Yes the FAA does contact you

[SpitFire]

You can do a query, in the search function, ( magnifying glass Icon upper right) its a great way to find out answers
to such questions as "VLOS What does that mean?). All in one section, if you have any more questions.

 

[BigAl07]

Yes agree. I am not confused in the least about what just happened.?

Your attitude is great and very much appreciated.

 

[Higher Attitudes]

Rich QR said
(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards;​

If the PIC or VO is expected to know the attitude to be legal with VLOS, does that person also need to know the actual altitude without telemetry from the software? Even in clear VLOS I'm not going to be able to do better than a rough guess. So, how much accuracy do we need to be able to provide? The reg is unclear the level of accuracy required if this is the case. What has your experience with this been? (Asking for a friend

 

[BigAl07]

If the PIC or VO is expected to know the attitude to be legal with VLOS, does that person also need to know the actual altitude without telemetry from the software? Even in clear VLOS I'm not going to be able to do better than a rough guess. So, how much accuracy do we need to be able to provide? The reg is unclear the level of accuracy required if this is the case. What has your experience with this been? (Asking for a friend

You need to do your best to estimate and when in doubt operate with a fair margin of safety. If you think your estimation is good for say +/- 50' then shoot for 350' AGL. No one is going to bust your chops for a few feet but if there is an incident and your records are pulled they will extrapolate your AGL and you're liable for it either way.

 

[Rich QR]

If the PIC or VO is expected to know the attitude to be legal with VLOS, does that person also need to know the actual altitude without telemetry from the software? Even in clear VLOS I'm not going to be able to do better than a rough guess. So, how much accuracy do we need to be able to provide? The reg is unclear the level of accuracy required if this is the case. What has your experience with this been? (Asking for a friend

It doesn't specify to what precision you must be able to judge attitude, altitude, and direction of flight. Absent any other guidance, I'd guess they at least mean you should be able to determine those parameters well enough to safely navigate, avoid collision hazards, and comply with other rules.

Most of us can't eyeball altitude very precisely, but we're supposed to stay below 400 ft AGL. We can use our drone's telemetry to help us, but it only tells us height above launch point, not the precise height above the ground underneath the drone. So you probably have to eyeball the terrain and/or apply a safety factor conservative enough to be sure you're complying with the rules.

 

[Vic Moss]

Regarding my contact by the FAA:
I had a 20 minute call with the FAA today, based in San Jose, CA - USA. The guy was fairly casual and friendly but the undertone of authority was definitely there. He said the YT video complaint was actually for flying into restricted airspace. He watched my vid and saw that wasn't the case but as he kept watching he determined I was beyond VLOS. If there's any doubt as to what that means its......VISUAL SIGHT OF YOUR DEVICE WITH THE NAKED EYE. He referred to 107.31 and I told him (truthfully) that I knew what 107 piloting was and had determined early that I wasn't going for that and had therefore not read the 107 regs prior to purchase. I complained that (in Aug. 2020) the recreational mention of the subject in the "Drone Zone" section was not very clear. He agreed. He said they are aware of the confusion and they're working on it. We kind of rambled around talking about different things. He said his Team had watched several of my vids and liked my style.....whatever that means. About all of them clearly show me BVLOS. He asked if I would do a video regarding this subject (unofficially). He never once said "this is a warning" or "you've been warned". Obviously its a warning but I have to say the guy was about as friendly as he could have been. I asked him if the FAA had assigned an actual distance to VLOS. His response was interesting...he told me he could see a drone from a mile when he was young but now....3/4 of a mile. He was talking about from a plane. I told him I can only see my drone from the ground to about 1,100 feet. I mentioned that I had clear view of the airspace where I fly out to about 3 miles and could see air traffic out there. No comment from him. He asked me if my device was registered....to which I replied "of course". Meaning, he hadn't looked me up I guess. Anyway.....he was feeling me out to see if I was going to argue. When I didn't, he was cool and just wanted to make sure I understood the reg and why it was in place. There was more so if you have specific questions I'll be online for a bit.

Sounds like things went well. And you had a good attitude. That's goes a very long way. The fact that he asked you about making a video proves that.

Among the many hats I wear in the UAS industry, one of them is that I help out the FAA's Communication Team. If you're interested, let him know, and then make sure you run everything through them. If you or he need help contacting them, just let me know. [email protected].

 

[Thomas B]

Does FAA still (or really ever) require spotter to be within auditory range without aid of audio equipment other than hearing corrective equipment (hearing aid)?

EDIT: NM. Last post just appeared as I was writing this.

Billy could be next but supposedly he has a spotter.

Yes for some time.

 

[Chip]

Your attitude is great and very much appreciated.

Sounds like things went well. And you had a good attitude. That's goes a very long way. The fact that he asked you about making a video proves that.

Among the many hats I wear in the UAS industry, one of them is that I help out the FAA's Communication Team. If you're interested, let him know, and then make sure you run everything through them. If you or he need help contacting them, just let me know. [email protected].

Well handled Ken. Good thread, lesson and words of advice.

 

[Chip]

BigAl07, how often or under what circumstances would FAA ask to see flight logs and going back how far? (I think you mentioned this possibility but could not find quickly when I scrolled back). I am sure it would depend on circumstances and the person to some extent but how far should reasonable cooperation go with a FAA field investigation like this in your view?

 

[BigAl07]

BigAl07, how often or under what circumstances would FAA ask to see flight logs and going back how far? (I think you mentioned this possibility but could not find quickly when I scrolled back). I am sure it would depend on circumstances and the person to some extent but how far should reasonable cooperation go with a FAA field investigation like this in your view?

I honestly can't answer that question as it's well outside of my scope. All I can do is guess/assume each aspect:

How often? I would say if there is an incident and/or investigation going on they "Can" go back as far as is available.
What circumstances? If they are investigating something that appears to show a violation and they need telemetry to verify or improve the case. I would imagine that it would take a fairly significant amount of "justification" to get the approval to pull your flight logs and not just a "hunch". I know of more than one "occasion" where the operator's telemetry recorded on their video was enough to cook their goose.
Reasonable cooperation? I'd do whatever was asked of me so long as it doesn't violate any of my Constitutional rights given to me. But that's just me and not the "common thought process" these days. Keep in mind that most of us (I'm assuming here) auto=synch our flight logs with the DJI servers so even without our cooperation/consent/knowledge they can get access to those records and they have.

 

[Vic Moss]

I honestly can't answer that question as it's well outside of my scope. All I can do is guess/assume each aspect:

How often? I would say if there is an incident and/or investigation going on they "Can" go back as far as is available.
What circumstances? If they are investigating something that appears to show a violation and they need telemetry to verify or improve the case. I would imagine that it would take a fairly significant amount of "justification" to get the approval to pull your flight logs and not just a "hunch". I know of more than one "occasion" where the operator's telemetry recorded on their video was enough to cook their goose.

Very true. Some folks, especially those who are going for distance, post videos showing the screen recording with all related telemetry. That's a pure case of self incrimination. Sort of like the folks who post GoPro recordings of them riding the motorcycles at extreme speeds.

If there is a violation, the FAA can ask for records. If you don't give the records to them, they can subpoena them. If you destroy your records, they can get them from the manufacturer if you sync them.

Reasonable cooperation? I'd do whatever was asked of me so long as it doesn't violate any of my Constitutional rights given to me. But that's just me and not the "common thought process" these days. Keep in mind that most of us (I'm assuming here) auto=synch our flight logs with the DJI servers so even without our cooperation/consent/knowledge they can get access to those records and they have.

Case in point here was the guy who hit the Huey with his Phantom off the coast of NYC a couple of years ago. The NTSB had pieces of the drone, and at least one had the serial number on it. DJI cooperated with those investigating and were able to track the original owner. And that happened to be the guy who was flying. In that case, no one needed a court order, and flight records weren't an issue though.

If there was an active investigation into a certain person, it's unlikely any manufacturer would voluntarily cooperate. It would set a bad example, and be a public relations nightmare if that word got out.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Is it actually in the regulations somewhere that a UAS pilot must keep a flight log? I'm pretty sure I've seen an advisory that recommends keeping a log, but Is it actually in the Part 107 regulations somewhere? (I actually read all of Part 107 some time ago and don't recall seeing it.)

 

[Rich QR]

Is it actually in the regulations somewhere that a UAS pilot must keep a flight log? I'm pretty sure I've seen an advisory that recommends keeping a log, but Is it actually in the Part 107 regulations somewhere? (I actually read all of Part 107 some time ago and don't recall seeing it.)

There is NO legal requirement to keep a log in the Part 107 regulations. Some waivers may require logs to show that training was received. Logs also may help you keep track of maintenance, and may be useful to show that you attempted to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy manner. Logs may be useful for insurance purposes or for marketing purposes.

Here's a good page by a lawyer who specializes in drone aviation law. He has a thorough discussion of the issues:

Ultimate Drone Logbook Guide (Law, Reviews, etc.)

Searching for a drone logbook? Confused about drone logbook apps? Find out in this article what you need to do to be safe, legal, and profitable.

jrupprechtlaw.com

But to reiterate: a logbook is NOT explicitly required by Part 107, and it's NOT explicitly required for recreational drone pilots. There still may be reasons you might want to keep one, though.

 

[Chip]

Reasonable cooperation? I'd do whatever was asked of me so long as it doesn't violate any of my Constitutional rights given to me. But that's just me and not the "common thought process" these days. Keep in mind that most of us (I'm assuming here) auto=synch our flight logs with the DJI servers so even without our cooperation/consent/knowledge they can get access to those records and they have.

Do you know if DJI has official policy governing release of flight logs with/without subpoena or search warrant?

I was assuming that FAA cannot compel you to make a statement or produce any document other than by subpoena which they cannot serve unless they go through US attorney and federal court. But, if they can call up DJI and get whatever they want upon request, then it could be youre done bud we got the flight logs.

After reading this discussion, I have no problem with the FAA contacting someone who posted a video on youtube which draws a complaint. Mainly because if you post on YT you are inviting public scrutiny and comment. Its then up to the individual to decide how to respond but for many people it may be best to take ownership and hopefully be treated fairly at least first time around.

Where it gets far more troublesome in my opinion is when FAA or any government agency has right and ability to go back in time weeks, months or years and examine all flights for errors or irregularities without your knowledge, probable cause, or consent. I can see submitting to such monitoring with no big argument if you are Amazon looking to make billions while flying over the heads of everyone but I am skeptical otherwise.

 

[anotherlab]

Where it gets far more troublesome in my opinion is when FAA or any government agency has right and ability to go back in time weeks, months or years and examine all flights for errors or irregularities without your knowledge, probable cause, or consent. I can see submitting to such monitoring with no big argument if you are Amazon looking to make billions while flying over the heads of everyone but I am skeptical otherwise.

How exactly are they going back in time to examine all flights without your knowledge or consent? There is a piece missing here.

 

[Chip]

How exactly are they going back in time to examine all flights without your knowledge or consent? There is a piece missing here.

I am assuming there are a few different ways including:

-if you synch your flights with DJI and DJI provides access without notice or a warrant;
-you fly within range of someone using an aeroscope or any similar device who records and releases the data;
-two years from now, if you fly within range of anyone with an app who records and releases the data;
-as mightypilot 2000 discussed, a network of some type is created to capture publicly broadcast RID signals and participants record and release the data.

My recollection is that the FAA has itself said it plans to track and record some drones by RID for purposes of research and law enforcement. But, I would have to look for cite.

I am also extrapolating from a comment by Vic about "smart cities" which I took to mean places which have full drone tracking of every flight 24/7/365. I assume all you would need is a few of these strategically placed depending on geography and buildings:

Home | Gresco UAS

Innovative industrial UAS solutions and services backed by more than 50 years of customer-focused legacy you expect from Gresco

grescouas.com

 

[Chip]

Notice that part of Gresco's opening pitch is:

Use Aeroscope to gain airspace situational awareness for disaster response and recovery operations, TFR enforcement, stadiums, arenas, large outdoor venues, and high-security events.

It is not:

Use Aeroscope to gain situational awareness of every 250 gram+ drone which lifts off or starts motors at any time anywhere inside your neighborhood, town, city, state or country.

 

[Chip]

This is what Gresco says:​

FAA/FCC Compliance​

As a passive system, Aeroscope does not transmit or, in any way, interfere with the flight of the aircraft. Instead, Aeroscope provides the operator with the precise “Home” and pilot’s location, allowing law enforcement or security personnel to respond to the location of the pilot to mitigate the flight.

Notice how it says "allowing law enforcement or security personnel to respond to location." It does not say "allowing anyone with a cell phone to track and confront drone owner in real time."

Gresco does not mention the August 2020 FCC Advisory which explicitly warns that anyone intercepting drone signal without special authority may be violating federal wiretapping laws (civil and criminal):

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-366222A1.pdf

 

[anotherlab]

I am assuming there are a few different ways including:

-if you synch your flights with DJI and DJI provides access without notice or a warrant;
-you fly within range of someone using an aeroscope or any similar device who records and releases the data;
-two years from now, if you fly within range of anyone with an app who records and releases the data;
-as mightypilot 2000 discussed, a network of some type is created to capture publicly broadcast RID signals and participants record and release the data.

You had posted this earlier in this thread:

FAA or any government agency has right and ability to go back in time weeks, months or years and examine all flights for errors or irregularities without your knowledge, probable cause, or consent]

I don't think that's an accurate statement. I agree with some of the sentiment, just not with the argument that you are using.

If you synch your flights with DJI, that was a choice you made. Also, a warrant would be required to show probable cause. AFAIK, DJI collects the takeoff and landing locations but doesn't track the pilot's location during the flight.

Aeroscope only sells to LE or government agencies. If you show up on an Aeroscope display, you were flying where it wasn't allowed. Those types of agencies do not freely give out that kind of information. That tends to fall under the purview of Homeland Security and they really don't like to give out data.

Two years from now, you will know about Remote ID. Just by flying a RID equipped drone, you will have given your consent for that data to be given out.

The "network" to capture and broadcast will would also occur with you knowing about Remote ID. I can see this happening because some people will freak out and other people will think it's a cool thing to build.

 

[Chip]

If you synch your flights with DJI, that was a choice you made.

Back to consent. Okay. If DOT and DHS announce tomorrow that all motor vehicles must be retrofitted with GPS trackers so your driving may be monitored and sanctioned when and where appropriate, would you be fine with it? If you can opt not to drive, does that mean any regulation or condition may be imposed on grounds of voluntary consent?

Consider cell phones. We are all on notice that law enforcement can easily track our every move via cellphone site simulators. If we choose to carry a cellphone, does that mean we consent to surreptitious tracking by law enforcement with no warrant?

If you synch your flights with DJI, that was a choice you made. Also, a warrant would be required to show probable cause.

You are pushing and pulling in opposite directions with this. Either synching records consensually waives any reasonable expectation of privacy or it does not and if law enforcement wants to see them a search warrant based on probable cause is required. If you concede that no one should be asking to see flight records without a warrant then we have no argument!

Aeroscope only sells to LE or government agencies.

I just don't buy that. Especially when everything is hidden by non-disclosure agreements.

If you show up on an Aeroscope display, you were flying where it wasn't allowed.

That shows a massive trust in people and institutions that I do not have.

Those types of agencies do not freely give out that kind of information. That tends to fall under the purview of Homeland Security and they really don't like to give out data.

DHS has published a memo of its legal authority to monitor and mitigate drone risk. Its all tied to protecting fixed sites and assets. Its memo also warns that federal, state and local law enforcement should make sure they have legal right to track drones without violating the law.

DHS Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems Legal Authorities

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs_cuas-legal-authorities_fact-sheet_190506-508.pdf

Key Excerpt:
Privacy Protection The Act requires the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to: Ensure intercept, acquisition, or access of communications to or from UAS is consistent with First and Fourth amendment protections and applicable Federal laws. Only intercept, acquire, or access communications to or from UAS only in support of an authorized CUAS action. Delete records of communications to or from UAS after 180 days, unless it is necessary to: • Directly support an ongoing Department security operation. • Investigate or prosecute a violation of law. Not disclose any communications to or from UAS outside the Department unless the communication: • Supports a protection or security operation between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. • Supports an investigation or prosecution of a security threat. • Supports a CUAS criminal investigation, civil investigation, or an enforcement action from the Department of Defense, a civilian law enforcement agency, or a Federal regulatory agency. • Is otherwise required by law

Two years from now, you will know about Remote ID. Just by flying a RID equipped drone, you will have given your consent for that data to be given out.

That sounds like resistance is futile you will be assimilated!