Trump proposes beyond visual line of sight flights

[jwilson]

I heard about this in CNN. Then I found this link. It's about time.

Trump's new drone orders aim to counter threats, expedite beyond visual line of sight operations

The orders encourage the FAA to expedite beyond visual line of sight operations while adding safeguards against terrorism, espionage and public safety threats

www.police1.com

 

[MS Coast]

There are no details at all in the article about any proposal to allow flight beyond VLOS.

 

[AlanL]

The real info is on the Dept. of Transportation web site and if you are up for it the proposal (all 731 pages of it) are here as a PDF. The proposal calls for a final draft within 240 days.

Edit: This is an update to the original BLVOS proposal that came out a couple of years ago and was discussed on this forum by @Vic Moss.

Edit 2: Here is a link to the original BVLOS ARC that was published in 2022.

 

[Cafguy]

The rule has to be relaxed in my opinion. I mean why cant I do it with my FPV Drone when Walmart and others are gonna do it all over the place.... in name of profit.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I heard about this in CNN. Then I found this link. It's about time.

Trump's new drone orders aim to counter threats, expedite beyond visual line of sight operations

The orders encourage the FAA to expedite beyond visual line of sight operations while adding safeguards against terrorism, espionage and public safety threats

www.police1.com

What's really interesting is the mention of "...the war in Ukraine..." as being the deciding factor in the decision to 'protect against potential terrorist use of drones within US territories' (inferring DJI), but the failure to mention that good old Adam Bry's built in the US of A Skydio drones have been exported out there in large numbers for exactly the same purpose.

 

[tstr14]

"The three executive orders will encourage the Federal Aviation Administration to expedite rules to allow companies to use drones beyond their operators’ line of sight..."

For businesses, not necessarily for individuals.

 

[MS Coast]

WOW YET ANOTHER DEMO-RAT SURFACING ON A NON POLITICAL SIGHT ,GUESS THERE'S ALWAYS AN ******* IN EVERY BUNCH

Let's avoid the name-calling and spelling errors and focus on the proposed rules. Jonathan Rupprecht, the lawyer who specializes in drone-related issues, is posting some good information and analysis.

- Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance

On August 5, 2025, the DOT conducted a press release and also released a BVLOS factsheet on the upcoming beyond line of sight notice of proposed rulemaking for Part 108. The FAA will soon issue the Part 108 notice of proposed rulemaking. This article is being regularly updated, so please check...

jrupprechtlaw.com

 

[Vic Moss]

It sure would be nice if we could discuss things this important (BVLOS is critically important to this industry) without politics being childishly inserted into the conversation.

Grow up folks. This kind of nonsense does NOBODY any good!

 

[AlanL]

Let's avoid the name-calling and spelling errors and focus on the proposed rules. Jonathan Rupprecht, the lawyer who specializes in drone-related issues, is posting some good information and analysis.

- Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance

On August 5, 2025, the DOT conducted a press release and also released a BVLOS factsheet on the upcoming beyond line of sight notice of proposed rulemaking for Part 108. The FAA will soon issue the Part 108 notice of proposed rulemaking. This article is being regularly updated, so please check...

jrupprechtlaw.com

Their summary is a good one for the Part 108 certificates.

Additionally worth noting is that all BVLOS operations will be subsumed into the Part 108 rules. Existing Part 107 BVLOS waivers will be folded into Part 108 as the waivers expire.

The Part 108 rules do not change existing 44809 and Part 107 VLOS operations. If anything VLOS rules for 44809 and Pt. 107 will become more important than ever since there will be increased UAS traffic in the 0-400' AGL airspace. Part 108 drones will be required to have Detect and Avoid (DAA) hardware/software and must fly with Collision Avoidance beacons at all times to increase visibility.

 

[Vic Moss]

Their summary is a good one for the Part 108 certificates.

Additionally worth noting is that all BVLOS operations will be subsumed into the Part 108 rules. Existing Part 107 BVLOS waivers will be folded into Part 108 as the waivers expire.

The Part 108 rules do not change existing 44809 and Part 107 VLOS operations. If anything VLOS rules for 44809 and Pt. 107 will become more important than ever since there will be increased UAS traffic in the 0-400' AGL airspace. Part 108 drones will be required to have Detect and Avoid (DAA) hardware/software and must fly with Collision Avoidance beacons at all times to increase visibility.

The NPRM throws 99% of all drone pilots under the bus. People like me who currently have BVLOS waivers (mine is for 2SM) will be left out of the game entirely. It takes no account of how I and others utilize our waivers and just disregards our 100% safety record of flights taken under our waivers.

This is a MAJOR issue with how the NPRM is currently crafted, and needs to be addressed by every current Remote Pilot in the country.

 

[Vic Moss]

The real info is on the Dept. of Transportation web site and if you are up for it the proposal (all 731 pages of it) are here as a PDF. The proposal calls for a final drift within 240 days.

Edit: This is an update to the original BLVOS proposal that came out a couple of years ago and was discussed on this forum by @Vic Moss.

Edit 2: Here is a link to the original BVLOS ARC that was published in 2022.

I'll have my summary of the NPRM out as soon as possible. I have to make sure my clients are taken care of first. I hope to have a video and article out this weekend.

 

[AlanL]

The NPRM throws 99% of all drone pilots under the bus. People like me who currently have BVLOS waivers (mine is for 2SM) will be left out of the game entirely. It takes no account of how I and others utilize our waivers and just disregards our 100% safety record of flights taken under our waivers.

This is a MAJOR issue with how the NPRM is currently crafted, and needs to be addressed by every current Remote Pilot in the country.

The NPRM seems to assume that everyone needing BVLOS is flying an autonomous drone over 55lb. in programmed flight only.

 

[Vic Moss]

The NPRM seems to assume that everyone needing BVLOS is flying an autonomous drone over 55lb. in programmed flight only.

Yep, which is less than 1% of all BVLOS flights.

 

[GFields]

This thread will be closed if the political statements and name calling continues. I have already removed a few posts

 

[sarahb]

It is very sad that a topic of such importance cannot be discussed without someone abusing it.

 

[JeffreyS]

I'm not aware of any threats. But it will be nice to fly with more opportunity.

 

[jaja6009]

This is really bad news for the vast majority of the drone community.
I recently posted in another section how Public Safety is being given a streamlined approach to BVLOS, OOP and OOMV with forms that include reading about a mitigation for a hazard and signing off that you will abide. You also must fill out a 7711-2 form (Not all Parts) and provide a brief ConOps (Concept of Operations). You then sign off that you meet the legal definition of a governmental public safety agency and within 1 week you get the most coveted waivers in the drone biz. You do not have to write out long waiver applications.

You get BVLOS with no maximum distance.
To do so you must operate lower than 200 ft AGL and 100 feet above an obstacle within 100 feet of it, have anti-collision lights activated, have an ADS-B antenna on the aircraft that alerts back to you.

You get to operate over people and moving vehicles and when doing so can do so at the risk you are comfortable with.
When I say comfortable with it's:
A Category drone
A drone < 0.88 lbs needs propguards that protect from lacerations
A drone > 0.88 lbs needs the same as above or an ASTM 3322 parachute and this parachute does not need to meet the kinetic impact ratings of the Category drone
OR you can assume more risk and liability by not having propguards or a parachute recovery system and only operate at an altitude and duration to safeguard a human life.

I do appreciate that the FAA is giving Public Safety the tools to an easy path to these waivers, BUT, they need to offer an opportunity for well trained, regulations abiding small drone businesses to do something similar, with similar mitigation strategies.

It is crazy that when at work I can now fly a drone across our city, but as soon as I am off I cannot do the same with my personal drones even though I am the same person with the same drone, using the same safety mitigations.

I fully understand that it must be made easier so that Public Safety can provide a valuable service and again, I fully appreciate it. But, there are far too many responsible drone operators, numerous on this forum that should be given a path to do the same.