Small UAS BVLOS restriction

[valueseek]

Can anyone clear up the laws surrounding fpv beyond visual line of sight?? Because i just bought everything i need to build my first hobby grade drone, a s550 hexacopter, registered it, and started studying for a remote pilot certificate.

I have only just started, and i read:
 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

Does this mean if you get caught flying FPV, you will be fined, registration and certification taken away, ect ect

Seems weird that no one in the RC aviation community as a whole thinks it is important that FPV flying anywhere in the US is illegal unless you can still see the quadcopter, or at the very least the FAA is telling people they cant go behind a tree....... What is this nonsense.. The FAA is teaching people it is illegal to fly FPV around your backyard unless you can still see it. If you go behind your shed then you broke the law. No one thinks that is excessive?

 

[valueseek]

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/faa-uas-part107-flyer.pdf

 

[ElectriSean]

Not positive about the US, but here in Canada it's illegal. I do think it's excessive, but no one in charge is likely to care what I think.... The only way you're going to get into trouble is if you get reported or have an incident though, so act accordingly

 

[valueseek]

Thanks for the input, will do. Though it is disappointing to hear the books are written like that in Canada as well.

Hopefully someday the laws in free countries will more accurately reflect the values of most of its citizens.

Happy flying

 

[FDS]

Most citizens prefer not to have UAV’s that could belong to anyone, solely running on GPS, roaming the skies as do pilots, hence laws to protect aviation and privacy. Sadly responsible hobbyists have been swept up with irresponsible and criminal users of improving and thus more cheaply available technologies.

 

[valueseek]

That's true, however in my mind there is no justification for requiring someone who isn't in an organization who just wants to go to an empty field and fly a $10 3/4 Ib radio controlled plane 20ft off the ground to have to pay $150 for a license. To me, the state of aviation laws in US at the moment is discouraging and depressing.

 

[valueseek]

Ah what do you know, the special rule for model aircraft was repealed in October and will be removed when the FAA comes up with an even more restrictive policy for sUAVs. Then everyone will have to pay $150 every two years to fly anything thats 0.55-55 Ibs and has a remote control in their own yard, if you're allowed to at all. There are hobbyists who actually agree with this? DJI is very vocal about how much they love the new restrictions. Im pretty disappointed to say the least, I kind of knew drone laws were bad, but not "pay $75 a year to fly your RC toy drone in your yard" bad. If my toy drone was any heavier i would have already been breaking the law.

 

[d8veh]

Unfortunately, this hobby gives us the technology to fly from an unspecified location to look through your boss's window to see what he's up to, and the FT videos show us how to use a drone to shoot something/someone from a remote location. It's only a matter of time until terrorists will be using drones to drop hand grenades into shopping centres. How else can this be policed?

 

[valueseek]

They should keep the registration(unless they continue to push for more unreasonable restrictions), im not criticizing the idea of registration.
They should charge a fee for remote pilot certification that isn't exponentially more than what it cost them to conduct the test($150 to take a 60 question 3 answer multiple choice test.. how is that ok? its just an arbitrary number)

Maybe set a lower limit like UAS under 5 Ibs can operate under 150ft, 100ft, or 50ft without a remote pilot certification. That's all it would take to allow people to fly in their yards. How does the FAA control the air two feet above my lawn, that alone tells me their is something seriously wrong. Wrong with them for implementing that and wrong with people for giving up the right to use the air immediately around their property. If i build a cardboard glider with a few servos that weighs over 250g and i throw it in my yard it would be illegal, legislators understand thats problematic and dont care.

quote from the FAA website
"If I'm flying my UAS in my own yard, do I have to register it?
You will need to register your UAS if the UAS weighs more than 0.55 pounds. "

nowhere does ANYONE feel like mentioning that the cost to do so is $150. Even hobbyist love to talk about how registration is easy and cheap, "Its only $5 guys!" Its misleading.

 

[DamoRC]

Not sure I follow the argument here. The LOS guidance has always been there. The registration is $5. The $150 is only if you want to be part 107 certified. The training requirement described in Section 349 part 7 has not been defined yet (but it doesn't explicitly call out part 107) but is supposed to be defined over the next 6 months. Pet the AMA we should continue to fly as usual until the details are figured out.

 

[Gazoo]

Unfortunately, this hobby gives us the technology to fly from an unspecified location to look through your boss's window to see what he's up to, and the FT videos show us how to use a drone to shoot something/someone from a remote location. It's only a matter of time until terrorists will be using drones to drop hand grenades into shopping centres. How else can this be policed?

Terrorists probably don't register their UAVs.

 

[valueseek]

Yes; about VLOS, what Electrisean wrote sums it up well. I accept that.

but this is where i'm confused, the way FAA word the requirements to Fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft(Section 336)
is strange..

• Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization

I assumed "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" means no flight on public property, private RC hobby groups on private property only. I hope i'm just being pessimistic and that isn't the case

If im not "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" im assuming the only other option is to fly under 107

Does that mean something else?

https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/

 

[DamoRC]

The nation wide community based organization is gernerally assumed to be the AMA although I think there is a case to be made that Flite Test could also assume this mantle.

It's possible that ultimately flying within the programming of a national community based organization will mean only at AMA sanctioned fields.

Regarding public lands, each land manager (city council etc) can set their own rules regarding RC flight. If it's not allowed, or explicitly prohibited, don't fly there.

I think if you follow the rules and guidelines around safe and responsible flying you should not have any issues. Please note however, that I am not licensed or qualified to provide legal advice

 

[valueseek]

That's good news. Sounds like i was irritated over nothing, just a misunderstanding.
I hope that definition doesn't come true, almost want to delete it now so anyone reading doesn't start thinking its a good idea.

Regardless, i'm happy i get to fly my S550 after all. I registered under part 107 first because i thought "why not get the certification" but ill just register as a hobbyist and toss the other registration straight in the trash. Happy flying