be as catastrophic as it is being made to sound here?
I understand there are laws for a reason and I agree the community has a responsibility to hold each other to a safe and ethical standard.
But discussions like this, over and over, are starting to take away the enjoyment of being a part of it.

 

[marcbyron]

Would this work?...
Use one controller
Plan waypoints to your destination
Set the flight speed to something slow
Set the end point to hover
Start the flight of waypoints
Turn off the controller
Get in your car and drive ASAP to your destination
Turn the controller on to establish connection
Land

(Crazy, man... crazy!)

Interesting idea The problem is, with the geographical surroundings and how bridges are set up on that river, it would take me 45 minutes to an hour to drive to the other side - the drone will only need 18 minutes...

 

[marcbyron]

I have noticed a lot more potentially interesting threads being completely ruined by this sort of peer-policing.
For example, my question about the original post - the controller - was ignored and instead we continue to lurch into the same armchair lawyer chat we see on every thread should someone even think to fly in a way which might not be legal.

These guys are flying over a RIVER, people. No buildings, no people, clear unobstructed vision, and no reason to expect any sort of high-altitude flight.
In such an environment it is entirely possible to maintain VLOS, especially with people on both ends.

And if VLOS was broken in this situation, would that really be as catastrophic as it is being made to sound here?
I understand there are laws for a reason and I agree the community has a responsibility to hold each other to a safe and ethical standard.
But discussions like this, over and over, are starting to take away the enjoyment of being a part of it.

To add some clarification to any confusion: This event will be filmed (documentary), insured, approvals gathered (if needed) and monitored by people on boats - if needed. The anticipated altitude will be 50 feet.

 

[marcbyron]

The security that prevents someone from hijacking your drone is the very reason that makes this very hard. As mentioned above, your best bet may be waypoints. With some before planning, you could test the landing site and settings by physically running that way point where you can watch it. Then just a matter of setting the waypoints leading up to that final waypoint. thorough planning always (mostly) makes for as safe and successful flight.

I've read that the M2P allows two controllers at the same time. That's why I got the SC. Just for this project (while still in planning phase). Will do some more research, trial runs and more questions on this forum (even if I get flamed - it comes with the territory)

 

[marcbyron]

That "should" work.


@marcbyron You do realize you're openly suggesting, on the internet, that you're going to intentionally violate Federal Regulations?

**Edited to add clarity as to who my comment was directed to . . ..

Not sure if I am suggesting anything illegal. I said I was PLANNING a a river crossing, flying over open water, for 7 miles. There is a 5 mile route as well, but that's in a no-fly zone (for which I could request clearance). Once I have the technical issues resolved, I will get all necessary approvals and waivers I will need, including liability insurance, as I am also planning to film this for a YouTube documentary and I want to prove a point that it IS possible to do that.

 

[marcbyron]

With all due respect, the actual poster you are replying to is not going to do anything— his post was merely a hypothetical, technical, feasibility question, of "would this work?". The legality of such a hypothetical flight is a completely separate issue, for which there might be other additional solutions, that would accompany the technical solution. The OP also never provided any location information for the flight, from which one could make a determination that Federal Regulations have any relevance, and the OP has also not publicly listed his location, from which the flight location might even be inferred. We are continually asked to be mindful that we have a global international membership, and that certainly applies here, too. Federal Regulations, assuming they are even applicable, only apply to flights made in the United States. We don't have enough information to make that determination. For all we know, this is a flight for a planned vacation in a foreign country, assuming the OP is an American pilot, for which we also have no basis, other than he writes in English and is using Imperial distances.

Thanks, man!

 

[sar104]

Not sure if I am suggesting anything illegal. I said I was PLANNING a a river crossing, flying over open water, for 7 miles. There is a 5 mile route as well, but that's in a no-fly zone (for which I could request clearance). Once I have the technical issues resolved, I will get all necessary approvals and waivers I will need, including liability insurance, as I am also planning to film this for a YouTube documentary and I want to prove a point that it IS possible to do that.

As already pointed out, the technical problem is trivial. Litchi will do this effortlessly. But if this is in the US then the waiver for BVLOS will be quite a challenge. We get them via the SGI process, but they also come with a TFR to protect other traffic. I'm not aware of any granted to non-government entities.

 

[marcbyron]

As already pointed out, the technical problem is trivial. Litchi will do this effortlessly. But if this is in the US then the waiver for BVLOS will be quite a challenge. We get them via the SGI process, but they also come with a TFR to protect other traffic. I'm not aware of any granted to non-government entities.

There shouldn't be any TFRs in that area, on that low altitude, but I know what you mean. I might have to ask a couple of buddies in boats and walkie talkies along the way to ensure VLOS. But this assumes, the technical questions have been resolved. Sigh.. I might have to keep looking out my window to the other side and keep saying "One day I'll take my drone across.. one day..."

 

[dannybgoode]

I have noticed a lot more potentially interesting threads being completely ruined by this sort of peer-policing.
For example, my question about the original post - the controller - was ignored and instead we continue to lurch into the same armchair lawyer chat we see on every thread should someone even think to fly in a way which might not be legal.

These guys are flying over a RIVER, people. No buildings, no people, clear unobstructed vision, and no reason to expect any sort of high-altitude flight.
In such an environment it is entirely possible to maintain VLOS, especially with people on both ends.

And if VLOS was broken in this situation, would that really be as catastrophic as it is being made to sound here?
I understand there are laws for a reason and I agree the community has a responsibility to hold each other to a safe and ethical standard.
But discussions like this, over and over, are starting to take away the enjoyment of being a part of it.

Your points are entirely valid regarding likely risk etc and it’s exactly the thinking I employ when deciding whether or not to perhaps deviate from the strict letter of the regs.

The counter to that though (imo at least) it is important to consider the legal aspects as well. Yes a flight across a river is minimal risk however regardless it is likely very strictly against the regs. If you can see at drone at 3.5 miles out I want to borrow your eyes!

To discuss certain operations without considering the legal aspects means it is not considered fully. Of course it’s still up to the operator to decide whether to make the flight but they should be in full knowledge of all the potential issues before making that decision. After all someone may raise a legal point they hadn’t thought about that might be important to their decision.

Further Drone pilots have enough bad rep which is why some urge caution when they see someone planning a mission that might draw unwanted attention.

As it happens I hope you can resolve the technical issues and do make the flight - I’d love to see the resulting footage

 

[sar104]

There shouldn't be any TFRs in that area, on that low altitude, but I know what you mean. I might have to ask a couple of buddies in boats and walkie talkies along the way to ensure VLOS. But this assumes, the technical questions have been resolved. Sigh.. I might have to keep looking out my window to the other side and keep saying "One day I'll take my drone across.. one day..."

I'm not talking about other TFRs - I'm referring to the TFR that the FAA puts in place when they grant you a BVLOS waiver under the SGI process.

 

[dannybgoode]

One question on the technical side - would the battery last that distance? I struggle to get more than 8-9km out of mine which is only 6 miles or so.

 

[marcbyron]

I'm not talking about other TFRs - I'm referring to the TFR that the FAA puts in place when they grant you a BVLOS waiver under the SGI process.

Will find out when I get there. This might make or break the whole project.

 

[marcbyron]

One question on the technical side - would the battery last that distance? I struggle to get more than 8-9km out of mine which is only 6 miles or so.

I might choose a narrower crossing (which would require clearance), or get a fancy 2 battery adapter
Or, I just keep dreaming...

 

[sar104]

Will find out when I get there. This might make or break the whole project.

My real point was that you won't be eligible to use the SGI process, and the FAA simply doesn't waive the VLOS requirement for non-governmental entities at present. You might want to have a preliminary talk with your local FSDO before going much further.