FAA’s expected drone rules broken down

[len750]

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/39074099 ... p=ob_homep
age_business&intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips


Seems to effect only commercial use for now. Not recreation.

 

[Happyflyer]

That was interesting. The idea of a pilot's license is just nuts. Maybe something on a little less involved basis. Maybe like what you have to go through to get your concealed carry permit. States would like that because they could make a bunch of buck on it.

 

[MrTommy]

It's not very fair to even come up with a license for 'recreational' pilots, even just one that 'shows' that you've read the rules and know where to and not to fly. Guys like me who live in Nevada "Don't need no steeenkin license" to fly out in the boonies. Who's going to track me down and fine me. The FAA? Sure. It's like the FCC tracking down all the overpowered CB's out there. Never happen. On the other hand, I guess being able to "produce your papers" might be cool around the water cooler, or at a cocktail party. Truth is, the FAA doesn't have a clue what to do. But they want their money, and there lies the bottom line (no pun intended).

 

[gunslinger]

That was interesting. The idea of a pilot's license is just nuts. Maybe something on a little less involved basis. Maybe like what you have to go through to get your concealed carry permit. States would like that because they could make a bunch of buck on it.

I'd show you my concealed carry permit... but... it's concealed... :ugeek:

 

[aggiesrwe03]

I don't see this ever happening, not with the billion dollar companies like google, amazon, and yahoo fighting it.

 

[tbwester]

I don't see this ever happening, not with the billion dollar companies like google, amazon, and yahoo fighting it.

Why would they care?

Amazon will just train up and army of pilots, google too. they want regulation so that they can start using drones commercially.

The only thing this hurts is small biz operators, but they will probably be able to fly under the radar as they are currently.

 

[aggiesrwe03]

I don't see this ever happening, not with the billion dollar companies like google, amazon, and yahoo fighting it.

Why would they care?

Amazon will just train up and army of pilots, google too. they want regulation so that they can start using drones commercially.

The only thing this hurts is small biz operators, but they will probably be able to fly under the radar as they are currently.

if that was the case, they'd already be doing it, they care the same reason in many cases they use private companies to provide pilots and aircraft for their corporate jets. It's cheaper and more cost efficient. Hospitals do it with aeromedical aircraft, oil companies do it with air transport to the rigs in the gulf. It's far more cost efficient, than spending time and money training people.

 

[SpeedGeek]

Based on the video, this basically just keeps the current Advisory Circular 91-57 with the added requirement of a certificated pilot for commercial operation. The big issue I see for amazon and the like would be the "line of sight" requirement mentioned. That would preclude their intended operations, and would limit commercial activity to essentially surveying/real estate photography. That's not even looking at the "populated areas" or "within 3 miles of an airport" (5 miles if the more recent FAA statements are to be considered) statements in the AC...

As for certificating pilots, they'd likely have to come up with some new licensing option since while I am a certificated pilot, my license does not allow me to fly for hire. Unless they intend to make UAV pilots go through Commercial training, which would be insane... but it is the government and they're not known to act rationally...

 

[wrx84]

This may sound a little nitpicky but when the FAA mentions a no fly 5 mile rule, is that a radius from the center of the airport or the terminal, or does the distance calculated start from the outermost boundaries of the airport property?

 

[LandYachtMedia]

Its measured from the center of the airfield.

Check out how it looks on an aviation map.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=35.877638889, ... 301&zoom=3

 

[Suwaneeguy]

Did I hear this right? Did I hear the comment that the FAA says they have no authority over drones?
Yet, they want to demand commercial drone pilots to become licensed in the same manner as manned aircraft pilots?
I don't think that's gonna happen unless congress approves it.

There is absolutely no reason for a person who is standing on the ground to spend dozens of hours in a cockpit of a regular plane just to fly a little toy. What if a person who wants to fly one can't pass the physical? But is fully capable of handling two little sticks in his hands? Should that person be denied?

From what I've seen here, so far, the FAA has made no changes in their stance other than requiring a license for commercial use.

It ain't gonna happen people.

 

[knuckles]

We need some sanity after all the overblown nonsense in the media lately. I think this article breaks it down well
http://provideocoalition.com/jfoster/st ... update-FAA

I like this statement from the article:
Peter Sachs adds, "There is nothing wrong with requiring an appropriate level of aeronautical, meteorological and airspace knowledge. That makes sense. However, requiring a manned pilot license to fly a three-pound plastic drone commercially, is like requiring a medical license to apply a Band-Aid. If the reported FAA proposed regulations are actually adopted, the United States is destined to remain a third world nation with respect to drones."

But for now, there has been no decision - no actual ban - no enforceable actions from the FAA or the NTSB regarding commercial sUAV operation. 

 

[gunslinger]

The FAA... Just another bureaucratic deer in the headlights... :shock: :shock: :shock:

-slinger

 

[SteveMann]

Truth is, the FAA doesn't have a clue what to do. But they want their money, and there lies the bottom line (no pun intended).

The FAA doesn't get to keep any of the fines or forfeitures - it all goes into the US General Fund.
Money is not what drives the FAA - it's CYA. The FAA never relaxes rules until there is absolutely no possible way they will be sued for not having a rule against ..... This is why the FAA starts with the most restrictive rules possible in their NPRM process.

 

[SteveMann]

Did I hear this right? Did I hear the comment that the FAA says they have no authority over drones?
Yet, they want to demand commercial drone pilots to become licensed in the same manner as manned aircraft pilots?
I don't think that's gonna happen unless congress approves it.

The FAA has no rules specifically regarding drones. More precise, the drones do not fit any of the aircraft classifications to which the other rules apply. The latest Pirker decision simply affirmed that if it flies, the FAA can enforce 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.

 

[Narrator]

There is absolutely no reason for a person who is standing on the ground to spend dozens of hours in a cockpit of a regular plane just to fly a little toy.

If they're following the lead of Australia and New Zealand, you won't have to sit in the cockpit for this. Just do the theory. And it's not for the hobbyists. As a private pilot, having spent many hours learning safety in flying, I can see some sense in this. Sure, it may be an overkill and a money spinner for licensing, but try to tell a licensed pilot that safety isn't an issue and you may get a lecture...

 

[SilentAV8R]

Truth is, the FAA doesn't have a clue what to do. But they want their money, and there lies the bottom line (no pun intended).

The FAA doesn't get to keep any of the fines or forfeitures - it all goes into the US General Fund.
Money is not what drives the FAA - it's CYA. The FAA never relaxes rules until there is absolutely no possible way they will be sued for not having a rule against ..... This is why the FAA starts with the most restrictive rules possible in their NPRM process.

I once had an FAA guy explain it to me that their starting point is not wanting to be the guy standing in front of the flaming wreckage with 100 cameras in front of him asking why they did not do anything to prevent this from happening. So as you say, they start restrictive and go from there. But everything they do, they do slowly!!!

 

[SilentAV8R]

Did I hear this right? Did I hear the comment that the FAA says they have no authority over drones?
Yet, they want to demand commercial drone pilots to become licensed in the same manner as manned aircraft pilots?
I don't think that's gonna happen unless congress approves it.

The FAA has no rules specifically regarding drones. More precise, the drones do not fit any of the aircraft classifications to which the other rules apply. The latest Pirker decision simply affirmed that if it flies, the FAA can enforce 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.

And Public Law 112-95 Section 336 affirms that the FAA has the authority to use the existing FARs to prosecute/fine non-commercial model aircraft. That post-dates Priker, but that recent decision reinforces the FAA's authority.

(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

THey seem to be focused on secific sections of the FARs, so it does not look like they are using the wide net so many seem to fear.

Actions for persons who operate: (1) an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R.); or (2) a Model Aircraft1 that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System (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).

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/medi ... chg_6_.pdf