FAR 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation. Conflicting language?

[slats]

Thanks Phaedrus. I did read the pertinent section of the AC that you posted. Good information.

After reading everyone's interpretations and refining my own, I believe that the intent of the paragraphs (a) and (b) are as follows:

Para (a) specifies what each crew member must be ABLE to do (understanding that the crew may not be comprised of all three of the possible roles). Para (b) specifies what each crew member MUST do (again, understanding that the crew may not be comprised of all three of the possible roles) with the word OR being used to allow transfer of the VLOS requirement between the remote pilot/person manipulating the controls and the VO (if one is used).

 

[RickMC]

Thanks Phaedrus. I did read the pertinent section of the AC that you posted. Good information.

After reading everyone's interpretations and refining my own, I believe that the intent of the paragraphs (a) and (b) are as follows:

Para (a) specifies what each crew member must be ABLE to do (understanding that the crew may not be comprised of all three of the possible roles). Para (b) specifies what each crew member MUST do (again, understanding that the crew may not be comprised of all three of the possible roles) with the word OR being used to allow transfer of the VLOS requirement between the remote pilot/person manipulating the controls and the VO (if one is used).

Well said. I agree with your interpretation.

 

[drone Pilot]

Are you willing to bet your paycheck or personal freedom on it? Or is it just a lot more convenient to follow the regs instead of trying to find a way around it? Its the difference between being a UAS pilot or just another putz with a drone.

Hey, if you can't see the vagueness and ambiguity in the regulation, your personal conclusion lacks evidence.

 

[BigAl07]

with the word OR being used to allow transfer of the VLOS requirement between the remote pilot/person manipulating the controls and the VO (if one is used).

You are CORRECT... but there is a BUT! It's a temporary transfer of the requirement for VLOS. This allows for the RPIC to look away from the aircraft for other tasks essential to NAS Safety such as checking telemetry, equipment, or other short term distractions.

This is NOT a perm transfer of the role of VLOS to the VO or anyone else.

 

[RickMC]

You are CORRECT... but there is a BUT! It's a temporary transfer of the requirement for VLOS. This allows for the RPIC to look away from the aircraft for other tasks essential to NAS Safety such as checking telemetry, equipment, or other short term distractions.

This is NOT a perm transfer of the role of VLOS to the VO or anyone else.

Not arguing with you in any way, but how does the language imply that its only a temporary transfer? It just says throughout the flight that the PIC/person manipulating the controls OR the visual observer must maintain line of sight. Doesn't say anything about it being temporary. Isn't the RPIC already allowed to look away without a visual observer? RPIC is allowed to look down at remote briefly without a visual observer. That's just how I'm reading it.

 

[BigAl07]

Not arguing with you in any way, but how does the language imply that its only a temporary transfer? It just says throughout the flight that the PIC/person manipulating the controls OR the visual observer must maintain line of sight. Doesn't say anything about it being temporary. Isn't the RPIC already allowed to look away without a visual observer? RPIC is allowed to look down at remote briefly without a visual observer. That's just how I'm reading it.

Maybe I used the wrong wording... I think the actual term was briefly??

 

[RickMC]

Maybe I used the wrong wording... I think the actual term was briefly??

Right but isn’t the RPIC already permitted to briefly look away without the need of a visual observer? i.e. look down at remote/camera feed to frame shot, etc.

 

[BigAl07]

Not arguing with you in any way, but how does the language imply that its only a temporary transfer? It just says throughout the flight that the PIC/person manipulating the controls OR the visual observer must maintain line of sight. Doesn't say anything about it being temporary. Isn't the RPIC already allowed to look away without a visual observer? RPIC is allowed to look down at remote briefly without a visual observer. That's just how I'm reading it.

Here it is copy and pasted directly from the AC linked earlier in this thread:

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.

 

[BigAl07]

Right but isn’t the RPIC already permitted to briefly look away without the need of a visual observer? i.e. look down at remote/camera feed to frame shot, etc.

Yes but this allows the VO (if used) to briefly assume that role to help enhance NAS safety. It's merely allowing a specific action in a very specific manner.

 

[RickMC]

Yes but this allows the VO (if used) to briefly assume that role to help enhance NAS safety. It's merely allowing a specific action in a very specific manner.

Here it is copy and pasted directly from the AC linked earlier in this thread:

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.

Then I think the actual clause in 107 should be more clear instead of saying VLOS must be maintained by PIC/person manipulating flight controls OR visual observer. Why use the word OR but not specify that it’s only temporary?

 

[BigAl07]

Then I think the actual clause in 107 should be more clear instead of saying VLOS must be maintained by PIC/person manipulating flight controls OR visual observer. Why use the word OR but not specify that it’s only temporary?

LOL you're dealing with a Government Agency and one that is well known for giving us enough rope to hang ourselves. They aren't known for spoon feeding us but letting us figure it out.

It does say several times BRIEF which pretty much indicates temporary.

 

[RickMC]

LOL you're dealing with a Government Agency and one that is well known for giving us enough rope to hang ourselves. They aren't known for spoon feeding us but letting us figure it out.

It does say several times BRIEF which pretty much indicates temporary.

Gotcha. I guess I’m now just thinking, what’s the point of even having a visual observer if the PIC is only allowed to briefly look away, which he would be allowed to do anyway without a visual observer. Why do I need a VO if I can't transfer VLOS responsibilities permanently and I’m already allowed to briefly take my eyes off the drone without a VO?

 

[drone Pilot]

Right but isn’t the RPIC already permitted to briefly look away without the need of a visual observer? i.e. look down at remote/camera feed to frame shot, etc.

Point well taken. The moderator is not the expert on interpretation of the intent of regulations, established by bureaucrats, who may not even fly a UAV. Until a legal challenge via the courts is made, only then will undisputed clarification exist.

 

[BigAl07]

Gotcha. I guess I’m now just thinking, what’s the point of even having a visual observer if the PIC is only allowed to briefly look away, which he would be allowed to do anyway without a visual observer. Why do I need a VO if I can't transfer VLOS responsibilities permanently and I’m already allowed to briefly take my eyes off the drone without a VO?

I completely understand where you're coming from but it's key to understand what the role/purpose of the VO is. If used, the VO is there to increase Situational Awareness and help take some work load off of the RPIC to increase safety aka reduce risk. The regs will have to rewritten or at least deeply revised to allow VO to perm assume the role of VLOS when the RPIC is manipulating the controls. Keep in mind that a VO can be standing directly beside the RPIC, across the road, or around the next hill and out of sight of the RPIC. In order to allow the VO to assume the full role of VLOS would require more closely defining VO and their roles/location and comm protocol. It becomes much more complicated when you start digging in deeper into the roles.

Point well taken. The moderator is not the expert on interpretation of the intent of regulations, established by bureaucrats, who may not even fly a UAV. Until a legal challenge via the courts is made, only then will undisputed clarification exist.

It's your career/hobby and $$ so by all means do as you wish just make sure you have deep enough pockets to fight the challenge.

I can tell you this much... if you follow my advice you don't have to worry about busting regs and getting your tailfeathers into hot water with LE. I fly by the book and have for decades. I don't just do this as a hobby or even a "paying gig"... I eat, sleep, breathe and TEACH this day in and day out. I'm not THE expert but ironically I have been labeled (by a Govt entity) a Subject Matter Expert in sUAS operations. Take that for whatever you want.

If you really want to get the final word on this (and it sounds like you only believe what you WANT to believe) take the time to call your local FSDO and put the question to them. Make sure you get it in writing because the regs are fairly clear once you understand how to interpret them. I've even gone so far as to find the contact infor for your FSDO and leaving it here:

US Flight Standards District Office
District office
Tampa, FL · (813) 287-4900

Ironically I don't think you'll take their word for it because it's not been challenged in court. SMH

If you have a problem with me you can take it BACK to PM or I can give you the contact info for Admin and you can take it up with him.

Lastly, "said moderator" has a name TYVM.

Allen

 

[R.Perry]

Are you serious? You feel that true professional try to find ways to work around the rules? You think the folks sitting up front on your commercial airline flights have that attitude? Most would consider them professionals, or are they just "putzes with airplanes"?? for following the rules?

You mean like to two airline pilots that overflew their destination by 150 mile, sleeping on the job while Mr. Auto flies. What would those "professionals" be called?

 

[drone Pilot]

TYVM,
I appreciate our dialogue and meant no negative feelings. In the past, I have contacted the local FAA UaS person, who has said flying over people is permissible but hovering is not. That said, I see no uniformity across the nation, when different interpretations are promoted. Changes to regulations will come when sufficient accidents happen or discussion forums bring it to the intentions of the FAA I enjoyed the conversations in this thread. Fly safe

 

[RickMC]

I completely understand where you're coming from but it's key to understand what the role/purpose of the VO is. If used, the VO is there to increase Situational Awareness and help take some work load off of the RPIC to increase safety aka reduce risk. The regs will have to rewritten or at least deeply revised to allow VO to perm assume the role of VLOS when the RPIC is manipulating the controls. Keep in mind that a VO can be standing directly beside the RPIC, across the road, or around the next hill and out of sight of the RPIC. In order to allow the VO to assume the full role of VLOS would require more closely defining VO and their roles/location and comm protocol. It becomes much more complicated when you start digging in deeper into the

Thanks Al, that makes sense.

 

[Fred Garvin]

You mean like to two airline pilots that overflew their destination by 150 mile, sleeping on the job while Mr. Auto flies. What would those "professionals" be called?

Unemployed.

 

[Earnest Ward]

So the way I read the regs the answer to your second question is -0-. Under Part 107, FPV goggles are not allowed. You would have to be flying recreationally to use them, or at least that is my take.

Actually, not altogether true, Martin. Add a Payload Operator/Airborne Sensor Operator wearing googles to the crew and the FAA have no issues. I have stipulated same in all of my 107.41, 107.41 with Waiver attached, and 107.29 applications and all have been approved. (Here in Texas daytime glare can be so intense that the goggles are essential for aerial photography/videography. And, at night, the goggles shield PIC and VO from white light.)

 

[Earnest Ward]

I'm interested your thoughts about FAR 107.31 which reads as follows:

§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.

It seems that paragraph (a) conflicts with paragraph (b). Here's why I think so:

Paragraph (a) is inclusive of all 3 possible roles when flying - "...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...".

Paragraph (b) states - "...(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or (2) A visual observer.

I'm not suggesting that its ever acceptable to not have a visual contact on your aircraft. I'm just wondering if others see the same conflict in the regulation that I do.

My apologies if someone else has already pointed out one significant phrase in part (a) - "must be able to see" (not "must see"). This allows the PIC to look down at his/her controller, or scan the sky for traffic, from time to time without violating the reg (or even wear goggles that can be flipped up/taken off if re-acquiring VLOS is deemed necessary.) If this interpretation is accurate, I believe the wording of (a) and (b) would be conflict-free.