I've written about and flown well beyond my own line of sight and published some "BVLOS Best Practices" but . . I'm coming to the realization that NOT allowing BVLOS is really . . in a very practical sense . . is a "feel good exercise" for regulators and law makers. There is little Flight Safety value over watching the UAVs data and camera displays. The Mavic display and data capture is far more accurate and relevant to flight safety than the ability to see a "dot in the sky". A pair of "Mark 1 Eyeballs" have practically NO depth perception beyond a few hundred feet so recognizing a potential course conflict with a larger aircraft in the area, is equally impossible and of little value. The display would tell you far more about a potential mid-air than your eyes. I would argue that, operating Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS), below 300-400ft, using flight data is safer than eyeballs as long as you are not stretching the telemetry capabilities of the machine you are flying. . .(as long as you can see a normal size aircraft or helicopter in the same area (ie VFR conditions) . . . Here a safe margin for range might be "50% of the manufactures recommended, tested and demonstrated max range". For Mavic that's about 10,000ft or 2 miles. That should be fine for all but the pioneer record setters in the tribe. I would recommend that the rules require you to maintain Line of Sight (LOS) whether or not you can actually visually resolve your own UAV/drone. That means not going behind obstacles, buildings or hills etc. . . as long as you don't exceed a safe telemetry limit and you can see larger flight risks like other aircraft in the same airspace you that know you are operating in. I'd like to get your feedback on if you agree or not . . and if not then where does this argument fail a logic test.