Unregulated VLOS

[Chaosrider]

With this poll, I'm looking to see the distribution of opinion between people who fly VLOS because it's a rule, and people who fly VLOS because you think it's a good idea. This question is about what you would do if there was no rule.

Thx,

TCS

 

[old man mavic]

@Chaosrider ,this subject has been flogged to death on this forum ,and all it will do is inflame some members ,give pleasure to others ,and have no benefit to anyone
if the day ever comes where the VLOS rules are rescinded for everyone, then repost your poll,
and see what answers you get, the rule as it stands is not about restricting peoples ability to fly their drones at distance ,it is purely there from a safety standpoint ,and its up to the individual PIC ,to choose whether or not they follow it to the best of their ability,or disregard it ,and accept the outcome if something goes wrong ,and they end up facing the consequences of their actions

disclaimer
this post is my personal views on the subject of VLOS ,and not intended to offend the OP

 

[vindibona1]

As old man mavic said, it's an age old subject.

From a practical standpoint I don't know how anyone can maintain a visual on their drone 100% of the time even if it is technically within the LINE of sight. What does that mean anyway. I can fly out 10,000 feet within the LINE of sight and still not be able to see my drone until it's within 600 feet of me (1600' with strobes). If we're not in an open area, it doesn't take long for you drone to be eclipsed by trees or a building where it would have to be 400' up to see it at all. Trying to stay 100% within the intent of the rule can be quite difficult. If anyone here NEVER flies beyond where you can see it 100% of the time, I don't know who they are.

I can tell you this- IMO (at least for me) the hardest thing to do is fly IFR from your monitor. This is confirmed by the number of crashes into obstacles that I've seen on tape that might have been avoided if seeing the drone directly. I may be extra challenged in using the monitor for space considerations. I marvel at guys that can fly through car windows or train trestle beams or under bridges that only leave 8' of clearance over water and to it all flying IFR. I'd like to be better at that, for sure, but guess I'm too nervous to take chances, even when a disaster only jeopardizes the drone.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

@Chaosrider, I get the impression that the thinking behind many your threads is that you think that rules designed to protect others or that are an attempt to ensure their safety, infringe your personal freedoms.

Am I wrong?

 

[vindibona1]

@Chaosrider, I get the impression that the thinking behind many your threads is that you think that rules designed to protect others or that are an attempt to ensure their safety, infringe your personal freedoms.

Am I wrong?

I thought about your response and have a few things to say, regardless of the motivation of ChaosRider.

Personal freedom is precious. I suppose it might be less so to those who are conditioned to accept less personal freedoms in the (often false) premise of "security". Governments by elected officials make laws, but often "rules" that come from agencies of unelected bureaucrats are taken as law, some with merit and some without. Some even produce opposing consequences to the intent. Of course these rules should be strictly observed in many areas. But in all areas?

Who here drives at the posted speed on the open highway 100% of time? Do that here and you'll get run over. Same concept as 100% adherence to VLOS where flying strictly VLOS seems entirely un-necessary for the protection of anything. My point is, beyond the point of the value of personal freedom, is that the OP is from a place where he is only minutes from the middle of nowhere. Perhaps his intent is to examine how strict one must follow the rule of VLOS in the middle of nowhere? I don't know. But I think I made my point.

 

[thispilothere]

Who here drives at the posted speed on the open highway 100% of time?

Believe it or not (I don't believe it), more than a few people here claim they never speed or, if they do it accidentally, they immediately slow down.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

Believe it or not (I don't believe it), more than a few people here claim they never speed or, if they do it accidentally, they

Believe it or not (I don't believe it), more than a few people here claim they never speed or, if they do it accidentally, they immediately slow down.

I thought about your response and have a few things to say, regardless of the motivation of ChaosRider.

Personal freedom is precious. I suppose it might be less so to those who are conditioned to accept less personal freedoms in the (often false) premise of "security". Governments by elected officials make laws, but often "rules" that come from agencies of unelected bureaucrats are taken as law, some with merit and some without. Some even produce opposing consequences to the intent. Of course these rules should be strictly observed in many areas. But in all areas?

Who here drives at the posted speed on the open highway 100% of time? Do that here and you'll get run over. Same concept as 100% adherence to VLOS where flying strictly VLOS seems entirely un-necessary for the protection of anything. My point is, beyond the point of the value of personal freedom, is that the OP is from a place where he is only minutes from the middle of nowhere. Perhaps his intent is to examine how strict one must follow the rule of VLOS in the middle of nowhere? I don't know. But I think I made my point.

I accept the premise that many people exceed the speed limit, at least some of the time and under some circumstances. Are you arguing that therefore there should be no speed limits at all?

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

..
Laws and rules are put in place by governments / authority to 'control'.

Some controls are common sense, are able to be precisely measured and applied, and make sense to the majority.
Others are so variable based on outside factors, different levels of skills etc, that to some they STILL don't stop a situation being dangerous, and to others seem to hobble something that is perfectly safe outside those law / rule parameters.

Many rules are made (and need to be made) with clear limits to be enforceable, and because of the differences in outside influences, or an individuals skills, they are / can generally be blanket applied at levels much lower than they are required.

There are way too many laws in general in many developed countries.
New ones are introduced often, where an existing one could easily be applied, and it's usually where the law or rule is really unenforceable by its very nature that this happens.

400' rule good.
Arbitrary road speed limit bad.
(3 or 4 km/hr over a posted road speed limit, and speed cameras in Australia will get you for this ~ 2mph infraction.)

Have to live with the rule or break it, an individuals choice and live with the consequences.
Never will you get total compliance (or common sense applied), we've seen it too many times here on the forum, and in life generally.

 

[orionshooter]

My apologies in advance if my attempt at levity is untimely but this thread reminds me of Winston Churchill’s description of laws:

ENGLAND - everything is permitted except what is prohibited

GERMANY: - everything is prohibited except what is permitted

FRANCE - Everything is permitted including that which is prohibited.

RUSSIA: Everything is prohibited including that which is permitted.

 

[Dale D]

@Chaosrider, I get the impression that the thinking behind many your threads is that you think that rules designed to protect others or that are an attempt to ensure their safety, infringe your personal freedoms.

Am I wrong?

I disagree with that. I am not in any way worried about my personal freedoms being imposed upon. I think it is really impossible to see my drone more than 1000 feet away, but in my films, I usually only need 3 to 5 seconds of filming for most clips anyway. There are times when I do fly only looking at my 9 1/2 inch iPad but it is usually way out in the wide open spaces. I then depend on flying back manually as best as I can using the arrow to point the way to home point. If that fails, then I use RTH which has always saved me. I am really sure to get the home point and hear the lady's voice, and hovering above the "H" at 20 feet for 10 seconds.

So at least for the last 2 years I still have not gotten into trouble. Knock on wood.

Dale

 

[Meuzick17]

@Chaosrider ,this subject has been flogged to death on this forum ,and all it will do is inflame some members ,give pleasure to others ,and have no benefit to anyone
if the day ever comes where the VLOS rules are rescinded for everyone, then repost your poll,
and see what answers you get, the rule as it stands is not about restricting peoples ability to fly their drones at distance ,it is purely there from a safety standpoint ,and its up to the individual PIC ,to choose whether or not they follow it to the best of their ability,or disregard it ,and accept the outcome if something goes wrong ,and they end up facing the consequences of their actions

disclaimer
this post is my personal views on the subject of VLOS ,and not intended to offend the OP

Well said old man!

 

[BigAl07]

Believe it or not (I don't believe it), more than a few people here claim they never speed or, if they do it accidentally, they immediately slow down.

Believe it or not I don't speed intentionally. At times I find myself going over the posted speed a pinch and I will indeed slow down. There was a time in my life when that was absolutely NOT the case.. .ever.... but today I don't have a need or desire to speed. I also don't run stop signs, red lights, no-turn-on-red, or any of those pesky nuisance situations.

I also do not intentionally fly outside of VLOS but just like speeding, if it happens (ie flying around building, structure, tree etc) I will reposition myself as to regain VLOS as quickly as possible.

Believe it or not that's 100% on you but it really is how I operate.

 

[spsphotos]

New Poll:

If there were no drunk driving laws would you:

1) Not drive drunk because it's dangerous to you and others?
2) Only drive drunk if you had to only go a mile?
3) Only drive drunk if you only had a few drinks?
4) Drive as wasted as possible because there are no legal concerns and you don't give two craps about anyone else's life?

Just because you don't like a law does not mean it does not exist for a real reason. Sure, a Mini 2 might not kill someone (but it can), but a 55lb drone definitely could do some serious damage.

Probably every drone pilot has violated one or more FAA reg, especially when they start out. I know I did, but then I learned to rules and why they exist and no longer think just because I don't like them I can ignore them. Grow up people.

 

[wardtom084]

How do these drone deliveries work as I know that is all beyond VLOS.

 

[spsphotos]

How do these drone deliveries work as I know that is all beyond VLOS.

FAA Waiver. VERY VERY VERY hard to get. Have to have all kinds of things in place.

 

[dart106]

Having flown fixed wing airplanes (and a helicopter or two along the way) during my GA, military, and airline career, I’ve seen scores of new rules and regulations generated by the FAA, Military Leadership, and Airline management with intent of preventing a lapse in judgement from ever happening again. Of course, since good judgement can’t be regulated ever, all that is left is volumes of “don’t do that again” rules and regulations that are nearly impossible to keep up with on any given day.

All because someone did something that caught the attention of those “in charge” that broke one of Orville and Wilbur’s first two rules of aviation:

1. Don’t scrape the paint
2. Don’t make anyone bleed

Every aviation rule since has been the result of someone breaking one or both of these two rules.

So, as a relatively new entity in the big scheme of aviation and regulatory agencies, it behaves us as drone enthusiasts to consider the long term consequences of a “Hold my beer and watch this” type of event when boredom suggests trying something new.

 

[Michael Ainsworth]

Can’t understand the obsession of BVLOS.
Fly so far out you have no idea where the drone is. The scenery is no better than where you are.
I drive/ walk to where I want to photograph and keep VLOS as much as possible, not because it’s the rule as such but have no need to prove anything, I want to see the drone to position it accurately.
Personally I think it’s more of an ego thing with this need to fly high and far.
All the range tests are moot really.
I am more interested in time in air to take decent shots and sitting at home planning missions on Litchi or Dronelink.

 

[BigAl07]

FAA Waiver. VERY VERY VERY hard to get. Have to have all kinds of things in place.

Sort of....Yes and No LOL

Since Part 107 specifically forbids carrying cargo for compensation and does NOT have a Waiver Path around that I don't know how you would be able to carry cargo for hire and still be compliant under Part 107. This meads Drone Delivery doesn't easily fall under Part 107 but fits under Part 135 or more accurately 14 CFR Part 135. This is a fairly high level certification and getting it is no walk in the park. Also it requires a Manned Aircraft certification to even start the process of going through the 5 phases to get Part 135 Certified.

14 CFR Part 135 Air Carrier and Operator Certification​

 

[nobsyogi]

VLOS will forever remain the no.1 rule with flying a drone.
I wonder how long it will be until drone manufacturers build in automated collision avoidance when the drone detects another drone, helicopter or aircraft with different specific automated action for each type. This would certainly be a game changer & would ensure safety prevails at all times.

 

[dronerdave]

This question is about what you would do if there was no rule.

If there were no VLOS rules at all, I'd still feel devastated if I killed or harmed someone flying manned aircraft if my drone (operation) was the cause.

Could I use an excuse that because there are no VLOS rules, the accident wasn't my fault even if it was?

Could I say the odds of hitting an aircraft BVLOS were so slim I shouldn't be held responsible?

Could I say I'm exempt from being sued because there are no VLOS rules to break?

What would you do if there were no restrictive VLOS UAV rules but were told if for any reason you cause a manned aircraft to crash (because of your drone), you'd automatically be considered guilty and spend the rest of your life behind bars?



Would you still take a chance of jail time even if it's a slim chance? I'm sure some would and figure there's just no way something will happen (the odds are too great) and take the chance.

Personally I really wouldn't try to justify my actions to control my conscious. My drone crashing into a manned aircraft probably wouldn't hurt me other than the financial loss, but I'd feel overwhelmed about injuring or killing someone because of my uncontrolled hobby. Responsibility is a key factor. But the problem is if there were no rules set in place, how would most people (including me) know my flying has the possibility of harming others even if it was or wasn't extremely rare? When I first got my MP in 2016, I flew both over 400 AGL and past VLOS several times. Most flying was in open areas and I didn't do anything stupid in my eyes concerning safety. After having a couple close encounters with the real McCoy's, I quit flying BVLOS. I can say those close encounters weren't in any way damaging to my equipment or the manned aircraft. I'd even venture to say if you tried as hard as you could to hit a manned aircraft in flight, you'd be extremely lucky to make contact. But the close calls did open my eyes a bit and I started keeping my quad within sight and scanning more often for aircraft.

I think most of us understand that without rules set in place to protect manned aircraft, in the case of a deadly event like I discussed above, the government probably would be held responsible for not having specific laws to protect manned aircraft from an unsafe environment caused by unmanned aircraft. CYA comes to mind. There are so many different scenarios in your no rule example that can change my views about what is or isn't safe, it's impossible for me to answer. I do feel the FAA uses kind of a blanket approach regarding VLOS rules for good reason. It does cut down on possible confusion in following VLOS guidelines. If BVLOS becomes an issue for the FAA, I doubt any of us will be fond of the outcome, but that's just speculation on my part.

Today I fly within FAA compliance to the best of my ability. Do I screw up from time to time? Yeah, but I'm not purposely running red lights out there on a normal basis.