Confused about Part 107 VLOS requirements

[RickMC]

In paragraph (a) below it says that all three roles must maintain VLOS during the entire flight, but then paragraph (b) says that this ability can be exercised by the pilot in command OR the visual observer. So I’m confused, the first paragraph says everyone involved has to maintain VLOS but then the next paragraph shows an EITHER/OR scenario. Isn’t this contradictory?

(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 personmanipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Hi Rick,

Arguments have been made both ways. Without a court case setting absolute precedent, you (as are we all) are responsible to read the reg, make up your own mind, and operate accordingly. Sorry to leave it in a gray area, but that's what we have to work with for now.

 

[Hawaii Drone Imaging]

Para (a) is just stating that anyone in any of those 3 roles must be able to "see" in order to do the following (1,2,34)

Para (b) is saying if either of the 3 roles can "see" and do 1 thru 4 to those capabilities, either of the 3 roles has to do it through the whole flight.

I think they wrote it that way because you can be a PIC and have someone "unlicensed" flying the aircraft, therefore it would be best if the PIC had eyes on it at all times vs. the person on the sticks.

or

If you are PIC, but trying to guide the person on the sticks, the VO can keep constant visuals and flight be safely covered.

Not everyones scenario will have a VO available leaving the PIC as responsible party to keep eyes on sometimes.

I've been in aviation for 28yrs...They wrote it like that and wrote other regulations in the same format to "cover all the bases". Confusing, but true..lol

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

In paragraph (a) below it says that all three roles must maintain VLOS during the entire flight, but then paragraph (b) says that this ability can be exercised by the pilot in command OR the visual observer. So I’m confused, the first paragraph says everyone involved has to maintain VLOS but then the next paragraph shows an EITHER/OR scenario. Isn’t this contradictory?

(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 personmanipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer.

Poorly written, obviously got by the FAA in their haste to get the regs out. Don't sweat it and strive to operate safely.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Para (a) is just stating that anyone in any of those 3 roles must be able to "see" in order to do the following (1,2,34)

Para (b) is saying if either of the 3 roles can "see" and do 1 thru 4 to those capabilities, either of the 3 roles has to do it through the whole flight.

I think they wrote it that way because you can be a PIC and have someone "unlicensed" flying the aircraft, therefore it would be best if the PIC had eyes on it at all times vs. the person on the sticks.

or

If you are PIC, but trying to guide the person on the sticks, the VO can keep constant visuals and flight be safely covered.

Not everyone scenario will have a VO available leaving the PIC as responsible party to keep eyes on sometimes.

I've been in aviation for 28yrs...They wrote it like that and wrote other regulations in the same format to "cover all the bases". Confusing, but true..lol

I began flying in 1969, you couldn't be more right.

 

[Deltadave]

The way I see it, as long as the pic or vo has it in sight and can communicate, you're good to go. I would assume you could have a team of vo's in a three mile line and as long as one or more were in visual and radio comm, you'd be good.

 

[Earthman]

Poorly written, obviously got by the FAA in their haste to get the regs out. Don't sweat it and strive to operate safely.

I do not agree that it is poorly written. It was likely written by an attorney, and in court it would very likely be interpreted the way the attorney intended. However, it is written in English, which can be confusing and unclear to those of us who aren’t trained to use the language in a legal setting where proper word selection and punctuation are critically important. Sometimes you have to reread the text to understand it from a legal perspective.

I agree with sUAVe and DeltaDave’s interpretations.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I do not agree that it is poorly written. It was likely written by an attorney, and in court it would very likely be interpreted the way the attorney intended. However, it is written in English, which can be confusing and unclear to those of us who aren’t trained to use the language in a legal setting where proper word selection and punctuation are critically important. Sometimes you have to reread the text to understand it from a legal perspective.

I agree with sUAVe and DeltaDave’s interpretations.

After 32 years as a cop and hours in the courtroom, rest assured the courts rely on the "reasonable person" standard. Judges do not interpret laws as lawyers but rely on what a reasonable interpretation of the law should be. No one walks around with a lawyer in their back pocket, including pilots. If the regulation confuses pilots then it was poorly written. Clarity is the standard for any regulation. This one is clearly contradictory within itself and should be rewritten.

 

[Fred Garvin]

...the courts rely on the "reasonable person" standard....

RPP - Reasonably Prudent Person

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

RPP - Reasonably Prudent Person

It is a legal term. It is what it is...
From the Cornell Law School:
Reasonable Person
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
A legal standard used in negligence (personal injury) cases. The hypothetical reasonable person behaves in a way that is legally appropriate. Those who do not meet this standard -- that is, they do not behave at least as a reasonable person would -- are considered negligent and may be held liable for damages caused by their actions.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

reasonable person

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Deltadave]

...... don't walk around singing Yankee Doodle with your underpants on the outside and you should be good to go.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

...... don't walk around singing Yankee Doodle with your underpants on the outside and you should be good to go.

Dang...is that a deal breaker?

 

[Deltadave]

Sorry to break your bubble Louis.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Sorry to break your bubble Louis.

Can I just sing You're are a Grand Old Flag and still wear underpants on the outside ????

 

[Fred Garvin]

It is a legal term. It is what it is...
From the Cornell Law School:

Yep, lots of legal links to the RPP as well.....It is what it is. They're both usable.

 

[iaincaradoc]

After 32 years as a cop and hours in the courtroom, rest assured the courts rely on the "reasonable person" standard.

Usually. And then there's... this.

Oxford Comma Dispute Is Settled as Maine Drivers Get $5 Million (Published 2018)

And state lawmakers have dispensed with commas altogether in the relevant provision of the law.

www.nytimes.com

Dad was a lawyer. I've heard a lot of stories concerning minutiae in the law.

 

[Props Up]

... I would assume you could have a team of vo's in a three mile line and as long as one or more were in visual and radio comm, you'd be good.

You can't have multiple VOs who communicate with you via radio. It is expressly required that the VO is near the PIC and the person manipulating the controls.

 

[Earthman]

You can't have multiple VOs who communicate with you via radio. It is expressly required that the VO is near the PIC and the person manipulating the controls.

Sorry to have to disagree with you, but the VO(s) do not need to be near the PIC. They need to be able to visually observe the UAV with unaided eyes and communicate effectively with the PIC and this can be via radio.

Attorney Jonathan Rupprecht explains it better than I can and in greater detail at the following hyperlink:

Section 107.33 Visual observer.

Previous Regulation—Back to Drone Regulations Directory—Next Regulation When most people think of 107.33’s requirement for visual observers in certain circumstances, they don’t think of 107.31. Here’s what happens, when you fly beyond line of sight, the remote pilot won’t be able to determine...

jrupprechtlaw.com

You may be confusing the requirements of the PIC and person manipulating the controls vs the PIC and VO. The PIC and person manipulating the controls must be in close proximity to one another so the PIC can take control of the aircraft when needed.

Best regards.

 

[Props Up]

Sorry to have to disagree with you, but the VO(s) do not need to be near the PIC. They need to be able to visually observe the UAV with unaided eyes and communicate effectively with the PIC and this can be via radio.

Attorney Jonathan Rupprecht explains it better than I can and in greater detail at the following hyperlink:

Section 107.33 Visual observer.

Previous Regulation—Back to Drone Regulations Directory—Next Regulation When most people think of 107.33’s requirement for visual observers in certain circumstances, they don’t think of 107.31. Here’s what happens, when you fly beyond line of sight, the remote pilot won’t be able to determine...

jrupprechtlaw.com

You may be confusing the requirements of the PIC and person manipulating the controls vs the PIC and VO. The PIC and person manipulating the controls must be in close proximity to one another so the PIC can take control of the aircraft when needed.

Best regards.

Thanks for the links, Earthman. You are correct. FAA Advisory Circular AC107-2, paragraph 5.7.2.2 clearly states that communication devices such as two-way hand-held radios are permitted.
So, whether you can daisy-chain VOs to extend the UAS operation BVLOS of PIC and Person Manipulating the Controls, depends on how one interprets Part 107.31, which is the focus of the original question. My interpretation would be that paragraph (a) [all three functions must be able to observe the UAS during the entire flight] is the overarching requirement, while paragraph (b) [that ability may be exercised by the PIC or the VO] is just an option that is offered, to presumably allow the PIC and the PMC to focus on other aspects of the flight rather than detection and avoidance. The NPRM discussion summarized in the Rupprecht Law link, supports this interpretation.
With that in mind, it would not be permitted to daisy-chain VOs to extend the operational range of the drone, something that is also mentioned in the attached link from The Drone U: little-known-facts-about-part-107s-visual-line-of-sight-rule-that-you-might-not-be-of

 

[BigAl07]

Sorry to have to disagree with you, but the VO(s) do not need to be near the PIC. They need to be able to visually observe the UAV with unaided eyes and communicate effectively with the PIC and this can be via radio.

Attorney Jonathan Rupprecht explains it better than I can and in greater detail at the following hyperlink:

Section 107.33 Visual observer.

Previous Regulation—Back to Drone Regulations Directory—Next Regulation When most people think of 107.33’s requirement for visual observers in certain circumstances, they don’t think of 107.31. Here’s what happens, when you fly beyond line of sight, the remote pilot won’t be able to determine...

jrupprechtlaw.com

You may be confusing the requirements of the PIC and person manipulating the controls vs the PIC and VO. The PIC and person manipulating the controls must be in close proximity to one another so the PIC can take control of the aircraft when needed.

Best regards.

But. . . . if the VO is taking over the role of VLOS of the aircraft they DO have to be co-located with the RPIC and able to communicate directly w/o a device.

You can have MANY VO's on the team (in some night ops we have many) but only the one Co-Located with the RPIC can assume the role of VLOS of the aircraft and this allowance is so the RPIC can take eyes off the aircraft to check telemetry etc to help enhance SAFETY. A remotely located VO can NOT extend VLOS for the RPIC.