What would I tell the judge. ..

[turbodronepilot]

You're busted for flying beyond line of sight Turbo!!!!
First of all I welcome all American and European operators to this discussion. .
Let's not bash each other and try and learn from each other and hopefully raise the bar in regards to UAV's..
this is what I'd say to the judge if somehow I ended up in front of one for flying beyond line of sight. .if that's possible when it's not against any law at this time..
It's a recommendation for us..so you wouldn't see a judge imo..

1st of all ..I didn't do it.. hehe..just playing. .
2.. Currently these recommendations are under review and subject to change ..
they say it will be law in a couple of years. .but who knows. .
I'll follow the laws when they are actually laws and not recommendations. .
3...Reasons why I believe flying blos is beneficial. .
I'd like to eventually start a drone consultant business. .
my potential clients are ranch ,farm and private property owners...
several friends own huge amounts of property and farm and raise cattle or just would like to fly around and watch over the property for verious reasons..
I'd like to see someone film the land speed record attempts in Bonneville. .
not much of a chance hitting anything out there ..
or long stretchs of flying near the ocean for example.
Have you ever been in the country?? Miles and miles of open land..think how useful a drone would be to monitor crops or livestock. .
4.. More range = more reliability under adverse conditions or possibly when signal loss accrues. .the more range you have available grants you more time to recover signal and therefore regain control. .
5. They might change the rules to accommodate us if we can prove we can fly blos safety and responsibly..
6..six really? ?
The judge says.. You're free to go..Then says .."hey turbo. .what kind of drone is that??""
I rest my case ...turbo. .

 

[MadMitch88]

Once the FAA publishes final rules about LOS, then anything written into law based on those rules will need to be a LOT more specific about what exactly constitutes "beyond line of sight".

Here in the U.S. it's highly unlikely you'll ever get convicted of a speeding offense on a public road unless there is a measurement from a radar gun that indicates your speed at the time of the offense. That radar/laser gun is legally required to be inspected, certified and calibrated for accuracy within a certain time frame according to applicable state laws. These types of laws were written as a protection of the peoples' civil rights, so that not any Joe Schmo Cop with poor eyesight and depth perception can walk into a courtroom and say to the judge --- "Well it sure looked like the accused person was speeding by my estimation." Any dummy cop knows how to press the button on a radar gun so that's why they are used in speeding cases.

But how is this same careful application of measurement technology and civil rights protection going to be applied towards LOS cases? Even if cops are henceforth required to carry some kind of sophisticated radar tool to measure how far away your UAV is from you, who will get to decide what is within LOS and what is beyond it? Some judge looks at your skin color or haircut style and decides LOS for you was 250m, but for an attractive blond with 38D's it was 500m? Now you see the problem with any final rule or law based on subjective interpretation!

I'm not a legal expert, but I wouldn't recommend lecturing a judge in a courtroom about how flying your UAV beyond LOS at your buddy's farm is excusable. That's like telling a judge it was OK for you to drink and drive because you were heading home on deserted country roads where there was little traffic. Try that in court and tell me how it goes! U.S. judges don't enjoy being told that certain people get to operate above the law because conditions were favorable.

If you really care about how LOS gets written into law then now is the time to act. Write an email to the FAA administrative board and contact your local Congressmen (not sure how it works in Europe or Asia) and make your voice heard about this matter. It will be too late to complain once LOS is written into state or federal law.

 

[PetePerrim]

My excuse is already prepared. "Your Honour, I have very good eyesight which is why I can fly my Inspire out to 2.5kms!"

 

[MadMitch88]

My excuse is already prepared. "Your Honour, I have very good eyesight which is why I can fly my Inspire out to 2.5kms!"

Make sure you bring a hard copy of your genomic profile to show the judge that 25% of your DNA is bald eagle

 

[NEJO/Wisconsin]

Have you guys seen there is someone out there who invented binocular contacts I guess with a certain order of blinks you can turn them on or off. Ohh boy this is going to complicate things now we can all see like Peteperrim

 

[Paul K]

Sorry I didn't get it ; it doesn't matter how many excuses you will present to judge ,you are still responsible for any accident /injury you and your craft cost.
I strongly believe that every country where rules/laws for UAV operation are set ,line of sight is mandatory for reason.
And how FAA is going to set the laws it is strictly on the craft operator. FAA did introduced recommendations for safe operation,and their next task is to watch closely if those recommendations are respected or ignored ; results will dictate how strict laws will be set.
As a car driver we know there are two types of traffic signs the ones you have to obey (stop sign) and recommendation signs ( recommended speed for certain part of highway/road) ;if I respect the recommended speed limit and still cause the accident , I have much better chance get of the hook than the one who was driving over the limit ,in the same situation.
It is up to us how the whole UAV regulation will be set.

 

[MadMitch88]

I strongly believe that every country where rules/laws for UAV operation are set ,line of sight is mandatory for reason.

Well apparently the U.S. government thinks it's perfectly OK to use technology to fly a drone beyond LOS if it's to kill somebody with a missile --- but God forbid if civilians use the same technology to fly more safely beyond LOS.

 

[catware]

I've written this before and I'll say it again... IMHO the line of sight *recommendation* that was put forth decades ago makes perfect sense with normal RC aircraft. If you flew it so you could no longer see it, you then had no idea which way it's headed and therefore couldn't control it. However with these new aerial platforms carrying continuous realtime HD hardware transmitting video and telemetry back to a display watched by the pilot, it is no longer a problem to maintain absolute control of the aircraft when it's beyond visual range.

In another thread someone raised the issue of 'clearing the airspace' around the RC device, as in risk of being hit by a full-size aircraft. Well, IMO if you are below the 400' recommendation, and full-size aircraft have a 500' minimum altitude, then that should minimize the possibility of collision. Plus there's always a risk to full-size aircraft of hitting a bird at lower altitudes as well.

IMO this LOS recommendation needs to be revisited -- hopefully the new regulations will reflect the capabilities of modern technology.

 

[PetePerrim]

I've written this before and I'll say it again... IMHO the line of sight *recommendation* that was put forth decades ago makes perfect sense with normal RC aircraft. If you flew it so you could no longer see it, you then had no idea which way it's headed and therefore couldn't control it. However with these new aerial platforms carrying continuous realtime HD hardware transmitting video and telemetry back to a display watched by the pilot, it is no longer a problem to maintain absolute control of the aircraft when it's beyond visual range.

In another thread someone raised the issue of 'clearing the airspace' around the RC device, as in risk of being hit by a full-size aircraft. Well, IMO if you are below the 400' recommendation, and full-size aircraft have a 500' minimum altitude, then that should minimize the possibility of collision. Plus there's always a risk to full-size aircraft of hitting a bird at lower altitudes as well.

IMO this LOS recommendation needs to be revisited -- hopefully the new regulations will reflect the capabilities of modern technology.

Very well written, thank you.

 

[Kilrah]

However with these new aerial platforms carrying continuous realtime HD hardware transmitting video and telemetry back to a display watched by the pilot, it is no longer a problem to maintain absolute control of the aircraft when it's beyond visual range.

Until your video feed fails and you're SOL, while if you're within LOS you can look up and continue flying. That is one reason for the LOS requirement.
The second is that if you see the craft you can see/hear what's around it and avoid any other aircraft that may enter the same airspace, beyond LOS you don't have the same situational awareness.

The only way this can/will be lifted is when in conjunction with an efficient failsafe with reliability an order of magnitude or 2 above the current RTH systems. Would have not only to be 99.9% sure it comes back home (we're far from there seeing the various reports...), but it would also need to have full avoidance capability both for obstacles and other air traffic built-in. That's technologically and practically decades away.

 

[worldsoutro]

Well apparently the U.S. government thinks it's perfectly OK to use technology to fly a drone beyond LOS if it's to kill somebody with a missile --- but God forbid if civilians use the same technology to fly more safely beyond LOS.

What..... My mind is blown.

 

[MadMitch88]

What..... My mind is blown.

Don't get on the Sh*t List of the U.S. government --- or else it will be more than your mind getting blown up by a Predator drone.

 

[AlexanderAF]

Thankfully I don't see a situation where any one of us would be in front of a judge for flying our drones FPV. You'd really have to do something stupid and I imagine this could be a 'tack-on' offense if they're trying hard to throw the book at you.

Don't crash your drone into Tom Brady during the Super Bowl, fly it into the White House lawn, or crash it into a Nuclear Cooling Tower and you should be fine.

 

[MadMitch88]

Thankfully I don't see a situation where any one of us would be in front of a judge for flying our drones FPV. You'd really have to do something stupid and I imagine this could be a 'tack-on' offense if they're trying hard to throw the book at you.

Don't crash your drone into Tom Brady during the Super Bowl, fly it into the White House lawn, or crash it into a Nuclear Cooling Tower and you should be fine.

I'd love to agree with you since I love flying FPV myself and don't want to see it outlawed.

Sadly, I think the days of FPV are numbered here in the USA. It's probably going to happen through a combo of firmware limitations and application of harsh penalties such as stiff fines and even jail time. I think it's inevitable that adverse incidents will continue to pile up in the media (ie, White House drone, Paris terror drones, etc) and this will force DJI and all manufacturers to impose a very strict range limit. Don't be surprised if every UAV sold in the U.S. has something like a 500 ft. maximum range at some point in the next 3-5 years. Of course, many consumers will complain but nothing will change since all UAV makers will be forced to impose the range limit.

From the manufacturer perspective, a very limited range limit won't greatly impact commercial or personal use. For example, DJI will assume a real estate agent won't need to fly a UAV beyond 500 ft. to get a nice aerial shot of a house, or a farmer can just walk around the perimeter of his farm to survey crop yields while the UAV stays within 500 ft. As for the pure hobbyist, DJI will assume you can still enjoy taking photos from the air with a 500 ft. range max.

Law enforcement will love the range limit because it will make tracking down offenders a lot easier. Cops would have a very hard time locating somebody operating a UAV from 2 miles away. Knock the range down to 500 ft. and a cop can do a 360-degree scan and probably find the law-breaker quickly under most situations.

 

[AlexanderAF]

Not sure they'll go that far. I'm not saying there won't be limitations handed down, but I don't think it's going to get to the point where regulations are a complete burden on flying drones. Of course we'll have to wait and see, but I guess I'm a glass half full kind of guy…

 

[catware]

Let's hope it won't come to pass as @MadMitch88 predicts. For one thing, I have 140 acres of land in rural Wisconsin, and should be allowed to fly where ever I want with my equipment on my property.

A major concern I have are the mandatory firmware upgrades the Inspire 1 has. Makes me hesitant to part with my Phantom 2... Is there a way to block these updates from occurring?

 

[crashburn]

Let's hope it won't come to pass as @MadMitch88 predicts. For one thing, I have 140 acres of land in rural Wisconsin, and should be allowed to fly where ever I want with my equipment on my property.

A major concern I have are the mandatory firmware upgrades the Inspire 1 has. Makes me hesitant to part with my Phantom 2... Is there a way to block these updates from occurring?

Wish we had some smart programmers among us that could jail break/root the firmware/app software, so then we could use our equipment/property as we want, and should… see my post at
http://www.inspirepilots.com/index.php?posts/13194

Enjoy life and be nice

 

[turbodronepilot]

Once the FAA publishes final rules about LOS, then anything written into law based on those rules will need to be a LOT more specific about what exactly constitutes "beyond line of sight".

Here in the U.S. it's highly unlikely you'll ever get convicted of a speeding offense on a public road unless there is a measurement from a radar gun that indicates your speed at the time of the offense. That radar/laser gun is legally required to be inspected, certified and calibrated for accuracy within a certain time frame according to applicable state laws. These types of laws were written as a protection of the peoples' civil rights, so that not any Joe Schmo Cop with poor eyesight and depth perception can walk into a courtroom and say to the judge --- "Well it sure looked like the accused person was speeding by my estimation." Any dummy cop knows how to press the button on a radar gun so that's why they are used in speeding cases.

But how is this same careful application of measurement technology and civil rights protection going to be applied towards LOS cases? Even if cops are henceforth required to carry some kind of sophisticated radar tool to measure how far away your UAV is from you, who will get to decide what is within LOS and what is beyond it? Some judge looks at your skin color or haircut style and decides LOS for you was 250m, but for an attractive blond with 38D's it was 500m? Now you see the problem with any final rule or law based on subjective interpretation!

I'm not a legal expert, but I wouldn't recommend lecturing a judge in a courtroom about how flying your UAV beyond LOS at your buddy's farm is excusable. That's like telling a judge it was OK for you to drink and drive because you were heading home on deserted country roads where there was little traffic. Try that in court and tell me how it goes! U.S. judges don't enjoy being told that certain people get to operate above the law because conditions were favorable.

If you really care about how LOS gets written into law then now is the time to act. Write an email to the FAA administrative board and contact your local Congressmen (not sure how it works in Europe or Asia) and make your voice heard about this matter. It will be too late to complain once LOS is written into state or federal law.

I agree with you mitch and I'm not that stupid to tell a judge anything if that was even a option. .judges speak to lawyers and public defenders..rarely do you get to say anything but guilty or not quilty..
I made the statement to encourage debate on the subject because I believe most people don't even know what the proposed regulations are..
Turbo. .

 

[turbodronepilot]

Until your video feed fails and you're SOL, while if you're within LOS you can look up and continue flying. That is one reason for the LOS requirement.
The second is that if you see the craft you can see/hear what's around it and avoid any other aircraft that may enter the same airspace, beyond LOS you don't have the same situational awareness.

The only way this can/will be lifted is when in conjunction with an efficient failsafe with reliability an order of magnitude or 2 above the current RTH systems. Would have not only to be 99.9% sure it comes back home (we're far from there seeing the various reports...), but it would also need to have full avoidance capability both for obstacles and other air traffic built-in. That's technologically and practically decades away.

Its good that we debate these potential issues because it can help us pave a path to flying blos safetly ..
I have an idea how all of us can fly blos and I don't think it's decades away..
I'm looking into if there's a way for me to make a profit from my idea..
so when I figure out if it's worth anything or not I'll let you in on it..
someone on here said dream small be small..dream big be big ..or something like that...I'm dreaming big...
turbo. .

 

[DaBone]

I got a "Fly away"..

Rest my case.