OTG - just not needed...

[The Editor]

I was just going off the dictionary's definition tbh.

Ahh, I see. Unfortunately, aviation law doesn't work that way.

 

[MileHighSi]

Perhaps you could cite something from aviation law which says line of sight means being able to actually see the object in question?
I understand that it seems counter-intuitive, but I've never known line of sight to mean anything but a straight, unobstructed line from point to point. If it was intended to mean 'within view' I'm not sure why they'd not use that simple term rather than mis-using another term.

 

[The Editor]

Perhaps you could cite something from aviation law which says line of sight means being able to actually see the object in question?
I understand that it seems counter-intuitive, but I've never known line of sight to mean anything but a straight, unobstructed line from point to point. If it was intended to mean 'within view' I'm not sure why they'd not use that simple term rather than mis-using another term.

You still have not stated what country you operate in so your aviation authority rules will apply.
My certification in the UK specifically states unaided visual line of sight.
We operate under CAP393 which is law over here passed by an act of parliament.

 

[MileHighSi]

You still have not stated what country you operate in so your aviation authority rules will apply.
My certification in the UK specifically states unaided visual line of sight.
We operate under CAP393 which is law over here passed by an act of parliament.

I'm contributing to someone else's post - the question is not mine. I'm merely correcting the continued mis-understanding of the term 'line-of-sight'. Since you fly commercially and have studied CAP393, perhaps you could direct me section stating that a UAV must remain within eyeshot? Surprise me.

 

[The Editor]

I'm contributing to someone else's post - the question is not mine. I'm merely correcting the continued mis-understanding of the term 'line-of-sight'.

No - you made a comment which was factually incorrect.
This is an international forum and there have been contributions from Australia, South Africa, the UK on this thread , all of which have different aviation rules.
Your statement was a blanket 'What about if you use binoculars' which is not permitted in many countries as an aid to VLOS.
Since you (still) have not stated your country of operation you cannot make a sweeping statement such as that.

 

[MileHighSi]

No - you made a comment which was factually incorrect.
This is an international forum and there have been contributions from Australia, South Africa, the UK on this thread , all of which have different aviation rules.
Your statement was a blanket 'What about if you use binoculars' which is not permitted in many countries as an aid to VLOS.
Since you (still) have not stated your country of operation you cannot make a sweeping statement such as that.

Mate, the binoculars comment was sarcasm. I thought the emoji made that clear tbh. Which of my statements was incorrect? This discussion is about line of sight and it's mis-understanding. I'm still waiting for some sort of citation in that regard.

 

[Vilco]

Perhaps you could cite something from aviation law which says line of sight means being able to actually see the object in question?
I understand that it seems counter-intuitive, but I've never known line of sight to mean anything but a straight, unobstructed line from point to point. If it was intended to mean 'within view' I'm not sure why they'd not use that simple term rather than mis-using another term.

The italian rules for UAVs clearly states that VLOS must be without help from tools:

"Visual Line of Sight (VLOS): operazioni condotte entro una distanza, sia orizzontale che verticale, tale per cui il pilota remoto è in grado di mantenere il contatto visivo continuativo con il mezzo aereo, senza aiuto di strumenti per aumentare la vista, tale da consentirgli un controllo diretto del mezzo per gestire il volo, mantenere le separazioni ed evitare collisioni"

The line "contatto visivo continuativo con il mezzo aereo, senza aiuto di strumenti per aumentare la vista" means "continuous visual contact with the aerial device, without help from sight increasing tools". It doesn't talk about seeing glasses but when asked about them it stated they aren't considered a sight increasing tool.

Page 9 of https://www.enac.gov.it/repository/...n/N122671512/Regolamento_APR_Ed_2_Emend_3.pdf

 

[Lastrexking]

C’mon... I can’t believe people are trying to state line of sight means anything other than keeping the drone in view.....

Definition of line of sight. 1 : a linefrom an observer's eye to a distant point. 2 : the line between two points; specifically : the straight path between a transmitting antenna (as for radio or television signals) and a receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon.

Obviously, in the example above the receiving antenna would be the Spark.

 

[beachcombing]

Mate, the binoculars comment was sarcasm. I thought the emoji made that clear tbh. Which of my statements was incorrect? This discussion is about line of sight and it's mis-understanding. I'm still waiting for some sort of citation in that regard.

Go here. Fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft
Download the Definitions PDF in the last link on the page.

Visual Line of Sight
While flying your drone you must to be able to see it at all times using only your natural vision
(which includes glasses and contacts, but not first person view goggles or binoculars).

 

[aviscomi]

Why is it that after a thread extends to about 3 or so pages, the subsequent topics seem to end up being rules/FAA related? (rhetorical question).

 

[Donny]

What difference does it make, support is gone for the OTG cable.

 

[aviscomi]

What difference does it make, support is gone for the OTG cable.

I heard they (DJI) stopped working on the OTG so people buy their soon to be released (1/23) drone.

 

[MileHighSi]

Go here. Fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft
Download the Definitions PDF in the last link on the page.

Visual Line of Sight
While flying your drone you must to be able to see it at all times using only your natural vision
(which includes glasses and contacts, but not first person view goggles or binoculars).

Good answer. Visual line of sight is different to line of sight. Thanks for referencing that important detail. So, to go back to the original thread of conversation - no, you can't fly your drone so far away that you can't see it under FAA regulations. I bet a fair few of us, even the absolute sticklers for rules, have fallen foul of that one..

 

[MileHighSi]

C’mon... I can’t believe people are trying to state line of sight means anything other than keeping the drone in view.....

Definition of line of sight. 1 : a linefrom an observer's eye to a distant point. 2 : the line between two points; specifically : the straight path between a transmitting antenna (as for radio or television signals) and a receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon.

Obviously, in the example above the receiving antenna would be the Spark.

Obviously...
Read that definition again bud. It's just a line between two points with no obstructions. It's often used to describe a missile's flight path - from 10s of miles away. As the other poster has drawn attention to, there is line of sight and visual line of sight. Spot the difference. Let's let that be the end of this shall we?

 

[Splaterspark]

The whole thing is a farce if you ask me. I'd be willing to bet most people crash their drone when trying to watch it as opposed to watching the screen. When you watch the screen you are always in first person mode and, unless you are an idiot, you are going to fly forward as opposed to backwards or to the side. In other words you can see clearly where you are going and, crucially, the controls are always intuitive since you are never 'nose in'. You can also judge distances better, since something massive on the screen is pretty much right in front of the drone. On the flip side, a spark 30m from you and in VLOS is so small it can be hard to orientate and to judge depth to assess it's position relative to nearby obstructions. At that distance in a hover you'll need to move it to see which way it's facing and depending on it's direction relative to you, it might need to move for a few seconds before you can accurately zone in on which way it's going. If it's perpendicular then you'll know instantly but if it's flying towards or away from you at a slight angle it might take a second or so more to orientate. If it's in sport mode it could travel a considerable distance. If you look at the screen you'll know exactly which way it's facing and whether it's safe to travel forward or not. If the screen feed fails simply leave all controls; the drone won't go anywhere while you attempt to re-connect and in most cases will activate RTH.

When flying FPV the only danger is another flying object hitting you from behind or the side which, in theory, you might have seen and been able to evade if the drone was in VLOS. Two things to consider there:

1. What the hell was a plane or helicopter dong at less than 400ft? (unless you were flying where you shouldn't be)
2. Even with a drone in VLOS, can we really rely on amateur Spark Pilot Johnny to quickly and from a 3rd party position assess the relative height and course of two moving objects and put in the correct commands to avoid a collision?

 

[MileHighSi]

Totally agree. Not to mention the telemetry you get on screen. I think it's fair to say that most of us will take off with our eyes on the drone but, once it's up, prefer looking at the screen (with a little glance up now and then). And most of us have had that "er.. where is it?!" moment after looking up - right? There are also times (as you say, if you want to pan, spiral, go backwards, etc.) when watching the screen alone is foolhardy. Likewise, if you fly in to an area with scattered objects you'd be nuts to do so without eyes on the unit, of course.. it's just a matter of using common sense. Law's 'problem' is that they have to cover all drones/pilots - regardless of their abilities and/or smarts. IMO some laws should be strictly adhered to (don't fly anywhere near planes, etc...) whereas laws like this are there to place blame, rather than be strictly adhered to at all times, should anything go awry.

Personally, I'll take or leave VLOS as and when required. I will, however, try to retain LOS at all times - just because that's how radio works. Last thing anyone wants is a dropped connection.

As a footnote. In your 1) consideration - things you're unable to evade in FPV. Add birds to this. Particularly birds such as falcons, which some cities have deployed to keep pigeons, crows, etc. in check. I was filming in Tokyo and if I hadn't have looked up there's no way I'd have seen a falcon diving straight down towards my drone. Sport mode saved the day - just!

 

[strobing_nyc]

I disagree with the OP's post. I normally run 4.1.15 with OTG. I figured I would give 4.1.22 a test with just wifi NO OTG cable. Tramission was way worse, a little laggy and definitely not as good as using an OTG.

 

[MileHighSi]

I disagree with the OP's post. I normally run 4.1.15 with OTG. I figured I would give 4.1.22 a test with just wifi NO OTG cable. Tramission was way worse, a little laggy and definitely not as good as using an OTG.

Your results with OTG compared to wifi will vary depending on many factors. In contrast to you, I find no difference. I won't go so far as to disagree with you, though, as I know that OTG is better for some people/devices/circumstances/locations. If it were officially supported, I would actually switch to OTG for the following reasons:

1. It surely will never be worse than wifi
2. Properly supported, I imagine a cabled connection would use far less power (phone and controller) than wifi
3. In some circumstances it's a pain to have to 'Forget' a within-range known wifi in order to retain a connection to the controller/Spark.
4. Having a fast internet connection whilst flying would be a nice bonus.

But it's not supported.. yet.. and I'm okay using wifi. I imagine that in the future 'they' will figure out a way to stop Bluetooth interfering with other signals. Bluetooth, to my mind, is the ideal short-range connection.

 

[Vilco]

I would actually switch to OTG for the following reasons:

1. It surely will never be worse than wifi
2. Properly supported, I imagine a cabled connection would use far less power (phone and controller) than wifi
3. In some circumstances it's a pain to have to 'Forget' a within-range known wifi in order to retain a connection to the controller/Spark.
4. Having a fast internet connection whilst flying would be a nice bonus.

If you have ever seen a Mavic you'd see all those points with your eyes (and most of all the very limited latency of the video feed).
When I first flown my new spark a month ago, no OTG, it was on 4.1.15 and the feedback was horrible: bad video quality and very high latency, then I tried with 4.1.22, always no OTG, and it was almost like a Mavic. I'm satisfied by that, I only suffer the obvious short range issue due to being in UE, so I'll soon try a modded app in order to get FCC: once that will be done I'll be more than happy with this Spark

 

[MileHighSi]

If you have ever seen a Mavic you'd see all those points with your eyes (and most of all the very limited latency of the video feed).
When I first flown my new spark a month ago, no OTG, it was on 4.1.15 and the feedback was horrible: bad video quality and very high latency, then I tried with 4.1.22, always no OTG, and it was almost like a Mavic. I'm satisfied by that, I only suffer the obvious short range issue due to being in UE, so I'll soon try a modded app in order to get FCC: once that will be done I'll be more than happy with this Spark

Indeed. What I was trying to say above was that I'd like to have OTG supported but I'm actually okay that it's not - yet. The thing flies and that's all I want - the rest would just be.. nice