Spotter rule

[MavicPro2Ed]

When flying missions on a site with buildings where it is impossible to always have visual line of site (VLOS), is it ok if the spotter is in a different location than the pilot providing that either the spotter or pilot always have VLOS and if the pilot can visually see the spotter?

 

[AMann]

When flying missions on a site with buildings where it is impossible to always have visual line of site (VLOS), is it ok if the spotter is in a different location than the pilot providing that either the spotter or pilot always have VLOS and if the pilot can visually see the spotter?

I believe the spotter and pilot not only have to be within direct earshot comms of each-other, but it can only be a temporary thing, otherwise you have to get a waiver for it.

Curious, if you cannot see it behind a building, isn’t the building possibility going to be blocking the signals as well?

 

[PhantomFandom]

When flying missions on a site with buildings where it is impossible to always have visual line of site (VLOS), is it ok if the spotter is in a different location than the pilot providing that either the spotter or pilot always have VLOS and if the pilot can visually see the spotter?

No, this is not legal as you laid it out.

The Visual Observer must be in direct contact range of the pilot. You must be able to hear the VO at all times during the flight. Also this cannot be through any communication device like a radio, phone, or walkie talkie.

 

[sdold]

No, this is not legal as you laid it out.

The Visual Observer must be in direct contact range of the pilot. You must be able to hear the VO at all times during the flight. Also this cannot be through any communication device like a radio, phone, or walkie talkie.

I think using a radio is OK because I don’t see anything that precludes using radios for communication, all I see is that effective communications be maintained. Have you seen something to the contrary? Here’s the current rule:

§ 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.

 

[Thomas B]

I think using a radio is OK because I don’t see anything that precludes using radios for communication, all I see is that effective communications be maintained. Have you seen something to the contrary? Here’s the current rule:

§ 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.

Using a radio is fine to do but does not meet FAA requirements for UAV pilot—> #3 says the pilot must have direct visual observation of the drone.

 

[WithTheBirds]

No, this is not legal as you laid it out.

The Visual Observer must be in direct contact range of the pilot. You must be able to hear the VO at all times during the flight. Also this cannot be through any communication device like a radio, phone, or walkie talkie.

Given the apparent consistency in the requirements of provisions in the jurisdictions

No, this is not legal as you laid it out.

The Visual Observer must be in direct contact range of the pilot. You must be able to hear the VO at all times during the flight. Also this cannot be through any communication device like a radio, phone, or walkie talkie.

You may be misinformed in this. Advisory Circular 107-2. 5.7.2.2 provides some guidance “To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance”.

You might safely assume “Walkie talkie” as you describe it could qualify as a hand-held radio.

 

[Thomas B]

Given the apparent consistency in the requirements of provisions in the jurisdictions

Using a radio is fine to do but does not meet FAA requirements for UAV pilot—> #3 says the pilot must have direct visual observation of the drone.

You may be misinformed in this. Advisory Circular 107-2. 5.7.2.2 provides some guidance “To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance”.

You might safely assume “Walkie talkie” as you describe it could qualify as a hand-held radio.

Using a radio is fine to do but does not meet FAA requirements for UAV pilot—> #3 above in post #5 says the pilot must have direct visual observation of the drone.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Using a radio is fine to do but does not meet FAA requirements for UAV pilot—> #3 above in post #5 says the pilot must have direct visual observation of the drone.

It would be helpful if you might elaborate on what you mean by meeting "FAA requirements". If your have presupposed that the PIC is flying as recreational vs 107 I'm not sure we have enough information to proceed with that assumption. What would your position be if the flight was commercial?

 

[Thomas B]

It would be helpful if you might elaborate on what you mean by meeting "FAA requirements". If your have presupposed that the PIC is flying as recreational vs 107 I'm not sure we have enough information to proceed with that assumption. What would your position be if the flight was commercial?

Please quote a reg. Thanks.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Please quote a reg. Thanks.

I have asked, I would think reasonably, that you might justify your assertion that radio use for communication with a VO by the PIC does not “meet FAA requirements”. My basis for questioning this has been outlined in post#3- FAA advisory circular.

Edit- I meant post#6

 

[Thomas B]

I have asked, I would think reasonably, that you might justify your assertion that radio use for communication with a VO by the PIC does not “meet FAA requirements”. My basis for questioning this has been outlined in post#3- FAA advisory circular.

Then you didn’t understand maybe. I have referenced the post and it’sthird point in my post ... reference post #4, numbered point c, #2 last line... requires pilot to have “direct visual observation”.
Going flying.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Then you didn’t understand maybe. I have referenced the post and it’sthird point in my post ... reference post #4, numbered point c, #2 last line... requires pilot to have “direct visual observation”.
Going flying.

Clearly I don’t understand or I wouldn’t have asked for clarification. No doubt someone will chime in who has a working understanding of the regulations. So we are clear- I am specifically interested in whether radio might be employed to provide for comms between a PIC and VO. For the purpose of the question let’s assume that 107 and any waiver requirements are satisfied.

 

[AnzacJack]

Depends what country your in. This is one of the regs that varies a fair bit country from country.

 

[sar104]

107.31 seems to cause endless confusion due to its slightly obscure wording. It's another case of "the exact words matter":

107.31 (a) states that the RPIC, the VO and the pilot must be able to see the aircraft. That statement means that all of them (if used) must have visual line of sight to the aircraft in order that they are able to see it. It doesn't mean that they all have to be looking at it all the time.

107.31 (b) states that the ability (VLOS) described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either the RPIC and pilot or the VO – i.e. one of them must actually be looking at it at all times.

So no – the pilot/RPIC cannot give up VLOS to the VO and must always be able to see the aircraft. The presence of a VO simply allows the pilot/RPIC to look away if needed.

§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.​

​

(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 in order 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.​

​

(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.​

 

[ubernerdsteve]

I know this is a really old post and people don't like dragging up the dead, but after mulling about it I thought it would be appropriate to post this for proper internet records (i.e. people searching for answers from Google or this forums search function) it should be noted that this last post is not correct and is the opinion of the poster, albeit a well structured interpretation and one that I shared prior. The FAA has issued an advisory circular in 2016 (well prior to this thread) which is a bankable document you could take to court with you as evidence you were not in the wrong. This of course unless someone got hurt in which case the FAA says you are pretty much always responsible...essentially the PIC always must exercise due regard which is legalese for you are always the person responsible for the safe outcome of the flight (an example of due regard would be getting a citation for "too fast for conditions" after crashing your car even if you were not, or the officer cannot prove, you were speeding because the officer can in fact prove that you were going too fast to be able to properly control your vehicle).

To the point that it is about nit-picking the wording, I would agree it is highly debated as to whether or not (a) says all must maintain VLOS at all times or whether or not (a) is simply defining for each of those roles what VLOS means and (b) states that any of those mentioned in (a) and maintaining VLOS per (a) may be responsible for VLOS providing there is clear and concise communication as to who is currently maintaining VLOS. Though I would argue that in the former interpretation it would be silly that optional people are required to maintain VLOS for the duration of the flight.

Enter the FAA Advisory Circular which clears this up in a normal FAA way which says the PIC is still responsible for anything that happens to the drones when the drone is BVLOS by the PIC for "operational necessity" and does not specify how far or how long this could be (similar language in recent years has been used for manned aircraft as well - for instance icing conditions used to be defined, now there are parameters in which the PIC must calculate to determine if their skills and their aircraft are adequate to operate in the conditions required for safe flight through a certain area). Funny enough this AC was mentioned above but only about the radio comms thing and didn't mention this component.

It should be noted that this AC107-2 was cancelled on February 1, 2021 because there would be conflicting information in the rest of the AC with the new part 107 changes, that said, other than night flying (not applicable in the thread above) no longer requiring a waiver, I believe this interpretation would have nothing new conflicting. As the new rules are pretty new though I could have missed something and welcome that feedback.

See below for the FAA Advisory Circular on the subject:

AC 107-2 5.7

5.7 VLOS Aircraft Operation. The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small UA at all times during flight. Therefore, the small UA must be operated closely enough to the CS to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UA operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used during the aircraft operation. However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity. For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with a small UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in part 107, §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances of what would prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one. If VLOS cannot be regained, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for a loss of VLOS. These procedures are determined by the capabilities of the sUAS and may include immediately landing the UA, entering hover mode, or returning to home sequence. Thus, the VLOS requirement would not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UA CS.

Edit: Before someone says I am promoting illegal activity with drones (or someone interprets that the above means you can take the decision lightly), I would clarify that anyone in this scenario must keep in mind this same due regard I talked about earlier which, because due regard is ambiguous, also means your judgement based on the open-endedness still present in the AC and that means your judgement will be compared to that of your peers so if your gut tells you its not in the spirit of the law then it is consequently illegal to conduct the flight. If your gut says otherwise, consider alternative escape routes and proper language with your VO because the issue would be 100% your mistake if the VO says you have a GA plane approaching on the right....which right, his, yours? Consequently I'd assume this is why you have to learn certain aviation language - its why a pilot says "left downwind of 33" as everyone listening knows the pilot is heading 150 with runway 33 on his left and at pattern altitude and distance from the airport. What is your breakaway procedure, land, return to home? Return to home would not be my go-to because my UAV usually goes up first then home to avoid terrain. In a helicopter during high risk work, anyone could state break-away which meant for us to make an evasive maneuver back and to the right, if that would actually put us in more risk there were alternative procedures in place for language or actions. One such scenario where an obstacle "snuck up on us" was in fact a drone. If you think your drone is just going to smash up against a rotorcraft you could be right, but a measly small bird can take down a helicopter if they hit in the right spot. If you think a pilot should never be below 400ft AGL and your plan is based on that, think again, we were flying 50ft AGL sometimes, with usually 3 people on board in collaboration with a state EOC (so we were supposed to be doing what we were doing). Going back to my point about lingo, intentional or not, I think it makes sense that a hobbyist specifically has the restriction of a directly adjacent spotter vs. a commercial PIC who has a better understanding of his airspace and is given the latitude to identify safe operational needs (also fair to point out that a hobbyist never has an operational "need"). On that note if the brief loss of VLOS space was not one in which no manned aircraft could fly, no people could go, and no property could be damaged (I supposed other than an expensive UAV), I'd likely only consider a spotter who is also part 107 or possibly 61/141 who would be proficient at see and avoid as well as remote communications.

 

[BigAl07]

@ubernerdsteve WELCOME to the forum

that's a very well written and accurate post.

 

[ubernerdsteve]

@ubernerdsteve WELCOME to the forum

that's a very well written and accurate post.

Thanks, nice to hear, I keep my eye on the forum but never registered until I stumbled across this. Good to get a thumbs up from you particularly and Thomas B. FYI I think you specifically will appreciate my edit at the end with some clarification in case someone wants to run off with my info and say they can fly BVLOS - some guy on a forum says so!