Interesting read, diverse opinions and a lot of angles covered, let’s face it there’s a lot of a angles to this.
I’ve seen a few comments about how people interpret the VLOS rule, here in Australia there is no room for interpretation. It’s laid out clearly. VLOS is the distance at which the pilot can see and orient the drone with the naked eye with no other aid than corrective lenses. No extra leeway for strobes either. You not only need to be able to see it by eye but you also need to be able to tell which way it is pointing. So if you’re flying a Mini in a snow storm VLOS would be maybe 10 feet. If you’re flying an Inspire on a cloudy day with a dark cloud background maybe 1200 to 1500 feet. CASA here does accept that you may lose sight briefly while checking telemetry or due to obstacles and they just stipulate that you must handle these things in a reasonable and safe manner which gives you some leeway in how you operate in busy terrain and of course gives them plenty of leeway to prosecute you if it goes pear shaped lol.
Generally speaking, in good conditions with my eyesight and comfort levels for a Phantom or Mavic sized drone I feel at about 800 feet +/- I could always justify myself to the regulator in the event of an investigation.
I’m a commercial operator with a small drone business, without even going into hanger inventory I’ve got thousands invested in my certifications and training, Australia is a nanny state where the government just knows for sure that they can protect us from everything including ourselves if they just pass enough laws and they are not slow to enforce those laws (in our own self interest don’t you know) so in my case the answer is no, I never ever fly BVLOS illegally regardless of my feelings about the rules which I’ll get to in a minute.
In the last year CASA has introduced a framework within the regulations which makes it possible to fly what they call “Extended Line of Sight” and at night under a strict set of conditions which I won’t won’t quote in the interest of keeping this post to the length of only a short novel but suffice to say it involves multiple (accredited) spotters, at least two forms of communication between all spotters and the pilot and never at greater distance than 80% of the manufacturer’s stated range and other factors and a metric ton of paperwork.
i’ve done some flights under that regime now, my maximum distance from memory was I think 4.6km (that’s a touch over 15000ft for the metrically challenged lol) and .... no biggie really. Yes, I was in a state of shall we say “heightened awareness” but honestly more of my attention was required to monitor the fact that I wasn’t exceeding the authorised parameters for the flight than to actually perform the flight.
I’d do it again under conditions I feel comfortable with in a heartbeat. By “under conditions I feel comfortable with” I mean over unpopulated countryside, ocean or large body of water where there is no airport, helipad, installation or situation that might have manned aircraft flying below the usual 500ft AGL accepted minimum. I mean, I would for example never fly BVLOS over a big city of near an airport even if it was a sanctioned and approved flight. I have often turned down legal jobs that I am not comfortable with. I don’t do weddings and crowd photography. I don’t want to live with the drone “weed wacking” through the bridal party if something goes skew iff.
As to what I actually think about the restrictions, well personally I think they’re a crock. We’re told that we’re unable to effectively operate in three dimensions from a two dimensional display. Well, from what I see they seem to be able to whack Islamic state with predators in the middle east pretty effectively even if the operator is in Virginia. Yes, of course those operators have other resources available to them but so do we. Not of the same level perhaps but we’re not flying on the other side of the world either.
Also to address the issue directly, these restrictions are placed in the name of safety. Well, as a youger fitter man I was involved in manned aviation. I’m of reasonable intellectual ability and I really take issue with the asserted level of threat posed by consumer level drones to manned aviation. As Bruce (Xjet on Youtube) likes to say “Show me the bodies” and of course there are none. Remotely operated models have been around 80 years and drone 10 or more and despite the constant cries of “the sky is falling” we’re still waiting for that aviation disaster caused by a drone.
We’re had one (now thoroughly debunked) university study on the dangers posed by a drone strike on a light aircraft and 3 *confirmed* cases of collisions between drones and manned aircraft that I am aware of (seems ro be helicopters drawing the short straw here) with no loss of life, injury or genuine emergency situation arising. Yes, the pilot of the law enforcement heli that had a collision with a drone a month of so back did immediately put down and he or she is to be commended for that as caution is always paramount in those cases but in truth the damage on all three of those cases was little more than superficial. Far far less than what would be seen in a bird strike which is a real and present but accepted threat level in manned aviation.
The laws *as they stand* in my opinion can be characterised if you are generous as “gross governmental overreach” or, if you are prone to the “there was a shooter on the grassy knowl” school of thought a blatant conspiracy to clear the playing field for big business. In either school of thought while I would not argue to an “open slather” approach I do feel there is scope for commercial and recreational operators to be allowed BVLOS in many situations with little real world risk.
Don’t even get me started on remote I.D.
In the mean time, the law is the law, I like having my certifications, equipment and not being prosecuted so I’ll do as I’m told to the letter as I have more to lose than many.
Once again, sorry for the short story.
Regards
Ari
It's a dumb rule and dumber reality. Again be honest and think about it.
