Line of Sight?

[Ty Pilot]

Sorry I didn't read every word in every post but I started thru most of it and alot is just repeated by the same sides on either side of the argument.

Not surprising.

Can't one of you BVLOS-ers explain you're method of achieving "total safety" out of sight, with the current state of consumer grade drones?

Will tag this post and revisit it when the "law" changes and suddenly BVLOS (to a certain extent) is allowed (without a waiver) and see if any of the attitudes toward it change as well. In the meantime, follow the law is about all you can do.

Pssssst don't tell anyone but: To a certain extent, flight outside of VLOS (as you guys think it is defined) is already allowed (without a waiver), as evidenced by FAA explanations of VLOS, in some of those posts you didn't read.

 

[BobaFut]

Not surprising.

Can't one of you BVLOS-ers explain you're method of achieving "total safety" out of sight, with the current state of consumer grade drones?

If "total safety" is the bar then best to just pack it in because that's not possible. If there's a flyaway, loss of connection, critical equipment failure, etc...how exactly does VLOS prevent that?

I'm not arguing against VLOS per se, just that it's not some safety guarantee. And flying BVLOS doesn't necessarily increase risk. VLOS doesn't provide "total safety" and BVLOS doesn't mean "totally unsafe." If you want to obey the rule just for the sake of obeying the rule that's fine. But just say that (I hope you don't speed or park illegally or roll through stop signs!). And as was alluded to, I bet a lot of strict VLOS adherents would feel differently about how dangerous it is if the rule was changed, because they care more about following the rule than what is "safe" (which is fine! but what the rule is and what is safe aren't always the same thing).

 

[dmanthree]

Sorry I didn't read every word in every post but I started thru most of it and alot is just repeated by the same sides on either side of the argument. Will tag this post and revisit it when the "law" changes and suddenly BVLOS (to a certain extent) is allowed (without a waiver) and see if any of the attitudes toward it change as well. In the meantime, follow the law is about all you can do.

I agree with you about the law. It's contradictory. You can't do both. I get the arguments, but the law needs a review and updating. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Ty Pilot]

If "total safety" is the bar then best to just pack it in because that's not possible.

Does anyone read anymore? You've missed the point.

It is those who fly BVLOS; starring at the screen, that are making such claims. Below are two quotes from those who fly BVLOS in this thread. I've seen the words "totally safe' used in similar threads with similar claims trying to make the same point.

And that point they (the BVLOS-ers), are trying to make is that they can fly BVLOS with a current consumer drone and be safe - at least as safe as someone flying VLOS - and in some cases they claim they are safer than a VLOS pilot.

I am simply asking anyone who makes such a claim to explain how they do it. It is a rhetorical question however, I've been flying long enough to know better.

It was miles away, but nowhere near anything, really. Open ocean, no aircraft in the area, no altitude restriction, near zero chance of interfering with anything

I use the camera on the drone to tell me exactly where it is and what is around me, far more accurately than I can do unaided by the camera. I consider this better than just maintaining VLOS.

 

[Ty Pilot]

If there's a flyaway, loss of connection, critical equipment failure, etc...how exactly does VLOS prevent that?

What????????? Sometimes I wonder if a question like this is just trolling or made in jest.

Surely you don't think VLOS is an effort by the FAA to regulate or negate equipment failure.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I'm not arguing against VLOS per se, just that it's not some safety guarantee. And flying BVLOS doesn't necessarily increase risk.

Flying a consumer drone BVLOS - increases risk. Therefor Flying BVLOS DOES necessarily increase risk.

Are you confusing risk, possibility and probability?

If you make 100 flights BVLOS and never crash or have a mid air collision - that doesn't mean it (flying BVLOS) is safe. All it indicates is that you've flown at an increased risk for those flights without a crash. And unless you can prove that you took evasive action to avoid danger at some or any point in those flights - all you've proven is you were lucky.

The guy that flew into the Blackhawk helicopter because he was BVLOS. He'd done many times prior with no crash. He was simply lucky until he wasn't.

 

[dmanthree]

Flying a consumer drone BVLOS - increases risk. Therefor Flying BVLOS DOES necessarily increase risk.

Are you confusing risk, possibility and probability?

There are two components to risk: a threat plus a vulnerability. Eliminate one and you have zero risk. Of course, you cannot ever eliminate one or the other so there is always some risk. If yoiu want zero risk, sell the drone and stay home. And there are certainly some situations where even flying VLOS is more risky than BVLOS.

That said, well, I'll stand by what I said earlier.

 

[Ty Pilot]

If yoiu want zero risk, sell the drone and stay home.

Again, I am not arguing for riskless flight. You seem unable to acknowledge this. Perhaps it is because you have been caught out making claims you can't back up. I'll try to spell it out for you as simple as I can:

Currently BVLOS flight is far more risky than VLOS.

I've given you plenty of invitations to engage in a debate/conversation to prove that wrong, and all you do is make derailing remarks like the one here.

Not going anywhere, and I will be flying drones long after you give it up.

 

[MS Coast]

I agree with you about the law. It's contradictory. You can't do both. I get the arguments, but the law needs a review and updating. Just my opinion, of course.

You can certainly do both. The regulation specifically says you can do both. Not at the same time, of course. You just need to be able to see the drone when you look up from the screen.

 

[dmanthree]

Again, I am not arguing for riskless flight. You seem unable to acknowledge this. Perhaps it is because you have been caught out making claims you can't back up. I'll try to spell it out for you as simple as I can:

Currently BVLOS flight is far more risky than VLOS.

I've given you plenty of invitations to engage in a debate/conversation to prove that wrong, and all you do is make derailing remarks like the one here.

Not going anywhere, and I will be flying drones long after you give it up.

I have not argued that BVLOS is safer than VLOS, only that flying BVLOS is not inherently dangerous or very risky. Sorry, I just don't agree that it's *far* more risky. I'm wondering if there's any data to verify this one way or the other? Is there anything out there that proves anything one way or the other?

As far as "flying long after I give it up," well, sorry. Not a contest. I don't really care.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I have not argued that BVLOS is safer than VLOS,

Except here:

And there are certainly some situations where even flying VLOS is more risky than BVLOS.

 

[dmanthree]

Except here:

You agree or disagree? Are you saying VLOS is *always* safer than BVLOS? Regardless of environmental conditions? Really? Laugh all you want, but please stick to facts that are provable. So far all anyone has said in this thread is "because I said so." I like hard data. Got any?

 

[BobaFut]

What????????? Sometimes I wonder if a question like this is just trolling or made in jest.

Surely you don't think VLOS is an effort by the FAA to regulate or negate equipment failure.

Surely you jest using terms like “totally safe” and “negate equipment failure.” Please tell me how maintaining VLOS eliminates the risk of a prop failure. It does not. Can it help mitigate the consequences? Perhaps. If I’m flying over an empty field and a prop fails, is the consequence less or greater if I’m VLOS or 500 feet away just BVLOS? But one could be flying VLOS and experience equipment failure that leads to property damage or injury.

VLOS as a rule is a blunt tool to mitigate risk by increasing your visibility of threats that are proximate to your drone and to help minimize the consequences of a crash. It doesn’t eliminate risk. If the FAA all of the sudden said “okay, you can fly BVLOS in XYZ conditions,” would you adjust your behavior to fly BVLOS in those conditions? Of course you would. Just like how some roads allow higher speeds than others. The risk level changes because the conditions change. You can’t say that BVLOS is absolutely unsafe under all conditions any more than you can say going 65mph is absolutely unsafe under all conditions. In some conditions the risk is very low!

 

[mavic3usa]

You can certainly do both. The regulation specifically says you can do both. Not at the same time, of course. You just need to be able to see the drone when you look up from the screen.

I would like that to be stated in the law, for clarification. You and I know this but a lot of people may not. And maybe it's in the law but sometimes people don't pick up on that.

On second thought, maybe it doesn't have to be so precise, maybe that's the intent.

 

[mavic3usa]

Wait for the law the change, folks. Wait for it.

 

[BobaFut]

The guy that flew into the Blackhawk helicopter because he was BVLOS. He'd done many times prior with no crash. He was simply lucky until he wasn't.

If you look at that case and your takeaway is that crash was due to VLOS, I don’t know what more I can say. If the guy was VLOS and lost control of his drone in the same spot, he’s still flying illegally through one of the busiest low-altitude air traffic corridors in the world with a drone he has no physical control over. Seeing the drone prevents nothing in that situation.

 

[Ty Pilot]

You agree or disagree? Are you saying VLOS is *always* safer than BVLOS? Regardless of environmental conditions? Really?

Here we go. Not sure where your headed, but we can make up hypothetical scenarios all day long. The fact is, the rules can not address every single scenario anyone can come up with. they would be so long and convoluted that some guys would read past the first sentence.

Laugh all you want, but please stick to facts that are provable. So far all anyone has said in this thread is "because I said so." I like hard data. Got any?

Well you did make two contradicting statements 3 posts apart - come on,, that was funny. But okay, you want facts - call your local FSDO, make your acquaintance, and start asking questions. Also Google some of the more public drone crashes; (such as the guy BVLOS flying into a Blackhawk helicopter), and if you follow those stories note how many are BVLOS.

 

[Ty Pilot]

If you look at that case and your takeaway is that crash was due to VLOS, I don’t know what more I can say. If the guy was VLOS and lost control of his drone in the same spot, he’s still flying illegally through one of the busiest low-altitude air traffic corridors in the world with a drone he has no physical control over. Seeing the drone prevents nothing in that situation.

No as I said (and you quoted), it was because he was BVLOS - the crash happened 2.5 miles away from the drone pilot. Like I said, guys that fly BVLOS usually break lots of other rules. Had he been within VLOS he might could have avoided the collision, but had no chance to do so 2.5 miles away.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Please tell me how maintaining VLOS eliminates the risk of a prop failure. It does not.

You do understand that VLOS § 107.31 is but one of the regulations and is not meant as an all-encompassing regulation that covers all unmanned flight? Right?

If you ever read the regulations, you might find one that fits whatever situation you can think of. For instance, a failed prop would likely be addressed as such:

§ 107.15 Condition for safe operation.​

(a) No person may operate a civil small unmanned aircraft system unless it is in a condition for safe operation. Prior to each flight, the remote pilot in command must check the small unmanned aircraft system to determine whether it is in a condition for safe operation.

(b) No person may continue flight of the small unmanned aircraft when he or she knows or has reason to know that the small unmanned aircraft system is no longer in a condition for safe operation.

 

[MS Coast]

I would like that to be stated in the law, for clarification. You and I know this but a lot of people may not. And maybe it's in the law but sometimes people don't pick up on that.

On second thought, maybe it doesn't have to be so precise, maybe that's the intent.

The FAA issued an Advisory Circular to clarify the regulation. Relevant parts are included in @Ty Pilot 's post #11.