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

[maelstrom]

I'm looking for a practical explanation for why being unable to see my drone because it beyond the tree line at tree top level in rolling hills over uninhabited private property makes it any more unsafe than flying at 400 feet over the same terrain.

Haven’t we already explained this several times? It’s not that it’s unsafe every time as much as the fact that it could be at some time when you’re not expecting it to be. The legislation is there to make sure that flying your drone is as safe as possible so it tries to prevent potentially unsafe practices.

But so far nobody has been able to offer any practical comment, other than maybe there might be a plane flying by at treetop level.

Is that not a good enough reason? A drone hitting an aircraft can cause significant damage which could be avoided if you were able to see both your drone and the aircraft. Here’s an example of the damage a drone can cause:

Strobes won’t help much if it’s trees which are blocking your view. They’ll only really help if you have a fairly unobstructed line of sight to the drone in the first place.

 

[ghjcmo]

Haven’t we already explained this several times? It’s not that it’s unsafe every time as much as the fact that it could be at some time when you’re not expecting it to be. The legislation is there to make sure that flying your drone is as safe as possible so it tries to prevent potentially unsafe practices.

Is that not a good enough reason? A drone hitting an aircraft can cause significant damage which could be avoided if you were able to see both your drone and the aircraft. Here’s an example of the damage a drone can cause:

Strobes won’t help much if it’s trees which are blocking your view. They’ll only really help if you have a fairly unobstructed line of sight to the drone in the first place.

Maelstrom, I appreciate you taking the time to respond but you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree here. You never have understood my question and you're hung up on this low flying aircraft thing, which is not going to happen where I am at unless the airplane is in distress. And if is, it's got bigger issues than my drone. So let's just drop it shall we?

 

[maelstrom]

you're hung up on this low flying aircraft thing, which is not going to happen where I am at unless the airplane is in distress.

I congratulate you on your absolute certainty! I think I understood your original question perfectly, but no matter. I can see you’re determined to ignore the regulation so, yes, let’s just agree to disagree.

 

[Gagey52]

"So far all I've heard is bureaucratic BS." With tongue in cheek ghcmo I say welcome to the world of aviation, because that is what the bureaucrats have dictated. They control the airspace and you will do as your told. You have a good day and don't let the (Removed by moderator) wear you down.

 

[Malcx]

So far all I've heard is bureaucratic BS.

That "bureaucratic BS" errs heavily on the side of caution. That's why we have safe skies with very very few accidents. Yes it can be frustrating and feel limiting but there are good reasons for them to be in place.

It's not reasonable to have rules like "Always fly VLOS Unless specific exception a, b, c, d...."
There are too many selfish idiots out there who will deliberately misinterpret those exceptions to mean 'ha! they don't apply to me in this case' and that's when we get accidents.

It's simply safer to have overly broad rules applying to all situations, especially in an area where the technology is vastly outpacing the ability for new regs to be formed and disseminated to all pilots.

 

[ghjcmo]

That "bureaucratic BS" errs heavily on the side of caution. That's why we have safe skies with very very few accidents. Yes it can be frustrating and feel limiting but there are good reasons for them to be in place.

It's not reasonable to have rules like "Always fly VLOS Unless specific exception a, b, c, d...."
There are too many selfish idiots out there who will deliberately misinterpret those exceptions to mean 'ha! they don't apply to me in this case' and that's when we get accidents.

It's simply safer to have overly broad rules applying to all situations, especially in an area where the technology is vastly outpacing the ability for new regs to be formed and disseminated to all pilots.

Thanks for responding. I understand what you're saying. I was just trying to understand in practical reason for that rule. I was thinking maybe somebody would say something that would make think "Oh yeah, I shouldn't do that." (LIke flying over people, that's easy to understand). I like to know WHY I'm doing something other than "Well that's the rule."

I'm moving forward with getting my drone lit up, I should have done that long ago, but honestly I haven't flown much. I have 3 batteries and I checked Friday and one had been recharged 5 times, and the one with the most recharges was 7 times. And I've had it since July. So that gives you an idea of how little I fly. LOL But I'm looking forward to getting the lights and then running some test flights to test the limits of my VLOS.

Thanks again for the response.

 

[Thomas B]

Thanks for responding. I understand what you're saying. I was just trying to understand in practical reason for that rule. I was thinking maybe somebody would say something that would make think "Oh yeah, I shouldn't do that." (LIke flying over people, that's easy to understand). I like to know WHY I'm doing something other than "Well that's the rule."

I'm moving forward with getting my drone lit up, I should have done that long ago, but honestly I haven't flown much. I have 3 batteries and I checked Friday and one had been recharged 5 times, and the one with the most recharges was 7 times. And I've had it since July. So that gives you an idea of how little I fly. LOL But I'm looking forward to getting the lights and then running some test flights to test the limits of my VLOS.

Thanks again for the response.

If your not flying VLOS then the chances of a mid-air encounter is much higher since you don’t have even 180 degrees lateral vision field w/o turning the whole drone. Vertical field is less than 120 degrees... you have no vision behind you or above you.... if you can’t see your drone the chances of a strike or being struck by something is much higher.

 

[Repaid1]

If your not flying VLOS then the chances of a mid-air encounter is much higher since you don’t have even 180 degrees lateral vision field w/o turning the whole drone. Vertical field is less than 120 degrees... you have no vision behind you or above you.... if you can’t see your drone the chances of a strike or being struck by something is much higher.

I'm not sure I am with you on that statement. Normally pilots fly with their radio facing the drone thus if he is BVLOS then any aircraft flying to his blind side to the rear of drone must first fly over him (Not always, but at least 90% of the time he would hear at the reverse of those angles) therefor he is going to have plenty of time to adjust flight...would he not? So a good chunk or that 180 degrees would be subtracted for that, it would have to be a more blind angle from the rear as I see it, not the 180. IMHO.

I'm not taking sides but given where he is flying and at height he is flying he has about as much chance of hitting any aircraft (even with the percentage of any fly away which in itself is statistically low, but throw that in) as getting swept up in a tornado and then struck by lightning at the same time statistically as I see it, Is he illegal..yes. but come on?

 

[Thomas B]

I'm not sure I am with you on that statement. Normally pilots fly with their radio facing the drone thus if he is BVLOS then any aircraft flying to his blind side of drone must first fly over him (Not always, but at least 90% of the time) therefor he is going to have plenty of time to adjust flight...would he not? So a good chunk or that 180 degrees would be subtracted for that, it would have to be a more blind angle from the rear as I see it, not the 180. IMHO.

Your scenario is based on flying away from you/controller in a straight-out/straight-in route.
Of course we know that’s never always the case When BVLOS, as anywhere... the drone camera can be pointed at only one area of the sky.... I you can’t see an object you can’t avoid it.... when you can’t see your drone you can only rely on direction you point the controller which will work fine if off by 50-60 degrees.... pretty big area to try to avoid things in, especially if you don’t know where the drone is. JMHO

 

[ghjcmo]

If your not flying VLOS then the chances of a mid-air encounter is much higher since you don’t have even 180 degrees lateral vision field w/o turning the whole drone. Vertical field is less than 120 degrees... you have no vision behind you or above you.... if you can’t see your drone the chances of a strike or being struck by something is much higher.

Well in my original question which you may or may have not seen, I pointed out I'm flying 100-120 feet off the ground. I'm not sure how I could have a mid-air encounter at that altitude unless the pilot of the manned aircraft was seriously violating FAA rules, and if he is, he's most likely going to strike the trees or the aforementioned rolling hills. Or the radio tower that's a mile or so up the road.

 

[ghjcmo]

, especially if you don’t know where the drone is. JMHO

FYI, I know where my drone is at all times even if I can't see it. If I were flying over unfamiliar territory, admittedly that might not be the case.

 

[Thomas B]

? Rescue helicopter? Private helicopter?... I’ve had the latter almost hit my car on TO flying legally on an Indian reservation.

 

[ghjcmo]

? Rescue helicopter? Private helicopter?... I’ve had the latter almost hit my car on TO flying legally on an Indian reservation.

Well LOL, I'm not on a reservation, so as far as I know a private helicopter flying over the farm still has to be at 500 feet. Yes theoretically a medical evacuation helicopter could land on an adjoining property and therefore could get down to 120 feet over the farm I suppose. But I'm going to hear that long before it gets there.

We can play the "what if" game all day. I'm not going down this rabbit hole again. As I told the other guy, with all due respect, we'll just agree to disagree. I'm 100% confident I'm in ZERO danger of a mid-air encounter where and how I'm flying right now. The odds of such encounter will only increase if I attempt to gain altitude to obtain VLOS. HOWEVER THAT BEING SAID, I'm going to get the lights going and then do tests flights to better establish VLOS. And if I have to fly higher to be in VLOS I will. But I'm NOT going to feel safer in doing so.

 

[Thomas B]

K!

 

[Malcx]

@ghjcmo you seem to want a specific case where VLOS is safer?
If your phone or tablet reboots, crashes or runs out of power then you don't know exactly where the AC is, but more importantly don't know the orientation.

Sure RTH is an option there, but that isn't always 100% reliable due to either software or user error.

If you can see the aircraft, you should be able bring her home with just the remote despite other failures.

 

[DanMan32]

Actually RTH could be worse than staying put BVLOS and having lost video, since it then rises if lower than RTH altitude, then beelines right to you. That could be right into the path of a manned aircraft.

Planes and helicopters (when cruising) should ideally be above 500ft but often they aren't and may even have legal right to do so in some situations.
I had a chopper and a small plane buzz around a beach near me, not far offshore that were definitely below 500ft. I'd estimate 200 to 300ft. So you can't just trust "there will never be a plane so low that I'm safe", especially in rural areas. Pilots in rural areas are thinking the way you are, there's nobody there so its safe to be low.
Are the chances slim? Yes, but not zero.

As a former employer who learned to fly said, unlike cars, aircraft in a disabling accident can't pull over at the next cloud.

 

[ghjcmo]

Pilots in rural areas are thinking the way you are, there's nobody there so its safe to be low.
Are the chances slim? Yes, but not zero.

Well I wish them luck with that, if they come down to where i am, they're going to run into the trees. LOL

EDIT TO ADD: I don't know where you guys all live that the pilots of manned aircraft are all flying crazy low like that, but if they do that around here, they're going to end up in the trees or the hillsides, or the various radio and cellphone towers. (There are a LOT of cellphone towers around) They might be doing that out over the beach or in BFE (where if it's sparsely populated and apparently it's allowed) but they're not doing it here. They're just not. I've lived here all my life, it just doesn't happen.

 

[TerryToast]

It's simply safer to have overly broad rules applying to all situations

I disagree.

If you make a rule (in any area of life) that makes little sense and the likelihood of being caught is very slim, then people will be more likely to break that rule.

Then it compounds, because if you’re breaking one rule (and flying illegally), then you’ve crossed that line and you’re more likely to break others.

Poor rules lead to poor results.

 

[ghjcmo]

@ghjcmo you seem to want a specific case where VLOS is safer?
If your phone or tablet reboots, crashes or runs out of power then you don't know exactly where the AC is, but more importantly don't know the orientation.

You've just given me an idea of something I need to do when adding lights, I need to add different colors to the rear of the drone because the way things are right now, just looking at my drone, I would have no clue about the orientation. About all I could do is go straight down. Which If I had all the simultaneous failures you described, that's what I would do. If I couldn't go down because the controller failed, well then VLOS wouldn't matter much would it?

EDIT TO ADD: My last statement sounds more snarky than I intended, I just meant if the controller completely fails, and RTH doesn't work, I'm kind of screwed no matter what. But I want to thank you for your response. Your the first one that actually makes think a little more about failure of my Ipad Mini (it's what I use for a controller screen). Forget the mythical low flying aircraft, just in general, if my Ipad failed, then that would present more of a challenge when out of VLOS. So thank you for an actual practical example.

I just got an e-mail that my lights have shipped so I'm anxious to try that out if the weather cooperates this weekend.

 

[maelstrom]

Is he illegal..yes. but come on?

Breaking the law is a choice you make. The OP seems to be saying that unless he can see a good reason for a particular law, he’s happy not to obey it. That’s his decision but it doesn’t change the law or make what he’s doing any less illegal. Question it, by all means, and petition your national aviation authority if you feel strongly enough that it’s wrong but be prepared to accept the penalty if you’re caught.

If you make a rule (in any area of life) that makes little sense and the likelihood of being caught is very slim, then people will be more likely to break that rule.

Just because a rule doesn’t make sense to you, doesnt mean that there isn’t a perfectly good reason for it. You have to look at this rationally. Trying to make rules which apply in specific circumstance, in specific places and for specific drones would involve absolutely massive amounts of paperwork, would probably take years to write and would almost certainly need amending very regularly. The number of possible permutations would be almost infinite. It would then likely be so difficult (impossible?) to find rules which fit your particular circumstances that no one would bother looking for them so you’d be back in the same position you were with the general rules.

I’ve yet to encounter a situation where it was impossible to do what I wanted to whilst remaining within the rules. The problem is that some people seem to reluctant to put any effort into trying to work out how to remain legal.