BVLOS why do so many do it?

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

No one has expressed a “total disregard” for regulations. That’s absolute hyperbole. What has been questioned is the rational behind the creation of some regulations. Don’t muddy the water with hyperbole. The fact that the safety record for drone pilots has included no deaths and no serious injuries in spite of the claim of a total disregard for the regulations calls into question the need for those regulations and the continued push for even more regulations.

 

[DoomMeister]

Time to start a new sub forum titled Mavic Mavericks for all the members that feel the regulations for drones don’t apply to them because they feel they impinge on their personal freedoms.

Thankfully there have been no reported deaths or serious injuries to my knowledge. But if this forum’s anti-drone law crowd is any indication of what could happen if drones continue to proliferate, it will only be a matter of time before those that have a blatant disregard for the rules do cause such issues.

 

[MARK (LI)]

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.

This is exactly the type of area where crop dusters fly at below 150 feet

 

[MARK (LI)]

No one has expressed a “total disregard” for regulations. That’s absolute hyperbole. What has been questioned is the rational behind the creation of some regulations. Don’t muddy the water with hyperbole. The fact that the safety record for drone pilots has included no deaths and no serious injuries in spite of the claim of a total disregard for the regulations calls into question the need for those regulations and the continued push for even more regulations.

When you freely admit and attempt to justify busting the regs...that is "total disregard"

 

[Mazdaman323lx]

Time to start a new sub forum titled Mavic Mavericks for all the members that feel the regulations for drones don’t apply to them because they feel they impinge on their personal freedoms.

Thankfully there have been no reported deaths or serious injuries to my knowledge. But if this forum’s anti-drone law crowd is any indication of what could happen if drones continue to proliferate, it will only be a matter of time before those that have a blatant disregard for the rules do cause such issues.

Hmm , huge number of videos in the video showcase section on here are clearly shot BVLOS , and then you have all the mod posts showing how to extend the already Ludacris 5 - 8 km transmission range of most dji drones using 3rd party add ons....So how do you square that hole . I think people are talking out of both sides of their mouths here .

 

[DoomMeister]

Hmm , huge number of videos in the video showcase section on here are clearly shot BVLOS , and then you have all the mod posts showing how to extend the already Ludacris 5 - 8 km transmission range of most dji drones using 3rd party add ons....So how do you square that hole . I think people are talking out of both sides of their mouths here .

My posts in this thread are my personal views not staff views. Just because I am part of the staff does not mean I can’t voice my own opinion. I don’t think you will find any posts in the Mod forums made by me in support of extending range beyond VLOS. So saying I’m talking out of both sides my mouth. Just like a LEO I am here to guide members by our Community Rules. I do not set policy.

 

[sar104]

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'm suspect that when it is their own life and limb at risk they take a little more care.

 

[dronerdave]

Government agencies that develop NAS safety operations are often held responsible for incidents that happen in the aviation world especially when safety rules are in question as a possible cause. It does seem the FAA and others who develop rules to allow UAV’s to integrate into the NAS realize drone flights are becoming more common. They probably look at increased UAV operations will just increase the chance of an unmanned vs manned aircraft incident even if the odds are extremely low it would ever happen.

 

[mobilehomer]

A simple question. Why has hearing not been mentioned? I can hear manned aircraft long before I can see them. Several miles away, in fact. I live within 50 miles of an Army base, International airport, several small municipal airports, and various private runways. In forty years here, the ONLY manned craft I have ever seen below 1000' are Blackhawks from the base. They sometimes fly at or a little below 500'. I can hear them for several minutes before seeing them. With all the stipulations for VLOS, I have better awareness looking at my screen and listening than by watching my drone. The regs need changed.

 

[DoomMeister]

A simple question. Why has hearing not been mentioned? I can hear manned aircraft long before I can see them. Several miles away, in fact. I live within 50 miles of an Army base, International airport, several small municipal airports, and various private runways. In forty years here, the ONLY manned craft I have ever seen below 1000' are Blackhawks from the base. They sometimes fly at or a little below 500'. I can hear them for several minutes before seeing them. With all the stipulations for VLOS, I have better awareness looking at my screen and listening than by watching my drone. The regs need changed.

Petition your Congressional Representatives both in the House and Senate. They are the ones that make the laws.

 

[sar104]

A simple question. Why has hearing not been mentioned? I can hear manned aircraft long before I can see them. Several miles away, in fact. I live within 50 miles of an Army base, International airport, several small municipal airports, and various private runways. In forty years here, the ONLY manned craft I have ever seen below 1000' are Blackhawks from the base. They sometimes fly at or a little below 500'. I can hear them for several minutes before seeing them. With all the stipulations for VLOS, I have better awareness looking at my screen and listening than by watching my drone. The regs need changed.

Hearing is often mentioned, but it is just another reason not to fly far from your location. Hearing other aircraft before you see them can be helpful, but is of limited use BVLOS if you don't know the spatial relationship between the aircraft that you can hear and your drone that you cannot see.

Then you seem to make the same mistakes as so many others by incorrectly assuming:

1. That your typical experience is the only one that matters;
2. That other environments (noisier, hilly etc.) don't change the risks;
3. That everyone can hear all types of aircraft at similar distances;
4. That other situations, such as the appearance of something much quieter than a UH-60, wouldn't change your assumptions;
5. That your safety analysis is complete.

I live a couple of miles from a GA airport, and I don't hear any of the regular landing or takeoff traffic except the occasional military transport aircraft. I especially don't hear the local medical helicopter, often until it is only 20 seconds from flying over my house. If I were BVLOS at 400 ft AGL, what should I do? What are you going to do if you are surprised by inbound traffic when you are BVLOS? The only safe direction is down, but that risks losing uplink and triggering an uncontrolled RTH ascent. How do you mitigate that?

These regulations were, for the most part, carefully thought out and implemented to address exactly the kind of really poor risk assessment and ADM that this thread is full of. And yet as @DoomMeister pointed out, even when the logical fallacies are pointed out, they just keep coming.

 

[dronerdave]

I know from my own BVLOS experiences that sometimes you often can't hear an aircraft in time to react. Twice I've been BVLOS and had an aircraft come out of the the same area I knew my drone was in. All were about 100' AGL. Even though when it happened there wasn't a solid rule prohibiting BVLOS operations, it changed my ideas about those type of haphazard flights.

 

[mobilehomer]

Hearing is often mentioned, but it is just another reason not to fly far from your location. Hearing other aircraft before you see them can be helpful, but is of limited use BVLOS if you don't know the spatial relationship between the aircraft that you can hear and your drone that you cannot see.

Then you seem to make the same mistakes as so many others by incorrectly assuming:

1. That your typical experience is the only one that matters;
2. That other environments (noisier, hilly etc.) don't change the risks;
3. That everyone can hear all types of aircraft at similar distances;
4. That other situations, such as the appearance of something much quieter than a UH-60, wouldn't change your assumptions;
5. That your safety analysis is complete.

I live a couple of miles from a GA airport, and I don't hear any of the regular landing or takeoff traffic except the occasional military transport aircraft. I especially don't hear the local medical helicopter, often until it is only 20 seconds from flying over my house. If I were BVLOS at 400 ft AGL, what should I do? What are you going to do if you are surprised by inbound traffic when you are BVLOS? The only safe direction is down, but that risks losing uplink and triggering an uncontrolled RTH ascent. How do you mitigate that?

These regulations were, for the most part, carefully thought out and implemented to address exactly the kind of really poor risk assessment and ADM that this thread is full of. And yet as @DoomMeister pointed out, even when the logical fallacies are pointed out, they just keep coming.

Not all are "logical fallacies". Isn't being aware of YOUR particular environment a factor? My situation is different than yours. If someone is flying 100' AGL around my house for miles, he is in the trees! for instance. Just pointing out that the regs are NOT fair to all circumstances. Should the person living in the middle of a 10,000 acre ranch be restricted the same as someone living in an apartment overlooking Central Park? Yes, I DO understand all the rules and reasons for them, BUT...

 

[Deleted member 93449]

This is exactly the type of area where crop dusters fly at below 150 feet

I haven't heard or seen a crop duster in this area in the months I've been here. I'm not a farmer but I don't believe crop dusting occurs all year round ever day. I think it happens rarely but you want to make a overarching rule prohibiting flight because during 0.001% of the time there might be a crop duster in the area. That thinking is exactly what is being rejected.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

When you freely admit and attempt to justify busting the regs...that is "total disregard"

I have not attempted to justify the breaking of all regulations. I'm questioning the validity of some regulations that are applied regardless of conditions.

Question for you. Do you drive at the same speed regardless of which road you're on? Of course not. Road conditions dictate the speed limited posted and beyond that the actually road conditions (traffic, weather, accidents, etc.) will further modify how fast you will drive. The same logic should dictate how airspace is regulated.

 

[MA2 317]

Hearing is often mentioned, but it is just another reason not to fly far from your location.

Hear, hear.

It's that time of year for hot air balloons in my area and they are stealthy buggers, except for the burners.

.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I'm suspect that when it is their own life and limb at risk they take a little more care.

Let's not make this personal. If you apply that rational no one would ever take a shower or jump in a pool. There are risk in life. Freedom involves responsibility and risk. You personal have establish a level of risk for yourself that limits your activity, want to apply that same standard to everyone else and claim.that anyone that doesn't except that standard is reckless even though there is no empirical evidence to support the limitations that have been created.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I have not attempted to justify the breaking of all regulations. I'm questioning the validity of some regulations that are applied regardless of conditions.

Question for you. Do you drive at the same speed regardless of which road you're on? Of course not. Road conditions dictate the speed limited posted and beyond that the actually road conditions (traffic, weather, accidents, etc.) will further modify how fast you will drive. The same logic should dictate how airspace is regulated.

I don't drive the same speed on every road, but I do observe and comply with the speed limit on every road and have been driving for over 50 years without a speeding ticket including almost 20 years driving all kinds of commercial vehicles for a living.

 

[sar104]

Not all are "logical fallacies". Isn't being aware of YOUR particular environment a factor? My situation is different than yours. If someone is flying 100' AGL around my house for miles, he is in the trees! for instance. Just pointing out that the regs are NOT fair to all circumstances. Should the person living in the middle of a 10,000 acre ranch be restricted the same as someone living in an apartment overlooking Central Park? Yes, I DO understand all the rules and reasons for them, BUT...

Your situation not being ubiquitous was exactly my point. Not fair? The FAA is being mean to you again, when all you want to do is fly wherever you want? You want a nice set of restrictions tailored to your exact use case? Or any other use case that you choose to cherry pick? That's not workable even if you did understand the risks, which you clearly don't.

And I notice you completely ignored my question about how you respond to inbound aircraft when BVLOS.

 

[mobilehomer]

Your situation not being ubiquitous was exactly my point. Not fair? The FAA is being mean to you again, when all you want to do is fly wherever you want? You want a nice set of restrictions tailored to your exact use case? Or any other use case that you choose to cherry pick? That's not workable even if you did understand the risks, which you clearly don't.

And I notice you completely ignored my question about how you respond to inbound aircraft when BVLOS.

Sorry, but with inbound, I drop to 150' or so and head home. Your condescending tone is unnecessary. And, yes, there are MANY rules and regulations across the country that are tailored to special circumstances. Ever hear of "waivers"? That is EXACTLY what "tailored" means. As technology advances, the regulations should reflect it.