BVLOS why do so many do it?

[thispilothere]

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

no specific time interval exists in which interruption of VLOS is permissible,

Taken together, do you believe this is saying that I can PLAN flights that will, without doubt, result in loss of VLOS for an undefined time as long as I consider it brief enough?

Or is it saying that if I accidentally lose sight of the drone or I look at the controls and can't reacquire sight, I have a brief window to get it back to VLOS?

 

[Ty Pilot]

Taken together, do you believe this is saying that I can PLAN flights that will, without doubt, result in loss of VLOS for an undefined time as long as I consider it brief enough?

Or is it saying that if I accidentally lose sight of the drone or I look at the controls and can't reacquire sight, I have a brief window to get it back to VLOS?

Are you 107 rated?

 

[thispilothere]

Are you 107 rated?

If it matters, give an answer for both Rec and 107.

 

[Ty Pilot]

If it matters, give an answer for both Rec and 107.

an answer to what?

 

[thispilothere]

an answer to what?

The questions I'm asking in the post you responded to.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Legal considerations aside my concern with BVLOS is the very restricted field of view available from the camera.
If the pilot is flying relying on solely the screen as reference they have no idea what is happening in the airspace around the drone.
As verification/justification of this just watch some bird strike/pass videos. Unless the bird approaches from more or less head on, they are, if even seen, through the field of view before any pilot could react and given that manned aircraft are generally faster than birds there would be even less chance of reacting.
There are posts in here of drone pilots being surprised by low flying manned aircraft even when the drone is being flown VLOS and the drone pilot has an unrestricted field of view.

Maybe there is an conceptual argument for flying BVLOS if you are watching the airspace where the drone is but if something happened and someone got hurt or equipment is damaged you'd have no legal legs to stand on and I would put money on you being in deep 1234.
As a commercial pilot I wouldn't mind betting there would be even less leniency.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The questions I'm asking in the post you responded to.

The AC Doom posted is for those flying with a 107 certification. If you are recreational, there are other ACs that apply to those flying under the USC 44809 carve out. AC 91-57B (or maybe a later version C). Have you ever read any of those - again if you are recreational.


The reason I was asking is that you seemed to quote a very specific section of a sentence and leave off the rest. You quoted only what I underlined below.

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.

 

[Skywatcher2001]

This is one of the age-old arguments but I think BVLOS is coming regardless. A fire department just got a waiver recently.

I speculate it will come with special waivers and separate licensing since these BVLOS drones will be carrying payloads for delivery. Just having a Part 107 won't cut it. It may be an amendment to PT107 (like 44809) and probably be tied to certain aircraft regulated for this type of delivery. I do not think it's defined at this moment but it's coming.

Now, if it is allowed for Amazon and Walmart then perhaps that opens the door for us (maybe).

 

[DoomMeister]

Taken together, do you believe this is saying that I can PLAN flights that will, without doubt, result in loss of VLOS for an undefined time as long as I consider it brief enough?

Or is it saying that if I accidentally lose sight of the drone or I look at the controls and can't reacquire sight, I have a brief window to get it back to VLOS?

This Advisory Circular is for 107 certified pilots, and the intent is that you do not need to stare at the aircraft 100% of the time to maintain VLOS. Like a pilot in manned aircraft you need to scan the sky, scan the instruments, as well as have unaided visual sight of the aircraft.

There is no set time limit (although I feel they intend under 30 seconds), and that is left to the rPIC and their aeronautical decision making.

For Recreational pilots I’ll post more after I finish dinner.

Edit: I see @Ty Pilot already posted the Advisory Circular reference pertaining to Recreational pilots. Here is a direct link to it https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/Editorial_Update_AC_91-57B.pdf

 

[Ty Pilot]

This is one of the age-old arguments but I think BVLOS is coming regardless. A fire department just got a waiver recently.

I speculate it will come with special waivers and separate licensing since these BVLOS drones will be carrying payloads for delivery. Just having a Part 107 won't cut it. It may be an amendment to PT107 (like 44809) and probably be tied to certain aircraft regulated for this type of delivery. I do not think it's defined at this moment but it's coming.

Now, if it is allowed for Amazon and Walmart then perhaps that opens the door for us (maybe).

That depends, if someone is currently a recreational flyer, it is almost a certainty that they will not be given the opportunity to fly BVLOS going forward. The time, cost, equipment and training to fly (legally) BVLOS will be well beyond what some are willing to do now to even get a 107.

 

[thispilothere]

This Advisory Circular is for 107 certified pilots, and the intent is that you do not need to stare at the aircraft 100% of the time to maintain VLOS. Like a pilot in manned aircraft you need to scan the sky, scan the instruments, as well as have unaided visual sight of the aircraft.

There is no set time limit (although I feel they intend under 30 seconds), and that is left to the rPIC and their aeronautical decision making.

For Recreational pilots I’ll post more after I finish dinner.

I'm aware.

Specifically, do you think the rules you quoted allow for planning a flight that is guaranteed to lose VLOS for a time? For either 107 or Rec pilots?

Not simply looking away for a bit but actually planning to fly say, around a hill or behind a row of trees, that will definitely make me lose VLOS for a brief time.

The way it's phrased "or cannot see the small unmanned aircraft" was a little unclear. I'm wondering if I have more wiggle room than I thought.

 

[sar104]

I'm aware.

Specifically, do you think the rules you quoted allow for planning a flight that is guaranteed to lose VLOS for a time? For either 107 or Rec pilots?

Not simply looking away for a bit but actually planning to fly say, around a hill or behind a row of trees, that will definitely make me lose VLOS for a brief time.

The way it's phrased "or cannot see the small unmanned aircraft" was a little unclear. I'm wondering if I have more wiggle room than I thought.

There is no wiggle room of that kind. You certainly cannot deliberately fly the aircraft to a location that is not just BVLOS but actually out of LOS.

 

[sar104]

This is one of the age-old arguments but I think BVLOS is coming regardless. A fire department just got a waiver recently.

I speculate it will come with special waivers and separate licensing since these BVLOS drones will be carrying payloads for delivery. Just having a Part 107 won't cut it. It may be an amendment to PT107 (like 44809) and probably be tied to certain aircraft regulated for this type of delivery. I do not think it's defined at this moment but it's coming.

Now, if it is allowed for Amazon and Walmart then perhaps that opens the door for us (maybe).

Are you saying that the fire department received a standing waiver to operate BVLOS? Is so then I think that you (or they) are mistaken.

 

[thispilothere]

There is no wiggle room of that kind. You certainly cannot deliberately fly the aircraft to a location that is not just BVLOS but actually out of LOS.

Thanks.

 

[DoomMeister]

This is one of the age-old arguments but I think BVLOS is coming regardless. A fire department just got a waiver recently.

I speculate it will come with special waivers and separate licensing since these BVLOS drones will be carrying payloads for delivery. Just having a Part 107 won't cut it. It may be an amendment to PT107 (like 44809) and probably be tied to certain aircraft regulated for this type of delivery. I do not think it's defined at this moment but it's coming.

Now, if it is allowed for Amazon and Walmart then perhaps that opens the door for us (maybe).

Delivery is under Part 135 so not dealing with Part 107, but there is hint that BVLOS will entail an extra rating.

 

[Skywatcher2001]

Are you saying that the fire department received a standing waiver to operate BVLOS? Is so then I think that you (or they) are mistaken.

I saw it on a Pilot Institute video this week . . . let me see if I can find it.

 

[Skywatcher2001]

Delivery is under Part 135 so not dealing with Part 107, but there is hint that BVLOS will entail an extra rating.

Thank you DoomMeister, I will familiarize myself with Part 135 . . .

 

[Skywatcher2001]

Are you saying that the fire department received a standing waiver to operate BVLOS? Is so then I think that you (or they) are mistaken.

This is what I saw . . .

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[dronerdave]

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.

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.

I feel it's more like driving on a seldomly used road in the wrong lane on a blind curve. You probably won't hit anyone but maybe you will.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Very simple answer, we all want to be Superman. The drone extends our natural ability to see. It takes us further and higher than our natural ability.
As for the safety issue, there is some legitimate argument to be made for safety in some circumstances. In other circumstances it's nonsense.