Has the "drone always in sight rule" been thrown out? (Canada)

[Lets Fly]

I break that rule every time I fly and look down at my controller.

Exactly, and so does everyone else if they are videoing or taking pictures (and I'm always videoing) . I've said that before, and it's hard enough to get time to fly yourself, let alone get two people to go, I've only used a spotter once while checking to see the farthest distance I could get with and without strobe lights.

 

[Lets Fly]

Has it been thrown out ... no, still applies in most countries worldwide.

Even though you have a gadget that hopefully can manage on it's own for awhile without you looking at it, Visual Line Of Sight still commonly applies.

If your logic would work we should be able to buy cars that can exceed the speed limits ... & by that it would be OK to disobey the speed limits.

We are able to buy cars that exceed the speed limit. In my area where the speed limit is 25mph, the sign says the first ticket you will get is at 31mph, that's 6mph over. Another Sheriff's department stated in the paper if you are under 10mph over the limit, you will not get a ticket. So there are rules and there is common sense logic. VLOS should be common sense logic. If we were to get in trouble every time we looked at what we are photographing, it would be like getting a ticket every time we were 1mph over the limit.

 

[slup]

We are able to buy cars that exceed the speed limit. In my area where the speed limit is 25mph, the sign says the first ticket you will get is at 31mph, that's 6mph over. Another Sheriff's department stated in the paper if you are under 10mph over the limit, you will not get a ticket. So there are rules and there is common sense logic. VLOS should be common sense logic. If we were to get in trouble every time we looked at what we are photographing, it would be like getting a ticket every time we were 1mph over the limit.

Read the thread title again...

Has the "drone always in sight rule" been thrown out?​

The simple answer to that is no... has nothing to do with common sense logic... especially not for the reasons the OP referring to.

Try to put in that title in relation to over speeding with a car ...

Has the speed limits been thrown out ... now when we can own cars that easily can go faster than the speed limits.

No common sense logic in that I imagine ... all the rest in this thread is only about perceived nuances of this rule.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

I'm wondering about the practicality of "flipping up the goggles" and regaining VLOS.
I am careful about maintaining VLOS. I only glance down at my mobile device screen when my drone is stationary. And yet on a couple of occasions when I have looked back up I have been unable to locate the drone, and have had to start an RTH to regain VLOS (this suggest I was pushing the limit of my VLOS, and I'm adjusting). I imagine that at any distance, locating the a drone after "flipping up" googles would be impractical.

Furthermore, I think the FAA is pretty clear on the subject:
"Keep your drone within sight. If you use First Person View or similar technology, you must have a visual observer always keep your drone within unaided sight (for example, no binoculars)."

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/small-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations-part-107

 

[Chaosrider]

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).

I don't believe that interpretation of the US rule is correct.

TCS

 

[slup]

I don't believe that interpretation of the US rule is correct.

TCS

Which one ... the US or the Swedish?

*Edit*

Ah, was too quick, you wrote US

Was just referring to what @sar104 quoted from the US ones in post#27 & linked too in post#33

 

[Tomk_]

I don't believe that interpretation of the US rule is correct.

TCS

 

[slup]

Agreed

Just a final thing from me in this discussion about grey, light grey or blueish grey ... and the main difference between the US paragraphs & the Swedish ... then I'm out.

This is directly from the US ecrf.gov site ...



So far in the above equal the Swedish ... "you should be able to", doesn't sound as "always be watching".

But here below comes the continuation to the above which aren't included in the Swedish paragraphs ...

So ... in order to 1, 2, 3, & 4 it really seems like you need to watch all the time.




Have a great continued discussion guys ... see ya in another thread

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

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

I think the analogy to flying in the clouds at night is good from a technology point of view. But from a regulations point of view, I think you need to think about it differently.

For crewed aircraft, in the USA, a VFR only pilot is required by the letter of the regulation to maintain outside visibility at all time for attitude awareness and collision avoidance. The interpretation, however, allows the pilot to briefly focus on instruments, or on a map, for operational purposes. If a VFR only pilot wants to fly only by reference to instruments (e.g. with a visibility limiting "hood") then they must have a second pilot maintaining outside visibility. And they are not allowed to fly in conditions that don't allow reasonable visibility (e.g. in a cloud).

In order to fly a crewed aircraft strictly by reference to the instruments without a safety pilot a pilot must have an instrument rating, and if they can't maintain outside visibility then in most cases they must have a clearance.

In the case of drones we have a VLOS requirement, which to me is similar to the VFR pilot requirements. You either can see your drone and its surroundings, or you have someone else who can (an observer). Looking down briefly at your controls (remote or mobile device) is equivalent to a VFR pilot looking at instruments or a map briefly, and will probably not be considered a violation of the VLOS rule. FPV is more like instrument (IFR) flying, except there is no equivalent of an instrument rating for drones yet. So to meet the spirit of the regulations an observer is required for FPV unless you have a waiver.

I agree with the posters who have said that the FAA is unlikely to enforce this aggressively until there is an incident. Flying a crewed aircraft in a cloud without an instrument rating is unlikely to result in enforcement action either, unless it results in a near miss or a crash. And in the case of FPV we don't have much if any case law to draw on. But it seems likely to me that when we do the interpretations around crewed aircraft VFR piloting will be used as precedent.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

 

[sar104]

I think the analogy to flying in the clouds at night is good from a technology point of view. But from a regulations point of view, I think you need to think about it differently.

For crewed aircraft, in the USA, a VFR only pilot is required by the letter of the regulation to maintain outside visibility at all time for attitude awareness and collision avoidance. The interpretation, however, allows the pilot to briefly focus on instruments, or on a map, for operational purposes. If a VFR only pilot wants to fly only by reference to instruments (e.g. with a visibility limiting "hood") then they must have a second pilot maintaining outside visibility. And they are not allowed to fly in conditions that don't allow reasonable visibility (e.g. in a cloud).

In order to fly a crewed aircraft strictly by reference to the instruments without a safety pilot a pilot must have an instrument rating, and if they can't maintain outside visibility then in most cases they must have a clearance.

In the case of drones we have a VLOS requirement, which to me is similar to the VFR pilot requirements. You either can see your drone and its surroundings, or you have someone else who can (an observer). Looking down briefly at your controls (remote or mobile device) is equivalent to a VFR pilot looking at instruments or a map briefly, and will probably not be considered a violation of the VLOS rule. FPV is more like instrument (IFR) flying, except there is no equivalent of an instrument rating for drones yet. So to meet the spirit of the regulations an observer is required for FPV unless you have a waiver.

I agree with the posters who have said that the FAA is unlikely to enforce this aggressively until there is an incident. Flying a crewed aircraft in a cloud without an instrument rating is unlikely to result in enforcement action either, unless it results in a near miss or a crash. And in the case of FPV we don't have much if any case law to draw on. But it seems likely to me that when we do the interpretations around crewed aircraft VFR piloting will be used as precedent.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

That's a good analogy. It's pretty obvious that to be compliant with VLOS the UAV pilot cannot be required to spend the entire flight just staring at the drone. For starters, 107.31 (a)(3) requires the pilot to "Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards" which requires looking away from the drone. And while not explicitly stated, scanning the controller telemetry is also likely to be an important part of maintaining situational awareness.

 

[MARK (LI)]

In post#10 I included a link to a video from Greg from @pilotinstitute ....he is extremely well trained in the matter....if you take a few minutes to watch it. you will get all the answers ..and he makes it clear, leaving no areas open to interpretation..it s a little over 15 minutes long....but if you want a full understanding of VLOS it is well worth your time...here is the link again, so you don't have to back track

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[sar104]

In post#10 I included a link to a video from Greg from @pilotinstitute ....he is extremely well trained in the matter....if you take a few minutes to watch it. you will get all the answers ..and he makes it clear, leaving no areas open to interpretation..it s a little over 15 minutes long....but if you want a full understanding of VLOS it is well worth your time...here is the link again, so you don't have to back track

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Well yes - he get's it right in a very roundabout way, but why does he work so hard trying to convince his audience that it is confusing? And in doing so he himself repeatedly conflates "able to see" with "actually looking at" - the distinction between which is the crux of 107.31.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

Well yes - he get's it right in a very roundabout way, but why does he work so hard trying to convince his audience that it is confusing? And in doing so he himself repeatedly conflates "able to see" with "actually looking at" - the distinction between which is the crux of 107.31.

I was not aware of of the advisory circulars which are referenced in the video, but I think my analysis above is consistent with both the video and the advisory circulars.
The clarification that someone needs to be able to see that altitude, attitude and direction of flight does suggest that most of us have been taking liberties with the VLOS requirement.

 

[Wild Drone Pilot]

It's called a spotter required when using goggles. Also helps in flying when not using goggles and you want to keep an eye on the drone, but the pilot wants to see what they are videoing / taking pics off while flying.

As long as within earshot / talking range - spotters are a good thing and within the rules.

Like I said racing between canyon walls So your spotter better run real fast to keep up.

 

[LA 2020]

So, just checking, with the follow me technology almost flawless especially with the Mavic 3 and Skydio drones, is it still a requirement to have eyes on the drone at all times? For example, Skydio and DJI both feature their follow me capabilities, but that would mean you're not watching the drone, so what gives with that? Any comments? Thanks

If you fly by FAA rules yes you must keep the drone in line of sight

 

[Endeavor]

Its one of those ridiculous rules that is basically impossible to comply with. 99% of any flight will result in a loss of visual yet it remains a rule. Its quite silly when you think about it.

 

[slozukimc]

Its one of those ridiculous rules that is basically impossible to comply with. 99% of any flight will result in a loss of visual yet it remains a rule. Its quite silly when you think about it.

I am torn by this one. It is very limiting in the rural area where I live. I mean there are a lot of places I could fly to that there is no way in the world to maintain VLOS but I think would be 100% safe to fly outside of VLOS.

On the other hand, there a lot of idiots that don’t care one lick about safety so if the rule wasn’t in place I can see a lot of bad things happening.

Mike

 

[sar104]

Its one of those ridiculous rules that is basically impossible to comply with. 99% of any flight will result in a loss of visual yet it remains a rule. Its quite silly when you think about it.

It's a silly rule because people choose, deliberately, to break it?

 

[slozukimc]

It's a silly rule because people choose, deliberately, to break it?

That is not what they said. They said it is an impossible rule to follow 100% of the time. Big difference in ability to follow and choosing to do so. You can’t keep your drone in LOS 100% of the time if you look away at your display for any reason.

Mike

 

[sar104]

That is not what they said. They said it is an impossible rule to follow 100% of the time. Big difference in ability to follow and choosing to do so. You can’t keep your drone in LOS 100% of the time if you look away at your display for any reason.

Mike

No - that's definitely what was said. It is pilot choice to fly BVLOS.