iFoxRomeo
lvl.4
Flight distance : 1094856 ft
Germany
Offline
|
BlueHound Posted at 2018-3-11 09:19
"There is no exception for that rule" This is my main issue with the rule. It does not allow for the simple physics of the situation. Normally the way you would attempt to give way for an aircraft would be to descend as rapidly as possible (which is not rapid at all since drones have very slow descent speeds due to the ring vortex). Descending is not possible when you are attempting to avoid a helicopter that itself is just a dozen or so feet off the ground. So now what do you do? Even with your drone in plane sight a few hundred meters away, is the drone closer or the helicopter? Which is the best direction to move the drone in for safety? How is your ability to judge relative distance between a large helicopter and a tiny white dot? Even if you did manage to perfectly avoid it, the helicopter pilot could still panic and jerk sideways and hit a tree and blame you.
As written, the rule indicates that if your drone is in the air, any nearby helicopter crash your fault no matter what. Why not add a "best effort" clause? Why not make it clear that aircraft pilots within drone airspace are responsible for avoiding drones whenever possible? Why not make helicopter practice areas off limits for drones with a reasonably small radius and add them to the DJI database like prisons? This whole set of rules is just a giant punt by the FAA. They want to maintain the status quo and ignore the millions of amature drones being sold nationwide.
I agree it's not easy. But actually if you are not able to "see" whether the flight path between the drone and the aircraft is safe or not, you are not VLOS anymore.This can be 50m or 200m or more, depending on model size, shape, lighting situation, eyesight, weather, sourrounding area etc. And you as the UAS operator are in charge to avoid collisions.
For UK
Quote:
Air Navigation Order 2016 (ANO)
Article 94
(3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct,
unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in
relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the
purpose of avoiding collisions.
Source: https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Model-aircraft/
There is no drone airspace per se. The airspace is shared among the users of the airspace.
But undeniably the health and life of the crew of a manned aircraft is of higher value than the sUAV itself. So one should even consider crashing one´s drone as ultima ratio.
E.g. crash into the trees or shut down the motors in flight (ofc unless you are over people(if you have the permission for that)).... But before doing that you should think of other options.
E.g. As soon as you hear an aircraft, descend to treetop level, then scan the area for the aircraft. Next to trees the Drone should be safe, as the manned a/c will avoid these.
But if you are at 400ft this could take too long. So start searching for the aircraft and act accordingly. Don´t wait till the a/c comes too close, return to your position, so you can better judge the UAVs flightpath in relation to the other A/C... etc.
But don´t activate RTH, neither intentionally nor unintentionally.
It all depends on the actual situation, but it is highly improbable that a helicopter will suddenly and silently appear 50m next to your drone, as you hear them long long before you see them.
No, a nearby helicopter crash doesn´t automatically mean that it is your fault. It still has to be proven that your action lead to that crash.
"Why not make aircraft pilots avoid drones whenever possible?" Well, they will do that because of their self-preservation instinct, as every midair collision bears dangers. The rule is "see and avoid". A drone is smaller and harder to see than a manned helicopter. And the helicopter pilot won´t hear your drone, but you will hear the helicopter very well.
It´s not only practice areas. Think of emergency medical helicopters. They can appear an land nearly everywhere.
The FAA and the other nations FAA equivalents want to keep air-traffic as safe as possible. It has nothing to do with keeping status quo. The new "Drone rules" are an attempt to keep flightsafety on a high level. Attempt, because their rules are sometimes overshooting the target and ignoring the technical advances. A lot of media hype and ANGST is also involved...
E.g. former 9km in Canada, while Germany has 1,5km distance from Airports. Or those ridiculously high fines for flying is a national park.
Millions of dronepilots have now access to the airspace which was not accessible for them before. So the majority has no idea of dos and don´ts in this area. Before that you had to learn to fly a R/C aircraft. That meant that you had to spend a lot of time with this topic and got sensitized with the rules of the air(e.g. in a model flyers club). Flying in VLOS was absolutely mandatory, as the RC aircraft would crash otherwise. No automatic take off, hovering, landing or such.
I still have my Logo 14 RC Helicopter from 2005. 1,30m Rotordiameter, 3,3kg take off mass. One battery did cost 450€ back then. No chance to fly more than 200m away from me, as it is next to impossible to determine the aircraft´s attitude at these distances. Once you loose the attitude, the helicopter is doomed.
Today you go to the local electronics store and buy a drone that flys for you and you can put it to 7/4km distance and 500m height away, far from VLOS and endanger manned aircraft.
The drone operators have to adopt to the rules, not the other way around. But the rules should provide as much freedom as possible and be as strict as safety really dictates.
I don´t want DJI to include more no fly zones. I think this is not the right way. The operator has to have the full control over the drone as the operator has absolute liability and not DJI.
Fox
|
|