Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While collecting photo/video data; the UAS was flown to an altitude that was likely in excess of the 400 FT AGL limitation specified within FAR Part 107. Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC) holds both Part 61 (manned) certificate and Part 107 (remote) certificate. A Visual Observer (VO); also a Part 61 & Part 107 pilot; was also scanning for traffic and other potential hazards in and around the planned operating environment. The crew had an aviation-band transceiver available to monitor the local airport's CTAF frequency; a small untowered/uncontrolled GA airport located approximately 1 nm away. No manned aircraft were heard (over the radio or via engine noise) or visually observed during the entirety of the day's flights and the UAS was not within the airport's approach/departure paths. The RPIC had eyes on the UAS while maneuvering to ensure UAS did not fly close to obstacles (primarily trees & power lines when closer to ground) or over areas that may have contained nonparticipants (yards; roads). The planned route was chosen to be free from most factors; with the few road crossings performed safely when there was no vehicular traffic in the vicinity (RPIC and Visual Observer both verbally verify prior to crossing). After all obstacles were well cleared and the UAS was maneuvered into position and had begun data collection; the RPIC checked the display and noticed the flight display software's telemetry data had been reset to display metric and was indicating approximately 150 meters. Knowing the metric equivalent of 400 FT is approximately 122m; the RPIC initiated an immediate descent. Contributing Factors: RPIC's focus on ensuring the UAS was not flown near obstacles or over people; coupled with the delayed awareness of the software displaying telemetry information in metric units. Corrective Actions (real-time): Upon noticing an indicated altitude in excess of 400 FT AGL; the RPIC immediately descended the UAS below 400 FT (122m) AGL indicated. Corrective Actions (future procedures): In the future; pre-flight checklist will include verification that software units are displayed in feet (not metric) and the software-based altitude limit is enabled and properly set (when able). RPIC will also refer to flight display more frequently as the aircraft is climbing (assuming safe to do so) and call out altitudes passing through during major ascents/descents. Additionally; when the flight profile allows; RPIC will de-couple climbs/descents from horizontal maneuvering; particularly if the UAS is approaching the altitude limit or may be operating in the vicinity of other considerations (obstacles; roads; nonparticipants; etc.) which may take attention away from altitude awareness.




Synopsis: Remote pilot reported the UAV was flown to an altitude that was likely in excess of the 400 FT AGL limitation specified within FAR Part 107. Pilot states telemetry data on display was set to metric.