Line of Sight - Are most flights illegal?

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

The primary purpose of the VLOS is Safety. Even with FVP goggles you will not see an aircraft or other hazard outside of your FOV when flying BVLOS. And there are many comments about Helos being below the 400' AGL. They as others have mentioned have authorization to be there including Medical, Police, Fire, SAR, etc. But there are others that are not mentioned, Para-gliders, Hang-gliders, Crop Dusters, Hot Air Balloons, and many more, and even Sky Divers. All of which you cannot see when flying BVLOS. The whole point is not just the damage to aircraft if hit, but the potential loss of life. There are some here that have mentioned preparation prior to flying BVLOS, that is good, but you can't always know when there will be an unknown emergency, low level training flight, or student sky diving in an area that you will put in danger by flying BVLOS. I have actually flown a 107 flight where a few minutes after landing a couple of A-10's flew through the same area under 400'. They were on a training weekend. If I was flying BVLOS I would not have seen them.

Although there are many that do not agree with VLOS rules, they are for safety. Depending on the size of your UAV, VLOS distance can be very short. So there will be times when many will go beyond VLOS and it will be unavoidable. If you want to fly BVLOS, then apply for a waiver. If not then use common sense when doing so.

(Note: While in the Air Force, it was not uncommon to see A-10s flying over tree tops while on training missions. Just Saying, not to start a debate)

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

The rules were not written for many areas, no. They were written for all areas, which is part of the problem. Even "established aviation law" for actual manned aircraft has different rules for a variety of situations and aircraft types. Drone laws are blanket all aircraft and all situation type laws that more often than not are senseless.

If I have a drone hovering ten feet in the air in an open field, I really shouldn't be legally required to be scanning the sky for low flying aircraft and be keeping vlos on my aircraft. There's nothing to hit, and no aircraft could be reasonably flying that low.

The same is true of my 15,000 foot flight. If I'm 50 feet up flying over a creek system in a several mile wide valley area with no tree in a 5 mile radius I can see any incoming aircraft a long way off.. and I'm really not remotely worried about hitting anything bigger than a bird.

I'm still looking around and keeping an eye on the area, but such a flight is perfectly safe.

I agree Enorats, Blanket rules do not always make sense depending on the individual circumstances. The FAA does have a waiver to meet those circumstances. If you have a Valley as mentioned above, apply for a waiver, explain the location and conditions along with the required information needed by the FAA. Make sure to tell them the waiver if for this area ONLY and you will stay below XX feet AGL, so they don't deny it because they think your going to fly in an unauthorized airspace. If approved, it will specify on the waiver that your are authorized to fly BVLOS in this particular valley. I hope you do apply and are successful. Then you can fly BVLOS and if anyone says anything you can flash the waiver in their face. Good Luck!

 

[Sky Angels]

The rules are always set for the lowest common denominator. THE WORST PILOT!

I can absolutely fly safely in many conditions others can not. Including all sorts of RC craft.

There is a big difference between a pilot who cares and has 20,000+ flying hours and a total beginner right?

That is what he’s saying.

Dedication to safety and practice are always the key.

You have ears too! Use them!

 

[Enorats]

One thing to keep in mind too is that I'm not talking about FPV goggles. I don't care for those at all, and think anyone using them should at the very least have a spotter.

When I'm flying I almost always fly well beyond the point where I cannot see my drone, but I always check the sky around me every minute or so for any aircraft. If I see anything I'll typically drop down below 200 feet, even if the aircraft is far above that. To me, that's just simple common sense and being polite to the actual pilots.

Blanket rules just don't make a lot of sense.. as others have stated there are lots of things to be concerned about in general, but skydivers? Hot air balloons? Paragliders? I can think of one time I've ever seen even one of those in 30 years and it was half a state away from where I typically fly. Low flying fighters? Never. High flying ones.. once a year, maybe?

These sorts of things just aren't common enough to be worth more than a cursory "can I see anything in the sky?" glance every minute or two, at least not here. Common sense here is watch out for crop dusters, and don't fly over crop fields during certain parts of the year.. but undeveloped wilderness areas? Just stay out of shotgun range, and watch out for flocks of birds suddenly taking flight. There's nothing else to hit.

 

[Qoncussion]

One thing to keep in mind too is that I'm not talking about FPV goggles. I don't care for those at all, and think anyone using them should at the very least have a spotter.

When I'm flying I almost always fly well beyond the point where I cannot see my drone, but I always check the sky around me every minute or so for any aircraft. If I see anything I'll typically drop down below 200 feet, even if the aircraft is far above that. To me, that's just simple common sense and being polite to the actual pilots.

Blanket rules just don't make a lot of sense.. as others have stated there are lots of things to be concerned about in general, but skydivers? Hot air balloons? Paragliders? I can think of one time I've ever seen even one of those in 30 years and it was half a state away from where I typically fly. Low flying fighters? Never. High flying ones.. once a year, maybe?

These sorts of things just aren't common enough to be worth more than a cursory "can I see anything in the sky?" glance every minute or two, at least not here. Common sense here is watch out for crop dusters, and don't fly over crop fields during certain parts of the year.. but undeveloped wilderness areas? Just stay out of shotgun range, and watch out for flocks of birds suddenly taking flight. There's nothing else to hit.

I think the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 tied the hands of the FAA on further regulation of model aircraft. This has probably worked out 1,000% in favor of additional restrictions that would have, by now, made it illegal to fly just about anywhere under any circumstances.

I often fly in an open field, that is a little more than one mile from end to end, and about 1/2 a mile wide. The field borders on the very edge of a NFZ for a local small-craft airport. The field is in a valley, *800 feet below the runway* of the airport. The runway, at 5 miles away, is perpendicular to the valley - so no plane could fly through the valley on takeoff or approach and be lined up with the runway. In 17+ years of going to this field for various reasons, I have only once ever seen a plane fly low enough to raise the hair on the back of my neck, and even then, I'd say the pilot was 500+ft AGL. Because it's a valley, the surrounding mountains put ground-level for aircraft well above the valley floor. So, technically, I could launch from the valley floor and rise to 1,200ft, while maintaining 400ft AGL in actual airspace occupied by the aircraft using the local airport. Yet, because of the 5 mile radius around the airport, this location is deemed to be unsafe. There simply could not be a safer place to fly.

Now then, do I want the FAA to regain the power of being able to review this valley and make adjustments to the rules for model aircraft? No ~ absolutely not! With that power comes additional powers that would no doubt limit our current freedoms.

So while I hear what you're saying ~ be careful what you ask for. Handing full control back to the FAA would only limit us more. For the 2% of good that could come from it, it's the other 98% that concerns me.

 

[prb]

This is no doubt somewhat ancillary to the ongoing discussion, but I find the use of the term “line of sight” to be at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. The definition of the term is “a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision.” It says nothing about being able to see an object; it just says that there needs to be no obstruction between the observer and the object. Adding “visual” to the term doesn’t help; it’s redundant with “sight.” Furthermore, requiring an unobstructed path between an unmanned aircraft and the pilot is so commonsensical that is shouldn’t require saying; obstructions are what cause the aircraft to lose contact with the pilot.

What the rule should say is simply that any unmanned vehicle should be within the sight of the pilot. And if the FAA is truly concerned about safety, it should specify that the flight should be limited to a specified distance, as I understand Canada has done recently (500 meters).

 

[787steve]

This is no doubt somewhat ancillary to the ongoing discussion, but I find the use of the term “line of sight” to be at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. The definition of the term is “a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision.” It says nothing about being able to see an object; it just says that there needs to be no obstruction between the observer and the object. Adding “visual” to the term doesn’t help; it’s redundant with “sight.” Furthermore, requiring an unobstructed path between an unmanned aircraft and the pilot is so commonsensical that is shouldn’t require saying; obstructions are what cause the aircraft to lose contact with the pilot.

What the rule should say is simply that any unmanned vehicle should be within the sight of the pilot. And if the FAA is truly concerned about safety, it should specify that the flight should be limited to a specified distance, as I understand Canada has done recently (500 meters).

On this FAA document:
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.16,Ch1,Sec2,

it defines VLOS as being capable of being seen with unaided vision (except corrective lenses)

QQ. Visual Line of Sight (VLOS). Means that any flightcrew member (i.e., remote PIC, the person manipulating the controls, and visual observer, if used) is capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, spectacles or contact lenses in order to know the UA’s location, determine the UA’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight, observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards, and determine that the UA does not endanger the life or property of another.

 

[787steve]

One thing to keep in mind too is that I'm not talking about FPV goggles. I don't care for those at all, and think anyone using them should at the very least have a spotter.

When I'm flying I almost always fly well beyond the point where I cannot see my drone, but I always check the sky around me every minute or so for any aircraft. If I see anything I'll typically drop down below 200 feet, even if the aircraft is far above that. To me, that's just simple common sense and being polite to the actual pilots.

Blanket rules just don't make a lot of sense.. as others have stated there are lots of things to be concerned about in general, but skydivers? Hot air balloons? Paragliders? I can think of one time I've ever seen even one of those in 30 years and it was half a state away from where I typically fly. Low flying fighters? Never. High flying ones.. once a year, maybe?

These sorts of things just aren't common enough to be worth more than a cursory "can I see anything in the sky?" glance every minute or two, at least not here. Common sense here is watch out for crop dusters, and don't fly over crop fields during certain parts of the year.. but undeveloped wilderness areas? Just stay out of shotgun range, and watch out for flocks of birds suddenly taking flight. There's nothing else to hit.

Enorats, you are referring to simple common sense, which seems obvious to all of us. But someone has to write regulations to keep people without sense (ie. the pilot in Las Vegas, Tel Aviv, etc) from doing something tragically stupid. How would you write the rules, so that everyone would understand them, and would keep the airspace safe for manned aircraft?

 

[Enorats]

On this FAA document:
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.16,Ch1,Sec2,

it defines VLOS as being capable of being seen with unaided vision (except corrective lenses)

QQ. Visual Line of Sight (VLOS). Means that any flightcrew member (i.e., remote PIC, the person manipulating the controls, and visual observer, if used) is capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, spectacles or contact lenses in order to know the UA’s location, determine the UA’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight, observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards, and determine that the UA does not endanger the life or property of another.

10 years ago the reasoning given for needing VLOS would have made sense. Today though? I can better determine location, altitude, speed, and direction of travel by looking at the data on my tablet.

Observing the air traffic doesn't require me to see my tiny drone at all. Hell, I don't even need to know it's location to check if anything else is in the sky.

Determining if it's a danger to the life or property of another? That's easy. Is anything else in the sky? No? No danger. Am I flying over someone or their property? No? No danger. None of that requires me to see my drone. I only need to see the sky, and see what my drone sees.

 

[prb]

On this FAA document:
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.16,Ch1,Sec2,

it defines VLOS as being capable of being seen with unaided vision (except corrective lenses)

QQ. Visual Line of Sight (VLOS). Means that any flightcrew member (i.e., remote PIC, the person manipulating the controls, and visual observer, if used) is capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, spectacles or contact lenses in order to know the UA’s location, determine the UA’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight, observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards, and determine that the UA does not endanger the life or property of another.

That's all well and good, but my point is that, as is too often the case with legal or regulatory documents, the FAA has misconstrued the precise meaning of the term, resulting in potential confusion for the uninitiated.

Groups and professions and disciplines have their jargon that flies in the face of everyday word usage. Instead of saying "visual line of sight," the terminology could simply be "within sight of the pilot" or similar wording and not misuse a term that means something else or arbitrarily redefine a term for one's own purposes

 

[Enorats]

Enorats, you are referring to simple common sense, which seems obvious to all of us. But someone has to write regulations to keep people without sense (ie. the pilot in Las Vegas, Tel Aviv, etc) from doing something tragically stupid. How would you write the rules, so that everyone would understand them, and would keep the airspace safe for manned aircraft?

Blanket rules are never easy things to write. I don't have many issues with the rules as they are now, aside from the grey area as to whether or not they're rules, laws, regulations, suggestions.. where do they apply, where don't they.. I'd like peace of mind knowing what is and is not allowed.

I'd love to see the registration system modifed to not be an owner registry but a drone registry. As is they don't even care what I own, as they don't even ask. I should tell them this is what I own, this is how you can contact me, and that information shouldn't expire and require me to renew it and pay another fee.

The line of sight requirement I'd drop entirely for any drone meeting certain instrumentation requirements. Toys that lack the smarts of a DJI drone should be limited to LOS, but more modern machines don't gain much safety from flying only where they can be seen. I'd enforce a minimum altitude of something like 50 to 100 feet over private property without express permission from the owner, and the 400 foot max is sensible - though within a few years that will likely need review. I'd forbid flight anywhere near airports, as it is now, and I'd also forbid flying anywhere near low flying aircraft. If a cropduster or helo is flying through the area under 500 feet then any drone should be grounded. I've never flown in one, but I'd think that metropolitan areas should be no fly zones.. smaller cities and towns, it's not such a big deal. So long as there aren't giant buildings all around you obstructing your view and acting as easily hit obstacles it's fairly safe to fly even over populated areas.

That's just off the top of my head, and lunch break is over.. but to me that's a more reasonable set of rules to fly by.

 

[microlinux]

but more modern machines don't gain much safety from flying only where they can be seen.

What? They most certainly do. You have little awareness what's going on around you when you fly non-VLOS. Your DJI drone has no technology that will prevent a collision with an aircraft, to which you are obligated to give way.

 

[Enorats]

What? They most certainly do. You have little awareness what's going on around you when you fly non-VLOS. Your DJI drone has no technology that will prevent a collision with an aircraft, to which you are obligated to give way.

Except I can see for miles with my own eyes. My drone might not be visible because it's too small, but that cropduster 2 miles over is pretty hard to miss. So long as I can see what the drone sees and have gps navigation/instrumentation I know all I need to know to pilot the craft effectively.

Either there are other aircraft in the sky, or there aren't. It's not like they have something to hide behind up there. On flat ground the horizon is nearly 3 miles out, and something 100 feet up can be seen as far off as 12 miles. Seeing as my absolute max range is ~3 miles I'm fairly confident I can spot any aircraft flying in the 50-400 foot altitude range I typically fly in. Maybe that's just my Eastern WA terrain though.