Altitude Alarm or Alerting System?

[Florida Drone Supply]

Obstacle sensing and collision avoidance seems to continue to get better, but we're wondering if any pilots know of an altitude alarm or buffer that you can set.

The situation is for a client who knows there are electrical cables at a certain altitude and wants to be more aware of their presence. Is there an alarm or buffer that can be used alongside a laser altimeter, that will alert the pilot within a certain altitude range?

Thank you for any input you can provide!

 

[PatR]

General geo fence settings won’t work? I can understand why they could interfere with other phases of an operation where higher is needed.

 

[Florida Drone Supply]

General geo fence settings won’t work? I can understand why they could interfere with other phases of an operation where higher is needed.

Not exactly. What they are looking to do is avoid a certain band of altitude. For example 65-75 feet. Or, at least get a warning of some type when they are in their altitude band that they know they need to be cautious in (especially knowing certain wires can not be seen by obstacle avoidance sensors). We were thinking about a 3 party laser altimeter if we could get feedback and height zone alarms out of it.

 

[SanCap]

The Litchi App will call out your altitude (with voice prompts) at whatever timed intervals you ask it to. Every 5 seconds, every 30 seconds etc. That being said you would have to have a wide parameter of altitudes as I have never seen a power line that was perfectly level and that didn't drop between poles or have the poles installed on the same level. In urban environments level may be possible but not in rural or wilderness areas. Not knowing the exact circumstances of which your client is operating may make my points meaningless. Interesting question!

 

[R.Perry]

Why not just set your max altitude prior to the flight.

 

[Florida Drone Supply]

Why not just set your max altitude prior to the flight.

They're not looking for a max height, just looking to get a warning within a certain band of altitude (example 65-75 feet) to know they need to be extra cautious.

 

[PatR]

Expand crew coordination or improve “instrument” scan might be a lot simpler way of dealing with it. Either have the operator pay more attention to the live telemetry feed or use an observer to keep track of it.

Using another set of eyes to track altitude might require the addition of a separate monitor for a better view of the data but it would be effective. The practice of having more than one person watching imagery and telemetry is a standard with military UAV’s and extremely beneficial.

 

[Deleted member 98]

Not meaning to be rude, but general pilotage here. We all have obstructions/obstacles we have to make mental note of before flying. Preflight sectionals, google earth, and on site are all part of it. Depending upon a warning may make the pilot lax in his scanning, etc. Just my .02.

I like the comment about crew management above.

 

[Free2Fly]

... it would be effective. The practice of having more than one person watching imagery and telemetry is a standard with military UAV’s and extremely beneficial.

This practice should be the standard for any 107 operation as well. Sadly, it isn't always.

 

[PatR]

There are a lot of simple things that can be effectively done “single pilot” but there’s also a lot of more “involved” operations where the operator is focused more on the view screen, requiring one or more observers to maintain situational awareness. Some of them require observers just to prevent running a drone into things.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

This practice should be the standard for any 107 operation as well. Sadly, it isn't always.

Strongly disagree. To make that blanket statement ignores the complexity of each job. You want to start requiring VOs for a pilot to take off, take a pic, and land? We are regulated enough. The feds don't need any more ideas.

 

[R.Perry]

Come on Luis, the bureaucrats is Washington need something to do. It's kind of like gun control, some haven't figured out that the gun isn't the culprit, people are, you being a cop should know that better than most of us.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Come on Luis, the bureaucrats is Washington need something to do. It's kind of like gun control, some haven't figured out that the gun isn't the culprit, people are, you being a cop should know that better than most of us.

LOL, The fools in DC surely do not need help to make our life more miserable. And surely not from our midst.

 

[Free2Fly]

You make a valid point. I should have said "any complex operation".

 

[PatR]

The operator needs only be intelligent enough to make informed decisions. Those that plan their flights, using readily available information to generate an honest risk assessment, will take the right path most of the time.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

You make a valid point. I should have said "any complex operation".

But don't you agree that a need for a VO should be up to the Pilot in Command, not the government? As a manned aircraft pilot I sure didn't want the FAA in my cockpit making my decisions.

 

[Free2Fly]

Absolutely I do. My original statement reflects the operations I routinely fly (survey, large field) and quite often go to 250+ acres. I didn't consider the small job scenario due to thinking about my own usual environmental conditions is all. Your point is very valid that the RPIC should in all circumstances make that call after considering the details and making the risk assessment. I routinely use a VO because we have never (to date anyway) been called on to launch and take a single photo then land, or anything similar. For complex operations, I use a VO as a standard because i need telemetry checks, area observation in quadrants away from the drone's line of travel, exclusions from LOS due to trees, structures, etc, the ground traffic to consider (pedestrians and vehicles) most of the time as well, the need to monitor local airport CT/CTAF, etc. A very long list that makes my "cockpit management" on the ground easier to utilize a second set of eyes and ears. Not meaning to gainsay the decision making of the pilot in command, just a standard i see violated on big jobs where the pilot obviously didn't care or consider the risk of flying BVLOS for 6 seconds or whatever. That's what I was referring to.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Absolutely I do. My original statement reflects the operations I routinely fly (survey, large field) and quite often go to 250+ acres. I didn't consider the small job scenario due to thinking about my own usual environmental conditions is all. Your point is very valid that the RPIC should in all circumstances make that call after considering the details and making the risk assessment. I routinely use a VO because we have never (to date anyway) been called on to launch and take a single photo then land, or anything similar. For complex operations, I use a VO as a standard because i need telemetry checks, area observation in quadrants away from the drone's line of travel, exclusions from LOS due to trees, structures, etc, the ground traffic to consider (pedestrians and vehicles) most of the time as well, the need to monitor local airport CT/CTAF, etc. A very long list that makes my "cockpit management" on the ground easier to utilize a second set of eyes and ears. Not meaning to gainsay the decision making of the pilot in command, just a standard i see violated on big jobs where the pilot obviously didn't care or consider the risk of flying BVLOS for 6 seconds or whatever. That's what I was referring to.

So we agree, let the PIC manage the flight.

 

[Free2Fly]

It's the pilot who will stand for the FAA backside exam (audit) in the event of an issue, so yes. His backside, his call. (Or hers)