Low flying light aircraft

[SultanGris]

Ok Genius you're right - every full scale pilot in the world will now be on the "Look-out" for idiots flying drones but they don't have to worry about hitting one because you and your expert buddy say its not going to damage anything - Hello!

Its guys like you with that line of thinking that will have all these drones banned in a few years!

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating unsafe drone flight practices or saying it will do zero damage and people should fly drones wherever they want without a care in the world by any means.

Common sense when flying should be used by both plane and drone pilots and safety should be a concern, there is no doubt some damage will occur to plane and the drone would be annihilated if there was a collision and neither pilot wants that.

I'm only saying everyone is losing their minds and seems to think a drone flying within a half mile of a plane will cause it to explode and kill everyone in a ten mile radius and that's ridiculous, there is zero evidence to support their opinions.

Many pilots besides my friend are on record saying it's a virtual non issue. They have hit birds and know what happens as a result and they realize the mass density factor. No offense but I'm inclined to believe pilots with experience who know what they are talking about over you who had no clue and is just regurgitating drone slandering propaganda he's heard from commercial pilots trying to block drones from taking over their extremely high paying filming from the air jobs. Drones will destroy that job market, its unstoppable though they tried their best.

There have been zero such collisions to date and zero evidence to support a drone taking down a plane. If you compare the mass density between a bird that planes hit with no issues over 11,000 times a year to a plastic drone you will see that the drone actually has less and as a result would have less damage causing force upon impact vs a bird because most of the drone is hollow plastic and would easily break and deflect. If a drone was solid steel the results would be very different, but it's size and damage causing potential is very misleading if you understand physics.

Like you point out the battery is the largest solid part of a drone and basically the only part that would do anything more than scratch the paint. There is a small chance that a perfectly placed strike on the windscreen would cause a crash scenario but the odds a plane/drone collision resulting in a plane crash are very small is all I'm saying. It's not gonna take out a prop or a jet engine.

The fact of the matter is drones are here to stay and have been assigned airspace up to 400 feet where they can fly. If you fly small aircraft in this airspace other than when taking off or landing then you should be aware of the risks by now and are just as responsible for any collision that occurs as the drone pilot. If not even more so due to the fact drones have limited speed and won't be able to take evasive action very well if a plane comes out of nowhere or a novice pilot isn't paying attention but it's pretty hard to blame the drone pilot who's flying where he's supposed to be if it hits a small plane who's flying out of its designated airspace in my opinion. Always use common sense and fly safe.

 

[SultanGris]

You're entitled to your opinion but I sincerely doubt a jury of reasonable people could possibly find the uav at fault as it's pretty well physically incapable of avoiding a plane that invades it's airspace without warning. If the drone pilot is obviously flying where he shouldn't be then it would be different for sure. Perhaps when the faa finalizes their recommendations and they become actual law they will make things like this more clear but until then all we can do is speculate. As a reasonable person I don't see how they could possibly just automatically blame the uav. Like I said they are here to stay and will only increase in numbers. I'm guessing they likely change the regulations you mentioned above and get small aircraft out of drone assigned airspace except for special circumstances where they need to be flying lower such as agricultural spray planes for example. Will just have to wait and see I guess. Despite all the media frenzy and drone sightings near aircraft its never happened yet, maybe it won't be as big of an issue as people think as more pilots on both sides become more educated on the subject and watch out for each other.

 

[lake_flyer]

Like I said they are here to stay and will only increase in numbers.

So will the chance that some moron DOES crash into a plane or a truck on a highway. And it will grow exponentially.

Professional UAV pilots are obligated to inform the authorities and thus any pilots in the area, prior to any RPAS operation, with a NOTAM. Pilots (also other RPAS pilots) will have to respect that and thus normally will not enter the RPAS airspace during a RPAS operation.

It's the massively growing number of 'self educated' (if at all) flying selfie sticks that's getting in the way of regular air as well as ground traffic, on a daily basis. And that's a very scary thought.

I think some people here overlook the fact that the number of educated enthousiasts (usually experienced club RC pilots), will be far outgrown by the massive number of "Look granny, even you could fly this" users, who only care about the number of likes they get from their Facefart friends. That's the kind of folk we don't see here I'm afraid. But it's the majority.

Once people ARE truly educated they suddenly realise this IS very serious stuff and they (normally, I mean, I was....) feel ashamed about their ways and behaviour when they were still just flapping around in restricted airspace (they didn't even know it existed until the toy manufacturer puts in on the side of the box as a warning) or over railways, highways, and congested city areas, even at night.

 

[IrishSights]

@Lesmess, I been having a think about your report. At first I thought wow that was low...and pass on by. On reflection I think I would have not reported an incident as there was none obviously, however there may have been a few minutes earlier. I think I would have given an advisory call to ATC. I don't know if they would have acted on it, but they may have given the pilot a a buzz.

I remember a year or so back a local Lord of a local estate got miffed at continual low flights by microlights over his stately home. He knew he could have reported it to the CAA which would have raised a lengthy process and public embarrassment for the local club and the pilot (His number was recorded). Instead he wrote to the club who took it seriously and gave all their members a stern briefing.

This was no near miss but it was a close call. Just my thoughts.

 

[SultanGris]

So will the chance that some moron DOES crash into a plane or a truck on a highway. And it will grow exponentially.

Professional UAV pilots are obligated to inform the authorities and thus any pilots in the area, prior to any RPAS operation, with a NOTAM. Pilots (also other RPAS pilots) will have to respect that and thus normally will not enter the RPAS airspace during a RPAS operation.

It's the massively growing number of 'self educated' (if at all) flying selfie sticks that's getting in the way of regular air as well as ground traffic, on a daily basis. And that's a very scary thought.

I think some people here overlook the fact that the number of educated enthousiasts (usually experienced club RC pilots), will be far outgrown by the massive number of "Look granny, even you could fly this" users, who only care about the number of likes they get from their Facefart friends. That's the kind of folk we don't see here I'm afraid. But it's the majority.

Once people ARE truly educated they suddenly realise this IS very serious stuff and they (normally, I mean, I was....) feel ashamed about their ways and behaviour when they were still just flapping around in restricted airspace (they didn't even know it existed until the toy manufacturer puts in on the side of the box as a warning) or over railways, highways, and congested city areas, even at night.

I do see some of your points and I think education is key but you simply cannot make everywhere off limits to drones, they are the future. I don't believe they will totally block them like some fear mongers think or want to happen.

Flying a drone over railways, hiways, cities and at night are no more risk than flying a real plane over these areas and they are not banned from doing so. Banning drone flight over such areas is ridiculous and completely unnecessary and frankly severely reduces their useability potential. If they do end up passing that as part of their initial law governing uav flight I predict it will change in a year or two. Uav pilots are not going to sit idly by and let commercial airplane pilots in the photography or other services areas that a uav can provide block uavs from performing these jobs. Uav pilots will greatly outnumber them and easily get the required votes for changing such a stupid policy.

 

[Mike Mas]

I do see some of your points and I think education is key but you simply cannot make everywhere off limits to drones, they are the future. I don't believe they will totally block them like some fear mongers think or want to happen.

Flying a drone over railways, hiways, cities and at night are no more risk than flying a real plane over these areas and they are not banned from doing so. Banning drone flight over such areas is ridiculous and completely unnecessary and frankly severely reduces their useability potential. If they do end up passing that as part of their initial law governing uav flight I predict it will change in a year or two. Uav pilots are not going to sit idly by and let commercial airplane pilots in the photography or other services areas that a uav can provide block uavs from performing these jobs. Uav pilots will greatly outnumber them and easily get the required votes for changing such a stupid policy.

Dude you have a great solution - start a war with all the full scale pilots - hell we'll just yank all their licenses - they don't need to fly aerials any more, guys like you can do it. The hell with their rights!

Like I said, your line of thinking is what will have us all flying only at AMA approved flying fields.

Not sure if you know it - but if you're thinking of shooting anything of any value other than your dog running around the house - you too will be one of the guys your complaining about since you're going be required to have a pilots license as well.

How long did you say you been doing this drone thing?

 

[SultanGris]

Dude you have a great solution - start a war with all the full scale pilots - hell we'll just yank all their licenses - they don't need to fly aerials any more, guys like you can do it. The hell with their rights!

Like I said, your line of thinking is what will have us all flying only at AMA approved flying fields.

Not sure if you know it - but if you're thinking of shooting anything of any value other than your dog running around the house - you too will be one of the guys your complaining about since you're going be required to have a pilots license as well.

How long did you say you been doing this drone thing?

I think you fail to understand the point, they already started the war and are trying to make drones virtually unusable, not gonna work however. I'm also not trying to trample anyone's rights. Both parties have equal right to the sky and must share it. Once they finalize an actual law regarding uav flight there will be no pilots license requirement.

Suggesting you need a pilots license to fly a uav is asinine. The only reason it's a "requirement" right now is because they are treating uavs the same as actual airplanes and subject to the same laws since there are currently zero laws dealing with uavs. I totally understand why they are doing it and don't really blame them but rest assured it's a temporary solution until they can pass something specific to uavs.

However it's not an actual legally enforceable requirement at this time and it will never be because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It's like requiring a CDL drivers license with all endorsements to ride a pedal bike.

This may explain it to you better.

We are tired of people saying "DRONES ARE ILLEGAL!" Here is real talk on what the law really is or isn't - Aeriographer.Com

 

[pulsar747n]

There's about a zero percent chance it's going down, planes hit birds all the time and they don't go down except in rare circumstances, usually when they fly through a whole flock and hit a bunch of them. Birds are solid meat and have more mass density than a hollow plastic drone which will disintegrate on impact. You really think a piece of 1/8 inch thick plastic is gonna cause a plane crash? Lol, you're delusional. There would likely be some damage to the plane depending where it hit but it wouldnt cause a crash.

Did you not read my previous post? I've flown in close proximity to small aircraft and my pilot friend said it's easy to see. He also said if he hit it the worst that would happen is id be buying a new one. Should be even easier if it's directly in front of them where they could possibly collide unless there are pilots flying around out there not looking out the window at all, lol!

I have been flying for over 35 years and have more than 2,000 flight hours. I have flown aircrafts from 45mph to 180mph cruise speeds.
I am not sure about your pilot friend experience but I can assure you that most pilots including me, are not looking for drones or birds as we fly.

I have had several close calls with birds and a few with general aviation aircraft and in either case I never saw anything until it was very close to my airplane. In the case of the other aircraft, they never saw me either, as we found out later.

According to US FAA regulations, aircrafts can fly below 500ft over sparsely populated areas or over open water. I can also fly across the US without taking to anyone or under any type of control from AIr Traffic Control. So don't count on pilots seeing you, they won't!

I would also disagree with you that an Inspire or Phanton can not bring an aircraft down, or cause major damage. I for one had a cylinder nut go through my prop on a pusher aircraft and brake half of the prop, causing me to make an emergency landing. Fortunately nothing else happened. Something like an Inspire or Phantom hitting a control surface at 100mph, will definitely bring an aircraft down or a quadcopter going through a cockpit window can disable the pilot and cause a crash.

Although I am not too happy about the FAA regulating UAVs, the FAA has already stated that UAV must yield to manned aircraft. I for one would not test the courts, apply common sense and yield to every body! At the end of the day, I will go home with my Phantom.

 

[SultanGris]

I have been flying for over 35 years and have more than 2,000 flight hours. I have flown aircrafts from 45mph to 180mph cruise speeds.
I am not sure about your pilot friend experience but I can assure you that most pilots including me, are not looking for drones or birds as we fly.

I have had several close calls with birds and a few with general aviation aircraft and in either case I never saw anything until it was very close to my airplane. In the case of the other aircraft, they never saw me either, as we found out later.

According to US FAA regulations, aircrafts can fly below 500ft over sparsely populated areas or over open water. I can also fly across the US without taking to anyone or under any type of control from AIr Traffic Control. So don't count on pilots seeing you, they won't!

I would also disagree with you that an Inspire or Phanton can not bring an aircraft down, or cause major damage. I for one had a cylinder nut go through my prop on a pusher aircraft and brake half of the prop, causing me to make an emergency landing. Fortunately nothing else happened. Something like an Inspire or Phantom hitting a control surface at 100mph, will definitely bring an aircraft down or a quadcopter going through a cockpit window can disable the pilot and cause a crash.

Although I am not too happy about the FAA regulating UAVs, the FAA has already stated that UAV must yield to manned aircraft. I for one would not test the courts, apply common sense and yield to every body! At the end of the day, I will go home with my Phantom.

And why aren't you looking for birds or drones? Cause hitting one isn't very likely to cause you to crash. My buddy has been flying an agricultural spray plane along with with other small aircraft for 20+ years. He doesn't look for birds or attempt evasive action either cause they don't matter, he hits them frequently when flying at 10-20 feet from the ground while spraying.

I'm by no means saying a drone pilot shouldn't yield right of way, just that it's unlikely to be physically possible in some situations due to speed capabilities of both craft. I dont know all the answers to this problem but it's unreasonable to expect them to leave current small aircraft regulations alone and ban drones from flying anywhere. They both have equal right to use the airspace and they have to share it.

If they were smart I think bumping joyriding small aircraft up to above 400ft would be an easy solution. Other than an agricultural spray plane what reason would small planes have to fly lower than that anyway? If they don't separate them then they are gonna have to delegate some responsibility to small aircraft pilots to pay attention and watch for drones when flying lower than 400ft.

While I do agree the drone pilot should always be on the lookout and yield right of way there are situations where you might be flying around trees or buildings with a good view of where you're flying but not a very large window to spot a small plane coming at you at 160mph.

I don't know how big a cylinder nut you're talking about but sounds like it could possibly be a freak accident to me. I have another buddy who was hunting coyotes from a plane and one of his friends actually shot the prop. It put a dent in it and put it out of balance but didn't break it. They were able to fly and land back at the airport safely. I suppose it depends on many factors what sort of prop damage would occur in a collision but I would expect plastic drones to be very low risk compared to bullets.

 

[pulsar747n]

My point is not about responsibilities. Every pilot is responsible for seeing and avoiding. My point is that we are just not able to see an square foot item floating in the air until it is too late!
I once listened to an Air Force Pilot that came to our EAA meeting, explained to us that at the speeds they fly, they can not see a Cessna 150 in a collision course!

 

[SultanGris]

My point is not about responsibilities. Every pilot is responsible for seeing and avoiding. My point is that we are just not able to see an square foot item floating in the air until it is too late!
I once listened to an Air Force Pilot that came to our EAA meeting, explained to us that at the speeds they fly, they can not see a Cessna 150 in a collision course!

Fair enough. Sounds highly unlikely to me but I guess those guys are probably watching the dash moreso than looking out the window so maybe they really wouldn't see a Cessna size object directly in front of them. Sounds pretty **** dangerous to me if it's true, you'd think they would be running into each other left and right if it was.

All I can say for sure is that my buddy said he could see the drone easily and you can see where it was in relation to him in the video so I would only imagine it would be even easier to see if it was directly in front if you on collision course, if you were looking out the window anyway.

How far from yourself have you flown yours and still been able to look away and look back and locate it easily? I can do so up to about half a mile or so and don't see why it would be any different from the air. I can track it fairly easily up to around a mile even but if I look away at that distance it takes a while to locate again. I realize you cover ground fast at 160mph but if he could see it when flying 20ft off the ground and it wasn't even directly in front if him I gotta believe other pilots could see it also. I was specifically asking him if he could see it very well or not cause I was curious, he wouldn't have lied to me about it.

Maybe it was easy for him cause he knew it was around there somewhere and was looking for it while your average pilot isn't really watching where he's going when leisurely cruising at a few hundred feet looking out the side window instead.

I'm just saying if I was flying a small aircraft these days and was remotely worried about a collision with a drone causing me to crash I'd be primarily looking forward when flying below 400 ft is all.

 

[lake_flyer]

Flying a drone over railways, hiways, cities and at night are no more risk than flying a real plane over these areas

Manned planes (any flying plane is a real plane) are always operated by registered and fully licensed pilots.
How in the world can you suggest that people, kids even, flying hobby crates from Banggood or Hobbyking, wearing head tracker gaming goggles, are just as safe? How can anybody say that?

In the end it might all lead to this:

Future consumer drones, all of them, would eventually be fully autonomous, weigh less than 1 kilo and wouldn't be possible to operate outside local daylight hours. They would also simply not take off in any restricted space. They'd simply refuse to do anything that's forbidden, including flying over railways, city centres and highways (For Google also a very important development). They would not go any further or higher than 100 feet from the user (or smart phone). Just good enough for the regular sports and holidays selfies and real estate shots. They would not enter regular airspace at all. They would be flying cellphones that could be tracked down anytime to the owner and/or specific smart phone user.

By that time anyone who would want to own or fly anything bigger than 1 kilo would have to be certified and registered, or they would have to fly at a club field.

The large public, still just eying the the whole 'drone thing', waiting to jump on, is really only interested in close shots of themselves on holidays and sports etc. No need to give them a drone that can fly higher and further. That will be the vast majority of users. Flying selfie sticks, even with face recognition, nothing more.
Frank Wong knows that and does everything to be ready when that day arrives. DJI will flood the market with flying smart phones, forcing any competitor to follow. Larger drones will become a specialty and not very interesting for the mass of web stores.
Economics will regulate that for sure.

I'm afraid that future is getting closer everyday. The technology needed to impose or enforce all this is already there. By flying a DJI product you actually pay Frank to help make his dream come true. DJI is very active in the discussion and is playing the game very well. They are well prepared when the regulations are there.

Fully educated RPAS pilots however will soon be able to fly legally (and indeed as you suggest, very safe) at night or over congested areas, AFTER having the proper IFR and autonomous flight training. The international regulations for that are in the make.
This is the possible future as laid out by authorities at our National Aviation Laboratory who are very close to, and active in, the international discussion about drone regulation.

Being educated and licensed does not automatically mean that people will always act responsible, as you clearly point out. Shooting through your own prop with a gun while killing animals from a plane is a quite an example.

 

[SultanGris]

Firstly you can fly ultralight aircraft with no pilots license so the idea a uav should require one is completely absurd.

Secondly, how long have you been flying drones? How many times have you crashed one? I've been flying for about a year and I've crashed twice in the beginning learning phase. I was smart enough to practice in nice wide open empty spaces so my crashes hit nothing. One was caused by moving the craft during power on phase which results in sensors being out of wack which results in erratic uncontrollable flight. The other was due to simply not having much stick time and trying to fly to close to something. Haven't crashed in over 10 months and I fly almost every day.

Any semi decent pilot would be able to fly over buildings/people just as safely as full size aircraft. You propose to prohibit experienced uav pilots from flying in certain locations simply based on the slim possibility a novice pilot could maybe crash there? That's the stupidest possible reasoning ever and isn't a legitimate reason. Apply that same logic to driving cars and see how dumb it really is.

I'm not saying they should necessarily be completely unregulated, but they need guidelines that are fair and make sense, not completely dumb **** like requiring 40 hours flight time in a full size aircraft to get a pilots license in order to legally sell a picture you took with a uav and not being able to fly over cities cause there's a 5% chance a beginner pilot might crash and hit a person or damage someone's property.

 

[chriz]

I'm not saying they should necessarily be completely unregulated, but they need guidelines that are fair and make sense, not completely dumb **** like requiring 40 hours flight time in a full size aircraft to get a pilots license in order to legally sell a picture you took with a uav and not being able to fly over cities cause there's a 5% chance a beginner pilot might crash and hit a person or damage someone's property.

Limiting our flight altitude and places that we can fly above has a reason, and that reason is almost always pointed out to safety. Yes, it is almost absurd that its OK to fly around and take photos or videos for recreational purposes but not for commercial. However, limiting the commercial aspect of drone use and requiring only certified individuals (such as licensed pilots) to operate uavs for commercial purpose makes a lot of sense now if you take into account that this industry for cheap unmanned aerial photography/videography is still at its infancy.

Imagine if the FAA stated that its ok to fly phantoms or inspires commercially, and if people realize that there's money to be made in such business, the onslaught of beginner and uneducated flyers will just skyrocket. Hundreds if not thousands of people will go out and buy these quadcopters and start posting on craigslist that they'll provide 30mins of videography for maybe $100. Every real estate agents would want to pay for such services if not do it their own. Every wedding couple will want those footage as well. And like facebook, twitter, instagram, and what have you, everyone would want to be in on it especially the general public. Instagram photos of them at the beach, at the park, at the football stadium, on top of the empire state building, you name it, all will be more likely to appear online. Unfortunately, this is all fine and dandy until things go wrong.

Now comes the safety part. The I1's take off weight is a little of 6lbs, and as we all know we're only supposed to fly these at under 400 ft. Lets say a certain newbie idiot decides to film a soccer game form above and get some really cool night shots of the stadium up at 400ft. He's watching it from his ipad on the controller, 20 GPS lock, hovering and everything is fine, and then suddenly the I1 gets disconnected and starts free falling. Moisture and night time dew collected on the battery terminals and momentarily shorted the connections on the board, and shuts off. Using simple physics, at 400ft and 6lbs, if the I1 falls directly on someone's head, the impact of that drop is equivalent to a little over 100mph. Imagine yourself as another attendee of that event getting hit with that 6lb (basically a light bowling ball) at that speed. How happy would you be? Even if the inspire slows down due to air drag and maybe hitting a light tower before finally hitting you, you'd still sustain injury. Maybe the props cuts you directly across your left cheek deep and now you'll need to be stitched up and will surely scar. $10,000 in medical bills because the owner of the drone wasnt insured at all, and fifa refused to own up because they were not really required to limit the drone from entering the stadiums to begin with. Now your significant other breaks up with you because of fear from getting caught with that bill, and also because you have that huge 8" scar on your face that her friends are not so happy about either. All this happened because some unexperienced idiot flew a brand new inspire 1 above a sold out, packed stadium.

So, should the gov't require us to fulfill 40 hours of flight time on a full size aircraft to get a pilots license in order to legally sell a picture we take with an uav? Personally, I also believe thats bullsh*t BUT the psychological effect of having to spend thousands of dollars to train and to be legally able to fly drones commercially will certainly slow down the swarm of uneducated idiots from buying and creating havoc with drones just because they can do it cheaply.

You said it yourself, when you started you were smart enough that your initial crashes were in an open field and hit nothing. Unfortunately, this world is filled with people who are less inclined on using their brains and commonsense just because they want to impress friends in people on the internet, and they would gladly unpack a brand new inspire one that they got for christmas on christmas eve, without fully charging the battery to take footage of the christmas light displays in his/her neighborhood, and not knowing that the firmware wasnt updated and the new toy came crashing down on a group friends singing carols outside. I guarantee that a parent somewhere will have a terrible holiday season. And i'll be pissed off the next day if obama decides to ban all public consumer drones altogether from taking off.

 

[SultanGris]

I hate to burst your bubble but tons of inexperienced people are already buying and flying drones and there have been very few actual issues. Anyone in my neighborhood and friends/relatives with any interest in one already has one. Your sudden major increase in new pilots scenario has already happened, its not very likely to happen again.

I've already explained the reasons why a pilots license is currently "required" and why it won't be when they pass actual uav regulations.

Like I said I understand why some regulations are required for safety and agree but they have to be fair and pertinent to uavs and requiring a pilots license is neither. A fact that should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

 

[SultanGris]

I mean seriously, who in their right mind could say that spending thousands of dollars and weeks of their time getting a pilots license to fly a uav is in any way beneficial? If it was just a written test sure no problem, and that's what it's going to be when the uav specific laws come out I'm pretty sure. Having to log 20-40 hours of flight time piloting an aircraft that has nothing in common with piloting a uav? Sheer lunacy my friend, sheer lunacy.

 

[Carlsberg]

The fact of the matter is drones are here to stay and have been assigned airspace up to 400 feet where they can fly. If you fly small aircraft in this airspace other than when taking off or landing then you should be aware of the risks by now and are just as responsible for any collision that occurs as the drone pilot. If not even more so due to the fact drones have limited speed and won't be able to take evasive action very well if a plane comes out of nowhere or a novice pilot isn't paying attention but it's pretty hard to blame the drone pilot who's flying where he's supposed to be if it hits a small plane who's flying out of its designated airspace in my opinion. Always use common sense and fly safe.

I agree with you 100% and some of the guys on this thread are forgetting about the video they saw with their own eyes. There is no way a drone pilot could have gotten out of the way of that plane, no way.

 

[lake_flyer]

View from 50 seconds onwards - flying at 250 feet (military often fly down to 100ft) do you seriously think this pilot would be able to see a UAV and take evasive action?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

thanks! really enjoyed that video. British pilots always have been the masters of low level flying ever since the Mosquito came into action.

But to anyone who still not getting it: Even these guys read NOTAMs prior to take off. Any UAV operation that is properly announced in a NOTAM will be seriously taken into account when they plan their operation and they will avoid your airspace for the time of your operation as stated in your NOTAM.

How in the world would they know if, when and where, any consumer is flying his drone? They have no way of sending out NOTAMs at all. They even don't know what it means.

 

[Lesmess]

Given this scenario and OP's video, I agree. There's no way he could have reacted in time given his limited field of view. This raises another issue about our responsibility as operators of unmanned vehicles. Do we also share share the burden of ensuring the airspace is safe for both manned and unmanned aircraft below 400'?

The FAA says we are supposed to make way for manned aircraft. This aircraft is flying very low, but he's allowed to be there. The drone pilot had a VERY narrow field of view out to the horizon as the rocky cliffs blocked much of his view to the left and right. If he had a higher vantage point where he had a larger field of view, he could detected the planes approach much sooner and given way accordingly. It seems like the dangerous situation here could have been avoided by better positioning for the intended flight path.

I'm glad this video was posted because it's not something I'd really considered before. I'll definitely be making sure I can see far enough away on either side of my flight path going forward.

Given this scenario and OP's video, I agree. There's no way he could have reacted in time given his limited field of view. This raises another issue about our responsibility as operators of unmanned vehicles. Do we also share share the burden of ensuring the airspace is safe for both manned and unmanned aircraft below 400'?

The FAA says we are supposed to make way for manned aircraft. This aircraft is flying very low, but he's allowed to be there. The drone pilot had a VERY narrow field of view out to the horizon as the rocky cliffs blocked much of his view to the left and right. If he had a higher vantage point where he had a larger field of view, he could detected the planes approach much sooner and given way accordingly. It seems like the dangerous situation here could have been avoided by better positioning for the intended flight path.

I'm glad this video was posted because it's not something I'd really considered before. I'll definitely be making sure I can see far enough away on either side of my flight path going forward.

My spotter (wife) was still on the cliff where I had been a minute or so earlier. She shouted to me a light aircraft was flying along the coast, that's when I turn towards the sea. I don't think I could have done much even if I saw the plane and my inspire was still 300 meters from me. The sun was low and he was flying at a level I was not expecting to see a light aircraft. I try and fly as safely as I can and enjoy my inspire flights immensely. I was just trying to point out that the unexpected can and will happen.

 

[Buck Ames]

Did a couple sorties at one of my local flying spots Collieston (North East Scotland) on my second flight I flew out to a ship anchored offshore. Flew back to my take off spot with no issues about 40 seconds later a light aircraft flew past about two to three hundred meters offshore at about 20 meters off the surface of the water. Gave me a fright as I believed there should have been no chance of me flying in airspace that could be occupied by light aircraft.
I have it on video and will post it later, I dread to think what would have happened if he or she hit my drone head on as he or she was flying at least 80 knots. I flew in accordance with Uk laws average height was 50 meters and myself or spotter had her in sight at all times. Who was at fault If there had been a collision? Speed & height they were flying at there is no way I could have taken avoidance action. We were outside controlled airspace I'm not sure what that means in terms of flying a light aircraft.

Great point ... last evenings 11:00pm news here in central Virginia we had an extensive report of drone (UAVs) sightings by smaller aircraft and, as they reported, the serious results of such a collision. I think we are in the beginning stages of radical restrictions on UAVs, an increase in no-fly-zones, etc ... a lot more than just registration!