DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Mavic Lights - are they legal for twilight flight?

DownandLocked

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
71
Reactions
58
Age
79
I have purchased but not received a Mavic. Part 107 requires appropriate anti-collision lights to fly during twilight as they define it. Do the stock lights on the Mavic meet the 107 requirement or are additional lights needed?
 
Seem to be pretty bright to me. Not sure what the technical definition is or requirement. Certain distance for visibility? The strobon strobes are real effective on my other quads.
 
So long as you don't fly prior to 30 minutes before official sunrise, or after 30 minutes beyond official sunset, local time (both known as "civil twilight"), Mavic lights are fine.
 
So long as you don't fly prior to 30 minutes before official sunrise, or after 30 minutes beyond official sunset, local time (both known as "civil twilight"), Mavic lights are fine.
Part 107 requires that sUAs must be equipped with lights visible for 3 miles if flown after sunset or before sunrise. Are you stating that Mavic LEDs meet this requirement. If so, what is your basis for that assertion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadRex
Part 107 requires that sUAs must be equipped with lights visible for 3 miles if flown after sunset or before sunrise. Are you stating that Mavic LEDs meet this requirement. If so, what is your basis for that assertion?

Double checking, I stand corrected... 3 SM visibility is required even for civil twilight. To that end, I am not sure anyone has validated that Mavic's lights are visible at that distance. And, I really don't think DJI would be obligated to manufacture a unit for sale worldwide that would necessarily be in compliance with the USA's FAA.

That said, if someone applied for an FAA waiver for night operations, they would somehow have to prove to the FAA that the Mavic, in fact, did carry lights visible from 3 SM, whether they are "stock" lights that came with the unit, or after-market lights.
 
That said, if someone applied for an FAA waiver for night operations, they would somehow have to prove to the FAA that the Mavic, in fact, did carry lights visible from 3 SM, whether they are "stock" lights that came with the unit, or after-market lights.

The waiver application doesn't include any requirements for proof of anything The waiver process is pretty opaque at this point. Anyone (does not have to be a 107 pilot) can apply for a waiver of some operational requirements (including applying for night operations). The applicant describes the proposed operations and how they will meet the performance standards for the waiver. The FAA may, during review of the application, request additional information.

There have been several hundred waivers already granted for night operations, more than all other types of waivers combined. You can read the waivers issued to date at Part 107 Waivers Granted A quick review of the waivers issued for 107.29 (daylight operation) indicates that FAA has not required that any specific lighting system be used, but rather has included the following requirement:

"The sUA must be equipped with lighted anti-collision lighting visible from a distance of no less than 3 statute miles. The remote PIC may reduce the intensity of the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so."
If that language sound familiar, it is almost exactly what 107.29 (b) requires for operation during civil twilight without a waiver. (Note that 107.29 waivers include additional requirements for nighttime operations, including having one or more VOs, and that the area be lighted well enough to see and avoid persons and obstructions OR the area must be previously surveyed during daylight, noting hazards and obstructions.)

It's not clear that FAA has required applications for waivers of 107.29 to prove that their lighting system meets the visibility requirement. We don't know what the applicants included in their applications or what additional information FAA required. In some 107 waivers, FAA identified specific additional information they reviewed during the evaluation of the waiver request. For example, in the waiver granted to CNN for 107.39 (operation over people), FAA identified a number of documents they reviewed, including CNN's sUAS operations manual. In a small sampling of the hundreds of waivers granted for 107.29 (daytime operation), it appears that FAA has not cited additional documents, which leads me to believe that some or all of those waivers were granted without review of additional documentation - and therefore did not require proof of aircraft lighting visibility. I certainly may be wrong about this, as none of the communications leading to issuance of the waivers are easily publicly accessible - only the waivers themselves are.

It seems unlikely that FAA would initiate an enforcement action against a 107 operator solely due to flying a Mavic Pro with stock lighting during civil twilight unless there was an accident, a near miss with a manned aircraft, a complaint, or some other violation. However, once an enforcement action was initiated for one of those reasons, it's not hard to imagine that FAA might include a 107.29 violation for operating without required lighting. IMHO, that's when a operator would likely have to prove the lighting adequate.
 
The waiver application doesn't include any requirements for proof of anything The waiver process is pretty opaque at this point. Anyone (does not have to be a 107 pilot) can apply for a waiver of some operational requirements (including applying for night operations). The applicant describes the proposed operations and how they will meet the performance standards for the waiver. The FAA may, during review of the application, request additional information.

There have been several hundred waivers already granted for night operations, more than all other types of waivers combined. You can read the waivers issued to date at Part 107 Waivers Granted A quick review of the waivers issued for 107.29 (daylight operation) indicates that FAA has not required that any specific lighting system be used, but rather has included the following requirement:

"The sUA must be equipped with lighted anti-collision lighting visible from a distance of no less than 3 statute miles. The remote PIC may reduce the intensity of the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so."
If that language sound familiar, it is almost exactly what 107.29 (b) requires for operation during civil twilight without a waiver. (Note that 107.29 waivers include additional requirements for nighttime operations, including having one or more VOs, and that the area be lighted well enough to see and avoid persons and obstructions OR the area must be previously surveyed during daylight, noting hazards and obstructions.)

It's not clear that FAA has required applications for waivers of 107.29 to prove that their lighting system meets the visibility requirement. We don't know what the applicants included in their applications or what additional information FAA required. In some 107 waivers, FAA identified specific additional information they reviewed during the evaluation of the waiver request. For example, in the waiver granted to CNN for 107.39 (operation over people), FAA identified a number of documents they reviewed, including CNN's sUAS operations manual. In a small sampling of the hundreds of waivers granted for 107.29 (daytime operation), it appears that FAA has not cited additional documents, which leads me to believe that some or all of those waivers were granted without review of additional documentation - and therefore did not require proof of aircraft lighting visibility. I certainly may be wrong about this, as none of the communications leading to issuance of the waivers are easily publicly accessible - only the waivers themselves are.

It seems unlikely that FAA would initiate an enforcement action against a 107 operator solely due to flying a Mavic Pro with stock lighting during civil twilight unless there was an accident, a near miss with a manned aircraft, a complaint, or some other violation. However, once an enforcement action was initiated for one of those reasons, it's not hard to imagine that FAA might include a 107.29 violation for operating without required lighting. IMHO, that's when a operator would likely have to prove the lighting adequate.


EXCELLENT response!! Very helpfull
 
  • Like
Reactions: woesch
I have purchased but not received a Mavic. Part 107 requires appropriate anti-collision lights to fly during twilight as they define it. Do the stock lights on the Mavic meet the 107 requirement or are additional lights needed?

This doesn't answer your questions, but, I can see the mavic at 2 miles and 400ft at night time. Not quite as bright as the Heli-life flight that flew behind it but not by much. (Yes I was legal to fly, yes the helicopter was at 300ft(I was 400ft), yes I immediately brought my Mavic as far away from the Heli as possible.)
 
It seems they are not legal. I have purchased 3 led lights. Red for left side, green for right side and white for the top. Visible from all directions and meet the 3 mile visibility requirement.

Here is a link to one source for the lights:

STROBON Cree® Standalone - Flytron
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
did you get the FAA to ok it after installing them
 

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,088
Messages
1,549,148
Members
159,142
Latest member
groggysbird