Gray areas on Part 107?

[Dave Pitman]

In the event of an enforcement action, the "intent" of the regulation is somewhat irrelevant. If a defendant can demonstrate compliance with what the regulation "says" they will most likely be fine. The probable result may be that the regulation is re-written to actually align the intent with what it says.

I personally wouldn't be comfortable sending a uav off bvlos by relying on a VO. But I think that a reasonable person could read the reg and determine that it would be acceptable. Remember, all of the extra "he said", commentary etc., would be irrelevant. We all know that with the beginning of the waiver portal, that there were many FAA employees that were plain wrong when they said you could call the tower for airspace clearance. They honestly thought that was true, but they were of course, wrong.

The idea that the VO is only so that the RP can look away once in awhile is not accurate. This is just my opinion. When flying VFR, it is the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid. That does not mean that she cannot attend to other chores. Nor do the regs require her to have a safety pilot in order to move her scan away from outside the aircraft.

Eventually the reg may be tightened up. But for now, it is what is says. Not what the intent is thought to be. Again, just my opinion guys.

 

[David Hart]

You're right. I guess its like buying a Mazeratti that will do 300MPH, that doesn't mean you can go that fast anywhere legally

Unless you're on a German Autobahn that has no restrictions.

 

[BLADE4]

You're not missing anything. Flights that are BVLOS, especially if pre-programmed to do so are in direct violation of the regulations and open one up to enforcement actions if something goes wrong. 107 allows for brief or momentary operation BVLOS if control can immediately be regained re-establishing VLOS. Pre-programmed, autonomous flights over long-range BVLOS do not currently fall under acceptable operation practices.

In this industry, a common thread is, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Well Said!

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

You're not missing anything. Flights that are BVLOS, especially if pre-programmed to do so are in direct violation of the regulations and open one up to enforcement actions if something goes wrong. 107 allows for brief or momentary operation BVLOS if control can immediately be regained re-establishing VLOS. Pre-programmed, autonomous flights over long-range BVLOS do not currently fall under acceptable operation practices.

In this industry, a common thread is, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Review your part 107 material (are you a Part 107 pilot?) . Regulations are quite clear on the responsibility of the PIC. Mapmaker is right on. "just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should if it is illegal." I used to write lots of tickets to drivers who thought they could place those mickey mouse photo radar "defeating" covers over their license plates. While they stood there and I wrote the citation they whined about "why are they sold if they are illegal," Duh!

 

[Ravenflight]

That's very wise and professional of you. I hope it's contagious LOL



LOL Shhh I wasn't going to say that.



As already stated by @MapMaker53 it's up to the operator to always operate within the rules and regulations of the area you're operating in.

Also, waivers can be obtained to fly BVLOS. At which point that functionality in apps like Litchi and Autopilot become perfectly legal.

 

[BigAl07]

Also, waivers can be obtained to fly BVLOS. At which point that functionality in apps like Litchi and Autopilot become perfectly legal.

Do you know how many have been approved? Do you know how they were obtained and with what aircraft?

14 total (unless that # changed Friday).

They are obtained by very large companies who are flying very specific aircraft in a very specific manner. It's not nearly as "simple" as your comment suggests.

 

[Ravenflight]

Do you know how many have been approved? Do you know how they were obtained and with what aircraft?

14 total (unless that # changed Friday).

They are obtained by very large companies who are flying very specific aircraft in a very specific manner. It's not nearly as "simple" as your comment suggests.

I did not know that but my post did not comment on the complexity of the process. I stated only that it was possible and, once done, makes these features legal to use. An entirely true statement. DJI, Litchi, Hangar, etc. do not and cannot know whether a user has obtained the requisite permissions. They just provide the functionality. You have to have a waiver to fly over people as well but it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a manufacturer to somehow prevent their drones from flying over people. It's up to users to make sure that what they do is done in accordance with the law. I was trying to support you with my comment.

 

[BigAl07]

I did not know that but my post did not comment on the complexity of the process. I stated only that it was possible and, once done, makes these features legal to use. An entirely true statement. DJI, Litchi, Hangar, etc. do not and cannot know whether a user has obtained the requisite permissions. They just provide the functionality. You have to have a waiver to fly over people as well but it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a manufacturer to somehow prevent their drones from flying over people. It's up to users to make sure that what they do is done in accordance with the law. I was trying to support you with my comment.

I apologize. I misread your comment (easily done with typed text).

 

[Dave Pitman]

@Ravenflight The autonomouse flight features in the sdk apps are great. But to go after a BVLOS waiver it will take a LOT more than using one of those apps. Which is what @BigAl07 was referring to I think.

I know you didn't say that is ALL that is needed. But I suspect those that receive these waivers will be using systems FAR beyond the sdk apps.

Have a look at what the FAA wants to know by way of the waiver request.
source

§ 107.31 Visual Line of Sight Aircraft Operation – Guiding Questions

1. How will the Remote PIC see and avoid, or detect and avoid, all other aircraft when operating BVLOS?
   1. Ex: actions taken or procedures followed by the Remote PIC, use of a Visual Observer(s), or use of equipment/technology
   2. If an equipment/technology method is used, what kind equipment/technology, how does it work, and how is it tested to determine system reliability and limitations?
      • Consider providing data from the testing used to make those determinations
   3. How will they yield the right of way as required by 14 CFR § 107.37?
2. When the Remote Pilot in Command (Remote PIC) or person operating the UAS cannot see the aircraft, how will they know, at all times, the current real-time (1) geographic location, (2) altitude above the ground, (3) attitude(orientation, deck angle, pitch, bank), and (4) direction of flight of their aircraft?
   1. If the primary method of maintaining this awareness fails, how will the Remote PIC maintain current and accurate knowledge of this information?
   2. How will they know location(s) of other aircraft that may be at risk of hitting their aircraft?
3. How will the Remote PIC determine the operational limits of the command and control link in the flight environment and at the location of flight?
   1. If the UAS uses GPS functionality, how will the Remote PIC determine the GPS signal availability for the flight time and location, before and duringeach intended flight?
   2. If the UAS uses GPS location to safely operate, what will the Remote PIC do if the GPS fails to provide location information, or provides reduced GPS position accuracy?
4. When flying BVLOS, how will the Remote PIC be alerted if the UAS malfunctions or its capability degrades, and how will they respond?
5. When flying BVLOS, how will the Remote PIC meet the requirements for visibility and cloud clearance specified in 14 CFR § 107.51?
6. When flying BVLOS, how will the Remote PIC identify and avoid flying over persons on the ground (as required by 14 CFR § 107.39)?
7. Additional UAS Details: If the UAS has a determined level of reliability, please provide the following information with your waiver application:
   1. Mean time between failure testing with results
   2. Reliability or maintenance program for the UAS
   3. Life limits on the aircraft or UAS components
   4. System architecture
   5. Hardware reliability analysis
   6. Software design assurances and control
   7. Any operational restrictions or limitations associated with this reliability level
      • Ex: altitude limits or airspeed restrictions imposed by the manufacturer or self-imposed by the operator, etc.

 

[Ravenflight]

I apologize. I misread your comment (easily done with typed text).

No worries. Definitely an easy thing to do.

@Ravenflight The autonomouse flight features in the sdk apps are great. But to go after a BVLOS waiver it will take a LOT more than using one of those apps. Which is what @BigAl07 was referring to I think.

I know you didn't say that is ALL that is needed. But I suspect those that receive these waivers will be using systems FAR beyond the sdk apps.

Have a look at what the FAA wants to know by way of the waiver request.
source

Yeah, I think you're probably right. Maybe in the future as things start to settle, the aircraft get more advanced and reliable and legal precedents are set then more operators and aircraft could be approved for something like this. Survey and mapping applications are pretty dependent on BVLOS flight I would think and that's definitely a growing market. We don't intend to pursue that wavier for the foreseeable future though.

 

[MapMaker53]

I was going to attempt to obtain a BVLOS waiver for our environmental work which can take us into very remote areas with no chance of injury or property damage occurring and where VLOS might not be possible at times (such as low level flight over a marsh with no easy access to the shoreline) and no way that a VO could safely position themselves. But the FAA requirements that I would have to meet for approval seemed too steep to overcome. Not sure if simply stating it would only apply to flights below 75' AGL in remote locations on private property would satisfy FAA safety concerns as it could not endanger any manned aircraft.

 

[Bob]

I was just going to say about Litchi that they do sell thier app in other coutries and perhaps the laws are different there. Mods that increase range would be tempting you to fly beyond line of sight, as i see it, they give you a better, stronger than factory signal at ranges where you can see the AC. Making the system safer and better.

 

[AerialZ]

Review your part 107 material (are you a Part 107 pilot?) . Regulations are quite clear on the responsibility of the PIC. Mapmaker is right on. "just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should if it is illegal." I used to write lots of tickets to drivers who thought they could place those mickey mouse photo radar "defeating" covers over their license plates. While they stood there and I wrote the citation they whined about "why are they sold if they are illegal," Duh!

Ummm, yes I am 107 certificated and, to clear any confusion, I am the one who stated that this should NOT be done, regardless if the technology makes it easily possible. In my original reply to the OP, I covered all bases of possibility as it relates to 107 regulations - including utilization of VO's and the potential of having a BVLOS waiver, which I'm not personally aware of anyone having to date.

 

[BigAl07]

....and the potential of having a BVLOS waiver, which I'm not personally aware of anyone having to date.

See my post #26 above
Gray areas on Part 107?

 

[HydraFalcon54]

So I would like some input and/or clarification on something.
According to Part 107 when flying you must always have LOS, not fly over people, etc etc.
Using the Litchi app, and also seeing discussions about mods for increased range etc, ow is it legal that with Litchi you can fly a mission say 2-3 miles away, and return to home, never seeing the aircraft?
Is there something Im missing that makes this legal?

You need to have spotters an be in two way radio or telephone contact while the mission is completed

 

[sar104]

You need to have spotters an be in two way radio or telephone contact while the mission is completed

I don't think that is compliant - firstly because the RPIC cannot necessarily take control of the aircraft and secondly because the FAA has clarified Part 107 to mean that a spotter can only relieve the RPIC of VLOS duties for brief intervals, not an extended period or a complete flight.

 

[Geo_in_KS]

You need to have spotters an be in two way radio or telephone contact while the mission is completed

I would almost guarantee this isnt legal. The RPIC has to maintain control at all times. My reason for posting this was because I set up an autonomous flight in Litchi, flew it and momentarily lost connection before the UAV came home. Then I asked myself, how is that legal?
Even if I had a spotter on the phone or walkie talkie, if I was getting near an obstacle, over people, etc. and the spotter told me, I wouldnt have been able to regain control.
(obviously I learned from my mistake and am now very vigilant where, when, how I can fly and maintain VLOS)

 

[Dave Pitman]

The RPIC has to maintain control at all times. My reason for posting this was because I set up an autonomous flight in Litchi, flew it and momentarily lost connection before the UAV came home. Then I asked myself, how is that legal?
Even if I had a spotter on the phone or walkie talkie, if I was getting near an obstacle, over people, etc. and the spotter told me, I wouldnt have been able to regain control.
(obviously I learned from my mistake and am now very vigilant where, when, how I can fly and maintain VLOS)

If you were to loose control signal for some reason during a flight, what would happen? What if the craft also lost GPS signal at the same time? What if it retained GPS and initiated RTH, how would you ensure that during the RTH the craft did not fly over people?

These questions are not specifically for you, @Geoff G UK but questions to the community to ask themselves. These questions are as relevant while flying within VLOS as they are BVLOS, correct? These "what if" scenarios have begun to show up in FAA requests for more info. on waiver requests. I think most of us can imagine scenarios that although we try to be diligent and safe, there are still questions that we can't answer. Unless the uas is tethered of course.

What say you, guys?