Flying further than LOS

[James in the Desert]

I know some guys are going to hate this but living in Panama I’ve been able to fly 2 to 3 miles out over water in any direction every day Am using the racing goggles and it just is amazing. They will take a couple of hours to get used to but if you are looking to fly long distance it is the only way to go Good Luck.

 

[Size13]

I may or may not have flown about a mile from my physical location. The only time Ive ever had a problem is when I was over my friends horses and wanted to get a little closer for a good pic. There were several metal buildings between me and the drone. Lost signal and it went into RTH mode. No biggie, but scared the crap out of me the first time it happened.

 

[Lon Denard]

Well, for hobbyist drone pilots, keeping your drone in your visual line of sight is no longer a rule or recommendation, it is now the law. Trump signed HR 302 yesterday and now it is the law of the land (U.S.).

So, now when U.S.-based "idiots" fly their drone beyond VLOS they are breaking the law. While out of VLOS, If there is an incident causing damage or injury, the pilot could be found guilty of negligence. As far as the law is concerned, negligence is a whole different ballgame than "accident".

This forum is filled with stories from people that have said, in effect, "I didn't know XYZ was going to happen. I didn't intend for it to happen. It was an accident." Well, now the lawyers will have plenty of teeth to get a sympathetic judge or jury to make you pay and pay big for your negligence.

Mark

Thanks again

I bet @LonDenard will still fly his Mavic just a few feet farther than VLOS.
Just like he drives 75mph in a 70 zone, and the 12 items in his cart at the 10 or less checkout.
But hey, He is a real outlaw!

Yea just like you have always stayed under the noise pollution laws with your vehicles...right.

My point is all this finger pointing is ridiculous. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone".

I'm being honest. There's so little of it here, with all this righteous posturing, that I'm sure it's hard to recognize. You can call me all the names that you want but as someone else pointed out, it's next to impossible to maintain VLOS by your definition over 1400 feet. Other guys are saying drive to the object that you want to film. So why own a drone?

As discussed in a former thread, I got it from an admittedly low level FAA official, that his understanding was that you had to have an unobstructed view in the direction of your drone. Typically laws are written with an often unstated "reasonable person" sub clause. To expect an operator to actually be able to constantly "see" a drone the size of a Spark at any "reasonable" distance beyond 1000 feet is ludicrous. Besides, negligence could be proven at 500 feet, 100 feet or 50 feet if you smack someone in the head with your drone. Quite frankly, I've often stated that I'm surprised that there isn't a minimum height requirement. I know that the doomsday types' main concern is commercial aircraft but I'm more afraid of someone running a 2lb Mavic Pro into a little girl's face at 30 mph than I am of the same drone taking out a 747.

 

[STKNRUD]

Don’t you wish “best judgment of PIC” could be codified? But we all no why. What is dangerous about flying beyond VLOS 100’ above the ocean going away from land? Because you could make an arguement that you might hit a helicopter looking for whales. All laws are written such that if you obeyed them all, there would never be an accident. One example I have seen in many NTSB accident reports is “pilot failed to maintain adequate ground separation.” It is the ‘catch-all’ when they can’t determine the cause. If you lose control of your car on ice going 5 mph, you have broken the law. If your drone falls apart in the air, it might be failure to do a preflight or an unforeseen mx failure. But if you hurt someone it doesn’t matter, your still liabable. Bottom line, don’t fly your drone and you won’t break any laws or be liablable for anything.

 

[BJR981S]

Hmm. Is there a difference between VLOS and actually looking at the drone?

Must I "See" / "View" that drone at all times or am I allowed to look at the screen to take a shot?

I have often after looking back at the drone lost it in background when I could see it before I looked down.

I don't believe that their is anyone here that has not taken their eyes off their drone.

VLOS is a stupid rule for camera drone operators. It was intended for us Helicopter and Fixed Wing flyers. That must always maintain eye contact.


Cheers

 

[redserv]

Guys I will to thank everyone for giving their opinions on this debatable topic. Based on all the feedback, I have decided that it would be in my best interest to keep my drone in VLOS. I will purchase some fire house ARC II strobe lights that will hopefully help me see my drone better and give me better visuals. I think it will all come down to the pilot. Everyone's free to do what they want with there drone, whether we like it or not.

 

[ac0j]

Hmm. Is there a difference between VLOS and actually looking at the drone?

Must I "See" / "View" that drone at all times or am I allowed to look at the screen to take a shot?

I have often after looking back at the drone lost it in background when I could see it before I looked down.

I don't believe that their is anyone here that has not taken their eyes off their drone.

VLOS is a stupid rule for camera drone operators. It was intended for us Helicopter and Fixed Wing flyers. That must always maintain eye contact.


Cheers

VLOS was meant for real aircraft with the PIC inside of it? I guess it means windshield then?

I think the VLOS rule is meant for those who are operating WELL BEYOND VLOS, like a mile or more.
I dont believe it is the "lost it for a minute" guys that the FAA is concerned about.

 

[msinger]

See #3. VLOS is no longer a CBO rule, it's the law.

VLOS has always been the law. The difference now is that someone other than the pilot is now allowed to maintain VLOS. That'll certainly be a welcomed addition for many people.

 

[ac0j]

VLOS has always been the law. The difference now is that someone other than the pilot is now allowed to maintain VLOS. That'll certainly be a welcomed addition for many people.

At least that will make the use of Goggles legal.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Thanks again


Yea just like you have always stayed under the noise pollution laws with your vehicles...right.

My point is all this finger pointing is ridiculous. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone".

I'm being honest. There's so little of it here, with all this righteous posturing, that I'm sure it's hard to recognize. You can call me all the names that you want but as someone else pointed out, it's next to impossible to maintain VLOS by your definition over 1400 feet. Other guys are saying drive to the object that you want to film. So why own a drone?

As discussed in a former thread, I got it from an admittedly low level FAA official, that his understanding was that you had to have an unobstructed view in the direction of your drone. Typically laws are written with an often unstated "reasonable person" sub clause. To expect an operator to actually be able to constantly "see" a drone the size of a Spark at any "reasonable" distance beyond 1000 feet is ludicrous. Besides, negligence could be proven at 500 feet, 100 feet or 50 feet if you smack someone in the head with your drone. Quite frankly, I've often stated that I'm surprised that there isn't a minimum height requirement. I know that the doomsday types' main concern is commercial aircraft but I'm more afraid of someone running a 2lb Mavic Pro into a little girl's face at 30 mph than I am of the same drone taking out a 747.

Smacked in the head?

Iowa Baby Struck in Face by Runaway Drone in Public Park

 

[Cheech Wizard]

VLOS has always been the law. The difference now is that someone other than the pilot is now allowed to maintain VLOS. That'll certainly be a welcomed addition for many people.

I thought you could always use a spotter?

 

[Photo Booth]

VLOS has always been the law.

Sorry to disagree, but it wasn't the law for hobbyists until HR 302. Here is the prior law on the matter, Section 336 of 2012's HR 658:

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis- tered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).

It says NOTHING about visual line of sight.

Now, I guess it could be argued that it was sort of a law because the Section 336 states you have to fly in accordance with the safety guidelines of a CBO. And the AMA's safety guidelines say that you will maintain visual contact. But VLOS was NOT specifically written into law under Section 336.

That, of course, has changed with HR 302. It's now specifically written into law. There's no wiggle room. If you don't keep the drone within the range of your visual line of sight at all times (meaning, you can SEE the drone when you look at the sky), then you are breaking the law.

Mark

 

[Photo Booth]

I thought you could always use a spotter?

Regarding HOBBYIST drone operation, nope. The AMA's safety guidelines say nothing about using a spotter.

Now HR 302 allows the use of a spotter. A good change.

Mark

 

[tcope]

Sorry to disagree, but it wasn't the law for hobbyists until HR 302. Here is the prior law on the matter, Section 336 of 2012's HR 658:

...

It says NOTHING about visual line of sight.

Look at the definition of unmanned aircraft (or whatever Congress calls it). Congress was nice enough to hiding it under the definition. You need to read to the end of Section 336

So yes, since 2012 VLOS has applied.


"(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

[Note: While I _try_ to be correct in my post, msinger is the only person I've ever come across who appears top have _always_ been correct. If I find myself doubting his post... I go back and try to figure out where I was wrong. ]

 

[tcope]

I thought you could always use a spotter?

Not for hobby use, only when flying under Part 107, commercial flight.

 

[Photo Booth]

Look at the definition of unmanned aircraft (or whatever Congress calls it). Congress was nice enough to hiding it under the definition. You need to read to the end of Section 336

So yes, since 2012 VLOS has applied.


"(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

[Note: While I _try_ to be correct in my post, msinger is the only person I've ever come across who appears top have _always_ been correct. If I find myself doubting his post... I go back and try to figure out where I was wrong. ]

Thanks. Yep, didn't read far enough.

I stand corrected. My apologies to msinger.

So, that means we've had law breakers around here for a long time. The FAA's decision to start imposing fines as high as $20,000 is looking better all the time.

Mark

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Thanks. Yep, didn't read far enough.

I stand corrected. My apologies to msinger.

So, that means we've had law breakers around here for a long time. The FAA's decision to start imposing fines as high as $20,000 is looking better all the time.

Mark

They don't consider themselves "Law Breakers", They are just rebels that can't deal with the reality of our Govt. making them do things they don't want to. You either "Conform" and become a model citizen, or you look for anyway to get around Laws, Suggestions, general rules that many use like max height, VLOS, flying over crowds and rescue operations..etc. It's getting nutty around here. I like to stay in the middle ground and know what my drone can and can't do. ALWAYS with as much safety as I can. Why is it ALL or NOTHING all the time?

Check out You Tube and you will see "Law Breakers" all the time.

 

[tcope]

So, that means we've had law breakers around here for a long time. The FAA's decision to start imposing fines as high as $20,000 is looking better all the time.

Ever driven 61+ in a 60 zone? Ever rolled through a stop sign? Yup, all are 100% illegal.

Personally, the principle of the law is so people can determine if there are any manned aircraft in the area of the drone (or other objects). If I'm 2000' out I can't see my drone. But I know where it is and I can see aircraft for miles in all directions. This past weekend I was flying at 1200' above me. I could not see my drone (nor did I look) but I was also 100' off a 1500' cliff. If the FAA wants to fine me, I'll need to pay the fine.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Not for hobby use, only when flying under Part 107, commercial flight.

BUT.... you can still use a spotter, Preferably with binoculars?

 

[tcope]

BUT.... you can still use a spotter, Preferably with binoculars?

Not under hobby flight. Just your eyes with normal corrective lens if you wear them.