Puzzling to me

[mavic3usa]

Victim, as in person, property, or what?

There are no victims in the drone flying recreation, there are no damages. Zero. If the risk are magnified no matter what you do, 100 x 0 is still 0. Let's be honest. Absolutely one day they'll lift the rules out of necessity, not out of concern they got it wrong. I understand having some of the rules in place so it's not wide open to do whatever you want but I agree with the FAA, nothing to enforce when it comes to vlos and spotters.

 

[Andy carley]

Name one country where flying BVLOS is allowed.

Ukraine

 

[KB9Radio]

I've never understood the infatuation with flying as far away as possible. Personally, I like to stay somewhat close by in case something goes wrong, and there is so many things that can go wrong. Out over water is even worse. I haven't watched any videos in a quite a while, I thought maybe folks had gotten over the distance test thing a little. I guess it keeps folks buying new drones that way and keeps the companies in business.

 

[anotherlab]

Part of the reason for the VLOS requirement is for the same reasons we have NFZ and RID. People would be flying everywhere and without control.

The risk is slight, but not zero. Back in 2017, a guy flew his Phantom 4 BVLOS and it struck an Army helicopter, causing damage to the main rotorblade and window frame.

BVLOS makes sense for many things, search and rescue operations being a good use case. Or commercial uses like for a utility company that wants to inspect a transmission tower that's hard to reach on foot.

 

[mavic3usa]

I've never understood the infatuation with flying as far away as possible. Personally, I like to stay somewhat close by in case something goes wrong, and there is so many things that can go wrong. Out over water is even worse. I haven't watched any videos in a quite a while, I thought maybe folks had gotten over the distance test thing a little. I guess it keeps folks buying new drones that way and keeps the companies in business.

Range is important because it relates to power and penetration and duration. Drones which have a superior range generally have the longest duration of flight time. Let's be honest, there is no real need for a drone battery to last 90 minutes if it can't go any further than a mile or two. As soon as VLOS restrictions are lifted, range will be even more important. A drone with a super long range will likely have better signal penetration meaning you can go behind buildings and drop into clearing and opening and for FPV you can travel longer thru covered areas and into buildings and you have less signal loss with means a safer drone flight.

We usually drive to our favorite drone spot but imagine being able to one day launch from home and being able to fly anywhere in the city to capture your shot. So so so much more you can do in a much shorter period of time. When drones get 100 miles range and 2 hours battery and few VLOS restrictions, it will change everything. One day, AI and superior OA will make it impossible to ignore BVLOS capabilities....it's inevitable. Mankind cannot rely on eyeballs forever else none of this has a future.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The Frank HONEST answer is, the FAA requires you to fly VLOS period.

No, that is not an answer to the question posed. It's a recitation of the requirement to follow the law.

People routinely fly BVLOS – and aren't cited or punished – pretty much for the reasons I articulated. That's not an endorsement of the practice, but a realistic explanation for why the rule is so ignored by both pilots and authorities.

Also why it is actively being reviewed by the FAA for modification to relax the requirement, and allow for BVLOS flight.

 

[GFields]

Also why it is actively being reviewed by the FAA for modification to relax the requirement, and allow for BVLOS flight.

Provide your source. Even if they do, that is not the case at this point in time. I am not going to argue with you about this. Let's move on.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The risk is slight, but not zero. Back in 2017, a guy flew his Phantom 4 BVLOS and it struck an Army helicopter, causing damage to the main rotorblade and window frame.

The risk is entirely dependent on the flight. It can easily be "zero" and often is.

@Cafguy flying his tinywhoops FPV in his backyard buzzing around play structures, lawn furniture, etc. if he has a collision with an army helicopter, it won't be @Cafguy that's in a lot of trouble.

Among my half-dozen or so favorite quotes: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" – Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Droning on and on...]

Provide your source. Even if they do, that is not the case at this point in time. I am not going to argue with you about this. Let's move on.

It's been discussed here several times previous, and can be found with a search. @Vic Moss is involved.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Provide your source. Even if they do, that is not the case at this point in time. I am not going to argue with you about this. Let's move on.

Argue about what?

 

[BobaFut]

I don't understand the distance videos on YouTube, it's just not an interesting topic to me. Even if BVLOS was allowed and with no limits, my willingness to risk losing my drone will run out waaaay before it starts nearing its maximum range. I don't think the FAA does or should care about run-of-the-mill BVLOS violations, like videos where it's obvious the drone is BVLOS but otherwise nothing untoward is happening. But the range videos are so egregious I don't understand why people post them.

In terms of the actual rules, in my mind BVLOS is like speeding or making a full-and-complete stop at every stop sign. I don't believe for a second that the BVLOS-scolds here don't at least occasionally speed or roll a stop sign. People tend to have certain civil infractions they are happy to violate but then oddly have some they view as sacrosanct and get very judgy about others violating.

 

[anotherlab]

The risk is entirely dependent on the flight. It can easily be "zero" and often is.

@Cafguy flying his tinywhoops FPV in his backyard buzzing around play structures, lawn furniture, etc. if he has a collision with an army helicopter, it won't be @Cafguy that's in a lot of trouble.

Among my half-dozen or so favorite quotes: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" – Ralph Waldo Emerson

It's not a question of any individual flight having a risk of zero. A few people doing dumb things is what causes laws and regulations to be passed that restrict everyone.

Which TinyWhoop has a range that would go BVLOS? I didn't think they had the battery power for that range. I don't think that analogy works for this discussion

 

[johnnyb57]

Victim, as in person, property, or what?

All of it

 

[Droning on and on...]

It's not a question of any individual flight having a risk of zero. A few people doing dumb things is what causes laws and regulations to be passed that restrict everyone.

Which TinyWhoop has a range that would go BVLOS? I didn't think they had the battery power for that range. I don't think that analogy works for this discussion

All of them! They're very tiny, my friend. 100 feet and it's like trying to see and control a fly.

However the rule in question with the tinywhoops was FPV without a VO. But yeah, they get BVLOS buzzing around an open field, easily.