A am not 100% sure but these rules are for commercial operators only and not hobbyist, are these the proposed changes affecting the commercial fliers only? These changes are to replace the 333 exemption process.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
FAA Reauthorization Bill: Take Two
- Thread starter ianwood
- Start date
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Not saying your wrong but I believe his post is related to as I said Commercial operators, then his comments and the governments response is spot on and in my case very welcome, my 333 is almost been approved (waiting for the past 5 months) but I really don't and won't get a pilot license to fly, though I have a pilot on standby to fly with my on my commercial jobs.
With these new rules my commercial business can thrive as there is a reasonable path to commercial operations instead of the 333/pilot license scenario.
As far as the tampering with I can also understand the Governments take on this for commercial purposes, hobbyist no, but commercial yes.
Short-term funding a painful experience in aviation? Look around, see what Amtrak goes through every single year, with a Congress playing the same brinkmanship and threatening the same good middle class jobs. Perhaps Congress should have to choose between funding the Hudson River tunnels or the FAA? If the FAA wins out, than perhaps Amtrak should hire the lobbyists working for their union!
The exam is good for everyone because it will require them to understand the rules of airspace much in the same way when you drive a car, you have to learn the rules of the road.
RC planes are considered sUAS so they would have to meet the same requirements. As for boaters, they are required to take a safety course in many states.
As for bicycles, the risk is different. If a bicycle hits a car, the car wins. If a drone hits a plane, the outcome could be much worse. Unlike the car, the plane cannot just pull over the to the curb and wait for a tow truck.
Have I missed something in the translation? I thought (I need to verify this) that this new set of proposed rules is directed at NON-Commercial (hobby) UAS operations.
When the aircraft "can" operate autonomously, gyro stabilized, and fly further than a couple hundred yards from the Tx then YES a test should be implemented. If the aircraft "can" interfere with manned aviation the UAS operator should prove some degree of NAS knowledge, some degree of operating abilities, and some system knowledge. If you don't know how to determine these things how can you in any way attest that you can always operate your UAS in a safe manner? You can NOT!
If we don't want to have flight and safety standards then we need to get toy grade aircraft that aren't capable of operating with the big boys. We can't have it both ways because at some point there will be an incident and you haven't even began to see regulations compared to what will come into play once that happens. You can bet your bottom dollar that if John Q. Public becomes afraid to fly because of our aircraft we will be regulated so tightly we can't afford to say the word drone let alone own one. When the airline industry reports lost revenue because the public is afraid of a drone to manned aircraft incident the all mighty dollar will speak and speak very loudly. It won't matter how much we beg, plead, demand, or cry we will be regulated back to toy grade aircraft in the blink of an eye.
It's much better to get the foundation put down now so that we can say, "We're working already towards a safer UAS integration" and have some type of "evidence" that we are able and willing to work within the existing infrastructure.
If anyone thinks that the Drone Industry is huge it's time for a reality check and compare it to the Commercial Aviation industry. If we cause a loss in ticket sales/revenue we can kiss our UAS freedom good bye.
For transparency I am not Pro govt. Quite the opposite and in fact on many fronts I'm anti-govt. I am also realistic and understand that when the dollar speaks our small voices are completely muted. Our $500-$1,500-$3,000-$10,000 UAS are drops in the ocean when it comes to ticket fairs and Commercial Aviation transactions across the nation. If something bad happens we will learn our rank on the food chain in the blink of an eye.
When the aircraft "can" operate autonomously, gyro stabilized, and fly further than a couple hundred yards from the Tx then YES a test should be implemented. If the aircraft "can" interfere with manned aviation the UAS operator should prove some degree of NAS knowledge, some degree of operating abilities, and some system knowledge. If you don't know how to determine these things how can you in any way attest that you can always operate your UAS in a safe manner? You can NOT!
This is true to some degree and no amount of Gvt regulation can stop every bad person from doing bad things with a UAS. On the flip side we see posts EVERY single day from people commenting on how they don't understand NFZ, TFR, and airspace. We see posts from people stating "How can I override the NFZ/Altitude Limits?" That's totally unacceptable to say the least. If we all want to be big boys and fly our "big boy toys" freely then we need to step up to the plate and acquire the knowledge and prove we are capable of doing this safely.
If we don't want to have flight and safety standards then we need to get toy grade aircraft that aren't capable of operating with the big boys. We can't have it both ways because at some point there will be an incident and you haven't even began to see regulations compared to what will come into play once that happens. You can bet your bottom dollar that if John Q. Public becomes afraid to fly because of our aircraft we will be regulated so tightly we can't afford to say the word drone let alone own one. When the airline industry reports lost revenue because the public is afraid of a drone to manned aircraft incident the all mighty dollar will speak and speak very loudly. It won't matter how much we beg, plead, demand, or cry we will be regulated back to toy grade aircraft in the blink of an eye.
It's much better to get the foundation put down now so that we can say, "We're working already towards a safer UAS integration" and have some type of "evidence" that we are able and willing to work within the existing infrastructure.
If anyone thinks that the Drone Industry is huge it's time for a reality check and compare it to the Commercial Aviation industry. If we cause a loss in ticket sales/revenue we can kiss our UAS freedom good bye.
For transparency I am not Pro govt. Quite the opposite and in fact on many fronts I'm anti-govt. I am also realistic and understand that when the dollar speaks our small voices are completely muted. Our $500-$1,500-$3,000-$10,000 UAS are drops in the ocean when it comes to ticket fairs and Commercial Aviation transactions across the nation. If something bad happens we will learn our rank on the food chain in the blink of an eye.
Every RC flying club that I have ever belonged to (been flying fixed wings for a number of years) has required me to take an exam before I can fly at their field. Usually it is just a demonstration of flying skills following a pattern determined by the examiner and showing I'm proficient at landing and taking off. Some clubs also require passing a written test.
Haters gonna hate, but I think we should all be required to pass a short, common sense test to fly.
Why?
Ignore the media stories -- there have been plenty of examples on this very forum that show the need for some sort of education/quiz to ensure we all know what we are doing.
You should see how much red tape I have to jump through to make a commercial drone shoot happen. It's not pretty!
I don't know about the bad apples, but there have been a lot of bad decisions and bad mistakes made by new pilots who just didn't know any better, or how to recover, or where not to fly, etc. etc. Nothing done deliberately, just innocent mistakes based in ignorance. Tests will not eliminate the bad apples, but it would help eliminate some of the naive ignorance I think.
There isn't much "stuff" to hit at an RC flying field. They are just open fields after all. But where the majority of drone pilots fly, there is a lot of "stuff" one could potentially hit - cars, living things, buildings, etc. Pretty valid reasons to have some sort of testing IMO.
Really? In 45 years I'e never been asked by an RC club to take a test of any kind.
Of course you do. But let's say you get your way.....how would you feel about dropping the registration requirement in that case....or do you like it when layer upon layer upon layer of rules and regulations keep being piled on?
For others to consider................
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 29
- Age
- 54
Interesting. Not sure how your clubs would ever determine a pilot is safe to fly around their often expensive and labor intensive hand built planes without testing their skills...
From Club #1 that I belong to:
"In order to fly with us at Flaming Geyser State Park, you must first have an AMA Card (Get one Here) and then must obtain a Solo Permit Sticker to place on your card. To get this sticker, you must first study the flying area rules found in the Management Plan and then contact aSolo Evaluation Pilot to take your written and flight test. The written test and flight test is easy, (we need to make sure you can fly safely). When you pass the test, you will be given a sticker for your AMA Card and may post it on the frequency board and fly.
Geyser Flyers.org
My other club:
Much more informal, but before you are given a membership sticker (to place on your AMA card) you are required to do a take off, fly a pattern and execute a safe landing with a senior member watching:
"New members must demonstrate their proficiency before flying solo."
Field Rules
The third and last club I belong to has an extensive flight proficiency test that is so long I'll just post a link to it:
http://www.mar-c.org/content/flight-proficiency-check
And then there is this club which is fairly close, but at $200/yr for a membership, it is a bit rich for me:
"Students will be issued a Student Card/sticker and must obtain Solo Certification from a RAMS Instructor before
being issued a current RAMS Solo Flyer sticker. New members will be asked to demonstrate basic flying skills."
https://seattleramsorg1.ipage.com/ - Seattle Rams
Not sure where you are flying that doesn't require some sort of testing.
How many people at this forum bought a Phantom so they could fly it within the confines of a regulated small field run by a club with 100 requirements and restrictions?
Phantoms are all about exploration, new scenery and finding breath taking locations, views and awe inspiring video and photography.
Not pacing back and forth over an few acres. Drones aren't like RC aircraft which are fun to look at like the Virgin 747 or stunt helos.
Nope....drones need wide open spaces and the freedom to explore.
Enjoy your clubs.
Phantoms are all about exploration, new scenery and finding breath taking locations, views and awe inspiring video and photography.
Not pacing back and forth over an few acres. Drones aren't like RC aircraft which are fun to look at like the Virgin 747 or stunt helos.
Nope....drones need wide open spaces and the freedom to explore.
Enjoy your clubs.
It's worth noting that the FAA reauthorization may eventually be hammered out in a Senate-House conference which could mean that a compromise bill somewhere in between zero regulations on sUAS (House) and the more strict Senate version would result. United States congressional conference committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's also worth considering that studies have begun to emerge which look very favorable to sUAS operations not impacting general aviation and this could sway some opinions. Drones present minimal threat to aircraft, says study
It's also worth considering that studies have begun to emerge which look very favorable to sUAS operations not impacting general aviation and this could sway some opinions. Drones present minimal threat to aircraft, says study
I'd have to say the potential for more than minimal threat is great. I don't want to have a phantom hitting a plane I'm flying. This single video pretty much says a lot about this topic in terms of General Aviation on the small end of the spectrum:
Bird strike with small general aviation aircraft
Neither impact would be fun, but a bird strike is more likely to take place by a tremendous factor of magnitude. If you read the study it's pretty clear in that regard. So if you're worried about encountering a drone while piloting a small plane, you might as well just pack it up because the threat of rogue birds is a clear and present danger by comparison.
i'd like to know what kind of hassles and any costs you have related to commercial flying. city permits? thanks.
Well, to start with you need a 333 exemption, a COA, a pilot, and at least $2M of liability insurance. Then to get a location, you need multiple permits and COIs. Approval from police and fire air units. Approval from FAA and fire department for closed set operations. Permits, rental cops, etc, for shutting down streets on closed sets, etc.
