Flight above treetops

[Peter Goldwing]

I figured Florida from the Sabal palm trees and the flat Earth. I was going to say Ocala National forest.

I wasn't going to send this because I don't want to be considered " that guy"

You are that guy.
I see them all the time in you tube. For example there is a guy showing how to calculate stairs for a deck. This jerk is all over him for not wearing ear plugs gloves etc.
You have a blessed day

 

[Peter Goldwing]

Peter, I have some advice for you.
Change your name on youtube to Peter G. Edit your videos into sections. This way you can always explain yourself if you need to. Do not worry about Birddog, his words should be interpreted on how to learn from your mistakes, he needs to realize that he's not the FAA, he's just known as the "drone police" in the drone community and on youtube. Trust me most pilots do not like these type of accounts. He does not have anything better to do then to point out "possible" violations. The FAA has WAYYY more other issues to attend to, then to scan thousands of videos on youtube and to determine even if they have a case . Yes stay away from air traffic and over crowded areas which you did. I would have started out with a smaller route until I got familiar with the app LOL, could have been nerve racking waiting for your drone to show up and see the distance start increasing. This was why I never did it with my Bebop 2, yet there are videos like this one that go for 14km over a city!

Have fun and be safe. If plan on flying over houses be prepared to land somewhere accessible if needed because if your drone ends up in someones property like the drone police, you could never see it again.

Thanks for the input Madhungarian The Goldwing name comes from the motorcycle Im riding nothing to do with my real name.

 

[BirdDog]

Peter, I certainly hope you didn't take it as me singling you out... just wanted to point things out in your video so as you edit in the future, you can keep those things in mind.... didn't expect the negativity, so , hey take what I said and throw it out the window...if you want. Go back and look at my post, I even said I hesitated because I don't want to be viewed as "That Guy" but thought maybe you didn't realize what your videos were showing. Mad hungarian's reference to me as being known as the Drone Police is funny as I maintain no internet presence, and this is actually the only drone forum I have ever commented in. I see the one video he posted above seems to have been shot in the EU and while that may be legal along with his suggesting that you could fly 14km over a City...that would be a clear violation of the US regs here. He also has absolutely no way of knowing what the FAA has the manpower to enforce, what their priorities are..etc. What is known is the FAA is working to educate local law enforcement on what they can investigate and what the rules and regs are. The program can be found here: Public Safety and Law Enforcement Toolkit
99.9% of the time the complaint and investigation would not start with the FAA being at your exact place and time to witness the flight, but would be a community member who phoned the police to report a drone overflying their house or claiming to be spying on them..etc. or if the police saw a drone overfly and keep going non-stop... yes they could make a police report and forward the details of that report to the FSDO for follow up. Much the same as is done with paramotoring, etc.
So while the FAA may not have the manpower to enforce every single drone violation, they certainly have the manpower to and will accept the information from a police report that is forwarded to the local FSDO. I wasn't trying to scare you, that was not the intent, but just to let you know, as you might have had no idea what could be seen by others. I don't claim to be the law or police, I just see lots of people putting things up on YouTube that they might not realize could get them in trouble. It was merely a friendly gesture....sorry if it seemed otherwise.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Peter, I certainly hope you didn't take it as me singling you out... just wanted to point things out in your video so as you edit in the future, you can keep those things in mind.... didn't expect the negativity, so , hey take what I said and throw it out the window...if you want. Go back and look at my post, I even said I hesitated because I don't want to be viewed as "That Guy" but thought maybe you didn't realize what your videos were showing. Mad hungarian's reference to me as being known as the Drone Police is funny as I maintain no internet presence, and this is actually the only drone forum I have ever commented in. I see the one video he posted above seems to have been shot in the EU and while that may be legal along with his suggesting that you could fly 14km over a City...that would be a clear violation of the US regs here. He also has absolutely no way of knowing what the FAA has the manpower to enforce, what their priorities are..etc. What is known is the FAA is working to educate local law enforcement on what they can investigate and what the rules and regs are. The program can be found here: Public Safety and Law Enforcement Toolkit
99.9% of the time the complaint and investigation would not start with the FAA being at your exact place and time to witness the flight, but would be a community member who phoned the police to report a drone overflying their house or claiming to be spying on them..etc. or if the police saw a drone overfly and keep going non-stop... yes they could make a police report and forward the details of that report to the FSDO for follow up. Much the same as is done with paramotoring, etc.
So while the FAA may not have the manpower to enforce every single drone violation, they certainly have the manpower to and will accept the information from a police report that is forwarded to the local FSDO. I wasn't trying to scare you, that was not the intent, but just to let you know, as you might have had no idea what could be seen by others. I don't claim to be the law or police, I just see lots of people putting things up on YouTube that they might not realize could get them in trouble. It was merely a friendly gesture....sorry if it seemed otherwise.

I'm sure you were just trying to help but people do not come to the forum to be preached at. Most know the rules and when they have broken them. The FAA put out a statement they do not and will not go through Youtube videos to charge anyone. Their own words is it will never stand up in court as they cannot prove who was flying the UAV at the time. One other thing you got wrong. Your spotter can only be at a distance that the pilot in command can hear him or her with out any electronic device. So you cannot have multiple spotters along a route using cell phones or any other communication device as they have been known to fail. Same as they cannot use any seeing device other then normal prescription glasses.

 

[BirdDog]

I'm sure you were just trying to help but people do not come to the forum to be preached at. Most know the rules and when they have broken them. The FAA put out a statement they do not and will not go through Youtube videos to charge anyone. Their own words is it will never stand up in court as they cannot prove who was flying the UAV at the time. One other thing you got wrong. Your spotter can only be at a distance that the pilot in command can hear him or her with out any electronic device. So you cannot have multiple spotters along a route using cell phones or any other communication device as they have been known to fail. Same as they cannot use any seeing device other then normal prescription glasses.

I don't know what I got wrong because I never commented on spotters....maybe someone else commented? Actually though, you most definitely can daisychain spotters along a flight path using two-way radio, it's allowed in the regs and is done all the time as long as everyone is monitoring and can communicate back to the PIC. As for the YouTube, read my last post as I described how the encounter with local police would unfold.

I'm sure you were just trying to help but people do not come to the forum to be preached at. Most know the rules and when they have broken them. The FAA put out a statement they do not and will not go through Youtube videos to charge anyone. Their own words is it will never stand up in court as they cannot prove who was flying the UAV at the time. One other thing you got wrong. Your spotter can only be at a distance that the pilot in command can hear him or her with out any electronic device. So you cannot have multiple spotters along a route using cell phones or any other communication device as they have been known to fail. Same as they cannot use any seeing device other then normal prescription glasses.

We're fighting two pandemics right now — COVID-19 and the other one, stupidity I can see that clearly now........

 

[Jagerbomb52]

I don't know what I got wrong because I never commented on spotters....maybe someone else commented? Actually though, you most definitely can daisychain spotters along a flight path using two-way radio, it's allowed in the regs and is done all the time as long as everyone is monitoring and can communicate back to the PIC. As for the YouTube, read my last post as I described how the encounter with local police would unfold.


We're fighting two pandemics right now — COVID-19 and the other one, stupidity I can see that clearly now........

In post #15 Mr BirdDog made a comment about " Unless you had visual observers positioned every so often, the drone went way beyond visual line of sight." To me that would mean a daisy chain of VO's.
He claims it is legal so I spent a great deal of time looking to see if is or not.
I stand corrected IF i WAS WRONG
EDIT READ THE POST UNDER THIS ONE FOR THE ACTUALLY RULE:

Now the staff decided Mr BirdDog needed a vacation because he broke rule #2. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.
If I made a mistake on a rule I would be the first to admit it so all he had to do was show me where I was wrong. He did not. He decided he would try and make me look stupid. Hence the reason he is on vacation.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

So more searching about this daisy chaining your VO's with radios. It would seem I was correct in the first place. It is not allowed.

Page 138 of the Part 107 Preamble gives clear information that daisy-chaining is not allowed.

"Allowing remote pilots to extend their visual line of sight through the use of one or more visual observers may introduce new hazards into the operation. As discussed in the next section of this preamble, the visual observer’s role in the operation is limited to simply maintaining visual line of sight and communicating what he or she sees to the remote pilot. Allowing “daisy chaining” of visual observers to fly the unmanned aircraft beyond line of sight of the remote pilot in command would result in a delay in the remote pilot’s reaction time because the visual observer would have to verbalize any hazard and the remote pilot would be unable to look up and directly see the situation. Instead, the remote pilot would have to respond to the hazard by formulating and executing a maneuver based on his or her understanding of the information received from the visual observer rather than a direct visual perception of the hazard. Because a delay in reaction time may introduce new hazards into the operation, this rule will retain the requirement that the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS (if that person is not the remote pilot in command) must be able to see the small unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight. However, as discussed earlier, the visual-line-of-sight requirements of this rule will be waivable. Additionally, the FAA notes that it is currently engaged in research and testing on how a communication error could affect the ability of the remote pilot to correctly apply avoidance maneuvers, and this data will help inform future agency actions."

 

[Tufargon]

So more searching about this daisy chaining your VO's with radios. It would seem I was correct in the first place. It is not allowed.

Page 138 of the Part 107 Preamble gives clear information that daisy-chaining is not allowed.

"Allowing remote pilots to extend their visual line of sight through the use of one or more visual observers may introduce new hazards into the operation. As discussed in the next section of this preamble, the visual observer’s role in the operation is limited to simply maintaining visual line of sight and communicating what he or she sees to the remote pilot. Allowing “daisy chaining” of visual observers to fly the unmanned aircraft beyond line of sight of the remote pilot in command would result in a delay in the remote pilot’s reaction time because the visual observer would have to verbalize any hazard and the remote pilot would be unable to look up and directly see the situation. Instead, the remote pilot would have to respond to the hazard by formulating and executing a maneuver based on his or her understanding of the information received from the visual observer rather than a direct visual perception of the hazard. Because a delay in reaction time may introduce new hazards into the operation, this rule will retain the requirement that the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS (if that person is not the remote pilot in command) must be able to see the small unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight. However, as discussed earlier, the visual-line-of-sight requirements of this rule will be waivable. Additionally, the FAA notes that it is currently engaged in research and testing on how a communication error could affect the ability of the remote pilot to correctly apply avoidance maneuvers, and this data will help inform future agency actions."

I knew this rule was true but I honestly was too lazy to find it lol.

 

[Peter Goldwing]

As of now the rule is in there. But pretty sure it will be removed and FPV will be an accepted method to fly the drone especially in rural area.I know there are people fighting for this
Soon well have cars on the road with no drivers to monitor their movement. For sure beats an old lady driving it.