VLOS rule makes flights boring - do you follow it?

[MAvic_South_Oz]

RC airplanes and helicopters almost never caused issues. It was only the explosion of drones with irresponsible rc pilots that raised the ire of Karen, Brad, and the authorities.

RC planes, even helis do require more open space, even a small club ground / strip for ops, quads can be launched from practically anywhere you can hold your arm out.
Model winged aircraft and helis were always quite a niche, small hobby sector, still is.
Probably due mostly to the dedication with those pilots almost always building their own aircraft.

Or course it's so much easier to obtain and fly these almost self flying quad drones, and cost isn't a big issue even with market leading DJI drones.

A "minor" incident here or there is what triggered all this current draconian regulation.

I'd say simply the boom in consumer drones has made authorities move to introduce legislation, it would have come anyway, and rightly so.
Can't have something like these machines mixing it with any sort of manned aircraft.

 

[snowghost]

I remember that.... he used Litchi (IIRC) and had one follow the other between/around buildings over downtown. I can't remember his screen name and it could have been over on Phantom Pilots too.... now I'm gonna be obsessed on trying to remember LOL.

Yes it would have been on the Phantom site. All I've owned were Phantoms except for an Inspire 2, but that was recently.

 

[thispilothere]

There's a world of difference between altitude and range tests or hacked firmware to fly in restricted areas and what most of us do.

The risk is always going to be a non zero number no matter how many rules are in place. We're all just looking for an acceptable number. I think current regulations more than exceed it. RID is completely overkill.

 

[shizack2000]

RC planes, even helis do require more open space, even a small club ground / strip for ops, quads can be launched from practically anywhere you can hold your arm out.
Model winged aircraf


I'd say simply the boom in consumer drones has made authorities move to introduce legislation, it would have come anyway, and rightly so.
Can't have something like these machines mixing it with any sort of manned aircraft.

RC planes, even helis do require more open space, even a small club ground / strip for ops, quads can be launched from practically anywhere you can hold your arm out.
Model winged aircraft and helis were always quite a niche, small hobby sector, still is.
Probably due mostly to the dedication with those pilots almost always building their own aircraft.

Or course it's so much easier to obtain and fly these almost self flyin. Ig quad drones, and cost isn't a big issue even with market leading DJI drones.



I'd say simply the boom in consumer drones has made authorities move to introduce legislation, it would have come anyway, and rightly so.
Can't have something like these machines mixing it with any sort of manned a

RC planes, even helis do require more open space, even a small club ground / strip for ops, quads can be launched from practically anywhere you can hold your arm out.
Model winged aircraft and helis were always quite a niche, small hobby sector, still is.
Probably due mostly to the dedication with those pilots almost always building their own aircraft.

Or course it's so much easier to obtain and fly these almost self flying quad drones, and cost isn't a big issue even with market leading DJI drones.



I'd say simply the boom in consumer drones has made authorities move to introduce legislation, it would have come anyway, and rightly so.
Can't have something like these machines mixing it with any sort of manned aircraft.

All fair points. I built all my helis except for the BNF indoor/no wind micros.

 

[sar104]

I remember that.... he used Litchi (IIRC) and had one follow the other between/around buildings over downtown. I can't remember his screen name and it could have been over on Phantom Pilots too.... now I'm gonna be obsessed on trying to remember LOL.

That was Dirty Bird, if I remember correctly.

 

[snowghost]

That was Dirty Bird, if I remember correctly.

I think you're right.

 

[sar104]

I think you're right.

"Dirty Bird Over Baltimore"

Normally a Phantom is busy capturing video & still footage, but here the Phantom 4 "Dirty Bird" is recorded on the first leg of the epic "The Baltimore Run v2.1" Litchi mission. This unique recording of a Phantom in flight was captured by a fellow P4 pilot flying chase on a modified version of...

phantompilots.com

 

[snowghost]

Those were the cowboy days.

 

[sar104]

Those were the cowboy days.

The link is broken on PP, but this was one of the flights:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[sar104]

He did it with a Mavic too:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tufargon]

The link is broken on PP, but this was one of the flights:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Besides all the violations, that was pretty cool.

 

[snowghost]

That is some wicked testament to Litchi.

 

[SethB]

I fully understand that. Everything has odds of happening in this world no matter how low they are. Heck, there is a chance an asteroid could wipe out life on this planet before I post this response.

I would just like to know if someone out there has "ran the numbers" and figured it out.

I don’t think there would be anything meaningful if a “mathematical genius” “ran the numbers”. The only way to figure out the risk would be to take some pretty big assumptions around factors where we have no data at all. We all know that helis and sometimes airplanes fly below 400’, and not just in takeoff/landing. But how much, what percentage of flights? This is just one example where one would have make a substantial guesstimate to get to the point of “running the numbers.”

Another way to think about it is that statistics don’t really inform you as to the chances that something will happen to you or someone you know. My dad is a mathematical genius and statistician, and was the first to say: the odds are 50%. It will or won’t happen to you. Also a private pilot… I’ll have to remember to ask him about this.

Our regulatory approach in aviation is informed by horrific accidents with huge loss of life. Nobody knew how windshears had contributed to 26 major “accidents” until a Delta passenger jet went down in 1985 killing 137 people. Then the pressure went on to find out what had happened; this was the beginning of a revolution in aviation safety culture. You don’t hear about major windshear-caused “accidents” any more because there aren’t any. That’s what success of a safety program looks like - no news. The discovery of windshear’s rare but substantial safety impact is quite a story; there was a documentary a couple years ago… they called the guy crazy and fringe, until airplanes crashed and people died.

Sharp readers will notice my use of quotes in the word “accidents”. This is the other realization that informs modern safety culture: there are no accidents. There are unsafe actions that sometimes lead to loss.

Loss of life in industrial “accidents” used to be much more common. People figured out what the unsafe actions were that contributed to casualties.

NOBODY wants to know what the effect of a small, mid, or big drone sucked into a jet engine on an airplane or helicopter will be. NOBODY wants to know what the effect of an aircraft pilot taking a drone to the face through their windscreen will be. Sadly, we also know that it will happen.

Wake up. Avoid death. Your actions have consequences. The info is out there if you’re willing to look.

“What are the odds?” is really a terrible question. It could be you.

 

[sar104]

Besides all the violations, that was pretty cool.

Yes - it was an interesting technology demonstration back in 2016, when consumer drones were still a sufficiently niche thing that the rules didn't seem to apply, even though Section 336 had a VLOS requirement.

 

[Chip]

Have any mathematical geniuses ever calculated the probability of a drone and an aircraft meeting in midair? I didn't really see much in the google machine other than talk of what could become of the plane if it did happen.

I do not know if this is the work of real geniuses but here is one study:​

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Dourado-Wildlife-Strikes-MOP-v2.pdf

Here is an article summarizing study:

Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data

In December 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced a new interim final rule that for the first time imposed regulation on the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) as model aircraft. In the name of a safe national airspace, the new regulations require operators of...

www.mercatus.org

​

This study concluded the probability of any collision with any UAS is around 3.06x10−5 per 100,000 flight hours. The probability of any collision with any UAS causing injury or death to passengers is around 6.12x10−8 per 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation. Of course, this was a 2016 study and now we have 6 more years of data. The calculation is also based on bird strike data which has fair share of proponents and detractors.

 

[sar104]

I do not know if this study was the work of real geniuses but here it is:​

Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data

In December 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced a new interim final rule that for the first time imposed regulation on the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) as model aircraft. In the name of a safe national airspace, the new regulations require operators of...

www.mercatus.org

​

This study concluded the probability of any collision with any UAS is around 3.06x10−5 per 100,000 flight hours. The probability of any collision with any UAS causing injury or death to passengers is around 6.12x10−8 per 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation. Of course, this was a 2015 study and now we have 6 years more data. The calculation is also based on bird strike data which has fair share of proponents and detractors.

Unfortunately his initial premise, that bird impacts and drone impacts are similar, is demonstrably wrong. A PhD student in Economics wrote it, so not really surprising.

 

[Chip]

Unfortunately his initial premise, that bird impacts and drone impacts are similar, is demonstrably wrong. A PhD student in Economics wrote it, so not really surprising.

What's wrong with economists? I thought they were supposed to be good with math and statistics...

Regardless, there is some interesting material in there. I listed a few excerpts and curious for your thoughts.

FAA commonly refers to “acceptable risk levels” for general aviation in terms of fatalities per 100,000 flight hours.

Is this true?

This risk level is comparable to the 5x10−5 fatality risk cited by the drone registration task force as acceptable for general aviation, without even adjusting for the probability of injury or fatality.

Translation? And is it true?

To date, (up to 2015), no commercial drone or consumer quadrocopter has ever collided with an aircraft in US airspace.

We know that is no longer true. How does that affect the study's conclusions?

It is not possible to empirically assess the additional degree of damage potentially caused by more rigid materials.

My impression is that this is no longer true based on studies since 3/2016 which show material difference between bird bone and tissue and lithium batteries, etc. I think this may be what you are referring to. However, would this not undercut the calculations relating to damages (UAS = 2.2 lb bird) but not the calculations of the probability that a collision would occur?

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

FAA commonly refers to “acceptable risk levels” for general aviation in terms of fatalities per 100,000 flight hours.

I'm not sure if bird strikes have resulted in any fatalities in manned aircraft strikes, surely there'd probably be SOME sort of case worldwide of it, an engine ingest / explosion etc.
I had a google, and a few stats sites came up, nothing I could see on this sort of database for fatal incident (except the odd bird of course) . . . an example .. .. ..

Accident and Serious Incident Reports: Wildlife Strike | SKYbrary Aviation Safety

Definition A selection of reports relating to accidents and serious incidents which involved a Wildlife Strike. The accident and serious incident reports are grouped together below in subcategories based upon SKYbrary database tags.

skybrary.aero

But with fair certainty, since consumer drones really ramped up since 2016 / 2017 (and prior) have there been no fatal incidents between consumer drones and manned aircraft ?
I think that is the case.

Here's an interesting EU research document on "Vulnerability of manned aircraft to drone strikes" I found when searching.
Haven't had a chance to browse it . . . it actually looks just like a method proposal for testing, no actual results as yet.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/6038.pdf

 

[Sparc343]

Hello, I have been flying drones for 1 year now and with my first drone VLOS wasn't a problem, the drone itself was big, bigger than a phantom 4 pro, and the range was limited (about 1 km max at 120 m / 400 ft) and you could see it from very far away.
6 months ago I got myself a mavic air 2, this thing is tiny compared to my older drone and it is only visible until about 400 meters distance.
Almost all of the flights with my Mavic Air 2 have been BVLOS because it's impossible to maintain VLOS.

My first question is: if almost all big aircraft cannot fly lower than 150 meters / 500 feet in Class G Airspace then why bother with VLOS? Especially in my situation when I'm 50 km away from airports and heliports.

Second question is: How many people in the drone community actually follow the rule? Vote in the poll!

In short, I (overall) DO support BVLOS. (I do however do my best to maintain VLOS since it is currently "the rules"..!)

BUT, not blindly or without any type of limitation. Prime example is, why it's also referred to as VLOS, because every persons vision, and other factors - such as terrain - come into play... So one couldn't say "you're only allowed to fly within 2640' of 'base'", because not everyone is going to have vision that will be able to keep eye contact that far (or whatever arbitrary distance you select). Terrain would be another huge factor. If you're controlling at a higher altitude flying to a lower altitude, you will likely be able to "keep an eye on it" to much greater distances than if you were lower, flying somewhere higher.

That being said, I also do believe there may be SOME room for different interpretations, as there is with MOST things (ESPECIALLY "laws")..! Example, I was vehemently following the 400' height rule when I first started flying. I interpreted this as 400' AGL from "base" or "RC point"... I wanted to capture some fly video of a nearby mountain, and knew there's no way I could fly over the top of it, because that would have been more than 400' above ground level, from where I was controlling it... So initially I was happy just flying up as close to it as I safely could, at 400' AGL from where I stood, turning around and flying back... Then I was exposed to the interpretation that 400' AGL is 400' AGL to where the aircraft is (not the remote pilot)... So that would mean, I could fly to, say, 1200' (is what it would read on my fly app), if the peak/summit of said mountain was 800', because 1200' would be 400' above 800'...!

And so I have been 'evaluating' the whole VLOS/BVLOS in the same manner now. Likewise, there was a mountain I want to fly to, but there's NO way I could keep my eye on the actual drone (aircraft), because the closest I can get is probably about ONE mile away (and yea, I don't think there's a chance in you know what of keeping your eye ON a mini 2, to a distance of ONE whole mile)..! So, that and I begs the question: does VLOS actually (necessarily) mean you have to actually physically see the aircraft (drone) itself, or not? I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, just because I may not be able to see my TINY mini 2 at a distance of a mile, doesn't mean I cannot SAFELY operate it knowing exactly where it is (despite not being able to actually see IT)... Even if I lost some of the "fancy toys" like the video feed, or the telemetry... I would still consider myself a "new" "pilot" (first flight was 30 NOV 2021), and I have full confidence I could maintain safe operation without "HAVING" to maintain actual sight of the aircraft itself. Even if I completely lost video feed, or telemetry..!

At the same time, I find myself imagining that flying BVLOS in a city/crowded/noisy/distracting environment - may not be the best of ideas... Even if you know which direction your AC is, I could just imagine that going horribly wrong... Though people around here have pointed out to me that you're actually more likely to encounter low flying manned AC in the very rural areas I fly, and WOULD be comfortable flying BVLOS... I can "see" that too, because I almost exclusively fly rural (mountainous) areas... But I KNOW "my area", and I know about all the (primary) possible low flyers here... I am right by a military VR route, and they VERY routinely fly LOW. I also have a private pilot that has one of his private ranches by me, and he fly's a lot too, VERY low, WELL under 400'... He is a "stunt" pilot..! Another good example of rural low flying would be crop dusters (though I personally don't have to worry about any of those where I am/fly)... So, even just "knowing" the area, or NOT knowing an area, could prove different results too...

More recently I actually had a medi-copter come in my area, actually flew directly over my house a few times while he circled around looking for where he was supposed to land, and or for a safe place to land... The guy a few blocks North had a heart attack or stroke or something... I actually was out flying at the time too, but all I had to do (IMHO) was make sure I yielded to him/her... And I personally DO believe I could have done that regardless of if I could "SEE" my AC or not... Even if I couldn't see it, I would have simply done what I did even though I could see it; I (immediately) DESCENDED (OMG what a concept I know)...

So basically, overall, I DO support BVLOS (and I DO hope they change "the rules" on that)! I don't think one should by flying like 6 miles away from where they are in RC... I also think, the "more" BVLOS you "go", the more familiar you should be with that area... Again, not that anything can't happen anywhere at anytime, because it CAN, but the more you know about an area the better. Just like how I have the knowledge that I have a private pilot and military that like to "play" around here a lot, is a huge benefit to ME, because I know to watch out for them... As where if you came here, not knowing that, I could see that being a problem - because you will not expect it... I would also venture to say, in like my mountain examples: even if I lost sight of my actual AC, at least I know where it is (direction), and there's NOTHING in between me, my AC, and the mountain... So in that type of scenario I would say, even if you can't see it, as long as you can see everything between - and don't have more obstructions in between - you'd be good to go... Now I wouldn't want to be flying around a city, and be flying over and beyond large buildings to where, even if I knew the direction, I wouldn't be able to regain VLOS because of how many objects/obstructions are in between! Going back yet again to my mountain example, if I lost sight of my AC on my way to the mountain, I have the confidence that even just descending, would allow me to regain VLOS - which you would not be able to do if there were more/other objects or obstructions between you and the mountain (say like buildings in a city)....

Basically, it all just seems "common sense" to me... That you should not necessarily have to have VLOS of your actual AC (especially with tiny ones out there like the mini 2), but you should still be able to regain it rather easily... And I'm almost sure I will get chastised for this but, people clearly DO break this "rule" ALL THE TIME, and we're not constantly hearing of all these horrible collisions that have happened as a result of that... So I do hope the FAA changes things on VLOS/BVLOS - even if only they actually change it to ALLOW the use of visual aids - such as a monocular or binoculars..! I think even that would make a HUGE difference TBH... I bet you I (or my VO) could see even my mini 2 at, 2 to 3 (or more) miles with binoculars.... At least then I will be able to get some of my mountain flyovers I have been imagining (or one of these days I'm just gonna do it anyway!!!)..!

 

[sar104]

So, that and I begs the question: does VLOS actually (necessarily) mean you have to actually physically see the aircraft (drone) itself, or not?

It only begs the question if you refuse to accept that VLOS has been clearly defined in law. 107.31 (a) (1) and (2) are not met if you cannot actually see it.

§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.​

​

(a) 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;​

​

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;​

​

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and​

​

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.​

Basically, it all just seems "common sense" to me... That you should not necessarily have to have VLOS of your actual AC (especially with tiny ones out there like the mini 2), but you should still be able to regain it rather easily...

I'm confused - how are you going to easily regain VLOS on a small drone at over one mile away?

And I'm almost sure I will get chastised for this but, people clearly DO break this "rule" ALL THE TIME, and we're not constantly hearing of all these horrible collisions that have happened as a result of that...

That's true - if you had constantly heard about collisions then drones would have been banned long ago. Since there have only been a few collisions, and rather more near misses, what we have instead is an attempt to regulate and reduce risk.

So I do hope the FAA changes things on VLOS/BVLOS - even if only they actually change it to ALLOW the use of visual aids - such as a monocular or binoculars..! I think even that would make a HUGE difference TBH... I bet you I (or my VO) could see even my mini 2 at, 2 to 3 (or more) miles with binoculars.... At least then I will be able to get some of my mountain flyovers I have been imagining (or one of these days I'm just gonna do it anyway!!!)..!

Absolutely - don't let aviation safety laws stand in the way of your overriding need to fly BVLOS over the mountains, or anywhere else that you feel like for that matter.