Unregulated VLOS

[Chaosrider]

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.

Ah, you're a photographer who happens to have a flying camera, instead of a pilot flying a drone, that happens to have a camera.

Different mission objectives.

I always know where my drone is. I just don't rely only on vision to do that. Instrument pilot vs VFR pilot.

My canyon continues to offer places to look where I haven't been yet. I just have to go a bit farther out to see them. The view when I first peaked over the rim of the other side of the canyon was just spectacular.

When I'm flying the drone, I'm either riding the drone, or being the drone, depending on how science fiction-y I'm feeling at the moment. For me, it's not just a camera drone; it's an aircraft that I can fly to cool places and see cool stuff, just like I've done for 40 years with fixed wing planes.

Drones are just indescribably cheaper than regular fixed wing aircraft!

For me, drones are a way for me to fly.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

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.

Well, it's not the 1 rule for everyone. Personally, I think the Wright Brothers Rules posted earlier are a good guideline!

Unless someone has some convincing statistical evidence that I haven't seen, I think the collision risk is microscopic, outside of congested airspace.

Microscopic doesn't mean zero, but it does mean microscopic, as in not something you need to worry about in non-congested airspace.

Which is the only airspace I've flown drones in, and I have no burning desire to change that!

Different rules for congested airspace/urban environment, vs wide open rural environments, would be entirely right and proper. And I suspect that FAA enforcement actions will sensibly take that into account.

Thx,

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

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.

One word:

Insurance

Mandating insurance for BVLOS operations is entirely right and proper, and I expect will be required as loosening the BVLOS rules evolves.

I'd be devastated if anyone died from anything I did, car, regular plane, motorcycle, drones, anything. My 4400 lb 1969 Mercury Marquis is an *unimaginably* more dangerous weapon than my little Mini-2, and yet, I drive it legally and safely. And I have insurance in case something does go wrong.

Quantitatively, the risk of causing damage by flying a drone BVLOS is insignificant compared to the risk of driving on congested roads. Which I also avoid when I can, just because I hate congestion.

Risks are manageable, and the collision risk with drones in wide open areas is microscopic. And in case the microscopic risk actually materializes, I have insurance.

Thx,

TCS

 

[slozukimc]

One word:

Insurance

Mandating insurance for BVLOS operations is entirely right and proper, and I expect will be required as loosening the BVLOS rules evolves.

I'd be devastated if anyone died from anything I did, car, regular plane, motorcycle, drones, anything. My 4400 lb 1969 Mercury Marquis is an *unimaginably* more dangerous weapon than my little Mini-2, and yet, I drive it legally and safely. And I have insurance in case something does go wrong.

Quantitatively, the risk of causing damage by flying a drone BVLOS is insignificant compared to the risk of driving on congested roads. Which I also avoid when I can, just because I hate congestion.

Risks are manageable, and the collision risk with drones in wide open areas is microscopic. And in case the microscopic risk actually materializes, I have insurance.

Thx,

TCS

This makes perfect sense.

Mike

 

[Chaosrider]

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.

Agreed.

Cities bad, wilderness good!



TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

@Chaosrider ,with respect ,what difference will anyone's,opinion on VLOS make
the rule is there ,and as i said before ,whether you choose to follow it or not ,is up to the individual pilot
we can debate about the subject till the cows come home ,but nothing will be achieved from it
it is a very emotive subject that as i have already stated has been around for ages

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea how the following would work outside the USA.

Here, anyone can talk to their Congressman about anything. In my particular case, I've known my current Congressman for *20 years*, from the days when he was in the state legislature, and I was state CIO. If I want to talk to him, it will get scheduled. If I ask him to consider something, he will.

My theory is that if I have a coherent plan for the expansion of BVLOS, that makes sense to me and to at least a reasonable fraction of the active people here, I'll present it to him. I've done this kind of stuff before. When Harry Reid was minority leader in the Senate (the first time) I met with him in DC. At that time, the BLM was giving me crap about getting the permits I needed to expand the state's public safety microwave comm system. Knowing that I was a techy, he had his chief science guy in the meeting. When i described the problem, Senator Reid just glanced over at his science guy, and said, "Take of that."

And so he did. I had my permits in under a month, after fighting for almost a year.

You don't have to accept things the way they are. You can make a difference!

I suspect that there are others on this list with similar or better access to the mechanisms for changing regulations. To make a change, you need a plan. If you're going to enter a horse race, you have to have a horse!

With this discussion, I'm trying to grow that (Trojan?) horse. Of course, if someone else here is already working on this, let me know what I can do to help, and how I can keep out of the way!

Thx,

TCS

 

[dronerdave]

One word:

Insurance

Mandating insurance for BVLOS operations is entirely right and proper, and I expect will be required as loosening the BVLOS rules evolves.

I have RC flight insurance but they won't cover me if I'm flying out of compliance. Insurance certainly does not increase NAS safety IMO. However, proper training coupled with enough FAA approved obstacle avoidance or other specific safety equipment might be considered safe enough to allow some to qualify for specific BVLOS operations. Only then would I think an insurance company might cover you. Filing a flight plan to be approved by ATC comes to mind as just one hoop to jump through. I can't take it on my own to justify flying outside the current FAA rules whenever I want because I feel my (government approved) privilege to fly is a right. It's really no different than a full sized aircraft pilot pulling an illegal stunt and deciding to fly beyond the scope of the rules because they feel there is such a low chance of causing an incident. With more and more drones hitting the sky, a percentage of operator will break the rules; it's bound to happen. The FAA has to deal with that even if most people follow the rules. So I'm guessing flying BVLOS will be only for those with the necessary qualifications and safety equipment. That is something beyond my current skills and income as a Joe Blow hobbyist.

 

[thispilothere]

With more and more drones hitting the sky, a percentage of operator will break the rules; it's bound to happen. The FAA has to deal with that even if most people follow the rules.

This site probably has the most informed and safest pilots in the hobby. Yet even here only ~15% even claim to follow the current rules. That usually means the hobby is already over regulated. The solution might be to loosen the rules so at least 90% of pilots are willing to follow them.

 

[dronerdave]

This site probably has the most informed and safest pilots in the hobby. Yet even here only ~15% even claim to follow the current rules. That usually means the hobby is already over regulated. The solution might be to loosen the rules so at least 90% of pilots are willing to follow them.

Good luck convincing the FAA to accept that idea.

 

[Captain J Case]

This site probably has the most informed and safest pilots in the hobby. Yet even here only ~15% even claim to follow the current rules. That usually means the hobby is already over regulated. The solution might be to loosen the rules so at least 90% of pilots are willing to follow them.

Actually I think it means 85% do not follow the rules and its on them to assume the risk....Its sorts like speeding on the highway, its only an issue when you get caught, or wreck...

 

[ScottTX]

The other aspect of laws is to make something illegal so that if something does happen, the lawmakers can claim "see, there was already a law on the books for this".

"We, being interested in the greater public good, were looking out for the "victim".

I used to moderate (2) large saltwater/reef aquarium hobby boards, so I get the "avoid politics" concept, but this particular topic has me biting my tongue until it bleeds...

I think we are in real danger of getting drones legislated out of existence, at least for non part 107 hobbyists.

This is despite the drone hobby being so much safer than so many (currently still legal) "hobbies".

 

[spudster]

I think a lot of pilots haven't considered that flying VLOS has been the rule for decades for fixed wing RC aircraft. Flying BVLOS is a fairly new idea for hobbyist with the advent of video capabilities. These same VLOS rules even apply to fix wing aircraft that are easily capable of BVLOS when fitted with a camera. It's not just a "drone" rule.

 

[dronerdave]

I think we are in real danger of getting drones legislated out of existence, at least for non part 107 hobbyists.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA separated RC controlled autonomous aircraft and non-autonomous aircraft.

Standard fixed wing flying hasn't been a problem following current AMA rules and these rules really haven't changed much over the years. I fly a few days each week at a club site and rules are sometimes unintentionally breached but it's not common. There are times where someone looses radio coms and off the plane goes to crash who knows where. Being these aircraft are not autonomous, going BVLOS usually results in a destroyed aircraft, so the VLOS rule is kind of self enforcing. We fly up to 6 aircraft at a time and situational awareness is a must. Being the flying site is rural we get a lot of below 400' full size aircraft fly-bys but have never had an issue due to our structured safety rules. Overall, encounters with full sized aircraft are handled in a safe manner. For obvious reasons, drones like the Mavic type series are not allowed to operate within the standard flight pattern unless specifically working directly with other pilots operating.
I will suggest that there are a lot of drone operators who fly today like I did back in 2016 where I had my face stuck in the monitor 90 percent of the time and no spotter. After a close encounter with full sized aircraft, I began to look around a bit more for any aircraft activity. That especially includes flying VLOS. Just because you fly within sight doesn't mean a plane can't sneak in on you. The autonomous nature of many multi-rotors emboldens some to fly BVLOS in a more reckless manner all under the guise of it's safe to do so because incidents have been so rare. I'm sure there are some areas where an encounter with a plane would be almost impossible, but the FAA would have a hard time creating zones where BVLOS would be considered safe.

 

[Crow Horse]

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.

Flying BVLOS in a rural area has another set of risks that haven't been considered. Being that your field of view is compromised in BVLOS, there are far more hazards that pose a significant threat to your drone, ie. bird attacks. Where I live (rural), anytime I'm in the air is a potential attack and I'm cognizant of that threat. Just the presence of a raptor could scrub a mission for me. While flying BVLOS, my drone is vulnerable in a very real way to attacks from a raptor and I'm not willing to risk injuring a raptor or have my drone damaged. BVLOS for me is not an option, based on my inexperience and the potential threats that exist.

This old girl was perched outside my side door....

 

[maelstrom]

Yet even here only ~15% even claim to follow the current rules. That usually means the hobby is already over regulated.

I don’t think so. It just means that most people don’t understand why the rules are there. Contrary to popular belief, they’re not just to interfere with people’s enjoyment or to annoy them. I would also think that the majority of people who fly drones haven’t experienced the potential problems from the other side of the fence - the full-sized aviation pilot’s perspective. I spent most of my adult life as a professional helicopter pilot until I retired and I’ve seen the dangers of drones up close and personal. Near misses with aircraft may not be a daily occurrence, but would you really want to be the person responsible for causing an aircraft crash?

 

[thispilothere]

I don’t think so. It just means that most people don’t understand why the rules are there. Contrary to popular belief, they’re not just to interfere with people’s enjoyment or to annoy them. I would also think that the majority of people who fly drones haven’t experienced the potential problems from the other side of the fence - the full-sized aviation pilot’s perspective. I spent most of my adult life as a professional helicopter pilot until I retired and I’ve seen the dangers of drones up close and personal. Near misses with aircraft may not be a daily occurrence, but would you really want to be the person responsible for causing an aircraft crash?

I wouldn't WANT to be responsible for any accident but I do plenty of things that have proven to cause them.

In the 70s, Right on Red laws were enacted to save fuel costs, knowing it would cause more deaths and injuries. Pedestrian accidents went up 60% and bicycle accidents went up 100%! Do you ever turn right on red? Of course you do, yet it's risky behavior that is proven to cause deaths. It's far riskier than my flying.

Maybe we'll have to add right on red to the things people here claim they never do.

 

[DoomMeister]

I wouldn't WANT to be responsible for any accident but I do plenty of things that have proven to cause them.

In the 70s, Right on Red laws were enacted to save fuel costs, knowing it would cause more deaths and injuries. Pedestrian accidents went up 60% and bicycle accidents went up 100%! Do you ever turn right on red? Of course you do, yet it's risky behavior that is proven to cause deaths. It's far riskier than my flying.

Maybe we'll have to add right on red to the things people here claim they never do.

That would only be for the drivers that don’t know how to use their eyes and ears when they drive. Just like piloting an aircraft, piloting a motor vehicle requires you to scan and evaluate the environment around you. Same goes for people riding bicycles as many do not follow the rules of the road such as riding against the flow of traffic, running stop signs and red lights, not signaling turns.

Seems many on the forum can come up with 101 reasons to NOT follow the rules of the region they are flying in, but not following them only delays opening up the airspace to things such as BVLOS. There has to be more than the camera to be able to evaluate the airspace around you.

In the USA the rules are changing for the better. Night operations and operations over human beings are changing for the better. The reason for it is the evaluation of flights conducted under legal waivers. Ignoring rules and doing as you please only delays more expansion into the NAS.

 

[maelstrom]

Do you ever turn right on red?

I can say with 100% certainty that I don’t - I live in the UK and we don’t have that rule here (left or right)!

The point of my post was to show that there’s a valid reason for the VLOS rule - it’s not just there to inconvenience people. More to the point, there’s rarely (if ever, for recreational drone flying) a good reason not to comply with it.

 

[thispilothere]

Seems many on the forum can come up with 101 reasons to NOT follow the rules of the region they are flying in, but not following them only delays opening up the airspace to things such as BVLOS. There has to be more than the camera to be able to evaluate the airspace around you.

In the USA the rules are changing for the better. Night operations and operations over human beings are changing for the better. The reason for it is the evaluation of flights conducted under legal waivers. Ignoring rules and doing as you please only delays more expansion into the NAS.

Maybe there are so many reasons not to follow the rules because there are too many rules.

There will never be BVLOS for most operators. People here consider it inherently unsafe. Can you imagine people turning around and calling it completely okay as long as, IDK, you have RID? It won't happen.

 

[dirkclod]

we can debate about the subject till the cows come home ,but nothing will be achieved from it

Just saw this thread and after all these years of reading about this
but have to disagree with ya on that. We found out this

Now what is …edges…