DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

BVLOS why do so many do it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MadLab

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
5
Reactions
29
Age
53
Location
New Hampshire
I am very new and green to the world of drones, but i my efforts to catch up and get educated I have seen a ton YouTube videos which are often very informative and entertaining, I am sure many of you here are posting so thank you!

I notice that a great many of the folks filming these videos in the U.S appear (at least to my eye) are filming BVLOS. I have seen a number of videos when looking at their controller there is no way (unless they are Superman) that they can keep site of their UAS. I am wondering why so many do it? Do you do it and how often? How are they posting these vids and not afraid of repercussions? - do you have 107 or you don’t care?

I hope to be smaller filming structures and opening shots of the host for a TV show I am working on, so really don’t need to fly far, plus I am just so new I wouldn’t trust myself or want to break regulations when I’m just about to take 107. Not judging here, but I see so many examples of this online, so I’m just curious about this.
 
You are correct - the VLOS requirement is very commonly ignored, more, as far as I can see, by recreational pilots and Part 107 pilots who are not actually using their Part 107 for professional work. From a practical perspective, some of these flights are clearly more dangerous than others, but the law is not written with leeway for the pilot to assess the safety of a BVLOS flight.

You will see all kinds of justifications given, most of which are obviously spurious and easily debunked, such as claims that they have better situational awareness from telemetry and video feed than visual on the aircraft. While it is true that, provided the downlink is good, the telemetry will show accurate position and velocity, and the video feed will give a pretty good view of whatever 80ish° field of view the camera is looking at, the rest of the airspace around the aircraft is unobserved.

Some pilots clearly just like the thrill of flying long distances. Others apparently get offended that they cannot get the view that they want without flying BVLOS, almost as if the FAA were infringing some inherent right to unrestricted flight. Then there is the inevitable incorrect assertion that manned aircraft are not allowed below 500 ft AGL, so surely if I stay below 400 ft AGL it's not my fault if there is a collision. Fundamentally it's often just lazy and/or reckless decision making, though sometimes total lack of awareness of the law.

BVLOS is possible within the law. I've flown BVLOS numerous times but it requires a waiver and a TFR to entirely exclude other uncoordinated air traffic in the area, or operations in already restricted airspace. And those waivers are not available to private individuals, or most non-government agencies.
 
@sar104 sums it up very well. Also, what you might not have seen is a growing number of these folks (we have a few on this forum) are being contacted by the FAA and having the regulations (and the reasons for them) explained in no uncertain terms. Some have received fines. The reason you see many Youtubers flying as they do, is that (so far), they've gotten away with it. Times are changing.
 
Well what I would ask you is what advantage do ‘you’ have by flying within VLOS?

I do not believe for a second that you know the attitude, direction or distance of your drone, (unless it’s in front of your face,) if it’s within VLOS any better than I do with my video!

As long as I know what’s below me, I can either RTH or just land if there is a problem with the same ease as if it was close.

Having said that, there is also, surely, a difference between BVLOS in open area, eg countryside or coastal beaches and flying directly across a town!

MadLab, why are you curious anyway, would you do it?
Are you looking for justification or confidence to go BVLOS?
If not then I don’t know what you will learn from any answers on here so do what you want do and crack on.
 
I notice that a great many of the folks filming these videos in the U.S appear (at least to my eye) are filming BVLOS. I have seen a number of videos when looking at their controller there is no way (unless they are Superman) that they can keep site of their UAS. I am wondering why so many do it? Do you do it and how often? How are they posting these vids and not afraid of repercussions? - do you have 107 or you don’t care?

There's a difference between distance tests where guys are flying out miles and following the letter of the law.

Almost everyone here occasionally flies behind an obstacle to get the shot they want - that's technically not VLOS. The obstacle (like a building) didn't jump in front of them, they knew it was there, used their own judgement about risk and decided to break the rules. They justify it saying that they regain LOS as quickly as possible but it's still breaking the rules. Interestingly, the same people admitting to doing that also claim to always follow VLOS rules.
 
Well what I would ask you is what advantage do ‘you’ have by flying within VLOS?
This may not have been asked of me but if I may, I'll take a crack at it.

The advantage I have when flying VLOS, over a pilot that is BVLOS? I can fulfill ALL of the requirements for safe flight - not just for MY drone, but also for anyone (or anything) on the ground, or in the air, as required:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;
(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and
(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

I do not believe for a second that you know the attitude, direction or distance of your drone, (unless it’s in front of your face,) if it’s within VLOS any better than I do with my video!
Nothing in the VLOS requirements stops me from glancing at my screen during my flight. Therefore, during my VLOS flight I can see my Altitude. Location is determined by dead reckoning - I see it in relation to the ground AND (very importantly) I can see it's location in relation to any airborne objects. Birds, aircraft, other drones, what have you.

Attitude and Direction of flight are determined and maintained throughout the flight through experience and some very basic principles. I can fly out to 1000 feet or more - where the drone is only a dot - and through control inputs only, determine the attitude and direction and navigate back to me, or any point I choose (as long as I can see the drone) WITHOUT looking at the screen.
 
I don't go BVLOS anymore I use to when I first started flying six or seven years ago. But I don't believe it was a law back then. And yes its exciting and sometimes what your trying to film is just out of vlos. But for now I keep it in sight and I do hope someday they change the Law again.
 
Well what I would ask you is what advantage do ‘you’ have by flying within VLOS?

I do not believe for a second that you know the attitude, direction or distance of your drone, (unless it’s in front of your face,) if it’s within VLOS any better than I do with my video!

As long as I know what’s below me, I can either RTH or just land if there is a problem with the same ease as if it was close.

Having said that, there is also, surely, a difference between BVLOS in open area, eg countryside or coastal beaches and flying directly across a town!

MadLab, why are you curious anyway, would you do it?
Are you looking for justification or confidence to go BVLOS?
If not then I don’t know what you will learn from any answers on here so do what you want do and crack on.
Some excellent points -- For me flying so far, I think 13 flights or (8 sessions) -- I have lost site of the aircraft not purposefully, but once it got a little out of site before I knew it, then I was panicking trying to eyeball it again and having difficulty spotting it, it was around 350 feet and probably 1000 feet away (don't hold me to that it could have been more). I was able to fairly easy get it back using the directional indicator. It was in the deep nothingness of the NH forest but I had a great view of the sky over a lake, so I could see it until I looked at the controller and lost it, but when reviewing the rules -- I guess its just too far. I agree that for me at least, it's easier to look at the controller, know my altitude, heading, distance from controller than trying to judge exactly what the aircraft is doing from looking at it. So after more study, I realized that even though I was flying over nothingness, it's still breaking regulations. Would I fly BVLOS if it were lawful or in regulations, you bet! (After I gained some more confidence)
 
You are correct - the VLOS requirement is very commonly ignored, more, as far as I can see, by recreational pilots and Part 107 pilots who are not actually using their Part 107 for professional work. From a practical perspective, some of these flights are clearly more dangerous than others, but the law is not written with leeway for the pilot to assess the safety of a BVLOS flight.

You will see all kinds of justifications given, most of which are obviously spurious and easily debunked, such as claims that they have better situational awareness from telemetry and video feed than visual on the aircraft. While it is true that, provided the downlink is good, the telemetry will show accurate position and velocity, and the video feed will give a pretty good view of whatever 80ish° field of view the camera is looking at, the rest of the airspace around the aircraft is unobserved.

Some pilots clearly just like the thrill of flying long distances. Others apparently get offended that they cannot get the view that they want without flying BVLOS, almost as if the FAA were infringing some inherent right to unrestricted flight. Then there is the inevitable incorrect assertion that manned aircraft are not allowed below 500 ft AGL, so surely if I stay below 400 ft AGL it's not my fault if there is a collision. Fundamentally it's often just lazy and/or reckless decision making, though sometimes total lack of awareness of the law.

BVLOS is possible within the law. I've flown BVLOS numerous times but it requires a waiver and a TFR to entirely exclude other uncoordinated air traffic in the area, or operations in already restricted airspace. And those waivers are not available to private individuals, or most non-government agencies.
Thanks for the feedback, that's a great answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
I’ve also flown BVLOS in the past before the rules were clarified a few years back by the FAA. I had a heightened awareness of my drone when I couldn’t see it, and if anything, I was more fixed on my video screen and telemetry which is obviously riskier to manned aircraft safety. But just because you fly VLOS doesn’t mean you can simply stick your head in the monitor and fly without watching for manned aircraft. I had (as I’ve posted in the past) a very close encounter with a plane coming off a lake coming in low with the sun behind him. Anybody who claims they can always hear an incoming aircraft has clearly never been in a similar situation I was in and although in most cases you will hear a plane coming at you, it doesn’t mean you always will. It’s the same with ADS-B or similar detecting…some manned aircraft don’t transmit their location and are able to be upon you before you have time to react. I missed the guy coming off the lake by a few feet. So, there are instances when keeping VLOS increases the chance of detecting a close mid-air encounter but it’s not limited to only VLOS. You still have to be aware of your surroundings and actively look for aircraft to the best of your ability. The FAA probably takes all of that into account when making rules along with the fact some are ignorant to the rules or worse, some who blatantly disregard the rules. Then there is the issue of your drone malfunctioning and dropping from the sky like a meteorite. Yes, that can happen within VLOS but I’d rather be able to prove I did what I could (within reasonable measures) to safely control the situation. Basically, you are responsible to fly within compliance and if something goes horrible wrong, the more in compliance you fly, the less chance of a lawsuit going against you. Flying behind terrain, trees, or structures for only a limited time then having a mid-air when you are technically BVLOS isn’t going to go over good IMO. Maybe in the future we will have improved autonomic safety features that will allow more chances to fly BVLOS flights.
 
An excerpt from the FAA...

Paragraph 5.7

However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity.

For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable.


.
 
BTW I use strobes to aid me in detecting my drone while flying VLOS considering that drones are often more difficult visually see for a number of reasons such as sun angles, or background levels. I often see the strobe flash of manned aircraft before actually seeing the aircraft itself. They work quite well on my drone and fixed wing RC aircraft.
 
Well what I would ask you is what advantage do ‘you’ have by flying within VLOS?
I find it hard to take that as an honest question, since it has been answered many times, including in my post above. However - you can view the entire airspace around your drone and judge it's location relative to other air traffic - that's the main, and legally required advantage.
I do not believe for a second that you know the attitude, direction or distance of your drone, (unless it’s in front of your face,) if it’s within VLOS any better than I do with my video!
What you believe is irrelevant, and I addressed that point above too. But thanks for a live demonstration of that particular fallacious argument.
As long as I know what’s below me, I can either RTH or just land if there is a problem with the same ease as if it was close.
So you fly along with the camera pointing down? What about what is in front of you? Or to the side? Or behind you?

And no - you quite likely can't just land, because the aircraft will often descend out of LOS, lose uplink, and go into RTH mode, and which point it is flying BVLOS and not under your control, at least until the uplink is re-established.
Having said that, there is also, surely, a difference between BVLOS in open area, eg countryside or coastal beaches and flying directly across a town!
There is. I made that point too, but noted that you don't get to assess relative risk. And with good reason, given the spurious arguments that you are relying on.
 
An excerpt from the FAA...

Paragraph 5.7

However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity.

For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable.


.
Yep I agree. Although I hate to compare it to driving, you are allowed to look at your dash to determine you're driving at a safe speed.
 
Quick related question - do you guys have a need to routinely fly above 400 feet agl? Do you consider the height limit more important than LOS requirements?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torque
There's a difference between distance tests where guys are flying out miles and following the letter of the law.

Almost everyone here occasionally flies behind an obstacle to get the shot they want - that's technically not VLOS. The obstacle (like a building) didn't jump in front of them, they knew it was there, used their own judgement about risk and decided to break the rules. They justify it saying that they regain LOS as quickly as possible but it's still breaking the rules. Interestingly, the same people admitting to doing that also claim to always follow VLOS rules.
I agree with this. It's kinda like our 'rolling stops' at a stop sign here in Southern California. It's not legal; we approach the stop sign and assess the 'risk' and either roll thru it or come to a hard stop.
 
Well what I would ask you is what advantage do ‘you’ have by flying within VLOS?

I do not believe for a second that you know the attitude, direction or distance of your drone, (unless it’s in front of your face,) if it’s within VLOS any better than I do with my video!

As long as I know what’s below me, I can either RTH or just land if there is a problem with the same ease as if it was close.

Having said that, there is also, surely, a difference between BVLOS in open area, eg countryside or coastal beaches and flying directly across a town!

MadLab, why are you curious anyway, would you do it?
Are you looking for justification or confidence to go BVLOS?
If not then I don’t know what you will learn from any answers on here so do what you want do and crack on.
Not good advice from someone not subject to the US regs. “Crack on” sort of gives it away.
 
There's a difference between distance tests where guys are flying out miles and following the letter of the law.

Almost everyone here occasionally flies behind an obstacle to get the shot they want - that's technically not VLOS. The obstacle (like a building) didn't jump in front of them, they knew it was there, used their own judgement about risk and decided to break the rules. They justify it saying that they regain LOS as quickly as possible but it's still breaking the rules. Interestingly, the same people admitting to doing that also claim to always follow VLOS rules.
Straight from AC 107-2A:

5.9 VLOS Aircraft Operation. The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small unmanned aircraft at all times during flight (§ 107.31). The small unmanned aircraft must be operated closely enough to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UAS operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used, during the aircraft operation. The person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small unmanned aircraft, but still retains the capability to see the small unmanned aircraft or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments may be necessary for the remote PIC to look at the controller to determine remaining battery life or for operational awareness. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small unmanned aircraft, he or she

5-5 2/1/21

AC 107-2A

must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. Even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small unmanned aircraft, the remote PIC always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances that may prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of small UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the small unmanned aircraft. For this reason, no specific time interval exists in which interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption of the operation. If the remote PIC cannot regain VLOS, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for the loss of VLOS. The capabilities of the small UAS will govern the remote PIC’s determination as to the appropriate course of action. For example, the remote PIC may need to land the small unmanned aircraft immediately, enter hover mode, or employ a return-to-home sequence. The VLOS requirement does not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small unmanned aircraft CS.

5.9.1 Unaided Vision. VLOS must be accomplished and maintained by unaided vision, except vision that is corrected by the use of eyeglasses (spectacles) or contact lenses. Vision aids, such as binoculars, may be used only momentarily to enhance situational awareness. For example, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, or VO may use vision aids to avoid inadvertently flying over persons or conflicting with other aircraft. First person view devices may be used during operations, but do not satisfy the VLOS requirement.

5.9.2 VO. The use of a VO is optional. The remote PIC may choose to use a VO to supplement situational awareness and VLOS. Although the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must maintain the capability to see the small unmanned aircraft, using one or more VOs allows the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls to conduct other mission-critical duties (such as checking displays) while still ensuring situational awareness of the small unmanned aircraft. The VO must be able to communicate effectively with regard to the following:

• The small unmanned aircraft location, attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

• The position of other aircraft or hazards in the airspace; and

• The determination that the small unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another (§ 107.33).

5.9.2.1 To ensure the VO can carry out his or her duties, the remote PIC must ensure the VO is positioned in a location where the VO is able to see the small unmanned aircraft sufficiently to maintain VLOS. The remote PIC can do this by specifying the location of the VO. The FAA also requires the remote PIC and VO coordinate to (1) scan the airspace where the small unmanned aircraft is operating for any potential collision hazard, and (2) maintain awareness of the position of the small unmanned aircraft through direct visual observation (§ 107.33). The remote PIC and VO would accomplish this by the VO communicating to the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls the

5-6 2/1/21

AC 107-2A

flight status of the small unmanned aircraft and any collision hazards which may enter the area of operation, so that the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls can take appropriate action. The VO’s visual observation of the small unmanned aircraft and surrounding airspace would enable the VO to inform the remote PIC of the status.

5.9.2.2 To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication that does not create a distraction. Such a means of communication entails the constant ability to understand one another. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. Effective communication would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as a handheld radio, to facilitate communication from a distance.

5.9.3 VLOS at Night. Prior to a small UAS operation at night, the remote PIC should ensure he or she will be able to keep the small unmanned aircraft within the intended area of operation and within VLOS for the duration of the operation. In almost all cases involving operations at night, the remote PIC may need to restrict the operational area of the small unmanned aircraft. Reduced lighting and contrast at night may make it difficult for remote pilots to fulfill the requirements of § 107.31(a), requiring remote pilots to maintain the capability of visually discerning the location, attitude, altitude, and direction of the flight of the aircraft. A remote pilot cannot solely rely on the small unmanned aircraft’s anti-collision lighting, Ground Control Station (GCS) telemetry data displays, or a combination of the two for compliance with § 107.31.
 
Quick related question - do you guys have a need to routinely fly above 400 feet agl? Do you consider the height limit more important than LOS requirements?
If someone is doing tower inspections or building inspections the answer would be yes. The reason why 107 certified pilots can do this.

§ 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.

A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:

(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.

(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 statute miles. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

(d) The minimum distance of the small unmanned aircraft from clouds must be no less than:

(1) 500 feet below the cloud; and

(2) 2,000 feet horizontally from the cloud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ty Pilot
Status
Not open for further replies.

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
134,575
Messages
1,596,443
Members
163,076
Latest member
thelelans
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account