Poll: Do you ever fly beyond visual line of sight?

[Steven Graham]

FAA Rules for hobbyist flying became law on the same day as part 107. Part 101 was modified on that day to include sub part E titled special rule for model aircraft. eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations While nothing in the rule specifically prohibits BVLOS, paragraph 101.41.b requires "The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

So if you're intending to claim the AMA as your CBO you can't fly BVLOS legally as that is not allowed per their safety guidelines.

 

[Lucky 777]

I'm not a AMA member so does that mean I'm not bound to their "recommendations"? Seems that way to me. Also seems like a piss poor piece of legislation. Instead of making a decision, the FAA defers to whatever is popular with the local club. Seems equivalent to if the Supreme Court would have ruled on gay marriage by saying we'll go with whatever the local church thinks is cool. I am not advocating unsafe or reckless operation of a drone but for a branch of the federal government to turn this stupid baffles me.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Steven Graham]

Well a lot of folks don't like the AMA but having been involved with them, benefiting from their efforts as well as volunteering to promote the hobby for about 10 years now I have a slightly different take.

The FAA was ramping up for sUAS rules well over 10 years ago and it looked like we might get steamrolled. The AMA got involved early on in an effort to minimize the impact any proposed rules would have on hobbyists based on many decades of operations that demonstrated no impact on full scale users of the NAS. They didn't get everything they wanted and that will not change in the future. The stakeholders lined up against our interests are a long list of powerful lobbies. To their credit the AMA did get a carve out in the FAA's 2012 congressional financial reauthorization called "the special rule for model aircraft section 336" This was an attempt to prevent unnecessary rulemaking on the FAA's behalf. Congress prohibited the FAA from enacting new rules for model aircraft as long as they complied with the limits set down in the special rule. Congress was careful to preserve the FAA's authority to prohibit activities in the FAA's opinion pose a hazard to the safety of the NAS. Basically what section 336 said was what you now read in the FAR's part 101.

Now you could create your own CBO and some are doing just that. Others have tried and largely failed. My opinion is it will be a very hard battle for any CBO to convince the FAA that BVLOS operations do NOT present the aforementioned hazard. Commercial part 107 operators are currently restricted to VLOS, but the FAA is looking at rules that would allow BVLOS. I'm also of the opinion that when these rules are eventually published that the requirements for doing so will be pretty severe.

 

[Steven Graham]

I'm not a AMA member so does that mean I'm not bound to their "recommendations"? Seems that way to me.

I'm sorry I realized I really didn't answer this part of your question.

You don't have to belong to the AMA but the FAR's require you to comply with 101.41.b so if not the AMA you really need to show your in compliance with some CBO's guidance.

If you are showing compliance through the AMA as your CBO the safety code essentially becomes a matter of law, not just recomendation.

Probably not the answer you were looking for but hopefully my explanation makes sense?

 

[Steven Graham]

And of course you could avoid the CBO requirement altogether by getting your remote pilot certificate and operating under part 107. Still that won't really help if BVLOS legally is the goal as part 107 specifically prevents it.

 

[F3honda4me]

FAA Rules for hobbyist flying became law on the same day as part 107. Part 101 was modified on that day to include sub part E titled special rule for model aircraft. eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations While nothing in the rule specifically prohibits BVLOS, paragraph 101.41.b requires "The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

So if you're intending to claim the AMA as your CBO you can't fly BVLOS legally as that is not allowed per their safety guidelines.

The thing is, with such a vague description you can pretty much form your own "community based organization" and call it nationwide by including a few friends from other states, and tada now you are within your own rules.

In other words, the VLOS is only a requirement if you are going by the AMA's rules.

 

[Lucky 777]

Keep in mind I'm not criticizing the AMA. It's certainly better to have guidelines from fellow hobbyists than hard rules from brain dead congressmen. My only concern with this approach is the potential for the recognized voice of the hobby to eventually become another corporate tool to line their pockets.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Steven Graham]

The thing is, with such a vague description you can pretty much form your own "community based organization" and call it nationwide by including a few friends from other states, and tada now you are within your own rules.

In other words, the VLOS is only a requirement if you are going by the AMA's rules.

Yeah I agree, It is vague and that is both a double edged sword as well as something we've tried to get congress as well as the FAA to clarify for quite awhile now, with limited success.

I'll never hear "TADA" again without being reminded of one of my favorite Sara Silverman quips about saving face after too much to drink and losing her lunch while otherwise engaged.

 

[Lucky 777]

Your explanation is very clear Steve, thank you for your insight. I really do want to stress I'm not picking a fight with anyone and have no disrespect for the AMA. I'm sure their actions are in the best interest of the enjoyment of this hobby for everyone. The one thing the FAA did that makes sense is the creation of part 107 to begin making a distinction between hobbyists and those who use UAV for commercial purposes.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[F3honda4me]

I'll never hear "TADA" again without being reminded of one of my favorite Sara Silverman quips about saving face after too much to drink and losing her lunch while otherwise engaged.

Hah so true!

 

[F3honda4me]

Your explanation is very clear Steve, thank you for your insight. I really do want to stress I'm not picking a fight with anyone and have no disrespect for the AMA. I'm sure their actions are in the best interest of the enjoyment of this hobby for everyone. The one thing the FAA did that makes sense is the creation of part 107 to begin making a distinction between hobbyists and those who use UAV for commercial purposes.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

I think that was not done by choice though. The FAA would love to regulate hobbyist flight, but the law congress passed in 2012 prevents that. Had it not been for that law, 107 would apply to all of us. Instead they did "registration" because that's what they could get away with.

 

[MrTommy]

There's no doubt that visual line of sight is different from person to person. Chuck Yeager was known for his ability to spot incoming enemy planes long before any of his accompanying squadron. Me, on the other hand, not-so-much.

 

[smiller]

It sounds like all someone has to do is create a CBO that permits BVLOS operation under a set of established guidelines and once people from all/most states sign up the CBO would be national and its practices (as long as they are in compliance with other FAA regulations) would be legal under Part 101. In fact I'd be surprised if this hasn't happened already.

 

[Langstonius]

I pretty much avoid it at all costs. Maybe its because I think the COB is gonna appear behind me screaming about it. But in all seriousness, I avoid it. Not enough awareness for me to be ok with only seeing 1 direction and there hasn't been a legit shot where I couldn't get closer.

 

[Travels with Yoly]

I think its too late now to stop these drones from flying everywhere, apart from some countries that already have taken action, like Sweden, where its now forbidden to fly anything with a camera on, without special permission.

I fail to understand how having a camera makes a drone any more dangerous ? I do understand the logic behind limiting sheer numbers but then again I don't understand the literal sense of the law ?

 

[smiller]

I fail to understand how having a camera makes a drone any more dangerous ? I do understand the logic behind limiting sheer numbers but then again I don't understand the literal sense of the law ?

The concern with the camera is not danger, but invasion of privacy. I'm not defending the law, jus' sayin'

 

[Travels with Yoly]

Line of sight certainly is a subjective concept (based on the physical nature of people's eyesight) and the way that the technology requires us to fly. At 68, my eyes aren't what they used to be. With my glasses on, I have trouble spotting my P3/4 directly overhead at 399 feet. That being the case I do try to retain visual contact as much as I can and do so about 90% of the time. If we are getting literal, having visual contact at all times means we can't look down at our display to change settings, create the pan and tilt needed for the shot or orientate ourselves on the map. I live on a 39,000 acre lake and have flown 100 feet above it for 1.3 miles with my P3. This is over open water with no structures such as bridges and at least 100 yards from any shoreline. The Phantom is most definitely out of my sight at this point but still being flown in what I have deemed a safe manner. I never do this if there are any signs of signal loss what so ever (either control or video).

 

[Travels with Yoly]

The concern with the camera is not danger, but invasion of privacy. I'm not defending the law, jus' sayin'

Thank you for that clarification .... seems so logical now ... DUH ! I don't agree with it but I understand the intent now.

 

[kimberly]

I'm not a AMA member so does that mean I'm not bound to their "recommendations"? Seems that way to me. Also seems like a piss poor piece of legislation. Instead of making a decision, the FAA defers to whatever is popular with the local club. Seems equivalent to if the Supreme Court would have ruled on gay marriage by saying we'll go with whatever the local church thinks is cool. I am not advocating unsafe or reckless operation of a drone but for a branch of the federal government to turn this stupid baffles me.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Actually, the FAA listened to hobby groups when creating the regulations. The AMA had a pretty big voice and the FAA is giving hobbyists the freedom and responsibility to operate without a lot of regulation from the Feds. That's good. But, they also have mandated that hobbyists must work within the guidelines of the "community" and yes, that means the AMA or other group. RC guys are really responsible. All of us must be when we are sharing the sky. Manned aircraft pilots mostly HATE drones and want them banned because a drone in the wrong place can be a deadly hazard. Maybe there is a lot of rule bending going on, but let's preserve aviation in all it's glory: ultralights, sport planes, helps, fixed wing, sea planes, amongst others, and yes, drones. If you don't want more restrictions on drones, fly responsibly.

 

[dgd3]

Given the discussions about range and the plethora of YouTube videos on the subject and the many debates here, I'm curious just what percentage of people actually do engage in flights that go beyond visual line of sight. Votes are not publicly displayed so be honest!

Good question. I hope there are more responses.