TheWolfen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2017
- Messages
- 218
- Reactions
- 163
- Age
- 56
Holy crap!! That one had me in disbelief even as I watched it! Someone with way more nerve than I have, that's for sure! Amazing result, though!
Who flies beyond line of sight?
- Thread starter dougiefresh27
- Start date
TheWolfen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2017
- Messages
- 218
- Reactions
- 163
- Age
- 56
Jeffm912
Well-Known Member
If I flew VLOS without glasses I'm limited to 50'. My distance vision even corrected gets me to 200'. The screen nets me 15200'. Not guilty!
Jeff
Jeff
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
If I'm out where my MP is difficult to see without strobes, having the firehouse strobe on does make it easier to see at further distances. But as others have said once you look down at your screen the quad sometimes blends into the background and takes me a bit to find it visually again. Even at 3000' out I actually feel that paying attention to your aircraft stats makes for safer flight than visually watching it. In fact even though I run red/green side strobes, I spend more time watching the map and monitor which IMO is a better way to tell what the quad is actually doing. During flight I always scan the skies off and on for other aircraft, not my drone. If I see an full sized aircraft approaching my area and feel it's not safe to try to get back to the home point, I look at the screen and lower my MP as close to the ground as possible and hover until the aircraft is gone. I've shot video of river where my quad is only out a few hundred feet and all of a sudden here comes a plane rolling down the river. All I can see is my quad, not the plane which is low and winding its way only a few hundred feet off the water towards me. I just hope the pilot sees the quads strobes in that case and/or I see em coming in my monitor. Slim chance that we'll probably see each other but also slim chance we hit each other. Still I don't want to be the guy to hit anybody or any other aircraft so I mainly fly VLOS as mentioned.
So when I fly alone I don't let the drone out of my sight, its actually further than I thought during decent conditions.
When having an visual observer with you, I can fly much further away as they can keep the drone more readily available in their eye sight as opposed to looking at a controller/drone as one person
When having an visual observer with you, I can fly much further away as they can keep the drone more readily available in their eye sight as opposed to looking at a controller/drone as one person
Cookedinlh
Well-Known Member
If you are wondering what it looks like from a drone with an approaching aircraft . . . have a look . . . If it's REALLY on a collision course with your drone . . . you each have about 6 seconds to make a decision .
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
Got a better link? I do know what it's like visually to see a plane coming at me and one time the plane was on me so fast all I had was about 3 seconds to move and that was in open terrain. My MP was less than 100' away from me at about 60 feet up. The rule is to make way for other aircraft and I did that but my move might of took me right into the path of the Cub just as well. Luckily it didn't.
Cookedinlh
Well-Known Member
Try this link to my videos . . it's about half way down this page
Remote Pilots Australia
Well-Known Member
I think some of us are on a slightly different page as regards to VLOS. I may be wrong but my take on the rules (here at least) and the slant I was given in my training for the RePL
"Unless otherwise approved, the holder of a ReOC or RePL must also adhere to the following conditions: − the RPA is operated: o by visual line of sight (VLOS) only - close enough to see, maintain orientation and achieve accurate flight and tracking"
means that your aircraft must be close enough that you must be able do all of these things, not that you must have your eyes on the aircraft all times.
It's not practical to have your eyes on the bird all the times, or safe for that matter.
During a my average commercial flight I do not have my eyes on the aircraft all the time. I'll be adjusting camera settings, scanning for aircraft if I do not have an observer with me, operating the airband radio if I am flying in controlled airspace (as required by C.A.S.A.), wrangling the ever curious public out of harms way and when I am doing an antenna or tower survey for example and flying between the guy wires or in close proximity I usually am flying by the display. I've even been known in demanding flights to let the aircraft hover (in a suitably safe and low location) and actually close my eyes for 30 seconds to allow eye strain to ease and my eyes to return to normal before continuing. While this is going on it'll still be within VLOS.
I set myself a nominal value on the day based on what aircraft I am flying and the conditions. Nominally I use 300m as my yard stick. On a really perfect day over water flying the Inspire I might stretch that to 500m, under really awful conditions flying the Spark over broken terrain it might be 30m. Whatever is safe on the day I go with, and remember I will have completed a a formalised written "Job Safety Assessment" as required in the regulations before hand so I am committed in writing to be able to justify that decision to C.A.S.A. if it went pear shaped so I take the decision very seriously.
We have to keep in mind that the rules are there for safety, we have to be focused on the aim of the rules more so than the letter of the rules. That's why they removed hard distance figures.
Is BVLOS safely possible? Yes I believe so with the right equipment and the right situation, the predator pilots seem to do OK from half a world away.. but again they have the right equipment.
Would I fly BVLOS if the rules were different? Again, yes depending on my equipment and the situation. For that matter as an RePL I can get BVLOS clearance if I am prepared to meet certain requirements and equipment standards, I've had it incorporated into my ReOC in preperation. I'm not in the least bit intimidated by it. I've been on the sticks nearly 30 years and back in the day (I'm ashamed of what I am about to admit to as a rational adult lol) I was a full time member of the Australasian champion team for a popular first person shooter for over 5 years. (no not telling but my forums name here has been a staple on gaming forums since 1999, you can web search if you like). That was 8 hours a day 6 days a week. I have a pretty good 3D situational awareness from a 2D screen but it took years to acquire. It's no coincidence that drone pilots for the government when not retired airforce pilots are often retired gamers lol.
The footage linked by Southfork1 is a perfect example. Could I fly that mission? Yes. Would I fly that mission? If the rules allowed it or I was given an exemption to fly it, again Yes.
It was a rural location, obviously below any possibility of airspace conflict with manned aviation down there in the canyon, although I saw one person at far left of shot just past the 3 minutes point there was no one within 30m of the aircraft. Formal risk rating to people would be 0 or 1, formal risk assessment to airframe woutd be 3 or 4. That won't mean anything to anyone who isn't an Australian RePL but suffice to say it would be permitted on the basis of risk if you were seeking clearance so (and I stress) with the right equipment why not? It'd would be incredibly rewarding and at wost I'd be out an aircraft.
On the other hand I won't fly over a built up area even within VLOS and with approval. Others might, I'm not comfortable with it.
I think given time as technology gains and the public and the government become aware of the realities of R.P.A. possibilities vs risks we're going to be given a conditional set of rules under which BVLOS will be allowed much like night flying is now in the U.S. It won't be allowed everywhere but it will be stipulated in which locations and which airspace and with which equipment and what risk mitigation must be in place.
Until that day arrives however, you'll always find my aircraft within VLOS.
*sigh* another short story, and I even refrained from cutting and pasting the legislation and the risk assessment charts
apologies everyone.
Regards
Ari
"Unless otherwise approved, the holder of a ReOC or RePL must also adhere to the following conditions: − the RPA is operated: o by visual line of sight (VLOS) only - close enough to see, maintain orientation and achieve accurate flight and tracking"
means that your aircraft must be close enough that you must be able do all of these things, not that you must have your eyes on the aircraft all times.
It's not practical to have your eyes on the bird all the times, or safe for that matter.
During a my average commercial flight I do not have my eyes on the aircraft all the time. I'll be adjusting camera settings, scanning for aircraft if I do not have an observer with me, operating the airband radio if I am flying in controlled airspace (as required by C.A.S.A.), wrangling the ever curious public out of harms way and when I am doing an antenna or tower survey for example and flying between the guy wires or in close proximity I usually am flying by the display. I've even been known in demanding flights to let the aircraft hover (in a suitably safe and low location) and actually close my eyes for 30 seconds to allow eye strain to ease and my eyes to return to normal before continuing. While this is going on it'll still be within VLOS.
I set myself a nominal value on the day based on what aircraft I am flying and the conditions. Nominally I use 300m as my yard stick. On a really perfect day over water flying the Inspire I might stretch that to 500m, under really awful conditions flying the Spark over broken terrain it might be 30m. Whatever is safe on the day I go with, and remember I will have completed a a formalised written "Job Safety Assessment" as required in the regulations before hand so I am committed in writing to be able to justify that decision to C.A.S.A. if it went pear shaped so I take the decision very seriously.
We have to keep in mind that the rules are there for safety, we have to be focused on the aim of the rules more so than the letter of the rules. That's why they removed hard distance figures.
Is BVLOS safely possible? Yes I believe so with the right equipment and the right situation, the predator pilots seem to do OK from half a world away.. but again they have the right equipment.
Would I fly BVLOS if the rules were different? Again, yes depending on my equipment and the situation. For that matter as an RePL I can get BVLOS clearance if I am prepared to meet certain requirements and equipment standards, I've had it incorporated into my ReOC in preperation. I'm not in the least bit intimidated by it. I've been on the sticks nearly 30 years and back in the day (I'm ashamed of what I am about to admit to as a rational adult lol) I was a full time member of the Australasian champion team for a popular first person shooter for over 5 years. (no not telling but my forums name here has been a staple on gaming forums since 1999, you can web search if you like). That was 8 hours a day 6 days a week. I have a pretty good 3D situational awareness from a 2D screen but it took years to acquire. It's no coincidence that drone pilots for the government when not retired airforce pilots are often retired gamers lol.
The footage linked by Southfork1 is a perfect example. Could I fly that mission? Yes. Would I fly that mission? If the rules allowed it or I was given an exemption to fly it, again Yes.
It was a rural location, obviously below any possibility of airspace conflict with manned aviation down there in the canyon, although I saw one person at far left of shot just past the 3 minutes point there was no one within 30m of the aircraft. Formal risk rating to people would be 0 or 1, formal risk assessment to airframe woutd be 3 or 4. That won't mean anything to anyone who isn't an Australian RePL but suffice to say it would be permitted on the basis of risk if you were seeking clearance so (and I stress) with the right equipment why not? It'd would be incredibly rewarding and at wost I'd be out an aircraft.
On the other hand I won't fly over a built up area even within VLOS and with approval. Others might, I'm not comfortable with it.
I think given time as technology gains and the public and the government become aware of the realities of R.P.A. possibilities vs risks we're going to be given a conditional set of rules under which BVLOS will be allowed much like night flying is now in the U.S. It won't be allowed everywhere but it will be stipulated in which locations and which airspace and with which equipment and what risk mitigation must be in place.
Until that day arrives however, you'll always find my aircraft within VLOS.
*sigh* another short story, and I even refrained from cutting and pasting the legislation and the risk assessment charts
apologies everyone.Regards
Ari
Last edited:
Fleek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 173
- Reactions
- 105
It could be argued that reliance on the RC camera view & flight indicators make for safer, better controlled flight than VLOS.
Remote Pilots Australia
Well-Known Member
That is a reasonable view up to a point as long as you do not become over confident. I don't necessarily agree it would be better than VLOS of sight though. A lot of the training of manned aviation pilots is directed to enforce and instill the use of procedures, checklists and drills and avoiding a sense of complacency and routine.
I think we'd be well served to do the same, Use the camera and telemetry to augment the information from your eyes and other sources and there by improve the safety of your operations VLOS or not, but don't become reliant on it or assume it is going to give you all the answers. it's a part of safe operations for sure but not the be all and end all of it.
Regards
Ari
CanyonRunVideos
Well-Known Member
When
When I squint really really hard I can see beyond forever!!!!!! That’s because I have a Bionic Eye.....???
When I squint really really hard I can see beyond forever!!!!!! That’s because I have a Bionic Eye.....???
Remote Pilots Australia
Well-Known Member
OK, just to follow up on my comments above in answer 111 and it's mainly for Australian members although it may be of interest to others
After I posted that I realised that the answer I had provided could have some consequences if someone took my answer as verbatim and I was wrong so I fired off an email to the RPAS section of C.A.S.A. with a copy of what I had said and a request for clarification of the exact reach of the regulations. I have been waiting for a response since then.
The phone rang this morning and I hear "Hello, this is Mark Lewis from R.P.A.S. management at C.A.S.A"...... =-| this is not something anyone in Australia ever wants to hear as Mark heads up management of all recreational and excluded class R.P.A and his section handles all enforcement in Australia and he is as I understand it the man who you hear from if C.A.S.A. is about to sanction you or you are being investigated regardless of the class you fly in. Honestly, I was mildly perturbed but not alarmed as I make great effort to always operate within the rules but anyone of us could overlook something inadvertently right?
Anyway, he was calling to be totally sure of the question I was asking before he ventured an answer. I will say that while the position he holds requires a certain formality and places limits on what he is prepared say as it's all "on the record" officially, he is a very reasonable guy who's open to frank discussion and I clarified a number of points with him and was glad he rang.
So, the bullet points are
He echoed my statement that while the letter of the law is there the intent of the law must be paramount. If you feel you need to go beyond the bare basics of the law to ensure safety you must do so. You must modify your operating procedures to reflect the reality which you find yourself operating in.
The law states that the R.P.A. must be operated "continuously within Line Of Sight". He pointed out that it is the interpretation of the laws by C.A.S.A. which is the determining factor. For example if you are flying and the aircraft momentarily disappears behind a tree, tower, telegraph pole or small obstruction from sight and then reappears C.A.S.A.s interpretation is that you are still judged to be within VLOS, in the same way if you flew around the other side of a house or large structure or over a hill, behind trees etc and purposely placed the aircraft where is was not visible to you then you would not be within VLOS.
In like manner and as I thought and again going back to "modifying your procedures to reflect the situation". If you need to take your eyes off the aircraft for any justifiable reason, for example as I pointed out in post 111 if you are operating your aircraft in close proximity to a tower or antenna and your telemetry offers a superior perspective you are justified in taking your eyes off the aircraft. If you turn your attention to your display to frame your capture or adjust camera settings this is acceptable and if again as I suggested you were operating alone and you decided to hover your aircraft and do a slow 360º scan to look for other aircraft or possible pedestrian traffic this is also permissible. I'm sure you can work out other examples but as these were the ones he and I discussed I'll limit my comment to those. Essentially as long as 1. You have a justifiable safety or operational related reason for taking your focus off the aircraft (not just for the hell of it) and 2. as long as you are able to turn your attention back to the aircraft and re acquire it and orient it in your unaided vision (but allowing corrective lenses) at any time you are considered to be within VLOS.
So that's it from the horses mouth as far as Australia goes.
Another point he made to me which is very valid and I should put out there is that regardless of the fact that I am an RePL and have a good level of knowledge of the regulations, I am not a C.A.S.A. employee or delegate and as such anything I say in comment or answer to question should be regarded as anecdotal. If you follow my advice and I get it wrong you can say "Ari told me so" all you like but you are still liable. If you have any doubts what so ever about the wording or interpretation you should contact C.A.S.A. via email asking for clarification and they have no problem at all in providing the answers you are looking for.
[email protected]
Regards
Ari
After I posted that I realised that the answer I had provided could have some consequences if someone took my answer as verbatim and I was wrong so I fired off an email to the RPAS section of C.A.S.A. with a copy of what I had said and a request for clarification of the exact reach of the regulations. I have been waiting for a response since then.
The phone rang this morning and I hear "Hello, this is Mark Lewis from R.P.A.S. management at C.A.S.A"...... =-| this is not something anyone in Australia ever wants to hear as Mark heads up management of all recreational and excluded class R.P.A and his section handles all enforcement in Australia and he is as I understand it the man who you hear from if C.A.S.A. is about to sanction you or you are being investigated regardless of the class you fly in. Honestly, I was mildly perturbed but not alarmed as I make great effort to always operate within the rules but anyone of us could overlook something inadvertently right?
Anyway, he was calling to be totally sure of the question I was asking before he ventured an answer. I will say that while the position he holds requires a certain formality and places limits on what he is prepared say as it's all "on the record" officially, he is a very reasonable guy who's open to frank discussion and I clarified a number of points with him and was glad he rang.
So, the bullet points are
He echoed my statement that while the letter of the law is there the intent of the law must be paramount. If you feel you need to go beyond the bare basics of the law to ensure safety you must do so. You must modify your operating procedures to reflect the reality which you find yourself operating in.
The law states that the R.P.A. must be operated "continuously within Line Of Sight". He pointed out that it is the interpretation of the laws by C.A.S.A. which is the determining factor. For example if you are flying and the aircraft momentarily disappears behind a tree, tower, telegraph pole or small obstruction from sight and then reappears C.A.S.A.s interpretation is that you are still judged to be within VLOS, in the same way if you flew around the other side of a house or large structure or over a hill, behind trees etc and purposely placed the aircraft where is was not visible to you then you would not be within VLOS.
In like manner and as I thought and again going back to "modifying your procedures to reflect the situation". If you need to take your eyes off the aircraft for any justifiable reason, for example as I pointed out in post 111 if you are operating your aircraft in close proximity to a tower or antenna and your telemetry offers a superior perspective you are justified in taking your eyes off the aircraft. If you turn your attention to your display to frame your capture or adjust camera settings this is acceptable and if again as I suggested you were operating alone and you decided to hover your aircraft and do a slow 360º scan to look for other aircraft or possible pedestrian traffic this is also permissible. I'm sure you can work out other examples but as these were the ones he and I discussed I'll limit my comment to those. Essentially as long as 1. You have a justifiable safety or operational related reason for taking your focus off the aircraft (not just for the hell of it) and 2. as long as you are able to turn your attention back to the aircraft and re acquire it and orient it in your unaided vision (but allowing corrective lenses) at any time you are considered to be within VLOS.
So that's it from the horses mouth as far as Australia goes.
Another point he made to me which is very valid and I should put out there is that regardless of the fact that I am an RePL and have a good level of knowledge of the regulations, I am not a C.A.S.A. employee or delegate and as such anything I say in comment or answer to question should be regarded as anecdotal. If you follow my advice and I get it wrong you can say "Ari told me so" all you like but you are still liable. If you have any doubts what so ever about the wording or interpretation you should contact C.A.S.A. via email asking for clarification and they have no problem at all in providing the answers you are looking for.
[email protected]
Regards
Ari
Last edited:
PropSpin
Well-Known Member
PropSpin
Well-Known Member
Here's my story. Freaky looking clowns make me uncomfortable.
Beyond that, it is easy to suddenly lose sight depending on conditions. I don't worry about it too much if it is in the clear and I know the relative volume of space that it is in.
Now go change your avatar, it's disturbing.
I'll admit I have flown beyond VLOS before but only. On my own property, also you can exploit the rules by looking more idk
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Remembering the Zombie Apocalypse Drone Footage- Started by The Droning Company
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Forum statistics
