THE RULES!!

[dronerdave]

Wow a few posts since I added mine. That is a impressive set of pictures. That's a great aircraft screensaver shot. See that's the shot I want to get my Mavic to capture... just joking. I have total respect for all pilots and try to fly within the rules for their or the public safety. I learned more from the web especially sites like this. When I found I could fly 500 meters (not that I've been there) I did a double take.

I just want to make sure I'm W/I the laws. I can't believe I didn't have to pass some kind of test to fly these things but again "watch out for what you ask for" applies IMO. Still I'm all for sensible rules provided the folks that make the rules can or will do so.

 

[787steve]

So I still didn't really get my answer or I'm not seeing it. Today I flew about 200 feet (W/I VLOS) away from a roadway that has light traffic.

If I lose control of my little craft and it goes spinning off and hits a car am I in violation? I know I can be sued for an incident but what does the (FAA) law say?

If I'm out 4000 feet at 100' above ground level, am I in violation even though I can see my strobes? Sometimes looking down at the screen, it takes some sky scanning to find it again. This has also happened when I was out less than 1000 feet.

For the most certainty, you might contact a lawyer who specializes in the area. The mission of the FAA is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world. In my experience, as far as the FAA goes, if something breaks, and you did everything right, you are clear. I do not think the FAA will fault you for what you cannot control, unless your actions, or lack of action caused it to go out of control. For instance flying at distances where signal was lost, or not doing proper preflight. The FAA's regs are designed to minimize the chances of injury or property loss. But they know that accidents will happen, even if all regs are complied with. They can't regulate gravity. But these are only my opinions. If you google drone law, I suspect you can find an attorney who can give you better info. Or call the FAA. I did when I was researching the info I used for the original post.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

I am a newbie here, and I have been diligently searching for a good explanation of the rules. I see a lot of questionable videos with comments from people as to the legality of the operation. They all state what the rules are, or are not. Often vehemently. But many times they contradict each other. They have opposing positions, but both sides strongly believe they are right.

I am primarily going to address altitude, VLOS, and flying within proximity to an airport, as that is where I see the most confusion. I am going to write what I understand the law to be in regard to the type of flying I do, hobbyist. I can't wait to be picked apart by the experienced heads here. So take notes, and throw straight.

1. I believe my hobbyist operation comes under SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
2. Section 336 says the FAA may not make any regulations regarding my aircraft if, among other things:
a. It is operated within the safety guidelines of a nationwide community based organization.
The only such organization I know anything about is the AMA. Is there another one which qualifies?
If not, I will get back to their safety code later.
d. It must not interfere with and must give way to manned aircraft.
e. If within 5 miles of an airport, I must give them prior notice.
f. It goes on to say that even though they cannot pass regs on me nothing here keeps them from coming after me if I endanger the safety of the national airspace.
g. It goes on to define a model aircraft under this statute as one "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

The safety code of the AMA adds:
Section A:
a. Cannot operate in a careless or reckless manner.
b. Not fly above 400' AGL within 3 miles of an airport without notifying the tower.
Section B.
a. Don't fly directly over people, vehicles, etc. And not endanger life or property of others.
b. With exception of Takeoff and Landing not get within 25' of persons.
c. Maintain control and keep VLOS with no aids other than my glasses

So, to me, I will avoid airplanes, and airports, and people. I will keep VLOS. That means vertically and horizontally. ( That seems to be a big item in this board) It doesn't look like VFR clear of clouds statutes apply, but I will not fly near clouds, as I could interfere with an IFR flight exiting the clouds. And as anyone could see, I cannot operate in clouds or fog, as that would definitely violate the VLOS requirement. BTW, fog is just a type of cloud. And the big catch all; I will operate safely.

That about sums up the regs as I understand them. If you have corrections, please do not just say what you believe. Reference a link to the document. Here are links to the docs which I used:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf
Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code

Ok, I am braced. Fire away. And, as always,
Fly safely, legally, and enjoyably.

Great to see a newbie with brains here. Well done.
I can only hope that you show the shape of things to come. Unfortunately your kind is quite rare.
Lots of noobs will never get it and start calling names when you tell them about rules.

You are most welcome here!

 

[Lapeer20m]

After a year of reading discussions about BVLOS, the operators who fly as far and/or high as possible, buying add-ons to extend radio range and then crying when they loose the MP over the ocean or other side of a mountain, and the many pages of threads discussing VLOS, the question in my mind regarding rules- are you technically in violation any time you fly out of line of site, yes.
So when an operator states he or she NEVER violates that rule, I find it hard to believe, if you're flying around a water tower shooting footage and the drone flies behind the tower you have lost VLOS; if there is a single tree between you and your drone, (you know, the one your standing under or behind trying to shade your screen), you have lost VLOS. If you fly out 500 yards have it in sight and glance down at your monitor the look up and have to scan to find your quad, you temporarily lost VLOS.

It's going to happen, it's unavoidable and you will at sometime lose VLOS , the difference is flying responsibly and not ones deliberate disregard for the current laws.

Consciously fly responsibly under the current laws, practice practice practice and know what you're going to do when something happens.

lightbg great statement and yes, age and wisdom play a big part.

I guess my whole point to this long winded statement is don't get soo wrapped up in the "letter of the law" you fly in practice mode just to be safe and legal.

FAA recognizes that part 107 pilots may loose site of the aircraft temporarily as it passes behind a tree, column of smoke, etc, and the FAA considers this acceptable and still vlos.

 

[Lapeer20m]

I went and found it....this text is from the part -07 advisory circular:

"
However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity. For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with a

small UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities....."

 

[Drone Driver]

All of the above.
Common sense tells us (or SOME of us ) to use ALL available resources for information for safe flying. Keeping VLOS insures (or intends to) you don't fly away from your most reliable resource, your eyesight. Practice brings better judgement of distances.

 

[SGM]

FAA recognizes that part 107 pilots may loose site of the aircraft temporarily as it passes behind a tree, column of smoke, etc, and the FAA considers this acceptable and still vlos.

Thanks for sharing that insight and clarification Lapeer20m and Drone Driver. --Into my toolbox
Much appreciated!

 

[Drone on]

Maybe of interest? Warning: part rant

For consideration:
Commercial pilots fly IFR (instrumentation), and not VFR (visual). Flying a quadcopter via the monitor with it's telemetry is more akin to IFR than VFR.
VLOS would certainly help newbies learn the craft. After gaining experience, learning to more accurately understand where the drone is in space could be of greater safety/value than being able to simply see it. An observer within a flight team may be able to see the drone, but not be able to communicate emergency procedures quickly or accurately enough to the crew member operating the controls. Is that arrangement a false sense of security? Can the right hand instruct the left hand, or does the brain (telemetry and monitoring) need to intervene?

In VLOS a pilot may be able to see the drone, but not be able tell you which direction the camera is pointing; strobe lights, or not; thereby limiting their ability to react accurately to an emergency situation, and straight down is not always the answer.

The best drone pilots in the world (assumed) are the military's drone pilots. I'd be surprised if they ever see the aircraft.

Is there any possibility the rules are getting in the way of safety? Regarding being able to see all around the drone, yes you can. All one has to do is hover, then rotate. Do commercial aircraft make use of rear view mirrors other than to taxi? Don't actually know if commercial aircraft have rear view mirrors, but fairly certain they can't hover and rotate.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability beyond VLOS? i.e. the use of instrumentation.

I'm studying for part 107. Not because I want the certification, which I think will limit my flights, or because I think I can make money with it, for which I have no intention. I'm studying so I can better understand airspace, and the way the aviation industry looks at the situation. In studying for the Part 107 exam, a general observation I have is that Part 107 is about useless for flying quadcopters. Part 107 is all about not getting in the way of commercial and recreational airplane pilots.
I'm not interested in flying/filming near airports. I rarely get above 150 feet of altitude. If a commercial or recreational pilot is away from an airport and flying at 150 feet, they have much bigger problems than my 1.5 pound flying plastic presents; excluding crop dusters.

IMO the FAA hurriedly got something 'out there' in time for the increasing Christmas drone sales, and what was put 'out there' may need to be revisited, and revised. One size does not fit all.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability rather than just an understanding of airspace?

Here's the rant:
There is so much conversation around quadcopter violations of society. Rarely if ever is it mentioned how many millions or tens of millions of tax payer dollars recreational airplane pilots cost taxpayers and society when their problems arise. Why do we favor recreational airplane pilots? They provide little if any economic benefit? I may not be considering all aspects of their benefit to the economy, other than the closed circled of aviation economics such as airports, airplanes, fuel, insurance, taxes, guided tours, and accessories.

Regarding the airport radius, have you looked at a sectional map? Airports are everywhere! I never knew my small town had so many airports. Why do we need so many airports? Convenience?

Regarding society's fear of being spied on, it would be much cheaper, and easier to buy a DSLR camera with a telephoto lens than it would be to use a drone. At 150' feet of altitude, people are the size of ants. Unless modified or custom built, drones are not of much value for spying.

Maybe I should just give it up. Video of my local lake isn't that interesting. Is it? For me, this is all about photography and videography. I have to see the monitor (no longer VLOS) to frame the shot.

In the end, what I am trying to say is that rules are important. However, rules for the sake of rules alone may be counter productive. With the increasing value of drone usage, there may need to be levels of licensing beyond the singular FAA Part 107. Generally, commercial truck drivers follow the same rules of the road that car drivers follow - speed limits, limit lines, etc...But, a car driver' license doesn't grant commercial truck driving permissions. If drone pilots wish to have permission to operate beyond the existing rule restrictions eg VLOS, testing airspace knowledge, drone flying skill sets, use of instrumentation (telemetry), and reaction to monitor visuals may be a viable solution worth exploring.

One size does not fit all.

Thoughts?

 

[Lake_Flyer]

Commercial pilots fly IFR, and not VFR. Flying a quadcopter via the monitor with it's telemetry is more akin to IFR than VFR.

I am a commercial UAV pilot. But I am not allowed to fly IFR or FPV. I have to keep the craft in visual line of sight, that's why I have a separate cameraman (who also understands the on screen telemetry and calls out loud distance, height, battery status and on screen warnings) and an observer.

IFR rules still have to be agreed on by the ICAO. Long wait I'm afraid.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

Should there be a certification program to test pilot capability beyond VLOS?

In most countries BVLOS is only applicable and allowed for commercial operators with the proper certified procedures and extra crew training.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

VLOS would certainly help newbies learn the craft.

VLOS is actually the ONLY way any hobbyist pilot is allowed to fly. If you're not able to fly VLOS you shouldn't fly at all.

 

[787steve]

One major difference between the pilot flying on instruments and the quad pilot flying FPV or on a display is that the airplane pilot is on an IFR clearance. He has a transponder that allows ATC to be his eyes for traffic all around him. The drone pilot can see only a small portion of the sky.

There is a lot of confusion about VLOS. I wonder if you know that to be VLOS does not mean that you cannot also look at your screen. You only have to be able to see the aircraft, not never look away.

 

[audioguy]

If I chose to restrict my flying so that I had the ability to always be able to see my Mavic, I couldn't fly far. Even if it is 400 feet almost directly above me, glare and old eyes and any number of things would (and do) cause me not to be able to see it. I have no interest in seeing how far it can fly but most certainly do fly (but not far) beyond where I can see. I can't imagine if I only had 20 year old eyes with perfect vision I could see a 12 inch object over 100 yards away IN THE AIR.

I don't stick to the letter of this particular rule but most certainly try to be reasonable and careful in my use of the Mavic.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

One major difference between the pilot flying on instruments and the quad pilot flying FPV or on a display is that the airplane pilot is on an IFR clearance. He has a transponder that allows ATC to be his eyes for traffic all around him. The drone pilot can see only a small portion of the sky.

There is a lot of confusion about VLOS. I wonder if you know that to be VLOS does not mean that you cannot also look at your screen. You only have to be able to see the aircraft, not never look away.

Officially, in my country, the Netherlands, you are only allowed to quickly scan the screen telemetry. Operating a camera is forbidden for a pilot unless it is controlled entirely by software. So FPV is forbidden, even lining up for a shot via the screen is not allowed. For a commercial pilot that means that if he can't prove he was not flying FPV, after a crash (every crash has to be reported and investigated) he not insured at all. For part107 the rules are a bit simpler I understand.

 

[787steve]

Officially, in my country, the Netherlands, you are only allowed to quickly scan the screen telemetry. Operating a camera is forbidden for a pilot unless it is controlled entirely by software. So FPV is forbidden, even lining up for a shot via the screen is not allowed. For a commercial pilot that means that if he can't prove he was not flying FPV, after a crash (every crash has to be reported and investigated) he not insured at all. For part107 the rules are a bit simpler I understand.

So Mavics are virtually neutered in the Netherlands? Can you use screen if you have a visual observer? I love theNetherlands, so much great scenery to capture and hands tied. What a shame.

 

[Endeavor]

I agree with everything the OP posted along with the rest of you. However let's be real here virtually everyone breaks the VLOS rule as once the mavic is out there 200 feet I have a hard time keeping track and many time (most) I am flying through landscape and trees and my only option is keeping an eye on the monitor or FPV googles. Litchi missions are routinely 2 - 3 mile ventures with zero VLOS capabilities even with bifocals.
Now I live 3 blocks away from a hospital which has a helipad. Do you really think I will call the FAA every time I wish to fly around my yard at 30 feet altitude?
Yes the rules are there to protect aircraft and ground citizens but some things just seem to defy reality.

 

[SGM]

Maybe of interest? Warning: part rant

For consideration:
Commercial pilots fly IFR (instrumentation), and not VFR (visual). Flying a quadcopter via the monitor with it's telemetry is more akin to IFR than VFR.
VLOS would certainly help newbies learn the craft. After gaining experience, learning to more accurately understand where the drone is in space could be of greater safety/value than being able to simply see it. An observer within a flight team may be able to see the drone, but not be able to communicate emergency procedures quickly or accurately enough to the crew member operating the controls. Is that arrangement a false sense of security? Can the right hand instruct the left hand, or does the brain (telemetry and monitoring) need to intervene?

In VLOS a pilot may be able to see the drone, but not be able tell you which direction the camera is pointing; strobe lights, or not; thereby limiting their ability to react accurately to an emergency situation, and straight down is not always the answer.

The best drone pilots in the world (assumed) are the military's drone pilots. I'd be surprised if they ever see the aircraft.

Is there any possibility the rules are getting in the way of safety? Regarding being able to see all around the drone, yes you can. All one has to do is hover, then rotate. Do commercial aircraft make use of rear view mirrors other than to taxi? Don't actually know if commercial aircraft have rear view mirrors, but fairly certain they can't hover and rotate.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability beyond VLOS? i.e. the use of instrumentation.

I'm studying for part 107. Not because I want the certification, which I think will limit my flights, or because I think I can make money with it, for which I have no intention. I'm studying so I can better understand airspace, and the way the aviation industry looks at the situation. In studying for the Part 107 exam, a general observation I have is that Part 107 is about useless for flying quadcopters. Part 107 is all about not getting in the way of commercial and recreational airplane pilots.
I'm not interested in flying/filming near airports. I rarely get above 150 feet of altitude. If a commercial or recreational pilot is away from an airport and flying at 150 feet, they have much bigger problems than my 1.5 pound flying plastic presents; excluding crop dusters.

IMO the FAA hurriedly got something 'out there' in time for the increasing Christmas drone sales, and what was put 'out there' may need to be revisited, and revised. One size does not fit all.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability rather than just an understanding of airspace?

Here's the rant:
There is so much conversation around quadcopter violations of society. Rarely if ever is it mentioned how many millions or tens of millions of tax payer dollars recreational airplane pilots cost taxpayers and society when their problems arise. Why do we favor recreational airplane pilots? They provide little if any economic benefit? I may not be considering all aspects of their benefit to the economy, other than the closed circled of aviation economics such as airports, airplanes, fuel, insurance, taxes, guided tours, and accessories.

Regarding the airport radius, have you looked at a sectional map? Airports are everywhere! I never knew my small town had so many airports. Why do we need so many airports? Convenience?

Regarding society's fear of being spied on, it would be much cheaper, and easier to buy a DSLR camera with a telephoto lens than it would be to use a drone. At 150' feet of altitude, people are the size of ants. Unless modified or custom built, drones are not of much value for spying.

Maybe I should just give it up. Video of my local lake isn't that interesting. Is it? For me, this is all about photography and videography. I have to see the monitor (no longer VLOS) to frame the shot.

In the end, what I am trying to say is that rules are important. However, rules for the sake of rules alone may be counter productive. With the increasing value of drone usage, there may need to be levels of licensing beyond the singular FAA Part 107. Generally, commercial truck drivers follow the same rules of the road that car drivers follow - speed limits, limit lines, etc...But, a car driver' license doesn't grant commercial truck driving permissions. If drone pilots wish to have permission to operate beyond the existing rule restrictions eg VLOS, testing airspace knowledge, drone flying skill sets, use of instrumentation (telemetry), and reaction to monitor visuals may be a viable solution worth exploring.

One size does not fit all.

Thoughts?

Maybe of interest? Warning: part rant

For consideration:
Commercial pilots fly IFR (instrumentation), and not VFR (visual). Flying a quadcopter via the monitor with it's telemetry is more akin to IFR than VFR.
VLOS would certainly help newbies learn the craft. After gaining experience, learning to more accurately understand where the drone is in space could be of greater safety/value than being able to simply see it. An observer within a flight team may be able to see the drone, but not be able to communicate emergency procedures quickly or accurately enough to the crew member operating the controls. Is that arrangement a false sense of security? Can the right hand instruct the left hand, or does the brain (telemetry and monitoring) need to intervene?

In VLOS a pilot may be able to see the drone, but not be able tell you which direction the camera is pointing; strobe lights, or not; thereby limiting their ability to react accurately to an emergency situation, and straight down is not always the answer.

The best drone pilots in the world (assumed) are the military's drone pilots. I'd be surprised if they ever see the aircraft.

Is there any possibility the rules are getting in the way of safety? Regarding being able to see all around the drone, yes you can. All one has to do is hover, then rotate. Do commercial aircraft make use of rear view mirrors other than to taxi? Don't actually know if commercial aircraft have rear view mirrors, but fairly certain they can't hover and rotate.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability beyond VLOS? i.e. the use of instrumentation.

I'm studying for part 107. Not because I want the certification, which I think will limit my flights, or because I think I can make money with it, for which I have no intention. I'm studying so I can better understand airspace, and the way the aviation industry looks at the situation. In studying for the Part 107 exam, a general observation I have is that Part 107 is about useless for flying quadcopters. Part 107 is all about not getting in the way of commercial and recreational airplane pilots.
I'm not interested in flying/filming near airports. I rarely get above 150 feet of altitude. If a commercial or recreational pilot is away from an airport and flying at 150 feet, they have much bigger problems than my 1.5 pound flying plastic presents; excluding crop dusters.

IMO the FAA hurriedly got something 'out there' in time for the increasing Christmas drone sales, and what was put 'out there' may need to be revisited, and revised. One size does not fit all.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability rather than just an understanding of airspace?

Here's the rant:
There is so much conversation around quadcopter violations of society. Rarely if ever is it mentioned how many millions or tens of millions of tax payer dollars recreational airplane pilots cost taxpayers and society when their problems arise. Why do we favor recreational airplane pilots? They provide little if any economic benefit? I may not be considering all aspects of their benefit to the economy, other than the closed circled of aviation economics such as airports, airplanes, fuel, insurance, taxes, guided tours, and accessories.

Regarding the airport radius, have you looked at a sectional map? Airports are everywhere! I never knew my small town had so many airports. Why do we need so many airports? Convenience?

Regarding society's fear of being spied on, it would be much cheaper, and easier to buy a DSLR camera with a telephoto lens than it would be to use a drone. At 150' feet of altitude, people are the size of ants. Unless modified or custom built, drones are not of much value for spying.

Maybe I should just give it up. Video of my local lake isn't that interesting. Is it? For me, this is all about photography and videography. I have to see the monitor (no longer VLOS) to frame the shot.

In the end, what I am trying to say is that rules are important. However, rules for the sake of rules alone may be counter productive. With the increasing value of drone usage, there may need to be levels of licensing beyond the singular FAA Part 107. Generally, commercial truck drivers follow the same rules of the road that car drivers follow - speed limits, limit lines, etc...But, a car driver' license doesn't grant commercial truck driving permissions. If drone pilots wish to have permission to operate beyond the existing rule restrictions eg VLOS, testing airspace knowledge, drone flying skill sets, use of instrumentation (telemetry), and reaction to monitor visuals may be a viable solution worth exploring.

One size does not fit all.

Thoughts?

Maybe of interest? Warning: part rant

For consideration:
Commercial pilots fly IFR (instrumentation), and not VFR (visual). Flying a quadcopter via the monitor with it's telemetry is more akin to IFR than VFR.
VLOS would certainly help newbies learn the craft. After gaining experience, learning to more accurately understand where the drone is in space could be of greater safety/value than being able to simply see it. An observer within a flight team may be able to see the drone, but not be able to communicate emergency procedures quickly or accurately enough to the crew member operating the controls. Is that arrangement a false sense of security? Can the right hand instruct the left hand, or does the brain (telemetry and monitoring) need to intervene?

In VLOS a pilot may be able to see the drone, but not be able tell you which direction the camera is pointing; strobe lights, or not; thereby limiting their ability to react accurately to an emergency situation, and straight down is not always the answer.

The best drone pilots in the world (assumed) are the military's drone pilots. I'd be surprised if they ever see the aircraft.

Is there any possibility the rules are getting in the way of safety? Regarding being able to see all around the drone, yes you can. All one has to do is hover, then rotate. Do commercial aircraft make use of rear view mirrors other than to taxi? Don't actually know if commercial aircraft have rear view mirrors, but fairly certain they can't hover and rotate.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability beyond VLOS? i.e. the use of instrumentation.

I'm studying for part 107. Not because I want the certification, which I think will limit my flights, or because I think I can make money with it, for which I have no intention. I'm studying so I can better understand airspace, and the way the aviation industry looks at the situation. In studying for the Part 107 exam, a general observation I have is that Part 107 is about useless for flying quadcopters. Part 107 is all about not getting in the way of commercial and recreational airplane pilots.
I'm not interested in flying/filming near airports. I rarely get above 150 feet of altitude. If a commercial or recreational pilot is away from an airport and flying at 150 feet, they have much bigger problems than my 1.5 pound flying plastic presents; excluding crop dusters.

IMO the FAA hurriedly got something 'out there' in time for the increasing Christmas drone sales, and what was put 'out there' may need to be revisited, and revised. One size does not fit all.

Should there be a certification program to test quadcopter pilot capability rather than just an understanding of airspace?

Here's the rant:
There is so much conversation around quadcopter violations of society. Rarely if ever is it mentioned how many millions or tens of millions of tax payer dollars recreational airplane pilots cost taxpayers and society when their problems arise. Why do we favor recreational airplane pilots? They provide little if any economic benefit? I may not be considering all aspects of their benefit to the economy, other than the closed circled of aviation economics such as airports, airplanes, fuel, insurance, taxes, guided tours, and accessories.

Regarding the airport radius, have you looked at a sectional map? Airports are everywhere! I never knew my small town had so many airports. Why do we need so many airports? Convenience?

Regarding society's fear of being spied on, it would be much cheaper, and easier to buy a DSLR camera with a telephoto lens than it would be to use a drone. At 150' feet of altitude, people are the size of ants. Unless modified or custom built, drones are not of much value for spying.

Maybe I should just give it up. Video of my local lake isn't that interesting. Is it? For me, this is all about photography and videography. I have to see the monitor (no longer VLOS) to frame the shot.

In the end, what I am trying to say is that rules are important. However, rules for the sake of rules alone may be counter productive. With the increasing value of drone usage, there may need to be levels of licensing beyond the singular FAA Part 107. Generally, commercial truck drivers follow the same rules of the road that car drivers follow - speed limits, limit lines, etc...But, a car driver' license doesn't grant commercial truck driving permissions. If drone pilots wish to have permission to operate beyond the existing rule restrictions eg VLOS, testing airspace knowledge, drone flying skill sets, use of instrumentation (telemetry), and reaction to monitor visuals may be a viable solution worth exploring.

One size does not fit all.

Thoughts?

Well said, nothing to add

 

[SGM]

There has been some great discussion and insight, if not debate concerning VLOS on this thread. The take away for me - ALL of the comments here have been made by mature responsible flyers of drones who care about safety and the aviation laws how ever far reaching some of the laws may seem, and I thank you all for that; I have been given more to consider on this thread than the many threads I have read in the past know better than anyone MY WAY is not the only way or answer. I've learned a lot thank you all!

 

[dronerdave]

Well it seems to me that fixed wing RC flying is apples to oranges when comparing to drones. I'll bet RC planes don't have FPV cameras because of the AMA VLOS rules. Again, although I'd like to see a set of sensible rules that pertain to capturing drone video, we might be regulated to death. People who interfere with stuff like emergency operations such as fire and rescue are not helping at all and the news media folks love to spotlight it. This kind of reminds me of the hand held laser problem.

 

[Classic flyer]

I’m a bit confused.
I have an App that indicates I can not fly within 5 miles of an airport. The OP shows information stating 3 miles. I’m in CA if that matters.
Also... I’m curious. Do you guys actually pick up the phone and call the airport to let them know you plan to fly your drone today? What is their typical response? ‘Okay, have fun” don’t hit any of our planes”. I can’t imagine how this process works.
Please let me know what is actually happening in this regard.
Thanks!

Well by calling the tower to let them know you're flying they can share that with aircraft passing through that same airspace...just saying