You really don't need a lawyer for that question.
In what sense is it a gray area? Both Part 107 and the recreational exemption seem to be perfectly clear on the issue of VLOS.
Has the "drone always in sight rule" been thrown out? (Canada)
- Thread starter fjc
- Start date
Interpretation is everything in law right? If you interpret within to mean it can be seen any time you look away from your screen then the same could be said to apply to goggles right?
I think that's exactly right, but I don't think there's universal agreement on the issue!
And, as a logic game, I'll ask the question: How long do you get to be able to spot the drone when you look up? "Instantly" would be silly, and FAA rules are occasionally dumb, but rarely silly. So...2 seconds? 5 seconds? 20 seconds?
As a practical matter, people should just be reasonable about it. If you frequently look up and can't find your drone, you may want to tighten up your VLOS protocols.
IIRC the reg is vague or silent on this...and maybe that's the way it should be. A lot of rules are highly specific so that you can use them to ding flagrant violators, and not to harass the occasional marginal violator.
TCS
Right on. I feel the interpretation we have here is correct in the sense that I doubt anyone from the FAA would bother with trying to prosecute the occasional FPV pilot unless there was an accident of some sort.I think that's exactly right, but I don't think there's universal agreement on the issue!
And, as a logic game, I'll ask the question: How long do you get to be able to spot the drone when you look up? "Instantly" would be silly, and FAA rules are occasionally dumb, but rarely silly. So...2 seconds? 5 seconds? 20 seconds?
As a practical matter, people should just be reasonable about it. If you frequently look up and can't find your drone, you may want to tighten up your VLOS protocols.
IIRC the reg is vague or silent on this...and maybe that's the way it should be. A lot of rules are highly specific so that you can use them to ding flagrant violators, and not to harass the occasional marginal violator.
TCS
Mike
I think that's good advice, but I don't think the reg requires it.
It's sort of like flying on instruments in the clouds at night, which I used to do regularly. You can just blunder along and follow the needles, but I always kept a picture in my head of where I was, both vertically and horizontally. It's sort of an organic version on the "Synthetic Vision" that's commonly available for GPS on Part 61 aircraft, although obviously nowhere near that precise.
Full disclosure: I've never flown a drone with goggles, although I will eventually. And my intention is to use a Visual Observer when I do, at least initially.
Thx,
TCS
As a slight twist on the issue, new laws/regs will frequently get amended to clean up uncertainty. But much more often, the meaning of a law/reg gets clarified by case law.
Will the VLOS lregs get modified/clarified? Absolutely. An lreg that gets violated as often as VLOS is not sustainable, sort of like Prohibition around 100 years ago. Some people honestly believed banning alcohol was a good idea, but it was so widely violated, that it wasn't sustainable.
But long before that, the FAA will occasionally bust people for BVLOS operations, and some of the people who get busted, will appeal. The results of those cases will determine the effective meaning of the lreg.
And, Karnack Sees All! All of the early violations that the FAA issues will be so blatant, that no rational person will dispute that the perp Did Bad. And it will evolve from there.
TCS
No - you cannot just invoke "interpretation" when the law is clear.
Part 107 requires either the pilot or the VO to be watching (exercising the ability described in paragraph (a)) the aircraft at all times during the flight:
107.31 (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.
§44809 included the visual observer option specifically for FPV flights, and says:
(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.
It's going to take some remarkable mental gymnastics to suggest that a lone pilot flying exclusively with goggles satisfies either of those requirements.
Not much room for interpretation there ...
In Sweden that rule is more loosely written ... it more relates to a distance or a circumstance where you should be able to unaided see it, it's not expressed in a way that says you or a observer shall watch it at all times, when we watch we should be able to see it though ... meaning that we need to watch it enough often so we find it without delay when we watch.
So then looking away from the drone to watch your instruments(screen) for a few seconds is technically illegal? I will admit to using the screen to fly when the sun was in my eyes for example. Seemed to me to be safer than trying to keep the drone in sight for a few seconds in the bright sun.Not much room for interpretation there ...
In Sweden that rule is more loosely written ... it more relates to a distance or a circumstance where you should be able to unaided see it, it's not expressed in a way that says you or a observer shall watch it at all times, when we watch we should be able to see it though ... meaning that we need to watch it enough often so we find it without delay when we watch.
Mike
When it comes to the US rules it seems to be illegal to watch away ... even if it's just for a couple seconds. But not according to the Swedish (which is aligned with the European regulations).
tlswift58
Well-Known Member
Quite a bit of difference in goggles and a phone / tablet. Since you take off and fly part way goggles up - you fly a bit differently than some goggle based pilots fly. Your scenario fits better than taking off with goggles on and flying purely from them.
Those not using goggles have a cool feature called peripheral vison that someone with a fully closed set of goggles does not have. We can move around quite easily when using a screen and notice if people / animals walk up on us, which is not readily available to a goggle based pilot without the constant flip up /down or take off the goggles to do so.
You can create a million scenarios, but what does the rule explicitly say. That's the bottom line. Now whether you or anyone else abides by them - that's a different story.
Some excerpts from a simple Google search on flying a drone with goggles.
"The FPV remote pilot must also have the “ability” to directly see the aircraft. So if the FPV remote pilot is wearing FPV goggles outdoors near where the drone is flying and using a visual observer, the remote pilot could take off the goggles to directly see the aircraft. That's allowed under the FAA rules.
FPV goggles can be used with most drones – they're not exclusive to FPV models – but it's the use of these headsets to view a live feed of the drone's camera that makes the rules governing their use slightly different.
Do drone FPV goggles meet the Part 107 visual line-of-sight requirements?
The Part 107 regulations do not prohibit first-person viewing (FPV), but FPV doesn’t meet the requirements for maintaining visual line-of-sight (VLOS) of the aircraft.If flying FPV, you’ll need a separate visual observer to meet the VLOS requirement."
Are you asking how to find 14 CFR Part 107 and 49 U.S.C §44809?
If so:
U.S.C. Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION
www.govinfo.gov
I've only been a part of this forum for under a year. In that time, there have been dozens of threads where many people ask for "clarification" of VLOS rules. I honestly don't get it. Pretty much everyone here can be assumed to have a modicum of common sense in that they are able to get their drone in the air, take a picture, and land. Granted, not rocket science.
At least in the USA, VLOS rules are clear. Like all rules, they are what they are...not a starting point for speculation.
That is fact #1. Fact #2 is that the vast majority of pilots break the rule from time to time. Fact #2 doesn't change fact #1. It doesn't matter what "what-if" scenario you come up with. It doesn't even matter what you "feel" about the rule. Male or female. Tall or short. Warm or cold. Weekday or weekend. Day or night. Conservative or liberal. Young or old. The rule is still the rule. If you look away from your drone to your screen to frame a shot and you don't have a spotter...you broke the VLOS rule. Is the FAA going to come looking for you? NO. (But that still doesn't change fact #1).
So let's call it fact #3. If you make a reasonable attempt to fly safely, and have no "incident", no one from the FAA is going to want to talk to you. If you fly 100 ft above the surface of your own field for a mile...you broke the VLOS rule. Is it "illegal"? Yes. Is it unsafe? I would argue it isn't. Will the FAA want to talk to you? No. Now let's say you tried that in Central Park. Is it illegal? Yes. Is it unsafe? I would say yes. Will the FAA want to talk to you? Probably not if there was no "incident". Again, that doesn't change fact #1.
Anyhow. I may be naive but it seems so simple to me. I sometimes feel like there are alot of people who enjoy arguing about whether a Mavic is gray or grey. Light gray (grey), or medium gray (grey). Whatever you call it or feel about it - it is simply the color it is. Even if yours identifies as a subtle shade of blue.
Rant over.
Carry on.
At least in the USA, VLOS rules are clear. Like all rules, they are what they are...not a starting point for speculation.
That is fact #1. Fact #2 is that the vast majority of pilots break the rule from time to time. Fact #2 doesn't change fact #1. It doesn't matter what "what-if" scenario you come up with. It doesn't even matter what you "feel" about the rule. Male or female. Tall or short. Warm or cold. Weekday or weekend. Day or night. Conservative or liberal. Young or old. The rule is still the rule. If you look away from your drone to your screen to frame a shot and you don't have a spotter...you broke the VLOS rule. Is the FAA going to come looking for you? NO. (But that still doesn't change fact #1).
So let's call it fact #3. If you make a reasonable attempt to fly safely, and have no "incident", no one from the FAA is going to want to talk to you. If you fly 100 ft above the surface of your own field for a mile...you broke the VLOS rule. Is it "illegal"? Yes. Is it unsafe? I would argue it isn't. Will the FAA want to talk to you? No. Now let's say you tried that in Central Park. Is it illegal? Yes. Is it unsafe? I would say yes. Will the FAA want to talk to you? Probably not if there was no "incident". Again, that doesn't change fact #1.
Anyhow. I may be naive but it seems so simple to me. I sometimes feel like there are alot of people who enjoy arguing about whether a Mavic is gray or grey. Light gray (grey), or medium gray (grey). Whatever you call it or feel about it - it is simply the color it is. Even if yours identifies as a subtle shade of blue.
Rant over.
Carry on.
Not a lawyer and I don't even play one on television, but I'm sure that FPV drone operators are required to have an observer throughout the entire flight. Nothing grey about it.
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Here lies the bottom line.
If you can be shown to be say 1km from home point when something bad happened, a crash into a person, vehicle, heaven forbid a heli, then they could easily go a pilot for flying BVLOS, and probably would if it was really serious.
Even more so if altitude limits were breached too.
If there is no incident, then it's very unlikely anyone from the FAA or LEO (that might be enforced to check such things) is going to be there to check "hey, where's your drone in the sky, please point it out to me".
One could argue a video on YouTube flying obviously beyond VLOS could be used in itself . . . in fact I recall one NZ pilot here posted the CAA (New Zealand airspace authority) there was after him for a video online he posted (haven't heard from him recently since then really).
This one CAA requesting flight log details
So I guess airspace authorities can go after a pilot if they felt like it, this pilot above was probably reported by someone not happy with the BVLOS.
I totally agree all pilots probably do break the spirit of VLOS sometimes, even if trying to stick flying within the rule.
And very single pilot that flies and makes a video or takes a photo is constantly needing to compose and work the flight / gimbal etc to do those tasks.
It's my opinion now that if you can generally look up and spot your bird fairly quickly, you are ok, and this is where a small bright strobe fitted to be seen by the pilot can really come into its own.
It's strange how the Swedish rules (below directly from the educational material you get when taking the web test) slightly differ ... thought both the UK & Swedish was both based on the European regulations.
From the Swedish rules ...
To always fly within sight:
One term that you may encounter when flying drones is VLOS, an abbreviation of the English term “visual line of sight” - in Swedish “within sight”. VLOS means, in addition to always being able to see your drone when you fly, that you also should keep it at a safe distance from people, animals, buildings, vehicles and other aircraft's.
This implies rather a "within sight distance" & that you always should "be able" to see it... not that you always should look at it.
In the UK there is explicit provision in the rules for using "follow-me" type of automated piloting of the drone, in the A1 category of operation (current sub 250g drones, and future C1 class drones can operate in A1 category). Here's a snip from CAP722, pg 171, parag A1.2.3:
‘Follow-me’ mode may be used for flight, up to a maximum distance of 50m from the remote pilot.
It is silent on the requirement for VLOS, but by the fact that it imposes a 50m max distance and specifically details this as a recognised and accepted mode of operation it implies that VLOS does not need to be maintained in "follow-me" mode.
This is specifically the current UK rules. European rules are essentially identical for this point (ref UAS.OPEN.020 condition D).
I'm not so familiar with the fine detail of Canadian/US/other countries rules.
‘Follow-me’ mode may be used for flight, up to a maximum distance of 50m from the remote pilot.
It is silent on the requirement for VLOS, but by the fact that it imposes a 50m max distance and specifically details this as a recognised and accepted mode of operation it implies that VLOS does not need to be maintained in "follow-me" mode.
This is specifically the current UK rules. European rules are essentially identical for this point (ref UAS.OPEN.020 condition D).
I'm not so familiar with the fine detail of Canadian/US/other countries rules.
Similar threads
- Locked
