Could the FAA fine me for flying my drone 1 foot off the ground in my backyard solely because it's not in "visual line of site"?

[Chaosrider]

No - that's quite clearly not what you are doing. If that were the case you would simply have asked for an explanation of the application of the law. What you are doing is creating an absurd scenario to attempt to argue that the law is flawed.

Completely false.

"Edge" hypotheticals are a common way to figure out...well...what the edges are. One of my brothers is a lawyer, and he does this all the time.

I find it offensive when one person says that they know a person's motives better than that person themselves. Such pronouncements have a very high error rate.

It's a logic question, which each individual is free to engage with or not, at their discretion.

This is an entirely legitimate methodology for finding the edges of things. If you don't like it, don't engage with it.

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

Do you understand why the VLOS requirement is in place? Have you read the numerous posts on this forum where pilots lost control of their UAV, nearby but out of VLOS, and subsequently crashed or lost the aircraft due to being unable to pilot it visually?

Really?

Do you have any QUANTITATIVE data on the rate of occurrence of this?

Anybody?

Probability rules, and possibility drools.

Some people fly in the wind, others just pass it...

;-)

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

Just want to say I can definitely see my drone at about 2,100'. No way anyone could see their drone at one mile.

What kind of drone are you flying?

Only mutants could see a Mini-2 at 2,100 ft, even with a strobe.

I can reliably see mine at 1000 - 1200 ft with the strobe, and I generally just consider 1000 ft to be my "sphere of operations" for that reason.

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

Do drones record such an event in either flight log?
I am working on (modifying someone else's program) a 'pilot's log book' which is a summary of each and every flight for which I have usable flight logs. It uses DOS and Linux programming to select data from chosen columns of the csv's of the .txt flight logs, it's quite interesting to see what you can pick out and 'calculate'.

I'll be very interested to see this when you get it done!

What I'm really looking for is a log-viewer that will present all of the flights in a format similar to my Part 61 logbook, and with the capacity for me to to enter comments about the flight.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Zbip57]

when the drone is in the air, 6 in or 400 ft, systems beyond your control can fail and it has the “possibility” of flying away on its own to wherever...

That argument doesn't hold water. The chances of an uncontrollable flyaway happening at any time are really not that different whether you're flying within VLOS or BVLOS.

Like the rule about not flying over people. Okay, motors can fail or the battery can quit, then the drone might fall straight down and hit someone. But with drones capable of flying for twenty minutes or longer, what does it really matter if you're keeping the required distance away from people? An uncontrolled flyaway can still carry the drone miles away in any direction and it can then still fall on someone's head. If you're that paranoid, the only way to be totally safe, would be to never fly your drone within a 20minute flying time radius of anybody.

 

[Chaosrider]

That argument doesn't hold water. The chances of an uncontrollable flyaway happening at any time are really not that different whether you're flying within VLOS or BVLOS.

Like the rule about not flying over people. Okay, motors can fail or the battery can quit, then the drone might fall straight down and hit someone. But with drones capable of flying for twenty minutes or longer, what does it really matter if you're keeping the required distance away from people? An uncontrolled flyaway can still carry the drone miles away in any direction and it can then still fall on someone's head. If you're that paranoid, the only way to be totally safe, would be to never fly your drone within a 20minute flying time radius of anybody.

Probability rules, and possibility drools!



TCS

 

[Zbip57]

I'm trying to understand the limits of the FAA's authority over private property.

This all relates to your other post showing the view as your drone backs up and away into the fog. BTW, that video clip was beautiful!

You got hammered for posting that when the vigilantes jumped on you for flying beyond visual line of sight. Technically, letter-of-the-law, was it illegal? Um, probably yes. But was it dangerous?

You're familiar with the area and knew exactly where the drone was and where it was going, so there was no unusual danger of a collision with any obstructions or people. Were you a hazard to manned aircraft? Unless there's a hot air balloon silently lurking hidden in the fog, it's highly unlikely there would any other aircraft flying that low between the trees in such heavy fog.

But, since everyone jumped on the bandwagon to criticize you for flying BVLOS, your question in this thread has merit. How low does the VLOS restriction go?

Let's say you're flying in your own backyard and decide to fly your drone under your own picnic table. The drone will be momentarily out of your sight while it's passing behind the legs of the picnic table. The more pedantic critics on this forum will insist that's illegal, no matter that it's only inches off the ground and out of sight for less than a second. You need a visual observer assisting you on such dangerous flights! The FAA owns all the airspace starting from directly above your lawn! Just think of what could have happened if just then you'd suffered an uncontrollable flyaway?

Obviously that's a ridiculous example, but where does one realistically draw the line? I'm fairly certain the FAA doesn't care about your picnic table. Nothing we do is completely without risk. But some things are obviously more risky than others.

In New Zealand they have a very sensible allowance for "shielded operations", when you're flying in sheltered locations below the tree line and thus unlikely to encounter other manned aircraft.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

I'll be very interested to see this when you get it done!

have a look at DIY flight log books a program of sorts
that's what mine stems from.
Mine currently works for Go, Go4 and pre version 1.2 Fly but I keep tweaking it.
It doesn't work correctly with the csv's for fly app ver 1.2.x and later because the order of the columns differ, and seems to differ between post 1.2 versions too....... but I only started to look at these last night using csv's downloaded from the phantomhelp logview webpage. There is a limit to how many post 1.2 csv's I can create in any 48hr period.
I have not yet looked at the smaller csv's avaialble from Airdata.

Attached is the list of column titles, so far, in my log book. Change the ".txt" to ".csv" and open it as a spreadsheet. The second column is a description of what the column represents.
$XYZ is how linux identifies the relevant cell/"field"/column number in each line/"record" of each csv.
My programming is probably very crude but it works, the Linux progam takes a couple of minutes to process all the csv's.
In Windows using the command line,he processing, of the .txt's by the relevant TXTlogToCSVtool takes LONGER but that is unavoidable first step.

NOTE ...................TXTlogToCSVtoolMM does not, I think, work on FLY 1.2 & later

 

[Chaosrider]

This all relates to your other post showing the view as your drone backs up and away into the fog. BTW, that video clip was beautiful!

You got hammered for posting that when the vigilantes jumped on you for flying beyond visual line of sight. Technically, letter-of-the-law, was it illegal? Um, probably yes. But was it dangerous?

You're familiar with the area and knew exactly where the drone was and where it was going, so there was no unusual danger of a collision with any obstructions or people. Were you a hazard to manned aircraft? Unless there's a hot air balloon silently lurking hidden in the fog, it's highly unlikely there would any other aircraft flying that low between the trees in such heavy fog.

But, since everyone jumped on the bandwagon to criticize you for flying BVLOS, your question in this thread has merit. How low does the VLOS restriction go?

Let's say you're flying in your own backyard and decide to fly your drone under your own picnic table. The drone will be momentarily out of your sight while it's passing behind the legs of the picnic table. The more pedantic critics on this forum will insist that's illegal, no matter that it's only inches off the ground and out of sight for less than a second. You need a visual observer assisting you on such dangerous flights! The FAA owns all the airspace starting from directly above your lawn! Just think of what could have happened if just then you'd suffered an uncontrollable flyaway?

Obviously that's a ridiculous example, but where does one realistically draw the line? I'm fairly certain the FAA doesn't care about your picnic table. Nothing we do is completely without risk. But some things are obviously more risky than others.

In New Zealand they have a very sensible allowance for "shielded operations", when you're flying in sheltered locations below the tree line and thus unlikely to encounter other manned aircraft.

Could I get a link to that fog video?

;-)

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

have a look at DIY flight log books a program of sorts
that's what mine stems from.
Mine currently works for Go, Go4 and pre version 1.2 Fly but I keep tweaking it.
It doesn't work correctly with the csv's for fly app ver 1.2.x and later because the order of the columns differ, and seems to differ between post 1.2 versions too....... but I only started to look at these last night using csv's downloaded from the phantomhelp logview webpage. There is a limit to how many post 1.2 csv's I can create in any 48hr period.
I have not yet looked at the smaller csv's avaialble from Airdata.

Attached is the list of column titles, so far, in my log book. Change the ".txt" to ".csv" and open it as a spreadsheet. The second column is a description of what the column represents.
$XYZ is how linux identifies the relevant cell/"field"/column number in each line/"record" of each csv.
My programming is probably very crude but it works, the Linux progam takes a couple of minutes to process all the csv's.
In Windows using the command line,he processing, of the .txt's by the relevant TXTlogToCSVtool takes LONGER but that is unavoidable first step.

NOTE ...................TXTlogToCSVtoolMM does not, I think, work on FLY 1.2 & later

Thanks for the reference, I took a look.

I'm really looking for the Brain-Dead-User app version, rather than the Smart-Nerd app version.

Despite being a smart nerd!

Again, thanks,

TCS

 

[Zbip57]

Could I get a link to that fog video?

It's not difficult to find it by searching for posts from @Dangerly, but I'll let him respond for himself.

Otherwise, here's one of my own flights with a Mavic Mini into early morning fog.

The regulations here in Canada equally prohibit flights beyond visual line of sight.

"visual line-of-sight or VLOS means unaided visual contact at all times with a remotely piloted aircraft that is sufficient to be able to maintain control of the aircraft, know its location, and be able to scan the airspace in which it is operating in order to perform the detect and avoid functions in respect of other aircraft or objects."

I'll admit I did not have "unaided visual contact at all times" during this flight, and if there had been any manned aircraft operating within the same area I probably wouldn't have been able to see them either.

However, I did have sufficient contact to maintain control of my aircraft, I did know its location at all times, and I was able to aurally scan the otherwise dead silent airspace in which it was operating and would certainly have heard any approaching aircraft flying in this dense fog at such low altitude between the high hills circling this small lake.

Furthermore, in Canada, none of the VLOS or distance from people etc requirements are (as yet) applicable to sub-250gram micro drones. The only applicable cardinal rule in effect is; don't operate in a manner that is, or is likely to be, hazardous to manned aviation or people on the ground.

Was this flight hazardous, or likely to be hazardous? Nope. Landed safely, no uncontrolled flyaways, disturbed nobody, never a hazard to anyone. However, if the flight actually had resulted in harm to someone, that would raise arguments of legality and liability.

 

[dronerdave]

"Could the FAA fine me for flying my drone 1 foot off the ground in my backyard solely because it's not in "visual line of site"?"​

I look at it as you’re simply responsible for your flight actions whether you are flying in compliance or not. Every time I fly, I’m at risk of something going wrong but I weigh the risk of having a flight issue over the possibility of having a distasteful encounter. That would be with people, property and even my own equipment. I choose to always try to fly within the boundary of the rules simply to show I wasn’t operating irresponsibly if the question ever comes up. A lot of the rules come from the RC fixed wing flying community and we are all lumped into one pile. Having to follow rules designed for the fixed wing aircraft seems to be confusing to some drone operators but we’re stuck with it and so is the fixed wing community being forced into following newly enacted drone rules. No sense debating points like how many times has it happened, how many injuries have occurred or what damage can a small drone do…etc. But every time I see posts about nitpicking the rules we are supposed to follow it’s humorous to me. Splitting hairs about flying 6 inches above your lawn BVLOS is silly IMO. If you feel the risk isn’t an issue, I don’t really care if you go for it. My only concern are RC operators that give the rest of the RC flying community a black eye. It's the people who step into the limelight that concern me. In the US, RC flying is a privilege not a right and I don’t want others or myself to stain that privilege I like to participate in.

 

[Chaosrider]

It's not difficult to find it by searching for posts from @Dangerly, but I'll let him respond for himself.

Otherwise, here's one of my own flights with a Mavic Mini into early morning fog.

The regulations here in Canada equally prohibit flights beyond visual line of sight.

"visual line-of-sight or VLOS means unaided visual contact at all times with a remotely piloted aircraft that is sufficient to be able to maintain control of the aircraft, know its location, and be able to scan the airspace in which it is operating in order to perform the detect and avoid functions in respect of other aircraft or objects."

I'll admit I did not have "unaided visual contact at all times" during this flight, and if there had been any manned aircraft operating within the same area I probably wouldn't have been able to see them either.

However, I did have sufficient contact to maintain control of my aircraft, I did know its location at all times, and I was able to aurally scan the otherwise dead silent airspace in which it was operating and would certainly have heard any approaching aircraft flying in this dense fog at such low altitude between the high hills circling this small lake.

Furthermore, in Canada, none of the VLOS or distance from people etc requirements are (as yet) applicable to sub-250gram micro drones. The only applicable cardinal rule in effect is; don't operate in a manner that is, or is likely to be, hazardous to manned aviation or people on the ground.

Was this flight hazardous, or likely to be hazardous? Nope. Landed safely, no uncontrolled flyaways, disturbed nobody, never a hazard to anyone. However, if the flight actually had resulted in harm to someone, that would raise arguments of legality and liability.

Outstanding video! And in this case, Canada seems to have more sensible rules than the USA.

What a beautiful place to live and fly. I'd be jealous, if I didn't have one too...

Thanks!



TCS

 

[Zbip57]

Canada seems to have more sensible rules than the USA.

Canada copied most of the same stuff that the FAA put into place, with a few significant exceptions and improvements. Thankfully there is no hint (yet) of remote-ID even being considered. Phew.

The biggest difference is that we've removed the distinction between recreational and commercial operations. That's never made any sense to me anyway. Why should people in business be held to a higher standard than amateurs when it comes to the safe operation of drones? Is a recreational amateur somehow less likely to fly unsafely? A recreational flyer can fly over their own house for fun, but using a drone to do a roof inspection on their own house requires a full Part 107 certification? That's nuts.

In Canada there's now only a distinction between sub-250gram micro drones, 250g-25kg "small" remotely piloted aircraft, and over 25kg. Within the "small" category, the only thing that matters is where you do your flying. The easier "Basic" certificate holders are not permitted to fly within any controlled airspace. If you need to fly within controlled airspace you are required to have the full "Advanced" certification similar to your Part 107.

The intent (recreational vs commercial) of the flight makes no difference whatsoever. Whether you're a real estate agent or just an amateur schmuck makes no difference to the safety of your flight, the same rules apply to everyone. What matters is the weight of the aircraft and where it's being operated.

What a beautiful place to live and fly. I'd be jealous, if I didn't have one too...

I've seen your videos. We are both lucky to have such wide open countryside to fly in.

 

[sar104]

Completely false.

"Edge" hypotheticals are a common way to figure out...well...what the edges are.

They can be useful, but in this case it was absurd, therefore not useful, and clearly with a different intent.

One of my brothers is a lawyer, and he does this all the time.

Oh well - in that case...

I find it offensive when one person says that they know a person's motives better than that person themselves.

No need to be offended then, because I'm quite sure that the OP was equally well aware of his motive.

Such pronouncements have a very high error rate.

To quote your subsequent post: "Do you have any QUANTITATIVE data on the rate of occurrence of this?" You don't, of course.

It's a logic question, which each individual is free to engage with or not, at their discretion.

I engaged.

Really?

Do you have any QUANTITATIVE data on the rate of occurrence of this?

The reports on this forum and elsewhere represent absolute quantitative data, not relative quantitative data (rate). I never mentioned rates - that was your straw man.

 

[brett8883]

I'm trying to understand the limits of the FAA's authority over private property.

They could but they won’t. Case closed I’m not sure what else there is to talk about here

 

[Chaosrider]

Canada copied most of the same stuff that the FAA put into place, with a few significant exceptions and improvements. Thankfully there is no hint (yet) of remote-ID even being considered. Phew.

I'd be with the remote ID, if it wasn't accessible to J Random Citizen. Or just provided JRC with the reg number, and not the pilot info. With that one change, I think RID is a good idea.

he biggest difference is that we've removed the distinction between recreational and commercial operations. That's never made any sense to me anyway.

I think the recreational/commercial distinction is a good idea. People engaging in commercial operations should be held to a higher standard.

Within the "small" category, the only thing that matters is where you do your flying. The easier "Basic" certificate holders are not permitted to fly within any controlled airspace. If you need to fly within controlled airspace you are required to have the full "Advanced" certification similar to your Part 107.

This is vastly more sensible than the US rules.

The intent (recreational vs commercial) of the flight makes no difference whatsoever.

I completely agree with this. Americans in general are overly obsessed with intent.

I've seen your videos. We are both lucky to have such wide open countryside to fly in.

I'm not prepared to go full Obi-wan on this, but surely you don't believe that luck is the ONLY reason we live where we do...

;-)

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

"Edge" hypotheticals are a common way to figure out...well...what the edges are.

They can be useful, but in this case it was absurd, therefore not useful, and clearly with a different intent. -- SAR
==================/
Practical absurdity is irrelevant when exploring the logical edges of something. Part of the problem is people wanting bright shining digital lines, in a world that's largely analog.

My sense of his intent is that he was trying to poke around the edges of the issue as a logic game, and not as a practical guideline for trying to figure out where to fly his drone that afternoon.

I like logic games. And some people don't. People who don't like them should just decline to play them, and move on to something else.

TCS

I find it offensive when one person says that they know a person's motives better than that person themselves.

No need to be offended then, because I'm quite sure that the OP was equally well aware of his motive. -- SAR
================/
I'm sure he was. My point was that you were presuming his motives, and presenting your presumption as fact. That's what I find offensive, with regard to assessments of the motivations of others.

It's not just you. A lot of people do that, and I generally find that offensive.

TCS
=====================/

Such pronouncements have a very high error rate.

To quote your subsequent post: "Do you have any QUANTITATIVE data on the rate of occurrence of this?" You don't, of course. -- SAR
=========/
Hah! You got me on that one. Good shot.

;-)

TCS
===================/

The reports on this forum and elsewhere represent absolute quantitative data, not relative quantitative data (rate). I never mentioned rates - that was your straw man.

Well, not quite.

The reports here are anecdotal data. Quantitative rates...probabilities...are what matter for understanding and mitigating risks.

Just ask the Masters of Risk...insurance actuaries! My father told me to never play poker with insurance actuaries...

;-)

Thx,

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

They could but they won’t. Case closed I’m not sure what else there is to talk about here

Some people think logic games are fun, and some don't. There's no "right or wrong" between the two.

TCS

 

[Zbip57]

Part of the problem is people wanting bright shining digital lines, in a world that's largely analog.

That's nicely worded.

The strictly digital commonly held interpretation is that the FAA owns everything above the level of your lawn, but clearly an analog scale applies with some grey zones that are open to interpretation.

For example, does the FAA control the airspace between the lawn and the underside of your picnic table? The digital interpreters would say yes, whereas logically that's absurd.

The FAA exempts flights conducted indoors. But what if someone left a door or a window open? Does "indoors" include your porch if it's covered by a roof? What if the porch walls are wide open to the FAA's airspace. Okay, what if the porch is enclosed by a flimsy bug screen or curtain?

You can keep stepping it up one small notch at a time until at some point the questions cease to be absurd and the answers become clear and obvious.

Flying above 400' AGL is a clear and definite no-go line. So somewhere between the absurd picnic table and that clear 400' line is where the true threshold is found. Which is why New Zealand's "shielded operations" exemption makes so much sense.

I like logic games. And some people don't.

I'd like regulations to be clearly applicable and logical, not open to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Sure, everyone should know in their own conscience what the "intent" of the regulation is. But if it's vaguely worded or illogical, then what is the actual threshold between what's enforceable or not?

Many of our Canadian drone regulations were obviously copied directly from the general aviation regs, even though they have questionable application to drones.

My favourite example is CARS 901.48(1) which requires keeping detailed records for two years of any maintenance and repairs, specifically including "(b)(i) the names of the persons who performed them,".

For sure, if a jet engine falls off an airliner in flight, it would be helpful to have a record of the actual name of the responsible maintenance person who should have checked the torque on the retaining bolts for that engine. There's some logic to that requirement.

But if I send my drone back to DJI for warranty or repair work, how the ?? am I ever going to the know the name of the Chinese technician who performed the repair?

Could Transport Canada fine me for not including the name in my maintenance records? For sure!

I'm not making this up. Check this link and scroll down a long ways to find the penalties for Section 901.48(1).
An individual is subject to a fine of up to $1,000 for failing to keep such accurate records! A corporation can be fined up to $5,000. Brilliant, eh?

It's pretty obvious that particular clause of the regulation is absurd in its application to consumer level drones. And surely Tranport Canada would never impose such a fine for failure to record the name of the Chinese repair technician. But if it's an excusable omission, why even write such an absurd regulation?

Does the FAA's Part 107 include a similar clause?