Have there been any legal challenges to the goggles ruling in the US.

[tstr14]

I have read some of the posts concerning goggles and understand they are not legal to use without a spotter in the US. It is assumed on my part this is whether you are flying licensed or hobbyist status. What isn't 100% clear is the definition of line of sight and what it means. For instance, if the PIC can 'see' clearly 200 yards in every direction, and does not fly out side that "line of sight" would he/she be able to legally don the goggles without a spotter? Splitting hairs to be certain, but still wondering. Does private property without any flight restrictions have any impact on this law? Have there been and challenges by vision impaired persons to the ruling via the Americans with Disabilities Act? And lastly, has anyone ever actually been penalized or even chastised by the FAA for using goggles without a spotter?

Asking for a friend, of course!

 

[msinger]

if the PIC can 'see' clearly 200 yards in every direction, and does not fly out side that "line of sight" would he/she be able to legally don the goggles without a spotter?

Nope. That part is pretty clear here:

"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"

Source: 14 CFR § 107.31 - Visual line of sight aircraft operation.

Try covering your eyes with goggles, your hands, etc. You definitely won't be able to see your drone at that point.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

if the PIC can 'see' clearly 200 yards in every direction, and does not fly out side that "line of sight" would he/she be able to legally don the goggles without a spotter? Splitting hairs to be certain,

Please explain to me how the PIC can 'see' even 6" when the goggle are over their eyes ?
For clarity, all they can see is what is shown on the screen and that is a very limited field of view.

 

[MA2 317]

Never owned a pair but the Epson BT glasses seemed popular back in the day.

PIP display on the lens while keeping VLOS of the aircraft through the glasses.

Moverio BT-300 Smart Glasses (AR/Developer Edition) | Products | Epson US

Experience a new way of seeing the world with the revolutionary Moverio BT-300 smart glasses from Epson®. These highly transparent glasses redefine augmented reality (AR) with a groundbreaking Si-OLED display. Superior transparency, plus a high-resolution camera, ensures seamless integration of...

epson.com

.

 

[Cafguy]

You will be breaking the law without a Spotter, anything...anything except corrective lenses that goes over your eyes breaks the "unaided eye" description and is therefore not legal. Take a friend- Its more fun if there is a group of you flying FPV anyways.
Spotters work great for Karens too!

 

[tstr14]

Please explain to me how the PIC can 'see' even 6" when the goggle are over their eyes ?
For clarity, all they can see is what is shown on the screen and that is a very limited field of view.

Perhaps you will understand if I explain it this way. Does the regulation specifically state the PIC has to maintain line of sight constantly? Does it allow for temporary interruptions such as to look at your controller? If so, how long is a "temporary" interruption? How far can the PIC see if he's looking at his controls, or turns to speak to someone?

 

[msinger]

Does the regulation specifically state the PIC has to maintain line of sight constantly?

The PIC must maintain VLOS constantly, but that doesn't mean the PIC has to be constantly staring at the drone. As you noted, there are times when the PIC will need to look away for various flight-related purposes.

Check out that link I shared above. It states the PIC (or VO) must be able 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.

You wouldn't be able to do any of those things while your eyes are covered with goggles. And for that reason, there's no way of challenging this rule.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Perhaps you will understand if I explain it this way. Does the regulation specifically state the PIC has to maintain line of sight constantly? Does it allow for temporary interruptions such as to look at your controller? If so, how long is a "temporary" interruption? How far can the PIC see if he's looking at his controls, or turns to speak to someone?

I think that if push came to shove and the flight resulted in serious consequences then even a glance at a controller could land you in contravention of the law.
Whether or not they would prosecute you for glancing at a controller if they caught you and if there were no consequences of your actions is open to debate.
To my mind "must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight", from msinger's link, is pretty clear.
Aside from anything else, after your sight of the drone has been compromised, for whatever reason, it can be very difficult to find the drone again, I speak from experience.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think that if push came to shove and the flight resulted in serious consequences then even a glance at a controller could land you in contravention of the law.
Whether or not they would prosecute you for glancing at a controller if they caught you and if there were no consequences of your actions is open to debate.
To my mind "must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight", from msinger's link, is pretty clear.
Aside from anything else, after your sight of the drone has been compromised, for whatever reason, it can be very difficult to find the drone again, I speak from experience.

True. Even if you are watching your drone and you drop your glasses in a pond or a bug gets in your eye....the reason for not having VLOS is irrelevant. However, I personally believe the reason why this will never be adjudicated is because it's vague and unsustainable and the FAA would lose and they know it (which is why they don't enforce it alone but they will enforce it if it comes with a handful of other more serious violations). Understand this is good for safety and understand why we need this or bad things could happen but legally, it won't stand just as it doesn't stand if you take your eyes off the road while driving when you were not illegally distracted. Not seeing a person crossing the freeway and you hit them isn't the same as not seeing a cropduster come up behind you and he smashes into your hovering drone. Not guilty vs. guilty. This is not legal advise so fly within VLOS and get a spotter at a minimum. However, we welcome the first case.

 

[3rdof5]

VLOS means being able to see the aircraft, not just the distance. That rule is no different here in Canada, to fly with my goggles legally, I need a spotter.

 

[tstr14]

I'd really like to try goggles, but I would think for a spotter, watching someone else's drone would be about as exciting as watching paint dry or people pumping gas. Can I use a seeing eye dog? (Just humor - don't get upset!)

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I'd really like to try goggles, but I would think for a spotter.

BTW one other consideration, balance.
Try a diy version first with a phone or something mounted in a cardboard frame and replay the video from a drone's camera, be sure the frame blocks all peripheral views of the outside world.
Not everyone can use goggles.

 

[Vic Moss]

I have read some of the posts concerning goggles and understand they are not legal to use without a spotter in the US. It is assumed on my part this is whether you are flying licensed or hobbyist status. What isn't 100% clear is the definition of line of sight and what it means. For instance, if the PIC can 'see' clearly 200 yards in every direction, and does not fly out side that "line of sight" would he/she be able to legally don the goggles without a spotter?

No. It's about more than just seeing the drone. As others have mentioned.

Splitting hairs to be certain, but still wondering. Does private property without any flight restrictions have any impact on this law?

No. This isn't a property issue, it's an airspace issue.

Have there been and challenges by vision impaired persons to the ruling via the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Also no. ADA does not cover everything. This is a safety issue. A comparison would be someone suing a DMV for failing their eye exam and not getting their drivers license. You have to be able to see to fly a drone.

And lastly, has anyone ever actually been penalized or even chastised by the FAA for using goggles without a spotter?

Yes, but not often enough.

Asking for a friend, of course!

 

[Cafguy]

I'd really like to try goggles, but I would think for a spotter, watching someone else's drone would be about as exciting as watching paint dry or people pumping gas. Can I use a seeing eye dog? (Just humor - don't get upset!)

I promise you there are FPV Clubs in your area Make a small get together out of it with some friends It won't be long you will have your own little club!

 

[Felix le Chat]

I think that if push came to shove and the flight resulted in serious consequences then even a glance at a controller could land you in contravention of the law.
Whether or not they would prosecute you for glancing at a controller if they caught you and if there were no consequences of your actions is open to debate.
To my mind "must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight", from msinger's link, is pretty clear.
Aside from anything else, after your sight of the drone has been compromised, for whatever reason, it can be very difficult to find the drone again, I speak from experience.

Many comments in this thread are bang on the money, I think we all start out looking at parts of the regulatory structure that interfere with something we want to achieve and try splitting hairs to find a way to bend the rules, but whatever the case and whether we like it or not: Aviation Authority regulations are the tie that binds drone use now with altitude and VLOS being two of the foundation blocks.

Yorkshire_Pud is right - even a few seconds glance at a controller screen to frame a shot or alter exposure settings will result in a frantic visual hunt to relocate the position of the drone when it is at the limits of VLOS, when this does happen, oftentimes the only way to re-establish direct line of sight is by using the little map screen and a conspicuous landmark visible on the live video feed to orient your eyes. Even then it is difficult to visually locate an 18% grey speck in the sky.

Moral of the story: if there's something in the landscape you want to capture close video or stills of - walk yourself physically closer to it and then send the drone up.

 

[tstr14]

Thanks for all the answers! The one thing I find disturbing is that the law applies even if you are on private land. While fully agreeing with regards to the safety of others, while I'm on my own land, provided I'm not located somewhere where it could be harmful, such as a flight path for an airport, I feel the FAA should have limited authority over my activities. So long as all activity remains within my boundaries and at 400 feet or lower, and I'm not engaged in otherwise illegal activities such as looking in neighbor's windows or scaring their animals, etcetera, of what concern is it to the government?

With amateur radio, there is an organization (ARRL) in the US that acts on behalf of ham radio operators to protect their hobby concerns from intrusion by the FCC. The same for firearm owners (NRA) vs multiple state, local and Federal laws and actions. Is there any such advocacy group for drone operators?

 

[Felix le Chat]

Thanks for all the answers! The one thing I find disturbing is that the law applies even if you are on private land. While fully agreeing with regards to the safety of others, while I'm on my own land, provided I'm not located somewhere where it could be harmful, such as a flight path for an airport, I feel the FAA should have limited authority over my activities. So long as all activity remains within my boundaries and at 400 feet or lower, and I'm not engaged in otherwise illegal activities such as looking in neighbor's windows or scaring their animals, etcetera, of what concern is it to the government?

With amateur radio, there is an organization (ARRL) in the US that acts on behalf of ham radio operators to protect their hobby concerns from intrusion by the FCC. The same for firearm owners (NRA) vs multiple state, local and Federal laws and actions. Is there any such advocacy group for drone operators?

The best answer to the first paragraph above is to ask you a question. Would you tolerate a stranger flying a drone over and around your property? Or would you get the hump about it?

Whatever the answer: airspace rules of access determine that what's up there is classed as a 'State Asset' - a 'highway' that is open to free use as long as some basic rules and regs are respected. If you argued that you should be able to do what you like in the airspace above your property: then you wouldn't be able to argue the contrary when someone else flew the same airspace in accordance with your view of the Law.

 

[tstr14]

The best answer to the first paragraph above is to ask you a question. Would you tolerate a stranger flying a drone over and around your property? Or would you get the hump about it?

Whatever the answer: airspace rules of access determine that what's up there is classed as a 'State Asset' - a 'highway' that is open to free use as long as some basic rules and regs are respected. If you argued that you should be able to do what you like in the airspace above your property: then you wouldn't be able to argue the contrary when someone else flew the same airspace in accordance with your view of the Law.

Wait a minute, I was not talking about flying over someone else's property, I was talking about flying over my own!

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

The one thing I find disturbing is that the law applies even if you are on private land.

'Aircraft' do not and can not respect individual property boundaries. By the time a goggles blinded pilot realises there is a trespassing, low flying manned aircraft over their property it is probably going to be to late to even attempt to figure out what avoiding action to take.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Wait a minute, I was not talking about flying over someone else's property, I was talking about flying over my own!

... Didn't suggest you were - just using the scenario as an example. But the point is still valid and meant to be viewed as a simile to illustrate that you can't have one rule for you and another rule for everyone else. We're all hamstrung by the same general airspace regulations that have nothing to do with property boundaries