Obviously it’s against federal laws as it would remove you from the section 336 exemption and part 107 forbids it. However almost everyone seems to break this rule as it is so easy to break and the Mavic is designed to break it. Id argue that it is also safe to do so as long as you are in ear shot of low flying aircraft at that distance or below 400' AGL. I'm curious as to what the ratio is to those that strictly follow the rules compared to those that don’t.

Edit: Note the VLOS means that you can see the aircraft at all times. If you answer "No" then you are saying that you have likely never flown past 1000' from where you are.

Nice try FAA... nice try.   ;-)

I think you will find the Mavic is not designed as you say to break the rule, it's actually designed to stay within the rules. Each country has its own laws and you can set up your Mavic to operate within those laws. As regards to your ear shot device for listening to low flying AC, these AC are used by a diverse amount of people from under 20 to over 80 are you saying a 20 year old can fly further because he has better hearing and that an 80 year old would have , and he would have to do a hearing test to see how far he can fly and while they are about all this , maybe a hearing test for all pilots just to see how far the can fly. This would surely be ridiculous, and how would you explain this to ATC I was born 18 years ago I have perfect hearing don't be worried about other AC I will easily be able to hear them from 1000 feet,

     I don't think I want to take part in this type of poll ----- I think you know my answer to the question .
Why in the USA is there speed limits Up to 75mph when every car and motorcycle that is manufactured can go well over 100mph ????

SkunkWerxs Posted at 2017-3-25 03:16
I don't think I want to take part in this type of poll ----- I think you know my answer to the question .
Why in the USA is there speed limits Up to 75mph when every car and motorcycle that is manufactured can go well over 100mph ????

I've always thought that was the dumbest argument . Most everything is designed with a reserve of power , range , volume etc . Just think what would happen if people made the max capabilities of products the norm .

Just because the Mavic can reach 4.3 miles does in no way mean it should be flown as such .

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-25 04:26
I've always thought that was the dumbest argument . Most everything is designed with a reserve of power , range , volume etc . Just think what would happen if people made the max capabilities of products the norm .

Just because the Mavic can reach 4.3 miles does in no way mean it should be flown as such .

Your Right
Every time I fly --- I know there is a chance of interference , RC signal Loss and ERROR due to
what  I did or didn't do ------ One thing is for sure --- One Day I Will CRASH --- sooner or later
everyone does , Lets just hope it a lot later

Umm.. Errr.. No, never break any rules or do anything that is considered unsafe by the safety squads.  

I am surprised by the results. Nearly every video that you see posted here or elsewhere involves flying further than you would be able to see the small mavic with the naked eye... probably not much further than 1000'.

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-25 04:26
I've always thought that was the dumbest argument . Most everything is designed with a reserve of power , range , volume etc . Just think what would happen if people made the max capabilities of products the norm .

Just because the Mavic can reach 4.3 miles does in no way mean it should be flown as such .

Do you fly with FPV goggles?

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-25 06:06
Do you fly with FPV goggles?

Geo,
Yes I do use goggles lately
People are not going to admit brake the rules

I never fly out of line of sight

IF I FLY OUT OF VLOS I ALWAYS USE A SPOTTER! {:4_157:}

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-25 06:06
Do you fly with FPV goggles?

No with the Mavic , it's boring
race drones ,Yes  with spotters on a course maybe 5-600 feet away and near ground level .

rydfree41 Posted at 2017-3-25 06:47
No with the Mavic , it's boring
race drones ,Yes  with spotters on a course maybe 5-600 feet away and near ground level .

Then technically you are breaking federal law. Spotters are not allowed. There needs to be some serious reform to the rules.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-25 07:20
Then technically you are breaking federal law. Spotters are not allowed. There needs to be some serious reform to the rules.

Geo ,

I want you as my Lawyer when I get BUSTED lololllll   

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-25 07:20
Then technically you are breaking federal law. Spotters are not allowed. There needs to be some serious reform to the rules.

Are spotters not allowed commercially?

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-3-25 02:09
I think you will find the Mavic is not designed as you say to break the rule, it's actually designed to stay within the rules. Each country has its own laws and you can set up your Mavic to operate within those laws. As regards to your ear shot device for listening to low flying AC, these AC are used by a diverse amount of people from under 20 to over 80 are you saying a 20 year old can fly further because he has better hearing and that an 80 year old would have , and he would have to do a hearing test to see how far he can fly and while they are about all this , maybe a hearing test for all pilots just to see how far the can fly. This would surely be ridiculous, and how would you explain this to ATC I was born 18 years ago I have perfect hearing don't be worried about other AC I will easily be able to hear them from 1000 feet,

What you say might make sense but that's already the case with the VLOS rules. If you can't see it at 500m, you're not allowed to fly it that far. If you can only see it at 200m, that's your limit. It's 500m or the limit of your unaided vision (I think glasses are acceptable but binoculars are not).

As it is, if you're near sighted or blind, you can't fly drones to 500m. That's not very inclusive, is it?

Hterag Posted at 2017-3-25 08:07
What you say might make sense but that's already the case with the VLOS rules. If you can't see it at 500m, you're not allowed to fly it that far. If you can only see it at 200m, that's your limit. It's 500m or the limit of your unaided vision (I think glasses are acceptable but binoculars are not).

As it is, if you're near sighted or blind, you can't fly drones to 500m. That's not very inclusive, is it?

I can understand VLOS , think it's fair to say it would be difficult for blind people, although I see in some states in us, if your blind it's legal to own and fire a gun. https://www.theguardian.com/worl ... cences-blind-people

Although my point was about allowing hearing as a means to flying further which the OP thinks is a good idea, which I find bizarre and it makes no sense at all, there are many times I hear aircraft in the sky and look to where I think it's coming from only to realise because of wind and general acoustic,s that I have looked in the opposite direction .

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-25 07:20
Then technically you are breaking federal law. Spotters are not allowed. There needs to be some serious reform to the rules.

Not under part 107 . https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516
Now the FCC law requiring a Ham radio operators license to use the VTX transmitters is a different story but lately I have been able to get good signal from low powered 25mw transmitters so I might not get that license after all

The FAA has acknowledged the drone racing organizations safety guidelines for FPV as of now . I think they are on the right track as long as most drone pilots try to abide by their guidelines and not try to bend the rules to their own liking and abuse it .

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-3-25 08:21
I can understand VLOS , think it's fair to say it would be difficult for blind people, although I see in some states in us, if your blind it's legal to own and fire a gun. https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/10/america-gun-licences-blind-people

Although my point was about allowing hearing as a means to flying further which the OP thinks is a good idea, which I find bizarre and it makes no sense at all, there are many times I hear aircraft in the sky and look to where I think it's coming from only to realise because of wind and general acoustic,s that I have looked in the opposite direction .

I wasn't actually disagreeing with the point you made about hearing. I was just pointing out that the current rules are already silly enough. Even if you do see the other aircraft, how exactly are you going to get out of the way? Can you accurately guess the height of the incoming aircraft when the drone is 500m out? I don't think I could.

I may well cause the crash by trying to descend (without realising the aircraft was below the drone). Human depth perception isn't meant for distances like that. We're good for throwing distance, that's about it.

But here's another thought: Why are we coming down so hard on the drone users? Getting them to stay in such close quarters? The world is changing, why are we not pushing full-size aircraft pilots to stay well above 120m AGL? Drones are the new tech, yes, but so were cars. How long was it exactly before we were telling the horses to get off the roads?

I think full-size aircraft pilots need to get used to this new paradigm... Except that's not going to change until the money coming in (to the FAA/equivalent) from the drone industry gets close to the money coming in from the aviation industry.

That's why these laws are coming out the way they are.

Full-size aircraft pilots need to worry about their own issues before worrying about hobby drones I agree .  I've met many that I don't even see how they drive a car much less keep their pilots license ,lol

https://www.rt.com/usa/382250-pl ... b-marietta-georgia/

Hterag Posted at 2017-3-25 08:58
I wasn't actually disagreeing with the point you made about hearing. I was just pointing out that the current rules are already silly enough. Even if you do see the other aircraft, how exactly are you going to get out of the way? Can you accurately guess the height of the incoming aircraft when the drone is 500m out? I don't think I could.

I may well cause the crash by trying to descend (without realising the aircraft was below the drone). Human depth perception isn't meant for distances like that. We're good for throwing distance, that's about it.

I realise you were agreeing with me.
In achieving your SUA license there are procedures for flying your AC and what you should do in the case of incoming manned aircraft.

There are good reasons why restrictions are so heavily weighted towards manned aircraft, if something happens to a manned aircraft in the sky the odds are there will be fatalities weigh this up with an SUA you loose your AC.
Also with SUA's nobody except the pilot knows where you are nobody has any contact with you, so you are left to your own devices and skill and hopefully some savvy to insure that people flying in manned aircrafts are safe from you.
Manned aircraft also have to land and take off search and rescue also have a great need to fly HC lower when working, people using hand gliders parachuting and ballooning, an SUA pilot needs to be aware of all these activities taking place where he is flying.
Although the rules seem hard to take I in visage with the advent of more and more drones being used that rules and laws will become stiffer. Just look at new rules in Canada.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-3-25 07:59
Are spotters not allowed commercially?

Yes, they are allowed. There are even questions about using one on the 107 exam.

Hterag Posted at 2017-3-25 08:07
What you say might make sense but that's already the case with the VLOS rules. If you can't see it at 500m, you're not allowed to fly it that far. If you can only see it at 200m, that's your limit. It's 500m or the limit of your unaided vision (I think glasses are acceptable but binoculars are not).

As it is, if you're near sighted or blind, you can't fly drones to 500m. That's not very inclusive, is it?

(I think glasses are acceptable but binoculars are not).

Yes, VLOS can be with "corrected vision" (glasses or contacts) but not binoculars, telescope, etc.

DroneFlying Posted at 2017-3-25 10:49
Yes, they are allowed. There are even questions about using one on the 107 exam.

My bad. If you have a 107 license (the vast majority do not) then you are in the clear... assuming that your spotter can see the aircraft throughout the flight.

Yup... When I'm 10 miles from a town 3 miles from a neighbor I don't see a probem with it and I doubt the POV police will get me.... Jokes aside your the pilot be responsible for your actions or don't fly think of it as a vehicle

If a bathroom is to far away to peep on, you just drive a little ways

Don't leave comments that can be used against you

DJI-Thor Posted at 2017-3-25 23:04
Don't leave comments that can be used against you

I'd be more concerned about posting a video that clearly goes outside of VLOS. No one seems to have a problem with that.

You can not fly beyond line of sight in US.   You (you the pilot) must be able to see the drone without unassisted vision.  Meaning seeing the drone only with your eyes, eyeglasses are of course allowed, but no telescopes, binoculars, or digital zoom cameras.    Idiots on YouTube repetitively post illegal content showing where they are flying well beyond line of sight.  The most amazing thing is how many people don't even know the rules.  I read a stat the other day that suggested over 90% of the people who own drones in the US don't even know the rules.  For me, if I see it, I report it as I am sick of seeing it.  I personally, have issue with some of the rules, but they are the rules and many would not be in place if idiots would get knowledgeable and follow the rules.  

SkunkWerxs Posted at 2017-3-25 04:40
Your Right
Every time I fly --- I know there is a chance of interference , RC signal Loss and ERROR due to
what  I did or didn't do ------ One thing is for sure --- One Day I Will CRASH --- sooner or later

Not true, Im sure that there are some flyers that have never crashed.

FrequentFlyer Posted at 2017-4-4 06:49
Not true, Im sure that there are some flyers that have never crashed.

FrequentFlyer,

I was referring to people that have been RC flying for many years --- My mistake for not mentioning that.
Not someone that is a Sunday Flyer, just started in RC and babies there AC
I know lots of RC pilots that have been flying over 10yr. and all have crashed at least once.

If a tree falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound? People saying you did wrong is'nt proof.

Reminds me of the gossipy coal miner.
https://drive.google.com/drive/f ... dmd5akk?usp=sharing

Far less likely to lose ones drone if you can see it.

SkunkWerxs Posted at 2017-4-4 16:50
FrequentFlyer,

I was referring to people that have been RC flying for many years --- My mistake for not mentioning that.

Start with helicopters.  If you can master that, then you will never crash a thing again.  That reminds me...  I need to rebuild that main rotor after mistakenly letting someone else fly it!

Ha with DJI Go4 on android I dont even dare to fly further than 1000 meters ;) stupid thing crashes so much

Xman1 Posted at 2017-4-13 07:12
Start with helicopters.  If you can master that, then you will never crash a thing again.  That reminds me...  I need to rebuild that main rotor after mistakenly letting someone else fly it!

Xman1,

           Helicopters!!!!!! OMG been there done that --- Chit still happens loolllll

SkunkWerxs Posted at 2017-3-25 03:16
Why in the USA is there speed limits Up to 75mph when every car and motorcycle that is manufactured can go well over 100mph ????

Because cars don't necessarily ONLY operate on public roadways. Duh.

geofox784 Posted at 2017-3-25 07:20
Then technically you are breaking federal law. Spotters are not allowed. There needs to be some serious reform to the rules.

Under part 107, a Visual Observer can be used to keep a UAV within VLOS.  See second bullet point:

FAA Part 107 Summary

I don't know about rules for recreational use.

DJISenord Posted at 2017-4-4 03:55
You can not fly beyond line of sight in US.   You (you the pilot) must be able to see the drone without unassisted vision.  Meaning seeing the drone only with your eyes, eyeglasses are of course allowed, but no telescopes, binoculars, or digital zoom cameras.    Idiots on YouTube repetitively post illegal content showing where they are flying well beyond line of sight.  The most amazing thing is how many people don't even know the rules.  I read a stat the other day that suggested over 90% of the people who own drones in the US don't even know the rules.  For me, if I see it, I report it as I am sick of seeing it.  I personally, have issue with some of the rules, but they are the rules and many would not be in place if idiots would get knowledgeable and follow the rules.

Under Part 107, you can use a Visual Observer to keep a UAV in VLOS.  See second bullet in:

FAA Part 107 Summary

CAAirborne Posted at 2017-4-14 13:33
Under part 107, a Visual Observer can be used to keep a UAV within VLOS.  See second bullet point:

FAA Part 107 Summary

For you to be exempt from 107 you must be following the rules set by congress in 2012 (public law 112-95 Section 336). Noted in the definition of "Model Aircraft" is "...is flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft". Thus in order for you to avoid the rules set by the FAA under part 107 you must  be following definition of "Model Aircraft" set by congress and thus you must be flying within VLOS.

There is no legal way to fly outside of VLOS unless you have some kind of special waiver from the FAA (think companies like google, amazon, and UPS).
I did not create this thread to debate the legality of flying outside of VLOS. Just curious to see how many do it as the vast majority of videos on youtube involve flying outside of VLOS.