Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'News' started by Deathcode, Nov 24, 2014.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/drone- ... -231032216
I started the process of getting licensed this past summer in anticipation of the regulations, but have become confused on the extent of certification we'll need for drones. I wont be flying more than 50 nautical miles from the departure point, so is it really necessary to get an endorsement as defined in FAR § 61.101? All of this assuming that the recreational pilot certificate is sufficient to our needs.
Edit: Also of note, the recreational pilot certificate only allows for flights during daylight hours, I guess that means no 4th of July fireworks.
That applies to recreational.
you don't need the 50 nautical miles endorsement.
Yeah it seems excessive to our needs, but then the whole process seems excessive. Just by being a certificate holder you're exposed to greater penalties should a violation occur:
None of this is a surprise. The key points FAA has always spoken about with regard to sUAS Rule were VLOS only, daylight only, below 400 feet, and some sort of certificate/license. This is for commercial use. As far as the FAA is concerned Section 336 of the FMRA and their "Interpretation" takes care of hobby use.
As far as a permit/license I suspect that for sUAS it will perhaps require completing the PPL ground school at the ver least. I have doubts moving forward that a PPL will be required. FAA did that for Section 333 permitted flights (movie industry) mainly as a means of moving forward faster with those permits.
The potential loss of license for certificate holders has always been there. An ATP could lose his ticket for joy riding in a Piper Cub and busting some FAR that the FAA deemed as egregious.
The only surprise for me is the extent some here were surprised.
Personally, I do think we need to fight for more useful height limits. I don't see any reason you couldn't fly up to 1,000 ft, provided you are not flying within 5 miles of an airport.
There are some unique perspectives at 500+, and while I know it's just a guideline now, there shouldn't be a blanket ruling at this restrictive height. More responsibility needs to be put on the pilot to fly safely in current conditions and face those consequences if needed, rather than relying on government entities to make arbitrary rules.
I'm sure restrictions will lessen as the pendulum swings in the other direction, but that might take some time.
All that's going to happen is that there's going to be tens of thousands of people now flying "illegally." The vast majority of people with small (less than 5 lbs) will just ignore the whole thing and do whatever they want. Some percentage will be caught and cited.
You just have to wonder if they'll be dumb enough to post it on youtube, and I expect some will. The irony of that will be delicious.
What are they doing now?
The proposals, rules, and chatter will change from month to month. While we need to remain engaged and proactive in the debate I wouldn't get too excited or too down as these things are very fluid right now.
The the things we learned about today's news are actually more important than details of the news...
http://hivemapper.com/post/103483549491 ... -faa-drone
KEEP CALM AND DRINK THE KOOL-AID.
I think the FAA has been pretty clear about how they feel. They consider commercial activities outside the scope of model aircraft. The consider reckless operation or violation of the AMA rules as outside the scope of model aircraft. If you operate outside the scope of model aircraft (against AMA rules or for commercial purposes), you are potentially risking a hefty fine and liability.
On the other hand, the FAA is under-staffed as it is, and regulating the tens of thousands (or more) of "drones" in this county would be an impossible task. If you do something to come to their attention, all bets are off; otherwise, you should be ok...
Amateur use should go on as it is, within the guidelines. They are, in no way, going to require amateur operators to get their pilots license. By forcing commercial operators to have a pilot's certificate, they protect the existing aerial photography industry and give pilots a pathway to operate the drones and keep their livelihood.
Futhermore, by creating a set of circumstances, rather than physical attributes, that define a drone as a model aircraft or actual aircraft, they allow local authorities the right to regulate their use. Aircraft are not allowed to be regulated by local authorities. Model aircraft are. The FAA is not supposed to infringe on model aircraft, but they can regulate actual aircraft.
All this is just my opinion, of course. But I'm willing to bet on it.
I agree keep calm, but we should all make decisions based on our own personal circumstances. I feel confident after seeking legal counsel that certification is the right move for me, but that has no bearing on anyone else.
There's no surprise here at all. The regulations are long overdue. And we all knew that the FAA couldn't fathom the difference between 5lbs and 55lbs. And we all knew that if a single dollar is involved, the same flight would be subject to entirely different rules despite everything else being equal.
It is no surprise that the FAA through apathy and lack of forward thinking will choke to death a burgeoning industry in one stroke of a pen.
For what it's worth Ian, I've felt really bad for you, but I shouldn't. You're crazy talented, and extremely bright...you'll find a way through this. It sucks that people like yourself have to be punished for the actions of a few really stupid people.
Ian, your work is beautiful. Some of the best looking, well piloted work I have ever seen. Your unique, artistic views of L.A.are inspiring and breathtaking.
Speaking of the L.A. flight, none of it appears over 400 feet. No footage over large crowds. You do not appear to be out of visual range. There should be a pathway for artists to commercialize their work without having to have a pilots license with a commercial endorsement. Nothing in the video seems to have violated the AMA safety code.
I do think the public has a the right to a reasonable expectation of safety. The untrained drone operators flying above people and property, without any redundant system to account for a system failure (such as motor, ESC, prop, battery, flight controller or GPS), and without any registration of the craft to trace liability in the event of an incident, has caused media and public alarm.
IMHO, manufactures should be concentrating on redundant safety systems. I started a new thread about safety here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30197
There is a lot of things manufacturers can do to make the small UAS market smarter and safer. In the meantime, the FAA must step in and protect the public; at the same time it must also provide a pathway for safe operators like yourself to continue to bring awe and amaze us while maybe making a buck or two on it while flying in the AMA guidelines, even over "congested" areas.
I have not seen anything that indicates this will be the case. Based on the 333 permits the FAA has approved it appears that a PPL will suffice. Can you cite a credible reference to support this comment??
Not even sure if Ian is an AMA member, but despite his great work, it would not be within the scope of the AMA Safety Code. Here are some potential issues that I see:
Pretty all of it was over roads, buildings, etc. The fact that there were few, if any, people around is immaterial.
I am not trying to single Ian out. But his video is a good example of a situation where what we may think was not an issue would be considered an issue by the FAA and AMA.
BTW - from what I have been told both Congress and the FAA feel that in order to operate under 336 that you would need to be an actual member of the CBO, not just simply declare you are following their Safety Code.
"Within" indicates that you must be "within" the group, in others words, a member.
From the Conference Committee notes:
The above is fairly clear.
I disagree to an extent here since I don't think you meant type what you typed. First, a commercial endorsement as we know it is overkill and does not apply to the drone industry so I do agree there. A pilot's license (recreational) I believe is a great idea. If you're an artist, and you want to use this technology to capture images that can only be captured with the use of drones, then you need to be capable of using drones in the proper way and understand the regulations and other considerations that surround the 3D world of drones, especially when you're interacting in a space where other aircrafts operate as well, or where buildings/people can potentially be at risk.
I believe you meant to say that there should be a pathway for artist to generate the content themselves and commercialize it without having to have a pilots license.
There are many kinds of artists, if you want to be an artist that shoots aerial data, then you should pursue proper training in order to utilize that technology
I agree on that, however, I will quote one of the best quotes in aviation I know: "The best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained pilot"
We have plenty of people to beat up over these new regulations, but DrJoe and Ian are not among them. They aren't the bad guys here, and we need to be mindful of that.
I'm not seeing where anyone is getting beat up. Simply disagreeing with another person is not beating up on them Likewise, using something they said or a video they produced is fair game when it comes to making a point in a general sense. I see no issue as long as we can all see the line between spirited discussion and personal attacks.
And if you don't agree with me then you are clearly a mentally defective sub-human with no right to be sucking air with the rest of us!! :twisted: :lol: