All this criticism directed at those who fly outside of the FAA regs

[sar104]

no worries! People get a lot of good information from our "discussions!" (mostly from you!)
In the 336 PDF I have it says;

"Although the FAA believes the statutory definition of a model aircraft is clear,
the FAA provides the following explanation of the meanings of “visual line of sight” and
“hobby or recreational purpose,” terms used in the definition of model aircraft, because
the FAA has received a number of questions in this area.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).1 Based on the plain
language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight."

so maybe I mean "THEY INTERPRET" the term VLOS differently between 336 and 107. Or is it a different "INTENT"?

VLOS means the same thing in terms of what "visual line of sight" means, but VLOS, in terms of its meaning as a requirement, is different. Does that sum it up?

 

[sar104]

The only problem is that there's new laws on the books since October. If I recall discussions on it, VLOS had to be maintained by the PIC.

Regarding if 107 is required or not. There first has to be a definition of what's commercial. That's what one of you presented. Then, how the definition of commercial comes into play with the flight.
Intent does matter. Can it be proven? Not from occasional compensation after a flight. But a pattern of providing photography for the benefit of a business supposedly generated by a hobby flight could put the flight's intent to question.

The new act doesn't change Part 107 in any significant way. The VLOS requirement is unchanged. And for recreational flight, a VO is still not an option.

If you replace the term "commercial" with "non-recreational" then I agree on the "intent" issue.

 

[ac0j]

VLOS means the same thing in terms of what "visual line of sight" means, but VLOS, in terms of its meaning as a requirement, is different. Does that sum it up?

Sort of, BUT as it is stated in the document I copied, the FAA official definition of VLOS assigns it to the PIC specifically . The Professional 107 version just says somebody needs to be able to see it, and that person needs no training or permit. Kind of dumb. Not arguing what they mean, I'm disgusted with the stupidity of it. Why put that stupid paragraph you copied in the 107 rules at all?
Kind of idiotic to say everyone MUST have VLOS then follow with as long as someone there has VLOS.

 

[sar104]

Sort of, BUT as it is stated in the document I copied, the FAA official definition of VLOS assigns it to the PIC specifically . The Professional 107 version just says somebody needs to be able to see it, and that person needs no training or permit. Kind of dumb. Not arguing what they mean, I'm disgusted with the stupidity of it. Why put that stupid paragraph you copied in the 107 rules at all?
Kind of idiotic to say everyone MUST have VLOS then follow with as long as someone there has VLOS.

You are over-thinking it. It says:

The FAA provides the following explanation of the meanings of “visual line of sight” ​

But then states:

By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).1 Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight."​

In other words it is defining the VLOS requirement as applied to Part 101, not just the general meaning of the term VLOS.

 

[ac0j]

You are over-thinking it. It says:

The FAA provides the following explanation of the meanings of “visual line of sight” ​

But then states:

By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).1 Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight."​

In other words it is defining the VLOS requirement as applied to Part 101, not just the general meaning of the term VLOS.

I understand that, and I also understand that they RE-DEFINED the VLOS requirement in part 107.

DIFFERENT DEFINTIONS! you keep saying it, then saying it isnt so!

ETA; The only REAL difference is what the PIC has as his "Intent" when he lifts off, because not even an act of god can change that after he is airborne. LOL! That still makes me actually LOL!

 

[sar104]

I understand that, and I also understand that they RE-DEFINED the VLOS requirement in part 107.

DIFFERENT DEFINTIONS! you keep saying it, then saying it isnt so!

ETA; The only REAL difference is what the PIC has as his "Intent" when he lifts off, because not even an act of god can change that after he is airborne. LOL! That still makes me actually LOL!

I don't understand why you insist on trying to make this so complicated. "Visual line of sight" means that the aircraft is visible without vision aids. Parts 101 and 107 have different requirements for how you maintain VLOS - 107 adds the option of a visual observer. That's what the two parts state, and it really is that simple.

As to the "intent" question, same thing. It's not that you could not change your mind about the intent of your flight, mid-flight - it's that the law does not allow you to change the intent and status of your flight.

 

[ac0j]

I don't understand why you insist on trying to make this so complicated. "Visual line of sight" means that the aircraft is visible without vision aids. Parts 101 and 107 have different requirements for how you maintain VLOS - 107 adds the option of a visual observer. That's what the two parts state, and it really is that simple.

As to the "intent" question, same thing. It's not that you could not change your mind about the intent of your flight, mid-flight - it's that the law does not allow you to change the intent and status of your flight.

I think figured out what the problem is. I have been talking about the VLOS REQUIREMENT this whole time. Because that is what the discussion is about. Not the words V.L.O.S. stands for.
I forgot if the word "requirement" isnt typed every single time, some people cant follow the discussion.

 

[sar104]

I think figured out what the problem is. I have been talking about the VLOS REQUIREMENT this whole time. Because that is what the discussion is about. Not the words V.L.O.S. stands for.
I forgot if the word "requirement" isnt typed every single time, some people cant follow the discussion.

Which discussion?¡

 

[ac0j]

We actually had it licked around post 101-102ish

ETA:
Maybe as far as part 107 is concerned, they need to change it to VLOSS The far safer, Visual Line Of Someones Sight
OR, VLOAS, Anyones sight.....