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

[sar104]

There is NOTHING that is "clear" about anything on this matter. "Intent" or motive for a flight before it left the ground would be almost impossible to prove or disprove without actual witnesses and sufficient evidence. Anyone that thinks they have any kind of a grip on the meaning of these requirements is delusional. They are as vague as it gets.
Lots of legal sounding words strung about in several paragraphs of text does not make anything clear or enforceable. This is why we arent seeing lots of people being prosecuted for not having part 107. Until it is cleaned up and not so full of loopholes, I wouldnt worry about it. (if you want to sell products from any of your flights)

There are certainly some areas of ambiguity but this is not one of them - at least until the FAA changes the rules and the memo I referred to is superseded. The question of establishing intent is a very murky area, but that was not the subject of the discussion.

 

[JDawg]

As EVERYONE knows drones are frequently dropping from high altitudes due to equipment failure and operator error. There are many accidents involving direct hits to humans and animals.
Drones should be operated on a manner that respects all living things.
Unfortunately MANY drone operators are not respectful of others. This is a shame and the reason we need laws to restrict the irresponsible individuals.

I'll bite. Could you point me to just 10 such accidents.

 

[ac0j]

Well if you're a recreational flyer, then yes...but if you're holding a 107 cert things are different because you are considered a "PROFESSIONAL" and had to take a knowledge test , rules , chart reading, weather, weight and balance, etc. to obtain that cert. so claiming ignorance of the rules just won't fly...be safe, fly smart

I guess my point is what the real relevance of charts, weather, weight and balance when it come to drones? I know you can make up an answer, but REALLY?
I read in another thread that a 107 doesnt have to have VLOS of a drone if he has a VO. is that a fact? It must be, because it was posted by a "professional" and as you know, they are better and smarter than recreational drone pilots!

 

[mcsenerd]

I guess my point is what the real relevance of charts, weather, weight and balance when it come to drones? I know you can make up an answer, but REALLY?
I read in another thread that a 107 doesnt have to have VLOS of a drone if he has a VO. is that a fact? It must be, because it was posted by a "professional" and as you know, they are better and smarter than recreational drone pilots!

Having a visual observer does not absolve the PIC of needing VLOS. It is only to "aid" in the avoidance of difficult to see situations and assist in making maneuvers where the aircraft may be only temporarily out of sight such as passing behind a tower, etc.

 

[ac0j]

Having a visual observer does not absolve the PIC of needing VLOS. It is only to "aid" in the avoidance of difficult to see situations and assist in making maneuvers where the aircraft may be only temporarily out of sight such as passing behind a tower, etc.

It was a conversation on Goggle use, I questioned legality, and a wise 107 holder said,
"Using the FPV while acting as Part 107 pilot REQUIRES a VO per FAA!

@sar104 has assured me in a few threads, that people that have passed the part 107 know more rules than me, and are too smart to not know the rules........
Another part 107 holder told me that his First Nightime Hyperlapse was done legally because he had a part 107.........Now who do I believe If I cant trust the part 107 holders like the great and powerful Sar told me I could????

 

[sar104]

I guess my point is what the real relevance of charts, weather, weight and balance when it come to drones? I know you can make up an answer, but REALLY?
I read in another thread that a 107 doesnt have to have VLOS of a drone if he has a VO. is that a fact? It must be, because it was posted by a "professional" and as you know, they are better and smarter than recreational drone pilots!

You could just read the relevant law:

§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.

(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;​

​

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;​

​

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and​

​

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.​

​

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or​

​

(2) A visual observer.​

 

[ac0j]

You could just read the relevant law:

§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.

(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;​

​

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;​

​

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and​

​

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.​

​

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or​

​

(2) A visual observer.​

Hmmmm. I read this;

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. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model.2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby.........

I guess it depends on what FAA document you read what the definition of VLOS is., or "commercial" for that matter.........

ETA; The VO would probably have to be a qualified part 107 if they are involved in the commercial flight right? That would make sense, otherwise it doesnt really. because who else would know the rules of what, where , and how to look around?

 

[mcsenerd]

What I was really getting at, was that having a VO cannot be used to otherwise extend distance or absolve the PIC of the need to maintain VLOS rules in general. But at the end of the day, it's your license and should there be an issue someone else's opinion of what you did or didn't do is what will decide if you maintain that license.

 

[sar104]

Hmmmm. I read this;

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. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model.2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby.........

I guess it depends on what FAA document you read what the definition of VLOS is., or "commercial" for that matter.........

You asked about Part 107. I quoted Part 107. You changed the subject by quoting the FAA interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336/Part 101).

VLOS is defined consistently by the FAA:

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). 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. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area.​

​

Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless. Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.​

From: FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft​

The term "commerical" does not appear in Part 107 or Part 101.

 

[ac0j]

You could just read the relevant law:

§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.

(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:.... edit

​

​

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or​

​

(2) A visual observer.​

You dont want to read that too close, Adds to the already poorly constructed rules.
ALL three MUST be VLOS for the entire flight, UNLESS 2 dont? LOL!

 

[sar104]

You dont want to read that too close, Adds to the already poorly constructed rules.
ALL three MUST be VLOS for the entire flight, UNLESS 2 dont? LOL!

I agree that's clumsy wording in (a), but it's clarified in (b). The inclusive interpretation is obviously wrong since there is no requirement for a visual observer to be able to see the aircraft if the pilot in command is watching it.

 

[ac0j]

You asked about Part 107. I quoted Part 107. You changed the subject by quoting the FAA interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336/Part 101).

VLOS is defined consistently by the FAA:

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). With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to2) 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. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area.​

​

Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless. Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.​

From: FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft​

The term "commerical" does not appear in Part 107 or Part 101.

I see that, You know I dont read 107 stuff. I dont have any "intent"!
VLOS "as interpreted by the FAA" means different things in different documents it seems.
The 336 document , as you point out, CLEARLY says PIC only. NO VO, NO goggles.
But the 107 (quite poorly written) they interpret it a couple different "clear" ways.

 

[sar104]

I see that, You know I dont read 107 stuff. I dont have any "intent"!
VLOS "as interpreted by the FAA" means different things in different documents it seems.
The 336 document , as you point out, CLEARLY says PIC only. NO VO, NO goggles.
But the 107 (quite poorly written) they interpret it a couple different "clear" ways.

I'm not seeing any difference - in both cases they state that VLOS means an unaided (apart from corrective lenses) view of the aircraft. The only difference is that under Part 107 you can employ a VO.

 

[ac0j]

The only difference is that under Part 107 you can employ a VO.

That is one of the worst written parts of an FAA document i have seen to date.
A section defining VLOS then a subsection smudging out all the ink.

It translates in english to;

If three people are involved in the flight, they all MUST maintain VLOS throughout the entire duration of the flight. Or, the visual observer alone must maintain VLOS , Or the other two must maintain VLOS and the VO doesnt need to. OK, as long as SOMEONE claims VLOS your oK.

COMPLETELY different than the 336 description of VLOS.
You call that clearly stated, I call that A joke.

 

[sar104]

That is one of the worst written parts of an FAA document i have seen to date.
A section defining VLOS then a subsection smudging out all the ink.

It translates in english to;

If three people are involved in the flight, they all MUST maintain VLOS throughout the entire duration of the flight. Or, the visual observer alone must maintain VLOS , Or the other two must maintain VLOS and the VO doesnt need to. OK, as long as SOMEONE claims VLOS your oK.

COMPLETELY different than the 336 description of VLOS.
You call that clearly stated, I call that A joke.

It's supposed to be different to the 336 definition. As has been pointed out repeatedly but you consistently refuse to accept, the Part 107 regulations are not the same as the Part 101 regulations.

You can claim to be as confused by the Part 107 wording as you wish but the law is clear - under 107.31 (b) (2) a visual observer is an option.

 

[Gringorio]

I'm studying for the 107 and it's kind of fun learning about airspace use etc.. However, I feel there should be an ATTI mode flight test included that shows you actually know how to fly under adverse conditions. Perhaps manual takeoff and landing, flying a figure 8, dealing with obstacles, app disconnect... Memorizing FAA rules to fly commercially doesn't mean you actually know how to fly a drone.

 

[ac0j]

I'm not seeing any difference - in both cases they state that VLOS means an unaided (apart from corrective lenses) view of the aircraft. The only difference is that under Part 107 you can employ a VO.

It's supposed to be different to the 336 definition. As has been pointed out repeatedly but you consistently refuse to accept, the Part 107 regulations are not the same as the Part 101 regulations.
You claim to be as confused by the Part 107 wording as you wish but the law is clear - under 107.31 (b) (2) a visual observer is an option.

Maybe it is YOU that is confusing me?

 

[sar104]

Maybe it is YOU that is confusing me?

Sorry - my point there was that there is no difference in the definition of VLOS between the two classes of operation. There is a difference in the requirements for how you maintain VLOS - i.e. under Part 107 you can use a VO.

 

[ac0j]

Sorry - my point there was that there is no difference in the definition of VLOS between the two classes of operation. There is a difference in the requirements for how you maintain VLOS - i.e. under Part 107 you can use a VO.

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"?

 

[DanMan32]

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.