These discussions always amaze me. I definitely understand the desire to to fully test the aircraft's abilities, after all these AC can do amazing things at great distances. However, you would never see a real pilot flying a plane with no windows and only a small screen with limited FOV from a camera!!! So what makes anyone think they should do so with a quad??? Obvs there are many who do and there's even a leaderboard thread in here where they all brag and compare max flight distances. None of them fly VLOS. It's dangerous and irresponsible and one of these days someone will be killed from it. Just my 2 cents...
The most ignorant thing one can do while flying a drone
- Thread starter Squirrel!
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2018
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 17
- Age
- 26
well, there is a whole airplane crash category called CFIT which consist in crashing perfectly air worthy planes into a hard surface. Humans are always the weakest link and a bad decision could mean a crash. VLOS is a main factor, bad battery cycling, wind and fatigue the other ones.
Last edited:
Need to remember that there are several occasions where piloted aircraft fly below 400' AGL and perfectly legal and not be taking off or landing.
I used to fly pipelines and right of ways and this is done at 100' to 200' AGL depending on ground conditions, trees, hills and such. I have to concentrate on flying the aircraft and looking out for birds but also now UAVs. Who do you think would legally have the "right of way" here, piloted aircraft or UAV? Lets hope nobody finds out in court or at a funeral. Crop dusting also fits in here. If you can't see your UAV how will you know if an aircraft is near your UAV
I used to fly pipelines and right of ways and this is done at 100' to 200' AGL depending on ground conditions, trees, hills and such. I have to concentrate on flying the aircraft and looking out for birds but also now UAVs. Who do you think would legally have the "right of way" here, piloted aircraft or UAV? Lets hope nobody finds out in court or at a funeral. Crop dusting also fits in here. If you can't see your UAV how will you know if an aircraft is near your UAV
Let’s not forget the innocent people below. Some of these BVLOS vids show sUAS flying over people and moving cars. Should an unfortunate mishap occur hurting someone it will look bad for all of us. How do you explain to the FAA why your sUAS was 3 plus miles away from the PIC and CS.
THA Says above quote :
Need to remember that there are several occasions where piloted aircraft fly below 400' AGL and perfectly legal and not be taking off or landing.
I used to fly pipelines and right of ways and this is done at 100' to 200' AGL depending on ground conditions, trees, hills and such. I have to concentrate on flying the aircraft and looking out for birds but also now UAVs.
My response to THA's Post !
In my post i had medical evac helicopters and crop dusters...them all fly low and i forgot about the "pipe line" patrols and there's quite a lots of private pilots that have private landing strips scattered all over the urban areas too...Thank you and i sure appreciate your post / message too.
Need to remember that there are several occasions where piloted aircraft fly below 400' AGL and perfectly legal and not be taking off or landing.
I used to fly pipelines and right of ways and this is done at 100' to 200' AGL depending on ground conditions, trees, hills and such. I have to concentrate on flying the aircraft and looking out for birds but also now UAVs.
My response to THA's Post !
In my post i had medical evac helicopters and crop dusters...them all fly low and i forgot about the "pipe line" patrols and there's quite a lots of private pilots that have private landing strips scattered all over the urban areas too...Thank you and i sure appreciate your post / message too.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 19
- Age
- 43
I believe there is a strong case for BLOS flight in SAR, emergency response, and disaster relief. When such flight occurs in the public interest (such as searching for a missing person in a vast wilderness area) and is properly coordinated with law enforcement/SAR, it becomes a force multiplier. It is able to cover difficult terrain more nimbly than a horse, provides more potential time on station than a helicopter (provided you have enough batteries), and is able to record footage at a much closer altitude than a manned pilot would safely fly.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2018
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 17
- Age
- 26
Full and secure BLOS flight is not really supported by today's consumer, prosumer or professional drone tech and most importantly, it is not supported by any legal regulation. ICAO & JARUS do not want autonomous flights or similar concepts with uncertified systems. It is not the fact that you can not see your bird but the fact that you must keep your command & control link up all the time. They want us to keep VLOS because it is also the best way to keep the command & control link secured given the current UHF tech we use. Radio waves in the UHF band travel almost entirely by line-of-sight propagation and with little ground reflection. Besides, it has to do with the fact that current tech is not capable of self decision making in a dangerous situation and more importantly, regulators want to held someone responsible when things go south. Only real time tracking for all actors involved with GSM networks will change some of this so we can do secure BLOS with real air space awareness, but at the end IMO there should be always someone at the helm.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 66
- Age
- 65
What, you don’t think drunk driving is deadly? The federal boys aren’t involved with that! And that is happening multiple times a day. I did not say I condone illegal flying, but it will happen. Yep it could be deadly. How many drones out there now? A lot right. How many deaths involving drones? I think we as a drone community are doing pretty good. Ranting and raving about something that could happen is useless compared to if you used that energy on something real that is happening now.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 19
- Age
- 43
I’m not referring to autonomous flight. I’m referring to commanded BLOS flight. Also, I’m more concerned on how it all shakes out with the FAA than what ICAO and JARUS think about it.
So don’t LOS yourself. You can mission plan for this. You can(and should) use a visual observer to scan the skies for manned aircraft, keep open flightradar24 (or your favorite tracking app, have an av radio, and coordinate your place in the airspace. UASs are superior to manned aircraft in many ways, to include better imagery resolution, and total time on target. In a hostile environment, it also enables a search to be conducted without subjecting the searcher to those conditions.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2018
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 17
- Age
- 26
In my opinion the main problem is signal strength and C&C integrity and I think this is what FAA or any other administration will be asking operators to certify. For instance, it is very likely that they would require mitigating actions if your C&C radio link goes down in BLOS, and I think blindness autonomous flight, like people are doing with litchi, won't be an acceptable answer.
The equipments we use right now are only good for the 500 x 120 m cylinder shaped VLOS flight IMO. Remember that it is not only about the C&C signal strength but also that the drone should be equipped with equivalent radio specs plus you need a HD video downlink, all secured against interferences and software crashes. I don't trust my drone to do tasks like BLOS S&R, I don't think it is robust enough. Signal strenght does not decrease linearly with distance but quadratically.
Also just observers and commercial live trackers won't make it here. Following JARUS standards, in this part of the world it is possible that you will be required to be in contact with ATC during the operation as an acceptable mitigating factor, you as a certified ATC radio operator & RPA pilot, apart from keeping certified observers, and the flight route must be registered in advance, hence no improvisation. Only real time drone tracking by ATC using GSM networks will change this in the future. At the end and following SORA based security indexes, it is very likely that in a restrictive enviroment (urban, air traffic) you will be required to use a military grade FAA/EASA-certified RPA system.
Certified versus not certified systems is key, because in the former case, regulators can put blame on the manufacturer but with uncertified systems it does not matter what your drone did, is all down to pilot error. UAS are superior to manned aircraft in cost and footprint, manned aircraft can be equipped with very sophisticated equipment too. Only in VLOS or in some kind of enhanced VLOS I would risk my drone into search & rescue.
Last edited:
Going back the post title, surely flying over people, cars and populated areas is more ignorant than beyond vlos?
Likewise filming people where they might have an expectation of privacy would be another more unacceptable activity.
Likewise filming people where they might have an expectation of privacy would be another more unacceptable activity.
Many of these BVLOS flights do fly over people and moving cars. And the ones that are above the clouds.....who knows.
Wrong! Pedestrians always have the right of way, run over a kid in the street and yes you will go to jail.
The most ignorant thing you can do while flying a drone is checking the hot chick coming out of the shower from her window.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,052
- Reaction score
- 391
- Age
- 59
Not if the kid isn't in a crosswalk. But yet again, you focus on the analogy rather than the substance of the post. Good for you!
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 261
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.mossphotography.biz
I'll disagree in substance, and a little bit in principal.
BLVOS is quite easy to achieve flying something like a Mavic, but I'm not going to sweat it if I'm 800' away and can't find my bird when I look back up. I know where it is and how high it is, so I can still "see and avoid" other aircraft. See and avoid is the fundamental reason behind LVOS, so as long as you can keep knowledge of location, and easily see other aircraft (& birds), you're fine.
Flying them out 2 or 3 miles, which we all have seen people do, is most certainly ignorant in almost all situations. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between, and only should be done by very experienced operators.
Personally, I believe the most ignorant thing to do is fly over large, compact crowds, like concerts. And we've all seen them.
Having had a mechanical inflight failure (with my earliest Inspire), flying over a crowd like that is utterly idiotic.
I've even kept my Inspire and use it in my FAASTeam demonstrations as an example of why you don't fly over people. I hand them the bird (or toss it on occasion if I think they can catch it and no one else is near) and ask them if they'd like to be hit in the head with it as it fell.
It gets the point across.
So yes, flying great distances with no way to see and avoid is stupid. Even ignorant to use your words. But I don't believe it's the most ignorant thing we can do with our drones.
Just my opinion obviously.
BLVOS is quite easy to achieve flying something like a Mavic, but I'm not going to sweat it if I'm 800' away and can't find my bird when I look back up. I know where it is and how high it is, so I can still "see and avoid" other aircraft. See and avoid is the fundamental reason behind LVOS, so as long as you can keep knowledge of location, and easily see other aircraft (& birds), you're fine.
Flying them out 2 or 3 miles, which we all have seen people do, is most certainly ignorant in almost all situations. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between, and only should be done by very experienced operators.
Personally, I believe the most ignorant thing to do is fly over large, compact crowds, like concerts. And we've all seen them.
Having had a mechanical inflight failure (with my earliest Inspire), flying over a crowd like that is utterly idiotic.
I've even kept my Inspire and use it in my FAASTeam demonstrations as an example of why you don't fly over people. I hand them the bird (or toss it on occasion if I think they can catch it and no one else is near) and ask them if they'd like to be hit in the head with it as it fell.
It gets the point across.
So yes, flying great distances with no way to see and avoid is stupid. Even ignorant to use your words. But I don't believe it's the most ignorant thing we can do with our drones.
Just my opinion obviously.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 261
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.mossphotography.biz
... I should also add that I fly my Mavic out much further than 800' regularly, but only when I have my VO with me, which is almost always.
Uhh... That is false. If I see a pedestrian on my path, I am pretty sure the law requires me to stop. Therefore, pedestrians have the right away. Anything else is false and ridiculous. Just sayin. I hope noone gives me a warning for posting a different opinion or correcting someone.
Similar threads
