Skydio 2 advanced autonomous flight and regulation visual requirements

[dougcjohn]

We’ve all discussed the Skydio2 and it‘s amazing 360 optical avoidance capability. How the advertisements show autonomous flight able to be above & around you, keeping you or subject in frame. They’ve indicated / suggested you can put it into a sophisticated tracking mode... indicating tracking yourself. Through & under tree lines, back side of structures, etc.

So how’s all that sophisticated intelligence, object avoidance, and awesome AI flight matrixes fit in with the simple rule to maintain visual contact. We’ve even discussed the use of screen hoods or googles in past indicating without a VO, those methods don’t meet regs. It’s pretty apparent many will be self creating videos, entailing several minutes at a time not aware of where the Skydio2 is positioned. Ya can’t ride down a fast rocky & tree trail or maneuver rapids while watching the sky... let alone be holding a radio or stick-fob. The use of VO’s isn’t practical... especially if a long trail or river (using previous examples).

Realizing this won’t detour any self-creating intentions... just curious of opinions.

 

[2edgesword]

We’ve all discussed the Skydio2 and it‘s amazing 360 optical avoidance capability. How the advertisements show autonomous flight able to be above & around you, keeping you or subject in frame. They’ve indicated / suggested you can put it into a sophisticated tracking mode... indicating tracking yourself. Through & under tree lines, back side of structures, etc.

So how’s all that sophisticated intelligence, object avoidance, and awesome AI flight matrixes fit in with the simple rule to maintain visual contact. We’ve even discussed the use of screen hoods or googles in past indicating without a VO, those methods don’t meet regs. It’s pretty apparent many will be self creating videos, entailing several minutes at a time not aware of where the Skydio2 is positioned. Ya can’t ride down a fast rocky & tree trail or maneuver rapids while watching the sky... let alone be holding a radio or stick-fob. The use of VO’s isn’t practical... especially if a long trail or river (using previous examples).

Realizing this won’t detour any self-creating intentions... just curious of opinions.

Technically I think a lot if the Skydio 2's capability could not be used if you're going to strictly adhere to the VLOS regulations. How anyone could prove the drone was not in sight of a visual observer might be difficult. How much of FAA resources are they going to be willing to use to prove their case that the regulation was violate absent an accident or costly mishap? Even if the questionable video online how far will the go to follow up on the questionable incident, especially if the happen in droves without an accident or incursion into controlled airspace?

 

[dougcjohn]

Technically I think a lot if the Skydio 2's capability could not be used if you're going to strictly adhere to the VLOS regulations. How anyone could prove the drone was not in sight of a visual observer might be difficult. How much of FAA resources are they going to be willing to use to prove their case that the regulation was violate absent an accident or costly mishap? Even if the questionable video online how far will the go to follow up on the questionable incident, especially if the happen in droves without an accident or incursion into controlled airspace?

On the "how far would they go to prove"... couldn't agree more, it's not a priority. Even violations more blatant don't get any reaction or pursue legal. But on that regard, it doesn't dismiss if "right or wrong" under the current regulations. Per the regs, for most that will use the Skydio 2 as intended, will be outside the regs.

To prove in several situations wouldn't be hard either... if 2 cyclist yap at the video in beginning and site they've come here for the ride, show themselves as "two" multiple times and refer to themselves... then they both take off down the hill with the S2 in the air, the use of a VO present or more precise, whom is the Operator if no Radio is present.

Agree, it won't be challenged... most likely. Although, as local LEO get more authorization to act on FAA behalf... it might be challenged if used as a deterrent to discourage.

Just a good discussion point... technology is advancing beyond the conceptual view when regs were written.