Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Has anyone received a "Visibility" waiver for less than 3nm?

Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
100
Reaction score
32
Has anyone received a "Visibility" waiver for less than 3nm (Part 107.51)

I have a job filming a fishing tournament, there is a concern for early morning fog. I've seen plenty of airspace waivers, and night waivers, but nothing on reduced visibility. June gloom on the left coast at 6:00am has a high probability of morning fog and reduced visibility. Filming the start of the tournament even at 50-75' within a 100yds would be sufficient. My concern is that the waiver would be rejected on the visibility request and I would have to refile and encounter a significant delay.

The event is conducted just inside of the KSLI Class D and just outside of the KLGB Class D, So I need a waiver, The Alamitos Bay and surrounding waters are sparsely populated so I see no need to get a (107.25) moving vehicle waiver, some portions will be filmed from a boat.

Comments are appreciated.



§ 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 non-participating 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​
 
That's going to be a hard one to get since that location is on the final approach to Rwy 30 KLGB
 
Given that real aircraft can fly in instrument ratings mode with a licensed IFR pilot into fog or clouds and drones cannot, I can't see this as a viable drone waiver by the FAA within the nearness of the airport. I flew right seat with an IFR pilot and it is scary enough not seeing anything ahead of you, but running into a wayward drone in fog wouldn't be something I'd like to see happen.
 
I understand the implications of my request, I'm just curious if anyone had experience.


Location shouldn't be a issue, Both the ILS and LOC 30 are TERPS'd for a 255' tower directly inside the IAF at GUNEY, crossing the marker at 1600' leaves over 1000' of IFR separation. A drone 1.5 miles away at 100' isn't a threat, especially considering the MSA is 3400' and the MVA is 1600'. Even the departure corridor at Los Alamitos is a moot point, the screen height is 35' and min climbout is 152'/nm so in the worst case scenario an aircraft loses an engine at V1, and climbs straight ahead, they would be at appx. 650' by the time they were in my area of operation. The min altitude separation for IFR/VFR East/West traffic is 500'.
 
I understand the implications of my request, I'm just curious if anyone had experience.


Location shouldn't be a issue, Both the ILS and LOC 30 are TERPS'd for a 255' tower directly inside the IAF at GUNEY, crossing the marker at 1600' leaves over 1000' of IFR separation. A drone 1.5 miles away at 100' isn't a threat, especially considering the MSA is 3400' and the MVA is 1600'. Even the departure corridor at Los Alamitos is a moot point, the screen height is 35' and min climbout is 152'/nm so in the worst case scenario an aircraft loses an engine at V1, and climbs straight ahead, they would be at appx. 650' by the time they were in my area of operation. The min altitude separation for IFR/VFR East/West traffic is 500'.

Minimum climb gradients go out the window when the pilot utters "I'm declaring". I would be very surprised if you got a waiver
 
I should have know asking a simple question would just draw out a naysayers with little actual understanding of terminal procedures.
 
I should have know asking a simple question would just draw out a naysayers with little actual understanding of terminal procedures.
I think what you are asking is at the edge of the envelope thus the responses. It will happen eventually, things are moving at government speed, but they are moving. Look at where we are today versus a year ago. File the waiver application ans see what happens. You may be the change agent.
 
I should have know asking a simple question would just draw out a naysayers with little actual understanding of terminal procedures.

Except I'm a commercially rated pilot that has an aircraft based at KLGB. I fully understand terminal procedures AND I know how those two airports interact.
 
Now if you said something like you were an instructor at the US Air Force Advanced Instrument School, and taught terminal procedures I would have questioned you, but since you own a plane and have a commercial certificate, I'll just withdraw my waiver request and go build a sand castle...
 
Now if you said something like you were an instructor at the US Air Force Advanced Instrument School, and taught terminal procedures I would have questioned you, but since you own a plane and have a commercial certificate, I'll just withdraw my waiver request and go build a sand castle...
[emoji4] [emoji4] [emoji4] [emoji4]

Sent from my SCH-I545 using InspirePilots mobile app
 
Now if you said something like you were an instructor at the US Air Force Advanced Instrument School, and taught terminal procedures I would have questioned you, but since you own a plane and have a commercial certificate, I'll just withdraw my waiver request and go build a sand castle...


I was expecting you to go full retard. I just figured you'd do it sooner.

A few thoughts. First off I know the airspace and the controllers AND the guys at the FSDO pretty well, I know if Todd is scheduled to be in the KLGB tower at the time of your flight he's going to fight having you launch tooth and nail since he's a fucking retard also. The FAA isn't worried about you, they are worried about precedent and other pilots. Great you know the regs so do I, but what about the UAS pilot that doesn't know them so well and more importantly the GA Pilot or student (KLGB is a training hotbed) That's whats going to be the problem. You're looking at the waiver from your point of view not the FAA's point of view. I hope you get it, but I wouldn't hold my breath knowing that corner very well
 
FAA waivers are are based on a simple premise of being able to operate safely in the the NAS. For clarification, I was originally asking about visibility waivers under 107.51, however you seem to suggesting that a I won't get a Class D airspace waiver for KLGB. Because in your mind, it would be 1) a bad precedent, 2) student pilots at Long Beach, 3) other UAS pilots that don't know the regulations, and 4) some aircraft may declare an emergency and end up in the same airspace that my UAS is occupying. Last time I check, those aren't actual reason to deny a waiver. Class D waivers are granted all the time, there's a whole forum here for it... So the real questions is where, when and what altitude can UAS Class D airspace waivers be granted. for example flying at 400', 2nm from the threshold on final probably isn't going to granted. Not because it seems like a bad, but rather the facts of it, 3 degree glide path = 300'/nm, thus allowing for only 200' of separation. However, flying at 100' 4.5nm away is entirely different, and so waivers are evaluated based on the ability of the operator to demonstrate (in their waiver request) that they can conduct the flight safely.

So again, the point of my original post is ask for comments regarding a waiver. Perhaps it would have been better if you just said something like,

"I have a plane at KLGB and fly in that area a lot, speaking on experience the folks at Long Beach aren't going to be very helpful, you may want to consider staying outside of the airspace, but good luck."
At least that would have a bit more respectful to the forum and the UAS community. I see my good buddy "Licensed Pilot" chimed in and he can probably attest to the fact that we as a community need to insightful, cooperative, and engaging in how we overcome obstacles. There seems to be an awful lot of anger in your recent post and you undermine your own credibility when you use an ad hominem.
 
FAA waivers are are based on a simple premise of being able to operate safely in the the NAS. For clarification, I was originally asking about visibility waivers under 107.51, however you seem to suggesting that a I won't get a Class D airspace waiver for KLGB. Because in your mind, it would be 1) a bad precedent, 2) student pilots at Long Beach, 3) other UAS pilots that don't know the regulations, and 4) some aircraft may declare an emergency and end up in the same airspace that my UAS is occupying. Last time I check, those aren't actual reason to deny a waiver. Class D waivers are granted all the time, there's a whole forum here for it... So the real questions is where, when and what altitude can UAS Class D airspace waivers be granted. for example flying at 400', 2nm from the threshold on final probably isn't going to granted. Not because it seems like a bad, but rather the facts of it, 3 degree glide path = 300'/nm, thus allowing for only 200' of separation. However, flying at 100' 4.5nm away is entirely different, and so waivers are evaluated based on the ability of the operator to demonstrate (in their waiver request) that they can conduct the flight safely.

So again, the point of my original post is ask for comments regarding a waiver. Perhaps it would have been better if you just said something like,

"I have a plane at KLGB and fly in that area a lot, speaking on experience the folks at Long Beach aren't going to be very helpful, you may want to consider staying outside of the airspace, but good luck."
At least that would have a bit more respectful to the forum and the UAS community. I see my good buddy "Licensed Pilot" chimed in and he can probably attest to the fact that we as a community need to insightful, cooperative, and engaging in how we overcome obstacles. There seems to be an awful lot of anger in your recent post and you undermine your own credibility when you use an ad hominem.
Perhaps I'm getting too old and confuse easily; did u apply for the waiver and was denied, or just looking for a little research before applying? Please let us know the outcome.
 
I have not yet submitted for a waiver, It is being drafted. My concern was if my request had both 107.41 (Class D) and 107.51 (visibility) included it could denied because the FAA is not processing many visibility waivers.
 
So again, the point of my original post is ask for comments regarding a waiver. Perhaps it would have been better if you just said something like,

"I have a plane at KLGB and fly in that area a lot, speaking on experience the folks at Long Beach aren't going to be very helpful, you may want to consider staying outside of the airspace, but good luck."
At least that would have a bit more respectful to the forum and the UAS community. I see my good buddy "Licensed Pilot" chimed in and he can probably attest to the fact that we as a community need to insightful, cooperative, and engaging in how we overcome obstacles. There seems to be an awful lot of anger in your recent post and you undermine your own credibility when you use an ad hominem.

Twice before my response you went full retard and got up on your high horse then when you dont like me answering in a manner that resembles your two previous you whine with this BS? You assumed you were only conversing with UAS pilots never once considering that you might be talking to a pilot that knows the airport.

I'll say this again, I know the area, I know the Controllers and I know what they are comfortable with.
 
Doesn't a 107 still have to reside by the VFR flight rules which are 3 statute miles visibility, 500 feet below, and 2,000 feet horizontal? If so, fog would be a "No Go" regardless of getting a 3 mile Airspace D waiver.
 
Doesn't a 107 still have to reside by the VFR flight rules which are 3 statute miles visibility, 500 feet below, and 2,000 feet horizontal? If so, fog would be a "No Go" regardless of getting a 3 mile Airspace D waiver.


Mr instructor totally forgot that
 
There seems to be an awful lot of anger in your recent post and you undermine your own credibility when you use an ad hominem.[/SIZE]

Perhaps you could be slightly less douchey when interacting? I know it's an ad hominem, and I'm intentionally dumbing this down for you so you don't have to run off to the thesaurus (or glossary, however needed) every third word. We all fly these things, many of us are 107'd, many of us much more highly trained. When nine different people have the same general response, you have gleaned a consensus from us. Prepare the waiver and ask, but don't be surprised when it's denied.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
22,277
Messages
210,655
Members
34,330
Latest member
GRQLarae44