Visual Observer and Goggles

[GregS]

I love watching those videos of droners using goggles. I have 2 older drones that I can use with my White Goggles, but hard to find someone to act as my Observer. So the Goggles look really good just sitting in the box.
One thing that puzzles me is that most of the time when I watch those videos, they are alone without an Observer.
They post their videos and I would think the FAA would be monitoring the site looking for infractions; like no Observer.
Has anyone been contacted by the FAA concerning this?

 

[mavic3usa]

The FAA cannot accurately determine if a visual observer is being used by watching a YT video. Therefore it is a complete waste of time. Remember, there's a such thing as magic and even if a person is standing right next to you, they can be erased from the video. Therefore it can be argued every video you see can practically have a VO in place for all intents and purposes.

 

[msinger]

And then for those people who aren't magically removing the VO from the footage, perhaps they:

• Aren't aware of the rules
• Choose not to follow the rules

Whatever the case, the FAA would have to put in an enormous amount of effort to police everyone flying a drone. Since that's an impossible feat, they are most likely only acting when someone reports an incident.

 

[GregS]

My guess would be most are aware and just don't care. I know a guy that flies with goggles and he is in that 'just don't care' category.

 

[mavic3usa]

I honestly don't believe anyone is altering the footage to conceal a crime, I'm just explaining why a YT video isn't exactly "evidence" or proof of anything that can be used (except maybe administratively). It's exactly why the police don't ticket everyone they see speeding in a YT video (unless it is egregious). The burden is on them to establish when it happened, where it happened, etc. and you just can't do that reliably from a YT video. Unless you get a confession...sorry but you threw me off when you mentioned "infraction." I think it would be well within the spirit of the FAA to educate and remind the drone and FPV communities as a whole about VO rules rather than targeting "offenders" on YT, TikTok, FB, and other social media platforms. I agree with you, I don't have the facts but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of FPV flyers are without VO.

 

[msinger]

I honestly don't believe anyone is altering the footage to conceal a crime

It sounds like your example above was referencing something someone might do to make video footage look better. But, someone could also add a VO to footage in post which would then be an attempt to conceal a crime.

Whatever the case, you're right that one couldn't determine what really happened by only viewing the final video. And that's likely why the FAA hasn't hired a staff of thousands to watch everything posted on YouTube (and beyond).

 

[RadioFlyerMan]

It sounds like your example above was referencing something someone might do to make video footage look better. But, someone could also add a VO to footage in post which would then be an attempt to conceal a crime.

Whatever the case, you're right that one couldn't determine what really happened by only viewing the final video. And that's likely why the FAA hasn't hired a staff of thousands to watch everything posted on YouTube (and beyond).

Reminds me of trying to enforce the Volstead Act.

 

[Droning on and on...]

And then for those people who aren't magically removing the VO from the footage, perhaps they:

• Aren't aware of the rules
• Choose not to follow the rules

Whatever the case, the FAA would have to put in an enormous amount of effort to police everyone flying a drone. Since that's an impossible feat, they are most likely only acting when someone reports an incident.

...and the resources necessary to investigate an FPV video for VO compliance would be significant, with a very, very low success rate. Enormous waste of resources and really bad priority.

Instead, just hit the "Warning Letter" key on the FAA custom keyboards and, done.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I honestly don't believe anyone is altering the footage to conceal a crime, I'm just explaining why a YT video isn't exactly "evidence" or proof of anything that can be used (except maybe administratively).

^^This.

A VO isn't required to be standing right next to you. It's hard to dispute a claim that they were 30 feet away, and never appeared in-frame. On purpose.

 

[rawman001]

I love watching those videos of droners using goggles. I have 2 older drones that I can use with my White Goggles, but hard to find someone to act as my Observer. So the Goggles look really good just sitting in the box.
One thing that puzzles me is that most of the time when I watch those videos, they are alone without an Observer.
They post their videos and I would think the FAA would be monitoring the site looking for infractions; like no Observer.
Has anyone been contacted by the FAA concerning this?

I have the same problem as you. I'd love to fly my Avata more but without a VO it sits most of the time. Sometimes I fly it with the goggles up on my forehead (but not over my eyes,) just so I can get some practice using the motion 2 controller.

 

[Squire330]

Unless a drone pilot does something egregiously stupid, the understaffed FAA is much too busy checking door plugs in Boeing aircraft to worry about small stuff like FPV without an observer.

 

[Vic Moss]

If you're a 107, get a waiver.

BVLOS Waiver Documentation - Drone Service Providers Alliance

As we promised, we are making the contents of our BVLOS waiver application public. Remember to tailor your waiver application to the needs of your operation. We strongly suggest that you watch our discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azwHvsqd2rM Documentation...

dspalliance.org

 

[GregS]

Unless a drone pilot does something egregiously stupid, the understaffed FAA is much too busy checking door plugs in Boeing aircraft to worry about small stuff like FPV without an observer.

That's true, but a LOT of people have been heavily fined for doing stupid things like that. Like the guy flying down the strip in Las Vegas that was fined $18,000.
Don't think I want to chance it.

 

[Droning on and on...]

That's true, but a LOT of people have been heavily fined for doing stupid things like that. Like the guy flying down the strip in Las Vegas that was fined $18,000.
Don't think I want to chance it.

I really don't mean sarcasm here... Did you not understand the point of "egregiously stupid"?

Surely that's not your plan. So not understanding your concern.

While I'm not asserting it would be lawful, buzzing around FPV where there's no risk to people and property is about as enforcement worthy as people driving 68 in a 65 zone.

You ever do that?

FWIW, the vast majority of FPV flight occurs without a VO. I doubt anyone ever "caught" with their only violation being not having a VO got anything more severe than a warning letter from the FAA.

That is, if it's ever happened, which I think very unlikely.

Society is about responsible behavior and results. A top performer doesn't get even noticed for taking long lunches. His coworker on probation for chronically being late gets fired for returning 5 minutes late from lunch.

Fly responsibly, don't generate "results" that piss people off, and you'll be fine, even if you technically break a rule here and there, going 68 in a 65 zone.

 

[Squire330]

That's true, but a LOT of people have been heavily fined for doing stupid things like that. Like the guy flying down the strip in Las Vegas that was fined $18,000.
Don't think I want to chance it.

Agree 100% - I won’t chance flying down the Strip in Las Vegas, or over the Super Bowl either. The operative word is stupid.

 

[rawman001]

Agree 100% - I won’t chance flying down the Strip in Las Vegas, or over the Super Bowl either. The operative word is stupid.

Great now I need to change my plans for the Superbowl. (Kidding of course, but I do plan to go to Vegas to watch the flyover.)