FAA Part 107 ~ VLOS and Visual Observer Discussion

[sar104]

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?

Yes, but based on #23 you appear to have substantially misunderstood the AC. Intentionally flight out of range of VLOS is not allowed without a waiver. I've used a 107.31 waiver numerous times, so I'm very familiar with the requirement.

“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.”

Okay - I'm pretty sure that you are just being argumentative now, so I'll exit this discussion.

 

[dirkclod]

Guys I’m sorry but thiis was all started with this How To Handle a "No Drones Allowed" Claim
And I asked Allen to verify if i was wrong or right. Sorry it get all
out of portion .
This is about Part 107,not hobbyist. Sorry

 

[brett8883]

Guys I’m sorry but thiis was all stated with this How To Handle a "No Drones Allowed" Claim
And I asked Allen to verify if i was wrong or right. Sorry it get all
out of portion .
This is about Part 107.

He’s totally right that under Part 107 it would not be allowed.

I was trying to point out there is some ambiguity because what the FAA says about it in the Advisory Circular is completely different. The AC which is suppose to be the FAAs guidance to pilots on how they interpret rules and seems to leave an opening for this to be ok. I never said it was ok I just brought up the question. I didn’t mean to upset anybody. I just though we were having a discussion.

At the end of the day it would be much safer to say this isn’t allowed.

 

[dirkclod]

I just wanted to know if I was right in my post I linked or not ?

 

[brett8883]

Yes, but based on #23 you appear to have substantially misunderstood the AC

At that point he hadn’t said he was unable to see the aircraft yet. I was under the impression he could and was using a VO to get a closer look at it.

 

[brett8883]

I just wanted to know if I was right in my post I linked or not ?

Yes you were right.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm going to start this post (and we should really start EVERY post) with this phrase:

Caveat Lector​

Here is how I look at it (YMMV) when I post here, when I answer UAS phone calls about regulations, and how I interpret the rules when I'm called to have some face-to-face UAS Operator interactions..... Take it for what you paid to be a member of this forum:

• A) I try to ALWAYS error on the side of caution because it usually "stings" less in the long run.
• B) If you follow my advice you may not get that desired shot because the regulations don't "seem" to allow it from my perspective.
• C) Like with most Govt Agencies, there is just enough wiggle room from the FAA to allow you to completely hang yourself and you won't even know it.
• D) My advice, while it's a bit on the stricter side, will keep you OUT of court and on the less expensive side of the jury.

If someone is going to even slightly suggest that the laws/regs have some grey area I hope they have the morals and bank account to help you should you blindly follow their advice and end up with an "Interaction" in your lap. It's one thing to be a keyboard warrior (and I'm guilty of this as much as anyone else) and suggest what other people should do when it comes to "skirting along the edge of regulations" but when someone follows your advice and it's wrong, who is going to step up and help defend that assumption in the Court of Law with them?

We have such a large pool of intelligence and knowledge here and it's a GREAT RESOURCE but let's remember that some people will read our "discussions/debates" here and take it as an absolute FACT and do things that may get them into hot water. If you're going to suggest actions on here at least give it some thought as to how others may interpret your words and take them as absolute and base their ACTIONS off of your words.

 

[BigAl07]

.....

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

For those of us who operate in multiple states would now have to try and be fluent in each state's individual UAS regulations. I currently operate in (6) different states.... imagine having this same level of confusion X6.

 

[Repaid1]

I'm going to start this post (and we should really start EVERY post) with this phrase:

Caveat Lector​

Here is how I look at it (YMMV) when I post here, when I answer UAS phone calls about regulations, and how I interpret the rules when I'm called to have some face-to-face UAS Operator interactions..... Take it for what you paid to be a member of this forum:

• A) I try to ALWAYS error on the side of caution because it usually "stings" less in the long run.
• B) If you follow my advice you may not get that desired shot because the regulations don't "seem" to allow it from my perspective.
• C) Like with most Govt Agencies, there is just enough wiggle room from the FAA to allow you to completely hang yourself and you won't even know it.
• D) My advice, while it's a bit on the stricter side, will keep you OUT of court and on the less expensive side of the jury.

If someone is going to even slightly suggest that the laws/regs have some grey area I hope they have the morals and bank account to help you should you blindly follow their advice and end up with an "Interaction" in your lap. It's one thing to be a keyboard warrior (and I'm guilty of this as much as anyone else) and suggest what other people should do when it comes to "skirting along the edge of regulations" but when someone follows your advice and it's wrong, who is going to step up and help defend that assumption in the Court of Law with them?

We have such a large pool of intelligence and knowledge here and it's a GREAT RESOURCE but let's remember that some people will read our "discussions/debates" here and take it as an absolute FACT and do things that may get them into hot water. If you're going to suggest actions on here at least give it some thought as to how others may interpret your words and take them as absolute and base their ACTIONS off of your words.

Well said....In other forums where I contribute, my post count is reflective of how and where I post to help some of the newer folks getting into the hobby and years of shared knowledge of not only myself but combining with those who may or may not be DJI employees. People in the past know that I have a bit of reputation of helping and if I say it, then it's taken as fact, unless new data reflects otherwise for the most part. Let's not get things twisted though, I am wrong on occasions, misspeak, have brain farts....basically I am human.

But far too many posts on threads show the way that people take something that was "Said" and run with it. They take things as fact, they interject things that have nothing to do with issues or problems. Quite honestly, while most with good intent to help give just plain bad or wrong advice. I think there should be some sort of classification allowed within these threads to those that show or are voted to show solid advice and help through the years or posts and then labeled into a certain category marking on their banner. I am thinking along the lines of, but not limited to those fine folks on these threads that do "Fly Away" analysis of logs (They blow my mind with what they can do on that side of things.) That way people will learn with a glance that....Ohhhh...he/she is a 5 star rating of help on flight logs so what they say should be considered as "Golden" Just my two cents and always IMHO...BTW Mods....like my new "Clothes"

Your "Take it for what you paid to be a member of this forum" made me do it Plus I got a email last week about it too. Been here far too long not to contribute monetarily to this great site.....and I wanted that sticker for my case.

 

[tlswift58]

So I guess all this "rules" out Amazon, Post Office, FedEx, UPS, and other delivery services from delivering packages from some warehouse who knows where to your home! <sic>

Oh wait - per typical government actions - these large corps will get Special Privileges! again <sic>

 

[BigAl07]

So I guess all this "rules" out Amazon, Post Office, FedEx, UPS, and other delivery services from delivering packages from some warehouse who knows where to your home! <sic>

Oh wait - per typical government actions - these large corps will get Special Privileges! again <sic>

No they will get WAIVERS etc just like any Part 107 operation can apply for. That's the beauty of Part 107 is most of the Limitations can be Waivered.

 

[brett8883]

Ok everybody @sar104 and I have been talking about this offline and he noticed that the AC I was quoting was canceled last month and has been updated. It no longer includes the allowance for intentionally losing VLOS for operational purposes and no longer contradicts 107.31. I still have questions about why this allowance shows up in the final rule but not part 107 and why the FAA would change it in the AC after 5 years but I digress. It isn’t applicable at the current moment

Link to latest AC https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_107-2A.pdf

 

[baddog]

We have a LOT of confusion about what a VO can do and can't do in terms of Part 107 (as currently written 3/29/2021). This is likely to change in the future as technology changes.

• The VO does NOT extend VLOS of the RPIC. The RPIC must "Be Able" to put eyes on the aircraft during every aspect of the flight......100% of the flight.
• The VO can assume VLOS duties to allow the RPIC to look away from the aircraft to do other things that could enhance safety etc (look at other equipment, telemetry etc). This is a TEMPORARY allowance and as already stated the RPIC but BE ABLE to look up and see the aircraft at any moment.

At one time there was a statement that the communications between RPIC and VO could not be electronic but that is no longer the case. It CAN be electronic but since the Primary VO (I'll call this Primary VO since often times an operation has multiple VO's) can not extend the RPIC VLOS it's not really needed. For additional VO's etc it is a good idea.

Where it gets confusing is when you try to take ONE part of the Regulation and NOT read the entire thing because it ALL applies and it must be read in order and understood.

Below is ~107.31 unedited and then I'll break it down to hopefully remove some of the confusion:

*********************** Start of 107.31 ******************************

§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.

*********************** End of 107.31 ******************************

So here are the key components I want to give emphasis to:

....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

What's important is the AND aspect of the rule. This solidifies my statement that the RPIC must be able to SEE the aircraft the entire flight so a VO can not extend VLOS beyond what the RPIC can see.

Below is the portion that causes a lot of confusion but we can break it down fairly easily. Keep in mind that part (b) does not "live" by itself. Part (a) must be satisfied wholly.

(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.




The only thing part (b) does is ALLOW the RPIC to temporarily look away from the aircraft to do other things needed (look at display units, telemetry etc). This merely allows a brief period of time the RPIC is not ACTIVELY looking at the aircraft but the entire time the RPIC must be ABLE to look up and see the aircraft or you are no longer compliant to ~107.31

Some operations can have multiple VO's (we use more than one when operating at night in high stress environments) but the Primary VO is the one who can assume temporary VLOS operations only. A remote VO would violate Part (a) of 107.31.

So then, how does this rule work if the pilot at the controls is using DJI/FPV goggles.

 

[baddog]

We have a LOT of confusion about what a VO can do and can't do in terms of Part 107 (as currently written 3/29/2021). This is likely to change in the future as technology changes.

• The VO does NOT extend VLOS of the RPIC. The RPIC must "Be Able" to put eyes on the aircraft during every aspect of the flight......100% of the flight.
• The VO can assume VLOS duties to allow the RPIC to look away from the aircraft to do other things that could enhance safety etc (look at other equipment, telemetry etc). This is a TEMPORARY allowance and as already stated the RPIC but BE ABLE to look up and see the aircraft at any moment.

At one time there was a statement that the communications between RPIC and VO could not be electronic but that is no longer the case. It CAN be electronic but since the Primary VO (I'll call this Primary VO since often times an operation has multiple VO's) can not extend the RPIC VLOS it's not really needed. For additional VO's etc it is a good idea.

Where it gets confusing is when you try to take ONE part of the Regulation and NOT read the entire thing because it ALL applies and it must be read in order and understood.

Below is ~107.31 unedited and then I'll break it down to hopefully remove some of the confusion:

*********************** Start of 107.31 ******************************

§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.

*********************** End of 107.31 ******************************

So here are the key components I want to give emphasis to:

....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

What's important is the AND aspect of the rule. This solidifies my statement that the RPIC must be able to SEE the aircraft the entire flight so a VO can not extend VLOS beyond what the RPIC can see.

Below is the portion that causes a lot of confusion but we can break it down fairly easily. Keep in mind that part (b) does not "live" by itself. Part (a) must be satisfied wholly.

(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.




The only thing part (b) does is ALLOW the RPIC to temporarily look away from the aircraft to do other things needed (look at display units, telemetry etc). This merely allows a brief period of time the RPIC is not ACTIVELY looking at the aircraft but the entire time the RPIC must be ABLE to look up and see the aircraft or you are no longer compliant to ~107.31

Some operations can have multiple VO's (we use more than one when operating at night in high stress environments) but the Primary VO is the one who can assume temporary VLOS operations only. A remote VO would violate Part (a) of 107.31.

§ 107.33 Visual observer.
If a visual observer is used during the aircraft operation, all of the following requirements must be met:

(a) The remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system, and the visual observer must maintain effective communication with each other at all times.

(b) The remote pilot in command must ensure that the visual observer is able to see the unmanned aircraft in the manner specified in § 107.31.

(c) The remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system, and the visual observer must coordinate to do the following:

(1) Scan the airspace where the small unmanned aircraft is operating for any potential collision hazard; and

(2) Maintain awareness of the position of the small unmanned aircraft through direct visual observation.

 

[sar104]

So then, how does this rule work if the pilot at the controls is using DJI/FPV goggles.

107.31 (a) requires that the pilot must be able to see the aircraft throughout the flight - i.e. cannot fly it either beyond VLOS or out of line of sight due to obstacles. But if a VO is used (satisfying 107.31 (b) and 107.33), then there is no requirement for the pilot actually to be watching the aircraft. Provided that the pilot can, at any time as necessary, remove the goggles and see the aircraft, then 107.31 (a) is also satisfied, and the flight is compliant.

Under the recreational exception the wording is simpler, clearly permitting FPV with a VO:

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.​

 

[bigdaddie]

Agreed on all points with one minor caveat. The FAA has frequently made the point in seminars and other media about the RPIC being allowed to "temporarily" or "briefly" look away from the aircraft, but the law itself says nothing about the option to look away being temporary or brief. 107.31 requires that the RPIC must be able to see the aircraft at all times during the flight, but doesn't actually require the RPIC to watch it at all provided that the RPIC could see it at any time if necessary and provided that a VO is watching it whenever the RPIC isn't. That could be for the entire flight.

I look away all the time to review FAR107

 

[Heavydpj]

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

That's regulations from one central regulatory body. Can you imagine how difficult it would be with fifty-plus different sets of rules?

 

[BigAl07]

That's regulations from one central regulatory body. Can you imagine how difficult it would be with fifty-plus different sets of rules?

Exactly! We just think it's a mine field trying to get through the regulations now.

 

[brett8883]

That's regulations from one central regulatory body. Can you imagine how difficult it would be with fifty-plus different sets of rules?

States don’t have armies of people to make up stuff that don’t make any sense.

I am sure the rules would be much simpler even if there are differences from state to state but I don’t know that they would be better for us or not.

It would be the nuclear option certainly but I feel like the FAA is so disconnected from the realities of being a remote pilot that there is a breaking point coming.

 

[BigAl07]

States don’t have armies of people to make up stuff that don’t make any sense.

I am sure the rules would be much simpler even if there are differences from state to state but I don’t know that they would be better for us or not.

It would be the nuclear option certainly but I feel like the FAA is so disconnected from the realities of being a remote pilot that there is a breaking point coming.

LOL! That's not accurate at all at least not for NC. You'd be shocked at the laws they have pushed down.

Regardless if you take it to the state level there will be a myriad of inconsistencies and variations on even the most "logical" of rules. It would be a FIASCO.