Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Commercial UAS Modernization Act

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by msinger, Feb 4, 2016.

  1. msinger

    Approved Vendor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18,990
    Likes Received:
    5,594
    Location:
    US
    ObiDon and Eddyfisher like this.
  2. 0DRK3RT

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    156
    Looks like a fair and responsible approach to commercial UAS use.
     
    Eddyfisher likes this.
  3. 0DRK3RT

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    156
    “(ii) passed a proficiency test administered by a test site selected pursuant to section 332(c); and

    “(iii) demonstrated the ability to fly the aircraft in accordance with the operating restrictions set forth in subsection"

    You probably shouldn't show up to a flight proficiency test if you have a FPVLR and DBS modded RC.
     
  4. ApexP3Pilot

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    6
    Why would a DBS modded RC be a problem?
     
  5. ApexP3Pilot

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    6
    Will take them forever to implement a program to administer operating tests.
     
  6. 0DRK3RT

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    156
    Because it's not OEM equipment which null and voids the RC's FCC compliance certificate. Which may be a no-no to the FAA.
     
  7. Eddyfisher

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Rocky Mountain Region
    Anybody read SEC. 338. MICRO UAS OPERATIONS?

    As I see it Phantom pilots get a pass on testing or air worthiness certification. Works for me...anybody want to buy a loaded turboAce Matrix?

    “(a) Micro UAS Classification.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall provide for a micro UAS classification of unmanned aircraft systems, the aircraft component of which may not weigh more than 4.4 pounds, including payload.

    “(b) Micro UAS Operational Limitations.—The operation of a micro UAS shall be subject to the exemptions under subsection (c) only if the micro UAS is operated—

    “(1) less than 400 feet above ground level;

    “(2) at an airspeed of not greater than 40 knots;

    “(3) within the visual line of sight of the operator;

    “(4) during daylight; and

    “(5) at least 5 statute miles from the geographic center of an airport as denoted on a current aeronautical chart published by the Federal Aviation Administration, except that upon notice to the airport operator and air traffic control tower, such airport operator may allow an individual to operate a micro UAS within 5 statute miles of a tower-controlled airport.

    “(c) Micro UAS Exemptions.—

    “(1) An operator of a micro UAS that complies with the limitations of operation under subsection (b) shall not be required to pass any aeronautical knowledge test or meet any age or experience requirement, including any requirements under section 44703 of title 49, United States Code, part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and any other rule or regulation pertaining to airman certification.

    “(2) A micro UAS and the component parts and equipment of such micro UAS shall not be required to meet airworthiness certification standards or to obtain certificates of airworthiness.”.
     
    #7 Eddyfisher, Feb 4, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
    ObiDon likes this.
  8. ApexP3Pilot

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    6
    FAA could care less about the FCC.
     
  9. cactusfrog

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2015
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    29
  10. Buckaye

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    420
    Location:
    Orlando
    That's the way I am reading it too... I am quite surprised... I would have assumed they would try to get the Phantom in the mix... but this disqualifies the Phantom from the testing requirements as far as I can tell. This would be really cool if it passes.
     
    ObiDon and Eddyfisher like this.
  11. TheRealNick

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    109
    Did you see the weight limit for mico UAV, looks like for Phantom 3 you would not have to do anything! Nice...makes too much sense to be true...
     
  12. 0DRK3RT

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    156
    I stand corrected.
     
  13. WetDog

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,491
    Likes Received:
    640
    Oops. Another reason not to buy an Inspire.....
     
  14. Sagebrush

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    155
    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this bill to skate onto the president's desk. (When was the last time the House passed a bill introduced by a Democrat? Especially one that is going to cost money?)

    Here's the real deal that was also introduced to the House this week. It's a tad longer: H.R.4441 - Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016.

    S
     
  15. WetDog

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2015
    Messages:
    1,491
    Likes Received:
    640
    "To transfer operation of air traffic services currently provided by the Federal Aviation Administration to a separate not-for-profit corporate entity, to reauthorize and streamline programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes"

    To take the FAA out of the air traffic control business.

    That's not going to fly....
     
  16. Sagebrush

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    155
    I'll believe it when I see it too...

    S
     
  17. MapMaker53

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    I'm not sure how is bill is meant to work. Section 337 pertains to ANY commercial use with no mention of weight class, which naturally would include any micro UAS that is used commercially. Section 338 pertains strictly to micro UASs and mentions nothing about commercial or hobby use. Since the two sections stand alone and there is no mention of Section 338 being an exception for commercial use, how is this bill legally interpreted? Seems the two sections conflict. Can anyone give a professional legal opinion on this?
     
    Eddyfisher likes this.
  18. stujol

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    16
    watching this thread also
     
  19. oakmeadows

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    U.K
    Oh dear thats me up the swanny im DBS modded


    Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
     
  20. msinger

    Approved Vendor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    18,990
    Likes Received:
    5,594
    Location:
    US
    I smell a new business venture... 1 day RC rentals :D
     
    ObiDon likes this.