How To Handle a "No Drones Allowed" Claim

[Thomas B]

Explain you can’t have conversation until you land.

 

[Heavydpj]

Not trying to go off topic but just so you know your friend in your situation there did not count as an observer. ?

How? I met all of the requirements in 107.33.

We were in constant contact via cell phone
One of us was able to visualize the Mavic throughout it's flight path (in the middle, both of us could).
Between the two of us, we could scan the airspace and maintain constant awareness of the Mavic's position.

Is there a part to 107.33 that I missed?

 

[Thomas B]

How? I met all of the requirements in 107.33.

We were in constant contact via cell phone
One of us was able to visualize the Mavic throughout it's flight path (in the middle, both of us could).
Between the two of us, we could scan the airspace and maintain constant awareness of the Mavic's position.

Is there a part to 107.33 that I missed?

Must be verbal communication. Electronics other the hearing aids not legal.

 

[Heavydpj]

Must be verbal communication. Electronics other the hearing aids not legal.

Where is that in Part 107? All I am reading is "effective communication" in 107.33(a)

While the visual observer (VO) must use "... vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses ..." I see no specific requirement for human voice only between the PIC and VO, either in 107.33 or in 107.3.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, but this is a technique that I've been using for a couple years, and I know other well respected commercial operators use as well. Do you have a court case, Advisory Circular, or some other guidance that you can point me to?

 

[Thomas B]

Where is that in Part 107? All I am reading is "effective communication" in 107.33(a)

While the visual observer (VO) must use "... vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses ..." I see no specific requirement for human voice only between the PIC and VO, either in 107.33 or in 107.3.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, but this is a technique that I've been using for a couple years, and I know other well respected commercial operators use as well. Do you have a court case, Advisory Circular, or some other guidance that you can point me to?

Go to the FAA DroneZone...or contact them. It’s posted.

 

[Heavydpj]

Go to the FAA DroneZone...or contact them. It’s posted.

I did. I see a list of my my approved COA's, my Inventory, and the Glossary (which is where I go to check the Part 107).

This is all there is in 107.33

"§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."

Again, I'm not trying to be a PITA, I really want/need to know if this is actually a position held by the FAA, so I can change my SOP's. As of yet, despite prolific searching in Part 107 and the AC's I am not seeing anything about that. Unless there is something specifically to the contrary, I understand subpart (a)'s requirement merely to mean that the PIC and VO must be able to communicate. The whole reason to have a VO is to allow operations where the PIC cannot observer the craft, and limiting to voice only seems to be a very ineffective way to do that.

 

[Thomas B]

I did. I see a list of my my approved COA's, my Inventory, and the Glossary (which is where I go to check the Part 107).

This is all there is in 107.33

"§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."

Again, I'm not trying to be a PITA, I really want/need to know if this is actually a position held by the FAA, so I can change my SOP's. As of yet, despite prolific searching in Part 107 and the AC's I am not seeing anything about that. Unless there is something specifically to the contrary, I understand subpart (a)'s requirement merely to mean that the PIC and VO must be able to communicate. The whole reason to have a VO is to allow operations where the PIC cannot observer the craft, and limiting to voice only seems to be a very ineffective way to do that.

Recommend contacting your FAA field office.

 

[Heavydpj]

??

Communication Requirements For Safe Drone Operation - Firecom

Ensure safe and effective drone operation with Firecom Wireless Headsets.

www.firecom.com

 

[dirkclod]

??

Communication Requirements For Safe Drone Operation - Firecom

Ensure safe and effective drone operation with Firecom Wireless Headsets.

www.firecom.com

To get this back on topic of this thread let’s wait till @Vic Moss or
@BigAl07 see this to clarify to you about having your primary VO
and additional VO’s can do. Maybe you can get from this post though from last year 2 spotters. My longest flight so far! more understanding.
Sorry guys my comment to help this member took this away from
the OT so let’s say no more on it . Not in this thread anyway .

 

[Brojon]

@vindibona1 said it best - these people are practicing a form of bullying and as such they need to be stood up to or it simply encourages them to do it again and again.
He also advocated the best way to handle it - in a non-confrontational way say that you were unaware and can they provide evidence of this claimed restriction?

 

[pinballwiz86]

Drone police is everywhere. Even amongst our ranks.

 

[dirkclod]

Drone police is everywhere. Even amongst our ranks.

Point of your post ?

 

[BigAl07]

Drone police is everywhere. Even amongst our ranks.

Please do expand upon your comment here.

 

[ameripol]

For a number of years I was a news photographer. Even if you're right, if you're arguing with a cop he wins. We used to say it's hard to complete an assignment with your hands cuffed behind your back. Same is true about operating a controller. You handled it very well. It's great to educate people. Never great to argue with them. I've had a couple instances where someone initially confronted me so I showed them my screen and got them interested in what they could see and what it could do and they ended up being very nice. Having all the regs printed and at hand is a great tip. The couple cops who've come over to check me out fortunately have all been interested in the drone, not regulations.

 

[BigAl07]

I've written a quick summary of how VLOS and VO comes into play. I think it's very important that everyone take a moment to read it over. It was "quick" so it might have typos but the heart of the message is spelled out in detail.

@Heavydpj you need to read it because you did violate ~107.31 by letting your VO's extend the VLOS.

FAA Part 107 ~ VLOS and Visual Observer Discussion

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...

mavicpilots.com

 

[DennisK]

You did a great job researching the area. Looking up for local laws and restrictions should keep you in good stead with everyone... but as you found out, there's always one in every crowd. I assume your research was as complete and accurate as possible. However, there are ignorant bullies everywhere these days. Since you were done flying you took that path of least resistance and just acquiesced. I'm not so sure I would have taken the same approach. I feel we have to, politely, educate people. In failing to do so we encourage them bully the next innocent pilot that comes along.

What I probably would have said, politetly, is "I researched all the state and local laws and ordinances and nowhere did I find any restrictions from flying in this area. I want to obey all the rules and regulations, so I would appreciate it if you would show me where there is notice that the area is restricted from drone flying". The "please educate me" approach is a soft way to call out people who talk without knowing [so many of them these days]. I try very hard to be polite, if not diplomatic and totally stay away from abrasive. But I hate ignorant bullies.

There are a few things you should know if you don't know them already. Assuming that Sandy Eggo is in the US, the FAA controls ALL the air space. Period. What the local areas might be able to do is restrict launch and land points. There are of course NFZ's, which DJI will so graciously advise you of with their geofencing and you can also find restricted or limited areas on Airmap or Kittyhawk apps. But for the most part anything within FAA's jurisdiction is fair game. One thing I always do is print out the state and local ordinances and keep them with me when I fly. If ever challenged I can show that I have in fact done my research (and tacitly it's their turn to put up or shut up).

I'd like to relate a conversation I had with a Chicago city official when trying to figure out where it is legal to fly in Chicago. It took several phone calls to get to here, but somehow I ended up speaking to the office of emergency management and spoke with a fellow who just also happened to be a pilot. He was extremely kind and helpful. He pretty much said that the city is open for flight if you stay within the FAA rules and don't obnoxiously fly over private property. He also indicated that the Park Districts are autonomous agencies so I might be challenged launching from park district property. However he said I could launch from city property and fly over park district property because that's the FAA jurisdiction. One other thing he said is that I could "hand launch/catch" and would technically be in observance of the regulation. I don't think he was joking :0. But he also gave me his contact info (which I cannot share) and he said that if I thought I'd be flying in a questionable area he would send out an inter-agency email indicating my presence and ability to fly in that area. That was super nice of him.

I launch from the tonneau cover over the bed of my truck.
I can sit on it as well. I am trying to comply.

 

[vindibona1]

It occurred to me, that if you could place your drone somewhere in an isolated spot "off premise" where you could be "on premise" when it launched there is nothing that prevents from operating a radio pretty much anywhere. I'd have to be confident that you could walk away from your drone sitting on the ground or wherever when it launched.

The thing that we've always known, is that you can't reason with unreasonable people. Its just that these days that ignorant people, even those charged with knowing the law, feel emboldened to try to impose their personal mis-interpretation of laws, rules and regulations on the citzens trying to diligently abide by those ordinances. [Political diatribe withheld]

 

[BigAl07]

It occurred to me, that if you could place your drone somewhere in an isolated spot "off premise" where you could be "on premise" when it launched there is nothing that prevents from operating a radio pretty much anywhere. I'd have to be confident that you could walk away from your drone sitting on the ground or wherever when it launched.

The thing that we've always known, is that you can't reason with unreasonable people. Its just that these days that ignorant people, even those charged with knowing the law, feel emboldened to try to impose their personal mis-interpretation of laws, rules and regulations on the citzens trying to diligently abide by those ordinances. [Political diatribe withheld]

sorry bud that won't work. You are still "flying" or at the very least (if using an automated flight app) responsible for the FLIGHT of the UAS. It's still you flying from an area where you're not allowed to fly/launch/land.

 

[vindibona1]

sorry bud that won't work. You are still "flying" or at the very least (if using an automated flight app) responsible for the FLIGHT of the UAS. It's still you flying from an area where you're not allowed to fly/launch/land.

Ok... Walk me thorough this. Let's us an autonomous district that might have on drone regulation or another. An open fly zone lies right across the street where you can launch and land without issue. So, if the FAA controls all the airspace, as we seen written on the forum so many times, how is it that one couldn't stroll across the street and control the UAV? The UAV itself isn't going to be anywhere except where the FAA says its class G space. It will launch and land from a "legal" place. Would something like this not be totally open to interpretation? As I stated before, the manager from our city's emergency manangement office suggested that I might simply hand launch and catch, which I found questionable when he said it. But we were having a serious discussion of flying in areas that are within the city by not controlled by normal city government.

 

[BigAl07]

Ok... Walk me thorough this. Let's us an autonomous district that might have on drone regulation or another. An open fly zone lies right across the street where you can launch and land without issue. So, if the FAA controls all the airspace, as we seen written on the forum so many times, how is it that one couldn't stroll across the street and control the UAV? The UAV itself isn't going to be anywhere except where the FAA says its class G space. It will launch and land from a "legal" place. Would something like this not be totally open to interpretation? As I stated before, the manager from our city's emergency manangement office suggested that I might simply hand launch and catch, which I found questionable when he said it. But we were having a serious discussion of flying in areas that are within the city by not controlled by normal city government.

Are we talking about the same thing? Here is how I understood your previous statement:

• A) you're wanting to fly over an area that has Land Use Ordinances stating no flying from property but the FAA has no flight restrictions (Yes?)
• B) You suggest having the aircraft launch from an off-perperty location so as to not violate the Drone Restrictions of flying from restricted property (Yes?)
• C) But you're still standing ON the Drone Restricted property (Yes?)

If I have the above correct, you're still illegal!

If you're standing on prohibited property (prohibited from flying) you are FLYING from the property. It doesn't matter where the aircraft actually launched/landed (hand, across the street, or from an elevated launch pad) your person is still on prohibited property and either manipulating the controls directly or (if it's an autonomous flight) responsible for the flight. Honestly if you walked over to "restriction free property", launched your aircraft, and then walked (while aircraft is still in the air) over to restricted property you're still in violation or their Land Use restrictions/laws/ordinances. You are still responsible and liable for the entire FLIGHT regardless of how we try to wordsmith or look for a loophole. Unfortunately your EM isn't alone and many people "think" they have the rules figured out but they are sadly very mistaken.

If I misunderstood your scenario I apologize. Correct my errors and I'll look at it again in the morning

You should have your EM reach out to me, your local FSDO or their local LEAP agent to get clarification because his assumption puts the operator and entire department at risk. John Q. Public would love to catch a Public Safety Entity intentionally breaking rules & law. It's just not worth the risk.