FAA using Flytrex Data = Busted...

[ianwood]

I guess since Flytrex taps into the GPS it doesn't get barometric altitude information or does it use its own baromter? On top of what Steve said, GPS vertical precision is much less accurate compared to horizontal precision. It takes almost twice as many satellites to get the same precision.

 

[MadMitch88]

On the topic at hand, the FAA doesn't have the manpower to trawl Flytrex sites. They have no idea what Flytrex is. However, they may find it if you popped up on their radar through other means.

I pretty much agree with everyone on this thread that the FAA has no clue or care about what a "Flytrex" is --- and I hope they are much more focused on MANNED aircraft issues rather than some plastic toys flying around the air (at usually under 400 ft.).

I'm not terribly paranoid about such things, but I did prepare for any theoretical "Big Brother Snooping" and purchased my Flytrex Live device using one of those prepaid VISA gift cards that I bought with cash at Wal-Mart. I also purchased a T-Mobile SIM card using this prepaid card. This card does NOT have any of my real personal info. on it --- such as name, address, or phone number. I had the Flytrex shipped to a mailbox store that doesnt have any record of my ID. So therefore, even if the FAA wanted to snoop on my Flytrex data and see that I "might" be flying above 400' AGL, they have no God **** clue who I really am.

And yes, I always use an IP spoofer when I access the Flytrex website to review my uploaded flight missions or use the Live Flight feature --- of course, using my prepaid WiFi hotspot that also has no trace to my real identity.

You can easily hide from Big Brother, folks --- just gotta know the right tricks! :mrgreen:

 

[wkf94025]

I don't use Flytrex, nor do I post online videos that are clearly in violation of FAA recommendations or common sense. However, last week outside the US over our private golf course and with no commercial or GA traffic around, I hit 1,500 meters AGL, then descending safely in Manual mode. This was not for fun or PR, but the altitude necessary to capture the entirety of the course with my 5.4mm lens. Very fun flying that high and descending at 10m/sec after bagging the shot. Battery was at about 60% at turnaround point. FWIW, I believe 2,000 meters is quite achievable.

Kelly

 

[p fandango]

@fandango -- your max height (recorded) is above sea level.. what is your altitude above sea level where you fly? I would guess with what you have said that you are 600 ish feet?

just having a look through my Flytrex data again, & even with your correct explaination about the sea levels i do still have discrepancy's. I've got 2 major spikes where it goes from 732ft to -99ft in much less than a second. I'm not bothered by that myself its still a fantastic bit of kit, but errors like that can be used in your favour to show that its not 100% accurate so nothing can be proved using that info

 

[locoworks]

@fandango -- your max height (recorded) is above sea level.. what is your altitude above sea level where you fly? I would guess with what you have said that you are 600 ish feet?

just having a look through my Flytrex data again, & even with your correct explaination about the sea levels i do still have discrepancy's. I've got 2 major spikes where it goes from 732ft to -99ft in much less than a second. I'm not bothered by that myself its still a fantastic bit of kit, but errors like that can be used in your favour to show that its not 100% accurate so nothing can be proved using that info

i had GPS in a van i used for work, somedays you'd travel 5 miles before it registered and so it looked like it had moved overnight by magic. also as the van never went over 80 -85mph i was amused to see speeds in the 140's show up on quite a few occasions. the type of GPS used at the low end is just not 100% glitch proof and anomolies will show up from time to time.

 

[Timtro]

The 400 ft limit is AGL: Above Ground Level.

In most areas the "big" aircraft are supposed to stay above 500 or 1000 feet, but there are exceptions like on approach to runways, over the ocean (200 ft) and others. Then factor in the National Parks, heliports, various private grass strips you didn't know where there, crop dusters popping up where you don't expect them, hang gliding or parachute areas. Then there are ultralights and balloons to watch out for. There are locations where military airspace (MOA) may extend to the surface (do not try to mess with the military: you'll find they do not have a sense of humor). And there are other restricted areas such as (TWIC controlled) sea ports and temporary flight restrictions (TFR) locations. (Suggestion: Follow @FAA on Twitter)

The best way to know the safe limits are is to check the Sectional Chart for the location where you want to fly. You can purchase sectionals online (revised periodically) or use an app. Other apps like SKyRadar (IOS) will show your distance from airports and where restricted areas are around you. Sectional charts are revised every six months. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/vfr_chart_updates/

It should be obvious, but you should never fly over highway traffic nor over or near crowds (as DJI did in the product demonstration recently).

If you do get into trouble, there's now a form for that: https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/forms/6120_1web_nopwx.pdf
Don't rely on "umbrella" insurance coverage for protection - the exclusions are right there in the small print.

 

[CarlJ]

I absolutely LOVE all of the ingenious ways you guys have found to escape culpability, of course there's the little known other side of that which is not doing anything to begin with. That way you're not constantly looking over your shoulder all "James Bond" like.

Unbelievable... :lol:

 

[witold]

You have virtually nothing to gain, but everything to lose.

Half the people in this hobby are newbs who don't even know what a flight controller is and they now what Flytrex is. You better believe that FAA is not dumber. They know. Even if they don't use the data to pursue YOU personally, they use it in consideration for setting rules.

In regards to FAA not having resources to pursue you, all we need is one incident/accident and FAA asking Congress for money and they will have as much money as they want.

 

[aseidman]

You would think the FAA would have better things to do then go after people on the Flytrex website.

 

[Timtro]

If you fly above the clouds or over an airport, it's probably not a good idea to post evidence on the Flytrex web site.

My contacts at the FAA advise "staying off the radar", which indicated to me that they do monitor web sites, YouTube and news reports. I would describe some of the activities on Flytrex (high altitude) as inviting all kinds of trouble. If the FAA can promote safety and discourage dangerous activities by monitoring Flytrex it is well within their responsibilities to do so.

 

[SteveMann]

If you fly above the clouds or over an airport, it's probably not a good idea to post evidence on the Flytrex web site.

I am not a lawyer.
I really doubt that Flytrex data could be presented to a jury because there's no certification of the data. In other words, the FAA can't prove the data is accurate or who was actually flying. They can use the Flytrex data to trick you to verifying the data and that you were the pilot, but then it's too late to shut up.

 

[CyberCitizen]

I have attached the quick reference guide we have here in Australia, I think it works ok for us.

Model aircraft
· You should only fly a model aircraft in visual line-of-sight, in day visual meteorological conditions (VMC). What does that mean?
· no night flying
· no flying in or through cloud or fog, and
· you should be able to see the aircraft with your own eyes (rather than through its point-of-view camera) at all times
· You must not fly a model aircraft over populous areas such as beaches, other people's backyards, heavily populated parks, or sports ovals where there is a game in progress.
· In controlled airspace, which covers most Australian cities, model aircraft must not be flown higher than 400 feet (120 metres)
· You should not fly closer than 5.5km from an airfield.

 

[SpeedGeek]

Not a legal guy by any means, but IMO, the FAA is going after people when they receive complaints. Pirker's win got overturned by the NTSB just recently as they determined that he was flying an "aircraft", and thus fell under the FARs. Now it's whether or not he operated recklessly, which boils down to his flight involving flying towards another person such to make them fear for their safety. There's another case where someone was flying in midtown Manhattan and hit a couple of buildings and crashed within 20 feet of a person. In both of these cases I see the FAA stepping in because of safety concerns.

Meanwhile, there's an Arstechnica article here: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/ ... ter-drone/ that has video of operation over a neighborhood ("populated area") as well as screenshots of flight altitudes in excess of 1,000 ft. Haven't heard of any problems that writer has run into. So I say just operate with some common sense and with safety in mind. All that said, be aware that general aviation flights can take place as low as 500' or lower over "other than congested areas". So take care, and when possible, notify local airfields of your activity so they are aware as well. I fully believe we can share the skies, and hope that this continues to be the case.

 

[p fandango]

fly trex is a self inflicted stab wound to support them... End of story...

you don't have to use the Flytrex website, missions can be uploaded & kept private. Or even use the off-line program (found from other sources)

 

[Timtro]

DJI doesn't practice what they preach. At the recent release event, they launched their new "Inspire" craft from a few feet away from spectators, then they flew over the crowd (including guest myth-buster "celebrities"), and for a finish they flew out over an active highway.... all of which are warned against in the DJI literature and web site.

That was clearly a "for profit" event, clearly dangerous. Do you think the FAA will send one of those warning letters to DJI?

 

[SteveMann]

DJI doesn't practice what they preach. At the recent release event, they launched their new "Inspire" craft from a few feet away from spectators, then they flew over the crowd (including guest myth-buster "celebrities"), and for a finish they flew out over an active highway.... all of which are warned against in the DJI literature and web site.

That was clearly a "for profit" event, clearly dangerous. Do you think the FAA will send one of those warning letters to DJI?

There's quite a big difference from flying over a crowd of people who probably don't even know the drone is over them, and flying a drone near, not over, the people who MADE the drone. Which is indoors. They really look terrified. While smiling and waving at it

Where is the common sense when one sees dangerous flight whenever there are people within sight of the Phantom?
Is this the only place you consider safe for flying?

 

[ianwood]

And that's in front of the crowd, not over it. And they're all looking directly at it. Not exactly a huge risk. Ask yourself this: if you knew they were going to do this, would you still accept an invitation to attend? Yeah, I would too!

Back to the topic at hand, data from Flytrex can easily be deemed as reasonably accurate just by referencing elements in the video. Using the video alone, you can gauge speed, height, distance, etc.

 

[SteveMann]

And that's in front of the crowd, not over it. And they're all looking directly at it. Not exactly a huge risk. Ask yourself this: if you knew they were going to do this, would you still accept an invitation to attend? Yeah, I would too!

Back to the topic at hand, data from Flytrex can easily be deemed as reasonably accurate just by referencing elements in the video. Using the video alone, you can gauge speed, height, distance, etc.

"Reasonably accurate" is not the same as legally binding. I would be very surprised if the FAA tried to use the data against an offender. As I said earlier, there is no requirement for calibration as there is in certified aircraft, so altitude and location are not legally reliable beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[HailStorm]

DJI doesn't practice what they preach. At the recent release event, they launched their new "Inspire" craft from a few feet away from spectators, then they flew over the crowd (including guest myth-buster "celebrities"), and for a finish they flew out over an active highway.... all of which are warned against in the DJI literature and web site.

That was clearly a "for profit" event, clearly dangerous. Do you think the FAA will send one of those warning letters to DJI?

There's quite a big difference from flying over a crowd of people who probably don't even know the drone is over them, and flying a drone near, not over, the people who MADE the drone. Which is indoors. They really look terrified. While smiling and waving at it

Where is the common sense when one sees dangerous flight whenever there are people within sight of the Phantom?
Is this the only place you consider safe for flying?

And there is a big difference between a seasoned and experienced drone pilot and Joe Cool who is on his third flight out of the box after just sorta skimming through the owner's manual.

 

[HailStorm]

And that's in front of the crowd, not over it. And they're all looking directly at it. Not exactly a huge risk. Ask yourself this: if you knew they were going to do this, would you still accept an invitation to attend? Yeah, I would too!

Back to the topic at hand, data from Flytrex can easily be deemed as reasonably accurate just by referencing elements in the video. Using the video alone, you can gauge speed, height, distance, etc.

"Reasonably accurate" is not the same as legally binding. I would be very surprised if the FAA tried to use the data against an offender. As I said earlier, there is no requirement for calibration as there is in certified aircraft, so altitude and location are not legally reliable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well....when I play armchair lawyer, I like to remind others of the difference between criminal trials and civil trials.
In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
Unless Flytrex data is to be used in a murder trial, I think it is admissible.
Just speakin' as a lay person, you know...