Line of Sight?

[Ty Pilot]

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.

Just for clarification, the FAA AC's (Advisory Circulars), are publications meant to provide further guidance for compliance to regulations. AC 107-2A is for Title 14 Part 107 operations. And for the recreational 44809 regulations there is AC 91-57C.

Below is from AC 107-2A


5.9 VLOS Aircraft Operation.

The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small unmanned aircraft at all times during flight (§ 107.31). The small unmanned aircraft must be operated closely enough to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UAS operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used, during the aircraft operation.

The person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small unmanned aircraft, but still retains the capability to see the small unmanned aircraft or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments may be necessary for the remote PIC to look at the controller to determine remaining battery life or for operational awareness.

Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small unmanned aircraft, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. Even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small unmanned aircraft, the remote PIC always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances that may prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of small UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the small unmanned aircraft.

For this reason, no specific time interval exists in which interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption of the operation. If the remote PIC cannot regain VLOS, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for the loss of VLOS. The capabilities of the small UAS will govern the remote PIC’s determination as to the appropriate course of action. For example, the remote PIC may need to land the small unmanned aircraft immediately, enter hover mode, or employ a return-to-home sequence. The VLOS requirement does not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small unmanned aircraft CS.

 

[dmanthree]

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.



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.

So, no legit source other than anecdotal? Anyway, I'd like to see your answer to a previous question: if BVLOS was legal, would you do it?

 

[Ty Pilot]

So, no legit source other than anecdotal?

I take it you do not want to call your local FSDO and find out if they (the FAA), have data in regards to VLOS vs BVLOS.
You say you want data to prove one way or the other, yet make no effort of your own to gather it.

Anyway, I'd like to see your answer to a previous question: if BVLOS was legal, would you do it?

Yeah? Well I've asked you some questions I want answers to also.

I suspect if/when un-waivered UA flight BVLOS comes about - it will be with requirements. Either training and certification of the pilot, or with a drone that meets certain class criteria - DAA (Detect And Avoid) is now part of the FAA's alphabet soup. or it is only within certain zones or airspace. In fact for those that can do a search, there are documents that speak directly to the components the FAA is considering to allow BVLOS.





But your average Joe with a TRUST certificate and a Mini 2 or what have you? I don't think they're gonna happy.

So when or if that happens, we'll be having similar arguments except some guys will claim that those requirements to fly BVLOS are . . . . . . . .ridiculous, outdated, need re-thinking or what have you. And round and round we'll go.

 

[Ty Pilot]

You know I find it funny that the very people that desperately want answers to questions, have absolutely zero interest in actually seeking those answers. Is this because they don't want to see the truth?



Hmmm, I wonder how they know that? Wow you guys should read some of these documents! Lots of interesting data in here.

 

[JeffreyS]

So, Ty, now that we all have been thoroughly instructed on how to behave, I think many of us are curious as to why you fly a drone and what purpose you use it for. Are you a photographer? A videographer? A mapper? As a professional photographer that shares images with other like minded and skilled artists, I'd be thrilled to see some of what you do. Thanks!

 

[AlanL]

If you are interested in reading what proposals are actually in front of the FAA for upcoming rulemaking with respect to this topic try the BVLOS ARC Report. It is not a short read but it doesn't follow along with a lot of the arguments made in this thread over the last 5 pages.

If you are amongst the Too Long;Didn't Read population a quick preview of some of the discussion proposes having a single RPIC (Remote Pilot in Command) overseeing up to 6-8 autonomous delivery drones in flight at once and all are BVLOS. That RPIC is not watching underlings handling controls on each drone. They also describe the possibility of a new Part 108 (or something similar) certification for pilots running operations like this. The airspace they would be performing these operations in is not clearly defined in the report. Included is the possibility of UTM (UAS Traffic Management) to coordinate airspace use not currently being monitored by existing air traffic control.

 

[Ty Pilot]

So, Ty, now that we all have been thoroughly instructed on how to behave, I think many of us are curious as to why you fly a drone and what purpose you use it for. Are you a photographer? A videographer? A mapper? As a professional photographer that shares images with other like minded and skilled artists, I'd be thrilled to see some of what you do. Thanks!

I don't know where you're getting that from. In fact, I could say the same to some of you who are trying to tell everyone how the regulations are old and outdated and that your views (contrary to regulations), are appropriate. You seem eager to tell everyone not to obey the rules and belittle those that do <lets get real> as if we've drank the FAA kool-aid.

This thread (like many before it), has on one side - those that make the claim that flying BVLOS with current technology and no training to be as safe or safer than VLOS. On the other side, you have those that believe there are good reasons why BVLOS comes with higher risk.

I'm in these types of threads responding to members like you because; it is pilots who don't obey the rules and have thrown caution to the wind that have brought about the very regulatory environment they disdain. And the rest of us have to deal with it.

If you want to break the rules when you fly, fine - I don't care. But when you make public statements such as you have in this thread and others; openly flaunting regulations and encouraging others to do so, or belittling those who follow rules. Expect some pushback.

 

[dmanthree]

I take it you do not want to call your local FSDO and find out if they (the FAA), have data in regards to VLOS vs BVLOS.
You say you want data to prove one way or the other, yet make no effort of your own to gather it.


Yeah? Well I've asked you some questions I want answers to also.

I suspect if/when un-waivered UA flight BVLOS comes about - it will be with requirements. Either training and certification of the pilot, or with a drone that meets certain class criteria - DAA (Detect And Avoid) is now part of the FAA's alphabet soup. or it is only within certain zones or airspace. In fact for those that can do a search, there are documents that speak directly to the components the FAA is considering to allow BVLOS.

View attachment 170680



But your average Joe with a TRUST certificate and a Mini 2 or what have you? I don't think they're gonna happy.

So when or if that happens, we'll be having similar arguments except some guys will claim that those requirements to fly BVLOS are . . . . . . . .ridiculous, outdated, need re-thinking or what have you. And round and round we'll go.

Uh, thanks, but all I really wanted was a yes or no answer.

BTW, I did do some research and there isn't enough hard info to draw any conclusions about the causes of accidents.

Another question: have you ever driven your car above the posted speed limits?

 

[Ty Pilot]

Uh, thanks, but all I really wanted was a yes or no answer.

BTW, I did do some research and there isn't enough hard info to draw any conclusions about the causes of accidents.

Another question: have you ever driven your car above the posted speed limits?

Not being funny, but you may want improve or continue your research.

I don't do strawman arguments.

 

[dmanthree]

Not being funny, but you may want improve or continue your research.

I don't do strawman arguments.

No worries. If you have any links to hard data I'd love to see them. Done here...

 

[Ty Pilot]

No worries. If you have any links to hard data I'd love to see them. Done here...

In posts 83 and 84 I only teased at the BVLOS ARC report with a few screen grabs to see who in this thread had the intellectual curiosity to go and simply look it up. You say you've done some research but seem to have missed that.

In post 86 (just above), there is the link to the entire 381 page Page BVLOS ARC report - But did you click it? Of course not, as @AlanL points out; it is not for the "Too Long - Do Not Read" crowd.

You don't seem to really want 'hard data' that shows BVLOS has greater increased risks; and nothing I, or anyone else posts in this thread, is going to change that.

 

[dmanthree]

In posts 83 and 84 I only teased at the BVLOS ARC report with a few screen grabs to see who in this thread had the intellectual curiosity to go and simply look it up. You say you've done some research but seem to have missed that.

In post 86 (just above), there is the link to the entire 381 page Page BVLOS ARC report - But did you click it? Of course not, as @AlanL points out; it is not for the "Too Long - Do Not Read" crowd.

You don't seem to really want 'hard data' that shows BVLOS has greater increased risks; and nothing I, or anyone else posts in this thread, is going to change that.

That 381 page report contained NO hard data on accidents or their causes. I saw your links, I saw your screen grabs, but really, what I'm looking for is something like "In 2022 there were xx number of drone incidents. The causes are listed here." I never argued that BVLOS isn't riskier, except under certain conditions, only that the risks are, IMO, greatly overstated. FWIW, I'm betting the #1 cause of drone incidents is operator error, whether it's in sight or not.

 

[GFields]

Ladies and Gentlemen. This thread has run its course.

​