FAA Part 107 ~ VLOS and Visual Observer Discussion

[Heavydpj]

Ok I got this ..But.. can your VO be on the other end of the trip
and talk to you by radio or phone and still be legal.
Sorry I’m slow ?
As a hobbyist or part 107.

My (newly updated) understanding for the 107 aspect is that as long as 107.31 is satisfied, the method of communication is not relevant, as long as the communication itself is "effective."

For example, say you were using your drone to do an inspection at a loud construction site and you had a VO to help maintain situational awareness. The noise may make voice communications difficult, so you default to a radio and noise-cancelling headset.

Same theory that would be at play if the fire department were using a drone to monitor an attack on a fire.

IMHO, anyway.

 

[dirkclod]

My (newly updated) understanding for the 107 aspect is that as long as 107.31 is satisfied, the method of communication is not relevant, as long as the communication itself is "effective."

For example, say you were using your drone to do an inspection at a loud construction site and you had a VO to help maintain situational awareness. The noise may make voice communications difficult, so you default to a radio and noise-cancelling headset.

Same theory that would be at play if the fire department were using a drone to monitor an attack on a fire.

IMHO, anyway

I got all that but in my scenario I was outside a State park and took off and was going to fly say a mile away over it to take a Picture
and my VO was at that location and he could see it telling me I was good was I good with him telling me so by radio or whatever.

 

[brett8883]

I got all that but in my scenario I was outside a State park and took off and was going to fly say a mile away over it to take a Picture
and my VO was at that location and he could see it telling me I was good was I good with him telling me so by radio or whatever.

Yea there’s a good example of how to use a VO.

 

[sar104]

I got all that but in my scenario I was outside a State park and took off and was going to fly say a mile away over it to take a Picture
and my VO was at that location and he could see it telling me I was good was I good with him telling me so by radio or whatever.

Under Part 107 because that would probably not satisfy 107.31 (a), unless you can see your aircraft a mile away in which case you didn't need the VO in the first place.

§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...​

The VO doesn't have to be co-located, but you both must be able to see the aircraft at all times.

For recreational flight, on the other hand, the VO explicitly must be co-located:

§44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft​

​

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:​

​

(3) 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.​

 

[brett8883]

Here’s what kills me.

Here’s what the FAA’s website links to when you try to find the part 107 rules. It still has the final rules not what was codified.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/part_107_summary.pdf

This is the main place to find the part 107 rules on the FAA’s website. Certificated Remote Pilots including Commercial Operators
It links to the same document.

This is truly asinine. I can’t even find the “codified” rules on the FAAs website at all.

How are we expected to follow the rules when the FAA can’t even keep them straight?

Here’s an 88 page study guide for the 107 test from the FAA on the FAA website. It doesn’t have any part 107 rules in it... I’d love to know if anyone in the course of flying a UAV has even needed to understand the relationship of temperature and drew point.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf

In this study guide is a link to the Advisory Circular on part 107. It has the codified rules but says,

”VLOS Aircraft Operation. The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small UA at all times during flight. Therefore, the small UA must be operated closely enough to the CS to ensure visibility requirements are met during
small UA operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used during the aircraft operation. However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity. For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with asmall UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in part 107, §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances of what would prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one. If VLOS cannot be regained, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for a loss of VLOS. These procedures are determined by the capabilities of the sUAS and may include immediately landing the UA, entering hover mode, or returning to home sequence. Thus, the VLOS requirement would not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UA CS.”

So @sar104 how am I suppose to take this in regards to what we talked about above? It has the codified rule but goes on to say what I said earlier about losing VLOS. Does that mean it’s back on?

I’m sorry but how am I suppose to know what is actually the rules when the FAA has all this on their website? I even think it has this on the test. I distinctly remember this was a question.

 

[sar104]

Ok I get it but why would they change it in 107 to be different from the final rule. This is why people are confused about this because in the final rule it says

“Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the visual observer.”

So in the final rule a VO could be the only one within VLOS. But they ninja changed it in part 107? What is the point of final rules if they aren’t final? Like for the final rule on flying over people and Remote ID can we expect that after we have jumped through all these hoops that it will ninja changed when they codify it? This is why people hate government. And the FAA wonders why people can’t get the rules right.

Maybe it would be better if the States did their own thing on with drones. It’s a full time job just trying to make sense of the FAA

I can't speak to the motivation or reasons for the differences between the interim rule and the final version of Part 107.

 

[dirkclod]

Yea there’s a good example of how to use a VO.

But is it legal to use electronic communication between the pic and the vo at that distant distance between the 2. Say knowing the pic
and the vo are at that distance where they can’t mouth-to-mouth.
Im sorry just trying to get something straight before I had to eat crow
Added..more post have been added ?

 

[dirkclod]

I can't speak to the motivation or reasons for the differences between the interim rule and the final version of Part 107.

Here’s why i ask. Had a member take off outside of a no fly park. He had a vo at the spot he wanted to photograph. The PIC couldn’t seee it but the VO could. Was that legal or not. If not I told a member wrong.

 

[sar104]

Here’s what kills me.

Here’s what the FAA’s website links to when you try to find the part 107 rules. It still has the final rules not what was codified.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/part_107_summary.pdf

This is the main place to find the part 107 rules on the FAA’s website. Certificated Remote Pilots including Commercial Operators
It links to the same document.

This is truly asinine. I can’t even find the “codified” rules on the FAAs website at all.

How are we expected to follow the rules when the FAA can’t even keep them straight?

Here’s an 88 page study guide for the 107 test from the FAA on the FAA website. It doesn’t have any part 107 rules in it... I’d love to know if anyone in the course of flying a UAV has even needed to understand the relationship of temperature and drew point.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf

In this study guide is a link to the Advisory Circular on part 107. It has the codified rules but says,

”VLOS Aircraft Operation. The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small UA at all times during flight. Therefore, the small UA must be operated closely enough to the CS to ensure visibility requirements are met during
small UA operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used during the aircraft operation. However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity. For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with asmall UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in part 107, §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances of what would prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one. If VLOS cannot be regained, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for a loss of VLOS. These procedures are determined by the capabilities of the sUAS and may include immediately landing the UA, entering hover mode, or returning to home sequence. Thus, the VLOS requirement would not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UA CS.”

So @sar104 how am I suppose to take this in regards to what we talked about above? It has the codified rule but goes on to say what I said earlier about losing VLOS. Does that mean it’s back on?

I’m sorry but how am I suppose to know what is actually the rules when the FAA has all this on their website? I even think it has this on the test. I distinctly remember this was a question.

The wording in the AC is slightly more relaxed than Part 107, in that it says that the person maintaining VLOS may briefly lose sight of it, whereas 107.31 requires VLOS to be exercised throughout the entire flight. With no VO the strict Part 107 requirement is obviously rarely practical, as the RPIC will sometimes need to glance at the controller or tablet. This indicates that the FAA recognizes that and will apply a test of reasonableness.

 

[sar104]

Here’s why i ask. Had a member take off outside of a no fly park. He had a vo at the spot he wanted to photograph. The PIC couldn’t seee it but the VO could. Was that legal or not. If not I told a member wrong.

Not legal under Part 107 or the recreational exemption.

 

[brett8883]

Not legal under Part 107 or the recreational exemption.

Right but only because the PIC has to always be able to see it “technically.” Though the AC does say the PIC can intentionally maneuver the UA briefly beyond VLOS for for operational necessity

“For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with asmall UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in part 107, §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances of what would prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one.”

 

[dirkclod]

Not legal under Part 107 or the recreational exemption.

I’m staying in MS and out of this ?
Thanks guys ?

 

[brett8883]

I’m staying in MS and out of this ?
Thanks guys ?

Nobody really knows. It’s a murder mystery.

 

[dirkclod]

Nobody really knows. It’s a murder mystery.

Yeah it’s killing me ?

 

[brett8883]

The wording in the AC is slightly more relaxed than Part 107, in that it says that the person maintaining VLOS may briefly lose sight of it, whereas 107.31 requires VLOS to be exercised throughout the entire flight. With no VO the strict Part 107 requirement is obviously rarely practical, as the RPIC will sometimes need to glance at the controller or tablet. This indicates that the FAA recognizes that and will apply a test of reasonableness.

I like how the FAA recognizes their rules are impractical , says you can deviate from the rules but doesn’t actually change the impossible to follow rule lol.

So if I follow the AC do you think I’m good?

 

[sar104]

Right but only because the PIC has to always be able to see it “technically.” Though the AC does say the PIC can intentionally maneuver the UA briefly beyond VLOS for for operational necessity

“For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with asmall UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in part 107, §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances of what would prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one.”

I don't see how deliberately flying a mile away could ever be interpreted as "briefly beyond VLOS". That would clearly be intentional BVLOS. And the examples given make it quite obvious that the relief applies to losing sight briefly behind obstructions, not losing sight by virtue of flying off into the distance.

This discussion is vastly overcomplicating a very simple subject. While the AC indicates some flexibility and relief for brief obstruction of VLOS, both 107.31 and 44809 (a) (3) are unambiguous that BVLOS is not permitted.

 

[dirkclod]

I like how the FAA recognizes their rules are impractical , says you can deviate from the rules but doesn’t actually change the impossible to follow rule lol.

So if I follow the AC do you think I’m good?

?‍

 

[dirkclod]

Look here. Friend of mine. I can see him from my truck.
Im out at least 4000 feet. Though I’m only 40’ high I can see him and everthing else but to be honest I can’t see the drone. Me be bad ?

 

[brett8883]

I don't see how deliberately flying a mile away could ever be interpreted as "briefly beyond VLOS". That would clearly be intentional BVLOS. And the examples given make it quite obvious that the relief applies to losing sight briefly behind obstructions, not losing sight by virtue of flying off into the distance.

This discussion is vastly overcomplicating a very simple subject. While the AC indicates some flexibility and relief for brief obstruction of VLOS, both 107.31 and 44809 (a) (3) are unambiguous that BVLOS is not permitted.

“The circumstances of what would prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA.”

 

[brett8883]

“For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one.”