BVLOS Progress

[Sparc343]

Please can someone help me understand why ANY value is attached to vlos? A stupid, useless rule! I struggled to see my drones at 100m, and even when i could, would frequently lose sight of it when i glanced down at my phone. I am a trained light aircraft pilot, and know techniques such as scanning, but still couldnt figure out accurately where the drone was in relation to the ground, especially when it was high.
Then i got the goggles, and orientation became simple, regardless of distance. I could look straight down to see precisely what i was above. I never got disoriented, as north, the home point, plus the orientation of the drone and all relevant telemetry are always right there on screen. All info is available without looking away, and i don't get blinded by the sun or confused by the drone blending in with the background.
Fpv makes orientation and awareness very very easy, regardless of distance. Vlos is useless past 50m, unless you have very good eyes.
So why vlos instead of fpv?? Especially regarding safety?

Firstly, for situational awareness of the airspace around you, of course. Orienting your aircraft relative to the ground is not the primary concern. When you are flying a plane, why are you scanning? To see and avoid other traffic. Your limited FPV 70° field of view doesn't work for that at all, so you need to keep the aircraft close enough that you can see and avoid other traffic from your control point.

Secondly, loss of video/telemetry is pretty common, so you need to be able to orient your UAV and fly it back without the help of either of those. Again - that requires VLOS.

I'm really surprised that these issues would not be completely obviously to a "trained pilot". And by the way - if you can't see your drone beyond 50 m then you probably shouldn't be flying anything, manned or unmanned.

Honestly, I can "see" both sides of this 'argument'! (Pun intended)

I would say VLOS would be very important, depending on the specific model that's in the air. If it doesn't have fancy tech. Like GPS, RTH, etc. Obviously if "something goes wrong" (all short of fully losing RC) and you still have to manually fly it back to you, you're not going to be able to do that if it's outside of VLOS...

Likewise, if your AC has the tech. Even if you lose communications completely and it will "RTH" automatically, then who honestly cares if you can see it (VLOS)...

I do not buy into needing to see it to potentially yield to manned AC's, for TWO reasons! First of which being, that they're not supposed to fly below 500 ft, just like we are not supposed to fly above 400'. This means we have a 100' "safety buffer"! Okay okay I "get it", there may be a reason a drone is over 400' (shouldn't really be though) and or a manned aircraft being below 500'; which is usually near airports for ascent or descent (which would also be why that is controlled airspace in which we need LAANC approval to fly in [and chances are your 'ceiling' is then going to be less than 400' for the same reason - to avoid collisions]). So, yeah, I really do not "buy" needing to maintain VLOS "so one can yield"... The solution is simple, and is my personal SOP even though I maintain VLOS (because it is a rule), audibly hear a manned AC in the area? Descend! It's literally that simple IMHO. I don't pretend to know where a nearby manned AC may be going, or turn (and I do have MOAs near me), so if I even hear an AC anywhere nearby (by the looks of it they deviate around here a LOT according to my VFR sectional), I immediately descend until it is pretty much inaudible (gone/passed)! I don't have an exact predetermined height but I'll usually go to about 50'. If ANY manned aircraft in my area descends to 50' around here, they're going to have a LOT more serious problems than a 249 gram drone!

I also couldn't believe VLOS has anything to do with situational awareness (for said incoming manned aircraft)... I think you're much more likely to hear an inbound manned aircraft before you're going to visually see it (especially if you're also focused on your own flight & VLOS)! When I first "detect" (audibly) an aircraft, I can only imagine that it is in upwards of FIVE miles away! So I'd venture to say even if my UAV was 1 or 2 miles away (maybe even 3), clearly beyond VLOS, I'd still be able to "yield" by descending/landing, as is already my SOP!

Obviously there are almost always exceptions, just like a medical/rescue "chopper" can land just about anywhere, if they need to... I also don't think it's very difficult to discern whether an AC is merely "passing though" or if it's "coming in for a landing"! Answer remains just as simple IMHO! If you were already descending because you heard an incoming AC, once you believed/discovered it was going to land somewhere nearby, you also continue your descent until you've landed... VLOS, to some degree at that point, wouldn't matter! Sure you may be able to see where it is, but can you really see where/what you're about to land on? Even if you're only 100m out, chances are you're going to have NO CLUE what you're about to land on; except and unless you do have an uninterrupted video feed...

VLOS also becomes even less important if for any reason you lose ALL control. If for ANY reason your RC is unresponsive, it won't matter if you can see it or not, if the RC isn't working! Best thing at that point would be having an aircraft capable of "returning to home" upon any complete communications (RC) interruption/severance!

So really, I think the "importance" of VLOS entirely depends on the capabilities of your aircraft (or lack thereof)!! Doesn't mean I won't "follow the rules", because I will, as long as it is a rule; but it doesn't mean I would be against them changing or eliminating VLOS either! I do believe I would be able to pilot/operate my UAV just as safely with or without VLOS! (Depending on the capabilities of the UAV too of course)...

 

[sar104]

Honestly, I can "see" both sides of this 'argument'! (Pun intended)

I would say VLOS would be very important, depending on the specific model that's in the air. If it doesn't have fancy tech. Like GPS, RTH, etc. Obviously if "something goes wrong" (all short of fully losing RC) and you still have to manually fly it back to you, you're not going to be able to do that if it's outside of VLOS...

Exactly - so you have to have VLOS no matter how much "tech" is on board, at least for now

Likewise, if your AC has the tech. Even if you lose communications completely and it will "RTH" automatically, then who honestly cares if you can see it (VLOS)...

The aircraft pilot who encounters it during it's autonomous and unmonitored VLOS might well care about that.

I do not buy into needing to see it to potentially yield to manned AC's, for TWO reasons! First of which being, that they're not supposed to fly below 500 ft, just like we are not supposed to fly above 400'.

The usual fallacy. Firstly, there is no such restriction on helicopters. Secondly, there is no such restriction on fixed-wing aircraft in sparsely populated areas or over water. 14 CFR 91.119. Emergency services, LE, inspection operations, search and rescue, utilities, etc. regularly operate below 500 ft.

This means we have a 100' "safety buffer"! Okay okay I "get it"

No - you clearly don't get it.

, there may be a reason a drone is over 400' (shouldn't really be though) and or a manned aircraft being below 500'; which is usually near airports for ascent or descent (which would also be why that is controlled airspace in which we need LAANC approval to fly in [and chances are your 'ceiling' is then going to be less than 400' for the same reason - to avoid collisions]).

Non-towered Class G airports do not require LAANC approvals.

So, yeah, I really do not "buy" needing to maintain VLOS "so one can yield"... The solution is simple, and is my personal SOP even though I maintain VLOS (because it is a rule), audibly hear a manned AC in the area? Descend! It's literally that simple IMHO. I don't pretend to know where a nearby manned AC may be going, or turn (and I do have MOAs near me), so if I even hear an AC anywhere nearby (by the looks of it they deviate around here a LOT according to my VFR sectional), I immediately descend until it is pretty much inaudible (gone/passed)! I don't have an exact predetermined height but I'll usually go to about 50'. If ANY manned aircraft in my area descends to 50' around here, they're going to have a LOT more serious problems than a 249 gram drone!

I also couldn't believe VLOS has anything to do with situational awareness (for said incoming manned aircraft)... I think you're much more likely to hear an inbound manned aircraft before you're going to visually see it (especially if you're also focused on your own flight & VLOS)! When I first "detect" (audibly) an aircraft, I can only imagine that it is in upwards of FIVE miles away! So I'd venture to say even if my UAV was 1 or 2 miles away (maybe even 3), clearly beyond VLOS, I'd still be able to "yield" by descending/landing, as is already my SOP!

This is simply complete nonsense. You have no clue what you are doing and should not be flying.

Obviously there are almost always exceptions, just like a medical/rescue "chopper" can land just about anywhere, if they need to... I also don't think it's very difficult to discern whether an AC is merely "passing though" or if it's "coming in for a landing"! Answer remains just as simple IMHO! If you were already descending because you heard an incoming AC, once you believed/discovered it was going to land somewhere nearby, you also continue your descent until you've landed... VLOS, to some degree at that point, wouldn't matter! Sure you may be able to see where it is, but can you really see where/what you're about to land on? Even if you're only 100m out, chances are you're going to have NO CLUE what you're about to land on; except and unless you do have an uninterrupted video feed...

VLOS also becomes even less important if for any reason you lose ALL control. If for ANY reason your RC is unresponsive, it won't matter if you can see it or not, if the RC isn't working! Best thing at that point would be having an aircraft capable of "returning to home" upon any complete communications (RC) interruption/severance!

So really, I think the "importance" of VLOS entirely depends on the capabilities of your aircraft (or lack thereof)!! Doesn't mean I won't "follow the rules", because I will, as long as it is a rule; but it doesn't mean I would be against them changing or eliminating VLOS either! I do believe I would be able to pilot/operate my UAV just as safely with or without VLOS! (Depending on the capabilities of the UAV too of course)...

I give up. I can't remember when I last read such a poorly thought out mass of self-contradictory BS.

 

[dronerdave]

I do not buy into needing to see it to potentially yield to manned AC's, for TWO reasons! First of which being, that they're not supposed to fly below 500 ft, just like we are not supposed to fly above 400'. This means we have a 100' "safety buffer"! Okay okay I "get it", there may be a reason a drone is over 400' (shouldn't really be though) and or a manned aircraft being below 500'; which is usually near airports for ascent or descent (which would also be why that is controlled airspace in which we need LAANC approval to fly in [and chances are your 'ceiling' is then going to be less than 400' for the same reason - to avoid collisions]).

All well below 400 feet and these are the ones I had time to pick up the camera and catch. There are a lot more low flying aircraft I've missed because they were on me so fast.

 

[Sparc343]

Exactly - so you have to have VLOS no matter how much "tech" is on board, at least for now

The aircraft pilot who encounters it during it's autonomous and unmonitored VLOS might well care about that.

The usual fallacy. Firstly, there is no such restriction on helicopters. Secondly, there is no such restriction on fixed-wing aircraft in sparsely populated areas or over water. 14 CFR 91.119. Emergency services, LE, inspection operations, search and rescue, utilities, etc. regularly operate below 500 ft.

No - you clearly don't get it.

Non-towered Class G airports do not require LAANC approvals.

This is simply complete nonsense. You have no clue what you are doing and should not be flying.

I give up. I can't remember when I last read such a poorly thought out mass of self-contradictory BS.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion (that I shouldn't fly), but I'll guarantee you I fly a LOT safer than the tool bag that just buys a drone and takes NO time to learn ANYTHING... Then decides to fly it into and/or above the clouds (you know for that "cool footage")... Then even proceeds to publicly share his dangerous and illegal flight/footage right on YouTube for the entire world (including the FAA) to see!

Maybe if you stepped off of your high horse for a second (and actually read everything I wrote) you'd realize that, although I don't necessarily "agree" with it, I do still abide by it since it is still a "rule"...

 

[Sparc343]

All well below 400 feet and these are the ones I had time to pick up the camera and catch. There are a lot more low flying aircraft I've missed because they were on me so fast.View attachment 140339 View attachment 140337View attachment 140338

I understand there are *always* exceptions to things... I am a rather new pilot as well, so I cannot profess to know it all (even someone who has been their whole life really shouldn't either as nobody truly "knows it all")... I also (as pointed out in my novel of a post) am near MOA areas (and VR paths) that they CLEARLY deviate from (according to my VFR sectional), so if I even hear an AC, it's simple for me to descend so that I KNOW I am not in the way!

"For the most part" though, the 400' and 500' rule (respectively) is there for a reason! Are there exceptions? Sure! But do you really need VLOS to yield? IMHO, no...

I even dug up a Phoenix (channel 10 I think) news report that a pilot in training (military) DID STRIKE a power line along VR241 (Phoenix AZ sectional)! He then had to perform an "emergency landing" at a local airport because of the damage he had caused!

So that also proves that NOBODY is above "mistakes" either, not even military personnel in training (I do believe they mentioned he was flying around 300' when this occurred)...

I still doubt anyone would be able to convince me that I *NEED* VLOS to yield though! Again, if I hear an AC, I descend, period...

But, as long as it remains a rule, I'll "obey" it... (I just do not think it's absolutely necessary)

 

[sar104]

You're entitled to your wrong opinion (that I shouldn't fly), but I'll guarantee you I fly a LOT safer than the tool bag that just buys a drone and takes NO time to learn ANYTHING... Then decides to fly it into and/or above the clouds (you know for that "cool footage")... Then even proceeds to publicly share his dangerous and illegal flight/footage right on YouTube for the entire world (including the FAA) to see!

Maybe if you stepped off of your high horse for a second (and actually read everything I wrote) you'd realize that, although I don't necessarily "agree" with it, I do still abide by it since it is still a "rule"...

What a surprise - no attempt all to address even one of the specific points I made refuting your arguments. Not even one - just the assertion that I'm wrong. I'll give you some more unwelcome advice - when someone points out huge flaws in your argument then the best response is to make a counter-argument (if you had one), not just to gainsay them and blather on about horses.

 

[The1stHill]

in the Uk hospital authorities are rampimg up to use BVLOS to deliver medical supplies and specimens between hospitals. In my area the distances are a lot further than I miles, more like 20+ miles

UK: Safe RPAS drone corridor approval sought for hospital medical deliveries around Lake District, Morecambe Bay area – Urban Air Mobility News

www.urbanairmobilitynews.com

 

[Kywon McCain]

Please can someone help me understand why ANY value is attached to vlos? A stupid, useless rule! I struggled to see my drones at 100m, and even when i could, would frequently lose sight of it when i glanced down at my phone. I am a trained light aircraft pilot, and know techniques such as scanning, but still couldnt figure out accurately where the drone was in relation to the ground, especially when it was high.
Then i got the goggles, and orientation became simple, regardless of distance. I could look straight down to see precisely what i was above. I never got disoriented, as north, the home point, plus the orientation of the drone and all relevant telemetry are always right there on screen. All info is available without looking away, and i don't get blinded by the sun or confused by the drone blending in with the background.
Fpv makes orientation and awareness very very easy, regardless of distance. Vlos is useless past 50m, unless you have very good eyes.
So why vlos instead of fpv?? Especially regarding safety?

Look. This is going to sound very dumb. But..

The VLOS rule is because if your flying bvlos, you no longer have situational awareness with your drone. You can't see what's around your drone. You would only rely on what's being shown on your monitor. Sure you may can see below you and in front of you but.. you can't see what's above you or behind you. Or your sides.You wouldn't be able to see a plane coming from your blindspots. Unless you or your drone have some kind of.. spider sense? (Pun)



So basically, the rule was made to keep both the drone pilot and planes safe.

 

[Jamesz]

sar104 has explained perfectly the fallacy of believing you have proper situational awareness when you are beyond vlos. You cannot rely on hearing an aircraft to give you sufficient warning to take avoiding action. On some days wind direction will mean you will see the aircraft long before you hear it, so if you are flying far away you simply cannot operate with the required degree of safety to conduct your flight legally. One day there will be a post here raking over the actions of the range test idiot who downed the air ambulance and caused the loss of lives. It will be impossible to justify the decision making process before a court.

 

[Sparc343]

Look. This is going to sound very dumb. But..

The VLOS rule is because if your flying bvlos, you no longer have situational awareness with your drone. You can't see what's around your drone. You would only rely on what's being shown on your monitor. Sure you may can see below you and in front of you but.. you can't see what's above you or behind you. Or your sides.You wouldn't be able to see a plane coming from your blindspots. Unless you or your drone have some kind of.. spider sense? (Pun)



So basically, the rule was made to keep both the drone pilot and planes safe.

It doesn't sound dumb... It sounds good, as does anything that is centered around safety. Though I also think it's antiquated as well, at least in certain circumstances/scenarios... Point, another thing (even I) have failed to (so far) mention is environment! This is yet another variable that I could see increasing, or decreasing, the "NEED" for VLOS... If you operate "in the middle of nowhere"/"in the sticks" (where I have been exclusively flying), where there is NO background noise; I can hear aircraft from quite a distance (wind direction, no matter)... So, IMHO "line of sight" is definitely of less importance... (again, I DO follow VLOS anyway, since it IS still a rule [regardless of my opinion(s)]!)

However, I could see: if you're flying in a city, where there's always TONS of (distracting) noise present, you'd want to maintain VLOS in this type of environment! Because yes, you're absolutely correct, that in this scenario/circumstance, you may very well see it before you hear it...! You may very well not hear it "soon enough" with so much other distracting noise going on around!



Also, curious, who supports AI operated flights/deliveries, and who doesn't? I couldn't imagine anyone being a proponent of flights that aren't even "manned" if "you" don't support BVLOS... Surely a flight that isn't even "manned" isn't being "watched" at all, let alone VLOS...! I mean, if GPS, RTH and the like aren't even good enough to "assist" me, then surely you do not support a completely un-human-piloted flight!

Not to mention, as others have pointed out in this thread, this likely would not even change anything for "us" anyway... This is just another thing so that big corps like Amazon can try to push for their drone deliveries... So why should I care right? I mean, it's not going to affect us anyway... So I guess the only thing that is "dumb" is my attempt at expressing my opinion... Since apparently I am dumb for having an opinion that differs from "THE ROOLZ"... How dare I question those!? Who knows, maybe my opinion would change after getting more experience under my belt (though I doubt it, it could happen)... But and again, different variables mean different results... Like I said, I already KNOW I would be comfortable flying BVLOS in a rural area, but I likely would not be very comfortable flying BVLOS in a city or other place with heavy background noise/distractions... Just like speed limits (by me) are 25 MPH for residential, and 75 MPH on a higway/interstate! You cannot just say "the ONLY safe speed to travel is 45MPH" - for ALL roads and road types. Likewise I don't think one could have a *blanket* statement that VLOS is *ALWAYS* necessary...!

Oh well, my stance remains, as confusing as my "novels"/"rants" may make it... I am not always an opponent or proponent of VLOS or BVLOS... I do believe there are certain times, places, circumstances, scenarios, equipment, experience, knowledge, common sense, *VARIABLES* which may denote VLOS *IS* (should) or *IS NOT* (should not be) "required"...! But, unless or until the official rules change, I will follow them regardless of my opinion... But I will also opine that, just because something is illegal, does not mean people will NOT do it. Likewise, just because something is legal, does not mean people WILL do it... Just like my friend *assumed* when they make "pot" legal, it's usage/the number of people who "smoke"/"use" it will INCREASE (because it was made legal) [and AFAIK that's been proven to NOT be the case]... Just like if/where it's illegal, surely also does NOT stop someone from using it, that wants to... Same exact thing goes for VLOS... Right now, it would be illegal to fly BVLOS, but it sure isn't going to stop someone from doing it! If they made it legal tomorrow, does that mean you would all of a sudden do it, just because it's legal? I'm guessing "no", because you're personally against it, and you feel it is unsafe... Me personally, if they made it legal tomorrow, I would use my own discretion as to when I did or did not do it (like I said, I almost certainly WOULD in a rural area, and most likely would NOT in a city/noisy/crowded environment)...!

 

[dronerdave]

I've found just the opposite and find manned aircraft often fly much lower in low populated areas because they can and often do. So it kind of depends on what you call rural. The closest encounter I've had was near a lake when the plane came out of the sun less than 100'AGL and by the time I was able to react, the plane flew by my drone within a few feet of it. Also, in hilly terrain you often can't hear a noisy aircraft when it comes over or from behind a hill and it might be on you before you know it. If you've ever flown from an active airport you'd understand how one can sneak up on you when they are coming in to land.




That is the reason the club rules (at that specific airport) are you must have a spotter when RC flying looking for manned aircraft landing... looking specifically for approaching aircraft and not at your RC model. Sure a lot depends on the full sized aircraft type, but many are quite quiet as they approach. We have a radio at that airport but it's not like a bell going off to alert you, and other radio traffic makes it more difficult to rely on radio communication. Also, you can't rely on (if) a full sized aircraft is transmitting their location because many don't.
In the case of rural flying, adding a mile or two from your control station often makes it more difficult to detect via sound and if you can't see the drone due to terrain, seeing a full sized aircraft skimming or operating close to the ground may also be blocked visually. So you're zipping around the NAS like a horse in the sky with blinders on? How anybody can triangulate to avoid a full sized aircraft at long distances (BVLOS) by taking action except to land is beyond me and landing would be a hazard in itself. Thinking the sky is so vast and the chances are so small that you'd make contact with another aircraft probably won't cut it even if it's true. I still fly at questionable distances (I can see my drone but barely) and simply see and avoid to the best of my ability but understand it's my responsibility to make way for full sized aircraft even within VLOS. I kinda look at possibility of the upcoming RID as I do the millions of cameras out there watching us daily... sometimes it keeps people in compliance.

I won't comment much on legal BVLOS flights by AI controlled anything. My guess is they will have a whole different set of requirements on how, where, and what equipment they operate with. I doubt it will be Joe blow with a little 5 dollar cage transporting an item with a drone unless there is some sort of allowance for such a flight. I'd think most flights would need some type of flight plan to follow at minimum but that is speculation on my part.

 

[ericole]

We recently had a progress report from Transport Canada (the Canadian regulator). There's no doubt it is progressing although several large organizations like Amazon have reduced funding and had layoffs. BVLOS is already being used in the maintenance (gas pipe lines and power lines) and agriculture with special permission (SFOC's required) and for emergency assistance in remote areas. But we're a long way from having parcels delivered to our doorsteps and its not going to be with consumer drones.

Agree, this is about as close to reality as self-driving cars on regular streets.

 

[Chaosrider]

LE may need the RC location, but I agree that it doesn't need to be publicly available.

I'm happy to have LEOs know my location!

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

Firstly, for situational awareness of the airspace around you, of course. Orienting your aircraft relative to the ground is not the primary concern. When you are flying a plane, why are you scanning? To see and avoid other traffic. Your limited FPV 70° field of view doesn't work for that at all, so you need to keep the aircraft close enough that you can see and avoid other traffic from your control point.

Secondly, loss of video/telemetry is pretty common, so you need to be able to orient your UAV and fly it back without the help of either of those. Again - that requires VLOS.

I'm really surprised that these issues would not be completely obviously to a "trained pilot". And by the way - if you can't see your drone beyond 50 m then you probably shouldn't be flying anything, manned or unmanned.

Conceptually this is all sound, but then it comes back to the core question:

What are the odds?

Probability rules, possibility drools.

If the odds of any significant damage resulting from a BVLOS operation are vanishingly small...and in low population density areas in uncontrolled airspace, they are...then there's no justification for banning BVLOS outright. Extra equipment requirements, extra pilot training requirements, sure. Just like the instrument rating. But an outright ban is just not justifiable.

Fortunately, my sense is that the regulations are going to ooze in that direction over time.

The mere fact that some Bad Thing is possible, is irrelevant. The only relevant question is...

What are the odds?

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

I've found just the opposite and find manned aircraft often fly much lower in low populated areas because they can and often do. So it kind of depends on what you call rural. The closest encounter I've had was near a lake when the plane came out of the sun less than 100'AGL and by the time I was able to react, the plane flew by my drone within a few feet of it. Also, in hilly terrain you often can't hear a noisy aircraft when it comes over or from behind a hill and it might be on you before you know it. If you've ever flown from an active airport you'd understand how one can sneak up on you when they are coming in to land.

View attachment 140406


That is the reason the club rules (at that specific airport) are you must have a spotter when RC flying looking for manned aircraft landing... looking specifically for approaching aircraft and not at your RC model. Sure a lot depends on the full sized aircraft type, but many are quite quiet as they approach. We have a radio at that airport but it's not like a bell going off to alert you, and other radio traffic makes it more difficult to rely on radio communication. Also, you can't rely on (if) a full sized aircraft is transmitting their location because many don't.
In the case of rural flying, adding a mile or two from your control station often makes it more difficult to detect via sound and if you can't see the drone due to terrain, seeing a full sized aircraft skimming or operating close to the ground may also be blocked visually. So you're zipping around the NAS like a horse in the sky with blinders on? How anybody can triangulate to avoid a full sized aircraft at long distances (BVLOS) by taking action except to land is beyond me and landing would be a hazard in itself. Thinking the sky is so vast and the chances are so small that you'd make contact with another aircraft probably won't cut it even if it's true. I still fly at questionable distances (I can see my drone but barely) and simply see and avoid to the best of my ability but understand it's my responsibility to make way for full sized aircraft even within VLOS. I kinda look at possibility of the upcoming RID as I do the millions of cameras out there watching us daily... sometimes it keeps people in compliance.

I won't comment much on legal BVLOS flights by AI controlled anything. My guess is they will have a whole different set of requirements on how, where, and what equipment they operate with. I doubt it will be Joe blow with a little 5 dollar cage transporting an item with a drone unless there is some sort of allowance for such a flight. I'd think most flights would need some type of flight plan to follow at minimum but that is speculation on my part.

In this scenario, what's important? The answer is the same as it is for real estate:

Location, Location, Location

I have no problem banning BVLOS near airport traffic patterns.

I've flown from active airfields many, many times, but only in aircraft a great deal larger than our drones!

;-)

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

Honestly, I can "see" both sides of this 'argument'! (Pun intended)

I would say VLOS would be very important, depending on the specific model that's in the air. If it doesn't have fancy tech. Like GPS, RTH, etc. Obviously if "something goes wrong" (all short of fully losing RC) and you still have to manually fly it back to you, you're not going to be able to do that if it's outside of VLOS...

Likewise, if your AC has the tech. Even if you lose communications completely and it will "RTH" automatically, then who honestly cares if you can see it (VLOS)...

I do not buy into needing to see it to potentially yield to manned AC's, for TWO reasons! First of which being, that they're not supposed to fly below 500 ft, just like we are not supposed to fly above 400'. This means we have a 100' "safety buffer"! Okay okay I "get it", there may be a reason a drone is over 400' (shouldn't really be though) and or a manned aircraft being below 500'; which is usually near airports for ascent or descent (which would also be why that is controlled airspace in which we need LAANC approval to fly in [and chances are your 'ceiling' is then going to be less than 400' for the same reason - to avoid collisions]). So, yeah, I really do not "buy" needing to maintain VLOS "so one can yield"... The solution is simple, and is my personal SOP even though I maintain VLOS (because it is a rule), audibly hear a manned AC in the area? Descend! It's literally that simple IMHO. I don't pretend to know where a nearby manned AC may be going, or turn (and I do have MOAs near me), so if I even hear an AC anywhere nearby (by the looks of it they deviate around here a LOT according to my VFR sectional), I immediately descend until it is pretty much inaudible (gone/passed)! I don't have an exact predetermined height but I'll usually go to about 50'. If ANY manned aircraft in my area descends to 50' around here, they're going to have a LOT more serious problems than a 249 gram drone!

I also couldn't believe VLOS has anything to do with situational awareness (for said incoming manned aircraft)... I think you're much more likely to hear an inbound manned aircraft before you're going to visually see it (especially if you're also focused on your own flight & VLOS)! When I first "detect" (audibly) an aircraft, I can only imagine that it is in upwards of FIVE miles away! So I'd venture to say even if my UAV was 1 or 2 miles away (maybe even 3), clearly beyond VLOS, I'd still be able to "yield" by descending/landing, as is already my SOP!

Obviously there are almost always exceptions, just like a medical/rescue "chopper" can land just about anywhere, if they need to... I also don't think it's very difficult to discern whether an AC is merely "passing though" or if it's "coming in for a landing"! Answer remains just as simple IMHO! If you were already descending because you heard an incoming AC, once you believed/discovered it was going to land somewhere nearby, you also continue your descent until you've landed... VLOS, to some degree at that point, wouldn't matter! Sure you may be able to see where it is, but can you really see where/what you're about to land on? Even if you're only 100m out, chances are you're going to have NO CLUE what you're about to land on; except and unless you do have an uninterrupted video feed...

VLOS also becomes even less important if for any reason you lose ALL control. If for ANY reason your RC is unresponsive, it won't matter if you can see it or not, if the RC isn't working! Best thing at that point would be having an aircraft capable of "returning to home" upon any complete communications (RC) interruption/severance!

So really, I think the "importance" of VLOS entirely depends on the capabilities of your aircraft (or lack thereof)!! Doesn't mean I won't "follow the rules", because I will, as long as it is a rule; but it doesn't mean I would be against them changing or eliminating VLOS either! I do believe I would be able to pilot/operate my UAV just as safely with or without VLOS! (Depending on the capabilities of the UAV too of course)...

I agree with you.

Statistically, the odds of needing VLOS to dodge manned aircraft, are vanishingly small. It just won't happen enough to matter.

Is it possible a situation like that might happen? Sure. But that's irrelevant.

The relevant question is, what are the odds?

Thx,

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

It doesn't sound dumb... It sounds good, as does anything that is centered around safety. Though I also think it's antiquated as well, at least in certain circumstances/scenarios... Point, another thing (even I) have failed to (so far) mention is environment! This is yet another variable that I could see increasing, or decreasing, the "NEED" for VLOS... If you operate "in the middle of nowhere"/"in the sticks" (where I have been exclusively flying), where there is NO background noise; I can hear aircraft from quite a distance (wind direction, no matter)... So, IMHO "line of sight" is definitely of less importance... (again, I DO follow VLOS anyway, since it IS still a rule [regardless of my opinion(s)]!)

However, I could see: if you're flying in a city, where there's always TONS of (distracting) noise present, you'd want to maintain VLOS in this type of environment! Because yes, you're absolutely correct, that in this scenario/circumstance, you may very well see it before you hear it...! You may very well not hear it "soon enough" with so much other distracting noise going on around!



Also, curious, who supports AI operated flights/deliveries, and who doesn't? I couldn't imagine anyone being a proponent of flights that aren't even "manned" if "you" don't support BVLOS... Surely a flight that isn't even "manned" isn't being "watched" at all, let alone VLOS...! I mean, if GPS, RTH and the like aren't even good enough to "assist" me, then surely you do not support a completely un-human-piloted flight!

Not to mention, as others have pointed out in this thread, this likely would not even change anything for "us" anyway... This is just another thing so that big corps like Amazon can try to push for their drone deliveries... So why should I care right? I mean, it's not going to affect us anyway... So I guess the only thing that is "dumb" is my attempt at expressing my opinion... Since apparently I am dumb for having an opinion that differs from "THE ROOLZ"... How dare I question those!? Who knows, maybe my opinion would change after getting more experience under my belt (though I doubt it, it could happen)... But and again, different variables mean different results... Like I said, I already KNOW I would be comfortable flying BVLOS in a rural area, but I likely would not be very comfortable flying BVLOS in a city or other place with heavy background noise/distractions... Just like speed limits (by me) are 25 MPH for residential, and 75 MPH on a higway/interstate! You cannot just say "the ONLY safe speed to travel is 45MPH" - for ALL roads and road types. Likewise I don't think one could have a *blanket* statement that VLOS is *ALWAYS* necessary...!

Oh well, my stance remains, as confusing as my "novels"/"rants" may make it... I am not always an opponent or proponent of VLOS or BVLOS... I do believe there are certain times, places, circumstances, scenarios, equipment, experience, knowledge, common sense, *VARIABLES* which may denote VLOS *IS* (should) or *IS NOT* (should not be) "required"...! But, unless or until the official rules change, I will follow them regardless of my opinion... But I will also opine that, just because something is illegal, does not mean people will NOT do it. Likewise, just because something is legal, does not mean people WILL do it... Just like my friend *assumed* when they make "pot" legal, it's usage/the number of people who "smoke"/"use" it will INCREASE (because it was made legal) [and AFAIK that's been proven to NOT be the case]... Just like if/where it's illegal, surely also does NOT stop someone from using it, that wants to... Same exact thing goes for VLOS... Right now, it would be illegal to fly BVLOS, but it sure isn't going to stop someone from doing it! If they made it legal tomorrow, does that mean you would all of a sudden do it, just because it's legal? I'm guessing "no", because you're personally against it, and you feel it is unsafe... Me personally, if they made it legal tomorrow, I would use my own discretion as to when I did or did not do it (like I said, I almost certainly WOULD in a rural area, and most likely would NOT in a city/noisy/crowded environment)...!

I also live where it's profoundly quiet (part of the reason I'm here), and I can hear aircraft many miles away. However, since I live in a canyon, I rarely have a clue where they are just from the sound, although I can sense approaching/departing from the change in the volume.

Not being able to hear an aircraft on final approach is an entirely different matter. That's certainly correct. Why I would be flying under an approach path is completely beyond me.

And, in all the examples provided so far for low flying aircraft not on final, those suckers are going to be loud. They're not going to sneak up on you.

TCS

 

[dronerdave]

In this scenario, what's important? The answer is the same as it is for real estate:

Location, Location, Location

I have no problem banning BVLOS near airport traffic patterns.

I've flown from active airfields many, many times, but only in aircraft a great deal larger than our drones!

;-)

TCS

The problem is I've had several low fly bys or manned aircraft operating at low altitudes in places I'm flying at that are no where near an airport. If the FAA is tasked with protecting manned aircraft, I guess the question is how far will they go to protect them especially if people continue to fly drones where they can't see and avoid. I'm not saying no allowed BVLOS UAV flights, but the FAA would have to put some safety measures in place such as they do for flying in controlled airspace. In the end, I'd rather be explaining I was flying in compliance as opposed to not being in compliance if an incident occurred.

 

[Chaosrider]

The problem is I've had several low fly bys or manned aircraft operating at low altitudes in places I'm flying at that are no where near an airport. If the FAA is tasked with protecting manned aircraft, I guess the question is how far will they go to protect them especially if people continue to fly drones where they can't see and avoid. I'm not saying no allowed BVLOS UAV flights, but the FAA would have to put some safety measures in place such as they do for flying in controlled airspace. In the end, I'd rather be explaining I was flying in compliance as opposed to not being in compliance if an incident occurred.

I'm not suggesting at all than anyone shouldn't comply with the rules, just that the VLOS rule is overly restrictive, and should be changed. And I think it will be.

The current rule can't be justified by the statistically insignificant additional margin of safety that it provides. At least, not in uncontrolled airspace in low population density areas.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Ty Pilot]

And, in all the examples provided so far for low flying aircraft not on final, those suckers are going to be loud. They're not going to sneak up on you.

TCS

You can say that but it's not necessarily true. What if you're deaf/hearing impaired or; are in an environment where you sense of hearing plays very little or no role in your situational awareness?

Like a large construction site where machinery of all kinds masks your hearing? I had this happen a few years back where I was shooting a hospital construction from 300 feet and never heard a sheriff's helicopter coming straight over the site. I was able to see it, before I could hear it; and was able to reduce height and fly adjacent to the helicopter's flight path. Had I been just 1000 feet down range, that may not have been possible.

Inevitably in these BVLOS discussions the arguments tend to focus on manned aviation as being the only conflict that needs to be resolved in order to ensure BVLOS safety, but that is only one part of the picture.