The VLOS Debate Superdome

[Ars3nal3432]

I have noticed that most of the time when someone mentions VLOS, it turns into a battle about morality and a repeated argument of an inaccurate comparison of driving and flying. I'm proposing that all the debates and arguments regarding VLOS go in this thread. If the VLOS debate hijacks someone's post we should refer everyone to this thread, in doing so it will help keep the original topic of a post the main focus.

 

[PhantomFandom]

How about the thread that already exists, discussing this topic? Range tests and the law...

 

[Camino Ken]

Great idea. I think it will be difficult to keep all the worms in a single can.

 

[dirkclod]

I I'm proposing that all the debates and arguments regarding VLOS go in this thread. If the VLOS debate hijacks someone's post we should refer everyone to this thread, in doing so it will help keep the original topic of a post the main focus.

Good luck with that .?

 

[Ars3nal3432]

How about the thread that already exists, discussing this topic? Range tests and the law...

oh nice I was unaware, I think the title of mine is better though

 

[WDKZoom]

I am brand new to this debate so here is my question. In this shot I have a clear view as far as that mountain. My limit is set for 250 meters and will take advantage of that and no more when I can......at some point I will not actually be able to see my mavic zoom but I can see all my surroundings with no obstructions knowing the general area my drone is in. I know the orientation of my drone because of my phone....are there any objections to VLOS here?

WDK

 

[sar104]

I am brand new to this debate so here is my question. In this shot I have a clear view as far as that mountain. My limit is set for 250 meters and will take advantage of that and no more when I can......at some point I will not actually be able to see my mavic zoom but I can see all my surroundings with no obstructions knowing the general area my drone is in. View attachment 103675I know the orientation of my drone because of my phone....are there any objections to VLOS here?

WDK

It may satisfy the situational awareness requirement if you can easily see/hear other air traffic. But it doesn't meet the requirement to be able to see the orientation and actual location of the drone, so it may be difficult figure out what evasive action to take. It's close to meeting the intent however, in my opinion.

 

[WDKZoom]

It may satisfy the situational awareness requirement if you can easily see/hear other air traffic. But it doesn't meet the requirement to be able to see the orientation and actual location of the drone, so it may be difficult figure out what evasive action to take. It's close to meeting the intent however, in my opinion.

In this shot I was at 325 feet.....also my altitude max....in most every case my only evasive maneuver is down though at this particular location while I might not actually be able to see my drone as more than a spec, unless there is an F18 screaming by at nearly full speed, the air space is so clear that unless I fell asleep at the remote, there is no way a manned aircraft could surprise me. Again, I am new learning, thank you for your input and I welcome any advice from all.

WDK

 

[dronerdave]

...unless I fell asleep at the remote, there is no way a manned aircraft could surprise me.

WDK

I've had a number of surprise appearances from full sized aircraft that I never heard coming. It happens most when I'm flying off private runways but I've had a small plane fly past me at a lake and my Mavic felt like it was crawling as the plane flew past me. I tried to see and avoid but in reality I might have been putting my MP directly in his path. Fortunately we missed each other by a few feet but I had no way of actually knowing if we were going to collide until he passed by. Just sayin.

 

[1bad]

Ahhhhh the VLOS superdome!! I love the intent to keep all the VLOS trolls in one place. Hope this works out!!

 

[WDKZoom]

I've had a number of surprise appearances from full sized aircraft that I never heard coming. It happens most when I'm flying off private runways but I've had a small plane fly past me at a lake and my Mavic felt like it was crawling as the plane flew past me. I tried to see and avoid but in reality I might have been putting my MP directly in his path. Fortunately we missed each other by a few feet but I had no way of actually knowing if we were going to collide until he passed by. Just sayin.

.....anything can be said to be possible but if you saw this area in person you would also conclude it’s not likely!!!

WDK

 

[Chip]

Superdome or Thunderdome you know where two men enter and one man leaves?

 

[dirkclod]

Ahhhhh the VLOS superdome!! I love the intent to keep all the VLOS trolls in one place. Hope this works out!!

Sorry but that will never happen and please don’t insult others here. Thanks.

 

[Ars3nal3432]

Superdome or Thunderdome you know where two men enter and one man leaves?

hmmm good question I think it needs to remain the Superdome, the Thunderdome would imply a battle will ensue.

 

[dronerdave]

.....anything can be said to be possible but if you saw this area in person you would also conclude it’s not likely!!!

WDK

Not arguing that at all. It wasn't likely at the lake either but the incident happened.

 

[UAS_Dude]

I would be interested in reading opinions in regard to this video - link at the bottom of this post. It's a range test by a well-known YouTuber and drone flyers influencer. He maintains that the flights are legal because he has a spotter positioned a mile or two downrange and in contact via two-way radio.

He further claims that a contact who works for the FAA, as well as the owner/operator of REMOTEPILOT101.com, agree that using a visual observer who is not within unaided sight or earshot of the pilot in command (PIC) of the drone makes it legal for the PIC to fly BVLOS.

The FAA regulation covering VLOS below seems to back this up. The enlarged bold text below and in particular the word "or", at least the way I read it, means that, so long as the visual observer can see the drone, the requirements have been satisfied. The wording is annoyingly not 100% clear.

107.31 - Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer.

 

[KeviP]

Strictly speaking, if the spotter was positioned one or two miles downrange, that would mean that the changeover distance would be between a half to one mile from the observers.
Would that still be in the visible range?
I have never tried it, and my eyesight is not too bad for my age, but I doubt whether I could still see my MA correctly at half a mile.

 

[UAS_Dude]

Strictly speaking, if the spotter was positioned one or two miles downrange, that would mean that the changeover distance would be between a half to one mile from the observers.
Would that still be in the visible range?
I have never tried it, and my eyesight is not too bad for my age, but I doubt whether I could still see my MA correctly at half a mile.

Yeah, I'm not sure of the distance between the PIC and the visual observer in radio contact - the point being that the PIC lost VLOS for a considerable amount of time during these Range Test flights.

Oh and I forgot to mention that the PIC is Part 107 certified.

 

[sar104]

I would be interested in reading opinions in regard to this video - link at the bottom of this post. It's a range test by a well-known YouTuber and drone flyers influencer. He maintains that the flights are legal because he has a spotter positioned a mile or two downrange and in contact via two-way radio.

He further claims that a contact who works for the FAA, as well as the owner/operator of REMOTEPILOT101.com, agree that using a visual observer who is not within unaided sight or earshot of the pilot in command (PIC) of the drone makes it legal for the PIC to fly BVLOS.

The FAA regulation covering VLOS below seems to back this up. The enlarged bold text below and in particular the word "or", at least the way I read it, means that, so long as the visual observer can see the drone, the requirements have been satisfied. The wording is annoyingly not 100% clear.

107.31 - Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer.

It's an interesting question. 107.31(a) says that they must all be able to see it throughout the flight, which implies it's not compliant, while 107.31(b) clearly states that one of them must be able to see it throughout the flight, which implies that it is compliant.

The FAA originally said that the purpose of a VO was only to permit the pilot to lose sight of the aircraft briefly, such as when checking the screen, and had to be co-located (which the recreational exception still explicitly requires), but more recently has confirmed that remote VOs can be used. So yes - under Part 107 this is allowed as long as either the pilot or a VO has VLOS at all times.

 

[Davros007]

Out of interest, are there countries that don’t require VLOS for amateur flying?