Part 107 pilots beware, Skydio is NOT your friend

[skydioconvert]

FAA Part 107 Rules vs Skydio Autonomy .... Can they both somehow exist together?

Part 107 Pilots Beware, Skydio Is NOT Your Friend

This week Drone Deploy had its conference. One of the presented slides makes clear for Part 107 pilots that Skydio is not their friend.

dronexl.co

 

[VEGASROBBI]

Guess I’m confused. Like any follow drone I (you) remain PIC (Pilot in command). I constantly direct my S2 with the beacon or controller, the OA and following is great but I always remain PIC.

I can only think this technology will enhance 107 Pilots with better safety; in addition the follow mode can be turned off.

 

[skydioconvert]

As far as the FAA is concerned if you don't have complete control of your aircraft 100% of the time you're not compliant with Part 107 or recreational flying rules for that matter either.

Since the S2 actually takes control away from you when it detects an obstacle in the flight path, the S2 could quite possibly encroach in the airspace of manned aircraft or fly over people in the process.

That's currently unacceptable as far as the FAA is concerned...

 

[LivinLarge]

As far as the FAA is concerned if you don't have complete control of your aircraft 100% of the time you're not compliant with Part 107 or recreational flying rules for that matter either.

Since the S2 actually takes control away from you when it detects an obstacle in the flight path, the S2 could quite possibly encroach in the airspace of manned aircraft or fly over people in the process.

That's currently unacceptable as far as the FAA is concerned...

This is true of any drone with obstacle avoidance that does more than just stop in place. This is also true of any drone which is flying wayoints.

 

[skydioconvert]

Yup.... hence the BIG problem down the road for such drone owners when the FAA begins to flex its muscles.

 

[VEGASROBBI]

Sounds like a catch 22, DJI, Skydio, Autel... all have OA to avoid obstacles so you are not in control 100% of the time; henceforth, this article should not be directed at one particular manufacturer.

 

[skydioconvert]

Agree... but its interesting that ONLY Skydio data was used in the article.

Odds are that the other companies just believe that "now" is not the time to challenge FAA wisdom.

 

[Starz]

flex its muscles.

Some attorneys that I know just love that descriptive term.

 

[skydioconvert]

Some attorneys that I know just love that descriptive term.

Trust me when I say that I'm not an attorney... but if you ever have to go to court expensive ones are well worth the money.

 

[Starz]

expensive ones are well worth the money.

As are accountants.

 

[skydioconvert]

As are accountants.,,,

Yup.... they can both save you a ton of money but we're wandering way off topic.

 

[Rich Z]

Some attorneys that I know just love that descriptive term.

I wouldn't mind seeing some attorneys flex their own muscles and challenge the self presumed FAA's authority over our national and personal airspace. My guess is that there isn't any.

For instance what rights to property owners have over the airspace directly above their property? Probably unlimited unless the US Constitution granted the US Government any authority over any of it. Which as far as I know, doesn't exist.

But what do I know? I've never played an attorney in a movie, or even slept at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[VEGASROBBI]

Drones have a big future. With delivery companies like Amazon, search and rescue, law enforcement, real estate... jumping in there needs to be an authority to regulate there use.

I'm not sure the FAA is it; maybe a new branch or authority with special knowledge of drones. It's going to be complex integrating this new entry into the current airspace.

 

[Rich Z]

Unfortunately, I don't believe that those major players are all that enthusiastic about hobbyist class drones cluttering up the airspace they would like to have unobstructed and traffic free. I do not believe they will be on our side.

 

[Soutthpaw]

As far as the FAA is concerned if you don't have complete control of your aircraft 100% of the time you're not compliant with Part 107 or recreational flying rules for that matter either.

Since the S2 actually takes control away from you when it detects an obstacle in the flight path, the S2 could quite possibly encroach in the airspace of manned aircraft or fly over people in the process.

That's currently unacceptable as far as the FAA is concerned...

So does every other drone with any collision avoidence or autonomous flying capability such as return to home or land or quickshotb just to name a few. As usual the law is 5-10 years behind the technology.

 

[baksideDisasterFlicks]

Ugh, if there's a plane flying at the height of my Skydio there's a bigger problem then collision with my drone.. Some of this stuff seems so silly and common sense to me. Seems like they could do something like restrict recreational autonomous drones to below 100 ft or something. Usually Skydio won't go higher than that when motion tracking anyways.

 

[skydioconvert]

Ugh, if there's a plane flying at the height of my Skydio there's a bigger problem then collision with my drone.. Some of this stuff seems so silly and common sense to me. Seems like they could do something like restrict recreational autonomous drones to below 100 ft or something. Usually Skydio won't go higher than that when motion tracking anyways.

If you were the pilot of a manned aircraft at a low altitude on approach or takeoff or a member of a firefighting aircrew flying low over a fire you might not find the FAA's stance silly at all.

Automatically being able a limit a drones altitude is technically possible but it still would leave open the possibility of collisions when a manned aircraft is in any of the above two situations.

 

[VEGASROBBI]

It's ironic the safety built into autonomous flight like obstacle avoidance, geofence, NFZ... constitute a danger according to the FAA. At the same time this exact technology is required for safe flight during missions whether it be real estate or search and rescue; we need a new set of rules.

I flew at the Apollo RC field in Los Angeles for over 30 years. The field was directly off the runway of Van Nuys airport, one of the busiest private airports in the country. Ove the years there were many pilot complaints RC aircraft were flying over 400 ft. I'm not aware of any collisions but it was and still is a major concern for that field. I remember airport security at the field constantly because some Yahoo with an F1 was seen at 1,000 ft. IMO you can't rely completely on autonomous features or human nature, in the end they will both fail.

 

[baksideDisasterFlicks]

If you were the pilot of a manned aircraft at a low altitude on approach or takeoff or a member of a firefighting aircrew flying low over a fire you might not find the FAA's stance silly at all.

Automatically being able a limit a drones altitude is technically possible but it still would leave open the possibility of collisions when a manned aircraft is in any of the above two situations.

Yes yes, but that's already in the rules. You shouldn't be flying in these situations already so the fact that I'm flying autonomously is irrelevant.

 

[skydioconvert]

Yes yes, but that's already in the rules. You shouldn't be flying in these situations already so the fact that I'm flying autonomously is irrelevant.

When/once the FAA forces an ADS-B Out Transponder requirement on new drones, autonomous drones could easily be programed not to enter another aircraft/drones airspace.

Autonomy would not only become relevant but would also serve as backup safety measure.