Breaking rules to fly above Fog?

[John Locke]

If someone can hit the Powerball numbers, someone can walk out from behind a tree and be hit with a falling drone because DJI introduced the unannounced feature of in-flight firmware upgrades.

If my risk of flying a drone was the same as the odds of winning the powerball, I'm pretty darn safe. Unfortunately I think everyone is at much greater risk than that, just sayin.

Also, I think DJI would be the liable party doing what you suggested. If DJI introduced a firmware upgrade, didn't tell you about it, and this caused an incident out of pilot ignorance due to DJI's non-disclosure, DJI would be in deep dodo.

Sorry, didn't mean to highjack the thread and "cloud" the issue at hand. Carry on.....

 

[John Locke]

If I'm launching from above the fog in the mountains, and I'm flying below 400' AGL, and I can see my craft, and I have 3mi visibility above the ground fog, I'll be flying. Sounds like a great opportunity for a unique video, and a safe one. I also believe the FAA requirements are met, with my interpretation of their written guidelines for viz, clouds vs. fog, and VLOS.

I deem this flight as safe as a clear day, and my risk is pretty low in that kind of desolate area with few people in the mountains. There would be no manned aircraft flying in fog that low (below 400AGL) if I'm 5mi from an airport (a given). You won't find many helicopter pilots flying in fog either. And in such a rural location I'll be able to hear any approaching craft, but the chance of a craft coming out of the fog over 5mi from an airport is less than winning the lotto. Pretty safe.

 

[BigAl07]

I don't recall seeing this "orientation" requirement in any of the rules and guidelines I studied. I assume you mean via VLOS. Would you mind sharing where you found this as an FAA guideline?

However, I can always see my craft orientation in the radar screen.

It's been noted several times that VLOS is more than "just seeing a speck on the horizon". I don't have a link handy but it's been noted that you must be able to see the aircraft and be able to determine orientation. Otherwise what good is seeing your aircraft if you can't tell orientation? Also remember this is all well outside of the "onscreen display" because we are required to be able to fly the aircraft should the display fail.

 

[OOO]

It's been noted several times that VLOS is more than "just seeing a speck on the horizon". I don't have a link handy but it's been noted that you must be able to see the aircraft and be able to determine orientation. Otherwise what good is seeing your aircraft if you can't tell orientation? Also remember this is all well outside of the "onscreen display" because we are required to be able to fly the aircraft should the display fail.

I’ve never heard this one before (orientation rule). My vision is normal but I can’t determine orientation of my drone beyond 200 meters distance (even may be less than that). If this is true, I can say that most of the drone pilots I know are not obeying this rule.

 

[techmyjustin]

Yeah I think we've lost the original question of the thread by now. Basically I'm flying ABOVE the fog, and I'm also standing on the mountain ABOVE the fog, I have VLOS of my drone. There is ZERO chance of a manned aircraft emerging out of the fog because people don't fly in the fog 100 feet above the ground.

The only concern is, are there people down in the fog, directly under the drone. Well, possibly. But there are people directly underneath an airplane or helicopter everyday. I think when we start cancelling drone flights because there's a person in the area, we've got real problems.

 

[John Locke]

Yeah I think we've lost the original question of the thread by now. Basically I'm flying ABOVE the fog, and I'm also standing on the mountain ABOVE the fog, I have VLOS of my drone. There is ZERO chance of a manned aircraft emerging out of the fog because people don't fly in the fog 100 feet above the ground.

The only concern is, are there people down in the fog, directly under the drone. Well, possibly. But there are people directly underneath an airplane or helicopter everyday. I think when we start cancelling drone flights because there's a person in the area, we've got real problems.

I agree, flying above ground fog as you and I have stated, launching above the fog, is clearly as safe as with no fog IMO. It's similar to flying over water, you don't want to craft to fail, but it could. We have to realize that many places we fly there's a risk of a person or two that might be below. The guideline is to avoid crowds of people and try not to fly directly over people, which I do, but still that doesn't rule out someone being under me occasionally, often because I can't see them VLOS or via FPV, even though I can see my drone. There's always that risk, fog or no fog, so I see this as no different if the drone fails.

 

[BigAl07]

I don't recall seeing this "orientation" requirement in any of the rules and guidelines I studied. I assume you mean via VLOS. Would you mind sharing where you found this as an FAA guideline?

I’ve never heard this one before (orientation rule). My vision is normal but I can’t determine orientation of my drone beyond 200 meters distance (even may be less than that). If this is true, I can say that most of the drone pilots I know are not obeying this rule.

Have we taken the time to sit down and read the FULL Part 107? I don't mean the "Cliffs Notes" available on so many "Self Study" websites. When we are talking LAW and Aviation Safety it's worth the time and effort to dig into the full text rather than accepting what someone else interprets or finds important and feeds to us.

The below text is directly copied (I've not changed a single word) from the GPO which is where the official documents are "shared" for all to read and utilized.
14 CFR 107 - SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
January 1, 2017

Here's the full text from the "undigested" ~Part 107.31

§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:
(1) Know the unmanned aircraft’s location;
(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and
(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:
(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or
(2) A visual observer.

However, I can always see my craft orientation in the radar screen.

That single comment is immediately made null & void with this "directly from Part 107.31" and it's the very FIRST line of this section:
§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation. (a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses,


Hopefully this helps clear up some of the confusion.

In regards to the OP:

If you take off from above the fog (clouds), remain clear of them, know with a good amount of certainty that no aircraft "should" be coming up through the fog and you remain =<400'AGL I agree you should be good to go.

 

[BigAl07]

Yeah I think we've lost the original question of the thread by now. Basically I'm flying ABOVE the fog, and I'm also standing on the mountain ABOVE the fog, I have VLOS of my drone. There is ZERO chance of a manned aircraft emerging out of the fog because people don't fly in the fog 100 feet above the ground.

I agree.

The only concern is, are there people down in the fog, directly under the drone. Well, possibly. But there are people directly underneath an airplane or helicopter everyday. I think when we start cancelling drone flights because there's a person in the area, we've got real problems.

I completely disagree. You're comparing a certificated, inspected, track proven, multiple-redundancy system COA Aircraft to a hobby UAS. That's comparing apples to mud holes. We're also comparing pilots who have hours of training (including emergency procedures) as well as hours of hands-on flight training with a CFI right beside them to an RC Cowboy. Night and day difference.

For the record many of us cancel "Drone Flights" quite often because of unexpected "people on the ground". If you know people are on the ground and fly anyway then you are knowingly violating "not flying over people". It's also possible that if you can't confirm if people are on the ground below you then you have NOT done your due diligence and negligent in that capacity. All of this is assuming there is an incident or a complaint and the FAA is brought on board. The odds of that are VERY slim but possible none the less.

 

[John Locke]

multiple-redundancy system COA Aircraft to a hobby UAS

Not to nitpick, but there's only one engine in a Cessna. That's not exactly multiple redundant, but I get your point. Manned private craft have gone down, craft that have the potential to do way more damage than a 3lb drone falling. I think that's day and night comparison for risk, compared to a 3000lb Cessna 182, with one motor. Fortunately the pilot can hopefully glide if he's the control surface are working. Hopefully he can find a low risk landing/crash site

Thank you for the details of CFR107, I've never read that before, but I passes my test. However regarding this statement: With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. This says my "vision" cannot be aided. It doesn't say I can't use my navigation system to gain information about my craft. Wouldn't that be analogous to a pilot not using his instruments? That makes no sense.

I find this discussion interesting, but I'm guessing 80% of the pilots in this forum fly beyond VLOS, often. Otherwise who needs Lightbridge?

 

[BigAl07]

Not to nitpick, but there's only one engine in a Cessna. That's not exactly multiple redundant, but I get your point. Manned private craft have gone down, craft that have the potential to do way more damage than a 3lb drone falling. I think that's day and night comparison for risk, compared to a 3000lb Cessna 182, with one motor. Fortunately the pilot can hopefully glide if he's the control surface are working. Hopefully he can find a low risk landing/crash site

Only one engine but the engine is designed with multiple levels of redundancy (dual magnetos etc). Yes you're def nitpicking.

Thank you for the details of CFR107, I've never read that before, but I passes my test. However regarding this statement: With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. This says my "vision" cannot be aided. It doesn't say I can't use my navigation system to gain information about my craft. Wouldn't that be analogous to a pilot not using his instruments? That makes no sense.

It says "With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses". Would your "navigation system" (aka tablet/phone) not fall under the "any device" category? We have to be able to "Fly the aircraft" without all the bells & whistles. What happens if you're flying "out there" and the aircraft is a mere dot (you can't determine orientation) and you notice a manned aircraft inbound at a high rate of speed heading directly at your sUAS. You look down at your "display device" and you have a black screen? The device has malfunctioned and in the worst possible time/situation. The regs are written in such a way to take "grey area" out of the equation and pretty much eliminates any "creative loopholes".

Wouldn't that be analogous to a pilot not using his instruments? That makes no sense.

When we learn to fly Manned Aircraft we learn to fly the aircraft before we even start to learn about the cool widgets and gadgets. We are always planning and practicing for when those instruments quit working and they DO! My very first flight after getting my Pilot's License ( I was literally flying home from a full day of getting my Check Ride in another state) I lost all cabin electrical components and had to fly at night, across the mountains to AVL, with a flashlight and a compass with the most basic (back up) instruments. Our EYES are our backup navigation system when flying sUAS which is 1/2 of the reason why they have such a strict requirement of VLOS. The other half is being able to perform See & Avoid.

Aviation is about being able to Fly The Aircraft in just about any scenario and in a way that is as safe as is possible and does NOT endanger aircraft or people on the ground.

It's all right there in the regs and they leave little room for "creative interpretation".

Not to nitpick, but there's only one engine in a Cessna. That's not exactly multiple redundant, but I get your point. Manned private craft have gone down, craft that have the potential to do way more damage than a 3lb drone falling. I think that's day and night comparison for risk, compared to a 3000lb Cessna 182, with one motor. Fortunately the pilot can hopefully glide if he's the control surface are working. Hopefully he can find a low risk landing/crash site

Only one engine but the engine is designed with multiple levels of redundancy (dual magnetos etc). Yes you're def nitpicking.

Thank you for the details of CFR107, I've never read that before, but I passes my test. However regarding this statement: With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. This says my "vision" cannot be aided. It doesn't say I can't use my navigation system to gain information about my craft. Wouldn't that be analogous to a pilot not using his instruments? That makes no sense.

It says "With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses". Would your "navigation system" (aka tablet/phone) not fall under the "any device" category? We have to be able to "Fly the aircraft" without all the bells & whistles. What happens if you're flying "out there" and the aircraft is a mere dot (you can't determine orientation) and you notice a manned aircraft inbound at a high rate of speed heading directly at your sUAS. You look down at your "display device" and you have a black screen? The device has malfunctioned and in the worst possible time/situation. The regs are written in such a way to take "grey area" out of the equation and pretty much eliminates any "creative loopholes".

Wouldn't that be analogous to a pilot not using his instruments? That makes no sense.

When we learn to fly Manned Aircraft we learn to fly the aircraft before we even start to learn about the cool widgets and gadgets. We are always planning and practicing for when those instruments quit working and they DO! My very first flight after getting my Pilot's License ( I was literally flying home from a full day of getting my Check Ride in another state) I lost all cabin electrical components and had to fly at night, across the mountains to AVL, with a flashlight and a compass with the most basic (back up) instruments. Our EYES are our backup navigation system when flying sUAS which is 1/2 of the reason why they have such a strict requirement of VLOS. The other half is being able to perform See & Avoid.

Aviation is about being able to Fly The Aircraft in just about any scenario and in a way that is as safe as is possible and does NOT endanger aircraft or people on the ground.

It's all right there in the regs and they leave little room

I find this discussion interesting, but I'm guessing 80% of the pilots in this forum fly beyond VLOS, often.

80%? I think your number is a little low LOL. I'd say it's much higher and across the industry as a whole.

Otherwise who needs Lightbridge?

Exactly! This is easy when you're flying a WiFi only aircraft that can only go a few hundred feet (up or out) before losing signal but when a factory aircraft can go a couple of miles you know everyone is going to "push it" just for the excitement of it. I'd say anyone with a modern sUAS that is capable of 3000' (horizontal) distance who has been flying more than a few weeks has flown well beyond "legal" VLOS and probably do so often.

 

[John Locke]

It says "With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses"

In this sentence the words "any device" is clearly talking about things to aid eyesight, it even gives an example, "corrective lenses". Interpreting "any device" to include the RC telemetry would be flawed IMO.

 

[BigAl07]

In this sentence the words "any device" is clearly talking about things to aid eyesight, it even gives an example, "corrective lenses". Interpreting "any device" to include the RC telemetry would be flawed IMO.

John, first you doubted/Called into question that there is a requirement for "Orientation" stating you've never seen such a requirement. I gave you the exact wording of it directly from the FAR.

I've given you my own personal interpretation (Which is very unofficial), I've given you the Official regulations (in very plain English) to support my interpretation, and I've gone back and tried to make it as clear as is possible. Yet you still try to twist and turn the regs around to meet your desire/goals which isn't how this works.

Fact of the matter is you can take any phrase you want to and turn it around to "try" and mean something else but the FAA is very specific in their wording. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the FAA Inspector gets from the FAR and how he/she applies them to your actions. Your Display Device is going to be deemed a DEVICE and does not allow you to use that to determine orientation for VLOS. In aviation we have to always rely on "What If" and plan for "Worst Case". Your Display Device does not fulfill those obligations.

That's my 2-cents and all I'm going to say in this specific discussion. The proverbial horse has now been beaten to death and then some.

 

[btrussell]

A bit of history on this issue may be helpful. The weather minimums for sUAS are taken directly from the basic VFR weather requirements. Because UAS under part 107 has the 400 ft altitude restriction they deleted the remaining requirement for being 1000 above any clouds or other obscuration. These rules are in place for ensuring that a aircraft flying VFR can be seen by other aircraft, especially those operating under instrument rules. Absent the ability to operate above 400 ft AGL they would have kept the 1000 ft above clouds requirement in addition to the VLOS requirement. The issue now is that the adaptation of the rules has created a hole that will likely be filled very soon with a prohibition or weather minimum requirement that will nullify the apparent ability to legally fly above the fog. Strictly speaking it is not a very good idea for lots of reasons, least of all knowing that the concept of “see and avoid” or reckless operation will likely be invoked by the FAA.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I don't recall seeing this "orientation" requirement in any of the rules and guidelines I studied. I assume you mean via VLOS. Would you mind sharing where you found this as an FAA guideline?

However, I can always see my craft orientation in the radar screen.

The purpose of VLOS is to be able to see approaching manned aircraft and to instantly/rapidly remove your drone from that aircraft's flight path. By extension, a competent and rapid evasive maneuver requires the pilot to know orientation. Another situation that would prevent rapid response is that latency period when you looked at the controlling device and then had to "reacquire" VLOS with your drone. Following the "letter of the law" and being in a situation where you cannot execute the "spirit of the law" , in my mind, is unacceptable.

 

[BigAl07]

The purpose of VLOS is to be able to see approaching manned aircraft and to instantly/rapidly remove your drone from that aircraft's flight path. By extension, a competent and rapid evasive maneuver requires the pilot to know orientation. Another situation that would prevent rapid response is that latency period when you looked at the controlling device and then had to "reacquire" VLOS with your drone. Following the "letter of the law" and being in a situation where you cannot execute the "spirit of the law" , in my mind, is unacceptable.

BINGO! ^^^^^^^

 

[blackcrusader]

Firstly hobby operators fly under sec 336 not Part 107 which does not apply. Secondly many people launch from mountains where below the fog are more mountains. Anyone flying a plane has already crashed into them below the fog line. Below these clouds at 10,000 feet are several mountain ranges. Where I fly no passenger aircraft are allowed so not an issue for me to worry about that.

 

[Vzr1]

Pretty simple really it says in the rulebook do not fly out of sight and fly above fog obviously you can’t see it ....correct?

 

[blackcrusader]

Pretty simple really it says in the rulebook do not fly out of sight and fly above fog obviously you can’t see it ....correct?

Not if you are already launching from a point above the clouds. It only applies if you are launching from below the cloud line.

 

[Vzr1]

Not if you are already launching from a point above the clouds. It only applies if you are launching from below the cloud line.

Can you show me that in the rules? Must have missed it.

 

[techmyjustin]

Can you show me that in the rules? Must have missed it.

If you are already above the fog when you launch, and you are flying above the fog, you already have VLOS.