Why have a drone that goes 7 k.

[Matts175]

Has anyone ACTUALLY ever been ticketed for this (flying out of sight)? I have a feeling this is like the FBI warning at the beginning of the old VCR tapes. It said it on every video "FBI Warning.... Jail... Prison.... solitary confinement, if you copy this video".... but TONS of people copied them and I never heard of one person getting in trouble back then.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Has anyone ACTUALLY ever been ticketed for this (flying out of sight)? I have a feeling this is like the FBI warning at the beginning of the old VCR tapes. It said it on every video "FBI Warning.... Jail... Prison.... solitary confinement, if you copy this video".... but TONS of people copied them and I never heard of one person getting in trouble back then.

Well, it won't be a ticket. If you have a Pilot's Certificate, it will start with a Certificate Action; suspension/revocation, followed by fines, jail-time; depending not so much on what you did, (flew beyond VLOS), as much as what your illegal action caused, (planes to have to divert, collision, injuries/loss of life) . If you do not have a Pilot's Certificate, (recreational operator), expect harsh civil penalties, ($$$), and jail-time, (again based on the severity of the problems you caused).
The penalty stakes will raise also based on where you did the beyond VLOS, (or other illegal action). If you were in Restricted, Prohibited, Class B, C, D, or E airspace or violated a TFR, you will certainly draw the FAA's attention & wrath.

 

[sparky1111]

I just fly away from populated areas at a reasonable altitude for the shot I want. Achieving distance is usually just a test of your equipment when you first get it and generally doesn't serve a purpose for me anyway.
I think anyone paying this sort of money for a drone will be sensible to an extent. It's not exactly a cheap hobby.

 

[Crack The Sky]

I just fly away from populated areas at a reasonable altitude for the shot I want. Achieving distance is usually just a test of your equipment when you first get it and generally doesn't serve a purpose for me anyway.
I think anyone paying this sort of money for a drone will be sensible to an extent. It's not exactly a cheap hobby.

Oh, I'm with you. The vast majority keep it reasonable and sensible. Then there are those that love to push the limits in what ever they do, ( I was young once too), and then there is the criminal element. In sUAS and everything else in life. It's why we have to have Law Enforcement.

 

[Matts175]

Well, it won't be a ticket. If you have a Pilot's Certificate, it will start with a Certificate Action; suspension/revocation, followed by fines, jail-time; depending not so much on what you did, (flew beyond VLOS), as much as what your illegal action caused, (planes to have to divert, collision, injuries/loss of life) . If you do not have a Pilot's Certificate, (recreational operator), expect harsh civil penalties, ($$$), and jail-time, (again based on the severity of the problems you caused).
The penalty stakes will raise also based on where you did the beyond VLOS, (or other illegal action). If you were in Restricted, Prohibited, Class B, C, D, or E airspace or violated a TFR, you will certainly draw the FAA's attention & wrath.

See? You are proving my point about the FBI video scenario. I didn't ask what COULD happen. Again.... I asked.... has anyone here actually been fined for flying beyond VLOS?

 

[Crack The Sky]

See? You are proving my point about the FBI video scenario. I didn't ask what COULD happen. Again.... I asked.... has anyone here actually been fined for flying beyond VLOS?

Remain calm. I had a couple of hours of chores and thinking about it, I realized that I had totally drifted off topic and never even addressed your question. The answer is no. I have never read or heard of a fine, Certificate Action, or prosecution for flying BVLOS. My belief is that the BVLOS would probably have to result in an "incident", to start the ball rolling.

 

[N017RW]

Yup. Once the case is opened then charges could and are typically piled-on.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Yup. Once the case is opened then charges could and are typically piled-on.

Correct you are. A typical FAA fine for a violation, is $10,000. It is very typical for the FAA to cite & charge 7-8 violations pertaining to a single incident.

 

[N017RW]

'Charge stacking' is an expected practice to intimidate and thus entice a plea to lesser charges so the prosecutor acieves a favorable judgement without trial.

 

[Crack The Sky]

'Charge stacking' is an expected practice to intimidate and thus entice a plea to lesser charges so the prosecutor acieves a favorable judgement without trial.

Right again. It is now common practice at the county, state, and federal level. Pile the charges on and have the defendant accept the plea deal on a couple of lesser offenses.

 

[Lakelegobot]

Personally I think as long as you see the feed it counts as los because otherwise how would you be able to legally fly fpv?

 

[N017RW]

It's not LOS but VLOS.
The V stands for Visual not Video. Do as you wish but don't be misinformed.

You can do both FPV and VLOS. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SteveZeb]

Not sure if Line Of Sight means the same as In Sight. LOS may refer to no obstructions between you and the aircraft.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

Having a stronger signal to overcome local interference is fine. Using the stronger signal to fly beyond VLOS should be avoided at all cost. Rules are Rules. Safety is safety. And any mishap by any one of us who love to fly drones will bring down more restrictive regulations. If it can happen, it will unless strict measures to avoid accidents are taken. Be proactive to assure we will still have drone flying privileges.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Not sure if Line Of Sight means the same as In Sight. LOS may refer to no obstructions between you and the aircraft.

As N017RW just explained, the rule is VLOS not LOS. The drone must be in your unaided visual line of sight.

 

[SteveZeb]

You are correct. I reviewed the FAA rules after my post and it needs to be insight. But with the range of the P4 at 3 miles, you would need a spotter with powerful optics to keep it in sight.

 

[Crack The Sky]

You are correct. I reviewed the FAA rules after my post and it needs to be insight. But with the range of the P4 at 3 miles, you would need a spotter with powerful optics to keep it in sight.

Don't fly beyond your unaided visual line of sight. That's probably 800-900 feet maximum distance. "Unaided" does not preclude use of eyeglasses or contacts to correct your vision. The fact that the P4 can go 3 miles is irrelevant; our cars can go 120 mph, it's illegal to do that also.

 

[SteveZeb]

Agreed...I'll get my eyes checked Monday...

 

[Crack The Sky]

Agreed...I'll get my eyes checked Monday...

I have found, that even at that range, if I look to the controller for a moment, it can be very difficult if not impossible to reacquire the drone visually. It all depends on the lighting direction, and the background.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Rather than repeat the example of a car with a speedometer that goes to 120-140MPH when the speed limit is something far less, I'll use the more practical solution of flying in an area that has less-than-perfect signal conditions. The scenario that comes first to mind is flying along a waterfront of a major urban area where there is a LOT of interference. Having a stronger signal means that you are less likely to lose signal long enough to trigger a RTH.

I've also lost GPS lock in such conditions and had to fly ATTI for awhile until lock was reestablished.

So I now have a pair of parabolic antenna signal extenders. I don't use them to extend my flying distance, but rather use them in those areas of high signal interference to keep better control of my craft.

Speck