Flying VLOS - is that the solution?
- Thread starter Guy bb
- Start date
It depends what your definition of "safe" is. If the definition of safe is safer than driving your car to work, then yes the aircraft flying over neighborhoods is safe. The likelihood of you getting injured from a commercial aircraft falling is less than you getting injured in a car accident. This comparison isn't valid, as pointed out by WetDog above. I think Guy bb may have something to consider, or at least ponder.You may have something there. I think the FAA is somewhat of a hypocrite when it comes to how they are supposedly integrating sUAS in the national airspace. They create worst case safety rules like VLOS, don't fly over people, etc. Then the commercial jetliners they also regulate take off and land at airports right in the middle of cities, and fly right over people's houses. I live 5-6 miles from Dulles airport. Jets fly over my neighborhood houses all the time. I'd hate to see an accident happen. But the FAA lets them fly over our neighborhood with hundreds of tons of mass aircraft. Is that safe? Certainly not. Perhaps they should move all the airports out in the rural areas to ensure safety. But no one is debating doing this.
I think the bottom line is, people need to practice safe habits, and be aware of risks at all times. If there are ways to avoid risks, then standard practices should be used to do so if at all possible.
For a drone to receive GPS coordinates broadcast by commercial aircraft on a special frequency, and all drones could received it (such as 2.4Ghz), the drone could calculate two sets of coordinates, determining the height, direction, and speed of a commercial aircraft. It would be pretty easy to do in software with little to no extra weight to the drone, but the commercial aircraft industry would have to use a certain frequency to make it cost effective, and drone manufacturers would have to comply with a so called "collision avoidance" compatibility. It would also have to be mandated by the FAA for all commercial aircraft, and I'm not sure how feasible that would be just to prevent drone conflicts. I really don't see that happening very soon.
If a commercial aircraft was headed toward the drone and determined a threat, descending to 150' might be a possibility with a warning to the controller display. The only issue becomes, if you're in a hilly area, 150' high in relation to take-off point might be 10' underground in the drone's current flight location. So maybe automatic decent wouldn't be a worthy idea.
Collision avoidance (including hitting the ground) is coming to drones soon, maybe that's when this idea might be worthy. I think eventually there will be a cost effective solution to this potential problem. I agree that today we haven't heard of very many downed aircraft from drone strikes, but there have been some close calls (so they say). Eventually there will be an incident, and I'm not eager to find out what that would do to our hobby.
Last edited:
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.
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Night flying is pretty cool on the P3P, as long as you fly high enough to avoid tall trees that you cannot see against the dark sky! ISO 3200 on the 4K video is designed for night time, or at least well after sunset. Finding yourself for landing on the way back is a little more challenging in the dark! Using a strobe flash light on the ground helps, just like night lighting at airports!No night flying? Actually, I can see my phantom much further away at night thanks to the lights that are only visible at a distance at night time. Night time increases my VLOS.
(Just kidding... I have not flown at night other than a brief test 10' off the ground to make sure things worked after the firmware upgrade.)
The aviation industry invests a lot of money into solutions to deter birds around airports and to prevent aircraft-bird collisions. Drones are not very different. In a couple of years time there will be many more drones and the risk will be significant. It also does not have to be faa mandatory. Each airline company can decide it's own safety level. Heck some companies even have systems to counter the threat of AA rockets.
But when an airliner comes down, as they do on occasion, they can weigh several hundred tons, are filled with thousands of gallons of highly-flammable jet fuel, & wipe out multiple city blocks upon impact. If you're home & it crashes on your roof you are toast. If it crashes 200' away you still may be killed or your property destroyed.
If a Phantom crashes on your roof you only hear a thud. It doesn't obliterate an entire neighborhood. You only suffer injury were it to fall on you directly.
If a Phantom crashes on your roof you only hear a thud. It doesn't obliterate an entire neighborhood. You only suffer injury were it to fall on you directly.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
Of course they crash. Just not very frequently. And yes, you have to match risks and benefits. Given that that airspace is a shared resource, what are the benefits for commercial air travel? Quite a bit - shut down airports and the economies of major and minor countries will tailspin (so to speak). Prohibit UAVs from the NAS (National Air Space)? Well, you'll have some pissed off hobbyists and a few minor economic hiccups (DJI's stock would probably drop). But not much else.
So the object is to create some middle ground. But the FAA is going to rightly err on the side of safety. The economic clout of major players in the aviation industry probably comes as a close second. UAVs - basically pocket lint. Will the FAA do things 'right'? If you are a UAV enthusiast, the answer will be 'likely not'. Will lots of UAV enthusiasts do the right thing? Most especially not and there will be some outliers there that cause problems.
I think the chance of a Phantom class UAV severely damaging a commercial plane is low. But not zero. Lots of people think that UAV strikes will be similar to bird strikes. Could be - I don't think that this has actually been studied - but I would point out that the FAA spends millions of dollars on bird mitigation annually. At my local airport, two pickup trucks equipped with flare guns and fireworks run the airport prior to takeoffs and landing of jets. A pair of Australian sheepdogs get to run around and bark at everything they see (lucky dogs). The last eagle strike to a 737 engine cost the airline several million dollars. Sheepdogs are cheaper.
I think a moderate UAV could severely damage a small general aviation plane enough to cause the pilot to lose control.
So the UAVs do present a potential danger to commercial and general aviation. It isn't clear exactly how much danger. I would hope that the FAA would fund some real research into this. Get a crop of dead Phantoms (DJI might even give them away), shoot them at various bits of aircraft anatomy. Get some real data instead of conflating every UFO sighting into a UAV caused disaster worthy of six weeks of CNN coverage.
Again, I am afraid that this is going to turn out to be a tragedy of the commons. A few nitwits and simply folks who don't understand the implications of what they are doing and the capabilities of their Christmas present stand a real chance of screwing things up royally for the Rest of Us. Finely tuned, carefully written, thoughtful Federal legislation is not something you typically see.
Happy New Year!
Fwiw, I use a cheap ($20) SDR connected to my tablet that can pick up ADS-B within about 50-100 nautical miles.
As ads-b is already becoming mandatory soon, that seems like a pretty simply "first warning" solution. Also, as I have Flytrex in both my birds (P3P & P2V+), my bird is already always broadcasting its location. How hard would it be to take that data stream and rebroadcast it over a proper ADS-B channel? Not very hard at all.
What we need is not better regulation, but more clever technological solutions to sharing/routing the airspace.
And you could easily manufacturer an integrated ADS-B transmitter for the P3 airframe, it's just that "certification" of these devices is ridiculously expensive. However, that's just a racquet to protect specific business interests, and in unmanned airframes, there is no need for quadruple redundancy like in manned systems.
As ads-b is already becoming mandatory soon, that seems like a pretty simply "first warning" solution. Also, as I have Flytrex in both my birds (P3P & P2V+), my bird is already always broadcasting its location. How hard would it be to take that data stream and rebroadcast it over a proper ADS-B channel? Not very hard at all.
What we need is not better regulation, but more clever technological solutions to sharing/routing the airspace.
And you could easily manufacturer an integrated ADS-B transmitter for the P3 airframe, it's just that "certification" of these devices is ridiculously expensive. However, that's just a racquet to protect specific business interests, and in unmanned airframes, there is no need for quadruple redundancy like in manned systems.
I like these ideas. Does anyone know how to mix the fly trex or other position sensor to add a drones location on ADS-B?
As to the reference to transponders, Sagetech has the technology for ADS/B with a transponder in a package the size of a cigarette pack, designed for UAV, but the type-approved unit requires 24 volts and puts out 30 watts. I have suggested the FAA should allow them to scale it down to 12 volts and 3 watts for short range use in an sUAV, which is possible, but not without type-approval by the FAA and other governments. A short range version could provide warning for aircraft nearby without cluttering the display system. An airliner at 16,000 ft doesn't need the extra clutter of stuff below 400 ft on the 1090 mHz display. You can't avoid it if you can't detect/see it. Just my theory.
You might find this interesting reading: Low Power Surveillance Equipment for UAVs [UPDATE 3] – Southern Helicam
Where can I find that "cheap SDR"?
Since the Phantom appeared around late 2012 early 2013 I have yet too see or hear of any catastrophe disasters caused by one. Even when you see loads of footage of ones dropping out the sky no damage is ever shown only the plastic craft flapping away on the ground or in a tree. Eventually at some time in the future I am sure there "might" be a significant event with a consumer drone/Quadcopter/rc craft. But how many car accidents will have occurred in that time?
Another assumption all other aircraft are infact airliners, or have a display,
Forget the word detect, you cant avoid it if you cant see it is the the important part.
True. However after just 1 serious accident there will be so much negative publicity it may affect our hobby significantly and the regulators will be all over us.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 191
Good point, but I can still lose perspective when flying with VLOS and crash into something or someone and cause damage not only to my aircraft, but to a structure or a person. So, VLOS is still not a solution. I recently crashed while in VLOS mode and didn't realize I was close enough to a tree to hit it. Actually, if I had been using my FPV, I would not have crashed. Think about it. Using FPV, I am right their visually with my aircraft and can see what is in front of me and can at least attempt to avoid a hit if I am flying forward. The military fly their drones FPV always. Seems to me that if they fly them in FPV that it is very safe. Just because our flying is a hobby doesn't mean we are safer using VLOS.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 191
Yes that is true but that will always be true. The media hypes everything out to the n'th degree. Life happens but it doesn't stop life.
This is exactly what I'm talking about!
Why not certify something like that? Ads-b is pretty simple to implement, especially with modern tech. And some local area warning is a lot better than no warning.
The SDR I use for ads/1090 reception is the NooElec Mini 2 with a USB OTG adapter to connect it to my tablet. Then there are a couple of cheap paid apps on Android I use for demodulation and mapping.
And fly drunk and are human too! Humans make mistakes and machines have defects! I agreeYeah, and those "well trained" pilots still can't manually land in SF without crashing the tail end loaded with passengers onto the tarmac for the firetruck to run over!
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.
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.
Similar threads
