Using two controllers for 7 mile river crossing

[sar104]

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.

DJI specs for the M2 list 18 km at 50 km/hr.

 

[marcbyron]

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.

Thank you. This post was about the technical challenges of such an undertaking. If I get all technical issues resolved, and VLOS is the only thing in the way, I'll make sure that VLOS is maintained for the whole flight.

 

[sar104]

Thank you. This post was about the technical challenges of such an undertaking. If I get all technical issues resolved, and VLOS is the only thing in the way, I'll make sure that VLOS is maintained for the whole flight.

It's an interesting challenge, because the only way that you can do that for 7 miles is to follow the aircraft, and while that's permissible in this situation under 107.25, you are going to need a fast boat to keep up. That is the legal solution though.

 

[BigAl07]

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..."

For the record, "I might have to ask a couple of buddies in boats and walkie talkies along the way to ensure VLOS" does not satisfy the VLOS requirement for you the RPIC. You (or whoever is the RPIC of the flight) are required to be ABLE to see the aircraft during the entire flight. Additional VO's do not relieve the RPIC of that legal requirement. If you are using a VO who is there to allow the RPIC to momentarily look down and not keep eyes on the aircraft must be in direct contact with the RPIC without " communication devices" and co-located with the RPIC.

I appreciate your attitude and demeanor. I have no ill will towards you and sincerely hope you can find a way to safely and legally make this project happen.

 

[dawgpilot]

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.

Iceland doesn't, for smaller (lighter) drones, if you in a lesser populated area and the flight can be done safely without endangering persons & property:

REGULATION No. 990/2017 on the operation of remotely piloted aircraft
CHAPTER II, Article 12, Paragraph 9:

9. Remotely piloted aircraft flights shall always be conducted within visual line of sight of a
remote pilot or an RPA observer of a remotely piloted aircraft. However, a remotely piloted
aircraft weighing less than 3 kg may be flown beyond visual line of sight of a remote pilot in
case of flights outside densely populated and habited areas, provided that spacing is ensured
and provided that the flight does not threaten persons, animals and manned aircraft or causes
damage to property or disruption to bird colonies or wildlife habitats.

 

[dawgpilot]

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.

I could have sworn I saw an approved VLOS waiver on the FAA website for a (non government) mining company where they didn't have a better way to do safety exams of large mining quarries.

 

[GadgetGuy]

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.

Stirring the pot was certainly not my intent. Clarity was.
My post was really in defense of poor @RadioFlyerMan , who got caught in the crossfire, while only trying to be helpful. Thank you for editing and clarifying your original post. I assumed that it was clearly a mistake, which you have confirmed.

You are also, apparently, uniquely privy to inside information about what country a post originates from (unless there is something I am missing that tells everyone the same thing?), which adds another layer of context only you would know about. I looked very carefully to see if there was anything that told us where the OP lived, and based upon everything I could discern, he could have been anywhere. All we knew was he wrote in English and used Imperial measurements, as no location info was included in his profile or in his post

Therefore, a cautionary statement that such a flight in the United States would be legally problematic certainly makes sense, and is helpful. As written, without the above new context, and inside information, it did assume facts that we were not privy to, and became a global statement that ignored the possibilty, however remote, that such a flight could be legal elsewhere (and could even be legal here in the U.S. from a fast boat crossing the river!).

Happily, the OP is looking for technical feasibility and legality in our own backyard.
Good discussion all around, even if we initially got off on the wrong foot!

Thank you for being the voice of reason, and all you do to make the forum a better place!

 

[sar104]

I could have sworn I saw an approved VLOS waiver on the FAA website for a (non government) mining company where they didn't have a better way to do safety exams of large mining quarries.

I wasn't aware of that, but maybe so. At some point they will also likely be waiving these requirements for Amazon and others. In the meantime, it still seems very unlikely that they would do that for private individuals' pet projects, however worthy, and also not if there is an alternative 107-compliant way to achieve the same goal.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I could have sworn I saw an approved VLOS waiver on the FAA website for a (non government) mining company where they didn't have a better way to do safety exams of large mining quarries.

If I recall correctly, that was in Alaska, wasn't it?

 

[marcbyron]

For the record, "I might have to ask a couple of buddies in boats and walkie talkies along the way to ensure VLOS" does not satisfy the VLOS requirement for you the RPIC. You (or whoever is the RPIC of the flight) are required to be ABLE to see the aircraft during the entire flight. Additional VO's do not relieve the RPIC of that legal requirement. If you are using a VO who is there to allow the RPIC to momentarily look down and not keep eyes on the aircraft must be in direct contact with the RPIC without " communication devices" and co-located with the RPIC.

I appreciate your attitude and demeanor. I have no ill will towards you and sincerely hope you can find a way to safely and legally make this project happen.

Thanks for the additional info. So, guys in boats with walkie talkies won't work. But we're still discussing legalities here, when my initial question was if this is feasible from a technical standpoint. Once I have figured out how to have the M2P cross the river with 2 controllers, then I will look at the necessary legal approvals to get this thing done. To be clear: I won't take the bird across the river if a) it won't work from a technical standpoint, or b) can't get FAA or whatever clearance necessary to do so. Until then it's a hypothetical experiment that I will continue thinking about every time I look outside my window and see the other side.

 

[sar104]

Thanks for the additional info. So, guys in boats with walkie talkies won't work. But we're still discussing legalities here, when my initial question was if this is feasible from a technical standpoint. Once I have figured out how to have the M2P cross the river with 2 controllers, then I will look at the necessary legal approvals to get this thing done. To be clear: I won't take the bird across the river if a) it won't work from a technical standpoint, or b) can't get FAA or whatever clearance necessary to do so. Until then it's a hypothetical experiment that I will continue thinking about every time I look outside my window and see the other side.

I thought the technical question had been settled. You can do this as a waypoint mission using Litchi. You cannot do it with two controllers, because you can only bind the FC to one controller at a time, and you cannot rebind the aircraft to a new controller in mid-flight.

 

[BigAl07]

I thought the technical question had been settled. You can do this as a waypoint mission using Litchi. You cannot do it with two controllers, because you can only bind the FC to one controller at a time, and you cannot rebind the aircraft to a new controller in mid-flight.

^^^^^^ Very accurate!!

In terms of "2nd controller" and handing off the control of the aircraft, as of right now the FAA does not have an allowance/waiver for "Daisy Chain" type of control hand-off. I'm sure at some point this will be addressed and "allowed" but as of right now it's illegal.

 

[thumperer]

I am planning to do a river crossing, for which I would require two people with two controllers (M2P remote plus Smart Controller) on both sides of the river. The M2P would depart from one side of the river, using one controller and at half way point the person on the other side of the river would take over using the Smart Controller. The distance between both ends is about 7 miles, putting the half way point at 3.5 miles.

Is this even possible?
Some questions I have for this setup:
- How can I set up M2P to have 2 controllers connected at the same time?
- Assuming that 7 miles is too far to keep the connection, how can I connect to the M2P with a 2nd controller while in mid-flight approaching the other side?
- If connected to both controllers at the same time, do both controllers have full control over the drone?
- Will both controllers receive a video feed?

I would suggest 1 thing: Do your testing 7 miles apart OVER TERRA FIRMA

 

[sar104]

^^^^^^ Very accurate!!

In terms of "2nd controller" and handing off the control of the aircraft, as of right now the FAA does not have an allowance/waiver for "Daisy Chain" type of control hand-off. I'm sure at some point this will be addressed and "allowed" but as of right now it's illegal.

Agreed - but additionally it's not technically possible with DJI aircraft/controllers.

 

[marcbyron]

You cannot do it with two controllers, because you can only bind the FC to one controller at a time, and you cannot rebind the aircraft to a new controller in mid-flight.

Not entirely true. I should have googled a little better before starting this post, but I also wanted to get some feedback from M2P owners if anyone had tried river crossings (or any crossings) before using two controllers.

 

[marcbyron]

Agreed - but additionally it's not technically possible with DJI aircraft/controllers.

Well, it actually is:

I just successfully connected both controllers at the same time, using the primary/secondary controller function as described in this video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I also made a quick landing video, showing the SC as primary, and the iPhone and M2P controller as secondary controller. Both controllers get the same video feeds - it's actually pretty cool. It is also possible to connect any of the controllers at any time. For example, I had to restart the SC, because there is a bug with the video feed. When I turned it back on, I got connected again - while the iPhone/M2P controller were always connected. Now I just have to do some testing - if this works over a distance. Will do my first trial run tomorrow.

 

[marcbyron]

I would suggest 1 thing: Do your testing 7 miles apart OVER TERRA FIRMA

I will try it with smaller distances first, and take it from there

 

[marcbyron]

^^^^^^ Very accurate!!

In terms of "2nd controller" and handing off the control of the aircraft, as of right now the FAA does not have an allowance/waiver for "Daisy Chain" type of control hand-off. I'm sure at some point this will be addressed and "allowed" but as of right now it's illegal.

I just tried it out. It's not a hand-off, both controllers are connected at the same time.

 

[sar104]

Well, it actually is:

I just successfully connected both controllers at the same time, using the primary/secondary controller function as described in this video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I also made a quick landing video, showing the SC as primary, and the iPhone and M2P controller as secondary controller. Both controllers get the same video feeds - it's actually pretty cool. It is also possible to connect any of the controllers at any time. For example, I had to restart the SC, because there is a bug with the video feed. When I turned it back on, I got connected again - while the iPhone/M2P controller were always connected. Now I just have to do some testing - if this works over a distance. Will do my first trial run tomorrow.

View attachment 80759

I just tried it out. It's not a hand-off, both controllers are connected at the same time.

That dual mode is intended for the secondary controller to control the gimbal and aircraft yaw. You can't fly the aircraft with the secondary controller.

 

[marcbyron]

That dual mode is intended for the secondary controller to control the gimbal and aircraft yaw. You can't fly the aircraft with the secondary controller.

Yes, you can. It even says it in the DJI video. Primary controller always has priority. If you release the stick, then the secondary controller can take over after a 2 second wait. Same for gimbal dial.