VLOS Reality Check

[AmericaPacific42]

After aircraft are able to fly safely without pilots, the FAA promised to allow flight to go as far as the battery allows;

Autonomous BVLOS: The Unmanned Path to Commercial Drone Success

Unlocking the immense potential of drone technology is very much dependent on autonomous BVLOS drone flights.

www.highlander.io

I hope to help write the software that makes this possible.

 

[Grandpa]

Nothing rhetorical about it. Pretty straight up. What does pano stitching have to do with it? I do those all the time. Still need to see what the camera is seeing.

I see what the camera is seeing, I just don’t need to look very long at the camera.

 

[Paul Stocum]

That's where situational awareness comes into a play. As you mentions, sensors don't work at night. You have to compensate for that by flying higher than normal, or making sure you know what your MOCA (minimum obstacle clearance altitude) is.

But BVLOS can be extended at night with correctly positioned lighting. The FAA doesn't allow it, but for all practical reasons, it can be used under a waiver application.

I remember watching a drone op video where he went to location during day to become situationally aware for a planned night flight. Then he set some waypoints for his planned flight. If I desired a night flight, this would be my SOP.

I Enjoy flying but it seems the majority of my flying now is for real estate. My comfort zone is 90% or more VLOS. I fly to desired angle, look at controller to tweek the composition then shoot. I get nominally frustrated when it takes me a few minutes to regain VLOS.

 

[New England Droning]

From my experience, i think he has some valid points. I lose my M2 at about 1700 feet. I can still see the dot but if I were to close eyes and spin drone I would not be able to tell orientation by looking at the drone. Orientation is one of the 3 parts of VLOS. I see too many "range" tests and other stupid stuff on YouTube that are out of bounds for safety.

I witnessed a pilot start a mapping flight and proceeded to put the controller on hood of car and start answering emails on laptop. The drone was less than 500 feet away but he did not have VLOS.

He also did not have situational awareness. When flying we have multiple missions and one of the most important is paying attention to what is going on around you and the drone. Nuff said...

 

[WanderLost]

The FAA probably doesn't see it this way, but when I think about VLOS, I think there are 4 "levels" of VLOS where the risk increases as one moves from 1-4: 1) Actually being able to see the drone; 2) having an unobstructed view of where your drone is and the area around it but you can't actually see it; 3) the drone is close enough where you have situational awareness but not are not able to actually see it; and 4) not being able to see your drone or its surroundings at all.

Yes - one of the things I rely on for situational awareness is, I can hear it - it's right there,... But I suppose that only works for those of us in quiet rural settings like where I do most of my flying at present.

 

[WanderLost]

Yes, there is in all aspects of human life. Why should UAS be any different?

Should we shut down vehicle travel because of non-involved deaths? Commercial or GA air travel? Bicycles?

Almost all deaths are tragic. But we can't let a zero fatality requirement rule an industry. No where else is that done or even possible. Regulators requiring that for unmanned aircraft are asking for the impossible.

I talked to an aviation investigator years ago who told me that rules and regulations are usually developed with statistical probabilities and "tombstone" information.
That seemed more likely (to me) to result in more objective rule making than today's often "reactionary" and emotional responses to many issues.

 

[Rabber]

jeeze people, just fly the drone, be careful and use common sense. As for the VLOS garbage:

With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft’s location; (Shown on Controller map)

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight; (Shown on controller)

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and (Audible warnings from controller)

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another. (auto landing w/low battery, obstacle avoidance)

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer. (seriously!?

Personally, I am VERY careful when flying, don't do stupid things, always check my battery level, have fun and don't give a rat's .... about FAA rules. If the FAA has a problem, there would be no drones on the market.

 

[SethB]

This is why I asked this if you, Vic, with your in depth knowledge of the regulations. Does this mean that as a Part 107 pilot I could fly recreationally and use a VO while wearing goggles? Or am I forever banned from this type of operation without a waiver?

I’m not Vic but I know this one:
Get your TRUST certificate and fly recreationally with googles and a VO.

You are *not* prevented from rec operations by your Pt. 107 certificate, but must fly completely under the recreational rule, which includes carrying a TRUST cert.

 

[kamviclance]

With respect, are you suggesting that there is an acceptable death rate for non involved people stemming from the use of something that, for probably the vast majority of users, is an entertainment or passing phase for those users?

The Government itself calls it "Collateral Damage".

 

[SethB]

jeeze people, just fly the drone, be careful and use common sense. As for the VLOS garbage:

With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft’s location; (Shown on Controller map)

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight; (Shown on controller)

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and (Audible warnings from controller)

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another. (auto landing w/low battery, obstacle avoidance)

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer. (seriously!?

This is wrong in so many ways, and flying this way carries a significant risk and liability of crashes.

First, a controller screen does not provide situational awareness. Your drone and what’s around it. Map displays don’t show hardly anything in 3D space - no elevation data for that building you’re attempting to fly over. They don’t show that tower support wire that just took down your drone. That’s why the FAA regs center on eyes on the drone and the flying environement.

Second, not every drone has obstacle avoidance. Among those that do, it is turned off in certain modes (DJI Sport Mode). Others have it but don’t have sideways sensors, or look-up sensors. That leaves a lot of holes in the safety net.

Third, not every crewed aircraft broadcasts ADS-B that should trigger the nearby aircraft alert on a DJI controller. And, not every drone manufacturer includes an ADS-B receiver.

Fourth, low-battery forced landing could put your drone through the windshield of a car or truck, or take down a bicyclist at speed. See the note above on Obstacle Avoidance. It would be your fault and your liability.

I’m not going to tell you how to fly, but what you’ve posted reflects a “it will never happen to me” attitude. It might or might not happen to you. If everybody flew that way we’d see many more so-called accidents that are entirely preventable.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Personally, I am VERY careful when flying, don't do stupid things, always check my battery level, have fun and don't give a rat's .... about FAA rules. If the FAA has a problem, there would be no drones on the market.

So in your estimation; as long as every drone pilot states that they fly very carefully, it means they do? Because that seems to be a common thread among those who don't give a rats ... about the rules. Interesting.

Here in the US, the FAA regulates the NAS not commerce, so I don't think if the FAA had a problem (concern) about drones, they could stop drone sales. But I can tell you that the FAA and other aeronautical regulatory bodies around the world; do have many concerns with drones. Any Idea as to why?

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

This is wrong in so many ways, and flying this way carries a significant risk and liability of crashes.

First, a controller screen does not provide situational awareness. Your drone and what’s around it. Map displays don’t show hardly anything in 3D space - no elevation data for that building you’re attempting to fly over. They don’t show that tower support wire that just took down your drone. That’s why the FAA regs center on eyes on the drone and the flying environement.

Second, not every drone has obstacle avoidance. Among those that do, it is turned off in certain modes (DJI Sport Mode). Others have it but don’t have sideways sensors, or look-up sensors. That leaves a lot of holes in the safety net.

Third, not every crewed aircraft broadcasts ADS-B that should trigger the nearby aircraft alert on a DJI controller. And, not every drone manufacturer includes an ADS-B receiver.

Fourth, low-battery forced landing could put your drone through the windshield of a car or truck, or take down a bicyclist at speed. See the note above on Obstacle Avoidance. It would be your fault and your liability.

I’m not going to tell you how to fly, but what you’ve posted reflects a “it will never happen to me” attitude. It might or might not happen to you. If everybody flew that way we’d see many more so-called accidents that are entirely preventable.

Fifth, you lose telemetry to your device for whatever reason (signal LOS loss, device battery failure / depletion) and where does that leave you ?
Totally dependent on RTH functioning as you'd hope, at least until back in signal range.

 

[ericole]

How Far Can I Legally Fly My Drone and Maintain VLOS? - Ask Steve - Public Safety Flight

Here is a question I get on a regular basis. Question: How far can we fly our drone at the incident scenes and how far beyond the line of sight can we go? Answer: You would think there would be a simple answer to this question. There actually is but the facts get clouded with ... Read more

psflight.org

The Data and Facts About VLOS Flight Distance for UAS - Public Safety Flight

Far too many pilots assume the flight distances they can go but we wanted to test how far you can actually fly and remain complaint with the regulations.

psflight.org

Excerpt:
"What the Testing and Data Tell Us
Put your beliefs aside for a moment and just try to square the facts with reality. CFR 107.31 requires us to maintain those required observational items to be compliant with VLOS flight. COAs and even a Tactical BVLOS waiver all require VLOS by a VO if the aircraft is BVLOS for the pilot.

Night flight distances would be no higher than 40 feet or further than 65 feet from the VO, even with strobes on during flight.

During the day flight should not be more than 1,200 feet if you are using a VO that has not lost contact. If you are flying as a Part 107 pilot without a VO, you are required to maintain VLOS at all times but if you do look away, testing data showed that the safe flight distance was 400′ AGL and about 500′ from the responsible party watching the aircraft."

I was just thinking about this recently. Doesn’t the fact that we look at our screens to frame shots mean we aren’t maintaining VLOS? In reality, the entire design of these vehicles is such that to get the flight we want we are not looking at our vehicle, but what our vehicle is looking at. It’s all very frustrating. And what about POV flying? How does that square with VLOS rules?

 

[Ty Pilot]

I was just thinking about this recently. Doesn’t the fact that we look at our screens to frame shots mean we aren’t maintaining VLOS?

There seems to be a VAST misconception about VLOS. My guess is that when people read the regulations (which I doubt many do), there is almost an instant reaction that; VLOS cannot be followed if one is to continue to fly drones.

I alluded to AC107-2A in an earlier post but I guess none saw that so here is what the FAA says about VLOS. Please read it. I have highlighted, underlined and separated KEY passages so as to make them stand out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[baddog]

How Far Can I Legally Fly My Drone and Maintain VLOS? - Ask Steve - Public Safety Flight

Here is a question I get on a regular basis. Question: How far can we fly our drone at the incident scenes and how far beyond the line of sight can we go? Answer: You would think there would be a simple answer to this question. There actually is but the facts get clouded with ... Read more

psflight.org

The Data and Facts About VLOS Flight Distance for UAS - Public Safety Flight

Far too many pilots assume the flight distances they can go but we wanted to test how far you can actually fly and remain complaint with the regulations.

psflight.org

Excerpt:
"What the Testing and Data Tell Us
Put your beliefs aside for a moment and just try to square the facts with reality. CFR 107.31 requires us to maintain those required observational items to be compliant with VLOS flight. COAs and even a Tactical BVLOS waiver all require VLOS by a VO if the aircraft is BVLOS for the pilot.

Night flight distances would be no higher than 40 feet or further than 65 feet from the VO, even with strobes on during flight.

During the day flight should not be more than 1,200 feet if you are using a VO that has not lost contact. If you are flying as a Part 107 pilot without a VO, you are required to maintain VLOS at all times but if you do look away, testing data showed that the safe flight distance was 400′ AGL and about 500′ from the responsible party watching the aircraft."

Where did you get this data from. It seems flawed...

 

[MS Coast]

jeeze people, just fly the drone, be careful and use common sense. As for the VLOS garbage:

With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft’s location; (Shown on Controller map)

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight; (Shown on controller)

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and (Audible warnings from controller)

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another. (auto landing w/low battery, obstacle avoidance)

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer. (seriously!?

Personally, I am VERY careful when flying, don't do stupid things, always check my battery level, have fun and don't give a rat's .... about FAA rules. If the FAA has a problem, there would be no drones on the market.

"I ... don't give a rat's .... about FAA rules."
User ID = @Rabber
January 7, 2023
Mavicpilots Forum
VLOS Reality Check Post #67

If anyone wants to support an argument that drones require tighter regulation, this is a gem. Drone detractors will be delighted to quote it before any rule-making or regulatory group to support their position that drones are a threat to public safety and conventional aviation.

I give you full credit.

 

[Vic Moss]

Where did you get this data from. It seems flawed...

It's his own data from just a couple of scenarios. It is flawed. I've pointed that out to him, and he told me to do my own testing. I don't care that much.

 

[Vic Moss]

"I ... don't give a rat's .... about FAA rules."
User ID = @Rabber
January 7, 2023
Mavicpilots Forum
VLOS Reality Check Post #67

If anyone wants to support an argument that drones require tighter regulation, this is a gem. Drone detractors will be delighted to quote it before any rule-making or regulatory group to support their position that drones are a threat to public safety and conventional aviation.

I give you full credit.

"The FAA outlines five hazardous attitudes that can compromise a pilot’s decision-making: anti-authority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho, and resignation. Understanding each of these hazardous attitudes can help pilots of all skill levels manage risk and make safer decisions in the skies." Hartzell Propeller Inc. | Aircraft and Airplane Propeller Systems

He is textbook example of anti-authority. And a danger to the skies.

 

[MS Coast]

"The FAA outlines five hazardous attitudes that can compromise a pilot’s decision-making: anti-authority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho, and resignation. Understanding each of these hazardous attitudes can help pilots of all skill levels manage risk and make safer decisions in the skies." Hartzell Propeller Inc. | Aircraft and Airplane Propeller Systems

He is textbook example of anti-authority. And a danger to the skies.

Rates high on the macho scale, too. Earns bronze in invulnerability,

 

[Aerophile]

"The FAA outlines five hazardous attitudes that can compromise a pilot’s decision-making: anti-authority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho, and resignation. Understanding each of these hazardous attitudes can help pilots of all skill levels manage risk and make safer decisions in the skies." Hartzell Propeller Inc. | Aircraft and Airplane Propeller Systems

He is textbook example of anti-authority. And a danger to the skies.

A danger to us all, too.

This is exactly why the regulations grow more and more restrictive. Expect that trend to continue. Because of yahoos like this.