BVLOS why do so many do it?

[MS Coast]

I believe he is referring to a literal reading of 107.31a(2).

Where does the statute literally require determination or estimation of altitude? It requires only that you not exceed 400' AGL. The knowledge of the exact altitude isn't required.

(I'm going to bail out here. I just shot some aerial video of the saltmarsh nearby to show recent erosion and mowing and I'm digging into Resolve for editing it.)

 

[DoomMeister]

I just shot some aerial video of the saltmarsh nearby to show recent erosion and mowing and I'm digging into Resolve for editing it.)

Sounds like fun.

 

[Skwirl]

So, as long as you stay clear of traffic and don't cause any impediment to operations there you should be ok to fly near it. Here's what the FAA says about uncontrolled airports. What's the name of the airport you're looking at?

https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/where_can_i_fly/airspace_restrictions/flying_near_airports/

Airports in Uncontrolled Airspace​

For flights near airports in uncontrolled airspace that remain under 400’ above the ground, prior authorization is not required. When flying in these areas, remote pilots and recreational flyers must be aware of and avoid traffic patterns and takeoff and landing areas. A drone must not interfere with operations at the airport must yield right-of-way to all other aircraft. Uncontrolled airspace and other flying restrictions can be found on our B4UFLY app.

Heres a screen shot from b4ufly.

 

[Skwirl]

Heres UAV Forecast showing the dji no fly warning.

 

[mobilehomer]

Where does the statute literally require determination or estimation of altitude? It requires only that you not exceed 400' AGL. The knowledge of the exact altitude isn't required.

(I'm going to bail out here. I just shot some aerial video of the saltmarsh nearby to show recent erosion and mowing and I'm digging into Resolve for editing it.)

Number 2 -
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(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.
(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

 

[MS Coast]

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

Well, yep. There it is. Literally. @eEridani, I see your point now.

"Where does the statute literally require determination or estimation of altitude?"

I hope my +/- 50 feet estimates are good enough if I can't see the figure on the tablet.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

You can assess risk all you want, but you cannot break the law based on that assessment. And no amount of trying to cast this a just a matter of opinion is going to change that.

All laws are a "matter of opinion". Can you break the law based on your assessment of the rationality of that law? Of course you can. It's done every minute of the day. Some laws are unenforceable. Some laws are outright irrational.

Laws that in the opinion of the vast majority are rational will be obeyed by the vast majority of people. As laws drift toward the irrational more and more people will disobey those laws. Most people standing in the middle of an area that is 10 miles square without an airport within 50 miles and sparely populated will rightly question why a drone can't be flown beyond visual line of sight.

I really don't think the debate is that there should be no rules but that the rules should be conditions based.

 

[DoomMeister]

Most people standing in the middle of an area that is 10 miles square without an airport within 50 miles and sparely populated will rightly question why a drone can't be flown beyond visual line of sight.

That is part of the reason the law is written the way it is. These are exactly the types of areas where a manned aircraft can fly lower than 500’ AGL and be flying legally. If you can’t see your drone and a manned aircraft comes cruising along how are you going to give right of way? The law is written for what could happen, not what is likely or not likely to happen.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

That is part of the reason the law is written the way it is. These are exactly the types of areas where a manned aircraft can fly lower than 500’ AGL and be flying legally. If you can’t see your drone and a manned aircraft comes cruising along how are you going to give right of way? The law is written for what could happen, not what is likely or not likely to happen.

Bogus argument. Manned aircraft do not typically fly below 500’ (manned aircraft pilot here). You’re most often flying at higher altitudes for safety reasons. Flying higher gives you more options if an emergency occurs. If you’re flying below 500’ you have almost no options for landing safely should you have an issue.

 

[DoomMeister]

Bogus argument. Manned aircraft do not typically fly below 500’ (manned aircraft pilot here). You’re most often flying at higher altitudes for safety reasons. Flying higher gives you more options if an emergency occurs. If you’re flying below 500’ you have almost no options for landing safely should you have an issue.

What is bogus are people that try to justify themselves not following rules because they don’t think they apply to them. Though it is not commonplace it can and does happen.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

What is bogus are people that try to justify themselves not following rules because they don’t think they apply to them. Though it is not commonplace it can and does happen.

I know the rules for both manned and unmanned aircraft. Rules should be founded in reality not what ifs. You used a bogus what if argument (manned aircraft flying below 500’) to justify the universal prohibition on flying drones BVLOS. That rational is constantly being used to empower governments to infringe on individual freedoms. What you end up with government control of everything and personal freedoms crushed.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Despite everyone's predictions, nothing happened to that dude flying into the Bengals game. Pretty sure I'm not getting pinched for my flying.

I got the impression that he had been 'visited'.
Besides, one thing I did notice was that there was a case a few YEARS back where some guy did something similar (Plus, I think, dropped flyers inside the stadiun) and that case is now in the the USA courts.
Your Bengals' pilot may yet get his come uppance.

 

[dronerdave]

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

WDK

Comparing driving on public roads is vastly different than using public air space and why I suggested I don't like using driving as a comparison to flight. The main point is I don't stare at my telemetry or video screen for long periods of time but glancing down to check specs occasionally is allowed. I feel short periods of your flight going out of visual sight to look at your screen and away from scanning for manned aircraft isn't really the problem and can't be compared to continuous BVLOS flights. Flying a UAV and relying on a camera isn't my idea of a safe approach to sharing the NAS because I've had a few close calls with manned aircraft that didn't sit well with me. Two encounters were BVLOS and one was less than 150 feet from me and we both had eye contact with each other. Although the really close fly-by shook me up being so close, the two that were BVLOS bothered me more because I didn't have any warning and all of a sudden a plane just appeared where I knew my drone was operating. All of these aircraft were flying below 100 feet AGL. Now days I fly VLOS and follow the rules the best of my ability. We don't have a right to fly RC aircraft, it's a privilege and one I don't want taken away from me.

But to answer the question, no I don't normally lose the road when checking my speed but have gone off the road several times in heavy fog when I took my eyes off the road. If most of the roads around here didn't have a fog line on the right shoulder, I'm sure losing the road would be more frequent especially in fog.

 

[DoomMeister]

I know the rules for both manned and unmanned aircraft. Rules should be founded in reality not what ifs. You used a bogus what if argument (manned aircraft flying below 500’) to justify the universal prohibition on flying drones BVLOS. That rational is constantly being used to empower governments to infringe on individual freedoms. What you end up with government control of everything and personal freedoms crushed.

I guess I should be able to fly my drones anywhere I want, at any distance I want, as high as I want, in any weather, time of day, because the rules enacted by Congress and signed into law are infringing on my personal freedoms. Who cares that there is an active helipad at the hospital near me, or several small airports that are active near me and within range if I decide to fly BVLOS. It’s my right to fly my drone just the way I want to.

I guess that would be nice as long as nothing happened, but I wasn’t raised that way. I was taught to respect the law and if I don’t like it let my lawmakers know how I feel through the proper channels, and that is not by thumbing my nose at the present laws and doing as I darn well please.

I can definitely see where the term Mavic Mavericks came from, because there are enough of them on this forum.

 

[sar104]

I guess I should be able to fly my drones anywhere I want, at any distance I want, as high as I want, in any weather, time of day, because the rules enacted by Congress and signed into law are infringing on my personal freedoms. Who cares that there is an active helipad at the hospital near me, or several small airports that are active near me and within range if I decide to fly BVLOS. It’s my right to fly my drone just the way I want to.

I guess that would be nice as long as nothing happened, but I wasn’t raised that way. I was taught to respect the law and if I don’t like it let my lawmakers know how I feel through the proper channels, and that is not by thumbing my nose at the present laws and doing as I darn well please.

I can definitely see where the term Mavic Mavericks came from, because there are enough of them on this forum.

Unfortunately you are wasting your time arguing with these people. As soon as the tired old "government infringement on personal freedoms" claims appear in relation to any kind of federal safety regulation you can pretty much conclude that:

1. They have no understanding of the limits of personal freedom;
2. They mistakenly think that they are experts in just about everything;
3. They have no clue what the constitution actually means, and mostly haven't even read it;
4. They are effectively anarchists and don't care about anyone else.

 

[footfly]

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.

I agree, we are dealing a lot here about being safe but also about conjectures, "it might happen" "there is a chance" ...or "it can happen" or "it will happen eventually". The good thing is that most response, whether for or against, generally shows that lots of people have safety in mind , whether they go BVLOS or not.

I would like to throw this out the general drone flying community:
What are the incidence (or cases per year) of drones causing accidents or near-misses (be it in the air or on the ground). What are the cases of speeding cars causing near-misses or accidents per year? I dare say, there are more incidences of accidents by cars than by drones.

I ask this because, go on any freeway in the United states and drive the speed limit, and you will find almost all cars on the freeway passing you, some by quite a bit above the speed limit. Actually, if I drive the speed limit on the freeway, I am always worried about getting hit or causing an accident, due to 99% of the freeway traffic around me is going much faster than the speed limit......I dare say, it might be safer to drive at the speed of flow of freeway traffic, than to drive at posted speed limit on the freeway, which is always way below the flow of traffic on any given freeway on any given day.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I agree, we are dealing a lot here about being safe but also about conjectures, "it might happen" "there is a chance" ...or "it can happen" or "it will happen eventually". The good thing is that most response, whether for or against, generally shows that lots of people have safety in mind , whether they go BVLOS or not.

I would like to throw this out the general drone flying community:
What are the incidence (or cases per year) of drones causing accidents or near-misses (be it in the air or on the ground). What are the cases of speeding cars causing near-misses or accidents per year? I dare say, there are more incidences of accidents by cars than by drones.

I ask this because, go on any freeway in the United states and drive the speed limit, and you will find almost all cars on the freeway passing you, some by quite a bit above the speed limit. Actually, if I drive the speed limit on the freeway, I am always worried about getting hit or causing an accident, due to 99% of the freeway traffic around me is going much faster than the speed limit......I dare say, it might be safer to drive at the speed of flow of freeway traffic, than to drive at posted speed limit on the freeway, which is always way below the flow of traffic on any given freeway on any given day.

Based on what I've read there have been no fatalities as a result of drone accidents. I've heard of a few minor injuries. Of course many accidents don't get reported because the only damage done is to the drone. One the other hand general aviation suffers hundreds of deaths every year and tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The estimate is we will be spending about a billion dollars over ten years to mitigate a problem (prevent drone accidents and deaths) that doesn't exist. Might that money be better spent where accidents, injuries and deaths are actually occurring?

 

[DoomMeister]

Based on what I've read there have been no fatalities as a result of drone accidents. I've heard of a few minor injuries. Of course many accidents don't get reported because the only damage done is to the drone. One the other hand general aviation suffers hundreds of deaths every year and tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The estimate is we will be spending about a billion dollars over ten years to mitigate a problem (prevent drone accidents and deaths) that doesn't exist. Might that money be better spent where accidents, injuries and deaths are actually occurring?

If this thread is any indication of the regard for regulations to help ensure safety of the NAS then it might explain the accidents in General Aviation too. We have posts by people that claim to be both GA and drone pilots that have a total disregard of the regs for flying a drone, so I have to believe they would have the same disregard for the regs when piloting a GA aircraft.

 

[footfly]

If this thread is any indication of the regard for regulations to help ensure safety of the NAS then it might explain the accidents in General Aviation too. We have posts by people that claim to be both GA and drone pilots that have a total disregard of the regs for flying a drone, so I have to believe they would have the same disregard for the regs when piloting a GA aircraft.

I agree, poor disregard for rules in general aviation may be cause for flying deaths. I do think about this occasionally when getting on an airline.

However, poor disregard for rules in drone flying appears to not cause any significant deaths, at least, so far reported.

I am not advocating for going haphazard BVLOS. But, for those that do occasionally or a lot, we have not had very much reported cases of mishaps.

We see this in everyday life. There are reported cases of peanut allergies every year, including deaths. But we do not ban peanuts from our grocery shelves. But I suppose if there are millions of deaths from peanut allergies, there may a need to ban peanuts.

 

[DoomMeister]

I agree, poor disregard for rules in general aviation may be cause for flying deaths. I do think about this occasionally when getting on an airline.

However, poor disregard for rules in drone flying appears to not cause any significant deaths, at least, so far reported.

I am not advocating for going haphazard BVLOS. But, for those that do occasionally or a lot, we have not had very much reported cases of mishaps.

We see this in everyday life. There are reported cases of peanut allergies every year, including deaths. But we do not ban peanuts from our grocery shelves. But I suppose if there are millions of deaths from peanut allergies, there may a need to ban peanuts.

I think this analogy could only apply to the inflight peanuts if served to the flight crew. I am just amazed at the justifications people come up with to ease their conscience for breaking the regulations. Utterly amazing!