Why flying BVLOS isn't a good idea . . .

[brett8883]

I can only assume that you're not a pilot! There are circumstances where changing altitude might not be an option and having to continuously avoid areas where drones were flying could potentially make certain parts of the airspace almost unusable for aircraft. That's one of the reasons why the onus is on the drone operator to actively avoid aircraft.


No. That system would only be of use to drone users as it will probably be relatively short range and would also need to be fitted to all aircraft to be practical. Even then, if the aircraft was masked by terrain or buildings (which would probably be why you couldn't see it in the first place), you almost certainly wouldn't pick up the signal from it rendering the system unusable. I'm sure that RID will have similar limitations. The rules are quite clear (and sensible, in my opinion). Manned aircraft will always be the priority - your perceived annoyances as a drone operator will never outweigh the safety of humans. You have no special right to operate your drone where and when you want expecting full sized aircraft to avoid you.

I’m not suggesting full sized aircraft would have to avoid us. I just think situational awareness would benefit all users of the airspace and they could make that determination on a case by case basis wether to avoid an airspace or not. If you don’t think manned aircraft will benefit from the RID broadcast from drones that’s fine but I do think that safety would be increased for all users of the airspace if all aircraft broadcast their location. Or at least aircraft capable of a certain speed. I don’t think for instance it’s necessary for hot air ballon pilots to broadcast their location.

I’d rather manned aircraft have ADS-B out but if that’s too expensive then maybe there’s an alternative for those that do not have it.

My annoyance is in my willingness to do any and all things to do my part to make the airspace safer for manned aircraft, including but not limited to: RID, anti-collision lighting, or I’d even be willing to pay for ADS-B out of it were allowed but then have manned aviation be unwilling to do anything different in this new era of aviation. Or am I mistaken?

Of course it’s about the safety of humans in manned aviation. In what way has anything we have been talking about been about anything other than the safety of humans in manned aviation? If manned aircraft pilots don’t think these issues are serious enough to warrant these measures then I’ll shut up about it.

 

[brett8883]

I agree. Kites are generally large and brightly coloured so are easier to spot from a distance, unlike recreational drones or most birds.

So if we painted drones with bright colors and high intensity lighting would that be helpful?

 

[Camino Ken]

That's exactly the position the pilot of an aircraft is in (but to a much greater extent). Unless a pilot is very lucky, it's almost impossible to spot something as small as a drone with enough time to safely avoid it - I base this on many years of experience as a professional helicopter pilot. The rules about who has the responsibility to avoid the other is written very much on the basis of danger to life. If your drone collides with an aircraft, your $1000 dollar investment may be gone but you don't have a scratch on you. Conversely, the aircraft could conceivably sustain enough damage to force an emergency landing which could endanger the life of the pilot and any passengers on board.



Not unless the rules are different in the US. All manned heavier-than-air, powered aircraft have the same responsibility to avoid each other irrespective of whether they are fixed wing or helicopters. There are plenty of cases where helicopters are less manoeuvrable than fixed wing - when carrying underslung loads, for example. At cruise speeds, helicopters are generally no more manoeuvrable than most fixed wing aircraft (and considerably less so than aerobatic types).



Manned aircraft are taught to avoid everything they can! The problem is that you need to be able to see something to avoid it and drones are incredibly difficult to spot (see above). If an aircraft pilot spotted a drone, unless it would endanger his aircraft he would try to avoid it - no pilot would assume that anything on a collision course would manoeuvre out of the way.

The right of way hierarchy is part of the training for manned aircraft pilots in the US. You are right that everyone in the airspace has the responsibility to see and avoid all other traffic if possible The training is there for you to realize that some aircraft have less or limited control of their position. Your example of carrying a load would be handled as a special circumstance with ATF alerting all other traffic or via NOTAM.

 

[maelstrom]

So if we painted drones with bright colors and high intensity lighting would that be helpful?

Not really. With the lighting, you would probably assume it was an aircraft a long way away rather than a drone close in. However, it's the size, more than any other factor, which makes them so difficult to spot.

Your example of carrying a load would be handled as a special circumstance with ATF alerting all other traffic or via NOTAM.

Not in the UK. A specific task may require it but the underslung load alone wouldn't necessarily.

 

[Heed]

There's a general 250 knot speed limit for all aircraft (including military) below 10,000 feet, but it doesn't apply in restricted areas, MOAs, etc.

If they flew over 250 knots below 500' over a group of campers, without notifying aviators, they have a serious black mark. If a drone pilot flys without checking the available charts and NOTAMs, there's a black mark on the drone. Drone pilots are always required to give way to manned aircraft.

This is not true.

We flew around below 10,000' all the time at 300+ KIAS. Our speed for the overhead break (800' AGL) was 360 KIAS minimum, but usually 400+.

What it basically boils down to is safety of flight and flight manual requirements.

I am going to guess that every single military jet operates in the same manner and will be doing well more than 250 below 10,000.

This is not to say that we never flew 250 KIAS or less below 10,000 either. But, that was by exception.

Outside of military training routes and ranges, we complied with general FAR altitude requirements. Out in Arizona, it's possible that a camper could be within the confines of a range. I doubt the jets were at 50' AGL, even within the range.

We rarely fly as singles and depending on what we were doing, formations could be almost a mile wide with the wingman abeam or trailing.

 

[F00Man]

For those who say, "If an airplane/helicopter is flying less than 400' AGL they have problems on their hands and should never be flying in "My Area" that low" you're WRONG!

Take a look at a picture snapped right here in western NC yesterday from someone's front deck (This is not a drone/aerial pic). This C-130 (and the other 3 shortly there after) were flying legally at about 200' AGL.

View attachment 129011

If you can't See & Avoid you shouldn't be flying at all . . .

Probably C-130's from Pope Field....I am curious, I agree with the sentiment about manned aircraft awareness, but I am not so sure this area would be not marked as an MOA or MTR. So then you should not be flying there anyway. BTW - Until you see a BUFF at about 45 degrees hugging a desert mountain less than a mile away....this is nothing...

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newbie sUAS flyer
Retired USAF Fighter Crew Dog
A-7D/K, A-10A, F-117A Flight Test/IOC/OT&E, FOT&E, F-16C/D Block 40