The other thing that gets me is bvlos, which who determines what that is ? Seems to me thats a personal thing... All these rules can be challenged which most are simply BS ? Im sure everyone has flown BVLOS at some point, and dont lie about it
The other thing that gets me is bvlos, which who determines what that is ?
- Thread starter johnnyb57
- Start date
All good questions BUT Speaking of Rules: You should start up a new topic on the subject so we can discuss without breaking this one: Forum rule 4. Stay on topic by keeping discussions relevant and on-track.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
In the US, the practical difference is RID and having to register the drone. The Mini3P is, at the moment, broadcasting RID regardless of weight, so it pretty much comes down to registration.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Generally treating rules as if they're "BS" usually won't end up well.
Do you know why there is a 400ft AGL ceiling?
Who determines what that is seein everyones vision differs ? I mean we've all flown into this grey area, and how is this enforced ?
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 28,328
- Reactions
- 31,188
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
There are a lot of factors involved, so the max distance could change by flight (even if your eyesight doesn't). I like how Pilot Institute explains it:
"With each drone operation, the distance of VLOS may vary based on different factors. A larger drone like the Inspire 2 can be seen farther away than an ultra-portable drone. The pilot’s visual acuity will also determine how well they can see a drone that is several hundreds of feet away. Weather conditions can also affect visibility, so the range that works on a clear day may not be as effective with overcast clouds.
Drone pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in deciding whether they are still flying within VLOS. When in doubt, you should always go back to the fundamental purpose of the rule – is your drone and its surroundings visible enough so that you can maneuver away from any potential hazards?"
See more details here:
pilotinstitute.com
"With each drone operation, the distance of VLOS may vary based on different factors. A larger drone like the Inspire 2 can be seen farther away than an ultra-portable drone. The pilot’s visual acuity will also determine how well they can see a drone that is several hundreds of feet away. Weather conditions can also affect visibility, so the range that works on a clear day may not be as effective with overcast clouds.
Drone pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in deciding whether they are still flying within VLOS. When in doubt, you should always go back to the fundamental purpose of the rule – is your drone and its surroundings visible enough so that you can maneuver away from any potential hazards?"
See more details here:
What is Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) for drones? - Pilot Institute
Visual line of sight (VLOS) simply means that the drone pilot or visual observer can see the drone without any obstruction.
pilotinstitute.com
Whether or not YOU or your spotter, who is beside you, can see it and more to the point if you or they look away can you find it again.
While you can see it up there do you know whats directly underneath it without the camera? Also if you are only using the camera to see- Do you Know whats going on around the drone? I sometimes don't like this particular rule myself BUT You can actually hurt someone if you are not carefull and I choose not to take that risk. How is it enforced? Someone will see you and report it or worse yet They will Video you doing this and send that to the FAA. OR worse than that- You have some sort of accident while beyond line of site and the authorities will forward the report to the F.A.A.
LOL! Of course it's a personal thing. Some people can see very far very clear while others see normal and while others don't see very well. This is why people with diminished eye sight don't typically drive very fast etc. You FLY in accordance to YOUR abilities otherwise you're not abiding by See & Avoid.
BVLOS is 100% on you. Don't fly farther than YOU can see and be able to determine orientation, speed, altitude, and flight direction of the UAS. It's really that simple whether you like it, approve of it, want to abide by it, or NOT! The moral dilemma is on you one way or the other.
VLOS was introduced as an acceptable alternative to what the FAA originally wanted - which was that any drone could only be flown under 400' AGL and to a distance not in excess of the length of a football field.
AGL was not introduced specifically to control recreational drone use, but differentiate a new type of airspace: Drone (0-400'). Light manned aircraft (500'+). Commercial aircraft (1500'+). The fact that it impacted hobbyist fliers was just icing on the cake.
AGL regulation was introduced not with recreational drones in mind - this is for the commercialization of this new airspace and the introduction of dedicated permanent BVLOS flight corridors through it.
www.altitudeangel.com
Both AGL and VLOS rules were quickly introduced for recreational drone users as a direct result of idiots continually putting drones into airspace where they could obviously become a danger to property and third parties. Every time this happened and someone bragged about it: another nail was hammered in everyone elses metaphorical coffin because anyone with a drone is now considered to be a borderline moron in charge of a lump of flying plastic and metal.
If everyone who flew a camera drone from 2013 onwards had thought about what they were doing in terms of how it might be detrimental to the property or safety of others: there might not currently be such a heavy regulatory foot on the neck of drone users, but with the massive amounts of money (licensing and tax revenue) to be made through commercial drone use: that is moot.
If you were Steve Austin: VLOS might well be 4 miles - but you ain't. And neither is anyone else. But maybe you'd agree that current VLOS regulation is a GOOD alternative to 120 yards.
AGL was not introduced specifically to control recreational drone use, but differentiate a new type of airspace: Drone (0-400'). Light manned aircraft (500'+). Commercial aircraft (1500'+). The fact that it impacted hobbyist fliers was just icing on the cake.
AGL regulation was introduced not with recreational drones in mind - this is for the commercialization of this new airspace and the introduction of dedicated permanent BVLOS flight corridors through it.
Project Skyway
Read about the Drone Superhighway being built, including how our ARROW technology is being deployed.
www.altitudeangel.com
Both AGL and VLOS rules were quickly introduced for recreational drone users as a direct result of idiots continually putting drones into airspace where they could obviously become a danger to property and third parties. Every time this happened and someone bragged about it: another nail was hammered in everyone elses metaphorical coffin because anyone with a drone is now considered to be a borderline moron in charge of a lump of flying plastic and metal.
If everyone who flew a camera drone from 2013 onwards had thought about what they were doing in terms of how it might be detrimental to the property or safety of others: there might not currently be such a heavy regulatory foot on the neck of drone users, but with the massive amounts of money (licensing and tax revenue) to be made through commercial drone use: that is moot.
If you were Steve Austin: VLOS might well be 4 miles - but you ain't. And neither is anyone else. But maybe you'd agree that current VLOS regulation is a GOOD alternative to 120 yards.
MavicRoolzOK
Well-Known Member
@Felix le Chat hits the nail on the head. Treating the various drone rules as 'BS' leaves open to question should you be flying one at all...? Yes, I 'may' have flown BVLOS a couple of times to test it's limits, in calm/clear conditions, but then I live out on desolate moorland, so if things go tit$ up I'll either lose my drone or hit an errant sheep at the most. Done it a couple of times, don't feel the urge/need to do it again, job done. What gets 'me' is these muppets who fly out for miles, post the results on YT or somesuch then brag about how far they've gone (or not, if crashed) - eh ?!
Wild Drone Pilot
Well-Known Member
This is why I have a 2 mile BVLOS waiver in the FAA queue at the moment.
Stay tuned...
Stay tuned...
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
That "buh-buh buh-buh buh-buh-buh" sound constantly while you're zooming in an and constantly while flying would get quite annoying.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
As has been stated, this is subjective.
I'll say this, not with any guarantee, but just experience and "common sense": It will only ever be an issue if something goes wrong, and a third party or LEO has a reason to get involved.
No one's going to monitoring RID, for example, and sending out Inspector Clouseau ("isa that, yur doug-ah?") to arrest you.
I'll say this, not with any guarantee, but just experience and "common sense": It will only ever be an issue if something goes wrong, and a third party or LEO has a reason to get involved.
No one's going to monitoring RID, for example, and sending out Inspector Clouseau ("isa that, yur doug-ah?") to arrest you.
These two threads are now combined. Keep in mind that there could be some slight "variances" since I'm combining two simultaneous threads into one.
Self enforcement would be best simply because that is the current rule. The other option will depend on who has been annoyed by what we do and who they decide to call and complain to. We can complain about restrictions provided by others regarding our flying products, but these restrictions will only get worse if we don’t abide by some form of guidelines. Be safe is the best I can say.
Oh ok, I didn't know this. So someone besides Congress is implementing drone laws at the federal level, is that correct? Depending on the circumstances happening on the ground at any one point, the laws can be changed for corrective action or punitive reasons or other reasons necessary, is that right? Who besides Congress is coming up with this, is it the FAA?
And by "quickly" introducing AGL and VLOS rules to correct this behavior, are properly-flown drones now safe and free of the "obvious" danger to property and third parties they posed prior to the time where those pesky recreational flyers use to fly as high as they wanted and as far away as they could and basically caused the high rate of accidents and damages that we no longer see today because of these new rules?
I haven't been at this drone thing long so maybe I am simply unaware but I don't recall a time where UAVs were allowed to fly amongst and alongside the manned aircraft two, three, fives miles away up in the thousands of feet altitude. Bottom line for me is *if* you did that back then, you're gonna do it now regardless especially with the modern, more capable drones. The law has zero impact on the criminals and seeing that the criminals were the ones "destroying" things, such an approach is futile; just ask the troopers about speed limits for cars. Ultimately what this thinking does is hurt more the honest folks who make a mistake.
Anyway, I follow the current laws best I can at all times and what triggered me was your unfair characterization of recreational drone users (the one's who drive the drone industry in America and make it what it is and has become today) as idiots and bragging about putting everyone in danger.
Do they follow the rules? Not always. Are they hurting people and destroying property and bragging about it; nope. Recreational drone flying is not a crime and the pilots who fly them for fun are not criminals. a) Drone regulation is steered by advisory committees who are not part of any government body, but it is the government bodies that turn advisories into regulations.Oh ok, I didn't know this. So someone besides Congress is implementing drone laws at the federal level, is that correct? Depending on the circumstances happening on the ground at any one point, the laws can be changed for corrective action or punitive reasons or other reasons necessary, is that right? Who besides Congress is coming up with this, is it the FAA?
And by "quickly" introducing AGL and VLOS rules to correct this behavior, are properly-flown drones now safe and free of the "obvious" danger to property and third parties they posed prior to the time where those pesky recreational flyers use to fly as high as they wanted and as far away as they could and basically caused the high rate of accidents and damages that we no longer see today because of these new rules?
I haven't been at this drone thing long so maybe I am simply unaware but I don't recall a time where UAVs were allowed to fly amongst and alongside the manned aircraft two, three, fives miles away up in the thousands of feet altitude. Bottom line for me is *if* you did that back then, you're gonna do it now regardless especially with the modern, more capable drones. The law has zero impact on the criminals and seeing that the criminals were the ones "destroying" things, such an approach is futile; just ask the troopers about speed limits for cars. Ultimately what this thinking does is hurt more the honest folks who make a mistake.
Anyway, I follow the current laws best I can at all times and what triggered me was your unfair characterization of recreational drone users (the one's who drive the drone industry in America and make it what it is and has become today) as idiots and bragging about putting everyone in danger.
b) the FAA is a federal government department, the same as the CAA (which until 1970 went by the title of 'the Air Ministry").
c) The number of cases of actual injury or damage to property (proven) is and always has been miniscule to non-existent compared to the number of drones in use. All 'data' cited in official CAA documentation addressing incidents that warrant increased and tougher regulation is covered with an asterisk followed by a page footnote with the word 'alleged' in very, very small type.
d) *THE* idiots.... not *ALL* idiots.
e) in official documents, these 'free spirits' are described as "bad actors" ie: those who undertake bad actions and it is the actions of those 'bad actors' that is cited over and over again in Aviation Authority reports as being the single factor leading to the requirement for harsher regulation.
We are not being assessed and judged by the actions of careful drone fliers (the majority). We are affected by the actions of those who flagrantly abuse current regulations (the minority).
Last edited:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
Forum statistics
