Unregulated VLOS

[Deleted member 93449]

Even if the rules were changed I wouldn't fly eyond VLOS. While the odds of something bad happening are extremely small I personally would not take the added risk since there is zero benefit given the type of flying I do. Maybe if you were flying a search mission trying to find a missing child in a forest somewhere the risk might be worth taking the risk.

 

[vindibona1]

..
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.

This post offers a lot of different angles and viewpoints. I think the one that stands out in my mind is the example of speed cameras and getting tagged for violations of the most minor of infractions. I think one of the greatest maladies of society today is the dehumanization (and abuse) that technology can bring with it. And it can also be abused. Speed cameras are a great example. In many areas (Chicago being one) they aren't used primarily for safety, but for revenue. Chicago's speed cams were caught in a "miscalibrattion scheme" where they tagged people who were within the speed limit and brought the city (and the speed cam contractor) millions of dollars. One can only wonder what problems RID will present that weren't anticipated? My guess? For "recreational" drone flights and pilots it will create more problems and issues than RID's benefits. What's to say RID can't be used the same way that speed cams do - for collecting revenue?

 

[SoftDev90]

For people like me that live in very rural areas with next to no air traffic at a reasonable height a drone could reach, vlos is just dumb. I'm in the UP of Michigan, look it up and see how much wilderness Is here versus people. We are so spread out up here with so many forests, that climbing above the tree line and using the camera and screen is about the only way to see anything worth a ****. I get why vlos is important in urban and more densely populated areas, but if there was no rules on it, at least where I live, I would never follow it. I Don't go far as it is because the trees can cause interference, but it's impractical to always maintain sight up here at all times.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I think one of the greatest maladies of society today is the dehumanization (and abuse) that technology can bring with it. And it can also be abused. Speed cameras are a great example. In many areas (Chicago being one) they aren't used primarily for safety, but for revenue. Chicago's speed cams were caught in a "miscalibrattion scheme" where they tagged people who were within the speed limit and brought the city (and the speed cam contractor) millions of dollars.

We’ve seen that here too on occasion.
I agree on the dehumanising tech can bring, police on patrol would never pull you over for minor speed infractions like cameras would, and you see police also breaking speed limits often too in such manner.
If I find myself a little over accidentally on occasion, I correct it.
I adjust speed downwards under a posted limit if weather, traffic, pedestrian etc activity dictates for safety.

Not sure if RID will / can be abused by authorities in a similar way.
Will it record and disseminate flight info to enable an authority to issue a fine, or only be used to find those breaking rules at a particular flight time if they are detected by some airport device showing their presence ?
If the former it’d be like having a permanent GPS type device fitted to your car, feeding real time 2mph + speed infractions to some database for fines to be issued automatically. (Of course the majority is going to be deserved !)
Wouldn’t authorities live that !

I think it’s more the latter though, just for at moment use to find a pilot putting some manned flight in potential danger, or disrupting a major airport schedule, etc.

Of course tech has the ability to be advanced to new levels to make a new income stream, we see perfectly safe 80k, 60k zones on our roads dropped 10km/hr lower, opens up a whole new raft of ‘clients’ to be manned for opportunistic revenue.

It seems govcos all over the world require never ending increasing revenues in our modern era.

 

[vindibona1]

Not sure if RID will / can be abused by authorities in a similar way.
Will it record and disseminate flight info to enable an authority to issue a fine, or only be used to find those breaking rules at a particular flight time if they are detected by some airport device showing their presence ?

Would RID abuse be limited to an authority? While I can see why some think RID is a good idea, I can think of several that bad things that can come of it. I have to believe this started as an idea to monitor Amazon and their upcoming scheme for drone delivery and someone thought "hey... why not require everyone to be monitored". Has anyone who read 1984 before 1984 woken up recently and said to themselves "*** happened? Orwell couldn't have even thunk this stuff up!!" We know what we know now, but don't have any clue as to how far any of this can be taken. We should all be worried. What starts out as good ideas are often corrupted and taken places they should never go. As I said earlier- personal freedom is precious and it's being devoured one bite at a time, in ways we never could have imagined.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

As I said earlier- personal freedom is precious and it's being devoured one bite at a time, in ways we never could have imagined.

Especially now in this new era we entered a couple of years ago.
It's been a great 'excuse / reason' for increased control by govcos, and I personally am amazed how easily it has occurred.

Anyway, VLOS, I voted 2nd option, mostly VLOS but don't sweat the edges, use strobes when I feel the drone I'm flying may disappear more readily in some lighting / background situations.

I love flying by telemetry / map info, and feel I'm very good at it in conjunction with the camera view.
Almost every single flight, as soon as I'm flying away from the TOP, I'm on the screen, until I'm just coming in to land.
The exception is throwing the drones about in sports mode letting off a bit of steam / dropping batteries to storage level.
Then I'm watching the drone almost all the time and obviously very close.

Have never lost signal / control through distance or low altitude, so I'm not going too far, that's for sure.
In some really remote areas of Australia, no people, no possible low aircraft, a couple of times I have flown maybe VLOS + say 30% - 40%, and those flights are like I normally fly, about 50' - 80' off the ground.

I prefer flying / filming lower altitudes.

 

[slozukimc]

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.

I live out in the country and there are plenty of places that i would love to fly over and take some pics that are too densely wooded to launch from or just plain too far or difficult to hike to in the middle of the winter. There is no way to see the places from anywhere you can launch from so VLOS makes it impossible. There is zero chance of hurting anyone or anything but the drone even in the event of a crash. Manned aircraft just aren't going to be flying there so should VLOS rules even apply there? It is like the fields behind my house where I can practice with my racing drone and feel safe. I am in a 10 acre field surrounded by 60 foot trees and staying below the treeline at all times. If an airplane or heli is in there they are crashing already. I feel discussions like this may eventually get the attention of the right people who can work to make the rules make sense. The FAA is here watching...........

Mike

 

[SoftDev90]

I live out in the country and there are plenty of places that i would love to fly over and take some pics that are too densely wooded to launch from or just plain too far or difficult to hike to in the middle of the winter. There is no way to see the places from anywhere you can launch from so VLOS makes it impossible. There is zero chance of hurting anyone or anything but the drone even in the event of a crash. Manned aircraft just aren't going to be flying there so should VLOS rules even apply there? It is like the fields behind my house where I can practice with my racing drone and feel safe. I am in a 10 acre field surrounded by 60 foot trees and staying below the treeline at all times. If an airplane or heli is in there they are crashing already. I feel discussions like this may eventually get the attention of the right people who can work to make the rules make sense. The FAA is here watching...........

Mike

Same thoughts here. I live in the UP of Michigan. Nothing but woods upon woods up here. Some places are so remote, that it's **** near impossible to get to them by foot in winter and flying outside of VLOS is the only way. Considering we are in Canada's *** crack up here, we never have any airplanes flying low. They skip us completely and end up going to Canada or Detroit. We have some small airports but there is something like 300k people spread out up here over 16,377 square miles. Roughly 33% of the land up here is government owned recreational land, i.e. state forests. There is absolutely no need for VLOS in these areas that sometimes don't have people around for 100 miles or more. The only danger up here not flying VLOS, outside of any small town that is, is to the drone and to a tree branch. Of course VLOS makes sense near towns and other populated areas, but those are far and few between up here with the vast wilderness we have to work with. They definitely need to make exceptions to this rule for rural areas and keep VLOS only for suburban and metro areas.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Trouble with remote BVLOS flying (and believe me when I say we have some of those regions here in OZ), is who decides what's ok ?
No FAA on the spot.
It's on the UAV pilot, and that is always going to be variable to a point where some will think "this is ok" when it's potentially not ok.
I'm afraid like many road driving laws, they are made for the lowest common denominator (skills etc), and applied in a blanket ruling, it's the only way authority can truly police such rules.

 

[slozukimc]

Trouble with remote BVLOS flying (and believe me when I say we have some of those regions here in OZ), is who decides what's ok ?
No FAA on the spot.
It's on the UAV pilot, and that is always going to be variable to a point where some will think "this is ok" when it's potentially not ok.
I'm afraid like many road driving laws, they are made for the lowest common denominator (skills etc), and applied in a blanket ruling, it's the only way authority can truly police such rules.

The same folks that make the law now. I am not saying get rid of the law by any means.. But there should be some guidelines for when BVLOS is acceptable. Like on private property below the tree line for example.

Mike

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The same folks that make the law now. I am not saying get rid of the law by any means.. But there should be some guidelines for when BVLOS is acceptable. Like on private property below the tree line for example.

Mike

That would work for pretty much 99.9% of situations for sure, but without the ability to monitor flights VLOS / BVLOS is almost an unenforceable rule, most of the time no one but the pilot would know.
Unless one posts it online publicly, then someone sees it and is upset about it, reports it to the regulator.
We see that happen here in various posts quite often news articles about people flying dangerously, and generally not members, but videos they have found on YouTube etc.

 

[eEridani]

In some respects VLOS is self enforcing. The RF between the RC and aircraft is generally line of sight. Drop below the horizon of the RC and poof goes the drone. At that point only an effective RTH algorithm will help you. We see this almost every day with reports of fly-aways.

ps: With regard to authorities abusing RID? Of course it will happen. Every technology has been abused as soon as the techs figure out how. Look at cell phone repeaters. Illegal, yet used by many jurisdictions to find people. Pretty sure something for mapping drone flights is already in the works for sale to cities around the states - it will be a money maker for whoever develops the first one.

 

[Dbez1]

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?

View attachment 143358

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.

We’ll said Dronerdave! IF the FAA required pilots of manned aircraft to fly above 500’ AGL, BVLOS would be a different story. However, at this point, that’s not the case. G airspace is called unregulated for a reason and here, in the rural US, I’ve seen choppers and small planes under 500’. Even though I have no intention of flying commercially, studying for my part 107 has given me a new appreciation for following all the rules.

 

[eEridani]

Quite common for private small planes to go below 500' during training. Emergency landing practice is one of the reasons. Coming down low above farmer's fields was where I spent a lot of time trying to figure out safe places to land in emergencies. And helicopter pilots are just crazy and will fly where ever they think they won't crash, and sometimes places they think they might.

 

[BigAl07]

We’ll said Dronerdave! IF the FAA required pilots of manned aircraft to fly above 500’ AGL, BVLOS would be a different story. However, at this point, that’s not the case. G airspace is called unregulated for a reason and here, in the rural US, I’ve seen choppers and small planes under 500’. Even though I have no intention of flying commercially, studying for my part 107 has given me a new appreciation for following all the rules.

Although it's absolutely splitting hairs it's important we are accurate when talking about Regulations. All US Airspace is "Regulated" otherwise there would be no rules what so ever in "Class G:". It's Uncontrolled Airspace simply because it is not getting or can't get ATC service. All US Airspace is "Regulated" but not all US Airspace is utilizes ATC Services.

It's not practical to expect all Manned Aircraft to never fly below 500' AGL, In addition to takeoff and landing there are many VALID reasons for Manned Aircraft to be below 500' AGL.

 

[journo]

I've flown accident-free for over two years since getting my 107 certification and I fly weekly for work. I'm convinced accident-free is due to following all the regs. This reg is there for a reason. In Seattle, the average tree is 100 feet tall and there are power lines and floatplanes everywhere. The drone is always in my VLOS.

 

[Don Testme]

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?

View attachment 143358

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.

We have a law for that. Involuntary Man Slaughter.

 

[BikerGeek]

I think I'd try to fly vlos most of the time however, if something is a mile or so away and I'm flying in the middle of nowhere with no people around I'd fly without VOS. The idea of having a drone with a range that allows you to be able to get photos and video's of places you can't physically get to, and having to fly vlos all the time is riduculous. I'm not talking about flying over cities and people but rather out in the wilderness and desert areas.

 

[vindibona1]

We’ll said Dronerdave! IF the FAA required pilots of manned aircraft to fly above 500’ AGL, BVLOS would be a different story. However, at this point, that’s not the case. G airspace is called unregulated for a reason and here, in the rural US, I’ve seen choppers and small planes under 500’. Even though I have no intention of flying commercially, studying for my part 107 has given me a new appreciation for following all the rules.

It's tricky. I like to fly over Lake Michigan along Chicago's waterfront and it is not unusual for a helo of single engine plane hauling a banner to fly way lower than 400', usually parallel to the shore line. I'd judge the average speed of both (of those I've witnessed to be around 100mph, give or take. If I hear an aircraft nearby I'm immediately on the down lever. But it's a tough situation to judge because visually it's almost impossible to determine the manned aircraft's altitude and if their vector in on a collision course with your drone or not.

 

[Chaosrider]

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.

Back when I was getting my private license 100 years ago, there was cynical saying that floated around the FBO among the instructors:

No flight is ever conducted in 100% compliance with FAA regulations.

No different with drones I guess.

TCS