Drone safety conference + H520

[arruntus]

I didn't know where to put this video that I found very interesting. Drone safety conference and the intervention of Yuneec UK with the H520. It's worth seeing.

P.D.: Upss I put it in the help forum instead of the main one, my fault, sorry.
P.D.: A guardian angel has made his magic

 

[arruntus]

I am surprised that there are no comments about the video when it comes to regulatory regulation of professional flights. The H520 is a professional drone for working with it. I imagine many of you here have bought it for that purpose.

While in the USA the FAA is somewhat more asleep, in Europe it is advancing quickly (when there are politicians involved, we all know what it means........) not only in the regulations of each country, but also in a common regulation at European level.

The roof of the drones is now generally set at 400 feet. Which is the floor of light aircraft. There's talk of increasing it to 500 feet. I would agree, but if that does not increase the potential danger of an accident. Increase further the flight roof of drones?

There is talk of creating a common European airspace where all drones will have to follow the same rules. Does this mean that if you have permits to fly in one country, you can fly in another without any formalities? Should this be allowed? Get permits in each of the countries where you want to fly?

There is also talk about the possibility of putting a transponder to the drones so that they can be located at all times and manage air traffic correctly. Is it necessary? Would it be enough with a proximity transponder that only warns nearby aircraft?

 

[IRIS]

View media item 625
One of the interesting questions of the Q&A session was the one about the CAA altitude limit. As quoted from my PFCO "permission is granted subject to the following conditions, that the said aircraft shall not be flown: (c) At a height exceeding 400 feet above ground level;"
Yet in his answer, "an aircraft can be flown up to 1000 feet if in FPV with a competent observer as long as it is in VLOS"

 

[arruntus]

That's crazy. When I saw him, I stayed ????????????????????

I think it refers to horizontal distance (my English is bad). In flight VLOS maximum distance 500m. The main pilot and the aircraft located at 500m, another qualified and observing pilot located at 500m from the main pilot and continuous communication with the pilot extends the distance to 1000m from the main pilot. 500 from the main pilot and another 500 from the observer pilot. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. In the Spanish regulations issued by AESA, this situation is covered and I would point out that permission must be sought for this type of flight.

These types of flights are called EVLOS -> Extended Visual Line Of Sight.

 

[ArltTech]

US FAA says 400 feet AGL ceiling, however that is above any nearby structure. So if inspecting a 280 foot tower you get 680 feet AGL allowance.

 

[arruntus]

Something similar was studied here but not yet approved. It would be the following: within a radius of 150m from home , the height of the highest object within that circle is added to 122m (400ft).

I think it's the same thing you say. In this case under study was the maximum distance that the object that was higher than the Home had to be at, and that distance was 500 feet or 150 meters. I find it very interesting that should be approved here.

Something very curious has happened to me today related to the same thing. I was flying, recording a tractor sowing wheat. A property on a very uneven hillside. The Home in the lower part and the height difference at the top of the property of about 30 meters. Bearing in mind that light aircraft have a 400 foot AGL floor which is the roof of the drones. Flying at an altitude of 105m (350ft) AGL from the Home when I reach the top of the property I am 75m AGL (300ft) but 105m AGL from the Home. A light aircraft has flown just above the drone, which probably flew at 120m AGL altitude (400ft) but too close to the drone. If we add the height of the closest area or object would be more than 120m AGL i would be in airspace of the light aircraft. It was flying slowly and it gave me time to descend without any problems.

But.... do you understand the problem? The base height is calculated from the Home on the drones. In manned civil aviation how is it calculated????????????? I have no way of knowing at what altitude It was flying, maybe lower than allowed, but in the previous case I could be flying higher and all in order, legally, and we would have been on a collision route. It could have resulted in an accident where two people, those flying in the small plane, could have been seriously injured or worse........

There are still a lot of things that aren't clear. Of course, it is preferable to lose the drone than put people in danger, but.....................

 

[IRIS]

Arruntus I've had a similar interaction with light aircraft on hilly terrain, I was demonstrating the 520 to a colleague who flies DJI's. His house is on a steep hill from sea level to 100m or 330ft, he lives near the top at 92m or 300ft. During the flight around 10 mins in I heard the sound of an aircraft approaching so I brought the H back towards the takeoff point descending as it came back from about 150m out and around 75m or 260ft agl, by the time the H was back over head the light aircraft was flying a circle around the H about a 100f above and no more than 50m away, he completed 2 circles then continued on by which time the H was on the ground.
He was no where near 500ft agl and didn't give any separation gap between himself and the H having clearly seen it on his path.
Any time I hear any light aircraft around my AO the H is grounded as quickly and safely as possible as we get a good number of light aircraft and microlights in the summer as I live near The Gobbins Path On the north coast of Northern Ireland.

 

[arruntus]

Light aircraft can be a problem, if there really isn't an airport nearby, a CTR or something like that, I understand they should respect the 400 feet AGL. I think I am not mistaken about the floor altitude of this type of aircraft. I'm going to write to AESA consulting it, better to be cautious.

I was with my wife and father-in-law when it happened and I didn't want to mention anything so as not to make them nervous and then they are worried but I have put the nuts on a little tie..........

 

[Graham]

Arruntus I've had a similar interaction with light aircraft on hilly terrain, I was demonstrating the 520 to a colleague who flies DJI's. His house is on a steep hill from sea level to 100m or 330ft, he lives near the top at 92m or 300ft. During the flight around 10 mins in I heard the sound of an aircraft approaching so I brought the H back towards the takeoff point descending as it came back from about 150m out and around 75m or 260ft agl, by the time the H was back over head the light aircraft was flying a circle around the H about a 100f above and no more than 50m away, he completed 2 circles then continued on by which time the H was on the ground.
He was no where near 500ft agl and didn't give any separation gap between himself and the H having clearly seen it on his path.
Any time I hear any light aircraft around my AO the H is grounded as quickly and safely as possible as we get a good number of light aircraft and microlights in the summer as I live near The Gobbins Path On the north coast of Northern Ireland.

About a year ago, while flying on a beach at the south end of the Ards peninsula, I had a Cub aircraft in camouflage colours go past just offshore at wave-hopping height. I didn't hear him approaching as it was a windy day. On another day, I saw two microlights racing at low altitude round Ballyquintin Point. I've had microlights practice landing approaches on the patch of airfield near Kirkistown that we use for flying model aircraft, while we had models in the air. Perhaps there's something special about our local pilots.

 

[bluelight.support]

I live under a beacon both on the coast and near a local airport - I live on the outskirts of a small seaside town (15k pop) and I quite often can look out of our windows and see various aircraft, police , HEMS, military and civilian, and paraglider, and I often wonder if I was at 400ft whether my UAV would be over them or not. Police and HEMS search and land, so they are covered under police ops, and helicopter emergency medicals ops, but the military do surprise me near / on the edge of population. The problem I have is some are so fast, I wouldn't have the time to react to bring the craft to a lower altitude. I did a few times with my Inspire 2, but I wonder if the H520 would be able to ?

 

[arruntus]

At 2.5m/s maximum, in a pressing emergency situation not enough but little more could be achieved without losing the stability of a multirotor.

 

[PatR]

A Pixhawk type system can easily descend at >10m/s and still effectively maintain stability, it just needs to be specified in the software. Even APM 2.6 had this capability. Stability was not sacrificed until power was almost completely removed from the motors, at which point the aircraft would tumble in free fall until throttle was advanced and it recovered.

Since civil agencies view public airspace as starting at 400’ for surveillance purposes and military routinely uses low altitude flight for stealth and evasion training we must have the ability to customize FC software for the areas we fly in. Here in the U.S., an aircraft being flown in low density, uncontrolled airspace does not have to be flown any higher than one where a safe landing can be performed if a power unit fails. If you are flying fast enough at 10’ AGL that a climb can be executed using excess airspeed and make a safe landing you would not violate law.

It behooves multirotor operators to become knowledgeable of aviation law and operate with full understanding of what is legal and where altitude exceptions apply. All too often we read of a situation where an sUAS operator thought they were “in the right” with manned aircraft doing something wrong, which was not the case. More often the sUAS operator was not cognizant of the actual rules and was flying in locations where they unknowingly created potential conflict. They also need to know how to read charts to determine when their location of intended flight might also be part of a published low altitude training route.

 

[AH-1G]

I remember flying NOE, I would hate to see me confronting a drone at these circumstances.

 

[PatR]

How about in a 2x2 formation of CH-47's loaded with troops when a 40lb A.F. grey fixed wing drone splits the formation right down the middle from the opposite direction...

 

[AH-1G]

How about in a 2x2 formation of CH-47's loaded with troops when a 40lb A.F. grey fixed wing drone splits the formation right down the middle from the opposite direction...

LOL. did that happen?

Night flight formation downrange Ft. Carson Co. 5 Cobras, 5 Huey's and 6 58's pretty awesome. We almost landed on top of a 58 when finished. 11:30pm

 

[arruntus]

But that's not in the case of a drone pilot. Isn't the U. S. military airspace restricted with base 0m AGL? If a drone flies into that airspace it is already violating the most basic rule, flying into prohibited airspace.

I do not know the US regulations but I am surprised to hear that they change when certain circumstances arise and are not always the same. Or so I understand.

Here, depending on the airspace you have several possibilities. You can fly without any problem in uncontrolled airspace, or you can make a flight notification in controlled airspace, or you expect to be granted permission in restricted airspace or you cannot fly in prohibited airspace.

I will tell you what AESA has to say about the case I mentioned above. They still haven't answered me and in my opinion, in that case the manned aerial vehicle was the one that didn't comply with the regulations.

 

[PatR]

AH,
It did indeed happen during a period when a big sky, little airplane concept was being used for traffic separation. It might have been that event that generated development of transponders for small UAS.

Arruntus,

Base and conflict environment locations are subject to individually designed airspace rules. Often military/civilian-military operators will be running base security or training along with launch and recovery operations. Transponders are generally mandatory and a ROZ, or Restricted Operating Zone, will be created for UAS ingress and egress. It’s amazing how often manned aircraft violate a ROZ dedicated for UAS only passage. Outside of base locations UAS may be widely operated, using assigned altitudes for separation of UAS from manned aircraft. Once again it’s amazing how frequently altitude restrictions are violated by manned aircraft. Sorry to say it, but heli pilots are the worst offenders. Of course civilians operating their own personal equipment are prohibited in those areas.

Perhaps of interest is that close proximity operation of UAS with manned aircraft in high traffic density environments has provided a lot of data to support integration of UAS in civilian airspace. Some of the locations UAS have been continuously mingling with manned stuff are as busy traffic wise as Atlanta and Chicago-O’Hare.

 

[arruntus]

Okay, now I understand what you mean. And I totally agree, unfortunately I have seen it a few times before but i was flying for hobby, not now and if I am forced to comply with a series of rules I would like others to comply with them because their lives are at stake....

There is increasing news that drones are invading the CTRs or the airspace of airports and everyone is taking the lead. This is because two groups have been made, manned and unmanned aircrafts. Something that didn't exist until now. The drones are like second-rate, but the exams are the same, the medical examinations are the same, we are not given a license like the rest, it's a simple paper.............. But demanding that we are required to comply with all the rules, which I see as normal but is not reflected in the way we are treated.......

 

[arruntus]

Although it's not exactly an aerial security video, which is what this thread is about, I think it's also related although in the future and that it could affect all of us in this sector. It makes you think

 

[PatR]

The problem with all this is sUAS operators are quick to talk over the internet about this stuff but they have been unwilling to come together as a national or international group to establish a position with law makers. We seem to simply accept as inevitable everything that is bestowed upon us and ***** about it later. We are both disorganized and self centered, acting stupidly in all legal developments that will significantly impact us going forward.