Flying further than LOS

[Cheech Wizard]

I'm lost. Sorry, but I'm not going to catch on if you keep answering my questions with unrelated questions.

@msinger, I apologize to you, got my comments mixed up. no wonder you were confused.

 

[UAVNV]

running a mission like that grab a friend, ask them to spot for you.

if your flying out of vlos just for the sake of it, gotta ask yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

[Slim.slamma]

running a mission like that grab a friend, ask them to spot for you.

if your flying out of vlos just for the sake of it, gotta ask yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Prior Plannings Promotes Proper Performance, Presentation, Passion, Play, Pay & Pray

 

[Trolleydodger]

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.

View attachment 49404

Spectacular !!

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Prior Plannings Promotes Proper Performance, Presentation, Passion, Play, Pay & Pray

Ah, The "Ten P's"..

 

[Maineiac]

The law says one thing but what really matters is how the FAA defines VLOS in the CFR (code of federal regulations) in relation to drones.

The old VLOS standard was written with model aircraft in mind which needed to maintain true visual line of sight because they didn’t have a camera streaming 1080 video and telemetry back to the operator. It’s possible that exceptions could be made that take modern unmanned aircraft into account.

After all, the intent is to prevent collisions with other aircraft and I could see or hear a plane/helo further out than a mile easily and drop my altitude until they pass.

Additionally, if VLOS is the rule then commercial drone delivery will never get off the ground either. I imagine something will get done to allow it in some fashion.

Or we’ll keep driving 70 in a 65 while getting the stink eye from all the white knights in the right lane.

 

[msinger]

The law says one thing but what really matters is how the FAA defines VLOS in the CFR (code of federal regulations) in relation to drones.

See post #74 above. That quote is from a document on the FAA's website and it's referring to model aircraft (which includes drones).

 

[Maineiac]

See post #74 above. That quote is from a document on the FAA's website and it's referring to model aircraft (which includes drones).

Right but that document was written a while ago and the new law was just passed so it’s possible they will be forced to re-evaluate things. The drone hobby isn’t going to last long if people are stuck flying only 1000ft away. These companies have invested good money in better transmission systems so I doubt they will just sit by and do nothing. Or the FAA continues to only enforce when something bad happens and the status quo continues...

 

[msinger]

the new law was just past so it’s possible they will be forced to re-evaluate things

Yep -- the power is in their hands now. The FAA is all about doing things safely. They are certainly not going to be forced into doing anything they feel is unsafe. With that said, they are working on ways to allow people to fly beyond VLOS. I don't know if that will ever include hobbyists.

 

[Photo Booth]

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.

View attachment 49404

You don't need a drone to shoot photos of beautiful landscapes.

Yep, that's me with the tripod at the time I was shooting the photo above it.

Mark

 

[ac0j]

I’ll see View attachment 49411what I can do for you

No goggles, just your eyes. VLOS is not seeing what your drone sees through your goggles.
You will never make anyone believe you can see a mavic at 3 miles with just your eyes.
That is ridiculous.

 

[Slim.slamma]

You will never make anyone believe you can see a mavic at 3 miles with just your eyes.

Inspire 2

 

[lmel2005]

Practical questions:
1. I fly my drone VLOS, and the policeman cannot see it. Am I illegal?
2. A few days ago, after a cyclone hitting us, I saw firemen operating an Inspire, searching for lost people in a river. They were flying certainly beyond LOS (this is logical, otherwise drone would be useless).
If the definition of the law makers for unmanned aircrafts, is that they must fly in VLOS, then THAT drone wasn't an unmanned aircraft?

I live away from us, and here we have other problems to solve with our regulations, but I worry because if something happens in us, sooner or later will happen in my country too.

 

[Maineiac]

Practical questions:
1. I fly my drone VLOS, and the policeman cannot see it. Am I illegal?
2. A few days ago, after a cyclone hitting us, I saw firemen operating an Inspire, searching for lost people in a river. They were flying certainly beyond LOS (this is logical, otherwise drone would be useless).
If the definition of the law makers for unmanned aircrafts, is that they must fly in VLOS, then THAT drone wasn't an unmanned aircraft?

I live away from us, and here we have other problems to solve with our regulations, but I worry because if something happens in us, sooner or later will happen in my country too.

Honestly I think it would be like how many officers view speeding. Many will ignore you going between 5-9 over the speed limit. I don’t think the FAA or local police are going to go out hunting for VLOS violators. They’re only going to come down on someone who does something stupid and causes an accident.

They already have proof of many VLOS violations from people on YouTube and no action has been taken against them.

 

[Mossiback]

Practical questions:
1. I fly my drone VLOS, and the policeman cannot see it. Am I illegal?
2. A few days ago, after a cyclone hitting us, I saw firemen operating an Inspire, searching for lost people in a river. They were flying certainly beyond LOS (this is logical, otherwise drone would be useless).
If the definition of the law makers for unmanned aircrafts, is that they must fly in VLOS, then THAT drone wasn't an unmanned aircraft?...

1. No.
2. It was an unmanned aircraft. It is impossible to know what exceptions the fireman was flying under, but you can assume they were in communication with other emergency services.

 

[lmel2005]

1. No.
2. It was an unmanned aircraft. It is impossible to know what exceptions the fireman was flying under, but you can assume they were in communication with other emergency services.

1. I'm sure, I'll get a ticket, and there will be no way to prove that officer had a poor vision.
2. Laws must be the same for all, and they must be fair and reasonable. If I cannot fly blos, because it is dangerous, it should be dangerous for fireman too.
If it isn't dangerous, even under some circumstances, the same should be for me too.

 

[InvisibleName]

1. I'm sure, I'll get a ticket, and there will be no way to prove that officer had a poor vision.
2. Laws must be the same for all, and they must be fair and reasonable. If I cannot fly blos, because it is dangerous, it should be dangerous for fireman too.
If it isn't dangerous, even under some circumstances, the same should be for me too.

Erm, no! A police officer doing there duty and chasing a criminal in a police car going above the speed limit is entitled to, there is no circumstance when it would be ok for you to also break the speed limit. I suspect that most of us do, on occasions, but it’s breaking the rules & you’d have to accept the punishment if caught.

A member of the emergency services using a drone beyond VLOS in the cause of their duty is perfectly legitimate, if we do the same, which we might on occasions, we have to be prepared to accept the punishment if caught!

 

[Defens]

This is now the law in the U.S. with regard to recreational (hobbyist) drone use:

SEC. 349. EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED RECREATIONAL OPERATIONS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.—Chapter 448 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

<snip>
“(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.
<snip>

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

Mark

Interesting. It says that the aircraft must be flown within the visual line of sight of the operator. It does not say that you can actually see it - just that you can't fly it in an visually obstructed area. I know, I know - it's the presumed intent of the law that you need to be able to see your drone, but that section is vague enough that a defense attorney might very well defeat it.

 

[DanMan32]

Not if somewhere else VLOS is spelled out.

 

[Photo Booth]

Interesting. It says that the aircraft must be flown within the visual line of sight of the operator. It does not say that you can actually see it - just that you can't fly it in an visually obstructed area. I know, I know - it's the presumed intent of the law that you need to be able to see your drone, but that section is vague enough that a defense attorney might very well defeat it.

Definitions for 'within' as a preposition:

1) inside of; in.
2) in the compass or limits of; not beyond: within view; to live within one's income.
3) at or to some point not beyond, as in length or distance

The aircraft is flown inside of the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.
The aircraft is flown in the limits of, not beyond, the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft
The aircraft is flown at or to some point not beyond the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.

There's no wiggle room.

What you are suggesting is "line of sight", not "visual line of sight'. Once the aircraft can't be seen by the operator it *may* be in the line of sight but it's not longer in the visual line of sight.

No wiggle room.

Mark