Thread Tools
Jul 05, 2014, 03:30 AM
lurking in the HOLE :)
KCV6's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by darowden
but for actually directing the aircraft in order to avoid collision in the direction of travel, the idea that LOS flying is better than FPV flying is pure bunk in my opinion.
The FAA won't be implying that in the direction of travel it's a problem, it's all the rest of the view. If it's FPV you can only ever see at any one time what's in the FOV of the cam. It is a restriction over LOS. The benefits of an FPV view outside of LOS can never be overall better than flying LOS. There are a ton of human factors involved, reduced resolution, loss of peripheral vision, loss of depth perception. Sure an experienced FPV pilot learns to adapt, but the FAA isn't interested in hearing that because no one wants to suggest to the FAA any form of training or competence testing (regulations). Newbie gets a quad of death like mine and goes for a fly with no instruction, it's going to end badly. That's what the FAA is concerned with and rightly so.

This is the sort of stuff people should be approaching the FAA with. The comment period is there for people to ask questions to stimulate discussion on what should be done, so far I haven't seen any questions. Don't tell the FAA they are wrong, Suggest and ask things of the FAA that help support what you want and help understand why the FAA thinks the way it does.

Mark
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jul 05, 2014, 06:42 AM
Launch the drones ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCV6
The FAA won't be implying that in the direction of travel it's a problem, it's all the rest of the view. If it's FPV you can only ever see at any one time what's in the FOV of the cam. It is a restriction over LOS. The benefits of an FPV view outside of LOS can never be overall better than flying LOS. There are a ton of human factors involved, reduced resolution, loss of peripheral vision, loss of depth perception. Sure an experienced FPV pilot learns to adapt, but the FAA isn't interested in hearing that because no one wants to suggest to the FAA any form of training or competence testing (regulations). Newbie gets a quad of death like mine and goes for a fly with no instruction, it's going to end badly. That's what the FAA is concerned with and rightly so.

This is the sort of stuff people should be approaching the FAA with. The comment period is there for people to ask questions to stimulate discussion on what should be done, so far I haven't seen any questions. Don't tell the FAA they are wrong, Suggest and ask things of the FAA that help support what you want and help understand why the FAA thinks the way it does.

Mark
You keep stating that you know what the FAA is concerned with. So I ask you again, how are you reading their minds. Anything to do with tin foil?

Putting your possible use of tin foil aside, I am going with what the FAA states, and not what you "know" they really mean. So, naturally, the FAA's stated position rightly worries me.

And you do not need your tin foil to know what I mean. What I mean is what I write ... And not something else.

Same for the FAA. No more tin foil gleanings about what they are really concerned with. Do not need tin foil, cause they wrote it down. And they need stopping.
Jul 05, 2014, 06:44 AM
400' + is where fun starts.
Martin Y's Avatar
Here's an idea, Since the phantoms are now restricted around airports they should do a learning curve flight program. Before any distance or alt the thing is programmed to stay within 50 yards of home for the first 20 hours of flying then progress to full flight.
Jul 05, 2014, 10:20 AM
Registered User
pigmypuncher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Y
Here's an idea, Since the phantoms are now restricted around airports they should do a learning curve flight program. Before any distance or alt the thing is programmed to stay within 50 yards of home for the first 20 hours of flying then progress to full flight.
Please don't give those idiots any ideas, that's how you get stupidity like serial numbers on bullets and the idea that we need electronic devices that prevent a gun from firing unless your wearing a bracelet. What could possibly go wrong with that...... /sarc. It seems the military good idea fairy has gotten out and is running amok in the civilian sector...
Jul 05, 2014, 10:24 AM
Drone offender FA377YHFNC
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCV6
The FAA won't be implying that in the direction of travel it's a problem, it's all the rest of the view.

Mark
Prepare to be very surprised. We're about to do some math here and you'll be horrified. It IS a problem in the direction of travel.

Lets look at the characteristics of a collision course and why it is a more difficult thing to spot than a non-collision course. First of all, all objects not on a collision course with you move across your field of view. Outside the 5 or so of your central vision, your eyes are set up to be very good at detecting this motion and you're automatically attracted to it.

But when an object is not moving, it is ignored by your peripheral vision and even that portion of the central vision not within the 5 or so that your detailed resolution is contained in. This high resolution central vision is used to closely scrutinize things your peripheral vision calls your attention to.

But an object which is on a collision course does not move against the background at all. When you're learning to land a real plane a technique is to line up the runway threshold with a spot on the window. If the threhold moves up on the window you're gong to overshoot. If it moves down you'll land short and you adjust with your throttle. Because if it doesn't move at all then that is the spot where you'll touch down.

So you are flying your quad and there's a full sized general aviation plane out there on collision course. Only your central 5 or so of vision can see it and you'll not automatically be directed to it by your motion detecting peripheral vision.

According to extensive testing by flying schools, airlines and the FAA it's likely that you'll first spot a plane on collision course when it has an apparent size of 1. That is the size of the width of your pointing fingernail held at arm's length. Let's figure out how far that is away for a plane with the 36' wingspan of a Cessna 172.

When an object subtends 1 it is 57 times further away than it is wide, so when you spot the Cessna it is 57 x 36' away, or 2,052 feet away, With a closing speed of 100 mph, 146 2/3 feet per second you have a lead time of 2052/146.67 = call it 14 seconds to maneuver out of the way.

But hold it. You're using a wide angle lens that reduces that 1 to a third of a degree and cuts your lead time to less than 5 seconds. That's if you are fortunate enough to be looking at that exact patch of sky at the exact moment the Cessna becomes visible. This is highly unlikely. We're putting together a best case scenario. So we're talking five to ten seconds warning depending on how wide angle your lens is.

In order to have that much warning you must scan, analyze, identify and avoid an approaching plane within that five to ten seconds. The FAA says that without fifteen seconds there's little chance of avoidance. But let's say that for you flying the FPV plane if you're lucky it's barely doable.

Now let's take the Cessna looking for you. And we'll suppose you have a 4' wingspan. He's got the same restriction but isn't hindered by a wide angle lens so he will see you when you are 1 in apparent size, 57 * 4 = 228 feet away. At 100 mph closing speed, 146 2/3 feet per second he has a second and a half to say "Oh crap!" (or something similar) but he has no chance to avoid collision at all.

So let's put you in a car headed between Daytona and Jacksonville up I-95. Some kids have a hobby of suspending half inch ball bearings at eye level above the roadway and they say they think it's pretty safe. All you know is if they're there you have no chance to see and avoid them and if you hit one you'll have a decent chance of dying. What's your reaction? That is the mindset of the full size aviation community. It's only a question of when they'll get it if there are quadcopters flying unannounced in their airspace. They're right.

So we have to eliminate that possibility by allowing ourselves to be put in a box that separates us from lawfully flown full size planes by at least 100' in altitude unless we have specific clearance for the flight so that general aviation planes can be cautioned about our presence.

General aviation is moving away from the radar and direction finding basis toward a GPS organized navigation system. Many quadcopters and FPV planes are already there If our planes broadcast their position, altitude, heading and speed based on GPS and GA planes also had GPS based systems, sense and avoid would be child's play. That is coming and would allow some loosening up of necessary precautions.

But for now we're best letting them put us in a box with maximum altitude national air space minimum minus 100'. Then collision between general aviation planes and FPVers is impossible so long as both follow the rules.
Last edited by Rockin Robbins; Jul 05, 2014 at 10:44 AM.
Jul 05, 2014, 11:29 AM
lurking in the HOLE :)
KCV6's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Green
You keep stating that you know what the FAA is concerned with. So I ask you again, how are you reading their minds. Anything to do with tin foil?
Tim of course I know what the FAA is concerned with.

1. I can read what they have said.
2. I'm not paranoid.

Mark
Jul 05, 2014, 01:14 PM
Launch the drones ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCV6
Tim of course I know what the FAA is concerned with.

1. I can read what they have said.
2. I'm not paranoid.

Mark
Uh oh ... Now I need some tin foil.
Jul 05, 2014, 02:32 PM
Registered User
bnick2k8's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
Prepare to be very surprised. We're about to do some math here and you'll be horrified. It IS a problem in the direction of travel.

Lets look at the characteristics of a collision course and why it is a more difficult thing to spot than a non-collision course. First of all, all objects not on a collision course with you move across your field of view. Outside the 5 or so of your central vision, your eyes are set up to be very good at detecting this motion and you're automatically attracted to it.

But when an object is not moving, it is ignored by your peripheral vision and even that portion of the central vision not within the 5 or so that your detailed resolution is contained in. This high resolution central vision is used to closely scrutinize things your peripheral vision calls your attention to.

But an object which is on a collision course does not move against the background at all. When you're learning to land a real plane a technique is to line up the runway threshold with a spot on the window. If the threhold moves up on the window you're gong to overshoot. If it moves down you'll land short and you adjust with your throttle. Because if it doesn't move at all then that is the spot where you'll touch down.

So you are flying your quad and there's a full sized general aviation plane out there on collision course. Only your central 5 or so of vision can see it and you'll not automatically be directed to it by your motion detecting peripheral vision.

According to extensive testing by flying schools, airlines and the FAA it's likely that you'll first spot a plane on collision course when it has an apparent size of 1. That is the size of the width of your pointing fingernail held at arm's length. Let's figure out how far that is away for a plane with the 36' wingspan of a Cessna 172.

When an object subtends 1 it is 57 times further away than it is wide, so when you spot the Cessna it is 57 x 36' away, or 2,052 feet away, With a closing speed of 100 mph, 146 2/3 feet per second you have a lead time of 2052/146.67 = call it 14 seconds to maneuver out of the way.

But hold it. You're using a wide angle lens that reduces that 1 to a third of a degree and cuts your lead time to less than 5 seconds. That's if you are fortunate enough to be looking at that exact patch of sky at the exact moment the Cessna becomes visible. This is highly unlikely. We're putting together a best case scenario. So we're talking five to ten seconds warning depending on how wide angle your lens is.

In order to have that much warning you must scan, analyze, identify and avoid an approaching plane within that five to ten seconds. The FAA says that without fifteen seconds there's little chance of avoidance. But let's say that for you flying the FPV plane if you're lucky it's barely doable.

Now let's take the Cessna looking for you. And we'll suppose you have a 4' wingspan. He's got the same restriction but isn't hindered by a wide angle lens so he will see you when you are 1 in apparent size, 57 * 4 = 228 feet away. At 100 mph closing speed, 146 2/3 feet per second he has a second and a half to say "Oh crap!" (or something similar) but he has no chance to avoid collision at all.

So let's put you in a car headed between Daytona and Jacksonville up I-95. Some kids have a hobby of suspending half inch ball bearings at eye level above the roadway and they say they think it's pretty safe. All you know is if they're there you have no chance to see and avoid them and if you hit one you'll have a decent chance of dying. What's your reaction? That is the mindset of the full size aviation community. It's only a question of when they'll get it if there are quadcopters flying unannounced in their airspace. They're right.

So we have to eliminate that possibility by allowing ourselves to be put in a box that separates us from lawfully flown full size planes by at least 100' in altitude unless we have specific clearance for the flight so that general aviation planes can be cautioned about our presence.

General aviation is moving away from the radar and direction finding basis toward a GPS organized navigation system. Many quadcopters and FPV planes are already there If our planes broadcast their position, altitude, heading and speed based on GPS and GA planes also had GPS based systems, sense and avoid would be child's play. That is coming and would allow some loosening up of necessary precautions.

But for now we're best letting them put us in a box with maximum altitude national air space minimum minus 100'. Then collision between general aviation planes and FPVers is impossible so long as both follow the rules.
Robbins...

Thanks for sharing this I really had to sit my wife and grandson down and read to them what you wrote and you painted a good picture of the additional factor wide angle, as well as low res FPV cams present with regards to colision avoidance...

We often have full size planes and heli's doing search and rescue as well as life flight in our area and 200' to 400' is not all that uncommon for their operation... I've been flying FPV for half a year with a F550 and have yet to come near 250' in altitude and maybe a quarter mile out as I've still been learning but I also fly around other FPV guys who do the 5 to 7 mile flights out and back with their planes and who fly up around 2200' to 3000'... I've talked with them about the fact we are right in the approach patterns for all the commercial airlines as well as out Air guard F15's which are flying at anywhere from 1800' to 2300' on approach... Every 3 to 5 minutes we have a commercial jet passing over yet some of these other FPV guys feel there is no risk whatsoever should they be sucked up by a 767... Like so many guys I've talked with I've worried that it is just a matter of time until one of us brings down a MD80 or F18 through 10 neighborhoods...

Since this FAA ruling all our flying fields have been 100% empty and no one is flying... This whole thing is so sad for those of us who have enjoyed so much our flying of RC in general, and for me it goes back to the early 1970's when I was a kid... All airspace belongs to the FCC they say... I really hope they get this ironed out soon, but that may be too much to wish for right now... I do feel they will come together somehow down the road but who knows when...? The Drone genie is forever out of the jar now, so avoidance GPS is simply a natural safety progression of future navigation technology... Our letters are still important even if we doubt the present good they maybe doing...

We are in a Box as you said and there are good reasons for why it is happening as unfair as it seems... There are simply too many who don't care how high and where they fly... I had to laugh at all the guys at our LHS ranting that the 'arrogant father of FPV' is really a 'Mother' and should be drawn and quartered for the single handed destruction of RC... I think we all know it was just a matter of time and not just one person who triggered it...

bnick
Jul 05, 2014, 03:47 PM
Drone offender FA377YHFNC
And right now I say we should voluntarily stay in the box until we get some workable electronic sense and avoid going so we can share the national air space with some degree of safety. And we're going to have to tell our "rabid dog" friends with their cloud surfing that they are now expendable. If the price of our ability to fly under 400' under AMA rules is to rat out the renegades then that's exactly what we'll do with no apologies made. Freedom ain't free and there's always a price to pay. They're the price.
Jul 05, 2014, 04:16 PM
Team WarpSquad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
And right now I say we should voluntarily stay in the box until we get some workable electronic sense and avoid going so we can share the national air space with some degree of safety. And we're going to have to tell our "rabid dog" friends with their cloud surfing that they are now expendable. If the price of our ability to fly under 400' under AMA rules is to rat out the renegades then that's exactly what we'll do with no apologies made. Freedom ain't free and there's always a price to pay. They're the price.
+1, I agree.
Jul 06, 2014, 03:05 AM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
If the price of our ability to fly under 400' under AMA rules is to rat out the renegades then that's exactly what we'll do with no apologies made. Freedom ain't free and there's always a price to pay. They're the price.
You're going to report everyone over 400ft? Including LOS glider
pilots? Including when they're throwing AMA sanctioned soaring
competitions? Or just those "renegade" FPV guys? Not to mention those
poor turbine guys who dropped tens of thousands of dollars into their planes
and now have to control their rocketships in a tiny box.

Sounds like case in point of scapegoating FPV for being the ones who are
guilty of breaking the 400 ft guideline as opposed to most of the modeling
community.

-Blues
Jul 06, 2014, 06:19 AM
Closed Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshy
You're going to report everyone over 400ft? Including LOS glider
pilots? Including when they're throwing AMA sanctioned soaring
competitions? Or just those "renegade" FPV guys? Not to mention those
poor turbine guys who dropped tens of thousands of dollars into their planes
and now have to control their rocketships in a tiny box.

Sounds like case in point of scapegoating FPV for being the ones who are
guilty of breaking the 400 ft guideline as opposed to most of the modeling
community.

-Blues
and this is why the guideline states "operate below 400' when within three miles of an airport." I had my EasyStar well past 400' during the LMR at SEFF this year. Guess I need to be turned in also.
Jul 06, 2014, 08:13 AM
Drone offender FA377YHFNC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshy
You're going to report everyone over 400ft? Including LOS glider
pilots? Including when they're throwing AMA sanctioned soaring
competitions? Or just those "renegade" FPV guys? Not to mention those
poor turbine guys who dropped tens of thousands of dollars into their planes
and now have to control their rocketships in a tiny box.

Sounds like case in point of scapegoating FPV for being the ones who are
guilty of breaking the 400 ft guideline as opposed to most of the modeling
community.

-Blues
Sounds like a pure fantasy to me. Where did I say any of that? You have taken my words, ignored them and stuffed other words into my mouth.

Let me provide my own words. 400' would mean 400' for EVERYBODY. Note that not everyone would be restricted to 400'. There are areas where minimum NAS is 1000' and our max height would be 900', but you ignore that don't you? Also there are procedures to get FAA clearance for glider contests, turbine exhibitions, etc. You think if the AMA applies for clearance, or even a separate area permanently set aside for these activities that it will not be granted, just as skydivers are granted permanent permission to fall out of the sky from 5k feet at DeLand Airport, or the RC club operating out of the airport has permission to fly?

Where did I say only FPV fliers were affected? In fact I have posted in many places that this FAA interpretation is not an attack on FPV, it is an attack on RC. We're going to have to man up, accept responsibility and toss the renegades to the wolves with enthusiasm. All of them. I never said, never implied anything different.

There is no sense advocating a change in the rules if we are not willing to follow present rules. When those rules come down we must follow them or lose moral authority to ask for changes. The renegades will never persuade the FAA to do anything, not even to clean the bathroom. There is absolutely no reason for the FAA to listen to them. Any concessions to the renegades would be perceived as weakness and that would encourage more lawlessness. The only FAA response to the renegades will be punitive.

Is that answer clear enough? Who's really scapegoating here? When you point at me, three fingers point back to yourself.
Last edited by Rockin Robbins; Jul 06, 2014 at 08:26 AM.
Jul 06, 2014, 09:15 AM
Launch the drones ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
And right now I say we should voluntarily stay in the box until we get some workable electronic sense and avoid going so we can share the national air space with some degree of safety. And we're going to have to tell our "rabid dog" friends with their cloud surfing that they are now expendable. If the price of our ability to fly under 400' under AMA rules is to rat out the renegades then that's exactly what we'll do with no apologies made. Freedom ain't free and there's always a price to pay. They're the price.
Modelers are Rabid dogs

Modelers are Renegades

Rat out the modelers

Modelers deserve punishment with With no apologies made

So ... I am confused ... Who's the rabid dog here?
Jul 06, 2014, 11:06 AM
Team WarpSquad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Freas
and this is why the guideline states "operate below 400' when within three miles of an airport." I had my EasyStar well past 400' during the LMR at SEFF this year. Guess I need to be turned in also.
I think the 'guideline' your referring to, AC 91-57:

Again, the entire document AC 91-57 is voluntary so it is not completely clear what legal standing it has, thus the '400 feet' rule may not really be a rule. Thus maybe this is why there was no penalty for those who have flown models above 400 feet..

However,
It does NOT say below 400 feet only when within 3 miles of an airport. It is a single sentence, starting with a capital letter, and ending in a period.

------
c) Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.
When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
------


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools