But is FPV even legal in the US?

[phantomjim]

The current FAA regs for recreational drones require VLOS.

The Part 107 commercial regs require VLOS. Having just taken the Part 107 exam, I learned that "visual line of sight" means that the drone operator must be able to see the drone while flying. (not using things like visual aids or binoculars, except for brief periods).

My question is how is it legal in the US under current FAA regs to use the goggles or even just fly FPV without looking at the drone?

I am genuinely curious what others think about the regs on this but that's the way I read the current FAA regs both recreational and commercial. It does kind of make sense as far as avoiding collision with other aircraft because if you are relying on FPV, you are unable to scan the sky for other aircraft (which is what a commercial operator is required to do.)

 

[WV. Rootman]

Even in DJI videos, they have one flying the drone and one using the googles. If you use googles, have a spotter. You know everyone does?

 

[phantomjim]

"You know everyone does?"

I do know that everyone does and I'm not saying not to do it.

But I just got my 107 and I've kind of had to rethink how I fly because I am now presumed to "know the rules" and my license depends on me following the rules. If I had an incident using FPV, the FAA would not like to hear me say, "But everyone is doing it." They'd fine me and yank my license.

But I guess that answers my question which is basically that everyone is doing it and there is currently no enforcement at all. Which just seems like a situation that is not going to last very long.

 

[WV. Rootman]

"You know everyone does?"

I do know that everyone does and I'm not saying not to do it.

But I just got my 107 and I've kind of had to rethink how I fly because I am now presumed to "know the rules" and my license depends on me following the rules. If I had an incident using FPV, the FAA would not like to hear me say, "But everyone is doing it." They'd fine me and yank my license.

But I guess that answers my question which is basically that everyone is doing it and there is currently no enforcement at all. Which just seems like a situation that is not going to last very long.

Correct!

 

[Flyboy77SM]

How could anyone think they can use goggles and not have someone monitoring the airspace around them visually, seeing the big picture? That is surely a recipe for disaster.

 

[MtManDavey]

I agree with many comments posted here, including Flyboy. The RPIC is responsible for ALL activities of the drone, even when a non-licensed person is at the controls under direct observation of the licensed person. My understanding of Part 107 demands that whoever is at the controls or a VO keeps the drone in direct visual contact, no matter who else is using goggles or some other FPV system.

If something occurs where damage or injury is sustained by operations of a sUAV, the FAA will go directly to the licensed RPIC to be held responsible. I suspect this will be same or similar for non-Part 107 licensed persons, but not having flown except under my Part 107, not sure how that might apply to hobbyists.

Dave

 

[Russ43Phantom]

Most of us can't maintain effective VLOS beyond 1000-2000 feet. This is especially difficult if the drone is low enough to cause trees to be behind the drone. SO ... that restricts VLOS distances that you can fly. "Everyone one is doing it" is fortunately not necessarily true. Longer and longer flight time enables more efficient video capture ... e.g. track a sailboat and record several "takes" to be sure you get a good one. That uses flight time, but does not require long distance flight. The extra flight time was not created to see just how far one can fly while having no idea if a manned aircraft is approaching from the sides or rear.

 

[jlrsn]

"You know everyone does?"

I do know that everyone does and I'm not saying not to do it.

But I just got my 107 and I've kind of had to rethink how I fly because I am now presumed to "know the rules" and my license depends on me following the rules. If I had an incident using FPV, the FAA would not like to hear me say, "But everyone is doing it." They'd fine me and yank my license.

But I guess that answers my question which is basically that everyone is doing it and there is currently no enforcement at all. Which just seems like a situation that is not going to last very long.

I wouldn't worry about the FAA yanking your License as no one in the USA has received a Liscense since the Aviation Act of 1958. You have a Certificate, not a license!

 

[WV. Rootman]

I wouldn't worry about the FAA yanking your License as no one in the USA has received a Liscense since the Aviation Act of 1958. You have a Certificate, not a license!

I got reading about the differences between them. The more I read, the more confused I got. lol I thought this one was funny and doesn't fit our circumstance.

"Another contrast with licensure is that, under a licensing law, practitioners of the licensed occupation must have a license in order to practice. It is involuntary. On the other hand, certification is voluntary. One does not have to be certified in order to practice."

 

[Brojon]

You folks *do* realize that FPV is usually darn near ground level as far as racers go.
The Freestyle folks might get up to 100 feet but their thing is acrobatics.
Entirely different focus than the run of the mill Dji et.al. drone owners.
At races they typically have officials that effectively act as spotters in any case. Some freestyle folks have a spotter just in case the drone goes down to help them figure out where.
But - point I'm making is most of these things are right at 500 grams or so in weight, fly for maybe 7-8 minutes and aren't the least concerned with going high or far enough to be of concern usually.