If I need to fly around a building to get the shot I need, I'll assess the risk, fly out of VLOS and reacquire when I'm done. I don't see the huge risk and I'll bet even the most ardent rule follower would do the same.
- Status
So apply for a waiver for your particular circumstances. If you get the waiver you fly the way you want legally, if you don’t then stick to the rules. The only issue is you have to be at least 107 certified to apply for a waiver because you cannot apply for a waiver from 44809, and there are only certain parts of Part 107 that you can request a waiver from.
I guess it depends on how far BVLOS you are. Not a robust solution.
Your complete disregard for regulations is what is unnecessary.
Absolutely - so you get waivers? That's what I do to fly BVLOS. But no, of course you don't - you just don't like the regulations.
No - it doesn't mean that at all. "Tailored" is represented, for example, by the variation in regulation by class of airspace, not by your uninformed opinion on where you are going to meet manned aircraft.
And it does, which is why some BVLOS operations are now approved. But currently not for recreational pilots with consumer grade equipment who just like breaking the rules.
We have two appendages so we don’t have to do that, they are called legs.
Yes, you are correct. It is the current law in regards to BVLOS. I believe you stated correctly, all in this forum understand that BVLOS (per FAA) is not within regulations.
The question posed by the original contributing member is why people fly BVLOS. It is for the same reason people drive above the speed limit. I must say, drive any given freeway in the United States, and you will see 99% of the cars on freeway are driving above the speed limit. But, of course, all drivers "know" what the speed limits are. Drivers know that they are breaking the law. But most people drive above speed limit because they need to be somewhere soon and assume the risk of fatality is small. In real evidence, there is a definitive finite risk, as most freeway accidents probably has to do with speed and we know that car accidents are common.
Compare this with drone flying: I think most people who fly BVLOS know it is not within law but feel that the risk of accident is very small. Well, I think facts show that the risk is truly small, at least currently. PIck up any local newspaper and you will read about multiple car accidents. PIck up any local newspaper and you will not likely read about any drone accident.
So, I would like to throw this out as well: flying a drone BVLOS is probably much much safer than car speeding. And, I guess, everyone has sped at some point time the last 1 month. Case rested.
mobilehomer
Well-Known Member
I expect an apology. Point out where I said i flew illegaly. You can't. You ASSUME that because of my questions and observations. What exactly do you do with your drone? How do you use it for business?
Chrislaf
Well-Known Member
The car analogy is a false one: you drive on a road so you have a good idea of where the other vehicles are going to be or be coming from regardless of how fast you drive. When you fly your drone BVLOS you have no idea of the flight path of any aircraft that may be in your operating area.
Chris
Chris
Appreciate your input, but my case still rest.....
Please provide data to indicate that rates of fatality with drone flying (BVLOS) is more than the rates of fatality related to speeding (above the speed limit).
I agree, what is stated related to driving and flight path; however, these so far (flying BVLOS) has not had any fatalities reported.
Again safety is very important....but we cannot say something is "safer" until we can say that the reverse produces more injuries (for example, flying BVLOS causes more fatalities and more injuries). We just so far assume it is safer... but we don't have data to show because we really don't have data that here is a lot of injury as a consequence of flying BVLOS. This is my point. I think the previous contributers are correct. We are basing a lot of BVLOS as conjectures but have no real data to prove it is more dangerous.
I will go so far as to say some regulation has to do a little with the industry (business side). If everyone can legally fly BVLOS and such, what is the benefits of getting 107. Getting 107 has a "money basis". You have to pay to get the "107" and you can get hired as a "drone photographer" if you have a 107. If everyone can do all the benefits of "107" without getting the actual certification and training, then there is nothing special about "107" (for example, I should get a good salary because I have a "107" and the other person does not.) Something is only special if no other person has it. The "107" allows drone flyers do extra "stuff" compare to the recreational flyer. You have to "pay" to get the "107". That is why the requirement for FAA registration if you plan to get "money" from using a drone to take pictures. There is an industry (business) side to all this as well. Very similiar to other industries. Sometimes, regulation is a little to do with protection of the industry instead of true safety.
You're right, and roads are FAR more crowded than the sky so the risk is even higher on roads.
See, we can go back and forth about whether the analogy fits the situation all day but that's missing the point. The point is that most people will break a law when they consider it unreasonable. VLOS, strictly interpreted, is unreasonable. The administrator of this site has said he occasionally breaks it for brief periods of time. That's the reason I keep bringing up the "flying behind a building" example I get admonished for. It's the exact example BigAl07 used in a previous thread on the subject. He justified it by saying it wasn't intentional but he's flying around a building, the building didn't jump in front of his flight path unexpectedly.
People break the rule - even the guy with the credentials below. That's a pretty good indicator that the rule is unreasonable.
Your argument is specious, at best. Cars and drones? That isn’t comparing apples and oranges, more like daylilies and T-Rex’s. If something the size of a car came crashing down from the sky, it would make the papers. The one common thread is that driving a car is a privilege not a right. Flying a drone is quite the same. The FAA can ground me for any reason, or for no reason at all. They are the ones with the rights, not me. If I fly BVLOS I’d be worried. Can’t have as much fun if I’m worried. I know where my drone is and I can find it in the sky, usually. It’s a small one and I lost sight of it a time or two. Freaked me out. No one offered me any in-flight peanuts to calm me down either (smile). Losing sight is losing control.
Are you saying you never go faster than the speed limit on any road at any time? O.k. Based on my unofficial observation of having driven for 50 years (1 speeding ticket 48 years ago) you are 1 in 100,000. So if you want to talk about blatant disregard for the law you don't have to look in the sky you can look all around you. And much of that excessive "speeding" at 5 or 10 mph is ignored because in many situations it's not recognized as dangerous by the folks patrolling the roads.
I think the same can be said for BVLOS. There are clear circumstances where it is important AND there are clear circumstances where it is not. Rational and normally law abiding people recognize that and rule makers should recognize it and adjust the regulations accordingly.
Why is driving a car a privilege? Was riding a horse a privilege? Is riding a bicycle a privilege?
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.
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.
Chrislaf
Well-Known Member
I consider drone flying a privilege not a right, just like driving a car is a privilege and many other privileges and freedoms I enjoy as a citizen of my country. With those privileges and freedoms come rules and regulations that I must follow so that the safety and wellbeing of myself and others are protected. It boggles my mind how people are arguing about how their freedoms to fly a drone BVLOS are being restricted by rules that are in place to protect the safety of manned flight when you just have to turn on the news and see how people in Ukraine are fighting for their very freedom to live!
Chris
Chris
I may not be able to see a Mini2 1/2-3/4 mile out but I can definitely still see and hear full sized aircraft approaching it. It's absurd to suggest that, just because you've lost sight of a drone for a bit, you've lost all situational awareness.
Same goes for flying around an obstruction. I'm videoing a building 100 feet in front of me, no aircraft is going to sneak up on me in the 20 seconds I'm flying behind the building.
Firstly - you point out where I said that you flew illegally. To save you time, I didn't.
Secondly, though, you did imply it. When I asked:
"And I notice you completely ignored my question about how you respond to inbound aircraft when BVLOS."
You replied:
"Sorry, but with inbound, I drop to 150' or so and head home."
What do I do with my drones? Why is that relevant? But since you ask, I fly various visible/IR-equipped drones (OTH and custom) for search and rescue, wildfire detection, and other developmental purposes peripheral to my primary line of work. And I fly a Mavic 2 Pro and some much heavier equipment for aerial photography/videography and promotional imagery/videos.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
If you lost sight of your drone....you don't have the full picture...when you lose any of your components of that picture, you do not have awareness, and this is a case where just being partially aware is simply not enough...to lose any awareness...you lose it all....as far as flying behind a building and no aircraft is going to sneak up on you...how can you possibly know that?
mobilehomer
Well-Known Member
Do you always use a VO? BVLOS IS illegal, correct? Oh, I ALWAYS drop when I hear aircraft approaching if I am over 200' AGL.
Because a plane traveling at 40 feet and below the local trees would already be crashing and have more than my drone to worry about.
- Status
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
DJI Air 2S Fly More Combo (w/ 4th Battery) FOR SALE $650- Started by Dan AISCF
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
