H.R.302, Section 349 (US)

[JethroXP]

How hard is this? If you cannot see your aircraft with your naked eyes then you are no longer flying in accordance with Part 101.41. iPads, phones, etc. do not count. Eyeballs on the aircraft. Period.

So help me out here, I'm having trouble finding those words in the actual text of Part 101.41:

14 CFR 101.41 - Applicability.

1. CFR › Title 14 › Chapter I › Subchapter F › Part 101 › Subpart E › Section 101.41

14 CFR 101.41 - Applicability.

• eCFR
• Authorities (U.S. Code)
• What Cites Me

prev | next

§ 101.41 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.

 

[BigAl07]

@JethroXP I don't have a link to it in 101.41 but it's in the FARs none-the-less:


Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 defines a model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft, and flown only for hobby or recreational purposes.

 

[SilentAV8R]

In order to comply with 101.41 you must comply with Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 which states:

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

In addition, the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft further defined what was meant by "visual line of sight"

Although the FAA believes the statutory definition of a model aircraft is clear, the FAA provides the following explanation of the meanings of “visual line of sight” and “hobby or recreational purpose,” terms used in the definition of model aircraft, because the FAA has received a number of questions in this area. By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2). 1 Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. 2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless. Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id. (emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.

 

[JethroXP]

So to answer SilentAV8R's question "How hard is this?" apparently it is pretty hard, because the rules, guidelines, and definitions are all over the place. And it doesn't help to call people out for not operating in accordance with a rule that doesn't mention a thing about the issue you are calling them out over.

Also in my search trying to understand the laws, I came across this lawyer's site, where he mentions that section 336 isn't intended to tell drone operators how to fly, rather it was intended to tell the FAA what they could regulate:

----------------------------------------
How high can a model aircraft fly? -


Important Points about Section 336
The first thing you should be aware of is that this section was specifically talking to the FAA, not model aircraft operators. The FAA acts in some regards like it was a section directed at model aircraft flyers. See my article Why the FAA’s Drone Registration Requirements Are ILLEGAL

Secondly, the section does NOT prohibit model aircraft flyers from doing anything else who fall into this category.

Thirdly, this section specifically lists out multiple requirements which ALL must be met. Many in the community are under the impression that flying recreationally automatically has them fall into the protections of 336 when that is NOT the case. I have a section explaining this in my Taylor v. FAA (drone registration lawsuit) article. Many recreational flyers are most likely Part 107 recreational flyers which has all sorts of requirements.

Fourthly, this section only applies to the FAA, not other federal agencies or state drone laws. To help comply with the state laws, I created a page listing out as many state drone laws as I could find.

With this in mind, let’s dive into the letter.
------------------------------------------

So bottom line, this is not as cut and dry as you guys want to make out to be. There is a tremendous amount of confusion, especially now that 336 has been repealed. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm suggesting that none of us can speak with any certainty or authority on these issues. The best we can do is encourage each other to read as much as we can and operate as safely as possible.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Why not contact the FAA? They have been crystal clear on what "visual line of sight" means to them, and they are the only ones who matter.

You seem intent on trying to say the FAA is confused, they are not. Ask them directly is my advice.

 

[BigAl07]

So to answer SilentAV8R's question "How hard is this?" apparently it is pretty hard, because the rules, guidelines, and definitions are all over the place. And it doesn't help to call people out for not operating in accordance with a rule that doesn't mention a thing about the issue you are calling them out over.

Also in my search trying to understand the laws, I came across this lawyer's site, where he mentions that section 336 isn't intended to tell drone operators how to fly, rather it was intended to tell the FAA what they could regulate:

----------------------------------------
How high can a model aircraft fly? -


Important Points about Section 336
The first thing you should be aware of is that this section was specifically talking to the FAA, not model aircraft operators. The FAA acts in some regards like it was a section directed at model aircraft flyers. See my article Why the FAA’s Drone Registration Requirements Are ILLEGAL

Secondly, the section does NOT prohibit model aircraft flyers from doing anything else who fall into this category.

Thirdly, this section specifically lists out multiple requirements which ALL must be met. Many in the community are under the impression that flying recreationally automatically has them fall into the protections of 336 when that is NOT the case. I have a section explaining this in my Taylor v. FAA (drone registration lawsuit) article. Many recreational flyers are most likely Part 107 recreational flyers which has all sorts of requirements.

Fourthly, this section only applies to the FAA, not other federal agencies or state drone laws. To help comply with the state laws, I created a page listing out as many state drone laws as I could find.

With this in mind, let’s dive into the letter.
------------------------------------------

So bottom line, this is not as cut and dry as you guys want to make out to be. There is a tremendous amount of confusion, especially now that 336 has been repealed. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm suggesting that none of us can speak with any certainty or authority on these issues. The best we can do is encourage each other to read as much as we can and operate as safely as possible.

It's only hard because you're refusing to accept it. You've been given links, citings, and even an NTSB ruling that defines what VLOS is but you simply can't/won't accept it. FARs are generally written in "grey" terms which allows you enough rope to hang yourself while also allowing the FAA a lot of wiggle room should they need it.

Which part of VISUAL Line Of Sight baffles you?

As stated above why not call the FAA and ask them. I'll even give you the # to your local FSDO so you don't have to search for it:

Phone: (206) 231-3828 or (800) 354-1940
Fax: (206) 231-3827
Office Hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m

 

[JethroXP]

Hey guys, I'm trying to understand the rules and yes expressing my frustration when people tell me I'm not in compliance with this or that even though I point out this and that don't mention those things, so you end up pointing to other things that do. And you wonder why I might be confused? I understand there is comfort in clarity, and I can see why you are so adamant about it, but hurling insults doesn't help. So thank you, I've called the FAA. They were busy, so I left my name and number. Hopefully they call back.

And BTW - I never said the FAA was confused, I've been maintaining all along that I am confused, and clearly lots of other people are too. The regulations are confusing, the different parts, the cross-referencing, the recreational vs. commercial. I have no doubt someone at the FAA has a firm opinion on this, but I suspect our Congress has created this web of confusion that I find myself in.

 

[BigAl07]

... but I suspect our Congress has created this web of confusion that I find myself in.

You suspect it? Did you not just read where I clearly explained (and linked) exactly this for you?

Let me get that link for you:

H.R.302, Section 349 (US)

 

[JethroXP]

No disrespect, but what you gave me is your opinion. Lots of that going around, which also contributes to the confusion. I'm trying to find something definitive, in the law. Still waiting on that call back from the FAA too.

 

[BigAl07]

No disrespect, but what you gave me is your opinion. Lots of that going around, which also contributes to the confusion. I'm trying to find something definitive, in the law. Still waiting on that call back from the FAA too.

We've given you links directly to FAA and other reputable and verifiable sources. I even gave you (2x) the link to an NTSB formal investigation and their official and legal determination.

I give up. You simply want to troll and argue and I'm gonna leave you to it. Safe flights.

 

[JethroXP]

We've given you links directly to FAA and other reputable and verifiable sources. I even gave you (2x) the link to an NTSB formal investigation and their official and legal determination.

I give up. You simply want to troll and argue and I'm gonna leave you to it. Safe flights.

I apologize. It wasn't my intention to troll. However looking back at my own posts I can see how I created that impression. You and others were making a good-faith effort to help and I was pushing back on that. I was wrong. Sorry for the frustration I caused. Safe flying.