Questions regarding specific activities under Part 107 rules

[kattz]

Hi,

I posted these on the Inspire Pilots page, but there were no responses.

I see a lot of questionable activity from drone operators on YouTube. Not sure if they are "in the know" or "operating outside the authorized flight envelope" as we called it in the USAF:

FPV and goggles - it appears that Part 107 contradicts itself - one part says "in visual range of the remote pilot in command using nothing other than corrective lenses." Another area of Part 107 states "FPV if visual range is used by alternative means". I am paraphrasing these, but they're pretty close to the verbiage. I read the first one as "No FPV on the part of the RPIC, EVER". The second one means maybe using a safety observer. What's the real answer?

I would like to be able to fly WVR (within visual range), drop the goggles to take my photo, and then continue in WVR, eyes only... Or my wife can use the goggles...

If you can't exceed "in visual range of the remote pilot in command using nothing other than corrective lenses.", why the push for the extended receiver and transmitter range to fly farther from the RPIC? A mile away is illegal... right? Because you can't see an Inspire a mile away with the naked eye. And an observer has to be in the immediate vicinity of the RPIC, so you can't use a walkie to talk to a distant observer... right? So what is the real answer?

BTW, I believe that Section 333 says basically the same thing.

These are questions that I have among others. Would appreciate the insight of other operators!

Kev

 

[Heygeorge]

You need a visual observer if you go under the googles. The observer needs to maintain visual contact with the drone and be able to communicate directly with the Pilot In Command.

 

[BigAl07]

Flying FPV is not "allowed" under Part 107 if you take it in it's purest form. The RPIC is required to have "Eyes On" the aircraft at all times and be able to See & Avoid other air traffic. Part 107 allows for the RPIC to temporarily "hand off" that duty for a brief moment in order to check out telemetry etc. There is no current provision for the VO to take total vision responsibilities for anything other than a short period of time. This allows the RPIC to go "under the hood" to check stats etc but not for total flying time.

What is that period of time? That's how the FAA works. They give you enough rope to hang yourself.

Goggles/FPV does not allow flying BLOS what so ever. Neither does using a VO.

 

[Bob]

For those who are boosting thier signals, it could be to insure a better signal within vlos, or remember some people are not in the USA so rules may be different. Some just gotta break the rules! That sums it up in my opinion.

 

[kattz]

@BigAl07, This is how I have interpreted it as well - so I DO have goggles, but they are dedicated to my wife running the camera from her wheelchair.
@Heygeorge, I've seen some people doing this on YouTube, so it <might> be open to interpretation as you said.
@Bob, OK, I'll buy it for signal improvement, but generally they are promoted to "fly farther and extend range". Only referring to US operations.

I also had another person on a forum tell me that they flew their Inspire "2 miles away on a 4 mile bridge and they could just make it out as a speck - couldn't tell which way it was facing, but they could see it". Umm... in my opinion, if the RPIC can't maintain SA regarding which way the drone is headed, then technically, that's BLOS, right?

 

[Bob]

@BigAl07, This is how I have interpreted it as well - so I DO have goggles, but they are dedicated to my wife running the camera from her wheelchair.
@Heygeorge, I've seen some people doing this on YouTube, so it <might> be open to interpretation as you said.
@Bob, OK, I'll buy it for signal improvement, but generally they are promoted to "fly farther and extend range". Only referring to US operations.

I also had another person on a forum tell me that they flew their Inspire "2 miles away on a 4 mile bridge and they could just make it out as a speck - couldn't tell which way it was facing, but they could see it". Umm... in my opinion, if the RPIC can't maintain SA regarding which way the drone is headed, then technically, that's BLOS, right?

Maybe he had an instrument rating....lol

 

[BigAl07]

@BigAl07, This is how I have interpreted it as well - so I DO have goggles, but they are dedicated to my wife running the camera from her wheelchair.

The regs only pertain to the RPIC and the VO who is responsible for scanning the area for other aircraft etc. Your "Camera Operator" can use any devices needed/wanted for operation of the camera on an aircraft that uses dual controls and it's a great addition.

@Heygeorge, I've seen some people doing this on YouTube, so it <might> be open to interpretation as you said.

Seeing it on YouTube in no way is a viable argument or reason to speculate that it's open to interpretation.

@Bob, OK, I'll buy it for signal improvement, but generally they are promoted to "fly farther and extend range". Only referring to US operations.

It's very likely that, at some point in the future, the FAA/FCC will crack down on such "creative advertising" but for the moment use them as you wish knowing that you're "able" to violate regulations by using them. Using them doesn't mean you are going to violate the regs but gives you enough rope to hang yourself if an incident were to happen.

I also had another person on a forum tell me that they flew their Inspire "2 miles away on a 4 mile bridge and they could just make it out as a speck - couldn't tell which way it was facing, but they could see it". Umm... in my opinion, if the RPIC can't maintain SA regarding which way the drone is headed, then technically, that's BLOS, right?

The details of VLOS isn't seeing a speck on the horizon. The RPIC needs to be able to determine orientation/direction etc of the aircraft w/o telemetry.

Aviation is all about "What If" and be able to overcome potential problems before they even happen.