Line of Sight - Are most flights illegal?

[DownandLocked]

I have watched an incredible number of drone videos and it seems like most were flown beyond the pilot's line of sight. With the new popular high-tech drones, it seems like most are flying "FPV" by watching the video return from the on-board camera and are definitely not flying using line-of-sight control of the drone.

How are drone pilots interpreting the line-of-sight requirement in 107 and how is the FAA enforcing this requirement?

 

[UAVNV]

plausible deniability? i can't be sure.

 

[Haloweenhamster]

It depends on location, some places its law, some its regulation, some advisory

I read that the UK as long as you are certified you can go BVLOS

Edit: talking about, sorry, at the moment 2 companies and the emergency services can go BVLOS in the UK

The article I just read said UK drone safe says 400ft high 500m distance Max & VLOS but that's NOT law so no repercussions to going beyond that

 

[Haloweenhamster]

"In January 2017, for example, the USA’s FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) approved beyond-line-of-sight operations for the Northern Plains UAS (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) Test Site in North Dakota. This allows companies to come to the state to conduct UAS operations that aren’t possible anywhere else in the US, points out Senator John Hoeven – and will buy amlodipine online allow drones to carry out even more tasks"

 

[2nckayakers]

The videos that I have posted on here, every one was flown within VLOS. Now have I flown outside of VLOS, I can't say that I haven't, but again as I have posted everwhere else on here I did a lot of preparation for the flights, and I gathered all the data to make sure I was situationally aware of the possibilities. Does it make it legal, NO, but at least some thought, planning and safety went into it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Section 336

(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.

 

[mojpoj]

Section 336 is from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Passed in Jan of 2012, so likely written in 2011. How common was FPV in 2011? I think the intent behind (2) was with regard to model airPLANES and not drones as we know them today. Not to say we can ignore it, just that it needs to be changed to reflect current technology in my opinion.

If I can get the same view on goggles, with all the same information (or more) than a pilot in a helicopter. Why can't I fly FPV BVLOS out to say 5 miles under the same see and avoid rules that pilots use? Especially with the RTH functions that are present already. Safety is then somewhat mitigated.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Section 336 is from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Passed in Jan of 2012, so likely written in 2011. How common was FPV in 2011? I think the intent behind (2) was with regard to model airPLANES and not drones as we know them today. Not to say we can ignore it, just that it needs to be changed to reflect current technology in my opinion.

If I can get the same view on goggles, with all the same information (or more) than a pilot in a helicopter. Why can't I fly FPV BVLOS out to say 5 miles under the same see and avoid rules that pilots use? Especially with the RTH functions that are present already. Safety is then somewhat mitigated.

Agree - again we have politicians with no background in aviation or no insight in this technology calling the shots, and to make matters worse the FAA is caught in the middle.

 

[studentbhakti]

Section 336

(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.

I believe the question was in regards to someone who actually has their p107 license and not just the average hobbyist flying under different regs, including section 336.

However, you are supposed to fly in VLOS as well. The main point is to have situational awareness and to fly safe. I've talked to a couple of FAA guys and they've said that there is a lot of scrambling to catch up and there wasn't much enforcement. Of course that was about a year ago and things are changing so quickly.

Try to fly in VLOS, or at least do a little preparation before your flight. Stay below 400 and out of restricted airspace and you should be fine. Remember to watch what you post. Once the internet has it...

 

[sar104]

Section 336 is from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Passed in Jan of 2012, so likely written in 2011. How common was FPV in 2011? I think the intent behind (2) was with regard to model airPLANES and not drones as we know them today. Not to say we can ignore it, just that it needs to be changed to reflect current technology in my opinion.

If I can get the same view on goggles, with all the same information (or more) than a pilot in a helicopter. Why can't I fly FPV BVLOS out to say 5 miles under the same see and avoid rules that pilots use? Especially with the RTH functions that are present already. Safety is then somewhat mitigated.

Because you don't remotely have the same information as a pilot in an aircraft. A pilot is continually scanning the airspace ahead, to the side, above and below. Your FPV camera doesn't have that field of view and I guarantee you are not continually panning it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe the question was in regards to someone who actually has their p107 license and not just the average hobbyist flying under different regs, including section 336.

I posted that in response to the previous post. I hold a 107 certificate (as well as a commercial pilot's certificate). I will never purposely operate outside of VLOS, as a matter of fact, with the 107 work I've done there was never a need to operate more than 100' from my LZ.

 

[RC5728]

If you take a look on YouTube it will quickly become obvious that virtually every drone pilot in existence routinely flies outside of LOS. And does so without causing accidents.

It's not the pilots' fault for disobeying the rule, it's the FAA's fault for trying to apply an outdated rule to modern technology with new capabilities.

Virtually NO ONE follows that rule, and as far as I know the FAA has never come after anyone for disobeying that one.

Drones can be very easily and safely flown outside of LOS as long as you're not in a city or some kind of regulated airspace or unusual situation.

The FAA needs to update their rules. Period.

 

[crw92662]

Yeah let's be honest here everyone has probably flown beyond LOS at some point because it is 1) easy to do and 2) safe as long as you are not being an idiot about it.
It's like texting and driving I guess... people do it. Tough to prove unless someone comes up to you as you are flying and asks where your drone is and you say see that right over yonder by the tall trees bout few hundred meters out? And while they look for it you RTH... hahaha

 

[RC5728]

Yeah let's be honest here everyone has probably flown beyond LOS at some point because it is 1) easy to do and 2) safe as long as you are not being an idiot about it.
It's like texting and driving I guess... people do it. Tough to prove unless someone comes up to you as you are flying and asks where your drone is and you say see that right over yonder by the tall trees bout few hundred meters out? And while they look for it you RTH... hahaha

I’d say it’s more like talking on the phone while driving.

If even that serious.

 

[Mossiback]

I always try to stay within LOS but the MP is so small it quickly disappears. When that happens I stop and turn the MP back to see me (the general spot I am in) and then by lining up topography and juking the MP up/down and right/left I can usually pick it up again. In my case I have found that the signal quality can drop off quickly if I leave LOS by getting hills, trees, buildings, etc between the MP and RC, so not only is LOS the way you are supposed to fly, it is the best way to maintain control of your device.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you take a look on YouTube it will quickly become obvious that virtually every drone pilot in existence routinely flies outside of LOS. And does so without causing accidents.

It's not the pilots' fault for disobeying the rule, it's the FAA's fault for trying to apply an outdated rule to modern technology with new capabilities.

Virtually NO ONE follows that rule, and as far as I know the FAA has never come after anyone for disobeying that one.

Drones can be very easily and safely flown outside of LOS as long as you're not in a city or some kind of regulated airspace or unusual situation.

The FAA needs to update their rules. Period.

While I agree with you the FAA isn't just "update their rules." It will take a lot of public input to get this changed and the process is long, slow and bureaucratic. Even though the FAA doesn't have the resources to really police this be advised that if you cause an incident and are operating beyond VLOS, they will try to throw the book at you.

The FAA is very slow to evolve to new technology. If you look at approved reciprocating engines installed on GA aircraft, the basic technology has remained unchanged for almost 70 years. The process for certification is long and tedious. The FAA will expect you to evolve into their world, not the other way around and only pressure from the aviation public will change this.

(stepping off soapbox)

 

[RC5728]

While I agree with you the FAA isn't just "update their rules." It will take a lot of public input to get this changed and the process is long, slow and bureaucratic. Even though the FAA doesn't have the resources to really police this be advised that if you cause an incident and are operating beyond VLOS, they will try to throw the book at you.

The FAA is very slow to evolve to new technology. If you look at approved reciprocating engines installed on GA aircraft, the basic technology has remained unchanged for almost 70 years. The process for certification is long and tedious. The FAA will expect you to evolve into their world, not the other way around and only pressure from the aviation public will change this.

(stepping off soapbox)

If you cause an incident, I think the FAA is going to throw the book at you regardless of obeying VLOS.

Personally I am not really worried about the chances of any drone pilot causing a major incident with a drone even if they disobey ALL the rules.

We've had millions of drone pilots flying all over the world now, every day, for years. Including plenty of careless idiots. And no major incidents or deaths. In fact, selfies kill more people.

I still don't want to be the guy that gets on the news for doing something dumb with his drone, but I think it should be obvious by now that the risk to life or property with these things is virtually non-existent. The people who hate drones for other reasons will never admit that.

 

[sar104]

If you cause an incident, I think the FAA is going to throw the book at you regardless of obeying VLOS.

Personally I am not really worried about the chances of any drone pilot causing a major incident with a drone even if they disobey ALL the rules.

We've had millions of drone pilots flying all over the world now, every day, for years. Including plenty of careless idiots. And no major incidents or deaths. In fact, selfies kill more people.

I still don't want to be the guy that gets on the news for doing something dumb with his drone, but I think it should be obvious by now that the risk to life or property with these things is virtually non-existent. The people who hate drones for other reasons will never admit that.

I'm not sure how that argument stands up to any kind of logical scrutiny.

There have been several documented cases of quite serious head and neck injuries to people on the ground being hit by falling UAVs.

There have not been many aircraft collisions with UAVs but there have been a few, including at least one with documented damage that required the replacement of a main rotor on a UH-60, and there have been numerous near misses, which is not surprising since people have been doing as you mention, ignoring the rules and guidelines, and flying in airspace where conflict is likely. We can conclude from those observations that as UAVs become even more commonplace, there will continue to be plenty of opportunities for collisions with manned aircraft, and it would be foolish to assume that none of those will result in serious damage or worse.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

that required the replacement of a main rotor on a UH-60

As far as I know, I don't think that was ever verified. I worked on helicopters that were a lot less robust then a Blackhawk and the damage I seen the photos looked very repairable.

Still have to agree with your points

 

[sar104]

As far as I know, I don't think that was ever verified. I worked on helicopters that were a lot less robust then a Blackhawk and the damage I seen the photos looked very repairable.

Still have to agree with your points

It was confirmed:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/2017-DCA17IA202AB.aspx

Army Confirms Black Hawk, Drone Collided Over New York City