Can I fly bvlos now?

[lookout]

Are you asking why recreational users cannot get BVLOS waivers? Those are very rarely available outside public safety operations, not least because they require a TFR to be put in place to deconflict with other air traffic. That's simply not happening for any kind of recreational flight.

The article stated that the recreational guys still are not able to get it.

But most people with part 107 are also able to do commercial even though they don't have the fancy Amazon drone at home.

 

[sar104]

The article stated that the recreational guys still are not able to get it.

But most people with part 107 are also able to do commercial even though they don't have the fancy Amazon drone at home.

BVLOS is not available to most Part 107 pilots unless it is public safety related and qualifies for a waiver under the SGI process, which requires an agency request.

 

[Starz]

But the FAA encourages us to all get part 107 so why not everybody?

For me, not until it’s forced. More regulations in this continent than needed at times. I’ll abide by the rules as they change.
I didn’t get into this realm for commercial purposes at all. Strictly hobby.

 

[Meta4]

Some of the commercial guys can get BVLOS waiver now, but still not hobby guys.

Some ... just a small number of these waivers have been granted and the applicants would have had to present a strong case to convince the FAA to grant those.

But the FAA encourages us to all get part 107

Where did you get this idea?
Can you provide any evidence to support your assertion?
(One individual FAA employee saying it would be a good idea is not the FAA encouraging all flyers to get Part 107).

so why not everybody?

Because only a tiny percentage of 107 holders have had these waivers granted.

 

[lookout]

Some ... just a small number of these waivers have been granted and the applicants would have had to present a strong case to convince the FAA to grant those.

Where did you get this idea?
Can you provide any evidence to support your assertion?
(One individual FAA employee saying it would be a good idea is not the FAA encouraging all flyers to get Part 107).

Because only a tiny percentage of 107 holders have had these waivers granted.

Just having to register a quad because it is over half a pound to just get you on the proverbial legislative hook. Or such things as a requirement such as RID for part 107 operations over people even though there are no category 1 on the market. Just exactly what does RID have to do with flying over people? And it doesn't prevent incursions in its current form.

 

[sar104]

Just exactly what does RID have to do with flying over people?

You could always just read the FAA rulemaking document that addressed that question:

IV. Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft​

​

B. Purpose for the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft​

​

UAS are fundamentally changing aviation and the FAA is committed to working to fully​

integrate them into the airspace of the United States. The next step in that integration is enabling unmanned aircraft operations over people and at night. Remote identification of unmanned aircraft is a critical element to enable those operations that addresses safety and security concerns.​

​

Remote identification is the capability of an unmanned aircraft in flight to provide identification, location, and performance information that people on the ground and other airspace users can receive. In its most basic form, remote identification can be described as an electronic identification or a “digital license plate” for UAS.​

​

Remote identification provides information that helps address existing challenges of the FAA, law enforcement entities, and national security agencies responsible for the safety and security of the airspace of the United States. As a wider variety of UAS operations such as operations over people are made available, the risk of unmanned aircraft being operated in an unsafe manner, such as in close proximity to people and property on the ground, is increased. Remote identification provides a means to identify these aircraft and locate the person who controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in command). It allows the FAA, law enforcement, and national security agencies to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk. It permits the FAA and law enforcement to conduct oversight of persons operating unmanned aircraft and to determine whether compliance actions, enforcement, educational, training, or other types of actions are needed to mitigate safety or security risks and foster increased compliance with regulations.​

 

[lookout]

You could always just read the FAA rulemaking document that addressed that question:

IV. Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft​

​

B. Purpose for the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft​

​

UAS are fundamentally changing aviation and the FAA is committed to working to fully​

integrate them into the airspace of the United States. The next step in that integration is enabling unmanned aircraft operations over people and at night. Remote identification of unmanned aircraft is a critical element to enable those operations that addresses safety and security concerns.​

​

Remote identification is the capability of an unmanned aircraft in flight to provide identification, location, and performance information that people on the ground and other airspace users can receive. In its most basic form, remote identification can be described as an electronic identification or a “digital license plate” for UAS.​

​

Remote identification provides information that helps address existing challenges of the FAA, law enforcement entities, and national security agencies responsible for the safety and security of the airspace of the United States. As a wider variety of UAS operations such as operations over people are made available, the risk of unmanned aircraft being operated in an unsafe manner, such as in close proximity to people and property on the ground, is increased. Remote identification provides a means to identify these aircraft and locate the person who controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in command). It allows the FAA, law enforcement, and national security agencies to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk. It permits the FAA and law enforcement to conduct oversight of persons operating unmanned aircraft and to determine whether compliance actions, enforcement, educational, training, or other types of actions are needed to mitigate safety or security risks and foster increased compliance with regulations.​

Barring the blades stop spinning, the danger isn't the blades its the terminal velocity whereas the fall doesn't kill anything, just that instant stop whether it be the ground and destroys the quad or the quad conks somebody on the head before it hits the ground. They seem to stress the prop guards although the falling brick is a much bigger problem at that point. And that's only based on the probably of there being a problem (increased say by a defective part or bulging battery something of that nature that decreases reliability).

RID also doesn't extend the BVLOS either, so most likely the operator is within eyesight somewhere close. They are more worried about identifying the operator as if they can't find him, and the various agencies haven't educated themselves on what the rules are to know if there is a violation. One thing to require the operator to have the license, another to have the rest of the population know what the regs are outside out of the fake news reports.

One guy went out of his way to try to impress me with what he doesn't know. Don't come in here showing your news media influenced ignorance. There have been comments about the general public getting access to the RID information and being the enforcement arm instead of the various LEO agencies. Which is a real disaster. Just anyone can walk up to me with their opinions and demand action.

RID also doesn't coincide with other airspace users like ADS-B even if it does have locating capability. I'm sure others feel as if this RID hasn't properly addressed all the issues.

 

[sar104]

Barring the blades stop spinning, the danger isn't the blades its the terminal velocity whereas the fall doesn't kill anything, just that instant stop whether it be the ground and destroys the quad or the quad conks somebody on the head before it hits the ground. They seem to stress the prop guards although the falling brick is a much bigger problem at that point. And that's only based on the probably of there being a problem (increased say by a defective part or bulging battery something of that nature that decreases reliability).

RID also doesn't extend the BVLOS either, so most likely the operator is within eyesight somewhere close. They are more worried about identifying the operator as if they can't find him, and the various agencies haven't educated themselves on what the rules are to know if there is a violation. One thing to require the operator to have the license, another to have the rest of the population know what the regs are outside out of the fake news reports.

Okay, I expected you to reply with a range of irrelevant deflections and accusations of fake news, so you didn't disappoint.

One guy went out of his way to try to impress me with what he doesn't know. Don't come in here showing your news media influenced ignorance. There have been comments about the general public getting access to the RID information and being the enforcement arm instead of the various LEO agencies. Which is a real disaster. Just anyone can walk up to me with their opinions and demand action.

RID also doesn't coincide with other airspace users like ADS-B even if it does have locating capability. I'm sure others feel as if this RID hasn't properly addressed all the issues.

"...news media influenced ignorance."? An instant classic. But seriously, if you really want to know what ignorance looks like then just check out the nearest mirror. Many of your posts on this site are exhibition quality in that regard.

 

[DoomMeister]

Just having to register a quad because it is over half a pound to just get you on the proverbial legislative hook. Or such things as a requirement such as RID for part 107 operations over people even though there are no category 1 on the market. Just exactly what does RID have to do with flying over people? And it doesn't prevent incursions in its current form.

Write your Congressional representatives and Senators as they are the ones that mandated this.

 

[DoomMeister]

Let’s keep the discussion civil folks.

The period for public comments on RID has gone by the wayside over 3 years ago. Any further complaints need to be addressed to your representatives in Washington D.C. as they are the ones that mandated that RID be developed. Please exercise your rights as a citizen by informing them how you feel. That is the American way and good luck.

 

[dronerdave]

Rather than getting all worked up over RID, I just plan to see how it all goes down once implemented. At this point in time I don't have a clue whether it will even affect my flights enough to worry about.

 

[lookout]

Okay, I expected you to reply with a range of irrelevant deflections and accusations of fake news, so you didn't disappoint.

"...news media influenced ignorance."? An instant classic. But seriously, if you really want to know what ignorance looks like then just check out the nearest mirror. Many of your posts on this site are exhibition quality in that regard.

Most of the news media has or owns a helicopter and now many of them a quad. Of course there's no expectation of privacy at 400 feet in the jurisdiction of the federal airways. I guess they don't want any of us being news anchors anytime soon. Our story might vary slightly from theirs. Why would they be so caustic?

But do you fly over people or BVLOS in search and rescue missions?

 

[DoomMeister]

Most of the news media has or owns a helicopter and now many of them a quad. Of course there's no expectation of privacy at 400 feet in the jurisdiction of the federal airways. I guess they don't want any of us being news anchors anytime soon. Our story might vary slightly from theirs. Why would they be so caustic?

But do you fly over people or BVLOS in search and rescue missions?

Federal Airways are in Class E airspace therefore most have a floor at 1200’ AGL. Of course there are areas where that is at 700’ AGL or less.

Or were you referring to the NAS?

 

[lookout]

Federal Airways are in Class E airspace therefore most have a floor at 1200’ AGL. Of course there are areas where that is at 700’ AGL or less.

Or were you referring to the NAS?

I think helicopter might be able to fly lower. Sometimes they [medivac] go over about 500' AGL. They don't want to get up too high and have to come back down.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Sometimes they [medivac] go over about 500' AGL. They don't want to get up too high and have to come back down.

I think the general manned aviation in most countries is kept at 500' minimum, apart from take off / landing and approaches for winged aircraft.
That's an ideal situation of course, but some work related instances can / will happen, such as crop dusting, or with helis anything that may require the lower altitude as a matter of course.

Which is why the 400' drone rule exists I expect . . . the 2 shall (should) hardly ever have the opportunity to meet.

I personally think RID will be used as it should, for finding rogue drone ops, or rather their pilots.
Then I expect circumstances of what's going down will preclude what actions are taken by whatever authority.

It's going to be picked up in places they shouldn't be, probably by some form of Aeroscope tech. at airports and critical infrastructure etc.
Can RID type programmes just be open and do this ?
It's possible and probable.

I believe RID is real time, there are no 'after' an event uses for it ??
Not sure about that either, or if it can record offence details, though authorities would find that sort of info handy for prosecuting / fining.

Whether there are apps developed to allow anybody in the local area to find a drone operators, also not sure if that is 100% confirmed.
I know many are worried about that, but probably going to be a rarity for that to happen, if it does have the capability.

 

[lookout]

Total Guide to Part 89 Remote ID (Requirements, Waivers, Lists of Modules & Drones).

What drones or remote identification broadcast modules are compliant? Where is that list? What happens if I cannot comply?

jrupprechtlaw.com

This law firm has been discussing quad legal matters before.

However, it states in here that BVLOS is something that the model fliers were doing as the FAA was consulting various groups. And how amateur modelers typically don't use cameras like the quads that came along later did. That fractures the whole purpose behind line of sight, for quads. While still a good rule of thumb, we are basing all of the rules for quads on what the modelers were doing as the modelers were being brought under the same umbrella previously unknown. Obviously, FRIAs are just like AMA bingo fields. This article is a real eye opener.

 

[lookout]

So even though VLOS is not quite far enough for some practical purposes. Is the red tape paperwork worth all the extra hassle?

So we have a 25 minute battery. By the time you get high enough to avoid hitting any objects and stay within line of sight on radio transmission, you could obtain 3 miles out. Let's say we stay safe and keep the obstactle avoidance system on. So that's only 20 miles per hour. And so that eats up 3 minutes a mile. It'll take 10 minutes to go 3 miles out. And if you went with sport mode you'd go twice as fast in half the time, but the battery is gonna drain quicker and could actually prevent reaching 3 miles out. Better take a quick look around when you arrive 3 miles out, because you'll only have 10 more minutes on the battery. So now you'll have to head back to keep your quad from being lost due to low battery and maybe autoland if the winds were unfavorable in either direction.

Even though the reasoning for the VLOS is based on the amateur modelling group and their lack of GPS and camera modules they have to maintain that. So a mile radius might be the most you can go out and remain practical. By FAA rules, having visual spotters extended doesn't qualify the VLOS of the operator.