I'm just going to throw this out there.

My contention is that is more dangerous to fly outside on a sunny day via line of sight than with FPV.  By FPV I mean with glasses that display the ground station and camera view.

My argument is this;

I live in a Mediterranean country where we have bright sunlight with zero cloud cover from June to September, and yearly we have something like 300 days of sunshine .

I have a sunshield around the Note 8 with the brightness turned full on.  I can see it outside, if that's what I'm looking at.  

But with line of sight I look into the sky to see where the P3 is.  

My eyes adjust to a small object in a bright blue background in full sunlight.  Now, when I look back at the tablet display I can't see anything, or just a ghost of something, because my eyes are not adjusted to looking at a shaded screen.  So I have no telemetry, I lose the orientation (I can see the P3, but not always where it's pointing), and I'm basically flying blind if the P3 is more than about 200ft (60m) away.

Isn't it far far safer to fly with FPV glasses, and a spotter?
--

To get over this I normally use BT-200's that are screen-mirroring the Note 8, and that works just fine, but today I couldn't get the screen mirroring to work and just flew from the Note 8, and it struck me how much harder it was...

I like the fact that you indicated you would fly with goggles *and* a spotter. Good on you!

My sunlight/weather problem is similar - I live in a small town in central Florida. Most of the time I can't see my mobile device either. I often end up making whatever settings I want/need by standing in some shade (if there is any!) and then flying mostly by line of sight. Thus far my Phantom has been rock-solid in the sky. It brakes like a bandit - when going moderately quickly in any direction, removing my fingers from the sticks makes it look like someone threw out an anchor! Even so, after hearing stories about flight mode shifting back and forth from one mode to another, you could end up in a situation where the barometric pressure maintains the altitude, but, while you're trying to decipher the pilot app, a breeze blows your phantom into trouble.

Thus far I think the highest altitude I've attained is around 130 feet and my phantom certainly doesn't look very big at that height. If your sky is 300 days worth of blue I think I might paint the bottom of my Phantom black. For those of us who get more clouds, the black would probably work better as well - that white (or almost white) blends in quite well with clouds when you get it way up in the air.

Several times I ended up making two or three passes at a scene - and making different camera settings in between. Unfortunately, there is no bracketing for video. Now if I bought a second Phantom, changed the settings and taught my wife.....

Check out this link I am the developer of the alien sunglasses wireless fpv system for the phantoms and inspire you may find this helpful with my glasses you can see the phantom the pad and the glasses all at once.  http://www.phantompilots.com/thr ... /page-3#post-395721

mtnmaddman Posted at 2015-6-15 07:04
Check out this link I am the developer of the alien sunglasses wireless fpv system for the phantoms  ...

Line of sight does have its own problems. Judgement on certain angles and distances is actually worse than feedback via the FPV screen. I've said it before, and I guess it's worth repeating. I would like to see glasses that you can toggle instantly between Phantom view and transmitter view (effectively giving you a line of sight without having to remove the glasses, and removing the need for a "spotter" which basically makes a second human being a "necessary piece of equipment"...that's fine if you've always got someone willing to fly with you). Adding a software feature such that the current position of the drone appears flagged within the "transmitter" view should not be difficult. That way you don't need to squint at a tiny microdot in the sky.

I also think that a second (very basic, nonphotographic) camera bubble on top of the drone could help with checking orientations / angles / distances in the air.

lightpanther Posted at 2015-6-15 07:20
Line of sight does have its own problems. Judgement on certain angles and distances is actually wor ...

with my glasses you have a view of the aircraft the remote and tab or phone device and you can see what the aircraft see's practically all at once you dont need a spotter these glasses are the only solution to you problem look them up on ebay

All that you have to do is to convince the civil air authority that FPV is better than line of sight. When they get up off the floor from laughing at you rest assured that you're probably not the only one that wants to use pilot glasses.

I've been accused of being too cautious and being concerned about something going wrong verses throwing caution to the wind and flying balls to the wall. Flying FPV  only will open yourself to civil litigation if you lose control of the quad and someone is injured or property is damaged.

You need to check with the CAA to find out what you are legally allowed to use and abide by the rules set forth by them.

Another drone manufacturer has numerous videos on YouTube with them flying inside major cities and close to people. The last video I saw from them was flying in downtown London and beside Parliament. I don't imagine with the events going on in todays world that that stunt was well thought out or received.  The last scene was when the police showed up and appeared to confiscate the drone. Never heard if they got fined or if they go the drone back.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-6-15 07:39
All that you have to do is to convince the civil air authority that FPV is better than line of sight ...

Hello gregg.

Is this supposed to be aimed at me? First of all, I don't presently have FPV glasses. It's simply an observation about flying. Sometimes FPV provides superior information to line of sight. I'm sorry that doesn't suit everybody (our FAA/CAA friends included) but it's a fact. A pilot flying in a real aircraft is basically in an "FPV" situation. Current limitations on the technology, more than the principle of the thing...

I've directed my comment at no one.

Pilots that are VFR (visual flight restricted) certified can only fly based on what they can actually see. If you have no ceiling (visibility) you can't fly.  IFR certification takes time, money and a lot of experience before you can take your test. Kennedy Jr was recently certified as an IFR pilot but due to heavy fog became confused by up and down.

Until the flight systems get proved to be 100% reliable, the FAA/CAA/JAA aren't going to budge on visual only for unmanned aircraft unless you possess a valid pilots license (think the present system to get certified for commercial use). They aren't going to make exceptions for any one person.

If conditions don't warrant flying due to bright or low light conditions, maybe delaying flying for a period of time so that the lighting can change for safe operation.

BTW, have you seen the Team Black-Sheep videos? Check them out and see what we're all up against.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-6-15 08:13
I've directed my comment at no one.

Pilots that are VFR (visual flight restricted) certified can on ...

I'm not sure that light aviation is actually even going to survive the drone revolution (which is just in its infancy). It's just going to be a lot safer, a lot cheaper, and a lot more convenient to achieve most of what is presently achieved under light aviation with a drone.

When I say that line of sight is in some cases inferior, I am talking about the judging of distances between the craft and some object, usually where both the craft and the object are somewhere near each other, but both (relatively) far from the operator. In that situation, and I've already had it, your FPV screen gives you MUCH better environmental information about the aircraft's circumstance than a (relatively) one-dimensionalized estimate from the transmitter station. If aviation authorities don't understand that, then frankly they don't completely know what they are talking about, with respect to flying UAVs at least. In the present climate, that does not surprise me very much however.

lightpanther Posted at 2015-6-15 08:22
I'm not sure that light aviation is actually even going to survive the drone revolution (which is j ...

If you had to base the approval of FPV on the present issues with the Phantom 2 and Inspire 1 quads, you might have a long wait.

With FPV, if everything is working correctly, it can be a good aid to flight. However reliance on the system will lead to loss of the aircraft.

It's just like when you start to operate a motor cycle. You don't typically go out and purchase a dresser Harley or a super bike. It's a skill that needs to be learned.

Learning on the visual gives one the ablitiy to see the entire field verses a small segment as seen via FPV. You can't see behind the quad presently unless you have a gimbal that rotates 360 degrees. You have no depth of field. That's only part of the problem with FPV.

Save  your shekels and get a privates pilots license and see if your opinion changes. You only need to save enough for an Inspire and a few batteries before you'll be licensed. It will be eye opening.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-6-15 08:38
If you had to base the approval of FPV on the present issues with the Phantom 2 and Inspire 1 quad ...

Why would I want to risk myself in a real aircraft when I can have the joy of flight and if there's a "catastrophic failure" a small piece of plastic breaks instead of a corpse being carried off to the morgue? I've flown real aircraft in the past, but frankly, these days I find that good simulators tick most of the boxes for me.

FPV will improve vastly, just as simulators have. There's no reason why you can't have the entire visual experience of being a "pilot" sitting in the "cockpit" of your UAV with the same amount of situational awareness. Sure, at the moment that's not the case...but I promise you it's coming, and when it does, most of these objections about "FPV" are just going to be meaningless.

My oh my how quickly we degenerate into FPV vs LOS and safety vs 'crazy dudes giving us all a bad name!'

I started the topic, not advocating one over the other but hoping to get a discussion going on it, as there are circumstances (in my case on 300 days a year!) where I simply cannot see my ground station screen if I look at the P3 in the sky for more than a second or two.

With the BT-200's (look them up if you don't know what they are) I get LOS and an inline view of the GS screen.  They are awesome and conform to the LOS Regs.  I always fly with a spotter (my girlfriend), because I live in a country where it is all controlled airspace and technically illegal to fly anywhere without permission from our CAA.  Obviously that is unworkable and they will bring out Regs. 'this year' (but even they will also include LOS unless my response to their consultation is noted).

The point is, all you LOS advocates, what is the best (read safest) way to fly if you had a choice between FPV (full on-screen GS) or LOS and no (or a useless) ground station?

mtnmaddman Posted at 2015-6-15 07:25
with my glasses you have a view of the aircraft the remote and tab or phone device and you can see ...

I like your solution, but they are not the only solution.  Look up the BT-200's.  My only question regarding your glasses would be 'How easy are they to wear with corrective spectacles?' because my BT-200's have a clip on frame for that...

Oh, and don't forget, regarding regulations....

We are at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws stage right now.

Th Red flag law  'was a policy requiring self-propelled vehicles (meaning cars) to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.'

In 5/10/50 years we will all laugh at the Regs. as they are today.
"It was feared that engines and their trailers might cause fatal accidents, scare horses, block narrow lanes, and disturb the locals by operating at night. Although all of these fears were justified and were soon realized, there was a gradual acceptance of the machines as they became more common in commerce."

Sound familiar...?

ianbradbury34@h Posted at 2015-6-15 14:00
My oh my how quickly we degenerate into FPV vs LOS and safety vs 'crazy dudes giving us all a bad na ...

Where here did you read here about “crazy dudes” giving us a bad name? Normal everyday self-centered people are giving us (drone users) a bad name.

Wherever we become self-centered and decide to fly in restricted areas, the natural reaction by the authorities is going to be more regulation. The laws and regulations presently on the books aren’t written to single out a person but an activity.

I used to fly camera equipped nitro helicopters to photograph kayak racers on the Potomac River in an area called Great Falls on the Potomac. It’s a National Park, and now an area where aerial vehicles are prohibited.

Countries presently allowing unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) the civil air authorities require line of sight flight. The FPV systems don’t have the reliability to presently allow for exclusive use. If you have an issue with this, take it up with them.

You've admitted to flying in violation of the law where you live if I read your post correctly. People like you are the reason that the regulations are put into place.

It's really simple. If you can't see the aircraft, DON'T FLY.

ianbradbury34@h Posted at 2015-6-15 14:04
I like your solution, but they are not the only solution.  Look up the BT-200's.  My only question ...

thank you I will look up the bt 200    THIS IS TO WHOM EVER  by using proper glasses it is a definite aid you use all three perspectives to the craft instead of two what is the matter with you people that think you are special that you are so called trained and qualified and want to limit us  who want to explore life freedom and technologies in our world give it a break you special ones we arent as stupid, incompetent or irresponsible as you special ones think we are we do have a brain to you idiots

Hi ibb34
did you get your mirroring to work?  Is your device android and did you upgrade your firmware to lollipop
my mirroring wont work on some devices that has been upgraded to lollipop

mtnmaddman Posted at 2015-6-15 22:57
thank you I will look up the bt 200    THIS IS TO WHOM EVER  by using proper glasses it is a defin ...

Wow, four lines of text and only one comma!

No one is stating to not use FPV goggles. Just if you are using goggles or phones or tablets for your FPV view, keep your UAV within visual distances.

In the old days of 72mhz radio, you ran out of transmission control distance before you lost a visual on your UAV. I'll readily admit that a lot of the UAV regulations are hold overs from the old days.

It's great that the radio transmission frequencies have changed to allow for greater distances as well as rejecting foreign signals. Just don't fly beyond where you can see your UAV using your two eyes.

It's not snobbery to abide by the rules and stating other also follow the rules and regulations. Beside the possible loss of your UAV, are you ready to pay for damages to person or property if something goes wrong? If so, that's great. If not, why?

We hear of more and more accidents each day involving UAV's. It's only going to get worse the more craft are in the air. While kids can pick up and fly most UAV's better than most adults, you're going to see age restrictions coming with the first round of new regulations.