Can I fly bvlos now?

[Deleted member 160650]

The faa announced something about a recommendation about flying bvlos and adsb. I’m really confused. Does this mean I can now fly bvlos?

 

[BigAl07]

The faa announced something about a recommendation about flying bvlos and adsb. I’m really confused. Does this mean I can now fly bvlos?

Absolutely NOT!!

 

[Deleted member 160650]

Absolutely NOT!!

Ok, calm down holy crap.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Ok, calm down holy crap.

Nothing wrong with "Absolutely NOT!!".
BigAl07 merely added emphasis.

 

[Jubjub Bird]

I agree that the tone and content could have been more useful and less off-putting. The strident emphasis, without any additional offer of help, was boorish to my read.

A clear "no" would have been an acceptable start.

A useful addition would have been a kindly-worded request to provide the portion in the FAA announcement that made you confused. Then, after you responded, a polite, informational walk through of the pertinent passages.

 

[Saladshooter]

The faa announced something about a recommendation about flying bvlos and adsb. I’m really confused. Does this mean I can now fly bvlos?

BVLOS will be out of reach for the recreational flyer into the foreseeable future. The FAA is focused on the commercial use of BVLOS - drone delivery, inspection, etc.

Instead expect increased regulation of your drones as they work to keep the airspace safe. This includes Remote ID which in some form will be eventually be used in an automated way to help your drone avoid other drones, and restricting you to VLOS to stay out of the way of commercial air traffic.

 

[Fizzbang]

The faa announced something about a recommendation about flying bvlos and adsb. I’m really confused. Does this mean I can now fly bvlos?

Do you mean: May I fly BVLOS?
It is just a grammar thing.

 

[DoomMeister]

Ok, calm down holy crap.

Calm down?

What are you offended by? It is obvious you did not read much about the announcement in regards to BVLOS which stated that the “comment period” had been closed. It said nothing about it being okay to conduct flights BVLOS. The answer you received was short and to the point without any derogatory comments, and made it very clear that BVLOS is NOT allowed.

I don’t understand why a reply has to be a four page dissertation on a subject to avoid hurting someone’s feelings especially when they did not provide any information on the source of the information they asked about.

“Be Nice” does not mean you can’t be short and to the point.

 

[edfrombama]

Good morning to all-
I reckon we all need to step back and take a breath and let things settle for a while. Those who respond to others' BVLOS questions and reports in a negative fashion are in the legally correct position, but like many .many things in this life, how a response is made can create a very real "jerk back" to those who read the response. Perhaps not so helpful.
I for one have learned when I am writing on this site to never give distance and flight details- I have gotten my hand slapped on a number of occasions when reporting on my long distance flights. I still do what I think best and appropriate for situations, and no one else gets all hot and bothered by my actions. Works out better for all.
So, for those of us who "boldly go where no one has gone before" with our drones, it's really simple. Don't tell how far the flight went.
Life will be better for everyone.

Oh, and no flying here today- horrible cold storm front coming through after fog and rain all day today. Bummer.

you all be safe and keep well- Ed

 

[MARK (LI)]

Since so many people on this forum act like it is a place to get support and praise for not complying with the regulations and rules, I think the emphasis was not only appropriate, but necessary to make the response clear...this question, among others has been beaten to death.
If we had a boo hiss button I would click on that for the OP's response....although he is not the first one to react badly when he did not get the answer he wanted

 

[Starz]

a recommendation

The key wording. It’s on you to disseminate it’s meaning. In that process, there may be a few bumps in the road. Nothing wrong with being on point as mentioned in one of the previous answers

 

[Deleted member 137163]

Since so many people on this forum act like it is a place to get support and praise for not complying with the regulations and rules, I think the emphasis was not only appropriate, but necessary to make the response clear...this question, among others has been beaten to death.
If we had a boo hiss button I would click on that for the OP's response....although he is not the first one to react badly when he did not get the answer he wanted

Amen

 

[Deleted member 137163]

Ok, calm down holy crap.

BigA107 did not swear (i.e. holy crap) or insult your personally....i,e, "Absolutely NOT you #&$@&#@. Emphasis others have said. We are in a culture as my wife calls it of "Let them!!" Meaning never ever tell children NO and rules are meant to be broken. You question was legitimate based on what you read. BigA107 answered with emphasis to leave no room for interpretation. He is a volunteer with the FAASTeam, as I have been in the past. No you are not a superior being based on that but you do have a responsibility to the flying public and education is a key factor. He could have written a looooong post with facts and regs but I think he covered it succinctly. You will NEVER get tone from a post, email or text.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

Calm down?

What are you offended by? It is obvious you did not read much about the announcement in regards to BVLOS which stated that the “comment period” had been closed. It said nothing about it being okay to conduct flights BVLOS. The answer you received was short and to the point without any derogatory comments, and made it very clear that BVLOS is NOT allowed.

I don’t understand why a reply has to be a four page dissertation on a subject to avoid hurting someone’s feelings especially when they did not provide any information on the source of the information they asked about.

“Be Nice” does not mean you can’t be short and to the point.

Well stated!

 

[maggior]

BVLOS will be out of reach for the recreational flyer into the foreseeable future. The FAA is focused on the commercial use of BVLOS - drone delivery, inspection, etc.

Instead expect increased regulation of your drones as they work to keep the airspace safe. This includes Remote ID which in some form will be eventually be used in an automated way to help your drone avoid other drones, and restricting you to VLOS to stay out of the way of commercial air traffic.

How will remote ID restrict the pilot to VLOS? Flying within VLOS is already part of the regulations.

 

[Chaosrider]

Ok, calm down holy crap.

BVLOS can be a touchy subject in this group...

We'll get there, but not soon. RID will be necessary for non-waiver-based BVLOS to be commonly available.

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

BVLOS will be out of reach for the recreational flyer into the foreseeable future. The FAA is focused on the commercial use of BVLOS - drone delivery, inspection, etc.

Instead expect increased regulation of your drones as they work to keep the airspace safe. This includes Remote ID which in some form will be eventually be used in an automated way to help your drone avoid other drones, and restricting you to VLOS to stay out of the way of commercial air traffic.

When BVLOS becomes commonly available, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if people are required to have their 107 to access it. It will probably never be available to the pure Recreational flyer.

The 107 may evolve to include being the "instrument rating" of the drone world.

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

Since so many people on this forum act like it is a place to get support and praise for not complying with the regulations and rules, I think the emphasis was not only appropriate, but necessary to make the response clear...this question, among others has been beaten to death.
If we had a boo hiss button I would click on that for the OP's response....although he is not the first one to react badly when he did not get the answer he wanted

I don't think it's anywhere near that deep an emotional tangle.

Note that the original OP is new here, barely more than a month. He read something that confused him, and he asked about it. The response he got could easily have been interpreted as sharp and unnecessarily sharp, even if it wasn't intended that way.

Just because something is obvious to you or me or the group generally, doesn't mean it's obvious to someone new to the discussion.

I think in general that we should be a wee bit more tolerant, and less sharp, with new people who ask an honest question out of ignorance.

Sometimes (most of the time) a question is just a question, and isn't fraught with complex emotional significance.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

Perfect timing, directly on point, and good news!

BREAKING NEWS: FAA Releases BVLOS ARC Recommendations

The FAA has published the Advisory Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations for rulemaking on flight beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). The full, 222 page report can be read here. FAA published t

dronelife.com

This is perhaps the most relevant piece:


1. Take a “Risk-Based” approach to regulation.

In terms of key recommendations, the ARC recommends that the FAA set an acceptable level of risk (ALR) for UAS that is consistent across all types of operations being performed. The ARC envisions that this approach will allow the FAA to adopt a common and consistent set of regulations and guidance, giving operators the flexibility to meet the ALR through qualitative or quantitative methods, or a hybrid approach.

A "risk-based" approach...what a concept!

Where have we heard *that* before...?

;-)

TCS

 

[BigAl07]

I don't think it's anywhere near that deep an emotional tangle.

Note that the original OP is new here, barely more than a month. He read something that confused him, and he asked about it. The response he got could easily have been interpreted as sharp and unnecessarily sharp, even if it wasn't intended that way.

Just because something is obvious to you or me or the group generally, doesn't mean it's obvious to someone new to the discussion.

I think in general that we should be a wee bit more tolerant, and less sharp, with new people who ask an honest question out of ignorance.

Sometimes (most of the time) a question is just a question, and isn't fraught with complex emotional significance.

Thx,

TCS

If he took it as "sharp" that's on him and only him. I go to great lengths to write posts that leave little to no grey area.... if you take 2-words and 2 exclamation points and you ADD all that emotion, bullying, and all the other stuff that's on YOU! I say what I mean and I don't beat around the bush. If I had meant more by it I would have put it CLEARLY in the message.


(edited that to what)