How come we see many very popular Youtubers flying BVLOS if it's not allowed?

[Sandwich]

Since I read that BVLOS approvals are very rare (like 25 total), I'm sure some of Youtubers we all watch don't have the authorization to be flying their drones out of sight. I appreciate the fun videos where they fly 4 miles away for a test but how are they getting away with it?

It might surprise you how far I can see. If asked, yes I can see it.

 

[maelstrom]

Interesting to read what the theoretical resolution of the perfect human eye is and how this makes a bit of a mockery of how far some people claim to be able to see their drone (in daylight). The smallest object that can be seen at 1000m is, apparently, 29cm:

What is the angular resolution of the 'ideal' human eye?

The visual acuity page on wikipedia suggests 1.8 arcmin @ 1km away (but says nothing about the relationship expected between distance and angular resolution) whilst the page on angular resolution

medicalsciences.stackexchange.com

This doesn’t make any allowance for the shape and colour of the drone or how the atmosphere affects the visibility. The average drone might be 29cm or more long, but is unlikely to be 29cm deep so the theoretical range will be reduced. Similarly, a grey drone, with poor contrast, will be visible at shorter ranges. Add in some atmospheric pollution or the effects of humidity and the range is probably going to be even less. Remember that this is for the perfect human eye which it’s unlikely any of us will have.

 

[wco81]

I can't track the drone once it's like 250 feet above and a couple of hundred feet away.

Even with binoculars, I doubt I could keep track of where it is when I'm looking at the controller screen and my phone to control it, change video and photo settings.

But the most I've flown away is maybe 3000-3300 feet. Often you get warnings about weak radio signals well before then, in which case I don't take chances, don't try to push it further, even though its rated for miles?

 

[ghjcmo]

This seems like as good of a place to ask this question as any. I fly my Maverick Air 2 almost exclusively over my 302 acre property in a rural area well away from people or buildings. There are trees and rolling hills. I fly high enough to make sure I clear the trees and all power lines, but WELL below the maximum of 400 feet. Because of the trees and rolling hills, frankly I'm out of VLOS in short order. It's just the way it is. If I stayed in VLOS I wouldn't be able to go 50 yards in any direction.

So I got to thinking, if my property was located somewhere where it was flat and treeless, I could fly everywhere over my property and be within VLOS. Ostensibly FAA regulations are for safety. So help me understand, what is inherently more dangerous about me being over a treeline or low hill without VLOS (but knowing EXACTLY where the drone from the video) as opposed to flying the SAME distance and height over flat open ground where I'm in VLOS? (IN both scenarios imagine a rural area with no people on the property and no air traffic.)

 

[ghjcmo]

I can't track the drone once it's like 250 feet above and a couple of hundred feet away.

EXACTLY! Once I've cleared the trees in my immediate vicinity, I'm looking at my telemetry and video, not the drone. It's not like I can fly it in any kind of controlled manner just by looking at it from a distance.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

This has more facets to it than a diamond.

First to answer the question directly. There are a lot of drone YouTuber who *do* fly BVLOS when they shouldn't according to the law. For my money that's between them and the regulatory body as long as they are not posing a safety risk. If I see someone who IS doing something that is a safety risk I don't report them, I walk right over and take it up with them on the spot.

One thing to keep in mind when watching those YouTube videos is the appearance often does not reflect the reality. I wouldn't by any means call myself a "well known" YouTuber. I have a tiny channel in comparison but I appear on most of the YouTube Drone based live streams from time to time often on the panel and know most of the big names personally and least passingly and they me. I can tell you that most of them are like myself in that when they post a video they are doing it for entertainment purposes and we edit it as such, for maximum entertainment value not for reality.

You could look at many of my videos and be sure I was flying BVLOS and I've edited it to give that "Wide out in the expanse" look. You see that drone eye view of that boat on the vista of the endless sea, you don't see the shore 300m behind the drone because I edit it out. You see that endless vista of mountains behind the shoreline obviously from a few miles out to sea, you don't get to see me heaving over the side of the pitching boat I flew from as that would ruin the magic.

I recently did a couple of videos on the Great barrier reef at Lady Musgrave Island which is 51 nautical miles out to sea. I don't have a battery that big . What I had was permissions in advance from three marine park authorities and incredible co operation from a tour company allowing me to go out there with my wife and the tourists for a day trip and then fly from their 35m Cat, the island, a tender and the glass bottom boat. Editing however it looks like I am flying miles away from anyone.

A lot of my "vista" shots where my drone seems to travel for miles is done by setting up the drone in a remote place and leaving a ground crew with it, trekking 400m over land, hiding in the landscape somewhere then contacting the ground crew by 2 way radio to be sure no one has wandered into harms way and then taking off flying overhead and landing 400m further on. Wash, lather repeat. The only hint of this is the transitions in the video where I stitch the parts together. At worst the ground crew/spotter sees the drone until it clears the tree line then I have line of sight for the rest of the flight, I have over $5k invested in my certification and training, I'm not risking that. So yeah, it's not always like it seems on the screen.

That said, I'm far more focused on safety than the letter of the law. If you are doing a range test out to sea out of busy airspace and away from swimmers and the worst that is going to happen is a four figure "kaplop" well ... I wouldn't do it because it's illegal and I like having my certification but it really is a "no harm, no foul" situation and I really can't see why there isn't provision for it. I think given time there will be.

Regards
Ari

 

[McShane Fleming]

If you want to fly 4 miles away and still see your drone and are a recreational flyer, put a few certified anti-collision lights on the back and front of your drone. On a clear night you will be able to see your drone at least 5 miles away as well as any manned aircraft approaching it. That's what I do anyway. I was even questioned by police once. They thought I was being "reckless", but on the contrary, it was like 3 am. There were few if any moving vehicles to worry about, no pedestrians and no manned aircraft flying about, I flew mainly over empty parking lots or empty fields. It's amazing how far you can see your drone at night with several anti-collision strobes attached. They actually look like manned aircraft. During the day I can only see the lights up to 5000ft max. Daytime flight is more dangerous with all the people and cars moving about. Well, that's if you live in a highly populated area. Also, during the day, there are many more small manned aircraft flying around.

You realize it’s illegal to fly a drone at night right.

 

[Corsair415]

You realize it’s illegal to fly a drone at night right.

Read #6. Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

 

[spsphotos]

Fire House XL. They even have a beeping tone in case you land or crash your drone. If you know the vicinity of the drone, you can here them beeping. The manufacturers say they do not reduce flight time. They strobe, blink, solid and sos.

Mine should be here Monday or Tuesday. Can't wait.

 

[wco81]

Fire House XL. They even have a beeping tone in case you land or crash your drone. If you know the vicinity of the drone, you can here them beeping. The manufacturers say they do not reduce flight time. They strobe, blink, solid and sos.

I have the M2P with the Fly More package and I used that shoulder bag it came in.

It's a snug fit for the drone in that bag.

How far do the lights stick out from the drone?

Wondering if it will fit in the bag with the lights installed.

 

[maelstrom]

So help me understand, what is inherently more dangerous about me being over a treeline or low hill without VLOS (but knowing EXACTLY where the drone from the video) as opposed to flying the SAME distance and height over flat open ground where I'm in VLOS? (IN both scenarios imagine a rural area with no people on the property and no air traffic.)

The point is one of safety. Not yours or your drone's but the safety of other people and aircraft. Just because there's never been anyone walking about in your area or an aircraft flying there, doesn't mean there definitely won't be at some time in the future - you have no way of knowing. The legislation has to cover all cases which is why it seems unnecessarily restrictive in some situations. The argument some use that you can see whats happening through the drone camera isn't valid because the camera has a relatively narrow field of view and may not be looking in the right direction to see the danger.

but it really is a "no harm, no foul" situation and I really can't see why there isn't provision for it. I think given time there will be.

I don't. Because of the attitude of some people, I can only see things becoming more restrictive. You either obey the laws or you break them, and that's your choice. But if you break them you must accept the consequences. It's like saying you drive your sports car at 150 mph down quiet, rural roads and if you don't see any other cars or hit anyone, it's alright - it's not! You can't choose the laws you want to obey and ignore the rest because YOU think it's OK and they don't seem to apply to you. I do think that the drone manufacturers could do more to educate people. At the very least they could put a big warning card in the product box saying something along the lines of "National laws may restrict what you can do with this drone and where you can fly it" and give a list of websites with more information. At least then no one would be able to plead ignorance.

I seem to be in the minority, but I don't have a problem with the existing laws. Perhaps I'm lucky that I haven't been in a situation yet where I needed extreme range to achieve what I wanted to do. If I don't think I'll be able to see my drone, I move the take-off point closer to my target area. Why is that so difficult? I realise that I may have to do this a few times to cover a large area but it's not that onerous a task. Drone flying will always be a compromise between what you'd like to do and what you're allowed to do.

 

[Yogi053]

The point is one of safety. Not yours or your drone's but the safety of other people and aircraft. Just because there's never been anyone walking about in your area or an aircraft flying there, doesn't mean there definitely won't be at some time in the future - you have no way of knowing. The legislation has to cover all cases which is why it seems unnecessarily restrictive in some situations. The argument some use that you can see whats happening through the drone camera isn't valid because the camera has a relatively narrow field of view and may not be looking in the right direction to see the danger.


I don't. Because of the attitude of some people, I can only see things becoming more restrictive. You either obey the laws or you break them, and that's your choice. But if you break them you must accept the consequences. It's like saying you drive your sports car at 150 mph down quiet, rural roads and if you don't see any other cars or hit anyone, it's alright - it's not! You can't choose the laws you want to obey and ignore the rest because YOU think it's OK and they don't seem to apply to you. I do think that the drone manufacturers could do more to educate people. At the very least they could put a big warning card in the product box saying something along the lines of "National laws may restrict what you can do with this drone and where you can fly it" and give a list of websites with more information. At least then no one would be able to plead ignorance.

I seem to be in the minority, but I don't have a problem with the existing laws. Perhaps I'm lucky that I haven't been in a situation yet where I needed extreme range to achieve what I wanted to do. If I don't think I'll be able to see my drone, I move the take-off point closer to my target area. Why is that so difficult? I realise that I may have to do this a few times to cover a large area but it's not that onerous a task. Drone flying will always be a compromise between what you'd like to do and what you're allowed to do.

What a sensible post! I believe it used to be called 'commonsense'.

 

[Gagey52]

It would appear that BVLOS is only illegal if you get caught. Personally I prefer to keep my drones in sight, can’t afford to loose them, I would cry ?

 

[ghjcmo]

The point is one of safety. Not yours or your drone's but the safety of other people and aircraft. Just because there's never been anyone walking about in your area or an aircraft flying there, doesn't mean there definitely won't be at some time in the future - you have no way of knowing. The legislation has to cover all cases which is why it seems unnecessarily restrictive in some situations. The argument some use that you can see whats happening through the drone camera isn't valid because the camera has a relatively narrow field of view and may not be looking in the right direction to see the danger.

Your response tells me you didn't really read my post. I'm flying my drone over MY PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE THERE ARE NO PEOPLE to fall on. Take that of the equation because it does not apply. What I'm asking is, why is unsafe to fly out of VLOS in this situation compared to a private property with no people that happens to be flat and you can stay in VLOS.

 

[ghjcmo]

What a sensible post! I believe it used to be called 'commonsense'.

Apparently I don't have common sense because I'm failing to see the logic. IF you go back to my post and read the question I asked, how does keeping it in VLOS keep it from falling out of the sky and hitting people? I mean I could put lights all over it to make it brighter, I could increase my altitude to make sure I'm well above the tree lines and rolling hills and it's definitely now VLOS. EXACTLY HOW does that prevent it from falling out of the sky and hitting someone?

 

[maelstrom]

What I'm asking is, why is unsafe to fly out of VLOS in this situation compared to a private property with no people that happens to be flat and you can stay in VLOS.

The difference is just the fact that you can’t see your drone! People aren’t really the problem on your private property. However, if an aircraft were to fly over your property below 400ft, you wouldn’t be able to see where your drone was in relation to that aircraft so you could be a hazard to its safe fight. You may say that nothing ever flies over your property but you can’t guarantee that will never happen. I was a professional helicopter pilot before I retired. About 15 years ago I was officially authorised to carry out a task at low level (200 ft) over part of a wilderness area in Scotland. When we subsequently landed to refuel, we had quite a few phone calls from people complaining and saying that they’d never seen an aircraft flying over that area before (at all, not just so low) because it was so remote. It happens. Just because it hasn’t so far doesn’t mean that it won’t happen next time you fly your drone - it may be unlikely but, unless you have an airspace restriction around your property, it’s always possible. That’s why you need to be able to see your drone.

 

[ghjcmo]

The difference is just the fact that you can’t see your drone! People aren’t so much of a problem on your private property. However, if an aircraft were to fly over your property below 400ft, you wouldn’t be able to see where your drone was in relation to that aircraft so you could be a hazard to its safe fight. You may say that nothing ever flies over your property but you can’t guarantee that will never happen. I was a professional helicopter pilot before I retired. About 15 years ago I was officially authorised to carry out a task at low level (200 ft) over part of a wilderness area in Scotland. When we subsequently landed to refuel, we had quite a few phone calls from people complaining and saying that they’d never seen an aircraft flying over that area before (at all, not just so low) because it was so remote. It happens. Just because it hasn’t so far doesn’t mean that it won’t happen next time you fly your drone - it may be unlikely but, unless you have an airspace restriction around your property, it’s always possible. That’s why you need to be able to see your drone.

A plane is going to fly over at 120 feet? OK. It seems like increasing altitude to make it VLOS is more likely than less likely to cause an issue.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm probably not making myself clear, I KNOW WHERE THE DRONE IS IT ALL TIMES, I just can't see it all the time.

 

[DoomMeister]

Your response tells me you didn't really read my post. You were so hellbent on giving me a safety lecture you answered a question I didn't ask. I'm flying my drone over MY PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE THERE ARE NO PEOPLE to fall on. Take that of the equation because it does not apply. What I'm asking is, why is unsafe to fly out of VLOS in this situation compared to a private property with no people that happens to be flat and you can stay in VLOS.

You might try taking up your argument at the FSDO that services your area. I believe that is the KC FSDO Kansas City FSDO.

VLOS is about situational awareness. If you have another method of knowing what is around your aircraft other than the video feed from the camera, then you may have situational awareness. If your area is as remote as you suggest, then you will also know that aircraft will be allowed to fly below 500 feet AGL and therefore theoretically in the same airspace.

Just because you choose to ignore regulations and flaunt it, doesn’t mean others don’t have the right to call you on it.

 

[maelstrom]

A plane is going to fly over at 120 feet? OK. It seems like increasing altitude to make it VLOS is more likely than less likely to cause an issue.

It’s possible. Police helicopter searches and area surveys for example. No drone has ever had a flyaway where it’s inadvertently climbed? Can you guarantee this will never happen? The legislation is there to cover any possible risk so is automatically quite broad. Whether or not you think it applies in your case is basically irrelevant - it’s still the law.

 

[ghjcmo]

You might try taking up your argument at the FSDO that services your area. I believe that is the KC FSDO Kansas City FSDO.

VLOS is about situational awareness. If you have another method of knowing what is around your aircraft other than the video feed from the camera, then you may have situational awareness. If your area is as remote as you suggest, then you will also know that aircraft will be allowed to fly below 500 feet AGL and therefore theoretically in the same airspace.

Just because you choose to ignore regulations and flaunt it, doesn’t mean others don’t have the right to call you on it.

I know the regulation. I'm asking about the safety issued involved. Nobody has yet offered a logical argument at to why being over the line of trees out of sight at 120 feet is inherently more unsafe than flying close to 400 feet which would be in VLOS. So far all I've heard is bureaucratic BS.