See and Avoid

[FastCat Studio]

was there an actual letter circulating?

I haven't seen one however there are quite a few talking about it: http://actvra.in/4kFV http://actvra.in/4sYT http://actvra.in/4st7

Personally, I can't afford a possible $10K fine so when I have a client wanting aerial images, I will keep hiring a pilot and plane to take me up there.

 

[econfly]

This is all so stupid. I would much rather have a multirotor over my neighborhood than some guy in a small plane or helicopter a few hundred feet up trying to take photos. Just once I would like to see government do something competently and intelligently. The only hope is that the big money commercial interests can bribe and cajole this system into a half-way decent outcome. Clearly the FAA isn't going to get there on its own.

 

[FastCat Studio]

Almost all the companies that I have done aerial work for have facilities in office parks; I have only done one that was in a neighborhood. I don't try to take photographs; I go in get my images and am on my way in 10 minutes; it does take time to circle down to the level for the photography and back up. My fee ($XXXX) is such that I had better get the image right when I am up there. Last thing I want to do is to have to redo the image on my dime.

I would like to be able to offer aerial work at the lower end (such as for realtors) but to be cost effective, it would have to be done via a MR. I would love to see the FAA get its collective heads out of its butt in regards to this issue but there does need to be rules set out that everyone needs to know and follow. There is too much of a chance of something tragic happening by some idiot who is determined to do his own thing come hell or high water and runs his "drone" into a manned aircraft.

 

[Av8Chuck]

was there an actual letter circulating?

Yes, about four years ago I received a letter from the LA Sheriff's department, sponsored by LA Film to the California Association of Realtors informing them that using drones to take aerial photography of property for sale might be illegal.

More recently they sent a letter to some of the large national brokers. There was a lot of debate regarding the letter on Real Estate forums but I never actually saw that letter.

 

[Av8Chuck]

=There is too much of a chance of something tragic happening by some idiot who is determined to do his own thing come hell or high water and runs his "drone" into a manned aircraft.

People have been making that argument for six years and it hasn't happened. Planes stay above 500 feet AGL, drones below 400 feet AGL and there is very little risk of a midair collision.

 

[Bartman]

Chuck, you seem to ignore or just don't understand the risks to manned helicopters which fly basically at whichever altitudes they please and a variety of fixed wing ops that might be less common but will also be found below 500 ft such as pipeline patrol, traffic watch, cropdusting, etc.

 

[FastCat Studio]

Chuck, you seem to ignore or just don't understand the risks to manned helicopters which fly basically at whichever altitudes they please and a variety of fixed wing ops that might be less common but will also be found below 500 ft such as pipeline patrol, traffic watch, cropdusting, etc.

Agree ... when I'm doing aerial work, we go below the 400 foot point ... the pilot I use is very experienced and careful. Other thing is that the bigger MRs are well able to go above 400 feet and that is what got the FAA's eye on all MRs; irresponsible people flying into areas that they shouldn't be just because they can.

Someone needs to figure out how the miniaturize the cameras the Google maps cars use ....

 

[econfly]

As long as manned helis are at any altitude they like and planes go below 400' routinely regardless of any rules in place (gotta get that pic!) then there is zero space available for anything else. If the manned aircraft demand deference (and often for competing in the same space commercially as unmanned flight might serve) then the RC/unmanned contingent is doomed. The only sensible solution is to compel manned aircraft to keep above a sensible floor (e.g., 500') and create space for unmanned craft under that floor. Otherwise we are always going to hear that "it could happen" response to risk associated with manned and unmanned flight in the same space. This is simple. Either the RC/sUAS interests push the manned flight out of the way or we lose. That's all there is to it.

 

[Av8Chuck]

Chuck, you seem to ignore or just don't understand the risks to manned helicopters which fly basically at whichever altitudes they please and a variety of fixed wing ops that might be less common but will also be found below 500 ft such as pipeline patrol, traffic watch, cropdusting, etc.

Your a pilot and know that's utter crap. Helicopter's do not routinely fly at whatever altitudes they like. If I fly below 500 feet AGL I, and every helicopter pilot I know fly's VFR flight following and there are very few helicopters flying at such low altitudes. I have more than 2000 turbine rotary wing hours. Even if EVERY helicopter pilot flew at such low altitudes that represents less than 5% of all aircraft.

I understand the risks, I'm just not sensationalizing them.

 

[Bartman]

As long as manned helis are at any altitude they like and planes go below 400' routinely regardless of any rules in place (gotta get that pic!) then there is zero space available for anything else. If the manned aircraft demand deference (and often for competing in the same space commercially as unmanned flight might serve) then the RC/unmanned contingent is doomed. The only sensible solution is to compel manned aircraft to keep above a sensible floor (e.g., 500') and create space for unmanned craft under that floor. Otherwise we are always going to hear that "it could happen" response to risk associated with manned and unmanned flight in the same space. This is simple. Either the RC/sUAS interests push the manned flight out of the way or we lose. That's all there is to it.

Rob,
The FAA is a difficult group of people to get through to in the absence of sound data from a reputable source. They will look at risks and try to find solutions but where there is no data they will make very conservative judgements regardless of how unfair it may seem to those harmed by their judgements.
While other countries have taken the approach that the risk is small, the technology is reliable, and the operators can be responsible the FAA, for whatever reason has refused to budge. My personal belief is that the guy in charge has a background in very big and very complicated technology development projects and he simply can't decouple himself from that experience to say the risk is small, the technology is reliable, and the operators can be responsible. That person, by the way, is on his way out and that might be a positive development for commercial sUAS operations in the US.
The intent of this thread was to simply raise awareness of a fundamental concept in manned flight, that being that manned aircraft rely heavily on being able to see and avoid each other so as to avoid accidents. It is my belief that if we acknowledge and understand the safety culture of others then we can begin to speak with them in respectful ways to find solutions.

 

[Bartman]

........If I fly below 500 feet AGL I, and every helicopter pilot I know fly's VFR flight following and there are very few helicopters flying at such low altitudes..........

What is your strategy to avoid conflict with sUAS when you do fly below 500 ft?

go back and read my posts and I think you'll see that "sensationalizing" isn't quite accurate and could be better used to describe your attempts to derail an otherwise adult conversation amongst interested people.

 

[Old Man]

I'm not in the mood to spend a lot of time looking for the video but there is an instance where an RC operator was flying a demonstration at a private airport fly in as part of the official program. After being told he could take the run way by the event director, while under the supervision of the event director, who was also the airport manager, who was monitoring traffic visually and via two way hand held communications, a kit built biplane that had earlier departed the field made an unannounced return for a high speed, smoke on low bass down the middle of the runway. The biplane hit the giant scale RC plane at about 30' msl. Nobody was injured but the RC was destroyed and the bipe sustained significant wing damage. The FAA and NTSB put the fault of the accident entirely on the RC operator even though the full scale violated several careless and reckless definitions. The runway was closed to full scale traffic at the time. For a defense the full scale claimed he suspected he had issues with the aircraft and was returning for a precautionary landing, which he flew at over 120 knots with the smoke on... The RC was a 35% scale with ~102" wingspan, a 90"+ fuselage, maintained in a stationary nose up vertical hover in full silhouette view of the full scale. It was clearly visible at the 12:00 position to the full scale.

The point here is that even though the RC operator should have been held harmless the way the regulations are written there is no legal defense or rights for the sUAS operator. The sUAS will always be held at fault. Agreed, manned aircraft should be given the widest berth possible to assure a human does not have an opportunity to be injured or killed through contact with an sUAS but the law does not have any provisions to indemnify the sUAS operator for the ignorance, stupidity, or actions of negligent full scale pilots. There are still plenty of them out there to conflict with.

Even having an FAA issued COA, declared under a NOTAM, should a collision occur between sUAS and manned aircraft the sUAS operations will be held at fault because they failed to maintain separation from the manned aircraft that violated the airspace. I have been part of an observer crew for such an operation and seen full scales that violated the COA airspace and also did not respond to two way communications on published frequencies. We, nor the law, cannot assume the full scale manned aircraft is always in the right. There has to be rules that establish safety for everyone, and everyone must be responsible for their safety.

Full scale helicopters flying power line inspections or other low altitude operations have a device available that will let them "hear" EMI generated at 50hZ (Europe, AU) and 60hZ (U.S.) at a distance of ~800'. At this time there is nothing requiring, or for that matter really available, for MR's to broadcast position for similar warning. Making that a bit worse is the FAA really doesn't want sUAS with transponders to turn them on when flown in COA airspace. I do fully agree that reasonable and realistic rules be incorporated that make room for everyone, and that full scale is going to have to finally change some of the ways they have operated in the past. The kit builts, Piper Cubs, and other aircraft without electrical systems will finally have to install something that will run a transponder while they should at least have a decent hand held two way com device that as of now are not required in Class G airspace. The AOPA, a group that has repeatedly and recently stated they are against the integration and use of sUAS, will have to come to terms with the fact the sky belongs to Americans, not just a very elitist group that rabidly defends their desires and access.

As a full scale pilot myself I see the failings of the manned aviation groups by refusing to acknowledge who we are (sUAS) and what we do, and I also recognize that much of the resistance is generated by pilots fearing a threat to their jobs. This is a rational fear since carriers have started looking at the single pilot cockpit for commercial passenger flights. We should note the same group eliminated the Flight Engineer position in commercial aircraft back in the late 1980's. Even the Air Force has stepped up to the plate by placing some of their jet jocks into unmanned flight training. They understand that unmanned flight is to be a significant part of aviation's future and are embracing it rather than block it. Some in manned aviation should become more involved and learn how sUAS works in order for them to gain employment in a field they fear because it is different from what they have done themselves.

 

[Old Man]

To continue what was started above, I believe sensible and functional rules be developed for safe operations of ALL aircraft, rules that recognize the changes that have taken place between how things used to be, and the technologies in play that are defining how things currently are and can be.

• We need a "tiered" identification/class system that defines sUAS. Those tiers would established where, when, how high, and in what manner sUAS could be operated.
• We need operator qualification that establishes what tier of sUAS they are qualified operate.
• There needs to be serious thought to Line of Sight and Beyond Line of Sight operations. Systems for Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) must be highly sophisticated, have redundant self landing or programmed route of flight fail safes in the event of comm link failures and in flight emergencies. Operators must be highly qualified and competent with recurring flight review
• Manned aviation needs to be provided operational "floors" that are not violated unless for the purposes of take off and landing or during an in flight emergency.
• Lightweight and low power consumption transponders/TCAS systems need to be developed for use on small sUAS, and mandated for all sUAS operated BLOS. If ALL aircraft operating above a specific altitude are so equipped much of the "see and avoid" needs are met. The definition of see and avoid should be revisited since it has not been 100% effective with manned aviation.
  
• A means of educating the general consumer in flight safety must be developed and implemented that is required for any individual to complete before making a purchase of any multirotor or component that is commonly used on a multirotor purchase. The consumer must have to demonstrate comprehension of the education/information program.
• A consumer must have an understanding of their equipment. They should have to demonstrate personal knowledge of the flight system functionality associated with their aircraft, even at the hobby level.

Those are just for a start. The task is a difficult one and loaded with resistance from just about every level because far too many think that rules should only apply to someone else, not them. They haven't had an incident thus far so how could they be doing anything wrong? If we want to keep what we have changes at numerous levels are mandatory, but they need to be sensible and cognizant of the rapidly changing technology. In this we will have our work cut out for us with the FAA and manned aviation because the FAA has been consistently 35 years behind in the adoption of new technology from their inception, and private level manned aviation views additional costs to upgrade their aircraft as a crusade that must be forever fought.

 

[econfly]

Rob,
The FAA is a difficult group of people to get through to in the absence of sound data from a reputable source. They will look at risks and try to find solutions but where there is no data they will make very conservative judgements regardless of how unfair it may seem to those harmed by their judgements.
While other countries have taken the approach that the risk is small, the technology is reliable, and the operators can be responsible the FAA, for whatever reason has refused to budge. My personal belief is that the guy in charge has a background in very big and very complicated technology development projects and he simply can't decouple himself from that experience to say the risk is small, the technology is reliable, and the operators can be responsible. That person, by the way, is on his way out and that might be a positive development for commercial sUAS operations in the US.
The intent of this thread was to simply raise awareness of a fundamental concept in manned flight, that being that manned aircraft rely heavily on being able to see and avoid each other so as to avoid accidents. It is my belief that if we acknowledge and understand the safety culture of others then we can begin to speak with them in respectful ways to find solutions.

Bart,

One thing any RC flyer can do (and here I'm thinking about line of sight flying) is to drop quickly if any plane or helicopter is nearby. That's easy to do by sound alone, so while a guy on the ground may not have the vantage point to literally employ "see and avoid" he can do a lot to avoid problems by getting low or on the ground if a plane/heli roars into the picture.

At this point I'm convinced that the RC/sUAS picture only improves incrementally. Big problems, like higher altitude flying beyond line of sight, likely will require technology and complex regs and years of incremental action. But, there are uses of sUAS systems that are much easier to manage if we take things step by step. For example, home inspection and even a decent amount of photo/video work can take place under the tree tops. The FAA could OK commercial sUAS work at, say, under 100', with zero risk to manned aviation. That would not only open up a lot of economic benefit but also would provide a learning experience all-around. It also addresses the practical limits of see-and-avoid by keeping the sUAS system so low as to insure avoidance regardless of what is out there in manned flight.

 

[Old Man]

I agree with your line of reasoning but the FAA has the long standing distance separation rules from persons and structures on the ground that virtually prohibit anything we can involve ourselves with at low levels. We need significant changes in those regulations in moving forward.

 

[Rentakill]

In a Just Culture framework failing to avoid collision could be seen as reckless behaviour. If you tried to avoid the collision and impact still occurred, you carried out a duty to produce an outcome. Given them 2 choices every-time you fly, I know which one I would choose.

 

[dazzab]

Bart,

One thing any RC flyer can do (and here I'm thinking about line of sight flying) is to drop quickly if any plane or helicopter is nearby. That's easy to do by sound alone, so while a guy on the ground may not have the vantage point to literally employ "see and avoid" he can do a lot to avoid problems by getting low or on the ground if a plane/heli roars into the picture.

My local flying field is just across the road from an emergency helicopter rescue service. Everyone there follows the rule to land anytime a full size aircraft is around. No problem at all.
I went out to the country to photograph some canola fields recently. On the way there I noticed a helicopter flying very low. I couldn't tell what it was doing but I think it was probably inspecting power lines. So I found a field to fly in and got permission from the owner. I kept hearing what sounded like a helicopter in the distance but I just couldn't see it. Turned out there was a motorcycle rally not far away and what I was hearing was Harley bikes heading down a distant road. So I land for helicopters and motorcycles, just to be safe.

 

[Av8Chuck]

What is your strategy to avoid conflict with sUAS when you do fly below 500 ft?

go back and read my posts and I think you'll see that "sensationalizing" isn't quite accurate and could be better used to describe your attempts to derail an otherwise adult conversation amongst interested people.

Really!? I don't understand why you make things personal when people express an opinion or idea that differs from yours, but since you did:

What percentage of your total hours are spent flying below 18,ooo feet? Compared to what percentage of my total time is spent below 1500 feet?

What percentage of your flight time is spent actually flying the aircraft without autopilot? Compared to, I don't recall ever flying a helicopter with an autopilot.

Do you own an plane or helicopter? I do. Your comment about me derailing this conversation is disingenuous at best, I spend the majority of my flight time flying an aircraft that I own at the altitudes your "debating," while it appears you spend less than a minute climbing or descending through those altitudes in an aircraft owned by someone else.

In the six years I've been flying MR's I have not heard of a single accident between an "aircraft" and a "sUAS." I'm not saying that we should wait for that to happen before thinking about a solution, but that fact somehow always seems to get lost in this debate. As for TCAS, first, very few small privately owned aircraft have TCAS so putting it on sUAS's is kind of pointless, and even if they were required that might cause more accidents than it would prevent. Can you imagine how TCAS alerts would increase if sUAS used them over urban areas and distracting they would be to a pilot? Chances of a mid-air between real aircraft would probably increase while the pilots spends more time searching for TCAS targets that are on the ground because the sUAS operator forgot to unplug the battery. And are you only going to put the TCAS on the sUAS's that are certified for commercial use?

So my strategy for avoiding conflict does not change for sUAS, I keep my head out of the cockpit, continually scanning for potential conflict, and in the unfortunate event that there is an empennage, main or tail rotor strike I would perform the appropriate emergency procedure that I have practiced hundreds of times in the aircraft, not in a simulator.

This is really simple, airplanes above 500 feet AGL, sAUS below 400 feet AGL and for the few that encroach on the others airspace that's where the pilots training becomes important, not the electronics on the sUAS, or the certification of the sUAS pilot or drone, but the pilot of the aircraft. No regulation or debate is going to change the fact that the pilot is the bacon in a bacon and egg sandwich. The chicken [sUAS pilot] is involved, the pilot is committed.

 

[Old Man]

Interesting analogy. From experience I can say that TCAS on UAV's causes full scalers to have unwarranted panic attacks and refuse airspace entry until the UAV's are 3 to 5 miles clear. They fail to take into account collisions, and they have happened, have every time been due to the manned aircraft violating the areas and altitudes they were assigned. Sorry Chuck but the statistics show the rotary wing drivers have been the worst for the airspace violations. That wasn't personal, just a comment in how it's been in those operating environments. Personally, I was nearly blown out of the sky by a CH-53 that passed directly overhead within ~50'. sUAS turning final for recovery, at night, not MR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bartman]

Really!? I don't understand why you make things personal when people express an opinion or idea that differs from yours, but since you did:

Chuck, there wasn't anything personal in my comment, not sure why you keep coming back looking for a fight. read the thread again up to where you entered it, it was a perfectly civil and mutually respectful conversation and you continue to drop back in insisting your opinion is all we really need to know.