TREES

[Dmcvey]

Not everyone who occasionally doesn't follow the rules to the letter is an idiot or necessarily reckless. The sheer amount of people who DO successfully fly their UAVs out those sort of distances, and back should tell us that the capability and resources to do it safely BVLOS at hobbyist level ARE there. I watched tons of range tests where pilots are careful to do all the sensible things; fly out against the wind, gain altitude as they go, don't overfly anything other than fields, don't top 400 ft, and carefully monitor all the things they need to in order to maximise the chances of things going well. And in most of those cases it does go well and they return home unscathed, usually having got a great deal further than they expected to...

I am not saying we should all routinely disregard all the rules all the time, but if we are happy to retain accountability for our actions, and feel our flights that don't adhere to the letter of the law are to some extent defensible for their safety and success, then I am hesitant to be so critical of people who succumb to that temptation.

The sheer number of people? Oh, so everyone does it...IT IS STILL ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!! Just because a ton of people drive drunk and don't crash or kill someone makes it ok???? what an illogical argument. BVLOS, you can't see that medical helo, or Cessna. THE FAA says you have to "See and Avoid"... if you can't see it, you can't avoid it. That is a logical argument.

Fly right or go find another hobby.

 

[Dmcvey]

Not everyone who occasionally doesn't follow the rules to the letter is an idiot or necessarily reckless. The sheer amount of people who DO successfully fly their UAVs out those sort of distances, and back should tell us that the capability and resources to do it safely BVLOS at hobbyist level ARE there. I watched tons of range tests where pilots are careful to do all the sensible things; fly out against the wind, gain altitude as they go, don't overfly anything other than fields, don't top 400 ft, and carefully monitor all the things they need to in order to maximise the chances of things going well. And in most of those cases it does go well and they return home unscathed, usually having got a great deal further than they expected to...

I am not saying we should all routinely disregard all the rules all the time, but if we are happy to retain accountability for our actions, and feel our flights that don't adhere to the letter of the law are to some extent defensible for their safety and success, then I am hesitant to be so critical of people who succumb to that temptation.

As soon as you go BVLOS, you are no longer flying under 44809 and you are under Part 107. Flying under 44809 means you are abiding by a CBO operating standard.

From AMA: https://www.modelaircraft.org/system/files/documents/540-D.pdf
Document 540D“SEE AND AVOID” GUIDANCE

1. The primary means to avoid collisions between all aircraft flying within our National Airspace System(NAS) is “See and Avoid.”
2. Vigilance must be maintained by each person operating an aircraft (whether model or manned) so as to “see and avoid” other aircraft.
3. Model aircraft must avoid manned aircraft. Our privilege to fly model aircraft in the NAS depends on our commitment to remain “well clear” of manned aircraft.
4. Simply avoiding an actual collision is not enough. A “near miss” is not acceptable.
5. Unless flying at a mixed-use site where manned and model aircraft routinely share airspace through their own site with specific rules, model aircraft must fly sufficiently far away from manned aircraft so as not to create a collision hazard.
6. Model aircraft flying must not only be safe, but it must also be perceived to be safe by the greater manned-aviation community. Modelers must continually demonstrate their respect for the safety of manned aircraft by remaining vigilant and well clear of them.
7. Whenever a potential conflict arises between model aircraft and manned aircraft, the pilot of the model aircraft must always give way to the manned aircraft.
8. The pilot of a model aircraft must never assume that the pilot of a manned aircraft can see the model or will perform any maneuver to avoid the model’s flight path.
9. Visual Line of Sight is required by the AMA Safety Code. It means that visual contact with the aircraft must be maintained without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the model aircraft pilot. All RC flying must remain clear of clouds, smoke, or any other obstruction to the line of sight.

 

[anotherlab]

Not everyone who occasionally doesn't follow the rules to the letter is an idiot or necessarily reckless. The sheer amount of people who DO successfully fly their UAVs out those sort of distances, and back should tell us that the capability and resources to do it safely BVLOS at hobbyist level ARE there. I watched tons of range tests where pilots are careful to do all the sensible things; fly out against the wind, gain altitude as they go, don't overfly anything other than fields, don't top 400 ft, and carefully monitor all the things they need to in order to maximise the chances of things going well. And in most of those cases it does go well and they return home unscathed, usually having got a great deal further than they expected to...

I am not saying we should all routinely disregard all the rules all the time, but if we are happy to retain accountability for our actions, and feel our flights that don't adhere to the letter of the law are to some extent defensible for their safety and success, then I am hesitant to be so critical of people who succumb to that temptation.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

 

[AeroJ]

Fly right or go find another hobby.

Nowhere did I say that I do this myself. I don't, but not because the over-reaching law tells me no. I won't do it where I am in the UK because of Medivac and army traffic, but not everywhere has that to worry about.

Neither did I mean to convey the impression that loads of people doing it (in and of itself) makes it fine; only that it confirms it is repeatably / demonstrably possible without negative consequence in a vast number of documented cases ! This is not factored into the law, and should be.

We must protest over-reach / and denial of available tech where it is applied stupidly in law. For example - asking us to maintain VLOS and not look down at the one object that has ALL the information we need to keep our craft safe (including 360 degree cam views in most cases these days) is pure madness, and people who stolidly observe that rule to stare fixedly at their dot in the sky are far less safe than the people looking at their remotes with occasional glances upwards...

Notice how already, with the Part 108 thing impending, hobbyists are not even part of the conversation or consideration about BVLOS. You lose more freedoms every day, despite advances in technology that mitigate a lot of risk.

The trouble with having an independent thinking brain, is that is hard not to use it, and apply it to the mixed bag of rules that are foisted upon us ! Sure, some of them are good ideas, obviously related to safety, or genuine security concerns. And others are not about those things at all, and it is those I contest. This is why I would never try and join the army - as soon as I got any order at all, my next question, is 'why ?' and I'm not doing it unless I agree with or am prepared to acquiesce to your reasons !

 

[Droning on and on...]

The sheer number of people? Oh, so everyone does it...IT IS STILL ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!! Just because a ton of people drive drunk and don't crash or kill someone makes it ok????

Of course you pick DUI. How about something you yourself violate? Exceeding the speed limit... IT IS STILL ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!

Much closer comparison.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

 

[Droning on and on...]

We must protest over-reach / and denial of available tech where it is applied stupidly in law.

I would routinely ignore an ordinance that made it an offense to step on a crack in the sidewalk.

Just because some idiot convinced the City Board of Supervisors that it might break my mother's back doesn't mean they're right.

 

[anotherlab]

Neither did I mean to convey the impression that loads of people doing it (in and of itself) makes it fine; only that it confirms it is repeatably / demonstrably possible without negative consequence in a vast number of documented cases ! This is not factored into the law, and should be.

What do you define as a vast number of cases?

The people who fly distances way beyond VLOS for YouTube clicks are not a vast number of users. They are the edge cases, and because of people doing stuff like that, the rest of the users get hobbled with tighter restrictions.

You don't make allowances because it's fine most of the time. That's not how the laws are made.

On an empty interstate highway in one of the flatter states, you could drive for miles at 100 mph without negative consequences. If the same highway had a lot of traffic and everyone was driving at 100 mph, there would be massive amounts of negative consequences.