VLOS article I found interesting

[Zbip57]

Welllllll me and @zeusfl got into a little bit of FAA awakening after our long distance flights with spotters.
I was not to happy about it , as to this day I am still a bit confused .

The FAA does like to make things confusing.

It makes sense to me that, if the pilot can't see the drone, then a spotter should be required in a position where he can see the drone and tell the pilot what to do in case assistance is required to avoid an accident. If you want to fly your drone behind a stand of trees or behind a building, then you need a spotter positioned to watch the drone while it is out of sight of the pilot.

It makes no sense to require that spotter to be "co-located", standing beside the pilot, if then neither of you can see the drone as it passes out of sight behind the trees or building.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The pilot or a spotter must be able to see the drone. So we can have a daisy-chained line of spotters in radio communication with the pilot when the drone is beyond VLOS of the pilot. They do not need to be co-located.

...and all of this is just so much paternal, nanny-state BS.

Proof: Air Force drone operations.

It's not about whether or not remote FPV operations can be executed with an acceptable level of risk, rather it's about what is reasonably required to do so.

The existing record suggests the equipment and technology available now to the recreational flyer is sufficient to be very safe.

I think some greater training is justified to enable non-observer FPV flight, something between TRUST and 107. Would be nice if the FAA would re-evaluate this.

Especially now that we're getting fully-capable drones like the Neo, that are quite safe at 135g so long as they don't plow straight into someone's eye, throat, or... elsewhere, guys.

 

[Droning on and on...]

If you want to fly your drone behind a stand of trees or behind a building, then you need a spotter positioned to watch the drone while it is out of sight of the pilot.

There are plenty of situations where a spotter makes no difference, nor would them being able to see the drone.

Two real instances I encounter regularly where I FPV (among many other locales): Following a creek in wild environs; exploring a vineyard on private land.

 

[Zbip57]

There are plenty of situations where a spotter makes no difference, nor would them being able to see the drone.
Two real instances I encounter regularly where I FPV (among many other locales): Following a creek in wild environs; exploring a vineyard on private land.

Agreed. There definitely are situations where a spotter won't be contributing anything useful.

Our 901.11 (2) goes on to specify that if neither the pilot nor the spotter are able to see the drone, then you need special permission from Transport Canada via a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC).

...and all of this is just so much paternal, nanny-state BS.
Proof: Air Force drone operations.

And yet, even the Air Force gets it wrong sometimes.

www.airandspaceforces.com/c-130collideswithdroneinafghanistan/
www.suasnews.com/2011/08/images-of-damaged-c130-surface-from-afghanistan/
www.suasnews.com/2011/08/c130-and-rq-7-collision-fingers-pointing-at-c130-crew/

 

[Fergy]

I can only see my Drone MA3 for about 400Mts, I only fly over ocean and rural country locations and not in suburbia so thats why I have a great high tech drone from DJI that allows me to fly BLOS, but I would not be alone.

 

[Vic Moss]

That's another difference between Canada vs USA.

BVLOS requires the use of a Visual Observer spotter in both countries. In the USA the FAA requires that the spotter to be "co-located" with the pilot. Not so in Canada.

The FAA doesn't require a VO to be co-located for BVLOS flights. They just need to be present. You can use radios to communicate. Co-located is only for FPV under recreational rules in the U.S.

Our regulation CARS 901.20 (1) requires that, "reliable and timely communication is maintained between the pilot and each visual observer during the operation."

One of the questions on the licence exam asked about possible ways that this reliable communication might be interrupted, with the correct answer being radio interference! That implies that the pilot and "each visual observer" [daisy-chained?] is allowed to be in communication with the pilot by radio, not necessarily co-located.

 

[Zbip57]

The FAA doesn't require a VO to be co-located for BVLOS flights. They just need to be present. You can use radios to communicate. Co-located is only for FPV under recreational rules in the U.S.

Thanks Vic. I did fix that in post #38.

The relevant difference that I was trying to point is that § 107.31(a) says, even if not co-located, both the pilot and the spotter must be able to see the drone at all times.

Our regulation 901.11 (1) instead says, either the pilot or the spotter(s) must be able to see the drone.

Thus it appears that daisy-chaining radio-equipped observers beyond visual-line-of-sight of the pilot is not allowed under Part 107, whereas it is allowed by Transport Canada.

 

[Vic Moss]

Thanks Vic. I did fix that in post #38.

The relevant difference that I was trying to point is that § 107.31(a) says, even if not co-located, both the pilot and the spotter must be able to see the drone at all times.

Our regulation 901.11 (1) instead says, either the pilot or the spotter(s) must be able to see the drone.

Thus it appears that daisy-chaining radio-equipped observers beyond visual-line-of-sight of the pilot is not allowed under Part 107, whereas it is allowed by Transport Canada.

Ah. I didn't read all the posts. After a while, there are just too many.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Ultimately I have to call the FAA again, and see if any this holds up , because I was contacted by the FAA about the Flight I took with spotters along the flight with a radio and was told that was a No go , the only thing was that was back 2021.

Be nice to just be able repost the video of the long distance flight I took .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. land on the Water, and pray spotters are back from the dead.

 

[Vic Moss]

Ultimately I have to call the FAA again, and see if any this holds up , because I was contacted by the FAA about the Flight I took with spotters along the flight with a radio and was told that was a No go , the only thing was that was back 2021.

Be nice to just be able repost the video of the long distance flight I took .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. land on the Water, and pray spotters are back from the dead.

I can promise you that daisy chain VOs are not allowed unless you have a waiver. It does not satisfy §107.31(a). That states the the RPIC must maintain the ability described in the entirety of (a). If you daisy chain VOs, you as the RPIC are not maintaining the ability of VLOS.

By all means though, reach out to [email protected]. Post their answer here.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

I can promise you that daisy chain VOs are not allowed unless you have a waiver. It does not satisfy §107.31(a). That states the the RPIC must maintain the ability described in the entirety of (a). If you daisy chain VOs, you as the RPIC are not maintaining the ability of VLOS.

By all means though, reach out to [email protected]. Post their answer here.

There Drone FAA number is no longer accepting calls , just emails. but I am certain you are 100 % Correct and thank you for that word Daisy Chain , that is what i was looking for. . If the email back to me is anything Positive I will be glad to post it , not holding my breath ,

Here was my go to phone for the FAA : 844-359-6982 for immediate response but now its email only it seems.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water.

 

[Vic Moss]

There Drone FAA number is no longer accepting calls , just emails. but I am certain you are 100 % Correct and thank you for that word Daisy Chain , that is what i was looking for. . If the email back to me is anything Positive I will be glad to post it , not holding my breath ,

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water.

Hmmm. First I heard about the phone number. I’ll ask.

 

[Vic Moss]

From Landon-

“Hi Vic,

We are in the process of transitioning phone systems (software) which may result in some reduced availability this week. The 1-844-FLY-MY-UA number is still staffed; however, we have four Analysts for the country and together we handle around 22,000+ inquiries annually. If one of the four us is available, the phone will ring immediately without delay. There are no phone menus here.

If we are on another call, in a meeting, etc. we have a recording that says to send us an email at [email protected] for the quickest and most thorough response – we do indeed respond to most inquires within minutes. Stakeholders are always welcome to request a call back as well, if needed. We do not want Stakeholders to spend their valuable time sitting on hold, and that is why we removed the hold option. ”

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Read the Article

I for one would read the article if you posted the URL that I asked for or the full article.

 

[zeusfl]

All I have to say is that they are very nice. They lean more toward educating than penalizing. He said they care after 2500 feet because they understand that a person with good vision and spotlights can still see the drone at that distance. I was little over that. Yes, he said spotlights are allowed to see where the drone is. I believe that’s not how the rule should be interpreted, but that’s what he said.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I can promise you that daisy chain VOs are not allowed unless you have a waiver. It does not satisfy §107.31(a). That states the the RPIC must maintain the ability described in the entirety of (a). If you daisy chain VOs, you as the RPIC are not maintaining the ability of VLOS.

This brought to mind a hypothetical question.
What if two controllers can be used with the same drone ?
E.g. the mavic 2 series.
Controller 1 and pilot 1 are at the launch point whilst controller 2 and pilot 2 are at the limit of pilot 1's VLOS. Once the drone has reached pilot 1's the limit of VLOS pilot 1surrenders control to pilot 2.
With the Mavic 2s pilot 2 could TAKE control of the drone if they were using the primary controller but on the return trip would have to surrender control to pilot 1 i.e. pilot one would have to stop issuing flight commands with their controller.
Something similar can also be done with the FPV when both a std controller and a motion controller have been paired with the drone but the pilot in command has to switch their controller off in order for the second controller to take over control.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Last time I connected with the FAA on the phone , the FAA rep said they do not even consider anything under 5000 ft out before they will consider being involved. That was 2023, good to hear from you Zeus.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water.

 

[zeusfl]

Last time I connected with the FAA on the phone , the FAA rep said they do not even consider anything under 5000 ft out before they will consider being involved. That was 2023, good to hear from you Zeus.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water.

How are you doing my friend !!

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Got My up to date Response back from the FAA : as op noted above ,

Today,
All you need is a 107.31 and 107.33 waiver. The 107.31 allows flight beyond visual line of sight and the 107.33 removes the requirement that the RPIC and VOs be always able to see the drone.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water.

 

[Zbip57]

All you need is a 107.31 and 107.33 waiver. The 107.31 allows flight beyond visual line of sight and the 107.33 removes the requirement that the RPIC and VOs be always able to see the drone.

Um, what? Is that just your own interpretation of what the FAA replied?

Please post a scan, photo, or at least the exact wording of what was actually said, because what you wrote there makes no sense whatsoever.