BVLOS why do so many do it?

[sar104]

Do you always use a VO? BVLOS IS illegal, correct?

Some of the operations require a VO, while others don't. But that decision has nothing to do with BVLOS, since a VO never makes BVLOS compliant. BVLOS flight requires a waiver, as I already pointed out.

Oh, I ALWAYS drop when I hear aircraft approaching if I am over 200' AGL.

That's good, but descending from 400 ft to 200 ft with a typical Mavic takes around 20 seconds, not that 200 ft AGL is necessarily low enough to be safe, especially from helicopter traffic. The further away your drone is the less warning you are likely to get, and if you don't know the relative positions of the aircraft, because you can't see your drone, that makes appropriate evasive action even more difficult to determine.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Because a driver’s license is required to drive a motor vehicle and the state you get your license in can ‘revoke that privilege’ if you do not follow the rules.

Bikes and horses do not require said licensing, yet you can still get ticketed when using them on a public thoroughfare.

Why is a license required to drive? Why is special permission required to travel on roads I paid for?

 

[mobilehomer]

Some of the operations require a VO, while others don't. But that decision has nothing to do with BVLOS, since a VO never makes BVLOS compliant. BVLOS flight requires a waiver, as I already pointed out.

That's good, but descending from 400 ft to 200 ft with a typical Mavic takes around 20 seconds, not that 200 ft AGL is necessarily low enough to be safe, especially from helicopter traffic. The further away your drone is the less warning you are likely to get, and if you don't know the relative positions of the aircraft, because you can't see your drone, that makes appropriate evasive action even more difficult to determine.

If you are doing videography or photography without a VO, how do you watch your drone and compose scenes at the same time? Also, with the newest drones, you can drop from 350' to 150' in about 10 seconds or less. I rarely fly above 300' and mostly at 200' to 250' Situational awareness. I know where my drone is, and intentionally listen for other craft.

 

[Tomk_]

This discussion has gone beyond interesting straight to ridiculous. The majority of the posts in this thread makes you all seem like a bunch of narrow minded ideologues.

I'm relatively new here but I believed most of you to be reasonable adults. I'm totally shocked that someone would come out in public and make statements like "Risk assessment means determining whether there is a risk or not...and if there is a risk you scrub the flight."... and not only not be challenged, but allowed to continue to "debate". Are you for real?? And that is just one of the bizarre statements made in this thread.

This thread serves no useful purpose other than to let a few of you practice polite name calling - the some of you aren't so polite.

My take away from this all is that I am so grateful that I live in the boonies and don't have to deal with any of you. I'm fine with the FAA and what the law says. I break many laws and I'm fine with that to. I sleep well at night and do nothing that I feel I need to look over my shoulder for. My greatest regret is that most of you are Americans and you are allowed to vote.

​

.

 

[sar104]

If you are doing videography or photography without a VO, how do you watch your drone and compose scenes at the same time?

There is no requirement for a VO if you are just glancing down at the screen to check composition. For more complex cases it either requires a VO or an independent camera operator, or both. I have no idea where you are going with this fishing expedition.

Also, with the newest drones, you can drop from 350' to 150' in about 10 seconds or less. I rarely fly above 300' and mostly at 200' to 250' Situational awareness. I know where my drone is, and intentionally listen for other craft.

Since you are now claiming that you don't actually fly BVLOS, that sounds fine.

 

[sar104]

... I break many laws and I'm fine with that to.

Yes - that pretty much sums up the attitude of many people on this thread.

I sleep well at night and do nothing that I feel I need to look over my shoulder for.

Ignorance certainly can be bliss.

My greatest regret is that most of you are Americans and you are allowed to vote..

Agreed - it is really annoying when people who disagree with you are allowed to vote.

I think Asimov nailed it when he said:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”​

What's interesting is that it has more recently evolved from "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" to "my ignorance is better than your knowledge".

 

[MARK (LI)]

I'm relatively new here but I believed most of you to be reasonable adults. I'm totally shocked that someone would come out in public and make statements like "Risk assessment means determining whether there is a risk or not...and if there is a risk you scrub the flight."... and not only not be challenged, but allowed to continue to "debate". Are you for real??

I assure you that Yes...I am for real....everything has risk that you cannot control, or foresee...but let me ask...and I ask it with all respect .....what drone flight is worth taking if there is a known risk, which can be avoided by simply waiting until the risk has passed
( for instance a weather condition), or by simply following the rules that were in place when you entered this hobby?
This is not a situation in which you made a huge investment and the rules changed after you spent the money and got gypped.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The history of drones and the regulations placed upon them (us) is no mystery, as it has all happened in the last 10 to 15 years. It is there for anyone who is intellectually curious enough to see and learn about it.

The FAA has total and absolute regulatory power over the National Airspace here in the US. For years the FAA never wanted to, nor did they, regulate remotely-flown unmanned aviation, as it (we) did not interfere with NAS nor have any impact upon any other infrastructure - from the air.

When drones did start having an impact, is when they began to be seen, and crashing, in places they should never have been - nearly all were BVLOS. When it was seen that virtually anyone with no training could show up just about anywhere, on the ground and in the air; at altitudes that definitely put them in conflict with manned aviation, the die was cast.

Anyone suggesting that there needs to be serious injury or death, for regulations to be enacted upon the 'drone' community is not dealing with reality. The current regulations exist because of what has happened so far, and the fact that there have been no reported deaths or serious injuries – while amazing, is almost certainly due TO the regulations.

Willful ignorance of the facts does not make them go away.

 

[footfly]

Flying BVLOS is not like speeding in a vehicle, it is like texting while driving. It is a loss of situational awareness. If you can’t see other traffic you can’t avoid it, and with a drone you are the one that has the onus of giving right of way. In that way your analogy falls flat on its face.

As far as the 107 certification goes it is not about money. The FAA does not collect a fee for the testing the testing facility does. If the FAA (government) had to provide the facilities it would likely cost more. Registering the aircraft used for 107 operations is $5/aircraft/3yrs and likely does not fully cover the cost to maintain the system (I hope it stays that way). The 107 certification is all about helping to ensure that those flying drones (up to 55lbs or 24.9kg) know and understand the rules, use aeronautical decision making and risk management to help maintain safety, and maintain accountability for operation in the NAS just like with other aircraft pilots.

Because of the RC modeling that has been around for many decades a carve out was made to allow recreational flight instead of requiring everyone to get licensed per Part 107. I’m quite certain that if the rules get broken enough times Congress would take that away and make it so if you fly a drone you need to get a license just like with GA aircraft.

appreciate your opinions but the case still rest. data will still show that there are more fatalities from car speeding or from texting and driving, compared to flying BVLOS. But. I agree . the law is the law.

 

[footfly]

The history of drones and the regulations placed upon them (us) is no mystery, as it has all happened in the last 10 to 15 years. It is there for anyone who is intellectually curious enough to see and learn about it.

The FAA has total and absolute regulatory power over the National Airspace here in the US. For years the FAA never wanted to, nor did they, regulate remotely-flown unmanned aviation, as it (we) did not interfere with NAS nor have any impact upon any other infrastructure - from the air.

When drones did start having an impact, is when they began to be seen, and crashing, in places they should never have been - nearly all were BVLOS. When it was seen that virtually anyone with no training could show up just about anywhere, on the ground and in the air; at altitudes that definitely put them in conflict with manned aviation, the die was cast.

Anyone suggesting that there needs to be serious injury or death, for regulations to be enacted upon the 'drone' community is not dealing with reality. The current regulations exist because of what has happened so far, and the fact that there have been no reported deaths or serious injuries – while amazing, is almost certainly due TO the regulations.

Willful ignorance of the facts does not make them go away.

as we see on the forum, there is close to majority that fly BVLOS....and no major fatalities yet.

 

[sar104]

appreciate your opinions but the case still rest. data will still show that there are more fatalities from car speeding or from texting and driving, compared to flying BVLOS. But. I agree . the law is the law.

There are far more fatalities from auto accidents than manned aviation accidents, so would you conclude that all aviation safety regulations are unnecessary?

as we see on the forum, there is close to majority that fly BVLOS....and no major fatalities yet.

Firstly - you cannot determine statistics from an internet discussion forum.

Secondly - while no fatalities there have been plenty of near misses and some impacts with expensive repair bills. What's your proposal for a better approach - don't worry about it until/unless there are fatalities on record? Or is it then going to become - no problem because there are still far more auto-related fatalities?

 

[Ty Pilot]

as we see on the forum, there is close to majority that fly BVLOS....and no major fatalities yet.

As I mentioned, the bar for regulation of drones is much lower than death.


So when/if there is a serious injury or a death, from a drone related accident - what then? Are you suggesting that will finally make those who fly illegally; see the risk with BVLOS? I suspect not. Anyone that currently flies BVLOS un-waivered here in the US will continue to do so, though I suspect some will quit openly bragging about it so much.

 

[MARK (LI)]

appreciate your opinions but the case still rest. data will still show that there are more fatalities from car speeding or from texting and driving, compared to flying BVLOS. But. I agree . the law is the law.

Have you considered that there are exponentially more drivers than drone operators?....that is not a good comparison at all

 

[DoomMeister]

Why is a license required to drive? Why is special permission required to travel on roads I paid for?

Seriously?

 

[dirkclod]

Seriously?

Think he was

 

[snowghost]

There are far more fatalities from auto accidents than manned aviation accidents, so would you conclude that all aviation safety regulations are unnecessary?

Firstly - you cannot determine statistics from an internet discussion forum.

Secondly - while no fatalities there have been plenty of near misses and some impacts with expensive repair bills. What's your proposal for a better approach - don't worry about it until/unless there are fatalities on record? Or is it then going to become - no problem because there are still far more auto-related fatalities?

Actually according to Live Science, stepping on a private aircraft is almost 20 times more dangerous per hour than getting behind the wheel of a car.

 

[ICHOTT]

So what flights are contributors in this thread actually doing?

I’ve already said mine, eg golf courses, long distance, few to zero people, open area,
What practical flights are you guys actually doing ?

 

[sar104]

Actually according to Live Science, stepping on a private aircraft is almost 20 times more dangerous per hour than getting behind the wheel of a car.

The discussion never mentioned rate per hour or just GA flights.

 

[snowghost]

The discussion never mentioned rate per hour or just GA flights.

My point was that fewer fatalities doesn't mean safer. I personally know two GA pilots who crashed. One lived, one didn't. Commercial flights, whole other story.

 

[sar104]

My point was that fewer fatalities doesn't mean safer. I personally know two GA pilots who crashed. One lived, one didn't. Commercial flights, whole other story.

I agree completely - but that wasn't the argument that was being floated, which was based on totals rather than rates.