Waiver Watch | Ep 30: § 107.31 and Ya Momz House, Inc
Welcome to Waiver Watch!
It’s a jam packed week of waivers at the FAA! Here is the agenda for this Episode 30:
Weekly totals
107.31 Interpretation
Ya Momz House, Inc
Weekly Waiver Totals
May 28 - June 3, 2020 saw 29 waivers approved:
27 - Daylight Operations (107.29)
1 - Operations Over Human beings (107.39)
1 - High Altitude (107.51(b))
This is the same total as last week! This week sees a heavy concentration in Texas and New York but otherwise nicely spread out.
Regulation Interpretation: § 107.31
Earlier this week, a report came out by DroneUp titled “Operation Last Mile”. In it, they described a series of Part 107 drone delivery tests they conducted in April and the results of said tests. The tests were to determine the limits of drone delivery for small packages in a quarantine environment.
As we were reading this report, it struck me that they were interpreting § 107.31 in an interesting way. According to DroneUp’s report, it is legal to use a “downrange” Visual Observer to see the aircraft while it is out of sight of the RPIC under standard Part 107 regulations (no waiver). In their testing, they intentionally fly the aircraft behind obstacles such as buildings and descend to drop the package. It’s clearly stated that the RPIC can no longer see the aircraft and that it is BVLOS. Their mitigation is to use a Visual Observer standing at the drop zone who is in contact with the RPIC and providing compliance with § 107.31.
The Question
Can a Remote Pilot use a "downrange" Visual Observer to comply with the requirements of 107.31 if the RPIC can no longer see the unmanned aircraft?
To put it one more way.. A Remote Pilot flies the aircraft downrange but then descends behind an obstacle for some time and can no longer see the aircraft or surrounding area. If a Visual Observer is standing on the other side of this obstacle watching the small unmanned aircraft, is the operation in compliance with 107.31?
We had our own interpretation of the regulation but wanted to poll a large FaceBook to see what people’s take on § 107.31 is in this situation. A great discussion ensued!
The Results
Can a Remote Pilot use a “downrange” Visual Observer to comply with the requirements of 107.31 if the RPIC can no longer see the unmanned aircraft?
107.31 Interpretation
Only 59% of those polled correctly interpreted the regulation!
Correct Answer
So it’s very clear that there is a large gap in how Remote Pilots interpret the regulations. There is a correct answer to this question and it turns out to be fairly simple:
The RPIC at all times must see the aircraft during a flight under standard Part 107 regulations.
The only exception to this simple rule is that the RPIC can intentionally maneuver the aircraft behind something “briefly and out of operational necessity”. The most common example of this is an RPIC doing a roof inspection and at the far end of the roof, the UAS is briefly blocked by the roofline before turning around and coming back in sight.
Source and Nuances
Let’s explain why this regulation is difficult to interpret and some FAA sources to back up our statement above.
§ 107.31 - Visual Line of Sight Aircraft Operation
The reason §107.31 is difficult to interpret is how it’s written. We’ve copied the regulation verbiage below and highlighted two key parts:
§ 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.
Did you miss it? The only words we highlighted are “and” in § 107.31(a) and “or” in § 107.31(b). So in § 107.31(a), it states the RPIC, VO (if one is used), and person manipulating the sUA must be able to see the aircraft throughout the entire flight. So this is pretty clear, the whole flight crew has to see the aircraft the entire flight.
Now where the confusion comes into play is “or” in § 107.31(b), this part says the ability described in paragraph (a) can be exercised by either the RPIC/manipulator of the controls or the visual observer.
(b) and (a) seem to directly contradict themself!
We need to dig a little harder here, what did the FAA intend?
FAA Advisory Circular 107-2
Section 5.7 of AC 107-2 discusses Visual Line of Sight Operations and gives some further context to the regulation. We’re going to copy that whole paragraph here as it really explains the intent of 107.31:
The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small UA at all times during flight. Therefore, the small UA must be operated closely enough to the CS to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UA operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used during the aircraft operation. However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity. For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with a small UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. 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. If VLOS cannot be regained, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for a loss of VLOS. These procedures are determined by the capabilities of the sUAS and may include immediately landing the UA, entering hover mode, or returning to home sequence. Thus, the VLOS requirement would not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UA CS.
OK that’s a lot to read but we highlighted a few important sentences. The very first sentence leads off with saying the RPIC and person manipulating the control must see the aircraft at all times during the flight, pretty definitive. The next sentence starts to describe this concept where the person maintaining VLOS can briefly look away from the aircraft to do things like look at the GCS telemetry or scan the ground for hazards. However, even during these moments the RPIC still has full responsibility for all regulations in Part 107 including § 107.31. These duties can’t be “transferred” to anyone else, for example a downrange Visual Observer. The Visual Observer can assist the RPIC with these duties, but can never be solely responsible for them.
Kevin Morris of the FAASafety Team summarized the (b) and (a) issue like this:
Think of it this way: 107.31(a) means the RPIC or VO must have the ABILITY to see the UAS at all times. 107.31(b) means that either the RPIC or VO must actually be watching the UAS at all times.
Consider this as rationale too.. The purpose of requiring the RPIC to have the ability to see the UAS at all times is in the event of a manned aircraft encounter or emergency. If only the Visual Observer can see the aircraft and doesn’t have the GCS to control the aircraft, could the VO react to a manned aircraft or emergency? NO. The Visual Observer would have to call the RPIC over a radio and try to describe the issue. This causes delays and may result in the RPIC being unable to manage the event properly. The quickest way for the RPIC to react to any unforeseen situation is to look up, see the aircraft, and initiate a response (manual control, Return Home, etc). This is why it is critical for the RPIC to see, or have the ability to see, the aircraft at all times.
But what about Daisy Chain Visual Observers or Extended Visual Line of Sight? Companies like Zipline, Dominion Energy, and many more are doing that!
Absolutely, they have a waiver to § 107.31 and had to justify their safety case to the FAA. Often times this includes higher levels of training, experience, or technical mitigations such as radars. It is possible for a Visual Observer to communicate hazards to an RPIC in an quick, concise way but this often requires training and practice that many operators don’t have.
107W-2020-02231 - Ya Momz House, Inc
As we were going through the waivers this week, one company’s name jumped out at us. Now, at first we thought this must be some troll trying to get the FAA to approve a “your momma” joke but a quick Google search later showed that’s not the case at all.
Ya Momz House, Inc was established in 2001 in Pittsburgh, PA and is an Emmy award-winning digital multimedia agency. The Responsible Person, Jack Ohrman, is a cinematographer and “Drone Master” per their website. The company looks very professional and no doubt produces some high-quality work if they’re winning Emmy awards. They added the ParaZero SafeAir Mavic system to their toolbox last week.
Wrap Up
Thanks for reading this week! Leave us a comment if you have any questions or would like us to write about any specific waivers next time! If you have a waiver and would like to join us on the show to talk about it and other waivers, drop us a note! Until then…
