Unregulated VLOS

[Chaosrider]

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.

It would surprise me if this is true, but now I have to check. Auto liability insurance pays the damages to others even if you're drunk as a skunk and going 100 mph. Part 61 aircraft liability insurance also pays the damages to other people, regardless of compliance status. I just assumed that drone liability insurance would be the same, but perhaps it isn't. Thanks for the heads up!

May I ask which insurance carrier you use, that doesn't pay damages to others if you aren't in compliance? If I was *hiring* someone for a drone operation, I wouldn't want them to have insurance with that restriction. Too much weasel room for an insurance company to give me static, if something did go wrong.

An insurance requirement mitigates the risk of 3rd parties suffering uncompensated damage from drone operations. I suppose as a definitional question you could say that doesn't count toward improving NAS safety, but I think it does. Mandatory auto insurance definitely reduces risk for good drivers, from bad drivers.

dronedave : "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."

That's not far different from what I suggest, except for the "specific operations" part. Additional required training and aircraft systems required for BVLOS. I think I assumed, but didn't say, that BVLOS should be limited to people with their Part 107 license.

I never had any issues getting insurance when I was flying using my instrument rating, and you don't need to get any specific approval for any given instrument flight. That's the way BVLOS and insurance will go, although not immediately. Probably need RID to get there.

Thx,

TCS

 

[BigAl07]

Great discussion above but as is ALWAYS the case with the FAA, the guidance has changed ever so slightly. For CLARITY I'm going to cite the new advisory and then I'll HIGHLIGHT key points (even though the wording is very similar or even exactly the same as previous).

AC 107-2 was replaced by AC 107-2A on 2/1/2021 (a year ago). Here's a link to help:

AC 107-2 (Cancelled)

AC 107-2A (2/2/2021)

And here is the pertinent exert from the current issue (5.9 VLOS Aircraft Operation)

5.9 VLOS Aircraft Operation. The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small unmanned aircraft at all times during flight (§ 107.31). The small unmanned aircraft must be operated closely enough to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UAS operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used, during the aircraft operation. The person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small unmanned aircraft, but still retains the capability to see the small unmanned aircraft or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments may be necessary for the remote PIC to look at the controller to determine remaining battery life or for operational awareness. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small unmanned aircraft, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. Even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small unmanned aircraft, the remote PIC always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances that may prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of small UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the small unmanned aircraft. For this reason, no specific time interval exists in which interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption of the operation. If the remote PIC cannot regain VLOS, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for the loss of VLOS. The capabilities of the small UAS will govern the remote PIC’s determination as to the appropriate course of action. For example, the remote PIC may need to land the small unmanned aircraft immediately, enter hover mode, or employ a return-to-home sequence. The VLOS requirement does not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small unmanned aircraft CS.
(CS mean Control Station which would be your Radio Control/Viewing Device on DJI systems) <~~ Allen's comment

 

[DoomMeister]

Great discussion above but as is ALWAYS the case with the FAA, the guidance has changed ever so slightly. For CLARITY I'm going to cite the new advisory and then I'll HIGHLIGHT key points (even though the wording is very similar or even exactly the same as previous).

AC 107-2 was replaced by AC 107-2A on 2/1/2021 (a year ago). Here's a link to help:

AC 107-2 (Cancelled)

AC 107-2A (2/2/2021)

And here is the pertinent exert from the current issue (5.9 VLOS Aircraft Operation)

5.9 VLOS Aircraft Operation. The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small unmanned aircraft at all times during flight (§ 107.31). The small unmanned aircraft must be operated closely enough to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UAS operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used, during the aircraft operation. The person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small unmanned aircraft, but still retains the capability to see the small unmanned aircraft or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments may be necessary for the remote PIC to look at the controller to determine remaining battery life or for operational awareness. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small unmanned aircraft, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. Even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small unmanned aircraft, the remote PIC always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances that may prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of small UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the small unmanned aircraft. For this reason, no specific time interval exists in which interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption of the operation. If the remote PIC cannot regain VLOS, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for the loss of VLOS. The capabilities of the small UAS will govern the remote PIC’s determination as to the appropriate course of action. For example, the remote PIC may need to land the small unmanned aircraft immediately, enter hover mode, or employ a return-to-home sequence. The VLOS requirement does not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small unmanned aircraft CS.
(CS mean Control Station which would be your Radio Control/Viewing Device on DJI systems) <~~ Allen's comment

Thanks Al. You would think AC 107-2 would not be available for reference after being replaced by AC 107-2A. Appreciate the heads up.

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks Al. You would think AC 107-2 would not be available for reference after being replaced by AC 107-2A. Appreciate the heads up.

We never know how many DB have that information or daughter pages across the net. When I saw the mention of it I tried to go to it directly to see the difference but the link I have in my stored links had changed and showed it Cancelled:

 

[dronerdave]

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

I'd agree with insurance for business ventures but I'm talking while flying as a hobbyist. The question is why is there a necessity to fly BVLOS for fun and add any risk to others using common airspace even if it's a very slim chance of an incident?
BTW I'm insured by the AMA.

 

[gordongate]

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.

Which one do you prefer to use, Dronelink or Litchi?

 

[ScottTX]

There is a lot of confusion about the use of "and" and "or" in VLOS rules.

The FAA rarely gives black and white answers with clear lines of legal delineation. That's for a few reasons.

First, the FAA gives us the flexibility to be adults and make the correct ADM decisions. Having a clear line will unnecessarily restrict some operations. Especially when it comes to BVLOS ops. There are way too many variables involved.

Second, the FAA also gives us enough rope to hang ourselves. Pushing the envelope of VLOS can lead to disaster. And the FAA wants some language in there to make sure they have the ability to pursue education or sanctions if necessary.

And third, UAS tech is changing so fast, it's virtually impossible to have that type of language in a regulation and not have it outdated very quickly. At times before it even becomes a codified regulation.

This response should be turned into a sticky!

 

[Hooch]

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

I don't fly vlos period, fly it from my 55" tv on a couch in my garage.

 

[Michael Ainsworth]

Which one do you prefer to use, Dronelink or Litchi?

Currently using Dronelink, but only for Air 2 atm as I use IOS on IPad. It doesn’t yet support the Air 2 S.