REST IN PEACE

[record.play.rewind]

Welp, hummmmm......... I tried, but it would not DIE!

It seems like a long time (2 weeks) when build 777 was introduced.

In any rate, I took the TH+ to inspect a building this morning, it did just fine, with hiccups here n' there, the 777 symptoms are still there. To make the long story short, I tried to kill my TH+ but it would not die! Nor fly away!!!!!!!! I guess, I am stuck with this one.
I entered into a manual orbit at LAT 350ft. LONG 600ft the ST16s had minor lag, at LAT 350ft, LONG 800ft the ST16s froze (the longest point from the controller is LAT 350ft, 2500ft LONG) The control went completely blank as soon as I reached 950ft LONG to 2500ft LONG. By this time, I was holding on to my balls, I held the sticks steady, flew the TH+ like an RC airplane, with the help of my VO on top of the roof, and one VO hold the binoculars to my face, so I could see what I was doing in the air, and completed the manual orbit.

The Typhoon H Plus has soooo much potential, but Yuneec would rather build a cage. Anyways, hello from smokey California.

 

[AeroJ]

What do you mean 'Rest in peace' - it's still alive !!
Nice manual orbit !

 

[NorWiscPilot]

RPR,

You really think the programmers writing and updating code are the same individuals who developed the cage? They took time away from coding to play in the tinker toy room?

Honestly, I can see it happen - but only as a diversion to clear the mind. But in reality as to manufacturing and support? Highly doubt it happens/happened that way.

Just another viewpoint is all that is being offered in this reply.

Jeff

P.S. "No programmers were harmed during the composing of this reply."

 

[record.play.rewind]

What do you mean 'Rest in peace' - it's still alive !!
Nice manual orbit !

Still Alive! Thanks bro. Happy thanksgiving!

 

[PatR]

Those that think a Yuneec product can be flown as far out as a DJI product are woefully mistaken. If binoculars are needed to see it, it’s too far away.

 

[record.play.rewind]

Those that think a Yuneec product can be flown as far out as a DJI product are woefully mistaken. If binoculars are needed to see it, it’s too far away.

Visual line of sight, check. Observers, check. Visual aid, FAA acceptable, check.

Yuneec cannot go further? Its advertised distance is 5280 feet. Bummer! Where are they testing these drones? lol

 

[PatR]

I believe the advertising says “up to” and does not guarantee a specific distance. The use of visual amplification is not permitted under 107, even when using a VO. Unaided eye, allowing for use of corrective lenses.

 

[record.play.rewind]

I believe the advertising says “up to” and does not guarantee a specific distance. The use of visual amplification is not permitted under 107, even when using a VO. Unaided eye, allowing for use of corrective lenses.

Are you sure that you cannot use aided devices? We can go back n’ forth on this subject. You’re an FAA instructor (as you posted in other thread) look at my video again, and analyze the situation of why I made the call to complete the orbit, with a “blind” video feed..... lol I will give you time to think about it [emoji1]

Whatever distance YUNEEC has posted in its specs. Other manufacturers has gone beyond.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Curious. Where were you standing when flying this route @record.play.rewind ?

 

[PatR]

See Part 107.31 and 107.33 section (c)[2}. Note that in 107.33(c) the word "or" is not used to allow for the operator, VO, or PIC to lose sight of the aircraft. The sections states that the V.O., the person manipulating the controls, AND the PIC must maintain awareness of the position of the small unmanned aircraft through direct visual observation. There may be a desire to debate themeaning of "direct" but as Part 107.31(a) clearly states that visual reference be maintained with the unaided eye the FAA has made it clear devices intended to increase visual range are not permitted. I'm not going to argue with you about it as I figure some of the places you are filming will eventually place you in close and personal relationship with an FAA observer. If you use binoculars to observe your aircraft the FAA rep might elect to let you argue the point with an FAA law judge. In an NTSB hearing there are no ties. The NTSB always wins where any ambiguity is present and that;s one of the ways they use "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" as a back stop. That prohibition has no definition at all.

Regardless of manufacturers making equipment designed to be used at ranges further than line of sight, using them in a manner that exceeds unaided eye line of sight (LOS) is illegal. Should people desire to operate beyond line of sight (BLOS) they have the same opportunity to apply for an FAA waiver and/or obtain a CoA just like everyone else that has been operating BLOS has been doing.

BTW, your video would bust you for flying over traffic if it was played in an NTSB hearing. The only way out of a violation would be to prove all the vehicles and drivers seen in the video during the period the sUAS passed over the roads were under your control.

 

[record.play.rewind]

The fruit of the manual orbit, manual map. Clean Energy proposal.

 

[record.play.rewind]

Curious. Where were you standing when flying this route @record.play.rewind ?

Hi Ty,

Our launch location is inside the pit adjacent to the site. we cannot take off outside of the site, and cannot fly more than a specific longitude within our radius. Flying "blind" during an emergency FAA will allow visual aids. The bird was within the line of sight, but I could not tell where the camera was facing.

Here is my location.

 

[record.play.rewind]

There is also another rule in our waiver. On the south end of McCandless, we are permitted to only fly at 200ft LONG and not to exceed to the town homes, and cannot fly near the Nike Factory.

 

[record.play.rewind]

See Part 107.31 and 107.33 section (c)[2}. Note that in 107.33(c) the word "or" is not used to allow for the operator, VO, or PIC to lose sight of the aircraft. The sections states that the V.O., the person manipulating the controls, AND the PIC must maintain awareness of the position of the small unmanned aircraft through direct visual observation. There may be a desire to debate themeaning of "direct" but as Part 107.31(a) clearly states that visual reference be maintained with the unaided eye the FAA has made it clear devices intended to increase visual range are not permitted. I'm not going to argue with you about it as I figure some of the places you are filming will eventually place you in close and personal relationship with an FAA observer. If you use binoculars to observe your aircraft the FAA rep might elect to let you argue the point with an FAA law judge. In an NTSB hearing there are no ties. The NTSB always wins where any ambiguity is present and that;s one of the ways they use "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" as a back stop. That prohibition has no definition at all.

Regardless of manufacturers making equipment designed to be used at ranges further than line of sight, using them in a manner that exceeds unaided eye line of sight (LOS) is illegal. Should people desire to operate beyond line of sight (BLOS) they have the same opportunity to apply for an FAA waiver and/or obtain a CoA just like everyone else that has been operating BLOS has been doing.

BTW, your video would bust you for flying over traffic if it was played in an NTSB hearing. The only way out of a violation would be to prove all the vehicles and drivers seen in the video during the period the sUAS passed over the roads were under your control.

I really thought and believed for the LONGEST time.. LOL that you did surveys for constructions... HUMMMM....... Part 107 means jack! Who have you been flying for? Tell your clients to get a waiver, bro... Anyways, Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[PatR]

Now that’s an outfit that will be experiencing significant legal challenges soon. It would not be surprising to see the CA state government also getting caught up in a class action.

Nice work!

 

[PatR]

I really thought and believed for the LONGEST time.. LOL that you did surveys for constructions... HUMMMM....... Anyways, Happy Thanksgiving.

What ever gave you that idea?

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

 

[record.play.rewind]

Now that’s an outfit that will be experiencing significant legal challenges soon. It would not be surprising to see the CA state government also getting caught up in a class action.

Nice work!

Don’t say that!!!!! People might know.. lol. Yes, the change will not just affect hobbyist, but also commercial pilots.

And with all seriousness our waiver will expire soon, and with the new law, developers are having a somewhat hard time in extending for 2020 and flights will be limited under 200ft (is the rumor)

I am going back to basics In photogrammetry. It’s hard, man. My flights has never exceed to 200ft Lat except on this flight and the 200ft will be taken away? That’s rubbish! I’ve been reading the news about Airmap that I read on here, and I hate to say it, I will become extinct, soon.

And FYI.. We forwarded the dreaded report to the FAA police lol (my 2nd report in 4 years)

 

[PatR]

I think photogrammetry, with emphasis on Lidar, is where much of the money will be at going forward. You mentioned survey work in a previous post and that may well hold the future for many in the small UAV, low employee count class.

Knowing where at least two aerospace outfits were going with airframe, ground station, and payload development that 200’ limit could easily end up the new standard for what I’ll call “consumer level” ops, even those using things like the M series, Alta’s, Falcons, and similar. The deep pockets, as always, want it all and whatever they don’t target will be all that’s left to us, along with limitations for how we will be able to do them.

Until then all the “consumer” manufacturers will happily sell us anything and everything, likely knowing full well how long we have left to use them is limited.

 

[record.play.rewind]

What ever gave you that idea?

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Just pulling your legs.. We operate under part 107 and exempted waiver rules, we have a safety protocols during “blind” or “flyaways” if this was a flyaway, I would cut power, but since it was a blind, I flew the course, but I could not see which way the camera was facing, so opted for my visual aids.

I know my ego took over, I’m not ashamed to admit that, and if you ask if this is safe? No. I could have dropped my height gradually and opted for a safe landing. Was the flight cause for concerns? At the time, no. It was not a dead stick, but I was sweating bullets.

 

[record.play.rewind]

I think photogrammetry, with emphasis on Lidar, is where much of the money will be at going forward. You mentioned survey work in a previous post and that may well hold the future for many in the small UAV, low employee count class.

Knowing where at least two aerospace outfits were going with airframe, ground station, and payload development that 200’ limit could easily end up the new standard for what I’ll call “consumer level” ops, even those using things like the M series, Alta’s, Falcons, and similar. The deep pockets, as always, want it all and whatever they don’t target will be all that’s left to us, along with limitations for how we will be able to do them.

Until then all the “consumer” manufacturers will happily sell us anything and everything, likely knowing full well how long we have left to use them is limited.

You always take to another level. And I’ve read your post in other threads inline with the same context. I have big accounts, but my level is at a the low end of the Totem pole, due to what I am flying. YUNEEC has a cool factor that is why I fly it more than my P4P and Inspire. I cannot level up to the big boys, who are flying Airobotics and AscTec Falcon 8. And it is also comfort, I got used to a certain workflow that is enabling me to grow, as well as fear of change.

I have my eyes on the H520 with CGOET but I’m playing it safe for now.