Waiver Disapproval

[broux2]

So I wanted to test the waiver process to see how that worked. I submitted for a waiver to §107.51(c) for the 3 mile visibility restriction. Below is what I submitted (Blue) and the FAA response (Red). Can anyone think of what else I could put in here that would allow them to approve?

For performing home inspections, I wish to be granted a waiver that would allow flights when visibility is lower than 3 SM. When utilizing UAVs for home inspection altitude is generally very low and close to the structure so that the resulting image quality can be used to detect damage. It is rare that an inspection flight would need to exceed 100 ft AGL unless there is a need to document conditions surrounding the structure utilizing a single image. The Phantom 4 Pro has the ability to capture 15,000 Sq Ft in a single image at 100 ft AGL which again is sufficient in most circumstances.

For safe operation, flights performed when visibility is lower than 3 SM will be limited to 100 ft AGL which will be set as the maximum altitude setting within the control app (DJI Go 4). The RPIC will also ensure that he has clear vision of the UAV at all times. The flight will immediately be ceased if conditions exist that would restrict the RPIC to visually monitor the flight and accurately understand orientation of the UAV. To aid in visibility to other aircraft that may be in the area, a strobe light (Strobon Cree white LED) will be used on the top of the UAV.

Given the criteria outlined above, the FAA is unable to approve your request for a waiver to §107.51(c) because you did not describe interventions, for one or more hazards, to mitigate risk to an acceptable level. If you would like to reapply, include as much detail as required to describe the proposed operation, the purpose of the operation, and method by which the proposed operation can be safely conducted. Information should identify potential hazards and risks of the waivered operation, including risk-mitigation strategies, and characteristics of the sUAS. Refer to the waiver performance standards at: Request a Waiver/Airspace Authorization – Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS). You must address each of the standards for the applicable regulatory section to be waived. Address each standard and how you propose to mitigate risks associated with the hazards utilizing operating limitations, technology, training, equipment, personnel, restricted access areas, etc. Only request a waiver from regulatory sections necessary to conduct the operation.

 

[MapMaker53]

I have not reviewed the specific waiver performance standards, but off the top of my head maybe add a Visual Observer to work with you for a second set of eyes during those conditions? I would also specify that a Home Point will be establish in the flight software at time of launch to ensure a safe and efficient return to the take-off point should the flight need to be aborted or if the RPIC's ability to see the sUA becomes completely or significantly obscured due to a change in atmospheric conditions. The problem might be that your original description solely relies on the PIC to manually and visually fly back to a safe location and land. I'm guessing the FAA would want some sort of a backup should dense fog suddenly roll in that would obscure the RPIC's visual on it. Possibly also add that flights shall not be conducted with, say, less than 300 yards of visibility -- a specific hard distance number, rather than a vague sounding judgement call by the RPIC.

Can you tell me how long it took to get the FAA response?

(Sorry, kept updated this as I thought of things.)

 

[BigAl07]

Your request is WAY too general. You need very specific details and you'll need to explain what level of visibility you will cease to fly in. For instance "If visibility is less than 1SM we will immediately cease operations and return aircraft to the secured landing location".

You'll have to address each point in the "performance based standards" and tell how you can make them as safe as possible (utilizing a VO is always a plus with the FAA).

While I've not specifically looked for §107.51(c), I don't' recall seeing this as being one of the items that is commonly "Waived". It might be a tough one because it's only partially about what YOU can see while flying your UAS. They also take into account should you have an Uncontrolled Fly Away situation how far away will other aircraft be able to see your UAS.

Good luck and keep us posted.

 

[broux2]

I submitted on 5./2 and got the response today 5/19.
Here are the standards. I was hoping that flying under 100ft would satisfy 1 and 2 and the top strobe would satisfy 3.

§ 107.51(c) Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft. Visibility. A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system: (c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 statute miles. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night. Performance-Based Standards
1. Applicant must provide a method for the remote pilot to maintain visual line of sight with the sUA when operating with visibility less than 3 miles statute miles.
2. Applicant must provide a method to ensure the sUA will be able to avoid nonparticipating aircraft when operating with visibility less than 3 statute miles.
3. Applicant must provide a method to increase conspicuity of the sUA to be seen at a distance of 3 statute miles unless a system is in place that can avoid all non-participating aircraft.

 

[sar104]

I think the problem is that you did not address two of the issues behind the reason for the rule. Your ability to see your UAV is fine in your proposed scenario, but there are two other elements:

1. Your ability to see and avoid non-participating aircraft in reduced visibility and

2. Visibility of your UAV to non-participating aircraft.

Both these are mentioned in the relevant section of the performance standards. The first one has no suggested mitigations, but warning any local airports, monitoring appropriate comms frequencies and an additional observer might work. The second one simply requires extra bright strobes on the UAV, as far as I can see.

 

[broux2]

Your request is WAY too general. You need very specific details and you'll need to explain what level of visibility you will cease to fly in. For instance "If visibility is less than 1SM we will immediately cease operations and return aircraft to the secured landing location".

You'll have to address each point in the "performance based standards" and tell how you can make them as safe as possible (utilizing a VO is always a plus with the FAA).

While I've not specifically looked for §107.51(c), I don't' recall seeing this as being one of the items that is commonly "Waived". It might be a tough one because it's only partially about what YOU can see while flying your UAS. They also take into account should you have an Uncontrolled Fly Away situation how far away will other aircraft be able to see your UAS.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Thanks. This is exactly why I submitted for this waiver. I want to use it as a learning process. I will take your suggestions and rebuild my request to see how it goes.

 

[broux2]

I think the problem is that you did not address two of the issues behind the reason for the rule. Your ability to see your UAV is fine in your proposed scenario, but there are two other elements:

1. Your ability to see and avoid non-participating aircraft in reduced visibility and

2. Visibility of your UAV to non-participating aircraft.

Both these are mentioned in the relevant section of the performance standards. The first one has no suggested mitigations, but warning any local airports, monitoring appropriate comms frequencies and an additional observer might work. The second one simply requires extra bright strobes on the UAV, as far as I can see.

I was thinking that 100 ft max altitude would help in these regards. If a manned aircraft if a 100 ft AGL they have bigger concerns than my phantom.

 

[sar104]

I was thinking that 100 ft max altitude would help in these regards. If a manned aircraft if a 100 ft AGL they have bigger concerns than my phantom.

That may also be valid but, as stated in the instructions, you need to address each of the issues explicitly. They are not going to try to infer what might help from what you wrote.

 

[broux2]

That may also be valid but, as stated in the instructions, you need to address each of the issues explicitly. They are not going to try to infer what might help from what you wrote.

Got it. When I restructure the request I will be sure to list the standard and explicitly describe the measure that will be taken. I didn't want to be too redundant but based on what I am hearing more is better.

 

[Loz]

OS recreational flyer chiming in out if interest [emoji4] - wouldn't some comments about safety / protection of uninvolved folk below be required as well? Or can you assume there wouldn't be any (if there was you wouldn't fly over them)

 

[sar104]

OS recreational flyer chiming in out if interest [emoji4] - wouldn't some comments about safety / protection of uninvolved folk below be required as well? Or can you assume there wouldn't be any (if there was you wouldn't fly over them)

That would be a different waiver.

 

[Loz]

Understood thanks

 

[Bendix]

The hazards associated with flying in less than 3 SM visibility aren't really addressed by sticking to a 100 ft altitude restriction. The area imaged by a Phantom isn't relevant, nor is the alleged ability of the DJI control software to set a maximum height. It's fairly obvious why your waiver application was denied. The problem is apples and your proposed solution is for oranges.

 

[broux2]

The hazards associated with flying in less than 3 SM visibility aren't really addressed by sticking to a 100 ft altitude restriction. The area imaged by a Phantom isn't relevant, nor is the alleged ability of the DJI control software to set a maximum height. It's fairly obvious why your waiver application was denied. The problem is apples and your proposed solution is for oranges.

The area imaged by phantom is relevant as a supporting detail of why my flights do not need to exceed 100 ft AGL. I felt like at that altitude coupled with a small area of operation (single property) would mitigate most if not all risk of the flight. Again if there are aircraft lower than 100ft AGL outside of restricted airspace there are bigger issues at hand.

I disagree about apples to oranges. The issue is obviously visibility to other aircraft and that shouldn't be an issue in my proposed operations.