DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Fess up- Have you broken the VLOS rule? (poll)

Have you broken the VLOS rule (more than once)?

  • Yes. I've gone beyond VLOS a very few times.

    Votes: 92 31.9%
  • Yes. I often fly beyond VLOS, but pay attention to the other rules.

    Votes: 129 44.8%
  • No. I never fly/have flown beyond where I can maintain visual contact with my drone.

    Votes: 67 23.3%

  • Total voters
    288
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was threatened with expulsion from one Mavic Mini Facebook group for even daring to ask a question regarding the legality (technicality) of a video posted online. "No drone policing allowed". Amazing to see this poll here.
I think **** near everyone has gone past VLOS. Not the how far can it go but just to see "what's over the hill". That's really part of the freedom of leaving earth and flying. But other than "how far can it go" as long as you pay attention , keep it low, don't bother ppl and don't be stupid( airports, emergency helis and planes),some leeway should be allowed.
 
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 or 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 to 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
Oh christ, that's horrible. Every time I hear something about Australia it's worse and worse. I know it started as a penal colony, but to actively be trying to make it back into one. Should be a case study here in the US cuz they're trying to do it here..
 
I think the rules needs a bit of updating. What’s the point of a high end camera, and you just fly by looking at your drone all the time? You can fly to where you want to go, even within VLOS, but you’ll need to look at the feed to take photos or videos. And when your are framing your shot and trying to get a better angle, you might lose sight of it anyway.
When you have reliable camera feed, solid telemetry and not go beyond a reasonable height, you have a good idea where your drone is and can safely navigate your drone.
Before all this technology, when you lose sight of drone, you won’t know where it is and where it’s going which is pretty dangerous, cos you won’t know where it’ll land or crash.
VERY WELL PUT! Visual acuity being as it is, at any distance beyond 3 or 400 feet it’s virtually out of sight against the sky and if it‘s against any other background (trees, brush, etc.), forget it. The drone is grey, the sky is typically varying shades of grey and the military paints its airplanes GREY so they are harder to spot!
 
When I read the headline, I misread it, I thought it was a discussion of whether the VLOS rule is broken. LOL Here's the thing, after an argument on this board a few weeks ago, I did a lot of reading, trying to understand the VLOS. And from what I can tell, if you obey it to the STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW, I'd argue that it's almost impossible for most of us to not break it at some point. The pilot is supposed to know the exact position, altitude, attitude, and direction of the drone at all times BY LOOKING at the drone. And I have my doubts that there are very many of us that can do ALL those things simply by looking at your drone, once it gets out of your IMMEDIATE presence. I'm sure the strategic placement of anti-collision lights can help some of that, but I'm not convinced everybody can look at a drone that's 500 feet away, 200 feet up in the air and they're going to know ALL of the requirements just by looking at the drone.
In addition to this, the one and only time I crashed my drone was when I was watching it instead of the screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.O. and ghjcmo
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.
There’s no problem flying from a 2d display. What you can’t get from it is good situational awareness. You can only see where the camera is pointing - you are blind to what is happening in most of the rest of the airspace around you. As to military drones like the Predator, its frankly ridiculous to compare them to an over-the-counter commercial drone. The number of safety systems and the sophistication of the onboard sensors are way beyond anything available on even the best commercial drone.

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.
Model flying has, indeed, been around for a very long time. However, before camera drones, all normal model flying had to be VLOS. Since the advent of camera drones, what proof do you have that the lack of fatal incidents is not as a direct result of the regulations? The regulators are not saying “the sky is falling”, rather “the sky has the potential to fall, so let’s do something about it before it does”. You say you worked in manned aviation so you should know better. You must know that much of the regulation there is designed to prevent accidents, not always as a result of them. You don’t wait for someone to die before introducing regulations if you can see that there’s a risk they will.

...and 3 *confirmed* cases of collisions between drones and manned aircraft that I am aware of (seems to 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.
Any lack of serious damage or injury in those cases was just a matter of luck! If a bird strike can bring down an aircraft and cause serious injury (I have first hand experience), then a drone strike definitely can. No amount of regulation will control how or where birds fly so it’s a risk that has to be accepted. The potential risk posed by drones, on the other hand, can be controlled (and should in my opinion). When you consider the restrictions that could be introduced, I think we’re quite fortunate to be allowed to do as much as we are. There are very, very few situations where someone actually needs to fly BVLOS and in those cases, if it’s justified, they can apply for a waiver to do so.

It’s easy to sit in the comfort of your armchair and pontificate on how ridiculous and pointless you think some of the drone regulations are. It’s another thing entirely to be the person responsible for making regulations to help keep the whole of the national airspace safe - most of us haven’t got even the slightest notion of what that involves. They see the big picture (with all of the additional legal ramifications), we see it only from a small, selfish perspective.
 
Last edited:
well this ,(have been called a cranky old man by the missus ) so called cranky old man ,has on a few occasions lost sight of my drone ,after as others have said, glancing at the screen ,and then trying to regain sight of my drone and to that end i have now got lights on the front arms, and the rear of my MPP, which increase my ability to see it at distance for my old eyes thats around the thousand foot mark ,and that is plenty for me, i have in very overcast dull conditions ,in open countryside, gone out to the 16046 ft ,or 500m max mark and can still see the lights clearly ,but not in bright sunlight
Hi OMM,
Just curious, what lights do you use on your MPP? As an old cranky myself, I too have difficulty seeing mu M1P at distance. I do have a single Firehouse XL mounted which helps a little, but would like to know if it can be improved.
Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: old man mavic
@RonW hi Ron i have White Strobon Cree on the front arms and a Lume Cube anti collision light at the back of the drone ,this helps me know which way its pointing ,when its out past the 800ft mark and also when i am flying with a dark background behind the drone
 

Attachments

  • FHD0052.JPG
    FHD0052.JPG
    4.8 MB · Views: 9
  • FHD0053.JPG
    FHD0053.JPG
    4.8 MB · Views: 8
Always Fly BLOS, have strobes on the rear arms to keep track of it.
Two sets of strobes on the rear are arm.
 
Just did a flight and lost sight at 300 feet as I went around a tree and building. So much for "everyone adheres to VLOS" The truth still is - it's a non existent possibility to pretend one can see a Mini at more than 300 feet under most conditions. Let's talk about the lunacy of Remote ID now.
 
I have a question. If you have a good view of the airspace where your drone is flying but loose sight of the drone, are you breaking the VLOS rule?
 
See there is the problem and the answer is yes. And how many people break that rule? everyone is the answer
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.O. and ghjcmo
A post like this is designed to stir up controversy, it’s like asking everyone who has a drivers license if they ever speeded.
 
Great analogy as just like speeding everyone violates the VLOS at some time or mostly all the time
 
I have a question. If you have a good view of the airspace where your drone is flying but loose sight of the drone, are you breaking the VLOS rule?
Some might not like my answer and it might be incorrect. The FAA (IMO) allows you to check your telemetry from time to time to aid in flying. But you are required to be able to monitor & re-acquire visual sight of your RC aircraft within a reasonable time in order to be able to see and avoid manned aircraft or cause any other damage. No I'm not sure it's actually the written rec law but has been that way for years in the fixed wing community. The laws are somewhat vague and I don't know why some try to nitpick it to death in the venture to claim flying BVLOS is no big deal. You are simply responsible for your actions. I'm guessing 107 rules are more strict because of the type of work involved to perform a job which may require use a spotter if necessary. The speeding rule is a poor comparison IMO. Here is another one...you blink your eyes don't you, so how can you maintain full VLOS? I doubt either scenario will work well in court if an incident occurs.
 
  • Love
Reactions: BigAl07
I'm just curious and wanted to take a poll.
Let's be honest and those of us who have ever broken the VLOS rule fess up and say so in this poll. I maintain that there are probably only a few of us who hold the power of DJI drones in their hands who didn't fly losing sight of their drone, whether we were near trees where the drone didn't have to go very far to be out of VLOS, or you wanted to see how far you could send it. I know from personal experience that the farthest I could see it during the day, with strobes was 1600' (500M) and it is very difficult, especially in heavily wooded areas to maintain VLOS.

I'm not suggesting that you write it here in the text to become evidence that you've broken the rule, but the attached poll will remain anonymous for obvious reasons. If you've only flown once BVLOS you get a Mulligan for an unintentional act.

Secondly, asking for opinions, not confessions, I'd like to know if you consider breaking the VLOS rule (while maintaining legal altitude and distancing rules) any more of a violation than driving your car 65mph in a 55mph zone on the highway? [BTW- Here if you're not doing 70mph or better on the highway you'll get run over]. In your opinion are there shades of gray where there might be circumstance where breaking VLOS is a minor infraction to where it becomes a major no-no?
Good question. Better question is can you even see the mini 2 in the air?
 
Good question. Better question is can you even see the mini 2 in the air?
Not for very long without strobes.
I was playing with VLOS yesterday with my M2 just to get an idea of when I would lose visual contact. At best I could follow it out just to the 2000' mark, straight out and up with no obstructions. But if I took my eyes off of it I would have to bring it back a considerable distance to require it visually. 1600' was about the average that I could easily follow it as it went away. I would imagine the Mini 2 with the same strobes would be roughly the same as I lose visual with the body itself within a few hundred feet. It doesn't take long to lose it visually without strobes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kyokushinkai
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,600
Messages
1,554,282
Members
159,607
Latest member
Schmidteh121