FAA rules, AMA suggestions......

The items you mentioned are precisely the items we will need to request exemption for. Line by line you have to either meet the requirement or request an exemption and explain why you should be exempted. It's page after page after page of frustration and comedy all in one packet.
 
BigAl07 said:
Line by line you have to either meet the requirement or request an exemption and explain why you should be exempted.
There are only a handful of regulations you need to request exemption from. If you read the petitions that have been approved, you'll be able to quickly put together that list. For most people, it'll be the following regulations:

14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H
14 CFR 61.23 (a)
14 CFR 61.113 (a) and (b)
14 CFR 91.109
14 CFR 91.121
14 CFR 91.151 (a)
14 CFR 91.405 (a)
14 CFR 91.407 (a)(1)
14 CFR 91.409 (a)(1)
14 CFR 91.409 (a)(2)
14 CFR 91.417 (a) and (b)
 
Here's my list of what I have ready to go in my "portfolio"


  • 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H Airworthiness certification
    14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b) Markings
    14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) Medical certificates
    14 C.F.R. § 61.133(a) Commercial pilot privileges
    14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) and (b) Civil aircraft airworthiness
    14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b)(2) Performance data/Preflight Action
    14 C.F.R. § 91.105(a)(2) & (b) Flight crew members at stations
    14 C.F.R. § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes
    14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a)(1) and (2) Civil aircraft certifications
    14 C.F.R. § 91.207 Emergency location transmitters
    14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) Maintenance
    14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance
    14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) Inspections
    14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records

I've not addressed 91.151 but waiting on my legal friend to get back to me on that aspect. I've read mixed reviews and one of the companies that was granted flying status did not address 91.151 at all(unless I missed it which is possible). I will research it some more this evening.

I did overlook 61.113 (a) and (b) Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. somehow but will address that asap and add it to my existing portfolio.

I don't have my completed list with me but this came from a hand-written draft I started early on. The final exemptions list may be slightly different as I'm not looking at it at the moment.

Thank you msinger for the comprehensive list. It was nice to have to cross-check what I'm already working on. Very good input.
 
Geert said:
I moved this topic to the General forum as it is not exclusive related to the P2V+ but for all UAV.

Geert./.

Thanks Geert. That's a very good idea indeed.
 
msinger said:
Couchie said:
True, but, the PPL part applies to those people who want to fly commercially.

Actually, no... A PPL can NOT make any compensation for his/her flight.

Sec. 61.113 — Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

In order to be compensated for a flight, you must be a commercial pilot and the craft you are flying must be certified to fly commercially which in the 'real world' is a daunting task. Record keeping, annual inspections, 100 hour inspections, FAA inspected parts (increases prices by four fold if not more) etc...

Actually, a PPL is allowed to make compensation for his/her flight in the world of UAVs. Go research the petitions that the FAA has approved so far. All require the PIC to have a PPL.

Actually, if you did read the petitions, all of the special issuance were not pilots. And further, the special issuance grants a relief from having a commercial pilot certificate. Not granting an exemption for a PPL to be compensated.
 
HeliGuy said:
Actually, if you did read the petitions, all of the special issuance were not pilots. And further, the special issuance grants a relief from having a commercial pilot certificate. Not granting an exemption for a PPL to be compensated.

HeliGuy do you have the documents/links to show this? The ones I've seen (granted I could have misread something) state that they are not granting exemption from the PPL requirement but they are exempting from CPL and all of them are "compensated" as they are employed by the requesting company. As I said I may be totally misreading this and if so I apologize up front but I can't see where they are excluded relief from compensation. (eyes are crossed from reading legal docs for too long LOL).

The very first exemption I pulled up was Exemption No. 11111, Trimble Navigation LTD.

Here's an exert from it (It's 26 pages long) that pertains to this subject (keep in mind I'm not a lawyer and I could have missed something)

Pilot In Command of the UAS
Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR61.113(a) and (b)Private pilot privileges and limitations and 14 CFR 61.133(a) Commercial pilot privileges and limitations, Trimble requested regulatory relief to operate its UAS without an FAA certificated pilot. In support of its request, Trimble states that “the FAA has the statutory authority to grant exemptions to the requirements for and privileges associated with the grant of airmen’s certificates.” Although Section 333 provides limited statutory flexibility relative to 49 USC§ 44704 for the purposes of airworthiness certification, it does not provide flexibility relative to other sections of Title 49. The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC§ 4471

Unlike operations pursuant to public COAs, the FAA is requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations for two reasons, the first of which is to satisfy the statutory requirements as stated above. The second is because pilots holding a private pilot certificate are subject to the
security screening by the Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously determined by the Secretary, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with Section 333

Given these grounds, the FAA must determine the appropriate level of pilot certification for Trimble’s proposed operation. Under current regulations, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificate per 14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations in accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to a business or employment. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus)(see Docket FAA-2014-0352), the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground.


So here is what I'm taking from this one cited case:

They are requiring a PPL (and Medical Cert) but they are granting the exemption from having to have a CPL. This is due to a previous Grant of Exemption No. 11062 Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus).

Keep in mind this is still a case-by-case issue and is specific to the company, pilot, aircraft, and operational area. I've not read every case to see if any others are flying without PPL but at least thus far they are exempting from a Commercial Pilot's License to fly our UAS. Hopefully it will just get easier in the future. Hopefully . . ..
 
BigAl07 said:
They are requiring a PPL (and Medical Cert) but they are granting the exemption from having to have a CPL.
This is true for all petitions that have been approved so far.
 
Excellently written and well thought our. As a licensed pilot and commercially rated Lighter than Air (balloon) instructor, I can see why the FAA is going to the extreme to require a pilot certificate to fly a drone. If you think about it, this would preclude many from flying for commercial purposes but it does not stop little Tommy from taking his new toy and trying to race a 747 to the runway. The cost of a ticket will, if nothing else slow down the rate of folks buying and flying drones if they can't make a buck. What gets me is they are requiring a 2nd class medical. LSA pilots fly in the same airspace and they don't require a medical and so do powered hang gliders and they don't even have to have a license. With the proliferation of drones, the FAA was drowning in calls and complaints to do something. As a Realtor, I bought the drone to take new and exciting perspectives of my listings. I don't fly at dark, I have never exceeded 350' and the craft has never left my site. Not so much for safety, more that I didn't need to exceed those limits and don't want to lose my investment! Common sense, I guess. I wrote the FAA a while back and expressed my thoughts on this issue as I am sure most on this forum have done. Don't take away what this beautiful feat of engineering has to offer because of a few or the fear of what could happen. Having pilots take a class to understand the regs and air space and also pass a written and take a flight proficiency test makes all sense to me. Also, those of us that do operate safely need to police and educate those who don't. That's my two-cents on the topic.
Phil H.
 
Phil H said:
Having pilots take a class to understand the regs and air space and also pass a written and take a flight proficiency test makes all sense to me.
I totally agree. If you're going to play in "that arena" you need to be qualified and more importantly you need to know and fully understand everything that does and can happen in that arena. The only thing that still troubles me, just as you said is that this "Commercial Requirement" will not have anything to do with little Tommie (which is probably 99% of the drone market).

To fly for hire I think some form of certification is essential but the medical cert etc is laughable for this class of UAS. Now if this were a 500 mile range, 150lb, 25hp UAS I might see the need to require more stringent regulations but for a 5lb UAS that we are flying LOS, VFR, <400'AGL it's literally absurd.

Phil H said:
Also, those of us that do operate safely need to police and educate those who don't. That's my two-cents on the topic.
Phil H.
This has been the "Community Mindset" for the RC industry for years. We train, teach, nurture and of course "Police" our own. That was in the day where you actually had to LEARN to fly in order to be able to do so. You almost had to join a club in order to ever SOLO... I say almost because I was fortunate enough to teach myself to fly... it literally took me (13) airplanes teaching myself to fly before I took off, flew in some degree of control, and landed again in a condition that didn't require any repair to fly again. This was me teaching me to flying in a huge pasture with no one around for miles. Then I joined a club, learned to actually land the plane in control and became an instructor (I'd like to think a good one) so that I could teach and help others the way that I did NOT learn to do.

That was many years ago and today someone who has never even spelled the words Radio Control can now be flying literally in minutes. The company I work for sells "cheap toy" UAS and I have friends who were flying successfully with zero instruction what so ever. They opened the box, charged the UAS, and were flying in less than an hour with absolutely no training (safety or otherwise). Keep in mind these are indoor "UAS" but the same is being done all day everyday with larger outdoor UAS. Without some industry wide training/notification program it's the every day hobbyist who is going to be the real problem. If you don't know the regs, dangers, or Real Life ramifications of these UAS then you may not fly them as safely as you would otherwise.

This is going to take every flying club, solo backyard flyer, park flyer, hobby shop, manufacturer and most importantly the MEDIA to educate and notify. Instead of Doom & Gloom followed by pure scare tactics this could be cast in a positive light and portrayed as a FUN and ENLIGHTENING hobby. Of course that's not what catches your attention when you turn on the news at night.
 
SteveMann said:
I will disagree with only one thing you said. When your hypothetical friend went up with you on a pleasure flight, took some photos and later sold them. No, he didn't break any FAR's, but you did. That is how ridiculous the FAA interprets the rules. It could have happened six months after the flight, but as soon as your hypothetical friend sold a photo taken from your pleasure flight, it became a commercial flight. One aviation lawyer who hangs around this forum asked, hypothetically, If I share video from my Phantom with family and one of them posts the video on YouTube and ads get shown next to the video, does it become commercial? The answer is yes. The way the rules are written, the FAA could come back to the plot for a certificate action.
Just to jump back to this for a second, the FAA is not the only one making ridiculous interpretations on some of the written rules...

And example here in Canada that I found very scary was a regional office of Transport Canada, reportedly making statements like this to a wanna-be UAV pilot about their perceived authority.
1. If a recreational pilot posts a video on youtube, and gets a "Like", they can consider this "Like" as a form of compensation, thus the video is now considered commercial and subject to all fines and prosecution.
2. If a film editor(never flown before) adds an aerial video he captures off the web into one of his videos, and TC can show that aerial video was not done with an SFOC certificate, they can prosecute that film editor as violating TC rules.
 
Khudson7 said:
And example here in Canada that I found very scary were a regional office of Transport Canada, reportedly making statements like this to a wanna-be UAV pilot about their perceived authority.
1. If a recreational pilot posts a video on youtube, and gets a "Like", they can consider this "Like" as a form of compensation, thus it is considered commercial and subject to all fines and prosecution.
2. If a film editor(never flown before) adds an aerial video he captures off the web into one of his videos, and TC can show that aerial video was not done with an SFOC certificate, they can prosecute that film editor as violating TC rules.

Talk about a "stretch" to say the least. I had high hopes that TC was more intelligent and actually "Thought" more than other governments around here LOL!

Next thing you know... if you WATCH a YouTube video with something that even remotely looks like a drone you'll go to jail LOL!
 
Interesting that in granting the exemption, the FAA says:
"FAA does not possess the authority to exempt the petitioner from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate, as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711.2 Although Section 333 provides limited statutory flexibility relative to 49 USC § 44704 for the purposes of airworthiness certification, it does not provide similar flexibility relative to other sections of Title 49."

Yet, from the FAA's own documents:
ULTRALIGHT VEHICLE Date: 1/30/84 AC No: AC 103-7
13. SINGLE OCCUPANT.
a. The Rationale for Allowing Single Occupant Operations Only, One aspect of the rationale for allowing ultralight vehicles to operate under special rules which do not require pilot and aircraft certification is the single-occupant limitation. The assumption is made that a person who elects to operate an uncertificated vehicle alone is aware of the risks involved. This assumption does not necessarily hold true for a passenger. Because the pilot qualifications for ultralight vehicle operations are not Federally controlled or monitored, the single-occupant requirement is a necessary component to the continuation of the policies and regulations which allow the operation of ultralight vehicles free from many of the restrictions imposed on the operation of certificated aircraft.

Part 103-Ultralight Vehicles
Adopted: July 30,1982 Effective: October 4,1982 (Published in 47 FR 38770, September 2,1982)
A Part 103 Ultralight Aircraft is defined as "an empty weight of 254 pounds has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; is not capable of more than 55 knots airspeed at full power in level flight; and has a power-off stall speed of 24 knots or less."
The FAA has chosen not to promulgate Federal regulations regarding pilot certification, vehicle certification, and vehicle registration, preferring that the ultralight community assume the initiative for the development of these important safety programs. The ultralight community is expected to take positive action to develop these programs in a timely manner and gain FAA approval for their implementation. Should this approach fail to meet FAA safety objectives, further regulatory action may be necessary.

So, what the FAA is saying is that it's OK to strap a lawnmower engine with a 6-foot aircraft propeller to your back, put on a parachute and go fly without any aircraft or pilot certification or training, but a three-pound plastic drone with no accident history involving serious injury or death despite tens of thousands of flight hours requires a Private Pilot's License.
paramoteur.jpg

This is legal and no license is required.

Many people are unaware that there are two lesser pilot's licenses that would both exceed anything the small UAV knowledge requirements, the Recreational Pilot Certificate and the Sport Pilot Certificate. The Recreational Pilot Certificate is a bit of a joke. It's basically seen as an advanced Student Pilot License that permits passengers and requires 30-hours of flight training. (A Private Pilot's License requires 40 hours of instruction, but is otherwise identical). The Sport Pilot Certificate requires no FAA Medical Certificate and only 20 hours of flight instruction.

Then there is the Part 103 Ultralight Aircraft.
Part 103 has no requirement for any training or aeronautical knowledge.
Part 103 has no requirement any kind of aircraft inspection, certification, or registration.
Part 103 aviators are not required to follow Part 91 rules, with the exception of a few, which are specifically spelled out in Part 103. In Fact, Part 91.1 exempts Part 103 operators.

Under Part 103, pilots can fly into any airspace (Class A,B,C,D) as long as permission is obtained. Sport Pilot, Recreational Pilot, and Private cannot fly into Class A (this requires an instrument rating). Sport Pilots and Recreational Pilots must first have training, and a logbook endorsement before they are allowed to fly into airspace requiring ATC control (Class B, C, D). Part 103 requires nothing. Will ATC ever grant a Part 103 ultralight clearance into Class A, B or C? Probably not, nor do they belong there, but legally, it is possible.

There is no limit to the distance a Part 103 pilot can legally fly. Recreational pilots cannot fly more than 50 miles from their departure airport, unless they have received navigation training, and a logbook endorsement. Part 103 has no such restriction.

Part 103 does not limit the size or complexity of our engine(s), or the complexity of the plane (adjustable prop, retractable gear, etc). As long as its single seat, 254 lbs, 55 kts, etc, its legal. Sport and Recreational Pilots cannot fly planes with retractable gear, or "adjustable props". They also cannot fly multi-engine planes.

Under Part 103, pilots can fly with visibility as low as one mile. Sport and Recreational Pilots can not.

Under Part 103, pilots can fly 1/2 hour before sunrise, and 1/2 hour after sunset, if the ultralight is equipped with appropriate lighting. This is longer than Recreational pilots, and on many days, its even longer than Sport pilots can fly. Recreational pilots can not fly past sunset, or before sunrise. Sport pilots can fly during the period of "civil twilight", with appropriate lighting on their aircraft. (Ironically, even Sport pilots have more privileges than Recreational pilots, since they can fly at the beginning of civil twilight in the morning, and the end of civil twilight in the evenings, which is past sunset)

Under Part 103, pilots have no maximum altitude restriction. To fly above 18,000 feet MSL, pilots just need permission. Under Part 91, only instrument rated pilots can fly above 18,000 feet, when on an instrument flight plan. Recreational and Sport pilots are limited to 10,000 MSL, or 2,000 AGL, whichever is higher.

For reference, the general limitations for Sport Pilots, is defined in 14 CFR 61.315. The limits for Recreational Pilots, is defined in 14 CFR 61.101. The limits for private pilots is defined in 14 CFR 61.113.

I am looking into what it would take to get my Phantom defined as an Part 103 Ultralight Aircraft. It has a single seat, weighs less than 254 pounds has a fuel capacity of zero, is not capable of more than 55 knots airspeed at full power in level flight, and has a power-off stall speed of 24 knots or less.
Phantom-2-with-H3-3D-gimbal-and-single-seat.jpg
 
SteveMann said:
Interesting that in granting the exemption, the FAA says:
"FAA does not possess the authority to exempt the petitioner from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate, as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711.2 Although Section 333 provides limited statutory flexibility relative to 49 USC § 44704 for the purposes of airworthiness certification, it does not provide similar flexibility relative to other sections of Title 49."
That statute requires an airman certificate for aircraft that are being used for commercial purposes.

SteveMann said:
The Rationale for Allowing Single Occupant Operations Only, One aspect of the rationale for allowing ultralight vehicles to operate under special rules which do not require pilot and aircraft certification is the single-occupant limitation. The assumption is made that a person who elects to operate an uncertificated vehicle alone is aware of the risks involved. This assumption does not necessarily hold true for a passenger. Because the pilot qualifications for ultralight vehicle operations are not Federally controlled or monitored, the single-occupant requirement is a necessary component to the continuation of the policies and regulations which allow the operation of ultralight vehicles free from many of the restrictions imposed on the operation of certificated aircraft.
Is this in reference to using ultralight vehicles for commercial purposes? Or just using ultralight vehicles in general?
 
Just using ultralights in general. There is no commercial use of Ultralights allowed:


Part 103 states that an ultralight vehicle cannot be used in commercial operations, or operated in any manner that creates a hazard to persons or property. It cannot be operated over any congested area, over an open area assembly of persons, or any airport traffic area, air traffic control zone, or any area covered by airport radar service.

The FAA defines an ultralight as a vehicle a "single occupant" uses in the air. Pilots can fly two-seat vehicles for flight instruction purposes under an FAA exemption. Currently Aero Sports Connection (ASC) , the United States Ultralight Association (USUA), and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) are the only organizations that hold an exemption for flight instruction in two-place vehicles.

If you fly a two-place ultralight without operating under an FAA exemption, you may be flying an unregistered airplane in violation of the federal aviation regulations because your vehicle no longer qualifies as a Part 103 ultralight. Such was the case of Administrator v. Herrington, 1996 WL 861984 (NTSB). In this case, the pilot flew an ultralight and engaged in an aerobatic display with a wing rider strapped to a T bar.

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine ... efing.html
 
HailStorm said:
Part 103 states that an ultralight vehicle cannot be used in commercial operations
Whelp, there goes the idea of trying to pass a UAS off as an ultralight...
 
msinger said:
HailStorm said:
Part 103 states that an ultralight vehicle cannot be used in commercial operations
Whelp, there goes the idea of trying to pass a UAS off as an ultralight...

Yea afraid so. Even though everything written just before this makes sense the "sticky point" in this whole matter is the "making $$" aspect.

I can do almost anything I want to with my UAS except something productive LOL!
 
Geert said:
Several post were removed from this topic, 2 members in total banned.
Back to topic now.

Geert./.

Thank you.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,599
Members
104,980
Latest member
ozmtl