Questioning legality...

[Vic Moss]

This is true, but BVLOS is not an FAA infraction unless something happens to make it one. You can not be fined for flying BVLOS. Should we do it, no, but most at some time will.

BVLOS is certainly an FAA offense. It's a violation of 49 USC 44809 (3) and/or 14 CFR 107.31.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it's wrong. People have been fined for 107.31 violations. I'm not sure about 44809 violations, but I'm guessing not yet. And it's unlikely anyone will be.

44809 is titled "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft". That means all UAS flights in the U.S. are 107 by default. In order to not be flying under 107 rules, you have to fly under the 44809 exceptions. And the minute you fly BVLOS, you are no longer flying under section 44809. So breaking 44809(3) would make it a 107 violation instead of a 44809 violation.

 

[Dale D]

Dale,
You did hear that an FAA “Recreational Flyer” test is coming??

Hopefully it will be VERY basic. (like the rules we have already been following for years).

 

[spsphotos]

Thanks for saying that Vic, as I was just about to. I find it hard to believe how ignorant many people are of the FAA rules. And to be honest, I've looked at the rules in MANY different countries, and honestly, they are all fairly the same give or take a few details like how high you can fly or where. Not one so far allows BVLOS without a waiver of some sort, nor above 400' feet. Matter of fact, a few are even MORE restrictive than the U.S. Australia for example.

As for this discussion, just want to say, if you are NOT a moderator you need to stop trying to act like one...you know who you are...Meta4. Also, Laggard never said that this happened on THIS forum. I would find it surprising if that were the case...I call out people who clearly violate regs (in the U.S) and never had any mod give me grief. If it is this forum I'd file a complaint directly with details. I would also file a complaint with the FAA on the 1000' video if it was done in the U.S. But, I think I know the vid and it was not done in the U.S. We need to police our own community if we do not want the FAA and other government entities to do it for us. Bad drone owners are just as bad as bad gun owners and bad drivers...both can hurt people by their careless actions.

 

[BrokenAero]

While the lawyers are arguing the definitions, and interpretations of terms and situations, I’d like to see the drone community - both recreational and certificated remote pilots - collaborate with the FAA on modifying this and other rules to help them accomplished the end result that the rule is intended to achieve.

I had a professor who told me that if I have a concept that is good in theory but poor in practice, then it’s likely I have a poor theory. For example the VLOS rule that we’re discussing in this thread is intended to maximize public safety on the theory that keeping a 16”X16”X8” object in direct view is the best assurance of avoiding such things as crashing into objects and flying over people and traffic. But is that even true in practice?

How many times have you flown your drone a fair distance away - but still within VLOS - and you think you may be either approaching or directly over a particular house, intersection, group of people, a river , lake, or the ocean so you flip your gimbal to -90º and you’re surprised to find that you’re actually 100yards away?

I trust my drone’s camera way more than my eyeball’s estimate of whether I’m going to clear a tree, avoid a crowd, or safely descend/land if a Med-Evacuate Helicopter suddenly appears over the treetops. (happens in my neighborhood a lot - thank goodness for ADS-B)

The rules and regs should allow for the application and reliance on our technology as well as our individual abilities to judge depth, distance and proximity with our eyes alone.

Sometimes it’s better to trust your instruments than your “lyin’ eyes”.

 

[sar104]

While the lawyers are arguing the definitions, and interpretations of terms and situations, I’d like to see the drone community - both recreational and certificated remote pilots - collaborate with the FAA on modifying this and other rules to help them accomplished the end result that the rule is intended to achieve.

I had a professor who told me that if I have a concept that is good in theory but poor in practice, then it’s likely I have a poor theory. For example the VLOS rule that we’re discussing in this thread is intended to maximize public safety on the theory that keeping a 16”X16”X8” object in direct view is the best assurance of avoiding such things as crashing into objects and flying over people and traffic. But is that even true in practice?

How many times have you flown your drone a fair distance away - but still within VLOS - and you think you may be either approaching or directly over a particular house, intersection, group of people, a river , lake, or the ocean so you flip your gimbal to -90º and you’re surprised to find that you’re actually 100yards away?

I trust my drone’s camera way more than my eyeball’s estimate of whether I’m going to clear a tree, avoid a crowd, or safely descend/land if a Med-Evacuate Helicopter suddenly appears over the treetops. (happens in my neighborhood a lot - thank goodness for ADS-B)

The rules and regs should allow for the application and reliance on our technology as well as our individual abilities to judge depth, distance and proximity with our eyes alone.

Sometimes it’s better to trust your instruments than your “lyin’ eyes”.

The VLOS requirement has relatively little to do with knowing what you are flying over. It's almost entirely for situational awareness in the airspace, i.e. being able to see/hear approaching aircraft and determine how best to avoid them. Your instruments (other than ADS-B which is not yet a requirement) and camera are basically useless for that purpose.

 

[Lets Fly]

BVLOS is certainly an FAA offense. It's a violation of 49 USC 44809 (3) and/or 14 CFR 107.31.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it's wrong. People have been fined for 107.31 violations. I'm not sure about 44809 violations, but I'm guessing not yet. And it's unlikely anyone will be.

44809 is titled "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft". That means all UAS flights in the U.S. are 107 by default. In order to not be flying under 107 rules, you have to fly under the 44809 exceptions. And the minute you fly BVLOS, you are no longer flying under section 44809. So breaking 44809(3) would make it a 107 violation instead of a 44809 violation.

The information I saw was on this forum. The OP stated that he had the conversation with an FAA supervisor. The statement from the FAA was that it is not an infraction to fly BVLOS. I can't find the post yet but if you who posted it would respond showing where you got that information would help.

 

[MA2 317]

Actually, daisy chain VOs (the official term) are not allowed by the FAA unless specifically mentioned in a 107.31 waiver.

It's a misconception held by many, and even some in the FAA get that wrong. I had to correct a FSDO person after he gave an educational session that mentioned it was allowed.

Does this include the use of wireless communication?

From what I understand, the VO must be within earshot of the PIC and no use of a phone or walkie-talkie is permitted for extended flights.

Just curious. Thanks.

 

[spsphotos]

The information I saw was on this forum. The OP stated that he had the conversation with an FAA supervisor. The statement from the FAA was that it is not an infraction to fly BVLOS. I can't find the post yet but if you who posted it would respond showing where you got that information would help.

I rely on written regulations rather than the word of some rando who supposedly had a conversation with another rando with no verification that the conversation took place or what was said. It's called "hearsay".

 

[spsphotos]

Does this include the use of wireless communication?

From what I understand, the VO must be within earshot of the PIC and no use of a phone or walkie-talkie is permitted for extended flights.

Just curious. Thanks.

1) VO's can use walkies, phones, etc. But honestly should not be a need. You're VO should be close to you anyway...seen #2.
2) VLOS means VLOS of the PIC, not VO's. SO chaining VO's does NOT extend your VLOS.

 

[Vic Moss]

The information I saw was on this forum. The OP stated that he had the conversation with an FAA supervisor. The statement from the FAA was that it is not an infraction to fly BVLOS. I can't find the post yet but if you who posted it would respond showing where you got that information would help.

I'd be interested in where that was mentioned. If that FAA "Supervisor" said that, they are wrong and someone from the FAA would reach out to them. If you can find that thread, please send a link to my message box.

 

[sar104]

Does this include the use of wireless communication?

From what I understand, the VO must be within earshot of the PIC and no use of a phone or walkie-talkie is permitted for extended flights.

Just curious. Thanks.

There is nothing ambiguous about the requirements as written - they just have to be read carefully and literally:

​

§107.31 (a) 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...​

​

107.31 (a) says that the RPIC, VO (if used) and the operator (who may also be the RPIC of course) must be able to see the aircraft throughout the flight. So they all must be able to see it (i.e. it must be within their visual line of sight) - that's not the same as actually watching it, which is addressed in 107.31 (b):

§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.​

Paragraph (b) is saying that the ability to see the aircraft must, at all times, be exercised by either the RPIC/operator or the VO. In other words they must all be able to see it (a) and at least one of them must be watching it at all times (b).

There is nothing in 107.31 about how they must communicate with each other. There is also nothing about whether they must be co-located (unlike the recreational exemption 44809, which explicitly requires it), but note that not being co-located doesn't permit the option for a remote VO to watch the aircraft when the pilot cannot see it, because that would violate (a).

 

[spsphotos]

While the lawyers are arguing the definitions, and interpretations of terms and situations, I’d like to see the drone community - both recreational and certificated remote pilots - collaborate with the FAA on modifying this and other rules to help them accomplished the end result that the rule is intended to achieve.

I had a professor who told me that if I have a concept that is good in theory but poor in practice, then it’s likely I have a poor theory. For example the VLOS rule that we’re discussing in this thread is intended to maximize public safety on the theory that keeping a 16”X16”X8” object in direct view is the best assurance of avoiding such things as crashing into objects and flying over people and traffic. But is that even true in practice?

How many times have you flown your drone a fair distance away - but still within VLOS - and you think you may be either approaching or directly over a particular house, intersection, group of people, a river , lake, or the ocean so you flip your gimbal to -90º and you’re surprised to find that you’re actually 100yards away?

I trust my drone’s camera way more than my eyeball’s estimate of whether I’m going to clear a tree, avoid a crowd, or safely descend/land if a Med-Evacuate Helicopter suddenly appears over the treetops. (happens in my neighborhood a lot - thank goodness for ADS-B)

The rules and regs should allow for the application and reliance on our technology as well as our individual abilities to judge depth, distance and proximity with our eyes alone.

Sometimes it’s better to trust your instruments than your “lyin’ eyes”.

Tell that to all the people who crash their drone because they hit a branch or other structure because they relied on just the camera. Camera does not do a good job of depth perception and provides a rather limited field of view.

 

[Vic Moss]

2) VLOS means VLOS of the PIC, not VO's. SO chaining VO's does NOT extend your VLOS.

Actually, the VO needs to maintain VLOS as well.

Wording of 107.31, "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..."

And the Part B of 107.31 gets even more clear:

"(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."

That means the UAS must have eyes on it by one or the other. And both must have the ability to exercise VLOS at any given moment.

You are right that daisy chain VOs are not allowed without a 107.31 waiver that specifically mentions using daisy chain (or mobile) VOs.

One of the aspects of RID is that BVLOS will be a bit easier to get once RID compliance is mandatory.

 

[dirkclod]

Sorry Thomas but let me jump in here. The OP was not banned from our forums as we do not have a 3 day ban. You might get a post deleted or a warning and if bad enough be banned for 2 weeks at the minimum but that’s it.

 

[BigAl07]

I don't need a 107 to understand the rules and have been flying for years without an incident or crash, but short and free would be fine.

Hopefully NOT for anything other than Recreational operations

 

[BigAl07]

Hopefully it will be VERY basic. (like the rules we have already been following for years).

It will be basic and hopefully will "Define" the rules. As of right now lots of grey area and even some "missing" areas that the new TRUST will help define.

 

[BigAl07]

So I was banned for three days from a Mini 2 page for questioning the legality of a flying location from where one member posted some nice photos. I was basically told to mind my own business and that questions like mine could attract the FAA.

This leads me to two observations and questions:

1. Some people really don’t give much of a (deleted by moderator) if what they are doing is safe or legal. A forum that bans any criticism of this flying can be seen as either encouraging it or just pretending nothing is going on. Today there were photos posted from a guy who managed to get his Mini 2 up to over 1000 feet. Not sure why I was banned but not this idiot.

2. There seems to be some public animosity towards drones already. All it’s going to take is some bozo to run his drone into a F-22 at 1000 feet and we’re all finished.

So, do we do things legally and mind our own business or do we call out those threatening to harm a hobby we enjoy or rely on to make a living?

What forum BANNED you? I see nothing in your account showing a BAN of any kind. Please give more input . . .

If you can be critical and still be nice/respectful that's fine but if you come off rude, trolling, abusive to another member you are violating the Community Guidelines of the forum and we ALL abide by those rules.

Here are the Community Guidelines just in case anyone needs to review them:

Community Rules

www.mavicpilots.com