DJI Goggles Finally here, but illegal!

[Achilles]

Goggles are not illegal. No aspect of them is. It is up to the pilot to stay within the law.
Nothing to see here, keep moving.

 

[Phrede]

Is it me or are these googles totally illegal? Unless you have another visual observer with you, you can NOT legally fly without visual line of sight. Don't get me wrong I would love to try them. And for those of us with Inspires where the camera can be controlled by a second person this would be a fantastic tool for the camera op.

That said and back to my point, the FAA very clearly states that goggles and other FPV screens or devices do NOT count as VLS.

Please chime in here if I am in error.

rb

It's my understanding that spotters can only be used legally with part 107 pilots. Spotters are not legal for recreational use pilots and they must maintain a visual line of site at all times.

So if you pass the test and pay the fee and have a spotter then, and only then, are DJI goggles legal to use.

Further.... DJI crippled the head tracking functionality of goggles that do allow a pilot to maintain a LOS (Glyphs and BT 300s) with a firmware upgrade at virtually the same time the released their own product.

So if you, like myself, tried to do it legally, safely and correctly by purchasing one of these competing goggles DJI has screwed you by stealing back original functionality that you paid for.

I hope the FAA / FTC gives DJI a ton of grief over this.

 

[Dadcat]

.... But pigs will be flying before that ever happens....

But in fact they do!!

FAA even says so:

FAA Says Pigs Can Fly

More evidence:

Woman Takes 70-Pound Pot-Bellied Pig On Plane For Support: 'He's Quieter Than Most Kids'

Of course the pigs appear to be within VLOS (except for restroom breaks).

 

[HFMan]

It's my understanding that spotters can only be used legally with part 107 pilots. Spotters are not legal for recreational use pilots and they must maintain a visual line of site at all times.

So if you pass the test and pay the fee and have a spotter then, and only then, are DJI goggles legal to use.

Not true. FAA guidelines for recreational fliers speak to flying under a community based set of guidelines. The AMA guidelines specifically allows FPV goggles as long as the aircraft is kept within VLOS and a spotter is present alongside the pilot.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

 

[TheLightSpeed!]

It's my understanding that spotters can only be used legally with part 107 pilots. Spotters are not legal for recreational use pilots and they must maintain a visual line of site at all times.

So if you pass the test and pay the fee and have a spotter then, and only then, are DJI goggles legal to use.

Further.... DJI crippled the head tracking functionality of goggles that do allow a pilot to maintain a LOS (Glyphs and BT 300s) with a firmware upgrade at virtually the same time the released their own product.

So if you, like myself, tried to do it legally, safely and correctly by purchasing one of these competing goggles DJI has screwed you by stealing back original functionality that you paid for.

I hope the FAA / FTC gives DJI a ton of grief over this.

Oh they designed these for competing brands and then took it away for the goggles they promised everyone to begin with? Maybe those competing goggles only worked because the goggles were delayed?

Besides Glyphs and the BT's are over priced

 

[pilotattitude]

AMA members may continue flying FPV | AMA Government Relations Blog

 

[Phrede]

Oh they designed these for competing brands and then took it away for the goggles they promised everyone to begin with? Maybe those competing goggles only worked because the goggles were delayed?

Besides Glyphs and the BT's are over priced

Glyphs are the same price as the DJI. Bottom line, my Mavic has LESS functionality now than when I purchased it.

 

[Mavic22704]

There is a lot of unclear rules about these drones. Like I said I wear far shark goggles a little loose so I can see line of sight at the top of the goggles if I need to. Who can say weather I can see it or not?

 

[Phrede]

Not true. FAA guidelines for recreational fliers speak to flying under a community based set of guidelines. The AMA guidelines specifically allows FPV goggles as long as the aircraft is kept within VLOS and a spotter is present alongside the pilot.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

That is a huge point of debate. The FAA, or any government agency, do not create rules then grant an open exception. Per the FAA VLOS is required for recreational pilots.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

The AMA themselves recognize that by challenging the FAA rule in court may not be entirely comfortable to members and recommend those members get their part 107 certification.

"With the court proceedings held in abeyance, enforcement actions based upon the provisions in the Interpretative Rule are also on hold. So, until the FAA completes its review of the public comments, publishes its conclusions and makes any further clarification/revision to the Interpretive Rule, the status quo remains in effect for AMA members. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the FAA from taking enforcement action against careless and reckless acts that truly endanger the national airspace."

The terms careless and reckless are and have always been subjective.

"AMA staff September 1, 2016 at 08:27

Please rest assured that we have been in ongoing conversations with the FAA about FPV flying and other areas of concern related to the Interpretive Rule. In the meantime, we encourage all AMA members to continue flying and enjoying our hobby as you have before, following AMA’s safety guidelines and educational programming. If you do not feel comfortable taking our advice, you can fly FPV under part 107 after receiving your 107 certificate"

IMHO, there is nothing in writing anywhere that states the FAA is not to enforce the rule as written while in litigation. Maybe the rule will be reversed, but until that time it is the rule and is enforceable regardless of membership in any group.

Everyone should keep in mind the likelihood of actual enforcement of this rule and by whom. Your risk is your decision. When it comes to large corporations promoting illegal activity, well.... that's a different can of worms.

 

[MrMavic]

Let's get real here guys. We have a drone that can fly 4 miles away in one direction. I find it hard to see the drone even at 200 yards away, let alone where it is in relation to buildings, trees or whatever. If you're flying towards a building with the drone and building directly in front of you, you can't tell how far away you are from it unless you're really close and can use your eyes directly. In my opinion, these goggles would improve safety and lessen your chances of crashing, not to mention you would have more fun flying. I say they're a win win.

 

[MavPro75]

Let's get real here guys. We have a drone that can fly 4 miles away in one direction. I find it hard to see the drone even at 200 yards away, let alone where it is in relation to buildings, trees or whatever. If you're flying towards a building with the drone and building directly in front of you, you can't tell how far away you are from it unless you're really close and can use your eyes directly. In my opinion, these goggles would improve safety and lessen your chances of crashing, not to mention you would have more fun flying. I say they're a win win.

If you are the pilot manipulating the controls with googles on and cannot maintain VLOS, you are flying illegally. From the FAA's perspective, it is not about YOUR safety from crashing. It is about the safety of others. See and avoid! With googles on, you cannot see traffic behind or to the side

 

[SRJ_Mavic_PRO]

Sure hope the FAA gets their collective heads out of their butts and rewrites the rules to apply to drones and not enforce antiquated rules written for RC planes...... If anyone says they can see their drone LOS for the entire time they fly I got a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge to sell ya along with some beach from t proper in Arizona.....

 

[Phrede]

People are convicted of ridiculous laws every day. Sometimes laws have little to do with common sense, but they still remain the law.

 

[Phrede]

If you are the pilot manipulating the controls with googles on and cannot maintain VLOS, you are flying illegally. From the FAA's perspective, it is not about YOUR safety from crashing. It is about the safety of others. See and avoid! With googles on, you cannot see traffic behind or to the side

Just a couple of points for clarity....

Part 107 pilots are allowed to use spotters to maintain VLOS. The issue has to do with recreational use.

Not all goggles prevent VLOS like the DJI goggles do.

 

[Strafe1]

Per the FAA VLOS is required for recreational pilots.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

VLOS is required for recreational pilots like you stated. The above quoted PDF is not the correct legal source though as that is for Part 107 fliers. Reference this from the FAA instead:

 

[TheLightSpeed!]

Glyphs are the same price as the DJI. Bottom line, my Mavic has LESS functionality now than when I purchased it.

Well they were never designed for glyphs. So whatever functionality you had was limited anyway. Glyph's are $499 and DJI is $449.

The DJI goggles have had great reviews from almost everyone. Look stupid, yes! But better than anything else on the market? YES

 

[HFMan]

That is a huge point of debate. The FAA, or any government agency, do not create rules then grant an open exception. Per the FAA VLOS is required for recreational pilots.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

You cited Part 107 summary... that has nothing to do with recreational flyers. I stand by my statement...

 

[Phrede]

You cited Part 107 summary... that has nothing to do with recreational flyers. I stand by my statement...

The definition of recreational aircraft itself requires VLOS

II. Requirements to Qualify as a Model Aircraft under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95, section 336).

A. Statutory Requirements

On February 14, 2012, the President signed into law the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) (the Act), which established, in Section 336, a “special rule for model aircraft.” In Section 336, Congress confirmed the FAA’s long-standing position that model aircraft are aircraft. Under the terms of the Act, a model aircraft is defined as “an unmanned aircraft” that is “(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c). Congress’ intention to define model aircraft as aircraft is further established by section 331(8) of the Act, which defines an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.” Congress’ 6 definition of model aircraft is consistent with the FAA’s existing definition of aircraft as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” 49 U.S.C. 40102; see also 14 C.F.R. 1.1. Although model aircraft may take many forms, at a base level model aircraft are clearly “invented, used, or designed” to fly in the air. Id. Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the following statutory requirements are met: • the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower … with prior notice of the operation….

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

The clearly shows that if you do not have VLOS and it is an aircraft than it is not recreational. Other areas of the regs stipulate that VLOS do not need to be maintained 100% of the time but must be restored as soon as reasonably possible. The spirit of this is to allow for checking of instruments and reasonable brief loss behind small objects.

Those who argue "How am I supposed to be able to see it 2 miles away?" miss the point. You're not. If you can't see it, for any reason, it is no longer a recreational aircraft, period. Just because it can fly that far away doesn't mean you should. I have a car that can do 150+ MPH, that doesn't mean I'm allowed to do it on public roads.

 

[Strafe1]

The definition of recreational aircraft itself requires VLOS

II. Requirements to Qualify as a Model Aircraft under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95, section 336).

A. Statutory Requirements

On February 14, 2012, the President signed into law the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) (the Act), which established, in Section 336, a “special rule for model aircraft.” In Section 336, Congress confirmed the FAA’s long-standing position that model aircraft are aircraft. Under the terms of the Act, a model aircraft is defined as “an unmanned aircraft” that is “(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c). Congress’ intention to define model aircraft as aircraft is further established by section 331(8) of the Act, which defines an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.” Congress’ 6 definition of model aircraft is consistent with the FAA’s existing definition of aircraft as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” 49 U.S.C. 40102; see also 14 C.F.R. 1.1. Although model aircraft may take many forms, at a base level model aircraft are clearly “invented, used, or designed” to fly in the air. Id. Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the following statutory requirements are met: • the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower … with prior notice of the operation….

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

The clearly shows that if you do not have VLOS and it is an aircraft than it is not recreational. Other areas of the regs stipulate that VLOS do not need to be maintained 100% of the time but must be restored as soon as reasonably possible. The spirit of this is to allow for checking of instruments and reasonable brief loss behind small objects.

Those who argue "How am I supposed to be able to see it 2 miles away?" miss the point. You're not. If you can't see it, for any reason, it is no longer a recreational aircraft, period. Just because it can fly that far away doesn't mean you should. I have a car that can do 150+ MPH, that doesn't mean I'm allowed to do it on public roads.

You have stated the the correct legal document this time. Your interpretation may not be actual fact though, as you are making inferences from the law. Not wrong to do so, I just wouldn't state it as "fact, period". The FAA actually has a position paper interpreting the Public Law and it defines recreational flying differently. It's definition is based on the reason you fly (recreationally or commercially), and it suggests that enforcement of such regs ultimately depends on endangerment to the NAS. The definition in PL 112-95 sec. 336 can be interpreted strictly, or as the FAA has done. An argument can also be made that the intent of the definition was to be a guide, since VLOS is not a fixed value, but dependent on the pilots ability to see, and not the craft itself. The law was written to keep the FAA from regulating hobby craft and lumping them in with every other type of unmanned aircraft.
The PL also talks about a community-based set of guidelines, but many interpret this to be the AMA, though this is not 100% fact either. Point is, it really isn't 100% clear what the definition of a recreational sUAS is, when flown outside of VLOS. It might be a stretch to suddenly call it a commercial drone, since that is not stated in the PL or by the FAA.

 

[HFMan]

Exactly... it's all up to interpretation. Ask any lawyer- the statement "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft" does not rule that you cannot use goggles. The aircraft could still be within the VLOS of the person operating the aircraft, yet that person is using goggles. It's not explicit nor exact- it is done this way because of the language and intent of 336 (as bound by Congress) itself. This is why Part 107 is far more descriptive, legally binding, and subject to very little interpretation. Part 107 is not hampered by 336- the FAA is free to write the rules as it sees fit. 336 as part of the modernization act presents certain roadblocks.