BVLOS why do so many do it?

[sar104]

I must respectfully partially disagree. For your own risk mitigation decisions, you always assess relative risks. Those include physical risks, like hitting something or being hit by something, and FAA enforcement risks.

As I've mentioned previously:

The Actual Law = ((The Text of the Law) +/- (Case Law)) X Enforcement Decisions.

I know this may not be helpful for people who aren't mathematically inclined, and I apologize for that. But it's just the way I think about things.

In English, one of the things this says is that if the enforcement decision is to not enforce at all in some set of cases, there is no actual law in those cases (Enforcement Decision = 0, in the above example).

From everything I've seen both here and elsewhere, the FAA is basing their enforcement decisions on relative risk, and quite sensibly so. Given that, it's reasonable for pilots, manned or unmanned, to do that same.

I understand that this point of view isn't universally shared, but it's a reasonable point of view. And reasonable people can and do have different views.

Thx,

TCS

You can assess risk all you want, but you cannot break the law based on that assessment. And no amount of trying to cast this a just a matter of opinion is going to change that.

 

[thispilothere]

I don't think it's too much to ask that we help preserve it for the next guy by doing our best to follow and promote the regulations.

What if preserving the hobby means getting the regulations loosened before we get regulated out of existence?

 

[MARK (LI)]

I understand that this point of view isn't universally shared, but it's a reasonable point of view. And reasonable people can and do have different views.

...AND ...reasonable people understand that the regulations are for everyone's safety and protection, hence, benefit,
Risk assessment means determining whether there is a risk or not...and if there is a risk you scrub the flight. Risk is risk, no matter its degree or relativity. Rules are not popular, but instead of exhausting your efforts trying to justify ignoring the rules...just take one minute to look at the reasons for them...and you will understand why they do benefit us

What if preserving the hobby means getting the regulations loosened before we get regulated out of existence?

With loose interpretations of the rules people tend to be given an inch and take a mile, so the results would wind up being a tightening of the rules to make it crystal clear what you can and cannot do...and being able to fly in compliance with those regulations is what makes a good drone operator....not being a cowboy, flaunting the regs.

 

[eEridani]

The possibility of a black hole forming exactly where you are standing: 1
The probability of a black hole forming exactly where you are standing: >0, but infinitesimal.

Rules generally come from experience. While we may not know the statistics behind the rule, they exist. Somewhere in the annals of VLOS rules there are statistics that show drones flown out of sight of the pilot have crashed and caused damage and injury. But I have to wonder how many injuries compared to self inflicted injuries by drones to pilots? One might say a pilot knows the risks, and an innocent bystander doesn't, therefore protect the bystander. But should the rule be made for maximal benefit to all? From the societal benefit perspective, a rule to prevent hand catching makes as much sense as a rule to prevent damage and injury at distance.

All said though, I have to wonder why helium balloons aren't being monitored and policed. I guess I need to look up the official definition of UAV per the FAA.

 

[Ty Pilot]

What if preserving the hobby means getting the regulations loosened before we get regulated out of existence?

How does flaunting, mocking and breaking the current regulations help that cause? It was precisely the kind of activities that some on this, and many other forums participate in, that brought about these regulations. I am speaking of BVLOS.

I am all for preserving our hobby, but it starts by showing we can.

 

[Chaosrider]

You can assess risk all you want, but you cannot break the law based on that assessment. And no amount of trying to cast this a just a matter of opinion is going to change that.

That turns out to not be entirely correct.

If there is a class of cases that never get enforced, there is no Actual Law in that class of cases.

There's a concept in real estate law called "Adverse Possession". The details vary from state to state, but the basic concept is that if you own a property, and someone openly uses it long enough, you can't just suddenly stop them from using it. This most commonly comes up in the case of access/easement issues, like people who walk across a property to get to a beach. If it goes on long enough, the property owner is not legally allowed to just stop letting them do so.

There are similar concepts in general law. If a law is on the books long enough, and never gets enforced, people can win cases if the law is suddenly and sporadically enforced. And people have won those cases.

It's not a question of law vs opinion. It's a question of using the proper definition of law. The text of a law, is only *part* of the Actual Law.

And in real life, it's the Actual Law that is what really matters.

TCS

 

[MARK (LI)]

That turns out to not be entirely correct.

If there is a class of cases that never get enforced, there is no Actual Law in that class of cases.

There's a concept in real estate law called "Adverse Possession". The details vary from state to state, but the basic concept is that if you own a property, and someone openly uses it long enough, you can't just suddenly stop them from using it. This most commonly comes up in the case of access/easement issues, like people who walk across a property to get to a beach. If it goes on long enough, the property owner is not legally allowed to just stop letting them do so.

There are similar concepts in general law. If a law is on the books long enough, and never gets enforced, people can win cases if the law is suddenly and sporadically enforced. And people have won those cases.

It's not a question of law vs opinion. It's a question of using the proper definition of law. The text of a law, is only *part* of the Actual Law.

And in real life, it's the Actual Law that is what really matters.

TCS

Would you rather fly legally?...or spend your time and money in court?...If you want to taunt the FAA, I don't think it will wind up well not only for you...but all drone operators

 

[thispilothere]

How does flaunting, mocking and breaking the current regulations help that cause? It was precisely the kind of activities that some on this, and many other forums participate in, that brought about these regulations. I am speaking of BVLOS.

I am all for preserving our hobby, but it starts by showing we can.

Maybe frequent bending of the rules is the best proof that they're already too restrictive. In the last thread about this, even the people claiming to never break them ended up citing examples of...wait for it...them breaking the rules - at least bending them greatly.

As it stands, I can't fly down a local creek 10 feet above the water, under a canopy of trees, because I might hit a manned aircraft sneaking up from behind? Come on, it's insane. Technically, I can't fly around a local building 30 feet above the ground because I'll lose VLOS for a few seconds, maybe a minute.

 

[MARK (LI)]

As it stands, I can't fly down a local creek 10 feet above the water, under a canopy of trees, because I might hit a manned aircraft sneaking up from behind? Come on, it's insane. Technically, I can't fly around a local building 30 feet above the ground because I'll lose VLOS for a few seconds, maybe a minute.

How about someone in a boat on that creek?.....or standing on the banks of the creek?....Manned aircraft are not the only thing you could encounter...you can't see where you are flying....you can hit someone or something

 

[Chaosrider]

Would you rather fly legally?...or spend your time and money in court?...If you want to taunt the FAA, I don't think it will wind up well not only for you...but all drone operators

I don't taunt them. I fly mostly VLOS. And if I did go on some extended BVLOS mission, I for damned sure wouldn't post it publicly. Since I don't do that, it's not an issue for me, but blatant public defiance is rude, crude, obnoxious, and not helpful.

Which is not to say that I don't find some of those videos entertaining...

The Actual Law, is the *real* law, and I always fly legally in that context. The text of the law is only part of the actual law.

There is zero evidence that the mild, on-the-edges BVLOS that I occasionally do is ever enforced, and well it shouldn't be, because it poses no safety hazard to any people, and only a minor risk of property damage, and that only to my own drone. The FAA is sensibly prioritizing their enforcement decisions based on relative risk. This is unusually rational for government agencies, but the FAA has always been better than most in that regard.

If it's never enforced, then the chances of my having to spend money and/or go to court, are also zero.

Probability rules, possibility drools.

TCS

 

[thispilothere]

How about someone in a boat on that creek?.....or standing on the banks of the creek?....Manned aircraft are not the only thing you could encounter...you can't see where you are flying....you can hit someone or something

I can see where I'm going through the video feed and no tall boats are on a small creek and no one is standing 10 feet high. Maybe I might hit someone who happens to be standing on a ladder along a creek for no reason.

Can you at least admit that the odds of an accident happening are almost zero?

By contrast, people wanted to turn right on red in the 70s - it was faster and saved some gas. Bike accidents went up 60% and pedestrian accidents went up 100% - people actually died, many of them. Yet, do you turn right on red? Most people consider the risk acceptable.

 

[thispilothere]

There is zero evidence that the mild, on-the-edges BVLOS that I occasionally do is ever enforced, and well it shouldn't be, because it poses no safety hazard to any people, and only a minor risk of property damage, and that only to my own drone. The FAA is sensibly prioritizing their enforcement decisions based on relative risk. This is unusually rational for government agencies, but the FAA has always been better than most in that regard.

If it's never enforced, then the chances of my having to spend money and/or go to court, are also zero.

Probability rules, possibility drools.

TCS

Despite everyone's predictions, nothing happened to that dude flying into the Bengals game. Pretty sure I'm not getting pinched for my flying.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

So let’s extend that line of thinking to General aviation pilots and air transport pilots. They shouldn’t have to follow the regulations either and just fly how they want and where they want. Hang the consequences because the chances of having an accident are remote.

The expected response to this is there is a big difference between a 2 to 4 pound drone and a full size aircraft will not cut it. Regulation of the NAS is in the best interest of everyone, not just the person that wants to be Superman with their drone.

Why wouldn't it "cut it"? Are you claiming the potential damage done by a 2 pound drone is on par with a 2,000 pound Cessna or 130,000 pound Boeing 737 carrying passengers? That's the sort of twisted rational used by politicians to extend power and control.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I'm in Florida as I write. Yesterday I took my grandson to visit his great grandfather. During the drive we spent about 30 minutes on a particular road going 60 mph where there was barely a house to be seen. My grandson's comment to me was "wow, there is a lot of unused land in Florida". I could have stopped in numerous places on this drive and flew a drone well beyond VLOS to explore with essentially zero threat to anyone, none. And yet you have folks attempting to equate doing this with manned aircraft ignoring flight rules. They pile up the what if scenarios, as far fetch as they may be, and use them as justification for prohibiting some activity.

I've been driving cars, riding motorcycles, flying manned aircraft and piloting drones for fifty years. I'm a careful, responsible, by the rules individual BUT rules need to be grounded in reality not what ifs.

 

[eEridani]

That turns out to not be entirely correct.

If there is a class of cases that never get enforced, there is no Actual Law in that class of cases.

There's a concept in real estate law called "Adverse Possession". The details vary from state to state, but the basic concept is that if you own a property, and someone openly uses it long enough, you can't just suddenly stop them from using it. This most commonly comes up in the case of access/easement issues, like people who walk across a property to get to a beach. If it goes on long enough, the property owner is not legally allowed to just stop letting them do so.

There are similar concepts in general law. If a law is on the books long enough, and never gets enforced, people can win cases if the law is suddenly and sporadically enforced. And people have won those cases.

It's not a question of law vs opinion. It's a question of using the proper definition of law. The text of a law, is only *part* of the Actual Law.

And in real life, it's the Actual Law that is what really matters.

TCS

Adverse possession is a red herring: there is no law preventing a person from using another person's real property. Permission isn't required, either. This is why NO TRESSPASSING signs are needed, to tell others the property is not open for public use.

ps: I was a victim of adverse possession and basically told the party that I was going to bulldose my land, if they wanted to protect whatever property they had on my land they'd need to move it. They did.

 

[eEridani]

Why wouldn't it "cut it"? Are you claiming the potential damage done by a 2 pound drone is on par with a 2,000 pound Cessna or 130,000 pound Boeing 737 carrying passengers? That's the sort of twisted rational used by politicians to extend power and control.

Tell that to the recipient of a 255 grain bullet: "Hey dude, that mass doesn't matter!"

 

[Chaosrider]

How about someone in a boat on that creek?.....or standing on the banks of the creek?....Manned aircraft are not the only thing you could encounter...you can't see where you are flying....you can hit someone or something

Probability rules, and possibility drools.

What are the odds?

TCS

 

[eEridani]

I don't taunt them. I fly mostly VLOS. And if I did go on some extended BVLOS mission, I for damned sure wouldn't post it publicly. Since I don't do that, it's not an issue for me, but blatant public defiance is rude, crude, obnoxious, and not helpful.

Which is not to say that I don't find some of those videos entertaining...

The Actual Law, is the *real* law, and I always fly legally in that context. The text of the law is only part of the actual law.

There is zero evidence that the mild, on-the-edges BVLOS that I occasionally do is ever enforced, and well it shouldn't be, because it poses no safety hazard to any people, and only a minor risk of property damage, and that only to my own drone. The FAA is sensibly prioritizing their enforcement decisions based on relative risk. This is unusually rational for government agencies, but the FAA has always been better than most in that regard.

If it's never enforced, then the chances of my having to spend money and/or go to court, are also zero.

Probability rules, possibility drools.

TCS

If you aren't worried about it, why spend so much effort defending your illegal activities? Wouldn't your time be better spent writing fact-finding letters to the FAA regulatory committees making the rules to explain why you are against these policies?

 

[eEridani]

Probability rules, and possibility drools.

What are the odds?

TCS

Darn good, actually. Every time I fly over something I can't see behind - it seems - there is always a person there and I unintentionally fly over them. I was filming a bridge and didn't see any people on it, but when checking the footage at home, sure enough, people were sitting on the edge where I couldn't see from my vantage point.

Was shooting a water fall and there were rocks of interest so I went to roll around then and sure enough, people were picnicking on the side away from me, enjoying the shade the rocks made.

Frankly, if I had this bad of luck in Vegas I'd stop gambling.

 

[sar104]

Maybe frequent bending of the rules is the best proof that they're already too restrictive.

Or maybe it's actually evidence of the prevalence of entitled and ignorant drone users who are convinced that they know best and have no interest in following safety regulations.