Thank you, however my confusion stems from asking for clarification around the recreational guidance and being referred to the commercial rules as a refererence. It’s sort of like asking a general driving question and being referred to rules for commercial truck drivers for the answer. VLOS makes sense, particularly when you include the intent of why it’s required. What doesn’t make sense is that flying over people is so explicitly called out in the commercial rules but never mentioned in the recreational rules.
H.R.302, Section 349 (US)
- Thread starter FLYBOYJ
- Start date
Thank you, however my confusion stems from asking for clarification around the recreational guidance and being referred to the commercial rules as a refererence. It’s sort of like asking a general driving question and being referred to rules for commercial truck drivers for the answer. VLOS makes sense, particularly when you include the intent of why it’s required. What doesn’t make sense is that flying over people is so explicitly called out in the commercial rules but never mentioned in the recreational rules.
It's been stated many times that once Part 336 was dropped that the FAA will most likely (key work likely) use Part 107 as the frame work for Hobby regulations. Why, now that the handicap that Congress placed on the FAA in regards to hobby operations is gone, should hobby regulations be any less strict than Commercial operations?
If the operator is doing the same action, in the same place, with the same aircraft WHY IN THE WORLD would hobby rules not restrict flight over people and flying BLOS? When all other things are created equal does a Commercial driver have different speed limits? Do they have a different set of stop lights to follow? NEGATIVE!
Now that the HUGE mistake of 336 has been taken down it's time for the FAA to make hobby rules sensible and more importantly ENFORCEABLE!
For the record the FAA "usually" only comes into play if there is a complaint, an incident, or an injury. Odds are if you abide by the rules you'll never have to have interaction with the FAA at all.
I think the point is safety matters whether you are a commercial or recreational pilot. Now the FAA is moving toward only one set of rules for both. If for example I want to photograph the Main Street of my town, I'll fly over the row of stores that is offset from sidewalks and streets and thus is NOT over people. When photographing lighthouses, I fly from 6:00 to 8:00 AM (or until the first visitor/tourist shows up) and then often from 6:00 to 8:00 PM (after the park closes). This would be done with a prior agreement with the lighthouse park staff. Doing otherwise would build up too much anti-drone feelings by spectators. It's not worth it.
Wholeheartedly agree regarding safety, however the way different folks interpret this is frustrating so I’m looking for better guidance. For example, the guidance on VLOS absolutely makes sense now in the context of avoiding other aircraft. Previously had people tell me that my eyes had to be able to discern my drone at all times, for no reason other than that’s how they interpreted the rule. Given the size of these things that would realistically limit me to flying no more than a couple hundred feet away. Plus all eyes are different so how is that even enforceable? But if the intent is to avoid other aircraft, I can do that if I can visually discern the vicinity of my drone even if I can’t visual discern its precise location. I take this to mean don’t fly behind a building, or a hill, but it is ok to fly a mile away, even if you can’t see your drone, as long as there is noting obscuring your view to the drone.
Flying over people is another area of confusion. I’ve posted photos where people were visible on the ground (300 feet AGL and looking at about 60’ angle) and been called out for “flying over people”. What you said about flying over town is exactly what I do as well, but it would seem that even that approach means that for very brief moments you may be directly over a person. So I’m trying to find a good rule of thumb to comply with the spirit and intent of the rule as the exact wording seems impractical if taken absolutely.
Flying over people is another area of confusion. I’ve posted photos where people were visible on the ground (300 feet AGL and looking at about 60’ angle) and been called out for “flying over people”. What you said about flying over town is exactly what I do as well, but it would seem that even that approach means that for very brief moments you may be directly over a person. So I’m trying to find a good rule of thumb to comply with the spirit and intent of the rule as the exact wording seems impractical if taken absolutely.
I appreciate your passion on this topic, and I respect your position as moderator and staff member here, but I also wonder why you are yelling at me? I'm here to learn how to be a better and safer member of this community. I don't think my question about the rules was unreasonable. Isn't this a forum for the exchange of information and ideas, or am I just expected already know everything before participating?
As for your question about why there would be different rules for hobbyists and commercial pilots, I would suggest for the same reasons that all commercial activity is more regulated than private activity. The government has a legitimate public safety interest in regulating profit motive activities, which is what Part 107 is all about. That's why there is a difference between personal driver's licenses and commercial driver licenses. Commercial vehicles and private vehicles use the same roads, and follow a lot of the same laws, but commercial vehicles and their operators have a set of rules above and beyond what private drivers need to follow, specifically because they are doing it for commercial purposes. Part 107 and 336 (now 349) being different absolutely makes sense in that context.
I wasn't yelling my friend. I was emphasizing trying to get a point across. If you read more of my posts you'll see I use CAPS often in my writings to create an emphasis on certain words and phrases. Yelling (IMHO) would look more like"
THIS... THIS IS WHAT YELLING LOOKS LIKE IN TYPED FORMAT!
The only reason we had Commercial and Hobby rules is because Congress made a knee-jerk reaction (fueled by deep pocketed lobbyists) and created the "
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
"
This was an attempt (a poorly researched and poorly enacted attempt) at helping to protect those of us who have been flying R/C aircraft (now called drones) for many years.
See we've been flying these things SAFELY and MORALLY for decades with no problems. But in those times you had to learn how to fly, had to fly at a designated flying field, and if you made dumb mistakes the aircraft crashed and you either started over or gave up. Now comes along GPS controlled, GYRO stabilized autonomous flying machines that require NO Training, no ability to fly, and can fly from anywhere on the planet. Before these technology advances the idiots only got one flight out of an aircraft before it was "re-Kitted"... we had a Self Correcting problem. Anyone with a credit card and a heartbeat can now buy and fly an aircraft with no regard for rules, laws, or morals.
Now these units are somewhere idiot proof almost to the point of being idiot friendly and those people are flying when, where, and how they really shouldn't. In an effort to protect the thousands of R/C flyers who fly responsibly within a flying club etc Congress created the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This short sighted act tied the FAA's hands in relation to restricting, controlling, and making any new rules that affect hobby operations. Congress had no clue that this industry was in the process of blowing up and they made a hair brained act that was a mistake since day one.
So no they are/were not 2 sets of rules because there is a difference between flying for money and flying for hobby. They created a fiasco of confusion and thank goodness it's in the works of getting corrected.
A good discussion. Judgement is always needed. That's why, I propose a "three strikes and your out" approach to enforcing the rules. This allows for more give and take as the rules and their interpretation move forward.
The FAA "sort of" already has this in the recipe. Depending on the severity of the incident/offense. Here is an exert from a recent article about this very topic:
The FAA has several enforcement tools at their disposal. FAA Inspectors are required to consider several criteria before making a judgment about how to proceed, as follows:
- For a first-time, inadvertent violation with a low actual or potential safety impact that can be addressed through education, you should expect that the FAA inspector will informally counsel you and that will end the matter.
- If the inspector determines that a first-time, inadvertent violation poses a low actual or potential risk to safety but doesn’t feel education is sufficient, the inspector will issue a warning notice or letter of correction if additional training has been taken, or needs to be taken, and satisfactorily completed.
- If the Inspector believes that a violation poses a medium or high actual or potential risk to safety, the inspector will forward evidence of the violation to the FAA’s legal office to initiate an enforcement action against the drone operator.
I am still confused about the Privacy Policy. What exacly is it needed for this?
To my understanding, if you are flying as part of 107, then you need this policy to state your intent for flying in the area. Whereas you need a new one every time you want to fly, for different reasons. Does it really need to be drafted by a lawyer or a notary?
To my understanding, if you are flying as part of 107, then you need this policy to state your intent for flying in the area. Whereas you need a new one every time you want to fly, for different reasons. Does it really need to be drafted by a lawyer or a notary?
If I may, to noodle in on the VLOS, I wanted to share a scenario I recently experienced as what I think is an example of how VLOS is supposed to work. I was flying in a river valley, about 1 mile wide with a river in the middle and farmland on both sides of the river. There is a road that cuts across the valley perpendicular to the river, and at the mid point of the valley is a typical two lane arch style bridge over the river. I was positioned on a trail on the east edge of the valley, flying my drone in a circular orbit around the bridge taking video. Orbit was at about 250 AGL, and radius of about 300 feet from the center of the bridge. The bridge is about 1/2 mile away from my position, so at that distance I can't actually see my drone anymore, it's just too small, though there is nothing obstructing my visual line of sight to where the drone is. As the drone was orbiting the bridge on the west (far) side, I became aware of the sound of a small single engine plane, as I scanned the sky I made visual contact and saw it come in low on the far west side of valley. When I first saw it I'd estimate 400 AGL and descending in a path parallel to the river. Knowing where my drone was I immediately descended to about 150 AGL and began moving east (toward me) at full stick. I don't believe my drone was ever any closer than 1/4 mile from the plane. So despite not being able to visually discern my drone's precise position in airspace, I knew where it was relative to the plane and was able to take evasive action because my visual line of sight to it's location was unobstructed. Is that how folks here interpret how VLOS is meant to be used?
Negative. You must have the drone in your sight so you can see it. discern it's orientation, and be able to See & Avoid any manned aircraft in the area. You can't rely on "telemetry" because that can fail. Aviation is about risk reduction/mitigation. If you can't see your aircraft then you are merely guessing exactly where it is, it's orientation, and what else is happening in the immediate airspace around it.
I was able to see and avoid a manned aircraft, that’s the point. Even when my drone is 10 feet away I have trouble discerning it’s orientation due to its very symmetrical shape. Ignoring the data seems like really bad advice.
No you didn't have VLOS per your very own comment:
"so at that distance I can't actually see my drone anymore, it's just too small, "
You had a good idea where it was and due to the electronic telemetry you was able to discern orientation and get the aircraft out of harms way but no sir you were not flying within the FAA's rules. How would you handle a failure of telemetry at that distance?
Perhaps you can clarify for me what such a scenario would look like? I have an idea of what loss of telemetry would look like, but I'd like to answer your question using your conditions, not mine.
Loss of telemetry would mean your viewing device goes black or you simply have no Telemetry available (out of range, flying behind cover, heavy WiFi interference, mechanical failure of that portion of the data feed). Anytime your aircraft telemetry quits for any reason and all you have is your eyes to determine orientation and to fly the aircraft out of harms way or sacrifice it into Terra Firma.
See you aircraft transmits (and receives) data on two different streams. First one (weaker one) is for your telemetry/video feed and such. This one "goes out" sooner than the actual control of the aircraft feed does (probably by design). Even when your display goes completely dead you probably still have actual CONTROL of the aircraft but you've got to know what it's doing to be able to get back (or ditch) safely.
So, I should preface this with I own a Mavic 2, not a Phantom. I came to this forum via a search for info about the new FAA Authorization law.
Out of range for my drone is about 5 miles, not sure I'd ever feel comfortable flying it that far away. Flying behind cover violates what I understood the VLOS rule to be, so I plan to avoid that as well.
Signal interference and mechanical failure could manifest in various ways, so I'll try to address them all.
1) Viewing Device failure. I use an iPad as my primary device, and I always have my phone as a back-up should the iPad experience a hardware or software failure.
1.a) The Mavic 2 controller has a data display distinct from the viewing device. In the event of a viewing device failure, my controller still shows me basic telemetry, such as altitude, speed, and distance. While it's doesn't show orientation, I could discern that by monitoring distance as I moved the flight stick forward.
2) Loss of signal. If the drone loses control signal for more than 2 seconds it initiates an emergency Return to Home.
3) Controller failure. If the controller experiences a hardware or software failure the same emergency Return to Home will either be initiated automatically, or can be forced by turning off the controller or otherwise disrupting it's signal
There is also a dedicated return-to-home button on the controller that forces the drone to return to it's last known home point.
Anytime the aircraft telemetry quits, I'd suggest there are more options than just visual flight or sacrificing it into the ground. I'm not flying a model plane that requires forward movement to remain airborne. If I let go of the sticks, or even set the controller down entirely, the drone will simply hover in place, and would do so without input from me until such time that the battery level triggers a return to home. If I had a viewing device failure I'd be comfortable allowing the drone to hover wherever it was while I swapped devices. If it looses signal it doesn't matter what I do, it will return on its own, same if the controller fails.
Out of range for my drone is about 5 miles, not sure I'd ever feel comfortable flying it that far away. Flying behind cover violates what I understood the VLOS rule to be, so I plan to avoid that as well.
Signal interference and mechanical failure could manifest in various ways, so I'll try to address them all.
1) Viewing Device failure. I use an iPad as my primary device, and I always have my phone as a back-up should the iPad experience a hardware or software failure.
1.a) The Mavic 2 controller has a data display distinct from the viewing device. In the event of a viewing device failure, my controller still shows me basic telemetry, such as altitude, speed, and distance. While it's doesn't show orientation, I could discern that by monitoring distance as I moved the flight stick forward.
2) Loss of signal. If the drone loses control signal for more than 2 seconds it initiates an emergency Return to Home.
3) Controller failure. If the controller experiences a hardware or software failure the same emergency Return to Home will either be initiated automatically, or can be forced by turning off the controller or otherwise disrupting it's signal
There is also a dedicated return-to-home button on the controller that forces the drone to return to it's last known home point.
Anytime the aircraft telemetry quits, I'd suggest there are more options than just visual flight or sacrificing it into the ground. I'm not flying a model plane that requires forward movement to remain airborne. If I let go of the sticks, or even set the controller down entirely, the drone will simply hover in place, and would do so without input from me until such time that the battery level triggers a return to home. If I had a viewing device failure I'd be comfortable allowing the drone to hover wherever it was while I swapped devices. If it looses signal it doesn't matter what I do, it will return on its own, same if the controller fails.
You're completely missing the point. First of all it doesn't matter what aircraft you're flying but I have the time and enjoy a good banter so I'll go ahead and "bite" for kicks & grins:
That's the "manufacturers" #'s and those are in IDEAL situations. I can almost promise you'll lose signal (video and aircraft control) well before reaching anything near that distance. How far can you SEE your Mavic with the unaided eye? If you can't see it with your eyes you're BEYOND VLOS and I know it's way WAY less than 5 miles.
How long will it take you to diagnose the viewing device error, remove/replace device, start app on new device, and get aircraft telemetry back again? What's happening to your See & Avoid while all of this is going on?
Many aircraft have integrated flight telemetry (Mavics, Phantom 4+ series, Yuneec . . . ) but once again there are many "single failure points" in the telemetry data feed (bird side link, Tx side link, signal blockage etc). Also how long is it going to take you to discern your aircraft orientation should you lose the viewing device using only the integrated data on the Tx and what is happening in and around your aircraft (manned aircraft etc) during that time?
Check out what happened to the sUAS operator in NY that was flying out over the river towards the ocean (beyond VLOS) relying on his device telemetry and video feed. He initiated a RTH (instead of actually flying the aircraft back to his position) and when it never returned he assumed his sUAS had merely crashed and taken a dunk into the river. He later learned that the aircraft had ran directly into an Army UH-60 Blackhawk Helo carrying people. Fortunately it was a mild strike (and it hit a COMBAT tough aircraft) and ONLY did $250K in damage. The UH-60 landed safely nearby and no personal injuries were reported.
Here's the NTSB report and I think it's well worth reading in it's entirety even though it's a long and detailed report. Take special note about how they state what VLOS is:
" Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 101, which includes maintaining visual contact with the aircraft at all times and not interfering with any manned aircraft. "
National Transportation Safety BoardAviation Incident Final Report
See how dangerous that could be?
See my reply above.... same situation.
If you are flying at a distance you can't physically see your aircraft (as you stated previously you can't see it at 1/2 mile away when you was flying the river basin) then you are flying BEYOND VLOS. VLOS doesn't mean what you're trying to imply. Just because nothing is physically between you and your aircraft you are maintaining LINE OF SIGHT... Line Of Sight can go indefinitely depending on viewing angle etc. You have to be able to SEE THE AIRCRAFT or you are outside of VLOS even though you may still have Line of Sight....
Do you see the difference in these two terms? Line of Sight and maintaining Visual Contact are not the same thing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
