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

[brett8883]

Then you misunderstood what looks like a very clear statement.

Because while the can fly above 500 ft, there are many cases, and I gave examples, where they need to fly below 500 ft.

Your hard-to-see drone is what is causing the hazard to long-established manned aircraft operations. A more accurate analogy would be "why is it my fault if I place a hazard in the middle of the road and a driver crashes into it?"

This is the problem. That manned aircraft pilots think they have a right to the sky but drone pilots do not. At least this is what it feels like. These long established manned aircraft operations need to be reconsidered for the modern age.

I look forward to seeing drones take over the operations that I listed previously. How exactly do you envisage Medivac drones working, just as an example?

Surely there will still be situations where helicopters are needed but they could fly to location above 500 feet, land or pick up their cargo and return above 500 feet. Take off and landing can be below 500 ft obviously but why would a medical need to fly at 200ft on their way from point A to point B?

No - that's a reasonable request, but it is imposing a significant burden on general aviation that will take time to fully implement. And of course there are also military and LE operations that really don't want to broadcast their position to the general public, which will need some figuring out.

I would feel good about it if that step was taken. At least manned aircraft would be doing something to aid us in in keeping them safe

You don't understand how ADS-B works. The problem is not screen clutter or notification overload. It's an asynchronous broadcast system. Too many aircraft broadcasting and they just continuously step on each others transmissions and the system fails at the source.

Sounds like maybe they should upgrade the system then if it can’t serve it’s intended purpose.

Yes. That's the goal of RID.

In reality will RID be picked up by manned aircraft in a way that gives them enough time to avoid a collision? Is there going to be any kind of requirement that manned aircraft pick up and monitor RID? Is it even physically possible for manned aircraft to pick up RID? In reality will any manned aircraft pilots use this? I’m guessing that’s a great big no.

Will RID enable drone pilots to see manned aircraft?

Seems like RID is an enforcement gimmick and not really a safety feature.

 

[sar104]

This is the problem. That manned aircraft pilots think they have a right to the sky but drone pilots do not. At least this is what it feels like. These long established manned aircraft operations need to be reconsidered for the modern age.

Why - because you want to fly your drone?

Surely there will still be situations where helicopters are needed but they could fly to location above 500 feet, land or pick up their cargo and return above 500 feet. Take off and landing can be below 500 ft obviously but why would a medical need to fly at 200ft on their way from point A to point B?

It doesn't matter how may examples you come up with for when aircraft don't need to be below 500 ft - it doesn't change all the examples of where they do. And unless you can remove those, which you can't, you cannot turn over the < 500 ft airspace to sUAS operations.

I would feel good about it if that step was taken. At least manned aircraft would be doing something to aid us in in keeping them safe

I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

Sounds like maybe they should upgrade the system then if it can’t serve it’s intended purpose.

You sure are whiny and demanding. You want to pay for that, since it's the introduction of drones causing the problem?

In reality will RID be picked up by manned aircraft in a way that gives them enough time to avoid a collision? Is there going to be any kind of requirement that manned aircraft pick up and monitor RID? Is it even physically possible for manned aircraft to pick up RID? In reality will any manned aircraft pilots use this? I’m guessing that’s a great big no.

Will RID enable drone pilots to see manned aircraft?

Seems like RID is an enforcement gimmick and not really a safety feature.

How can you be so completely ignorant of how any of this is proposed to work. Or are you just yanking my chain?

 

[brett8883]

Why - because you want to fly your drone?

Yes, there’s enough sky for us all but there has to be a two way street. I do my part and manned aircraft do theirs

It doesn't matter how may examples you come up with for when aircraft don't need to be below 500 ft - it doesn't change all the examples of where they do. And unless you can remove those, which you can't, you cannot turn over the < 500 ft airspace to sUAS operations.

There will be exceptions surely but I don’t see why we couldn’t make below 500 ft into sUAS airspace and make <500 ft for everything else. If Amazon and friends get what they want there will be far more sUAS in the air than manned aircraft.

I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

Well it’s for their safety right? Would be nice if they could help us out.

You sure are whiny and demanding. You want to pay for that, since it's the introduction of drones causing the problem?

Again with the entitlement. Look I’m trying to make it safer for manned aircraft. If you don’t think that’s a worthy of discussion then I’ll shut up. We don’t want manned aircraft to hit us as much as they do but it’s frustrating when it feels like they don’t want to take any steps to try to avoid that.

How can you be so completely ignorant of how any of this is proposed to work. Or are you just yanking my chain?

Some of that was rhetorical and I apologize I forgot you don’t like that. But it’s a real question in that does anyone expect manned aircraft to be picking up RID?

I know RID doesn’t help drone pilots see manned aircraft so I don’t see how it actually has anything to do with manned aircraft seeing sUAS and drones seeing manned aircraft.

 

[brett8883]

ADS-B transmitters are much more expensive than receivers. Check out the prices from Sporty's

ADS-B Out

The pricetag is a major part of why they don't insist on all aircraft having them. Someone flying a VFR Piper Cub with no electrical system in uncontrolled central Kansas airspace probably doesn't want or need the expense.

The size weight, and electrical power requirements make ADS-B impractical for drones. But there's a more important reason they're prohibited on drones: There are only two available radio frequencies. If multiple position reports are being transmitted on the same frequency by different aircraft simultaneously, they'll interfere with each other, and the position reports won't be received. If the signal strengths are widely different, maybe the stronger one will cover up the weaker one, but if the two signals are comparable, neither one will be received. This radio frequency congestion issue is a fundamental problem that can't be solved by masking out drone reports on a display, because the mere fact that the drone is transmitting at the same time as the passing 747 will cause interference.

Naturally, one would expect the interference from drones to be worst in built-up urban areas where there are lots of people. This also happens to be the area where there are likely to be high densities of medium-altitude traffic approaching and departing airports, and high potential for conflicts among the big airplanes. They rightly want to keep the ADS-B frequencies clear enough that the big airplanes can avoid each other.

I thought they were much more expensive then this. Heck the parachutes the FAA is going to require on sUAS to fly over people cost more than this.

You can’t really say that a $2000 piece of equipment on a $50,000 airplane is a significant burden. Relative to the cost of the aircraft it’s less than a $200 RID broadcast module on a sUAS.

 

[sar104]

Yes, there’s enough sky for us all but there has to be a two way street. I do my part and manned aircraft do theirs

It's already a two-way street. The FAA has invested considerable resources that they have inadequate funding for to try to incorporate sUAS in the NAS. And manned pilots how have small rocks flying around that they have to worry about. You spent what, a couple of thousand dollars on your drone, and you want every general aviation pilot in the country to run out and spend a minimum of several thousand dollars to equip their aircraft with ADS-B just so that you can avoid them?

There will be exceptions surely but I don’t see why we couldn’t make below 500 ft into sUAS airspace and make <500 ft for everything else. If Amazon and friends get what they want there will be far more sUAS in the air than manned aircraft.

Because of all the operational needs that I listed previously and you are studiously ignoring.

Well it’s for their safety right? Would be nice if they could help us out.

Again - drones created a new airspace hazard, but you want everyone else to figure out how to mitigate it. That's not "helping you out" - that's fixing it for you.

Again with the entitlement. Look I’m trying to make it safer for manned aircraft. If you don’t think that’s a worthy of discussion then I’ll shut up. We don’t want manned aircraft to hit us as much as they do but it’s frustrating when it feels like they don’t want to take any steps to try to avoid that.

It's not that the FAA is not trying - it's that you don't like the solutions, and so you want to impose further on existing airspace users instead. You have the entitlement issue backwards.

Some of that was rhetorical and I apologize I forgot you don’t like that. But it’s a real question in that does anyone expect manned aircraft to be picking up RID?

I know RID doesn’t help drone pilots see manned aircraft so I don’t see how it actually has anything to do with manned aircraft seeing sUAS and drones seeing manned aircraft.

Just go and read the FAA proposal. I'm sure it will come as a shock, but a bunch of people who actually know something about the problem and the available technologies did actually figure out how to make it work without consulting you.

But if you still can't be bothered, the plan is that RID allows ATC and/or manned traffic to see drones, while ADS-B allows drone RPICs to see manned aircraft.

 

[brett8883]

It's already a two-way street. The FAA has invested considerable resources that they have inadequate funding for to try to incorporate sUAS in the NAS. And manned pilots how have small rocks flying around that they have to worry about. You spent what, a couple of thousand dollars on your drone, and you want every general aviation pilot in the country to run out and spend a minimum of several thousand dollars to equip their aircraft with ADS-B just so that you can avoid them?

Yes. How the hell does that seem unreasonable to you. Just make a way so I can reliably see you so I can move so you don’t hit me. I don’t know in what way I could be more accommodating.

Because of all the operational needs that I listed previously and you are studiously ignoring.

Again - drones created a new airspace hazard, but you want everyone else to figure out how to mitigate it. That's not "helping you out" - that's fixing it for you.

From my perspective they are the hazards. We are more than just hazards that’s what you aren’t understanding. We are entitled to the airspace just as much as they are. you want me to move because you are going too fast and too low to safety avoid us then you need to make it so I can see you.

It's not that the FAA is not trying - it's that you don't like the solutions, and so you want to impose further on existing airspace users instead. You have the entitlement issue backwards.

Because they are bad solutions. I’m not imposing on anyone. All I’m saying is if you can’t avoid me you need to make it so I can see you so I can get out of the way.

Just go and read the FAA proposal. I'm sure it will come as a shock, but a bunch of people who actually know something about the problem and the available technologies did actually figure out how to make it work without consulting you.

But if you still can't be bothered, the plan is that RID allows ATC and/or manned traffic to see drones, while ADS-B allows drone RPICs to see manned aircraft.

Ok so the plan is to require all manned aircraft to have ADS-B out in the future? Are aircraft that have ADS-B out required to have it switched on at all times? Seems like low hanging fruit.

Do they have a road map or something I can look up?

 

[sar104]

Yes. How the hell does that seem unreasonable to you. Just make a way so I can reliably see you so I can move so you don’t hit me. I don’t know in what way I could be more accommodating.

I have no idea how it seems reasonable to you. Selfish, entitled and unreasonable is how I would characterize your position.

From my perspective they are the hazards. We are more than just hazards that’s what you aren’t understanding. We are entitled to the airspace just as much as they are. you want me to move because you are going too fast and too low to safety avoid us then you need to make it so I can see you.

No - you are not just "entitled to the airspace", any more than you are entitled to pile up rocks in the roadway.

Because they are bad solutions. I’m not imposing on anyone. All I’m saying is if you can’t avoid me you need to make it so I can see you so I can get out of the way.

And your better solution is to put the onus on manned aviation to accommodate your desires at considerable expense to themselves. How would you feel if some new activity that threatened road users required everyone to spend thousands of dollars retrofitting all vehicles with some new safety technology?

Ok so the plan is to require all manned aircraft to have ADS-B out in the future? Do they have a road map or something I can look up?

Unbelievable.

 

[brett8883]

I have no idea how it seems reasonable to you. Selfish, entitled and unreasonable is how I would characterize your position

I’m selfish because I’d like to be able to see manned aircraft so we don’t collide?

Fact: I cannot avoid something I can’t see.

Fact: I cannot see a plane flying 150 mph at 200 ft AGL before its too late to get out of the way. Maybe a helicopter but only because they are so noisy.

What do you propose is the solution to this issue?

You just said a couple messages ago it was reasonable and now all of a sudden I’m selfish and entitled?

No - that's a reasonable request, but it is imposing a significant burden on general aviation that will take time to fully implement.

Unbelievable.

You literally just said ADS-B was so RPIC could see manned aircraft so I’m asking if that’s the plan. What is unbelievable? I don’t get it.

 

[brett8883]

No - you are not just "entitled to the airspace", any more than you are entitled to pile up rocks in the roadway.

I didn’t realize you had such a low regard for drones and drone pilots. We are not piles of rocks in the road

 

[sar104]

I didn’t realize you had such a low regard for drones and drone pilots. We are not piles of rocks in the road

Some of us are, apparently.

I’m selfish because I’d like to be able to see manned aircraft so we don’t collide?

Fact: I cannot avoid something I can’t see.

Your "cannot avoid" argument is predicated on the assumption that you have to be there in the first place. You don't.

Fact: I cannot see a plane flying 150 mph at 200 ft AGL before its too late to get out of the way. Maybe a helicopter but only because they are so noisy.

What do you propose is the solution to this issue?

In your case, definitely just don't fly. Problem solved.

You just said a couple messages ago it was reasonable and now all of a sudden I’m selfish and entitled?

Yes. It's reasonable for ADS-B equipped aircraft to be required to use it. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to go to the expense of installing it just so drone pilots can see them.

You literally just said ADS-B was so RPIC could see manned aircraft so I’m asking if that’s the plan. What is unbelievable? I don’t get it.

Clearly, which is what I find unbelievable. Why is it that you never research any of this stuff for yourself? You post all kinds of misinformation and lazy, erroneous assumptions that you could easily clear up with even the slightest effort to look it up. I'm sorry, but your veneer of reasonableness has completely worn off in this thread. I'm done with this discussion. This kind of frustrating nonsense is one of the main reasons I stopped posting on this forum, and makes me seriously reconsider my choice to resume. What a complete waste of time.

 

[brett8883]

Some of us are, apparently.

Your "cannot avoid" argument is predicated on the assumption that you have to be there in the first place. You don't.

I’m a sUAS pilot. That’s my full time job now. Why is my job and my ability to put food on the table less important than anybody else’s?

In your case, definitely just don't fly. Problem solved.

Yes. It's reasonable for ADS-B equipped aircraft to be required to use it. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to go to the expense of installing it just so drone pilots can see them.

Clearly, which is what I find unbelievable. Why is it that you never research any of this stuff for yourself? You post all kinds of misinformation and lazy, erroneous assumptions that you could easily clear up with even the slightest effort to look it up. I'm sorry, but your veneer of reasonableness has completely worn off in this thread. I'm done with this discussion. This kind of frustrating nonsense is one of the main reasons I stopped posting on this forum, and makes me seriously reconsider my choice to resume. What a complete waste of time.

Yea maybe you shouldn’t. You use to be kind of a nice guy. Well at least helpful. Now I don’t know if you are just having a bad day or what but I don’t think I deserve the vitriol that has been thrown at me personally.

 

[Camino Ken]

It might be useful to point out that there is a well established right-of-way hierarchy in the skies that is directly tied to relative maneuverability. Helicopters must give way to powered fixed wing aircraft and fixed wing must give way to un-powered gliders and everyone must give way to hot air balloons. With this rationale it seems reasonable that UAS with the highest level of maneuverability would be expected to yield to all other craft in the air.

 

[sparksalive]

I'm at the southern end of the Adirondack Mountains in NY and have routinely seen C-130s flying low altitude practice missions here, most typically on Tuesdays. Can't say if they were that low, but definitely under 500 AGL so it's not hard to have your drone in a bad spot depending on how hilly the area you are in. Also seen A10s race through the valleys and buzz the bigger lakes also at very low altitudes. I would hate to lose my drone if I had to ditch it, but the replacement cost would be far less than if there was an incident.

I'm at the southern end of the Adirondack Mountains in NY and have routinely seen C-130s flying low altitude practice missions here, most typically on Tuesdays. Can't say if they were that low, but definitely under 500 AGL so it's not hard to have your drone in a bad spot depending on how hilly the area you are in. Also seen A10s race through the valleys and buzz the bigger lakes also at very low altitudes. I would hate to lose my drone if I had to ditch it, but the replacement cost would be far less than if there was an incident.

70’s, working in the vineyard along Seneca Lake(Finger Lakes, NY), an A-10 came over the hilltop, over us, what seemed barely above treetops, barely had time to “duck”. Scared the dickens out of us. No military airport within a 2 hour drive, only a local grass strip. Never saw those “missions” before, or after that.
There would of been no way to avoid a collision, if we had a UAS, let alone a RC plane.

 

[DroneToJoy]

What Happened When (If) a Drone Hit a Helicopter? What the Real Data Shows.

 

[DJI_Craig]

Curious, were the C-130s broadcasting ADS-B? That would have at least alerted the UAS pilot to inbound traffic.

 

[tleedom]

Helicopters are limited to 200-500 agl.

This statement is incorrect.

Helicopters do not have the same restrictions a fixed wing aircraft.

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere – An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas – Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open-air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas – An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters – Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft.
The reason: they have unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is their ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power-out emergencies. Furthermore, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility.

 

[tleedom]

As BigAl pointed out in his original post, MOA's are all over the US and many of them are not near military installation/airfields. There are dozens of military aircraft crash sites along these MOA's as a reminder to the reduced altitudes the aircraft were operating at.

Sectional (current) maps and NOTAMS are your friend.

 

[twfisher]

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 . . .

I had a similar I encounter a while back I was flying out over the NE end of Key Biscayne in Miami. Filed my flight with Air map to fly for 2 hours in class G air. Ther was no Notams for the day. After about 1 hour Of flight I get a coast guard cutter from out of no where comes relatively close and starts zigzagging about 1/2mile off shore to about 3 miles out. He came from the west so the trees blocked the sound at his low altitude. No warning on my Mavic controller. I immediately dropped to about 15 ft and brought it in. A couple minutes later as i was landing my controller starts giving me the manned aircraft approaching just as a coast guard helicopter zoomed by about 1/4 mile away. It too started zigzagine. Guess they wer looking for someone in distress. I kept it on the ground for about an hour after they were gone to make sure they weren’t coming back. I thought is was so strange that the coast guard airplane didn’t give me any warning on the controller but the helicopter did and the plane came closer than the helicopter did. Later after I felt comfortable they went returning i took shot of Miami from across the bay

 

[wardtom084]

The vast majority of western NC is a MOA. Short answer is yes MOA.

My son sent me an aviation map and I was looking at it. The military area(and I know they are not limited to it) is a line east of Andrews NC going up to and including Robbinsville NC. Like I said they are not limited to it. We were getting on a boat a couple of summers ago and heard this noise. It was two A10's headed right for us at 200 feet off he lake making a run on the dam just below us. The ambulance chopper always crosses my house from Andrews to Robbinsville at 2 to 300 feet. I did have one aircraft alert my Mavic 2 to a maned aircraft in the area. On clicking on the satellite pix he was indicated on the picture and then I saw him to my west. Any thing flying so low should broadcast this info.

 

[cgmaxed]

Edited: I run the FLIGHTRADAR24, which I paid to upgrade, and ADS-B. I guess government aircraft don't need to transmit identifying info regarding position, alt, or direction. That's what I've been noticing anyway. I see a small craft or helicopters fly by and they don't show up on FLIGHTRADAR24 or ADS-B. I can see these low flying non transmitting aircraft, and they are always government. I guess that's just the perks of government.