3 ms·
At least in the US, minimum separation is for when you're talking to air traffic control, and MSA is for flying on instruments. Minimum separation when you can
by wat10000 1y ago
At least in the US, minimum separation is for when you're talking to air traffic control, and MSA is for flying on instruments. Minimum separation when you can see outside and aren't talking to ATC is "don't hit other planes." Minimum altitude is 500ft, or 1000ft over "congested areas," plus 500ft distance from any obstacle. Unless you're flying a helicopter (or powered parachute or hang glider) in which case the only requirement is "the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface."
It would make sense for a quadcopter to follow helicopter rules. Obviously it does not follow the "without hazard" requirement if you crash into cables, though.
- appreciatorBus 1y agoFair enough, I am not a pilot, just a nerd so I wasn’t aware of this! I’d agree the helicopter rules seem most appropriate, though I guess I’d still feel like that would still rule out operating anywhere near a building under construction. That said, a regular helicopter that suffers a loss of power or other fault, still has options like autorotation to at least attempt a landing without killing anyone on the ground. Do drones have any equivalent ? I.e. if battery is below x% it returns to safe landing spot?
- wat10000 1y ago"Without hazard" is pretty subjective, but I agree that it probably shouldn't include casually flying around cranes. I don't know how drones are programmed, but landing immediately if the battery gets low certainly sounds like a sensible precaution. Electric motors might be reliable enough that you don't have to worry about gracefully handling failure of those. I hope so, because I don't think a quadcopter has much hope if any motor fails.
- cmurf 1y agoAs far as I'm aware 14 CFR 107 lacks anything like what applies to aircraft in case of power plant failure. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-91#p-91.119(a) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-91#p-91.119(a) The catch all under both regulations is anything that's "careless and wreckless" https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.23 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.23 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.13 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.13 Was this particular operation careless and wreckless? Could be. Someone else in the thread said the weather conditions included mist. I'm skeptical misty conditions also permits a minimum 3 miles of visibility, but what do I know I'm just a pilot. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.51(c) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.51(c) But also, it's possible the waiver I assume Amazon is operating under could include visibility. I assume this because Part 107 requires visual line of sight operation, but Amazon's operation sounds like beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). I don't know anything about that. I'd like to think the waiver and the operating requirements are public information, but I don't know that either. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-107.31 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-107.31 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.205(c) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-107#p-107.205(c)
- smcin 1y agoThose FAA minimum altitudes apply to non-drone aviation. Not to drones. For drones, there's a different set of FAA (and possibly state) rules.