Have you seen this idiot

[G Saunders]

I understand that there are snippets of the laws posted from time to time. I'm just wanting to make sure they are all in context at all times.

So, the "With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight"
is interconnected with
(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;
(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and
(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

That is the question.

And how do drone delivery companies get past this? (for example)

Drone delivery companies use 4G LTE or 5G cellular to extend the range of telemetry and control, have detection and avoidnce built in, and have been waivered from VLOS egulations after they've proven they can fly safely BVLOS. The new rules are overdue, but BVLOS certification will be 'rule based' when they're finally promulgated.

The new rules don't mean that just any fool can go fly BVLOS, they will apply to those who buy drones certified for BVLOS, subscribe to a drone traffic management system, and get their operation certified.

Delivery drone do not use handheld remote controls.

 

[RangerEd]

A beginner's mistake. If Dunhill isn't an idiot, he's certainly careless and non-observant. What, exactly, is the purpose of a range test other than to tickle the tiger? Is it really necessary to see if a manufacturer's claims of flight duration and distance are entirely accurate?

He's been doing range tests for as long as I can remember when he was still doing it in Maui, HI where he was doing it from the foothills of Haleakala and there is clearly a LOS to the drone but obviously can't see the drone at some point. He is definitely not a beginner; many in the community wait for his range test videos. As a Part 107 holder, I'm not going to weigh in on the legality.

 

[RangerEd]

My point was filming yourself doing a potentially unsafe and questionable illegal flight is not the smartest thing to do.
Drone activity is heavily scrutinized right now. I think most people here are safe and conscientious. Do we need people posting unsafe activity on YouTube? Then, all the comments seem to support illegal activity. Maybe I misread them, but that's what it looked like to me.

You need to watch his earlier videos especially the ones he did in Maui, HI and judge for yourself if he was not flying in a safe manner.

 

[hank970]

He's been doing range tests for as long as I can remember when he was still doing it in Maui, HI where he was doing it from the foothills of Haleakala and there is clearly a LOS to the drone but obviously can't see the drone at some point. He is definitely not a beginner; many in the community wait for his range test videos. As a Part 107 holder, I'm not going to weigh in on the legality.

I didn't say he was a beginner. I said he made a beginner's mistake. And I still don't understand the allure of deliberate range testing, unless it's to garner views on You Tube videos. Imagine a private pilot hopping into a new plane and then flying it to the extremes of its range just to see how far he can get. "Oops, I just ran out of gas and suddenly realize that there's no safe place to land down there."

 

[DarR-T]

As far as I'm concerned, he's not endangering anyone on the ground as he's in the woods nor in the air as he's not flying at high altitudes. Yes, he's attempting to break the rules by flying BVLOS but the only casualty is to the drone itself. Yes, he was careless but he himself admitted his mistake. IMHO, nothing to see here and move along.

 

[Tower669]

He also didn't crash anything that could potentially burst into flames into a forest made up of anything combustable, while he was nearby with a fire extinguisher at the ready. There hasen't been any trouble with fires in the US in quite awhile, much less recently in the southwest, where he claims to be filming. No big deal. I'm sure the US forest service would have nothing to say.


LOL

 

[Jim622]

You need to watch his earlier videos especially the ones he did in Maui, HI and judge for yourself if he was not flying in a safe manner.

I must admit I never watched this guy until now.
I suppose this is one of his safer videos?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Bad Santa]

Y'all need to demand to speak to his manager,

 

[Photo Booth]

He also didn't crash anything that could potentially burst into flames into a forest made up of anything combustable, while he was nearby with a fire extinguisher at the ready. There hasen't been any trouble with fires in the US in quite awhile, much less recently in the southwest, where he claims to be filming. No big deal. I'm sure the US forest service would have nothing to say.


LOL

Hasn't been trouble with fires in the US in quite awhile? What rock have you been hiding under?

California fires updates: Death toll in Los Angeles fires rises to 29

At least 29 people are believed to be dead and more than a dozen others remain unaccounted for as multiple wildfires rage across Southern California.

abcnews.go.com

Mark

 

[jaja6009]

I understand that there are snippets of the laws posted from time to time. I'm just wanting to make sure they are all in context at all times.

So, the "With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight"
is interconnected with
(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;
(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and
(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

That is the question.

And how do drone delivery companies get past this? (for example)

Drone Delivery that flies BVLOS will fly under Part 135.

 

[Tower669]

Hasn't been trouble with fires in the US in quite awhile? What rock have you been hiding under?

California fires updates: Death toll in Los Angeles fires rises to 29

At least 29 people are believed to be dead and more than a dozen others remain unaccounted for as multiple wildfires rage across Southern California.

abcnews.go.com

Mark

Satire. Read it again.

 

[Andy carley]

And yet his video seems to dispute that statement.

Hey learn from his mistake stop criticising

 

[davidarmenb]

Hasn't been trouble with fires in the US in quite awhile? What rock have you been hiding under?

California fires updates: Death toll in Los Angeles fires rises to 29

At least 29 people are believed to be dead and more than a dozen others remain unaccounted for as multiple wildfires rage across Southern California.

abcnews.go.com

Mark

He was clearly being sarcastic.

 

[tstr14]

Hey learn from his mistake stop criticising

My statement wasn't criticism but rather a reflection of truth. Nor was the comment directed at him, but rather at someone who said he wasn't an idiot. However, since the term "Idiot" has been used, here is my definition of one who deserves the moniker:

Someone who:
1) Takes his eye off the screen and/or aircraft.
2) Flies into a tree.
3) Wrecks his expensive new drone.
4) Posts a video full of incessant chatter to show what he has done.

 

[Jim622]

My statement wasn't criticism but rather a reflection of truth. Nor was the comment directed at him, but rather at someone who said he wasn't an idiot. However, since the term "Idiot" has been used, here is my definition of one who deserves the moniker:

Someone who:
1) Takes his eye off the screen and/or aircraft.
2) Flies into a tree.
3) Wrecks his expensive new drone.
4) Posts a video full of incessant chatter to show what he has done.

I would add as 1) put the drone in sport mode (disabling the collision avoidance sensors)
2) not preplanning your flight knowing that you put it in sport mode

 

[Droning on and on...]

Y'all need to demand to speak to his manager,

He's been asked to send in an email with five things he did last week to be a safe drone pilot.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Hasn't been trouble with fires in the US in quite awhile? What rock have you been hiding under?

California fires updates: Death toll in Los Angeles fires rises to 29

At least 29 people are believed to be dead and more than a dozen others remain unaccounted for as multiple wildfires rage across Southern California.

abcnews.go.com

Mark

The one next to the "sarcasm-clueless" boulder you're living under?

 

[Droning on and on...]

So, here's the question on VLOS.
Do you have to be able to see the drone, itself, or the area the drone is in?

Yes.

I knw people say it's supposed to be able to see the drone itself. Is that in writing in some law? (I'm not saying it's not)

Yes also.

The regulatory requirement for VLOS is you can see the drone well enough to discern it's attitude and orientation, so that you know exactly what will happen with any control input.

Honest people will acknowledge that even for the youngest with the most exceptional vision compared to the average person, this really isn't much farther than about 50-100 yards.

Lots of people claim to, in fact a majority here, but IMO they're playing Stretch Armstrong with the requirement to be fully aware of attitude.

Now, all that said, the VLOS is the most obsolete, useless, overbearing regulation on the books, and anyone that makes a big stink about safety issues violating it are either naive as a stump, or virtue signaling.

There are very real, very serious safety risks that must be self-policed by the drone community, and should be punished by authorities. Exceeding 400ft AGL ceiling is one of them. BVLOS flight is not, and years of actual outcomes validates this.

 

[Droning on and on...]

My statement wasn't criticism but rather a reflection of truth. Nor was the comment directed at him, but rather at someone who said he wasn't an idiot. However, since the term "Idiot" has been used, here is my definition of one who deserves the moniker:

Someone who:
1) Takes his eye off the screen and/or aircraft.
2) Flies into a tree.
3) Wrecks his expensive new drone.
4) Posts a video full of incessant chatter to show what he has done.

You're an idiot, then.

I have no doubt at all that you have been flying and taken your eyes off the screen and aircraft, at some point. Claim otherwise if you'd like, I won't bother with the argument, but no one will believe you.

Also, I'd point out that all sorts of fine people do idiotic things, and that doesn't make them an idiot. I suspect you can recall a few of your own idiotic moves over your life, like all of us can.

 

[tstr14]

You're an idiot, then.

I have no doubt at all that you have been flying and taken your eyes off the screen and aircraft, at some point. Claim otherwise if you'd like, I won't bother with the argument, but no one will believe you.

Also, I'd point out that all sorts of fine people do idiotic things, and that doesn't make them an idiot. I suspect you can recall a few of your own idiotic moves over your life, like all of us can.

Not when I'm in sport mode and trees are in the area. And I also don't give a rip whether you believe it or not.