A mountain, a regulation, and maybe unfounded "rules"

[MKurr]

The OP is recreational, not Part 107, and so falls under Section 349:

The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of​

the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located​

and in direct communication with the operator.​

So no - that would not be compliant with the law.

I see that now...

 

[MKurr]

As an answer to all those who said that controlling from the parking lot is a also a violation of their rule (a rule mind you, that's all it is):

The rule expressly says "drones" not controllers, not people controlling, etc. I am just talking legally mind you, not that the security guys would agree. (FYI one of the parking lot workers even himself warned me of flying there and told me to go back towards the road to a smaller parking lot and fly from there so that the security people wouldn't get in my way)

As an answer to those who are still thinking about people getting "freaked out":

This keeps coming up in this discussion, I really don't know why.

I'll elaborate a little on this one so please stay with me:
First of all, drones do not scare people as much as many say they do! (Yes, I know some of you will be groaning now and thinking of all the times drones are negatively portrayed, also of the many "drone horror" stories we often hear, pilots getting reported, police officers unfarmiliar with drone laws arresting law abiding droners, misuse of drones, and the cases--yes, there are some-- where people do actually get "freaked out" from just seeing a Mavic in the air.)

Now I can say this, I have flown in many places already by now, from the beaches in Maine to the beaches in Florida to the mountains in NY, WV, SC, and many places in between, (does it make it any more convincing? Maybe...) I have come into contact with many people while flying. Often enough I am flying and someone walks up, asks questions, watches me fly, etc. Sometimes people just watch, sometimes they shout over questions, (No, I don't mean: WHY ARE YOU FLYING AROUND AND ABOVE ME!) no, constructive/interested questions. One that keeps getting asked is: "How high/far does it go?" Then first I tell them that the mavic can go 1,600 feet, then that the FAA only allows 400, etc. Sometimes people look up at it, point at it, take pictures of it, wave to it, (like they did here in a video I made a while ago: The video), sometimes during these mid-flight meetings I tell people about my channel, in one case I was filming a ship that a couple had been on and I told them they would see it in my Coastal Maine video, then a while later (I was still working on the video) they posted a short question about it in my channel discussion (in case you're interested: The page). In other words, I have had very many positive interactions with people. Then of course there were other cases, I'm flying, someone walks up, asks questions, watches, and then kinda drives the conversation towards drones and their impact on privacy, I talk about FAA regulations, sometimes mention recent drone stories, what you can and can't do to keep drones away, etc. There were people who kinda looked skeptically at the "bird" and weren't that positive about its buzzing around. Maybe, (if I recall correctly) once, or maybe twice, I actually heard a non-positive comment, (wow, imagine that, right?) for many that's commonplace, for me it's not, beyond that, I don't think I have ever seen anyone actually freak out because of my drone.

To make my point clear, skiers are not naturally nervous, so there is no reason for them to "freak out", there will obviously be the few that do take offense, and the security agents, but honestly, I don't mind: You can't please all the people all the time... On the contrary, I imagine that many people would be positively interested (those who notice at all, that is) just as the other people I have met while flying. As I said, skiers are not any more nervous or anti-drone than anyone else, so I think that my assumptions are well grounded.

As has been stated before during this conversation, many skiers would welcome being filmed and later seeing themselves in my videos.

Also, I do feel under a certain time pressure: First, the season is ending very soon, and secondly, the FAA is about to roll out regulations that might make me leave the community.

 

[MKurr]

I personally think that the law is the law. People need to see and experience drones flying within the law. And they need to clearly understand they don’t own the airspace. So if you can fly an area VLOS that’s fine! You don’t need to explain yourself to anyone. But if you take off out of a private area then move into it whilst controlling a drone, you could still be deemed to be ‘operating’ the drone from their land. For me in West Australia, the Main Roads ruling is one I would utilise: you can fly from a main road road reserve, then fly over private or shire land above treetop height even if that person or shire doesn’t approve (whilst upholding other regulations). I do believe that as drone users, whilst we need to avoid annoying people just for the sake of it, avoiding annoying those people who “just don’t like drones” is kowtowing to over-zealous regulation and feeds the idea that people own airspace when they don’t. A “no drones allowed” statement (not related to air safety rules or truly for animal protection), is like a red rag to a bull for me: challenge accepted!

Does Australia have VLOS regulations?

 

[paul242]

Surely it would be no different with regard to National Parks? You wouldn't be allowed to take off from outside the park, fly your drone into the park area, and then physically go into the park and continue to control your drone from there.

 

[sar104]

Surely it would be no different with regard to National Parks? You wouldn't be allowed to take off from outside the park, fly your drone into the park area, and then physically go into the park and continue to control your drone from there.

That's because NPS explicitly prohibits all sUAS operations. In this case there is just the vague statement that no drones are allowed.

 

[bushie]

Does Australia have VLOS regulations?

YES

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Two thoughts from the above comments. Walking onto the property after you launch to maintain VLOS still puts you ON their property. So they can have you removed. And flying in the area of a ski resort and BVLOS will not allow you to see hazards such as wires strung across the the runs, risking a crash with possible damage and or injury. Then may not get you for flying over the area, but they can get you for being wreckless and endangerment which has happened.

 

[skiptv]

Wrong wrong wrong. 1. only the Feds can keep you out of airspace..... But local governments have a work around, they keep you out by preventing take off, landing and operating from their lands. That means you can not sit in your car and fly, you can not take off at a site across the street from the park, then walk over and fly your drone from the park, while you are standing in the park. Operating your drone. geezzzzzz

 

[MKurr]

Two thoughts from the above comments. Walking onto the property after you launch to maintain VLOS still puts you ON their property. So they can have you removed. And flying in the area of a ski resort and BVLOS will not allow you to see hazards such as wires strung across the the runs, risking a crash with possible damage and or injury. Then may not get you for flying over the area, but they can get you for being wreckless and endangerment which has happened.

You have probably flown a drone, I also imagine you have flown near wires, furthermore I imagine that you didn't try to fly up next to the wire while standing 300 feet away... Why would I? (and yes, I would see the wires, and the gondola cables..)

 

[MKurr]

Wrong wrong wrong. 1. only the Feds can keep you out of airspace..... But local governments have a work around, they keep you out by preventing take off, landing and operating from their lands. That means you can not sit in your car and fly, you can not take off at a site across the street from the park, then walk over and fly your drone from the park, while you are standing in the park. Operating your drone. geezzzzzz

I agree that the comment above yours is wrong, but wouldn't you agree that the rule expressly said "drones" not "drone operations"? A park where is says: "No flying drones" isn't a park that says "no drones" or is it?

 

[FlyingGary]

Per Section 107.31, the person operating the drone is required to maintain visual line of sight (VLOS) with the drone throughout the entire flight. That means you should be able to see your drone with vision that is unaided by any device other than glasses or contacts.

The FAA also allows a visual observer (VO) to maintain VLOS. The VO must be near the operator and be able to communicate verbally without the assistance of an electronic device.

Thanks to Rupprecht Law:
Advisory Circular 107-2 on Section 107.33 Visual observer.
VO. The use of a VO is optional. The remote PIC may choose to use a VO to supplement situational awareness and VLOS. Although the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must maintain the capability to see the UA, using one or more VOs allows the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls to conduct other mission-critical duties (such as checking displays) while still ensuring situational awareness of the UA. The VO must be able to effectively communicate:

• The small UA location, attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
• The position of other aircraft or hazards in the airspace; and
• The determination that the UA does not endanger the life or property of another.

To ensure that the VO can carry out his or her duties, the remote PIC must ensure that the VO is positioned in a location where he or she is able to see the small UA sufficiently to maintain VLOS. The remote PIC can do this by specifying the location of the VO. The FAA also requires that the remote PIC and VO coordinate to 1) scan the airspace where the small UA is operating for any potential collision hazard, and 2) maintain awareness of the position of the small UA through direct visual observation. This would be accomplished by the VO maintaining visual contact with the small UA and the surrounding airspace, and then communicating to the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls the flight status of the small UA and any hazards which may enter the area of operation, so that the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls can take appropriate action.

To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of
communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance.

 

[MKurr]

Thanks to Rupprecht Law:
Advisory Circular 107-2 on Section 107.33 Visual observer.
VO. The use of a VO is optional. The remote PIC may choose to use a VO to supplement situational awareness and VLOS. Although the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must maintain the capability to see the UA, using one or more VOs allows the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls to conduct other mission-critical duties (such as checking displays) while still ensuring situational awareness of the UA. The VO must be able to effectively communicate:

• The small UA location, attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
• The position of other aircraft or hazards in the airspace; and
• The determination that the UA does not endanger the life or property of another.

To ensure that the VO can carry out his or her duties, the remote PIC must ensure that the VO is positioned in a location where he or she is able to see the small UA sufficiently to maintain VLOS. The remote PIC can do this by specifying the location of the VO. The FAA also requires that the remote PIC and VO coordinate to 1) scan the airspace where the small UA is operating for any potential collision hazard, and 2) maintain awareness of the position of the small UA through direct visual observation. This would be accomplished by the VO maintaining visual contact with the small UA and the surrounding airspace, and then communicating to the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls the flight status of the small UA and any hazards which may enter the area of operation, so that the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls can take appropriate action.

To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of
communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance.

Hmmm, so does this override the other law? Or is this only for part 107 licensed pilots?

 

[Davros007]

Does Australia have VLOS regulations?

Yep. Pretty standard. Not 100% sure of if a spotter has to be close to pilot, or if could be coms link...

 

[Thomas B]

Yep. Pretty standard. Not 100% sure of if a spotter has to be close to pilot, or if could be coms link...

I understand it is direct unaided communication.

 

[Davros007]

I understand it is direct unaided communication.

Yeah, likely!

 

[Meta4]

The rule expressly says "drones" not controllers, not people controlling, etc. I am just talking legally mind you, not that the security guys would agree. (FYI one of the parking lot workers even himself warned me of flying there and told me to go back towards the road to a smaller parking lot and fly from there so that the security people wouldn't get in my way)

As an answer to those who are still thinking about people getting "freaked out":
This keeps coming up in this discussion, I really don't know why.

They have made it pretty clear that they don't want drones buzzing around the ski area.
Who can blame them?
Allowing any joe to buzz their skiers isn't great for safety.
All that home lawyer loophole stuff won't make any difference if they catch you flying there.
If you really want to fly there, approach management and ask for special permission.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Thanks to Rupprecht Law:
Advisory Circular 107-2 on Section 107.33 Visual observer.
VO. The use of a VO is optional. The remote PIC may choose to use a VO to supplement situational awareness and VLOS. Although the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must maintain the capability to see the UA, using one or more VOs allows the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls to conduct other mission-critical duties (such as checking displays) while still ensuring situational awareness of the UA. The VO must be able to effectively communicate:

• The small UA location, attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
• The position of other aircraft or hazards in the airspace; and
• The determination that the UA does not endanger the life or property of another.

To ensure that the VO can carry out his or her duties, the remote PIC must ensure that the VO is positioned in a location where he or she is able to see the small UA sufficiently to maintain VLOS. The remote PIC can do this by specifying the location of the VO. The FAA also requires that the remote PIC and VO coordinate to 1) scan the airspace where the small UA is operating for any potential collision hazard, and 2) maintain awareness of the position of the small UA through direct visual observation. This would be accomplished by the VO maintaining visual contact with the small UA and the surrounding airspace, and then communicating to the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls the flight status of the small UA and any hazards which may enter the area of operation, so that the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls can take appropriate action.

To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance.

This Advisory Circular clarifies that the VO does not have to be co-located with the PIC.

 

[sar104]

This Advisory Circular clarifies that the VO does not have to be co-located with the PIC.

It could certainly be argued to imply that, and it is still a current circular even though it slightly pre-dates the formal implementation of Part 107. That said, the FAA have stated in several more recent guidance documents and interviews that the VO must be co-located. The new recreational exemption also explicitly requires a VO to be co-located. It might be time to get further clarification.

 

[GadgetGuy]

It could certainly be argued to imply that, and it is still a current circular even though it slightly pre-dates the formal implementation of Part 107. That said, the FAA have stated is several more recent guidance documents and interviews that the VO must be co-located. The new recreational exemption also explicitly requires a VO to be co-located. It might be time to get further clarification.

That's what I thought, which was why I was so surprised to see it contradicted by this apparently now outdated circular. Thanks for updating and clarifying.