BVLOS why do so many do it?

[Deleted member 93449]

Tell that to the recipient of a 255 grain bullet: "Hey dude, that mass doesn't matter!"

An analogy total!y disconnected to the realities of the discussion. It appears you want to equate the risk of flying a 250 gram Magic Mini with flying a C-172 or B-737. Is that where you're going? The mass DOES matter when we're talk lightweight drones and aircraft that weigh thousands of pounds.

As to your bullet analogy, when you find the Mavic Mini that can travel near supersonic speed let me know.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Or maybe it's actually evidence of the prevalence of entitled and ignorant drone users who are convinced that they know best and have no interest in following safety regulations.

Or maybe it's evidence that people believe regulations should be grounded in reality and not farfetched what ifs.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Just out of curiosity I have to ask the guys who think breaking the rules is fine...or that you think they are for other people...did you know about the rules before you bought a drone?...If you think the rules are such a burden....why did you get involved?
...Do you realize that you are complaining about rules here in the US.and that every civilized country in the world has rules governing flights in manned and unmanned crafts....and that some other countries have much stricter rules?

 

[ICHOTT]

Appreciate all responses- something not really mentioned is what each of us are trying to achieve with any particular flight, why are we flying at all?

I nearly always fly programmed waypoint missions covering eg golf courses for example and I know ‘exactly’ where the drone is, even BVLOS and in fact the camera ‘is’ mostly looking down and I could land anywhere and know where it is!

There are others who fly eg high speed FPV with FPV goggles on - so they are not in VLOS at all if I understand correctly, where do they come in to this?

So to all of you who 100% fly within VLOS, what are your flights about?
Do you always 100% watch the a/c, or always have an observer 100% watching it,
Do you never use your phone/tablet to observe - how do you work in practice
To always be legal?
I’m genuinely intrigued as to how we all operate.

Staying within VLOS I guess is historical from rules and regs to do with flying r/c aircraft like gliders, powered fixed wing, performing loops and fly past etc.
No desire or any need to fly BVLOS

Anyway . . .

 

[Ty Pilot]

Appreciate all responses- something not really mentioned is what each of us are trying to achieve with any particular flight, why are we flying at all?

I'm curious too, you made a post on page one so I am guessing you read at least some of the other posts. Have you read this entire thread? I ask in all seriousness, because right from the beginning (on page one) there have been posts that give detailed clarification about such things as VLOS, yet in all of these threads there are misconceptions about what it is or what it takes to comply.

For instance, when you say this. . . .

Do you always 100% watch the a/c, or always have an observer 100% watching it?
Do you never use your phone/tablet to observe?

My answers to those two questions are: neither, and always, respectively.

Is this what you think following VLOS is? Seriously? It seems to me that those who think the VLOS regulation is too restrictive, truly have no idea, or are willfully ignoring (or they pretend not to have any idea) - as to the intent of the regulation.

Staying within VLOS I guess is historical from rules and regs to do with flying r/c aircraft like gliders, powered fixed wing, performing loops and fly past etc.
No desire or any need to fly BVLOS

Well for sure, for the 50 years or so prior to drones, we didn't see RC aircraft flying into the Space Needle, or crash into Old Faithful or slam into the side of a High Rise building or land out of fuel on the tarmac at Las Vegas International Airport. But it is curious that drones flying BVLOS did all of these, and hundreds more since their inception. Those were some really, really, careful and safe pilots, probably just a coincidence.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Just out of curiosity I have to ask the guys who think breaking the rules is fine...or that you think they are for other people...did you know about the rules before you bought a drone?...If you think the rules are such a burden....why did you get involved?
...Do you realize that you are complaining about rules here in the US.and that every civilized country in the world has rules governing flights in manned and unmanned crafts....and that some other countries have much stricter rules?

I think it goes beyond the mentality of "breaking the rules is fine" but the rational behind the rules. Rule making should be founded in real life not the never ending what ifs. There should be some latitude in the rules that adjust for real life circumstances. Rules for manned aviation take into consideration the actual circumstances that exist in the flying environment. The idea that VLOS rules are the same regardless of the where, when, how and what you are flying doesn't make sense and is perceived as being more about control than safety.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Rule making should be founded in real life not the never ending what ifs.

Fortunately for UAV's they are, even if one insists on ignoring history.

There should be some latitude in the rules that adjust for real life circumstances.

There is some latitude, in the Case of BVLOS you can apply for a waiver.

Rules for manned aviation take into consideration the actual circumstances that exist in the flying environment.

Same as rules for the unmanned community but; here again; one must not ignore the 'actual circumstances that exists in todays UA environment.

The idea that VLOS rules are the same regardless of the where, when, how and what you are flying doesn't make sense

Perhaps the FAA should consider all 1.8 million drone pilots in the US, and each of their special circumstances, and come up with 1.8 million individual sets of rules that are custom made just for each? Given their special circumstances of course.

 

[WDKZoom]

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.

When you look down at your dash to check your speed…….how often do you loose the road?

WDK

 

[MS Coast]

I know there's an option on this forum to ignore a particular member.

Is there an option to ignore all iterations of a discussion on a particular topic?

 

[WDKZoom]

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).

I believe your right and perhaps hope some BVLOS is possible at some point but one thing most people will not be able to afford is the unlimited liability that Amazon and Walmart can.

WDK

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Fortunately for UAV's they are, even if one insists on ignoring history.


There is some latitude, in the Case of BVLOS you can apply for a waiver.


Same as rules for the unmanned community but; here again; one must not ignore the 'actual circumstances that exists in todays UA environment.


Perhaps the FAA should consider all 1.8 million drone pilots in the US, and each of their special circumstances, and come up with 1.8 million individual sets of rules that are custom made just for each? Given their special circumstances of course.

What history? What history of accidents, injuries or deaths are you referring to?

Waiver? Why should you need special permission to fly in the millions of square miles of airspace below 400' where no manned aircraft fly and where population density is small or non-existent? There seems to be a lack of appreciation for the principle of enumerated powers.

Again, what circumstances in the UAV community? Where is the empirical evidence that supports the need for the current rules?

The "special circumstances" isn't what's being discussed. No one is arguing for unfettered access to the airspace around airports or in crowded urban/suburban areas. The problem is the FAA treats all airspace as if it is airspace in highly populated areas. Rather than carving out exceptions where safety issues should apply the same rules apply whether you're flying in Manhattan or in some remote area of Florida. This is the backward mentality that turns the freedom to do something into the privilege given to you by the government to do something without any rational justification for the infringement.

 

[Ty Pilot]

What history? What history of accidents, injuries or deaths are you referring to?

I never once, used the words: Injuries or Death - don't put words in my mouth. The history of modern drone accidents however, is there for anyone that cares to research and see.

Waiver? Why should you need special permission to fly in the millions of square miles of airspace below 400' where no manned aircraft fly and where population density is small or non-existent?

I never said that either. You suggested in the post that I quoted, (and I quote again): "There should be some latitude in the rules that adjust for real life circumstances." I simply pointed out that a waiver of a rule IS that latitude, and there are waivers for VLOS. Perhaps you just don't want to recognize it as such (not surprised).

Where is the empirical evidence that supports the need for the current rules?

We hide things like empirical evidence in places like Google.

The "special circumstances" isn't what's being discussed. No one is arguing for unfettered access to the airspace around airports or in crowded urban/suburban areas. .

I didn't argue for, or bring up, or write 'special circumstances' (until now), I quoted you saying 'actual circumstances' You mentioned circumstances twice in your post #86. . .

. .. real life circumstances. . . . . the actual circumstances

. . . and again in post #91. I simply quoted your words 'actual circumstances' .

Again, what circumstances

Then in post #91 . . .

The problem is the FAA treats all airspace as if it is airspace in highly populated areas. Rather than carving out exceptions

No it doesn't, the FAA has set up a multi-level airspace system that actually changes based upon many factors.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some seem to be arguing for a loosely worded, mushy, wiggle-room-infused regulation that allows individuals; guided by their own good-willed intentions and (of course) perceptions of safety, to interpret the rules at will. That was tried - didn't work out so well.

All that matters now is what we do going forward and personally, I don't think more of the same will help our cause.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I never once, used the words: Injuries or Death - don't put words in my mouth. The history of modern drone accidents however, is there for anyone that cares to research and see.


I never said that either. You suggested in the post that I quoted, (and I quote again): "There should be some latitude in the rules that adjust for real life circumstances." I simply pointed out that a waiver of a rule IS that latitude, and there are waivers for VLOS. Perhaps you just don't want to recognize it as such (not surprised).


We hide things like empirical evidence in places like Google.



I didn't argue for, or bring up, or write 'special circumstances' (until now), I quoted you saying 'actual circumstances' You mentioned circumstances twice in your post #86. . .

. . . and again in post #91. I simply quoted your words 'actual circumstances' .


Then in post #91 . . .

No it doesn't, the FAA has set up a multi-level airspace system that actually changes based upon many factors.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some seem to be arguing for a loosely worded, mushy, wiggle-room-infused regulation that allows individuals; guided by their own good-willed intentions and (of course) perceptions of safety, to interpret the rules at will. That was tried - didn't work out so well.

All that matters now is what we do going forward and personally, I don't think more of the same will help our cause.

If we're talking about rules related to safety then that history should be the history of actual injuries and deaths.

You have it backwards. Rules shouldn't be created to cover vast areas where safety is not an issue and a waiver should only be required to get special permission to fly in areas where safety is a legitimate issue. You should be able to fly anywhere except where a legitimate issue of safety exist. Those place should be the exceptions not the rule for all airspace.

Wrong, there is no empirical evidence for drones being a safety issue hidden in Google. If you're infringing on freedom the onus is on you to show the empirical evidence to support that infringement.

The FAA has a rule regard flying drones and VLOS that cover ALL airspace. That has been the primary subject of this thread.

Nothing about my argument is loose or mushy. The basic principle of my argument is clear. That principle is at the core of how our government and laws are suppose to be structured. You have it exactly backwards.

 

[thispilothere]

The FAA has a rule regard flying drones and VLOS that cover ALL airspace. That has been the primary subject of this thread.

It's like setting a speed limit that makes sense for downtown traffic then applying that limit for all roads everywhere, justifying it with increasingly unlikely what ifs, then vilifying the guy who wants to go a little faster on a deserted highway.

Maybe it's just time to admit the rule is the problem.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It's like setting a speed limit that makes sense for downtown traffic then applying that limit for all roads everywhere, justifying it with increasingly unlikely what ifs, then vilifying the guy who wants to go a little faster on a deserted highway.

Maybe it's just time to admit the rule is the problem.

You said it a lot better than I did.

I live in NYS. Most people in the country would not believe the rules and regulations we have to follow in order to exercise certain rights (a separate discussion for other forums). That might be why I'm super sensitive to this discussion and the dismissive attitude some have regarding the government's ability to control individual behavior absent a very clear public interest.

I'm a rules and regulations person that's not only a 107 but a 61 pilot. I've never been arrested, never had my driver's license suspended and haven't gotten a ticket in 25 years. I'm not someone with a don't give a darn about regulations attitude BUT laws, rules and regulations need to be based in hard facts and not what ifs. I can justify just about any regulation with what if scenarios. The VLOS rule that covers all airspace is primarily based in what ifs.

 

[Skwirl]

Anybody think the rules and regs the faa has are there to inform and make you think.
What could go wrong with what I'm doing?

I've only used my drone where I live, large open farm area. Sure there are neighbors on adjoining properties, but I dont fly over them.
Theres a small country type airport 2 miles away. The dji lock zone does cover part of the property. I havent been to that part yet to see what happens. But, I'm very aware of small planes coming by. Hasnt happened while I'm flying yet. But, they should be over 500 agl, theres no reason for them to be lower. But, they could be lower, so I'll rth or land.
Theres a power line and a gas pipe that crosses the property also. So I also keep in mind helis that may be checking them.

Do I always have a visual on my drone, nope. But it's not that far away either, i can always land. Large farm, with very few trees.
Would i fly to the opposite side of the farm, which is close to a mile away, nope.

Even though I'm in a rural area, theres still quite a few things to be aware of. So, in reality the faa has made me aware of what I need to watch for, and i apply some reasonable thinking and so far everything is ok.
I've read quite a few threads that make me scratch my head and ask, what are they thinking?

Maybe we should be asking, what will a reasonable person think?
If something goes wrong and you end up in a lot of trouble. Cause that's what the non drone flyer will be asked.

 

[MS Coast]

But, I'm very aware of small planes coming by. Hasnt happened while I'm flying yet. But, they should be over 500 agl, theres no reason for them to be lower.

There's a common misconception that manned airplanes are required to fly above 500' AGL. That is false.

(Just trying to quash a common bit of misinformation.)

 

[Skwirl]

That's good to know. Cause I had read that on here. Drones under 400, them over 500, gave 100 ft. Except for helios checking power lines or ems. Theres quite a lot of incorrect info, even on here.
Another tidbit I learned last month, the dji no fly zone near me. I had started with the b4ufly app, it shows the small airport, but no restrictions. Then I tried the uav app, it includes the dji no fly zone. I dont know if it actually exist though.
Point being, check 2 sources for info.

 

[MS Coast]

That's good to know. Cause I had read that on here. Drones under 400, them over 500, gave 100 ft. Except for helios checking power lines or ems. Theres quite a lot of incorrect info, even on here.
Another tidbit I learned last month, the dji no fly zone near me. I had started with the b4ufly app, it shows the small airport, but no restrictions. Then I tried the uav app, it includes the dji no fly zone. I dont know if it actually exist though.
Point being, check 2 sources for info.

Rather than two, I'd say check the official source. I use the FAA's B4YOUFLY app and the online version.

What's the UAV app you're using?

 

[Skwirl]

UAV Forecast.