Drone flights face FAA hit

I don't feel beat up by SilentAVR's comments. A healthy discourse on the subject is needed.
SilentAV8R said:
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??
Well, no there isn't anything yet. But there should be, and the FAA should be taking comments on any rule making proposals. I was saying there should be, not that there is.
SilentAV8R said:
Pretty all of it was over roads, buildings, etc. The fact that there were few, if any, people around is immaterial.
He avoided them all! We are talking about a GPS stabilized aircraft, not a traditional R/C plane with less stability and control. The technology allows safe flight, remaining 50 feet from buildings or persons not briefed on operations. "Avoid" is left vague by the AMA.
SilentAV8R said:
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.
It certainly sounds that way, but again is vague. I am an AMA member. If you are considering commercial activity (in the future, as it is illegal now), becoming a member of the AMA, or similar organization would be wised, perhaps even required.

To respond to Deathcode:
Deathcode said:
I disagree to an extent here since I don't think you meant type what you typed
You cannot fly for money without a commercial endorsement. That is in the FAR's. I don't agree with it, necessarily, but it is the current rule. Perhaps a "drone license" that promotes and validates an understanding of weather, sectional charts and the airspace system would be more realistic, without having people that don't want to/cant afford to get into a small airplane.
Deathcode said:
The best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained pilot"
That is the best advice there is!
 
DrJoe said:
You cannot fly for money without a commercial endorsement. That is in the FAR's. I don't agree with it, necessarily, but it is the current rule. Perhaps a "drone license" that promotes and validates an understanding of weather, sectional charts and the airspace system would be more realistic, without having people that don't want to/cant afford to get into a small airplane.

I know what the FAR says, I'm a private pilot, but the part of the FAR that related to commercial operations 119 and above are not fully applicable to drones and they should be either updated, or a new annex for drone operations should be included.
Also, if you're a professional drone operator, you can certainly effort a certification. An entry base drone with a camera won't be less than $1000 dollars off the shelf, and that's entry level. a drone capable of carrying a DSLR camera is at least $2000 (I'm just rounding numbers) without including the actual DSLR which can run you another 2 or 3 grand. You're talking 4 or 5 grand in equipment alone.
A full private pilot course will cost you about 6 grand give or take. A reduced/adapted certification for drone flying shouldn't be more than 2-3 grand. For someone who is going to be making money out of this, I don't see it as expensive.
Now if you want to make money with a phantom 2 and a GoPro and you're complaining that you can't, then that's another story...

Note: The numbers I stated above are just to put some figures to my main idea. We all know that equipment varies in price. Also the number I stated for a full private pilot course is solely based on personal experience. My whole PPC costed me about $4,500 in the US, but that is with extremely cheap rental fees, doing my checkered at 40.2 hours and doing ground school studying on my own, instructor assisted of course so my case is no representation of actual numbers and I know that actual number are higher.
 
And for the most common commercial drone work likely - shooting real estate pix from 20-50 feet with a 1.3kg Phantom, how much of an expensive pilot's license even relevant?? Would it be even 10% ?? And when you consider that the activity is completely legal without any license at all - unless the pilot accepts a few $$ for the results - the idea of a PPL for Phantom flying is ridiculous.
 
Meta4 said:
the idea of a PPL for Phantom flying is ridiculous
Agreed 100%. But, the NTSB defines drones as aircraft. The FAA considers drones flying outside AMA guidelines aircraft, not amateur model aircraft, and hence your screwed without a commercial pilots license, if that's the way the FAA goes. On the other hand, the FAA has handed out some permits to fly drones for movies. Did they require commercial endorsement on a PPL? I really don't know which way they are going.

Deathcode said:
I know what the FAR says, I'm a private pilot, but the part of the FAR that related to commercial operations 119 and above are not fully applicable to drones and they should be either updated, or a new annex for drone operations should be included.
I'm glad to hear from a fellow aviator, I have been a pilot of a PA-28-131 since 1999. But if a "drone" is an aircraft, as the NTSB has affirmed, it can be regulated as such. Key word: "can". They have fined drone operators under 91.13. With the latest ruling, they now have impunity to do so.

In the meantime, it is clearly not legal to use a drone for commercial purposes. It should be. A certification course, register your equipment, and follow guidelines. Simple.

The only way to get your opinions and voice heard is to write the FAA, or join a group such as the AMA, etc. that is part of the dialog with federal authorities.

Maybe we should have a drone fly-in in front of the White House! That would get everyone's attention. I'd bet more people would be arrested then in Furgason last night!
 
I agree that regulation is necessary. I've always believed that. There are too many knuckleheads out there not to have any. And I wouldn't dare put anyone in undue risk. That the FAA and I would probably agree. It's the how that I take issue with. Their proposal underscores a complete misunderstanding of both the extent of the opportunity and the extent of the problem.

In a nutshell...

- Why should there be this giant disconnect between paid and unpaid if everything else is the same? If the same Phantom is flown in the same way at the same time in the same environment, it should be subject to similar if not the same rules.

- A 55lb UAV is very very different than a 3lb Phantom 2 and should be subject to different rules as result. One size does not fit all. A 3lb multicopter is NOT an airplane.

- 90% of what you learn during PPL training is completely superfluous to flying a Phantom. A simple written test would suffice for anything under 10lbs. Maybe something the equivalent of a driving test to operate an S900. Is the FAA going to be comfortable when a student who only wanted to fly a Phantom 2 for a few dollars crashes a C172 into a family home on their first solo?

And this isn't about me. This isn't my day job. I do it for fun, for expression. I could get my PPL back into shape pretty easily (it would be under protest) if I wanted to make it my job (I don't). I am simply pissed off that the FAA is crushing all the potential opportunities out there. There is a nascent industry waiting to take off (pun intended) that is now stillborn. Some great ideas will wind up in the garbage can or in another country as result of this.

I am pissed off that many of the great shots out there for indie / small budget projects now have to be either illegal or forgotten because it's simply too hard and cost prohibitive to carry out any other way.
 
DrJoe said:
But if a "drone" is an aircraft, as the NTSB has affirmed, it can be regulated as such. Key word: "can". They have fined drone operators under 91.13. With the latest ruling, they now have impunity to do so.
The NTSB said that the FAA can consider anything that flies as aircraft for enforcement of 91.13. No other drone operations were addressed. Pirker was the first sUAV operator charged with violation of 91.13 and I haven't heard of any others.
 
Ian, I agree with you completely, 100%, I hope the FAA is listening. Just to be safe, send that whole post in a letter to them and every government representative you have.

Here is a quote from the FAA guidance to their field officers:
  • • If the operation of a Model Aircraft endangers the safety of the National Airspace, the FAA may cite violations of applicable operational regulations (e.g., in violation of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.13-91.15, 91.113, 91.126-135, 91.137-145, and 14 C.F.R. part 73) in any enforcement action determined to be appropriate.
    • In cases in which UAS operations are conducted for other than hobby or recreational purposes and without FAA authorization (e.g., without a public aircraft COA, without an exemption, or without an airworthiness certificate and civil aircraft COA) or are conducted outside the parameters of section 336(a) and (c) of Public Law 112-95, the FAA may cite violations for lack of appropriate certification, e.g., pilot and aircraft certification, as well as any operational regulations that were violated, in any enforcement action determined to be appropriate.

This is all in a memorandum dated 10/10/2014. You can view it here: http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/medi ... chg_6_.pdf

As to other enforcement actions, they are searchable and viewable here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... /quarters/
but only up to 4quarter 2013. I believe the FAA took action in the New York case and some others.
 
SteveMann said:
The NTSB said that the FAA can consider anything that flies as aircraft for enforcement of 91.13. No other drone operations were addressed. Pirker was the first sUAV operator charged with violation of 91.13 and I haven't heard of any others.

I agree with this as well. The one thing is that in the future it can be used as a precedent for future enforcement. Also keep in mind the Pirker case predates FMRA Section 336 which clearly defines our models as aircraft and gives the FAA authority to enforce regulations for careless and reckless operation.

The FAA memo instructing their field people how to enforce the model aircraft interpretation is worth reading. DrJoe quoted from it, and it appears even the FAA has a restricted view of how to apply the Part 91 Rules to model aircraft.

However, moving forward the FAA will have regulations for non-model / commercial operations which will be contained in the coming sUAS Rule NPRM.
 
Part of the problem with the FAA is that they lack the imagination necessary to deal with new technology. They only understand conventional planes and try to see everything from that frame of reference. With regular manned aircraft, the idea that commercial aviation requires a higher standard of pilot training is reasonable. No-one wants the pilot of their airplane to be a spotty kid recently graduated from a computer simulator.
But when it comes to using a Phantom to grab a few real estate photos from tree top height, that extra level of training is not necessary.

Safe recreational quad flying is legal because the FAA recognise the low risk this presents but somehow they feel that to perform the same flight activity commercially mysteriously carries a higher risk when the true situation is likely to be the opposite. A professional drone pilot is less likely to engage in risky behaviour because of experience and the higher capital investment in income producing equipment.
The drone pilot doesn't have the lives of passengers to be responsible for and the potential damage in the case of an accident is miniscule and in most cases is non-existent. It's quite possible for a pilot to self train to a level of proficiency in a fairly short time.
The FAA need to take off their "everything is a plane" goggles and look at the situation from a more realistic perspective.

The US otherwise presents as a leading innovative tech country, the home of the first manned flight. That only 7 companies have highly restrictive conditional exemptions to the ban on commercial drone operations in the USA in late 2014 is would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
 
Meta4 said:
A professional drone pilot is less likely to engage in risky behaviour because of experience and the higher capital investment in income producing equipment.

FAA looks at it 180 degrees out from this. Their view is that a paid pilot doing a job is more likely to act in a potentially dangerous manner since they are under pressure to "get the shot" as it were. Seriously, I have heard Jim Williams say exactly this!!!
 
SilentAV8R said:
FAA looks at it 180 degrees out from this. Their view is that a paid pilot doing a job is more likely to act in a potentially dangerous manner since they are under pressure to "get the shot" as it were. Seriously, I have heard Jim Williams say exactly this!!!

I doubt that would be the case. There isn't a "get there-itis" problem in production like there is commercial aviation. A professional won't get hired very often if he crashes his equipment and gets no shot. Putting an S900 into a wall would be the end of the day and wasting a full crew's day would likely put a big dent in that professional's career. Production companies want smooth, cheap, fast. Getting a decent shot is pretty easy with the right equipment. There's no need to put anything at risk.

I might also add that a drone shot is 100x safer than any other aerial shot. I've seen FAA approved camera helis do insanely dangerous moves over crowds of innocent people while the FAA agent assigned to monitor it just sat there looking bored.

A professional will also likely have done more homework, have more resources at their disposal to support and aid in the effort.
 
ianwood said:
SilentAV8R said:
FAA looks at it 180 degrees out from this. Their view is that a paid pilot doing a job is more likely to act in a potentially dangerous manner since they are under pressure to "get the shot" as it were. Seriously, I have heard Jim Williams say exactly this!!!

I doubt that would be the case.

I don't disagree with you. However, the FAA disagrees with both of us and they are the ones calling the shots right now.
 
SilentAV8R said:
you are clearly a mentally defective sub-human with no right to be sucking air with the rest of us!! :twisted: :lol:

Ah, I see you've met my ex-wife :shock:
 
Back to the topic, I'm thinking this is bigger than the FAA. This is an emerging technology, and they're too **** greedy to kill it off...I have to wonder how many fingers are in this particular pie.

"The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft System Integration in the United States noting that in the first three years of integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the United States with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion."
http://fortune.com/2014/08/21/preparing ... s-ban-faa/
 
CarlJ said:
Back to the topic, I'm thinking this is bigger than the FAA. This is an emerging technology, and they're too **** greedy to kill it off...I have to wonder how many fingers are in this particular pie.

"The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft System Integration in the United States noting that in the first three years of integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the United States with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion."
http://fortune.com/2014/08/21/preparing ... s-ban-faa/

Yes, I think greed will play a factor. But I think that greed will be based on who continues to lobby them to ensure that the rules and guidelines only allow existing full sized copter companies to use drones for aerial work, with a tiny handful of those who get pilots licenses slipping in at some point. You know, kinda like what's happening now.
 
I wonder if they do require a pilots license if the holder would have to be current. I received my pilots license in 1982 but have not been current since 2005. I know the license is good till surrendered or revoked. I might have to get an FAA physical???
 
ianwood said:
I might also add that a drone shot is 100x safer than any other aerial shot. I've seen FAA approved camera helis do insanely dangerous moves over crowds of innocent people while the FAA agent assigned to monitor it just sat there looking bored.
How many helicopter scenes in movies have you seen from a low-altitude hover? This is extremely risky because of an engine problem the aircraft doesn't have enough altitude to transition into autorotation. Anyone below it is at risk. And it's perfectly legal. But getting the shot with a four pound Phantom that probably would do little more than bruises if it falls is illegal.

Keep the enthusiasm for your comments to the NPRm when it's released.
 
Steve, here's my favorite and most recent example. Fast and Furious 7 shooting in downtown Los Angeles this past April for 4 consecutive days/nights often flying in a very aggressive manner less than 50ft over residential buildings. This was not that long after Paul Walker (the lead actor in the film) was famously killed in a high-speed car accident. Despite this and numerous complaints from a concerned community, the FAA agents on site showed absolutely zero concern. I don't care how skilled the pilot, there was no room for avoiding civilian deaths should something go wrong.

Scaring everyone all day and night (taken by a resident):
fastandstupid-1m.jpg


The offending helicopter:
fastandstupid-2m.jpg


One of the tracks showing the heli at 150ft AGL (250ft elevation):
fastandstupid-3m.jpg
 
Deathcode said:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.99

That applies to recreational.
you don't need the 50 nautical miles endorsement.

Considering that the FAA is adamant about not distinguishing a difference between manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft, could one fly their drone for 15 hours under the supervision of an instructor to get their license? ;)

-Scott
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers