VLOS 107.31 Personal story

Mavic Maveric · May 16, 2019

Hi all,

At the request of our administrator Allen, here is my personal story.

Some of you may still have lingering questions regarding this rule so I hope my recent personal story will help. This rule was not black and white to me, until I got an official ruling. It is a lot clearer to me now.

My wife and I live in a rural portion of the Northeastern part of the US, Vermont to be specific. Our small community is on the Canadian Border and it's only a 5 min. drive to our closest border station. We see more cows than people some days. Over the years, I have become heavily involved with photography, my present camera is a Canon 6D. I have been published twice and I've won several ribbons in local photographic contests. I mention this only to point out that I am into Drones for quality photography and videography which lends itself to my story. But wow...they are fun to fly too, aren't they?

I am retired at 64 and decided to expand my photography into the skies creating aerial shots. So, a couple years ago I purchased a $60.00 plastic drone but as you can imagine, the photo & video quality was extremely disappointing. Then the stupid thing, upon realizing that I hated it, decided to run away from home. I guess it felt unloved. The last time we were together it lost contact with me and said "Good-bye" as it flew out of sight, over the woods (forest) in back of our house. We haven't seen each other since. Good riddance piece of crap! LOL!!

Two months ago, March of this year (2019), I decided to go for quality and spent $1800.00 on a Mavic 2 Pro (including the fly-more package). I am very pleased with it as it turns out to be one of my most favorite investments.

I like to play by the rules and assume proper roles in anything I do so the natural progression for me was to get my FAA Part 107 certification (Remote Pilot License). The actual reasoning behind going through all that trouble was to understand the airspace in which I am now apart, to understand the FAA rules and more importantly because I am doing some commercial work for my town, of which I am not charging. I wanted to be legal for me and for them by the time they publish my photos in their annual report. So one month after purchase, I passed my FAA test (last month in April) and am now Part 107 certified.

I just recently realize that I still didn't fully understand one important rule, the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) 107.31. Even though I took an on-line course to help me pass the test, of which I am very grateful, I still didn't completely grasp the full extent of that rule. Not everything is always black and white to me, some things dwell in the gray area.

My newly devised plan was to get a nice video of our country side. Unbroken video of rolling hills, woods, pastures, farms and some houses within the landscape is what I was after. I planned to station my wife as my VO (FAA speak: Visual Observer) at a spot about a half mile from me, with 2-way radio communication. I thought it was completely legal (within FAA rules) to do that. As I discussed this scenario it was pointed out to me that the VO needs to be near and within ear shot of the Pilot In Control (me). No! Really? That's not what I understood. To me the ruling was all about communication with the VO and with eyes on the drone at all times by either the me as the PIC or the VO. Communication comes in many forms, right? Two-way radios IS communication. (I actually did implement this scenario before I got an official ruling and now regret it.)

I had formed an email relationship with a guy at the FAA helpdesk which deals just with drones, I think. His name is Paul and he usually answers my questions within a few hours to one day (during the week). He's a very nice guy which prompts me to post questions to him rather than assume. I gave him my scenario and he answered that the VO has to be near you so that we can speak without radios and that the PIC must remain in VLOS at all times, except for when you look at your controller but then need to regain VLOS as soon as possible. Well, blow me over! That's not the answer I expected. I have also since realized: - What if the rechargeable battery dies within the radio and communication is lost? Okay so maybe, just maybe, the FAA looks at all the things that could go wrong before making a ruling.

BTW - our admin, Allen knows all of this as he's VERY knowledgeable from years of research and dealing with all sorts of scenarios. He's our closest "expert" concerning drones and the FAA. I suggest that you use him if you have any questions.

Here is a quick summary of the sUAS FAA rules: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

I have applied for a Part 107.31 waiver so that I can do what I've explained above but these waivers are very hard to get, according to our administrator Allen with whom I've had some nice discussion. Darn! Wish me luck! And lot's of it.

Part 107 Waiver

www.faa.gov

I hope this helps. Have a great day,

MM

AMann · May 16, 2019

Thank you for this well written description of this rule. I’ve only used a VO when I was trying out goggles and still had the controls, they were standing right next to me. I always assumed that radio communications for VO’s was OK as well, and can see cases where it would have been useful such as yours, with people going for flight distance records, and autopilot surveys that require very long transects across open tracks of land.

Mavic Maveric · May 16, 2019

AMann said:
Thank you for this well written description of this rule. I’ve only used a VO when I was trying out goggles and still had the controls, they were standing right next to me. I always assumed that radio communications for VO’s was OK as well, and can see cases where it would have been useful such as yours, with people going for flight distance records, and autopilot surveys that require very long transects across open tracks of land.

You're welcome! Thanks for reading it. Yeah, they really want the PIC (Pilot in Control) to have eyes on it at all times without a waiver. A VO is there for when you frame a shot or otherwise need to look at your controller for just a moment. Unfortunately goggles aren't approved either. Bummer, huh? I can understand it though. Have a flying great day!

sar104 · May 16, 2019

Mavic Maveric said:
Hi all,

At the request of our administrator Allen, here is my personal story.

Some of you may still have lingering questions regarding this rule so I hope my recent personal story will help. This rule was not black and white to me, until I got an official ruling. It is a lot clearer to me now.

My wife and I live in a rural portion of the Northeastern part of the US, Vermont to be specific. Our small community is on the Canadian Border and it's only a 5 min. drive to our closest border station. We see more cows than people some days. Over the years, I have become heavily involved with photography, my present camera is a Canon 6D. I have been published twice and I've won several ribbons in local photographic contests. I mention this only to point out that I am into Drones for quality photography and videography which lends itself to my story. But wow...they are fun to fly too, aren't they?

I am retired at 64 and decided to expand my photography into the skies creating aerial shots. So, a couple years ago I purchased a $60.00 plastic drone but as you can imagine, the photo & video quality was extremely disappointing. Then the stupid thing, upon realizing that I hated it, decided to run away from home. I guess it felt unloved. The last time we were together it lost contact with me and said "Good-bye" as it flew out of sight, over the woods (forest) in back of our house. We haven't seen each other since. Good riddance piece of crap! LOL!!

Two months ago, March of this year (2019), I decided to go for quality and spent $1800.00 on a Mavic 2 Pro (including the fly-more package). I am very pleased with it as it turns out to be one of my most favorite investments.

I like to play by the rules and assume proper roles in anything I do so the natural progression for me was to get my FAA Part 107 certification (Remote Pilot License). The actual reasoning behind going through all that trouble was to understand the airspace in which I am now apart, to understand the FAA rules and more importantly because I am doing some commercial work for my town, of which I am not charging. I wanted to be legal for me and for them by the time they publish my photos in their annual report. So one month after purchase, I passed my FAA test (last month in April) and am now Part 107 certified.

I just recently realize that I still didn't fully understand one important rule, the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) 107.31. Even though I took an on-line course to help me pass the test, of which I am very grateful, I still didn't completely grasp the full extent of that rule. Not everything is always black and white to me, some things dwell in the gray area.

My newly devised plan was to get a nice video of our country side. Unbroken video of rolling hills, woods, pastures, farms and some houses within the landscape is what I was after. I planned to station my wife as my VO (FAA speak: Visual Observer) at a spot about a half mile from me, with 2-way radio communication. I thought it was completely legal (within FAA rules) to do that. As I discussed this scenario it was pointed out to me that the VO needs to be near and within ear shot of the Pilot In Control (me). No! Really? That's not what I understood. To me the ruling was all about communication with the VO and with eyes on the drone at all times by either the me as the PIC or the VO. Communication comes in many forms, right? Two-way radios IS communication. (I actually did implement this scenario before I got an official ruling and now regret it.)

I had formed an email relationship with a guy at the FAA helpdesk which deals just with drones, I think. His name is Paul and he usually answers my questions within a few hours to one day (during the week). He's a very nice guy which prompts me to post questions to him rather than assume. I gave him my scenario and he answered that the VO has to be near you so that we can speak without radios and that the PIC must remain in VLOS at all times, except for when you look at your controller but then need to regain VLOS as soon as possible. Well, blow me over! That's not the answer I expected. I have also since realized: - What if the rechargeable battery dies within the radio and communication is lost? Okay so maybe, just maybe, the FAA looks at all the things that could go wrong before making a ruling.

BTW - our admin, Allen knows all of this as he's VERY knowledgeable from years of research and dealing with all sorts of scenarios. He's our closest "expert" concerning drones and the FAA. I suggest that you use him if you have any questions.

Here is a quick summary of the sUAS FAA rules: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

I have applied for a Part 107.31 waiver so that I can do what I've explained above but these waivers are very hard to get, according to our administrator Allen with whom I've had some nice discussion. Darn! Wish me luck! And lot's of it.

Part 107 Waiver

www.faa.gov

I hope this helps. Have a great day,

MM

Your chances of getting a VLOS waiver are very remote. We get them via the SGI process for search and rescue operations, and the waivers come with a TFR to protect air traffic. No VLOS waiver without a TFR, and they are not likely to let you have a TFR.

kadras · May 16, 2019

AMann said:
Thank you for this well written description of this rule. I’ve only used a VO when I was trying out goggles and still had the controls, they were standing right next to me. I always assumed that radio communications for VO’s was OK as well, and can see cases where it would have been useful such as yours, with people going for flight distance records, and autopilot surveys that require very long transects across open tracks of land.

Here is what Advisory Circular AC-107-2 says
5.7.2.2 To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance. AC 107-2 - Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) – Document Information
So...it appears that you can use radios with a VO on a Part 107 flight.

The new recreational exceptions, to be officially published in the Federal Register tomorrow, May 17, Public Inspection: Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, states this:
3.The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

WithTheBirds · May 16, 2019

Than you for the explanation.

In most instances I fly VLOS. I would say in all instances where I am close to civilisation and/or there is any reasonable expectation of manned aircraft operations.

Where I suspect there is any chance manned AC might enter the area at low altitude when I am flying (an example being flying close to the coastline over water) I often have someone at a higher vantage point with a second person close to me. This is an added precaution. The intent being the person at the vantage point will likely see an approaching aircraft in time to inform the second person near me so that they can relay to me and I might have the opportunity to bring the drone in and land.

I can’t see how this added precaution might violate any rules. The fact I have VLOS at all times would seem to satisfy the requirement.

AMann · May 16, 2019

kadras said:
Here is what Advisory Circular AC-107-2 says
5.7.2.2 To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance. AC 107-2 - Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) – Document Information
So...it appears that you can use radios with a VO on a Part 107 flight.

The new recreational exceptions, to be officially published in the Federal Register tomorrow, May 17, Public Inspection: Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, states this:
3.The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

That makes sense to me, people that use drones to inspect pipelines and other long linear surveys have to be able to use radio communications in order to achieve this. The only other option is for the pilot in command to be sitting in the backseat of the chase vehicle watching it through the sunroof or something, but only if they are in a rural environment.

sar104 · May 16, 2019

kadras said:
Here is what Advisory Circular AC-107-2 says
5.7.2.2 To make this communication possible, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, and VO must work out a method of effective communication, which does not create a distraction and allows them to understand each other. The communication method must be determined prior to operation. This effective communication requirement would permit the use of communication-assisting devices, such as a hand-held radio, to facilitate communication from a distance. AC 107-2 - Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) – Document Information
So...it appears that you can use radios with a VO on a Part 107 flight.

The new recreational exceptions, to be officially published in the Federal Register tomorrow, May 17, Public Inspection: Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, states this:
3.The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

You can use radios, but you cannot use distant Visual Observers in that way. AC 107-2 also makes that clear:

5.7.2 VO. The use of a VO is optional. The remote PIC may choose to use a VO to supplement situational awareness and VLOS. Although the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must maintain the capability to see the UA, using one or more VOs allows the remote PIC and person manipulating the controls to conduct other mission-critical duties (such as checking displays) while still ensuring situational awareness of the UA.

BigAl07 · May 16, 2019

@Mavic Maveric I think you should add "accomplished writer" to your list of talents. Very well written and thank you for taking the time to sit down and formulate this with such detail. Your professionalism and passion are apparent in your work.

I think the posts above pretty much sum it up perfectly. Well done by everyone.

Deleted member 94307 · May 17, 2019

Good info thanks for sharing

I started using firehouse strobes velcroed to back of arms and sometimes from too (that messes up your pictures in civil twilight)

I can see the drone a mile away maybe 3000 feet in sunlight.

Thoraldus · May 17, 2019

It appears the VLOS rule is not absolute per this from AC 107.2 P5.7...

"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."

sar104 · May 17, 2019

Thoraldus said:
It appears the VLOS rule is not absolute per this from AC 107.2 ...

"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."

It's not absolute in terms of time, but it is absolute in terms of distance - i.e. without a waiver you cannot fly the aircraft out of the visual line of sight of the pilot and rely on one or more distant VOs to track its progress. The pilot can look away to perform other duties but must be able to reacquire VLOS at any time.

Thoraldus · May 17, 2019

There are these words ...

"depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. "

As always, words matter. ;-)

By the way, I love your Sgt. Joe Friday quote in latin! ;-)

sar104 · May 17, 2019

Thoraldus said:
There are these words ...

"depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. "

As always, words matter. ;-)

Right - but that doesn't change the requirement that VLOS must be maintained. The pilot can "briefly" lose visual contact by looking away, but cannot lose visual contact by deliberately flying the aircraft beyond VLOS.

Thoraldus · May 17, 2019

sar104 said:
Right - but that doesn't change the requirement that VLOS must be maintained. The pilot can "briefly" lose visual contact by looking away, but cannot lose visual contact by deliberately flying the aircraft beyond VLOS.

I agree 100% in principle, but the FAA in this AC specifically did not define what "brief" is. Brief is a relative term. Lawyers love this stuff. "I'll be gone for a brief period, should be back in a day or two"

Got to go back the the FAA words, "... 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."

Thoraldus · May 17, 2019

Bottom line for me. The FAA clearly states that the RPIC is solely responsible for the safe operation of the sUAS under his or her control.

BigAl07 · May 17, 2019

Thoraldus said:
I agree 100% in principle, but the FAA in this AC specifically did not define what "brief" is. Brief is a relative term. Lawyers love this stuff. "I'll be gone for a brief period, should be back in a day or two"

Got to go back the the FAA words, "... 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."

This is a classic case of the FAA being "Creative" and giving the RPIC just enough rope to hang themselves. I don't think any of this is "hap hazard" or randomly written. Just like "Not flying over people" has no specific distance. If you're over a person's "big toe" you're over a person. If you're flying beyond VLOS (rather than merely being blocked by a structure etc) you're BEYOND vlos. Just enough rope to allow you to slip it around your neck and step off that cliff....

Note they did not "allow" for Beyond Line Of Site but an "Interruption" in VLOS.

Thoraldus · May 17, 2019

BigAl07 said:
This is a classic case of the FAA being "Creative" and giving the RPIC just enough rope to hang themselves. I don't think any of this is "hap hazard" or randomly written. Just like "Not flying over people" has no specific distance. If you're over a person's "big toe" you're over a person. If you're flying beyond VLOS (rather than merely being blocked by a structure etc) you're BEYOND vlos. Just enough rope to allow you to slip it around your neck and step off that cliff....

Note they did not "allow" for Beyond Line Of Site but an "Interruption" in VLOS.

I agree. They sure could have nailed this down better if they wanted to.