Flying VLOS - is that the solution?

[John Locke]

Safe means don't take risk if it can be avoided. Risks are all cost vs benefit trade offs. Because modern airliners are more reliable mile for mile than cars, they "get away" with taking risks that are typical in today's FAA. In the example linked below this risk turned into a liability.

If "Safe" means "don't take risk if it can be avoided" you wouldn't get out of bed. That's pretty boring. So the word SAFE is somewhat debatable. One person's definition could be miles from another person. And when it comes to drones, this could vary a lot. The guy that never has an incident will deem them super safe, and fly places that another person would never fly, because he's wiser, or he's had one flake out on him with upon no fault of his own, such as "Battery Shutdown" that has been reported by many. Bird attacks is another possibility of a craft falling from the sky, with no fault of the pilot, potentially falling on someones head. "Safe" is in the mind of the beholder, and I think the FAA is going to be wrestling with this definition over the next 10 years. Our hope is the number of incidents doesn't accelerate the definitions and restrictions beyond being fun to fly, and I hope that doesn't happen too soon.

 

[NRJ]

Not sure how much peripheral vision anyone has with goggles, i notice using the ipad air 2 the camera has very little, ideas about transponders or other gizmos being loaded into a relatively low cost rc quad intended as a camera platform might seem a good idea, but only if you ignore the fact that many of the manned aircraft with which you share the same airspace do not have any kind of display, not even a transponder, quite some not even powered flight or an electrical system to run any kind of display, no gyroscope to give any horizon..only the true one,
All these aircraft are already factored into the existing regulations which may differ between countries concerning what is allowed, obviously the people who decide all this are often pilots/owners of various aircraft,
From past experience i feel anything extra added to an un manned rc quad with camera relying on goggles or a tablet will not change their opinions on VLOS or future regulation,

Dont forget we are discussing a fly out the box aircraft for use by the general public.

Agreed, but then again, if flying 400 feet up and 400 feet out, I would be focusing on VLOS not my peripheral vision. Then again, I tend to agree that a 400 foot cap on height may be okay if in a city or rural area. How many manned aircraft have you seen flying that low? I'm guessing that because the FAA gave us this cap of 400 feet that no other aircraft has been given permission to fly lower than 400 feet. So, my guess is... that belongs to us hobbyists. Other sUAS's may be our only concern. Anyone know the existing reg's on other aircraft flying lower than our given height of 400 ft?

 

[jingthing]

Agreed, but then again, if flying 400 feet up and 400 feet out, I would be focusing on VLOS not my peripheral vision. Then again, I tend to agree that a 400 foot cap on height may be okay if in a city or rural area. How many manned aircraft have you seen flying that low? I'm guessing that because the FAA gave us this cap of 400 feet that no other aircraft has been given permission to fly lower than 400 feet. So, my guess is... that belongs to us hobbyists. Other sUAS's may be our only concern. Anyone know the existing reg's on other aircraft flying lower than our given height of 400 ft?

Not sure how it is in the USA as you mention the FAA, as for how many manned aircraft at 400ft AGL many, but then ground level is relative to the surroundings, take off for me might be 600ft and if there is no ridge lift i will be searching frantically for something to take me up and could be down to 400 quite soon, then i could be scratching around sustaining that height hoping something comes, i might be unlucky and end in a field below kind of angry with myself, sky could infact have a couple of hundred aircraft fighting for lift including hang gliders, paragliders, sailplanes,
400ft AGL for both hang gliders or sailplanes could be a glide across the forest canopy for a few km using the speed with the best glide angle depending on the wing, that situation might be desperate in dire need of somewhere to land or it could be a forested area in the mountains way up above the 400ft take off,
Not all but most of us have instruments, vario visual and audio, i have 2 digital altimeters, one set at take off the other giving MSL for the air maps, a mechanical altimeter set to read MSL just in case, simple magnetic gimbal compass as used on a sailing boat, many have gps now but i dont bother,

Believe me it can get crowded up there with physical contact including a mix or aircraft all at different speeds fighting for the strongest lift, eventually we spread out and travel, i also see others on the way who started somewhere else, i see some bellow on the way in situations i would never allow myself ... very low and no place to land,
We all have our own limits set, i could say if i get down to 600ft and nothing going up, i call the flight off and searching for a landing, but then i have been know to fly down wind directly at the side of a mountain and flare at the right moment using the energy to kind of stop it, my hope would be to not get it wrong and grasp some vegetation in an attempt not to fall backwards, we call this fly on the wall, with the idea of taking off from there should the conditions change and the lift turns on again,
So yes..infact many of us at 400ft and below for various reasons, including sailplanes who manage final glides for incredible distances at very high speed, the airspace is very busy its just most people dont notice as they never look up unless there is noise,

Edited to add, i feel i have to fly loaded with enough junk as it is and want to keep it too a minimum, i also have to carry everything up to the take off or where i land to the road,
I have a go pro and stopped using that after witnessing my face as i emptied my bladder in the flight suite 3 times in 1 flight.

 

[NRJ]

Not sure how it is in the USA as you mention the FAA, as for how many manned aircraft at 400ft AGL many, but then ground level is relative to the surroundings, take off for me might be 600ft and if there is no ridge lift i will be searching frantically for something to take me up and could be down to 400 quite soon, then i could be scratching around sustaining that height hoping something comes, i might be unlucky and end in a field below kind of angry with myself, sky could infact have a couple of hundred aircraft fighting for lift including hang gliders, paragliders, sailplanes,
400ft AGL for both hang gliders or sailplanes could be a glide across the forest canopy for a few km using the speed with the best glide angle depending on the wing, that situation might be desperate in dire need of somewhere to land or it could be a forested area in the mountains way up above the 400ft take off,
Not all but most of us have instruments, vario visual and audio, i have 2 digital altimeters, one set at take off the other giving MSL for the air maps, a mechanical altimeter set to read MSL just in case, simple magnetic gimbal compass as used on a sailing boat, many have gps now but i dont bother,

Believe me it can get crowded up there with physical contact including a mix or aircraft all at different speeds fighting for the strongest lift, eventually we spread out and travel, i also see others on the way who started somewhere else, i see some bellow on the way in situations i would never allow myself ... very low and no place to land,
We all have our own limits set, i could say if i get down to 600ft and nothing going up, i call the flight off and searching for a landing, but then i have been know to fly down wind directly at the side of a mountain and flare at the right moment using the energy to kind of stop it, my hope would be to not get it wrong and grasp some vegetation in an attempt not to fall backwards, we call this fly on the wall, with the idea of taking off from there should the conditions change and the lift turns on again,
So yes..infact many of us at 400ft and below for various reasons, including sailplanes who manage final glides for incredible distances at very high speed, the airspace is very busy its just most people dont notice as they never look up unless there is noise.

Your points are exactly why the FAA has not thought this out. It must be nice to fly so freely. Thanks for your point of view.

 

[jingthing]

My main point is, we had conflict with rc glider pilots, we had conflict with para glider pilots, conflict again with sailplane pilots and so on, we found a way to accept each other and the different needs regarding speed,
No reason quad pilots cant share also without conflict.

 

[NRJ]

My main point is, we had conflict with rc glider pilots, we had conflict with para glider pilots, conflict again with sailplane pilots and so on, we found a way to accept each other and the different needs regarding speed,
No reason quad pilots cant share also without conflict.

Yes, I agree. But your conversation brings up many points depending on your location. If in a mountainous area, hilly area, sea level area, AGL may fluctuate. As far as I know many in rural or city area's, or just backyard enthusiast's don't have instruments. Your issues are very different at least from mine. I'm sure there are many more issues where 400 AGL will effect all types of sUAS's. It's great you have worked things out. However, it brings me to the point where the FAA has no idea of the different locations, conditions or variables involved and they have made a blanket statement for hobbyists. You proved my point and it is well taken. Thanks again.