Drone pilot sees helicopter and flies straight to its flight path.

[WillyPete]

https://streamable.com/62fem

Utter stupidity.

[PDR1]

Agreed - criminally stupid and indefensible. The owner/operator of that drone should be in jail.

PDR

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

How do you know the drone pilot actually saw the helicopter?

[WillyPete]

How do you know the drone pilot actually saw the helicopter?

because the drone op saw it as he panned and only started moving it when he spotted the helicopter. Towards its direction of travel.

[Dai Whirlybird]

It looks like GGI to me .....Fake news?

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

because the drone op saw it as he panned and only started moving it when he spotted the helicopter. Towards its direction of travel.

So how do you know he actually saw it before he moved the drone or are you just assuming he saw it.

[chopjock]

PDR1
Agreed - criminally stupid and indefensible. The owner/operator of that drone should be in jail.

I suggest you are jumping to a wrong conclusion based on what WillyP thinks...

​​​​​​WP
Drone pilot sees helicopter and flies straight to its flight path.

I think you are supplying "fake news"

It doesn't look intentional to me.

My opinion is drone pilot failed in his responsibilities and should have had an observer looking and listening for traffic and to keep out of it's path early enough to avoid any confliction.

[PDR1]

Twaddle. Look at the location - it was well out of any direct visual range (by which I mean too far out for a DV safety spotter) and so was operating solely on FPV in an area where helicopters track up the coast. I don't agree that he moved into the path of the helicopter, but he was clearly aware of it because he panned onto it. I would have expected (as a minimum) a "crash climb" to deconflict as soon as the heli came into sight. If he didn't see it he wasn't looking hard enough and should be jailed for negligence. If he did see it and still took no evasive action then he's a nutter who should be jailed for recklessly endangering an aeroplane.

Check my history - I'm often the one defending drone/RC-model operators, but there's no way I'm going to defend this pillock. Get me a pitchfork and a rope. This guy is bringing all FPV and DV model flyers into disrepute. Actually forget the rope - hanging is too good for him. Make it a can of petrol and a match...

€0.003 supplied, YMMV,

PDR

[Wiggins61]

I’m not so sure they would have seen the 407 approaching. Try watching the video on your Cell phone at arms lengths outside in the sunlight. That is most likely what the R/C pilot saw. He or she should most definitely of heard the 407 approaching and reacted immediately.

[212man]

I saw this video earlier today and when I saw this thread title assumed this would be different. He doesn’t move towards the helicopter - he pans around while stationary. I fully agree he should not have been in that piece of airspace, but does anybody honestly believe that at that height and distance from the shore it would have been possible assess relative heights and bearings to make an informed avoiding action? Not sure what the FAA rules are about VLOS but they vary from country to country, with some nitvsetting any range/height criteria and using the term literally. So it could very well be that this was VLOS. FPV is normally used by commercial operators anyway - is it? Not as the primary control method anyway.

[Phoinix]

All DJI consumer products are easily flown FPV, with all kinds of on screen data provided (height from take-off, distance from remote, ground speeds, vertical speeds...0 excuses for the drone pilot.

[brett s]

because the drone op saw it as he panned and only started moving it when he spotted the helicopter. Towards its direction of travel.

That's what it looks like to me as well - he was stationary until he panned far enough to see the approaching helicopter & only then started moving toward it's path.

If he didn't see it, why did he also pan to track it's departure?

Sure looks deliberate to me.

[MikeNYC]

It was a Law Enforcement aircraft, and the local FSDO is currently investigating.

[farmpilot]

The 407's tail rotor will wake the dead - he heard it all right.

[Spunk]

What’s the drone doing up there at that altitude anyway in the first place?

[airpolice]

What’s the drone doing up there at that altitude anyway in the first place?


How high do you think it is?

I think the SUAS might have been at 400 feet, and possibly not committing any offences in doing so. Without details of where and when this took place, it's hard to decide if there was any wrongdoing. The spotter, if there was one, ought to have heard and seen the approaching helicopter, but you should also consider that the operator may not have been looking at the view that you see here. Sometimes it makes more sense to look at the craft rather than the screen.

I accept that seeing it at 400 feet is tricky task, but local rules might differ to how the CAA demand that commercial operators do it here.

The data file that is linked to the video would make interesting viewing.

[airpolice]

Agreed - criminally stupid and indefensible. The owner/operator of that drone should be in jail.

PDR

Charged with what offence?

[Spunk]

Well, in my country the rules are:
-max 300 ft (special permission required if you want to fly higher)
-always in line of sight (no FPV unless 2nd person has line of sight or drone weighs less than .25 kg)
-drones always have to give way to manned aircraft

[Nige321]

There's a video here which suggests through a bit of simple research that the drone was at around 400'...

video here

[PDR1]

Charged with what offence?

Recklessly endangering an aircraft?

PDR

[aa777888]

Recklessly endangering an aircraft?

PDR
Not at all. Giving the operator the benefit of the doubt, it appears that the UAV was below 400ft AGL, just barely outside the Class C, and in LOS to the operator, i.e. operating in accordance with US rules and reg's. This event could just as easily happened if the other aircraft was a Cessna 150. (It may also be worth noting that the recent UAV collision with the Israeli ag. helicopter also involved two aircraft both being operated completely within the letter of the law.)

Looking at the core issues, don't be confused by this event's proximity to Class C. If it had happened a 5 miles outside of the Class C boundary along the coast, it would have happened just the same way. And don't be confused about the 1000ft distance to the operator. I don't care if the UAV was directly above him, any effort to reduce the UAVs altitude on hearing the helicopter might have resulted in a collision since the helicopter was below the UAV (and it was a 407 so we know he heard it a mile away ;))

I hold a FAA PPASEL, PPH and remote pilot cert's. I'm a low time "hobby pilot" (although planning on a CPH checkride next month :)) My day job has me working with UAS technology, among other things. This video, more than anything else, really illustrated the challenges of the see and avoid problem for both UAS operators and manned aircraft.

We all know how hard it is to see and avoid another helicopter or light single engine aircraft using just a Mark 1 eyeball, particularly in head on encounters where time is of the essence. I've been flying with TIS-B since last September and that has powerfully illustrated the shortcomings of relying only on human eyesight. With a UAV it is damn near impossible. And for the UAV operator, is is damn hard to figure out what action to take to avoid a collision. Nevertheless, UAV technology, hate it or love it, is here to stay, and is a legitimate user of the airspace. So how do we fix the problem?

Here are some random thoughts:

1. In the US it is trivial for UAV operators to file a NOTAM. This might still seem onerous to some UAV operators, but given the near impossibility of seeing a UAV nevertheless seems like a reasonable compromise. skyvector.com already does a fabulous job of displaying what skyvector calls "DROTAMS", i.e. UAV related NOTAMS. If these started showing up as nicely in Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, etc., or were carried on the FIS-B data stream, that would help a lot.

2. Create a radio frequency or two specifically dedicated to UAV operations, and require UAV operators to have and monitor an aviation radio. Then comm's could be established by aircraft entering UAV NOTAM'd areas (US rules do not prohibit entry). Aircraft and UAV operators could self-announce in a manner similar to that used at uncontrolled airfields. Again, a cost and regulatory burden to the UAV operator, particularly hobby types, but the price for being effectively invisible. Perhaps provide also for NORDO op's below 100ft AGL only, as a SOP to the low end of the hobby.

3. It is always said that "helicopters should avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic". Perhaps the same should be said for "avoiding the flow of UAV traffic", i.e. stay above 400ft. Just a reminder: US helicopter operations are not under the same 500 and 1000 foot AGL restrictions as fixed wing aircraft are in the US, although it would seem to be common sense. This alone would have prevented the event in the video above.

I specifically left out ADS-B for UAVs. It would be cost and weight prohibitive for most UAV op's.

Also possibly worth noting: I have an FAA registered heliport on my property. Twice now I have received calls from UAV operators advising me that they would be operating within a 5NM radius and looking to coordinate for safety. So Part 107 is having an effect, people are starting to get the hang of things.

It's never an easy problem when introducing a new technology into society. I'm not ready to burn all UAV operators at the stake. But from a US perspective clearly Part 107 is not fully cooked and will remain a work in progress for some time. I hope it can evolve without any major catastrophes.

[Carbon Bootprint]

It was a Law Enforcement aircraft, and the local FSDO is currently investigating.
That sounds plausible, given the camera assembly hanging from the bird. Do you have a source you can disclose?

[MikeNYC]

That sounds plausible, given the camera assembly hanging from the bird. Do you have a source you can disclose?

I can't disclose that, but I understand it was a Federal LE ship (operated by a TLA).

[MikeNYC]

Not at all. Giving the operator the benefit of the doubt, it appears that the UAV was below 400ft AGL, just barely outside the Class C, and in LOS to the operator, i.e. operating in accordance with US rules and reg's. This event could just as easily happened if the other aircraft was a Cessna 150. (It may also be worth noting that the recent UAV collision with the Israeli ag. helicopter also involved two aircraft both being operated completely within the letter of the law.)



107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.



§ 101.41 Applicability.

(d) The aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=5&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:101:Subpart:E: 101.41) is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=6&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:101:Subpart:E: 101.41)



Doesn't matter if he flew under 107 or 336 (PL 112.95 / Part 101). The operator failed in this case, and was clearly NOT operating within the letter of the law.


1. In the US it is trivial for UAV operators to file a NOTAM. This might still seem onerous to some UAV operators, but given the near impossibility of seeing a UAV nevertheless seems like a reasonable compromise. skyvector.com already does a fabulous job of displaying what skyvector calls "DROTAMS", i.e. UAV related NOTAMS. If these started showing up as nicely in Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, etc., or were carried on the FIS-B data stream, that would help a lot.


It's the onus of the UAS operator to see and avoid, not burden full scale pilots with tons of circles on the map whenever Johnny Hobbyist wants to take their Mavic up for a spin.


2. Create a radio frequency or two specifically dedicated to UAV operations, and require UAV operators to have and monitor an aviation radio. Then comm's could be established by aircraft entering UAV NOTAM'd areas (US rules do not prohibit entry). Aircraft and UAV operators could self-announce in a manner similar to that used at uncontrolled airfields. Again, a cost and regulatory burden to the UAV operator, particularly hobby types, but the price for being effectively invisible. Perhaps provide also for NORDO op's below 100ft AGL only, as a SOP to the low end of the hobby.


You're probably aware that the FCC doesn't permit handheld radio use by those lacking a station license, which is either tied to a fixed location station providing services, or to an aircraft (when the radio is operated from inside the aircraft).

There are plenty of NORDO aircraft ops. Aircraft are only expected to monitor 121.5 when able, and otherwise can have radios effectively shut off when outside B/C/D airspace, if the pilot desires.


3. It is always said that "helicopters should avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic". Perhaps the same should be said for "avoiding the flow of UAV traffic", i.e. stay above 400ft. Just a reminder: US helicopter operations are not under the same 500 and 1000 foot AGL restrictions as fixed wing aircraft are in the US, although it would seem to be common sense.


Again, UAVs must avoid aircraft. That's how the right of way works. Pilots often choose to fly above 500' because of hazards down low that aren't limited to drones (birds, towers), but that's a personal choice.


This alone would have prevented the event in the video above.


Nope, it wouldn't. As a holder of all of the certs you have, you're probably aware that a 400' ceiling is not codified for Part 101 UAS flights, only Part 107.


I specifically left out ADS-B for UAVs. It would be cost and weight prohibitive for most UAV op's.


Again, we're crossing paths here. ADS-B for drones is not only a good idea, it's the future. ADS-B transmitters have been miniaturized enough that they're totally feasible to add to UAVs, for when the integration time comes. This unit weighs less than one ounce: https://uavionix.com/downloads/ping2020/docs/uAvionix-ping2020-data-sheet-ap0.pdf


Also possibly worth noting: I have an FAA registered heliport on my property. Twice now I have received calls from UAV operators advising me that they would be operating within a 5NM radius and looking to coordinate for safety. So Part 107 is having an effect, people are starting to get the hang of things.


I'm confused here. Part 107 does NOT require operators to notify when they're operating within 5NM. That's a Part 101 regulation.

[chopjock]

MikeNYC
107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.


Not sure how this is relevant if the drone is in a 400ft hover, all on it's own to start with...

[aa777888]

@MikeNYC:

I'm not going to dispute 107.37(a). It is, however, as a practical matter, difficult to be fully in compliance with this regulation when aircraft approach a UAV at speeds of 100KN or more, particularly if line of sight from the ground control station to the approaching aircraft is obstructed due to terrain, buildings, etc. There is simply not sufficient time to land the UAV, and landing the UAV is probably the only safe course of action. Typical vertical descent speeds are in the 2 to 4 meter/sec range. This puts the time to reach ground proximity in the 30 to 60 second range. You have to be able to detect an approaching aircraft from the GCS at at least 2NM or more. Experienced pilots many times have trouble detecting traffic in the pattern at this distance even when it is pointed out to them by ATC. It can't be any easier for UAV controllers and they are not in contact with ATC for traffic call-outs. This is one area where 107 is going to have to evolve and/or a technical solution brought to bear. If this guy gets hauled up on charges if he feels like fighting them he probably has a good shot at it. In the meantime I hope he files an ASRS report (FWIW).

And yet "full scale pilots" may indeed get so burdened with looking at tons of circles, whether you think it's a good idea or not. There is a huge economic force behind UAVs, they are not going to go away. However, UAV operators may get burdened with additional flight restrictions, mandatory NOTAMS, ADS-B, ATC comm's, and ground-to-air comm's requirements. Maybe even additional training requirements. BTW, I thought the Part 107 test was a joke. For a non-pilot it makes you feel like you learned something, and you did, just not nearly enough.

The FCC license issue is merely a paperwork exercise: https://www.fcc.gov/research-reports/guides/common-filing-tasks-ground-stations#block-menu-block-4 I'm sure that everyone you know that uses an aviation handheld radio on the ground has applied for and received an appropriate Multicom (probably the most applicable to this problem) or whatever is appropriate under FCC Part 87 license, right? I don't know a single person who has done this. It is probably one of the most ignored, if not most unknown, regulations. Not saying you are incorrect, BTW. You've clearly got the reg's wired tight. If you want to meet the letter of the law today there is a regulatory mechanism to do it. But if UAV ground control stations are going to get comm's, maybe some changes are in order here as well. Just like they changed the rules so that you no longer need a station license for your aircraft unless flying/communicating internationally.

Was the event in question a Part 101 flight, or a Part 107 flight? I assumed 107, but that might have been a bad assumption.

Thanks for the link to the Ping transponder. It is a nice technical solution. A bit pricey, though. You can buy one for $2K. Add the cost of a handheld radio and station license onto that and I'm sure the number of "Johnny Hobbyists" will be cut down quite a bit.

Another interesting technical solution will be possible when nearly everyone is equipped with ADS-B Out in 2020: a real time TIS-B feed via internet (cellular data). This would be invaluable at the GCS. Non-real time feeds with no integrity checks are available now, of course (Flightaware, et al). Even that could be helpful today.

At any rate, my intent here was to say that we all better learn to get along. A large regional helicopter operation near me started a UAV operation about 4 years ago. They know they are going to lose business, so they are planning to lose it to themselves! The collision avoidance problem is going to get worse before it gets better, the current Part 107 is not cutting the mustard.

[MikeNYC]

MikeNYC


Not sure how this is relevant if the drone is in a 400ft hover, all on it's own to start with...

Hover or in forward flight is irrelevant. Right of way applies just the same. Should a helicopter in a hover, hold position if a hot air balloon at 400' is drifting in its direction?

[MikeNYC]

@MikeNYC:

I'm not going to dispute 107.37(a). It is, however, as a practical matter, difficult to be fully in compliance with this regulation when aircraft approach a UAV at speeds of 100KN or more, particularly if line of sight from the ground control station to the approaching aircraft is obstructed due to terrain, buildings, etc. There is simply not sufficient time to land the UAV, and landing the UAV is probably the only safe course of action. Typical vertical descent speeds are in the 2 to 4 meter/sec range. This puts the time to reach ground proximity in the 30 to 60 second range. You have to be able to detect an approaching aircraft from the GCS at at least 2NM or more. Experienced pilots many times have trouble detecting traffic in the pattern at this distance even when it is pointed out to them by ATC. It can't be any easier for UAV controllers and they are not in contact with ATC for traffic call-outs. This is one area where 107 is going to have to evolve and/or a technical solution brought to bear. If this guy gets hauled up on charges if he feels like fighting them he probably has a good shot at it. In the meantime I hope he files an ASRS report (FWIW).

And yet "full scale pilots" may indeed get so burdened with looking at tons of circles, whether you think it's a good idea or not. There is a huge economic force behind UAVs, they are not going to go away. However, UAV operators may get burdened with additional flight restrictions, mandatory NOTAMS, ADS-B, ATC comm's, and ground-to-air comm's requirements. Maybe even additional training requirements. BTW, I thought the Part 107 test was a joke. For a non-pilot it makes you feel like you learned something, and you did, just not nearly enough.

The FCC license issue is merely a paperwork exercise: https://www.fcc.gov/research-reports/guides/common-filing-tasks-ground-stations#block-menu-block-4 I'm sure that everyone you know that uses an aviation handheld radio on the ground has applied for and received an appropriate Multicom (probably the most applicable to this problem) or whatever is appropriate under FCC Part 87 license, right? I don't know a single person who has done this. It is probably one of the most ignored, if not most unknown, regulations. Not saying you are incorrect, BTW. You've clearly got the reg's wired tight. If you want to meet the letter of the law today there is a regulatory mechanism to do it. But if UAV ground control stations are going to get comm's, maybe some changes are in order here as well. Just like they changed the rules so that you no longer need a station license for your aircraft unless flying/communicating internationally.

Was the event in question a Part 101 flight, or a Part 107 flight? I assumed 107, but that might have been a bad assumption.

Thanks for the link to the Ping transponder. It is a nice technical solution. A bit pricey, though. You can buy one for $2K. Add the cost of a handheld radio and station license onto that and I'm sure the number of "Johnny Hobbyists" will be cut down quite a bit.

Another interesting technical solution will be possible when nearly everyone is equipped with ADS-B Out in 2020: a real time TIS-B feed via internet (cellular data). This would be invaluable at the GCS. Non-real time feeds with no integrity checks are available now, of course (Flightaware, et al). Even that could be helpful today.

At any rate, my intent here was to say that we all better learn to get along. A large regional helicopter operation near me started a UAV operation about 4 years ago. They know they are going to lose business, so they are planning to lose it to themselves! The collision avoidance problem is going to get worse before it gets better, the current Part 107 is not cutting the mustard.

Hope to not have come across as snarky as I appreciate the discussion about this; it benefits us all.

We don't know if it was a 101 or a 107 flight, but the deal with 101 is that unless the flight is clearly conducted under the provisions of Part 101, by default it is a 107 flight. But you're right, we don't know.

It's nearly impossible to get an FCC Multicom license for this application, as I understand it, to be a mobile operator not in support of manned aviation. But I stand to be corrected. As you mention, though, it is an oft ignored regulation. I think the idea of ADS-B instead of voice communication will be the better long term solution, especially with the 2020 mandate. In bulk pricing and with tech improvements, the $2k transponder will drastically drop in price.

Totally agreed on the ASRS report, if he knows what that is. These airprox incidents should be tracked so as to come up with safety solutions. Appreciate the math and logic of closure rates. Perhaps the "bubble" that UAVs are given is too large?

The 107 test is indeed absurd, and it's even sillier that the US has no practical exam requirements. Many countries (even the Bahamas) require a flight exam for a commercial UAS license, and hold pilots to a higher standard. Another issue is that the FAA hasn't shown it has any teeth in enforcement.

With regard to your comment of a TIS-B feed, that certainly could be incorporated now. There are plenty of public ADS-B feeds out there (FR24/PlaneFinder/FlightAware/ADSBExchange), and it would be low bandwidth if it's only covering a 5nm ring. Some UAS (DJI M200/M210) come equipped with onboard ADS-B receivers that will display traffic on the GCS, which is great. Certainly a good start. The 2020 mandate, however, won't require ADS-B Out everywhere so many small aircraft simply will choose not to equip.

[airpolice]

Well, in my country the rules are:
-max 300 ft (special permission required if you want to fly higher)
-always in line of sight (no FPV unless 2nd person has line of sight or drone weighs less than .25 kg)
-drones always have to give way to manned aircraft


Which part of Germany looks like that?

[aa777888]

Hope to not have come across as snarky as I appreciate the discussion about this; it benefits us all.
No worries, @MikeNYC :ok: It is good discussion, which is what we need as opposed to "Ground all drones, hang all drone operators!"

[Carbon Bootprint]

I can't disclose that, but I understand it was a Federal LE ship (operated by a TLA).

TLA, that's adorable. Thanks. :ok:

[DroneDog]

The individual who flew and posted this footage was expecting a "wow great footage" response, instead he was torn apart on various drone forums.

Zero excuses for not taking evasive action, the approaching heli can be seen initially as a small speck but it grows plus he is bound to have heard it coming.

[chopjock]

DroneDog
Zero excuses for not taking evasive action, the approaching heli can be seen initially as a small speck but it grows plus he is bound to have heard it coming.
So about ten seconds to decide which way to go? So let's say he decided wrong and went closer to the beach? ...

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

im sure the impending sound of the 407 was longer than 10 seconds. but then again who knows what sounds were ground level and blocked it out.

I'm patenting a laser beam drone destructor. Called LBDD, which will automatically detect, track and destroy any object in the flightpath.
unfortunately in test trials, it has trouble distinguishing between birds and mechanical devices, so I'm sorry to the Audubon Society for the loss of those rare migratory birds. I hope the numbers can rebound with one good breeding season

[Spunk]

Which part of Germany looks like that?

very witty contribution...

[DroneDog]

DroneDog

So about ten seconds to decide which way to go? So let's say he decided wrong and went closer to the beach? ...
The operator not only saw the helicopter, he was panning left and right framing his shot to catch it, drones can drop in altitude very quickly and recover just as quickly.

He cold have performed an emergency descent, throttling back the engines, the thing will fall like a stone before throttling up at a safe altitude.

[Photonic]

The operator not only saw the helicopter, he was panning left and right framing his shot to catch it, drones can drop in altitude very quickly and recover just as quickly.

He cold have performed an emergency descent, throttling back the engines, the thing will fall like a stone before throttling up at a safe altitude.

Maybe these things need an "Abort" red button on the controller that does this. A quick drop to 20 feet.

Better yet, make that Abort function mandatory by law for all drones, built into the drone's own radio receiver. Program it to kick in automatically if it receives a certain encrypted radio signal. All manned aircraft then required to have a cheap radio transmitter generating this signal at a certain radius around the aircraft, say 1/2 mile. Aircraft gets anywhere close, drone drops close to the ground. Problem solved.

[airpolice]

Maybe these things need an "Abort" red button on the controller that does this. A quick drop to 20 feet.

Better yet, make that Abort function mandatory by law for all drones, built into the drone's own radio receiver. Program it to kick in automatically if it receives a certain encrypted radio signal. All manned aircraft then required to have a cheap radio transmitter generating this signal at a certain radius around the aircraft, say 1/2 mile. Aircraft gets anywhere close, drone drops close to the ground. Problem solved.

That process takes a special kind of stupidity to even suggest it.

A team of cops out searching for a missing child have a helicopter or drone providing overview, and the rapid descent of a drone into their midst is a good thing because...?

Now we will have drones crashing into other drones or manned aircraft to avoid doing just that.

[Photonic]

It takes a special kind of clue-lessness to recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment too.

Even if we take that idea seriously, any government agency operating under this regime would have their own methods to prevent airspace conflicts. We're going to see some kind of restrictions that may include this kind of automatic avoidance in the future, so it's worth discussing the options. Especially those that prioritize manned aircraft safety over drones in the same airspace.

[Helisweet]

The issue here is that with actual drone FPV systems, pilots don´t see other aircraft getting closer, so they must stay VLOS to see and avoid, or using ADSB to detect and avoid other aircraft.