VLOS article I found interesting

[Zbip57]

All you need is a 107.31 and 107.33 waiver.

Let's start with that sentence, where you have mish-mashed some terms together.

To petition the FAA for a "waiver", you would need to present a convincing case as to why the FAA should waive the requirements of 107.31 just for you personally. You would need to demonstrate to them how you can safely conduct a 4mile BVLOS flight without the pilot being "able to see" the drone.

14 CFR 107.31(a) says, "With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, [#1] the remote pilot in command, [#2] the visual observer (if one is used), and [#3] 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:[...]"

Interpretation: All three people must be able to see the drone during the entire flight. If you, the pilot, cannot see the drone 4 miles away, there's no point in reading any further. Bzzzzzzt, you've already failed to meet this first requirement. Unless your name is Amazon or Walmart, it's extremely unlikely that the FAA would ever consider waiving this requirement just for you.

Note, it doesn't require all three people to be looking at the drone all the time. So far, it only says all three must be able to see it. That bit is then further clarified in 14 CFR 107.31(b), which says, "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."

Interpretation: Only one (1) or the other (2) is required to actually have eyes on the drone at any moment. But that doesn't negate the requirement in (a) that everyone must be able to see the drone at all times.

 

[Zbip57]

The 107.31 allows flight beyond visual line of sight [...]

No, it absolutely does not allow that.

[...] and the 107.33 removes the requirement that the RPIC and VOs be always able to see the drone.

Again no, no, no, it most certainly does not remove that requirement! 107.33 specifies additional requirements further to 107.31.

Read the actual text yourself here: 14 CFR 107.33

Interpretation: If a visual observer is used, each of the following apply:

• (a) The pilot, person operating the controls, AND the spotter have to do more than just be able to see the drone. They "must maintain effective communication with each other at all times."
• (b) It is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that "the visual observer is able to see the unmanned aircraft in the manner specified in § 107.31."
• (c) In addition to all three being able to see the drone, and maintaining effective communication, the pilot, person operating the controls, AND the spotter must coordinate to do the following:
  • (1) Scan the airspace for potential collision hazards; and
  • (2) "Maintain awareness of the position of the small unmanned aircraft through direct visual observation."

Nobody could misinterpret this as badly as you apparently have.

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.

There's zero chance anyone from the FAA actually said that.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

In Response to some of the strange Comments written above. : Here is the Official Email from the FAA 9/302024 written directly to me. There is a 100 % Chance the FAA did say this.

I left the FAA info because it is clear to me that Many that Copy and Paste endless Rules and Regs may not really understand it and in doing so miss lead people. Lets not do that , take a moment as i did to Clarify any questions you might have.



Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water, and fly beyond VLOS with a 107.33 Waiver

 

[DoomMeister]

@Phantomrain.org do you hold a §107 certification? If you do, then you can apply for a waiver to any part of 14 CFR §107, and if not then you cannot apply for a waiver. Without a waiver BVLOS flight is not allowed.

 

[Zbip57]

In Response to some of the strange [?] Comments written above [...]

If there's any part of my comments you didn't understand, please, point out the bits that you felt were strange and I'd be happy to clarify them for you.

[...] it is clear to me that Many that Copy and Paste endless Rules and Regs may not really understand it and in doing so miss lead people.

Here again are direct links to the text of 107.31 and 107.33.

14 CFR 107.31
14 CFR 107.33

I won't copy/paste anything. I won't try to mislead you with my own [strange] interpretations. Don't get angry. Just read the actual regulations for yourself.

Then explain how those regulations could possibly be interpreted by anyone as saying this:

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.

That's just plain wrong.

This was the only bit that made any sense:

All you need is a 107.31 and 107.33 waiver.

It sounds dead simple when it's said, "All you need is a waiver." But I'm certain the FAA doesn't hand out those waivers willy-nilly every day to just anyone. It's not as though you just ask, "Can I ignore what this regulation says?", and the FAA says, "Ya, sure. Go right ahead. Here's your waiver."

An official waiver (issued by the FAA) would allow you a temporary exemption from those particular regulatory requirements. But the FAA would first require a lot of documentation from you justifying how you plan to safely conduct your (otherwise forbidden) BVLOS flight. And the FAA would almost certainly attach a long list of additional conditions and restrictions, to ensure safety, before ever considering granting you such a waiver.

 

[Droning on and on...]

@Zbip57, of course waivers are not handed out "willy-nilly".

However, the impression I get from your posts is that they are near impossible to get, unless you have the clout of Walmart or Amazon.

That's not right either.

People like @Phantomrain.org get waivers all the time when they have a reasonable mission, and have planned out the flight to cover safety and other issues.

 

[Zbip57]

People [...] get waivers all the time when they have a reasonable mission, and have planned out the flight to cover safety and other issues.

Isn't that exactly what I just finished saying?

An official waiver (issued by the FAA) would allow you a temporary exemption from those particular regulatory requirements. But the FAA would first require a lot of documentation from you justifying how you plan to safely conduct your (otherwise forbidden) BVLOS flight. And the FAA would almost certainly attach a long list of additional conditions and restrictions, to ensure safety, before ever considering granting you such a waiver.

You said:

People like @Phantomrain.org get waivers all the time [...]

I would be astounded, utterly gobsmacked, if the FAA has ever authorized a waiver to anyone who claims to believe the following, because it's so obviously NOT what either of those regulations actually say:

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.

If either of those [strange] statements referring to 107.31 or 107.33 were true [they're not!], then you wouldn't need a waiver to fly BVLOS.

The full quote, is completely illogical and makes no sense at all. Why would you even need a waiver if 107.31 already allows BVLOS flight? And why would you need a waiver if 107.33 removes the requirement to always be able to see the drone? It's simply not true.

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]

Isn't that exactly what I just finished saying?



You said:


I would be astounded, utterly gobsmacked, if the FAA has ever authorized a waiver to anyone who claims to believe the following, because it's so obviously NOT what either of those regulations actually say:


If either of those [strange] statements referring to 107.31 or 107.33 were true [they're not!], then you wouldn't need a waiver to fly BVLOS.

The full quote, is completely illogical and makes no sense at all. Why would you even need a waiver if 107.31 already allows BVLOS flight? And why would you need a waiver if 107.33 removes the requirement to always be able to see the drone? It's simply not true.

What is the Point of you posting this over and over, I already proved you Wrong with email from FAA ,, give it up dude and stop your whining.

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

 

[MS Coast]

What is the Point of you posting this over and over, I already proved you Wrong with email from FAA ,, give it up dude and stop your whining.

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

@Phantomrain.org's wording wasn't correct, but I think you're both on the same page.

Isn't this what you both mean?

The WAIVER TO 107.31 allows flight beyond visual line of sight and the WAIVER TO 107.33 removes the requirement that the RPIC and VOs be always able to see the drone.

 

[Zbip57]

The WAIVER TO 107.31 allows flight beyond visual line of sight and the WAIVER TO 107.33 removes the requirement that the RPIC and VOs be always able to see the drone.

Does he have that waiver in hand?

Not that dubious quote from the UAS Support Center. An actual official legal waiver issued to him by the FAA?

 

[Phantomrain.org]

@Phantomrain.org's wording wasn't correct, but I think you're both on the same page.

Isn't this what you both mean?

The WAIVER TO 107.31 allows flight beyond visual line of sight and the WAIVER TO 107.33 removes the requirement that the RPIC and VOs be always able to see the drone.

I did not write anything, anywhere, !! Are you talking about the FAA EMAIL that I quoted from ?

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water and Post FAA emails for Clarity.

 

[Zbip57]

I already proved you Wrong with email from FAA [...]

Don't take this so personally. It's not about who's right or wrong.

The only relevant question is, what does the regulation actually say?

As far as I know under the new regs, there is no such thing as a spotter anymore in the US.
This use to be my Go to but I was politely told it was no longer acceptable.

When you say "new regs", are you referring to regulations other than 107.31 & 107.33, for which I have provided links? Am I pointing at outdated links??? If so, please, anybody, point me to the updated regulations. If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow and admit I was mistaken.

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 .

You admit the FAA told you, back then, that your long distance BVLOS flights were not allowed. Has the regulation been changed since then?

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.

So what has changed since 2021?

If 107.31 & 107.33 are still the exact same regulations, then why would the FAA have any different interpretation now?

That quote from Paul Hamilton of the FAA UAS Support Center makes no sense. It's not logical as written, unless you receive an actual legal waiver from the FAA.

Let me ask you this. Will you continue doing long distance BVLOS flights? Do you really think carrying a printout of that quote in your pocket somehow excuses you from following what the regulations clearly say?

If I had a documented history of already being warned by the FAA, I'd be inclined to seek a proper legal opinion before repeating the same offence.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Don't take this so personally. It's not about who's right or wrong.

The only relevant question is, what does the regulation actually say?


When you say "new regs", are you referring to regulations other than 107.31 & 107.33, for which I have provided links? Am I pointing at outdated links??? If so, please, anybody, point me to the updated regulations. If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow and admit I was mistaken.


You admit the FAA told you, back then, that your long distance BVLOS flights were not allowed. Has the regulation been changed since then?


So what has changed since 2021?

If 107.31 & 107.33 are still the exact same regulations, then why would the FAA have any different interpretation now?

That quote from Paul Hamilton of the FAA UAS Support Center makes no sense. It's not logical as written, unless you receive an actual legal waiver from the FAA.

Let me ask you this. Will you continue doing long distance BVLOS flights? Do you really think carrying a printout of that quote in your pocket somehow excuses you from following what the regulations clearly say?

If I had a documented history of already being warned by the FAA, I'd be inclined to seek a proper legal opinion before repeating the same offence.

DUDE you called me out as a Liar that that you Doubted that FAA would ever say what they Wrote, and you did not even Man up and just Apologize when I posted the Email for you. , you choose to just keep Ranting with your Posts.

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

 

[Zbip57]

DUDE you called me out as a Liar that that you Doubted that FAA would ever say what they Wrote, and you did not even Man up and just Apologize when I posted the Email for you. , you choose to just keep Ranting with your Posts.

If that's what this is about, then I do apologize to you for that. You did include a screenshot of the email indicating the quote came from the FAA.

Nonetheless, the regulation says what it does. It remains illegal to fly BVLOS beyond the range of the pilot being able to see the drone. The only way that prohibition can be sidestepped is by completing the application process and receiving approval via an official FAA Waiver.

That [strange] quote from your FAA contact is certainly not to be treated as an official waiver.

 

[Rchawks]

 

[Droning on and on...]

Nonetheless, the regulation says what it does.

As you interpret it.

It remains illegal to fly BVLOS beyond the range of the pilot being able to see the drone. The only way that prohibition can be sidestepped is by completing the application process and receiving approval via an official FAA Waiver.

Again, according to your interpretation.

That [strange] quote from your FAA contact is certainly not to be treated as an official waiver.

Strange to you.

The FAA may interpret it differently than you, particularly when regulations are conflicting or ambiguous in some way.

And, what is crystal clear in your interpretation, an exact match for the words on the page, is not for someone else.

As far as what interpretation to go with, when confronted by an authority, I'm pulling out the FAA Help Center email, not a posting by @Zbip57.

 

[GFields]

​