I think the FAA should redress  their rules position on Part 107, specifically the rule on VLOS. The  prohibition rule on flight beyond VLOS seems quite antiquated now when  one "sees" the precision flying capabilities using FPV alone.

SUMMARY OF SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT RULE (PART 107) Operational Limitations

Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must
remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the
person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS.
Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain with
in VLOS of the visual observer.

At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close
enough to the remote pilot in command and the person
manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS for those
people to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vis
ion unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.

It's not a case of what you can see - but what you can't

If you are flying first person and nothing but first person - then how do you know what is beyond your scope of vision when you take the drone beyond visual range of the operator?

If you are flying high you can see plenty down below you an in front.

Whats above you, whats to your sides, whats behind you?

Are you going to collide with any birds?  Any aircraft?  Any other drones?

I'm not trying to be patronising - but that is genuinely the way the FAA (The CAA in the UK) and other Aviation Authorities look at this.


They have to think of things from an idiot proof perspective - and this is what they came up with.

It maybe that your spacial awareness it top-notch, and you can take your drone beyond VLOS safely.

It won't matter - because if you can do it - then whats to stop an imbilcile doing the same, but being a bumbling fool - and lacking that crucial spacial awareness - crashes it into power lines, trees, or collides with an manned aircraft?  This could result in anything from a broken drone - to human lives lost.




What then - more restrictive procedures and legislation?  No thanks.

I have painted the P4P+ a fluorescent orange so I can see it better with out loosing it in the sky’s background especially on overcast days when the Quad was white I had had a hard time keeping track of it at a distance of 1200 ft now with the orange color I have a easy time at 1700 ft out so far. When I get a chance to fly further I will see what my max distance is before I louse my VLOS.

The rule makes perfect sense, almost every country in the world operates the same rule.

The US is working on it.

A second Drone Advisory Committee panel, Task Group 2, pushed forward Wednesday with its recommendations that the FAA create a program easing the way for companies to fly drones far beyond a controller’s “line of sight.” Such operations are required for the kind of delivery services and other commercial efforts that have captured the imagination of industry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/l ... _term=.17bb05e26d69

Mark The Droner Posted at 2018-1-30 17:06
The US is working on it.

A second Drone Advisory Committee panel, Task Group 2, pushed forward Wednesday with its recommendations that the FAA create a program easing the way for companies to fly drones far beyond a controller’s “line of sight.” Such operations are required for the kind of delivery services and other commercial efforts that have captured the imagination of industry.

That is an interesting article. Thanks for posting.

Rigger73 Posted at 2018-1-30 15:44
It's not a case of what you can see - but what you can't

If you are flying first person and nothing but first person - then how do you know what is beyond your scope of vision when you take the drone beyond visual range of the operator?

Great reply to the original post.  As a part 107 operator, I agree 100%.  We could never fly FPV until we install transponders on drones and bring them into the ATC system in some way.

mtnlandpix Posted at 2018-1-30 17:33
Great reply to the original post.  As a part 107 operator, I agree 100%.  We could never fly FPV until we install transponders on drones and bring them into the ATC system in some way.

At the very least, active obstacle avoidance sensors in all directions

Mark The Droner Posted at 2018-1-30 17:06
The US is working on it.

A second Drone Advisory Committee panel, Task Group 2, pushed forward Wednesday with its recommendations that the FAA create a program easing the way for companies to fly drones far beyond a controller’s “line of sight.” Such operations are required for the kind of delivery services and other commercial efforts that have captured the imagination of industry.

Interesting article thanks for sharing
I foresee drone ops moving beyond VLoS based on the establishment of drone corridors and set altitude blocks for those corridors (similar to what they have now in upstate NY for proof of concept) coupled with the use of tracking capabilities to aid in deconfliction.  They will have to work out coordination actions for IFEs both for manned aircraft and drones and there is a need to integrate local government control for issues of landings and takeoffs as well as operations within feet of property and people.
I do not see this being extended to hobbyists or the private market due to cost and that most will not be interested in flying within a corridor or spending the money to have trackers capable of interacting with the system (although we may not have a choice as that may be the next shoe to drop for private owners).  

Rigger73 Posted at 2018-1-30 15:44
It's not a case of what you can see - but what you can't

If you are flying first person and nothing but first person - then how do you know what is beyond your scope of vision when you take the drone beyond visual range of the operator?

Concur
Well said well spoken!

RMJovo Posted at 2018-1-30 16:10
I have painted the P4P+ a fluorescent orange so I can see it better with out loosing it in the sky’s background especially on overcast days when the Quad was white I had had a hard time keeping track of it at a distance of 1200 ft now with the orange color I have a easy time at 1700 ft out so far. When I get a chance to fly further I will see what my max distance is before I louse my VLOS.

A phantom at 500m+ is just a black dot no matter the colour
VLOS sorted, Wing mirrors.....

Air/America Posted at 2018-1-30 17:23
That is an interesting article. Thanks for posting.

Aloha A/A,

     From the original advisory meetings that came up with Part 107, VLOS was considered to be a restriction that would be technology dependent.  Having a "Live View" of 1080p or higher would allow better visibility for sense and evade options in "Live View", but there is more like lights, colors and transponders, etc.

     Part 107 came up with the VO (Visual Observer) as a compromise of sorts for VLOS issues.  One or more VOs can extend the principle of VLOS well beyond the limitations of the Pilot in Command to the flight limitations of the drone.  Look up the VO in Part 107.  It does make VLOS workable until the technology and regulatory climate catch up with the safety interests of the public and commercial and other forms of drone operations.

     Hope this helps!

Aloha and Drone On!

mtnlandpix Posted at 2018-1-30 17:33
Great reply to the original post.  As a part 107 operator, I agree 100%.  We could never fly FPV until we install transponders on drones and bring them into the ATC system in some way.

Thank you.  It comes in part from 10 + years experience working ROV's below the waves.


Still too many people who are new to drones, are not aware of "Flight Safety".

A drone represents a real hazard to manned aircraft.  What if one gets ingested into the engine?

A bird tends to get shredded and thrown out the exhaust - with a few compressor and turbine blades bent or snapped off.  A drone will destroy a turbofan or jet engine.  At low altitude - that could be a killer.

Likewise - what if you are flying your drone over a tourist area - out of VLOS and you clip a tree - what if it drops on someones head?  What then?

Old adage - If it can go wrong, it will go wrong.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Bashy Posted at 2018-1-30 21:10
A phantom at 500m+ is just a black dot no matter the colour
VLOS sorted, Wing mirrors.....

Ya true but I can still see the Quad and that is all I have to do for the VLOS FAA requirements,  Also it is easily reacquainted when you look away for a few seconds try it with the all WHITE Quad it really disappears in overcast sky’s quickly.

I never imagined, that there would be so many "old women" here on these DJI forums. No offense to any grandmas or young women who may be here on these DJI forums.  

Sorry, but as a private pilot I entirely disagree. It's careless attitudes like this that endanger lives, and all for the sake of what? Bragging rights on how far you can fly? Drone are in their infancy stages, and they're certainly not advanced enough that they can be trusted out of sight. If they were, we wouldn't see all these "My drone flew away" threads. I've already had one way-too-close call with some idiot doing FPV at 3000 feet AGL, I certainly do not need more of them.

Air/America Posted at 2018-1-31 14:15
I never imagined, that there would be so many "old women" here on these DJI forums. No offense to any grandmas or young women who may be here on these DJI forums.

Hey Gramps FYI
First, if ya wanna change the rules within the FAA then doing so from within a Chinese company's forum is not likely to be your best bet...just sayin

Next, if you wish to start a discussion here in this forum about whatever relevant topic you prefer, well OK.  However, if you would like folks to freely express their opinions on the subject area then I'd suggest you refrain from calling them names...it is not exactly conducive to a friendly open discussion...just sayin

A few days ago I was flying at my brother's farm. I was in my stationary car (it was a very hot, bright day), and the drone (Mavic Pro) was hovering just behind my car, at the same height. For safety, I decided to raise the drone just a little higher. I was experimenting with the tracking functions.
The drone was facing my car, and I pushed forward, watching my phone screen. The drone didn't move.  I pushed forward more, but the view on my screen still showed the back of my car - so you can imagine my surprise when the drone suddenly flew over the front of my car. If it had been a couple of inches lower, it would have run into the back of my car.
The screen had frozen, and I didn't realise. It had looked like it was just stationary the whole time.  It's the first time it has ever happened, and it was a real shock. I came so close to crashing my drone.
Suddenly, the line of sight rule has made a whole lot more sense

JimmmyWA Posted at 2018-1-31 18:28
A few days ago I was flying at my brother's farm. I was in my stationary car (it was a very hot, bright day), and the drone (Mavic Pro) was hovering just behind my car, at the same height. For safety, I decided to raise the drone just a little higher. I was experimenting with the tracking functions.
The drone was facing my car, and I pushed forward, watching my phone screen. The drone didn't move.  I pushed forward more, but the view on my screen still showed the back of my car - so you can imagine my surprise when the drone suddenly flew over the front of my car. If it had been a couple of inches lower, it would have run into the back of my car.
The screen had frozen, and I didn't realise. It had looked like it was just stationary the whole time.  It's the first time it has ever happened, and it was a real shock. I came so close to crashing my drone.

Aloha Jimmmy,

     Besides your VLOS point just made, the metal in your car contributes to it being a Faraday Cage, the ultimate in electromagnetic interference.  If you want to loose contact with your bird, fly from within your car.  Some people have had success flying behind windows, but it is still not a good idea.  The best I have been able to do reliably is fly from the back of a pickup truck.

     Hope this helps!

Aloha and Drone On!

djiuser_iGJqCoTNTQSa Posted at 2018-1-31 14:23
Sorry, but as a private pilot I entirely disagree. It's careless attitudes like this that endanger lives, and all for the sake of what? Bragging rights on how far you can fly? Drone are in their infancy stages, and they're certainly not advanced enough that they can be trusted out of sight. If they were, we wouldn't see all these "My drone flew away" threads. I've already had one way-too-close call with some idiot doing FPV at 3000 feet AGL, I certainly do not need more of them.

I certainly agree with you about a person flying at 3000 feet AGL being idiotic. However, FPV isn't really the issue there because the person is already over the 400 foot rule anyway. I've been in the FPV community for a few years now and am transitioning to commercial UAV work. 99% of the jobs that I would be doing would benefit from FPV not because I can fly so much further away, but because I can control the UAV in a much easier way. The current VLOS rule for the pilot in command AND the visual observer doesn't take into account situations where there is a visual observer and the UAV is close enough for VLOS but FPV goggles are desirable to be used for easier piloting.

I personally think the rules need to make a distinction between those trying to use FPV in close proximity and those trying to use FPV for longer range, out-of-sight flights.

Air/America Posted at 2018-1-31 14:15
I never imagined, that there would be so many "old women" here on these DJI forums. No offense to any grandmas or young women who may be here on these DJI forums.

Word to the wise;

Respect is earned, not commanded.

You have lost what if any respect you had with that comment.

I've worked aviation for 16 years, and ROV's for 10 years+.
I've plenty of experience as to why the FAA/CAA and other Aviation Authoritiesa are right to come up with the rules they do.  I'm sure they are a helluva lot smarter than you are.  Have you heard of risk assessments?  I doubt it.  Have you seen what birds - let alone drones can do to manned aircraft? Miracle on the Hudson ring a bell?

Go cry to the FAA about your not being able to fly beyond VLOS.  Actually - go fly beyond VLOS, and when you lose your drone - come crying here.  I'm sure we'll all be full of sympathy for you.  You can find it between sh*te and syphilis in the dictionary by the way.  You know what a dictionary is?


It's people like you, with an entirely reckless attitude (through ignorance and a precious entitled attitude) that spoil things for the rest of us, by being idiots.  Breaking the law, and pleading ignorance.  Get this - ignorance is not an excuse.  The outcome is usually harsher laws for those of us who abide by the laws.



Let me use language you might understand.

I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my own ar*e.

Interestingly, Fort Carson flies their drones beyond VLOS and a half a world away.

VLOS

Genghis9 Posted at 2018-1-31 14:33
Hey Gramps FYI
First, if ya wanna change the rules within the FAA then doing so from within a Chinese company's forum is not likely to be your best bet...just sayin

Ditto what Genghis9 said. Refraining from committing unsafe activity means a person is respecting the danger presented by that activity. Calling me names because I believe in and follow the rules that were placed to create a safe environment means simply this: Your posts and threads will be ignored henceforth. See ya.

Jeff

One word. ADS-B All of aviation is moving to it and is in the early implementation stages. Bring it to donres and have a 100% comprehensive tracking system. If course this will add to a drones price but I'm sure as with any other technology it will come down over time. (for those that don't know ADS-B  is a live GPS feed transmitted to air traffic control)

dont slow down Posted at 2018-6-13 05:30
One word. ADS-B All of aviation is moving to it and is in the early implementation stages. Bring it to donres and have a 100% comprehensive tracking system. If course this will add to a drones price but I'm sure as with any other technology it will come down over time. (for those that don't know ADS-B  is a live GPS feed transmitted to air traffic control)

That doesn't really make sense for slow moving drones, it would create far too much radio traffic and since drones often fly at low level in valleys or around buildings they will often be disconnected!

What's needed for drones is short range transmissions containing location information for autonomous cooperative collision avoidance.

I don't see that future technology will allow us to fly beyond VLOS though, what it will allow is for autonomous drones to fly long distance without human pilots.  Piloted drones will remain VLOS, unless they are military ones.

BVLOS isn't going to happen for hobbyists - at least not in the US.  But it will happen for licensed UAS pilots.  Yes - autonomous flight.  And I believe it will someday also be legal for licensed UAS pilots to fly their UAS manually BVLOS - by using GSM rather then straight RC.  Flytrex has already proved it's possible to track and even maneuver UAS flights in real time using the GSM Flytrex Live 3G app.   This technology just has to be harnessed and expanded upon.  What hasn't been done yet is to control the UAS with GSM, and to set up an avoidance system, possibly with the aid of GSM tracking, but I think that hurdle will eventually be reached and surpassed.  With GSM, the only limit to range would be the battery.

dont slow down Posted at 2018-6-13 05:30
One word. ADS-B All of aviation is moving to it and is in the early implementation stages. Bring it to donres and have a 100% comprehensive tracking system. If course this will add to a drones price but I'm sure as with any other technology it will come down over time. (for those that don't know ADS-B  is a live GPS feed transmitted to air traffic control)

Your point is interesting, but nothing is 100% by itself, especially in this case.  First, anything reliant on GPS is fraught for potential short comings, many may not know or forget that it was the Clinton administration that removed the position locks/safeguards on the system.  Thus allowing the boom in civilian use of it.  However, those measures can easily be reinstated in relatively short order.  If done, that makes the ADS-B virtually unusable and if that is the only system you are relying on for airspace deconfliction then you will have a serious problem in managing airspace.  
Next, any kind of EMP can render the system useless, from an atmospheric nuke to a large solar flare.  The results are the same regardless.  Then other space obstacles can cause system problems too, such as space debris and meteors etc.  There is also the possibility of sat failure (it has happened) which can lead to constellation degradation for a large region, and it cannot be easily fixed or remedied.
Lastly, opposing nation states can interfere with a GPS system at will through jamming, anti-sat measures, or other kinetic means.  Also, the ability to achieve local jamming of the GPS signal has already been demonstrated and with relatively cheep equipment, which makes it useful to non nation states such as terrorists.  Granted, if any of these were to occur we'd have bigger problems to be concerned with, but it does demonstrate that a GPS reliant system has many challenges that will not guarantee a 100% reliability.
Yes, we can debate the possibilities of whether any of these things might occur, keep in mind some already have, but the point is over dependence on technology for systems like airspace management can result in a fools folly, meaning you'll need something besides that system to ensure 100% capability and therefore reliability.   

Nigel_ Posted at 2018-6-13 06:46
That doesn't really make sense for slow moving drones, it would create far too much radio traffic and since drones often fly at low level in valleys or around buildings they will often be disconnected!

What's needed for drones is short range transmissions containing location information for autonomous cooperative collision avoidance.

Concur