Interesting article on how legal the un-announced but leaked FPV system will be legal or not.

https://dronedj.com/2021/01/08/w ... -people-are-asking/

Will it have secret remote ID software hiding inside the flight controller, ready to be activated in 18 months?

mc54 Posted at 1-10 09:00
Will it have secret remote ID software hiding inside the flight controller, ready to be activated in 18 months?

lol,  probably not as the USA hasn't ratified the technology for that yet.  But with SDR (Software defined radio) its possible it could be added.

I am a novice on my mavic air 2 but it seems to me the FAA rules on VLOS are a bit rediculous. While the article mentioned that there are things that you can't see around you using the goggles such as a side view, the reverse is also just a true in that you have almost no height perspective. Trees, towers, etc. are just a guessing game from the ground while from a camera view you see exactly where the height of objects are. I think the truth should not be VLOS is the rule as planes should not be below 400 anyhow. If you were flying below 400' then VLOS should not apply. If you are flying around a building or object that itself is taller than 400' and needing to be filmed then VLOS would then apply. It makes way more sense than the current VLOS only rules.

Crossbowxy Posted at 1-10 09:35
I am a novice on my mavic air 2 but it seems to me the FAA rules on VLOS are a bit rediculous. While the article mentioned that there are things that you can't see around you using the goggles such as a side view, the reverse is also just a true in that you have almost no height perspective. Trees, towers, etc. are just a guessing game from the ground while from a camera view you see exactly where the height of objects are. I think the truth should not be VLOS is the rule as planes should not be below 400 anyhow. If you were flying below 400' then VLOS should not apply. If you are flying around a building or object that itself is taller than 400' and needing to be filmed then VLOS would then apply. It makes way more sense than the current VLOS only rules.

Problem is there are plenty of aircraft which will be legally under 400ft,  for example police helicopters or if you have them air ambulances.  

Part of this too is that even the best video downlinks available in consumer aircraft and electronics is really Not There Yet. It's terrible, actually, even in the best case. A tiny little glitchy, blocky video feed, that barely allows you to see anything even when it is working right. The DJI video systems are state-of-the-art, but still nowhere near comparable to the "FPV" you have piloting an actual manned aircraft with good visibility.

So to me, I don't like the rule, but it still seems pretty rational. Until we get a full 180deg. FOV in virtual reality in 8k at 120fps with 50 miles range and 2ms latency with no breakup.. , the FAA isn't going to want to relax that requirement for a second visual observer. Not until we're able to maintain situational awareness close to the level of current manned fight, anyway.

Sadly, we're probably still quite a few years away from a truly comparable FPV technology, with all the telemetry we'd need for situational awareness enough to safely conduct the flight from the ground without VLOS. The military probably already has something like that, but for consumers, it'll be a long time if ever before we get something similar that's affordable.

luciens Posted at 1-10 12:54
Part of this too is that even the best video downlinks available in consumer aircraft and electronics is really Not There Yet. It's terrible, actually, even in the best case. A tiny little glitchy, blocky video feed, that barely allows you to see anything even when it is working right. The DJI video systems are state-of-the-art, but still nowhere near comparable to the "FPV" you have piloting an actual manned aircraft with good visibility.

So to me, I don't like the rule, but it still seems pretty rational. Until we get a full 180deg. FOV in virtual reality in 8k at 120fps with 50 miles range and 2ms latency with no breakup.. , the FAA isn't going to want to relax that requirement for a second visual observer. Not until we're able to maintain situational awareness close to the level of current manned fight, anyway.

Hello there DAFlys. Thank you for reaching out and for posting this interesting article link you have found. Again, thank you for your support and fly safe always.

Interesting read!

Montfrooij Posted at 1-11 00:13
Interesting read!

With the new EU rules it will be interesting,   I suspect it will be aimed a people flying in designated spaces for FPV but plenty of people will buy them and fly them adhoc.

DAFlys Posted at 1-11 02:09
With the new EU rules it will be interesting,   I suspect it will be aimed a people flying in designated spaces for FPV but plenty of people will buy them and fly them adhoc.

Just had to stop myself from replying to a FPV flyer that shared his (beautiful but illegal) footage on another forum....
People...

Montfrooij Posted at 1-11 02:39
Just had to stop myself from replying to a FPV flyer that shared his (beautiful but illegal) footage on another forum....
People...

lol.  What forum was that?

DAFlys Posted at 1-11 02:41
lol.  What forum was that?

A Dutch drone Forum.
On FB

Montfrooij Posted at 1-11 02:43
A Dutch drone Forum.
On FB

Ah,  OK I keep of FB, prefer a bit of instagram even though FB own it.

DAFlys Posted at 1-11 02:46
Ah,  OK I keep of FB, prefer a bit of instagram even though FB own it.

I use FB just for groups.
Sort of like this one, but mostly different subjects.