It's very frustrating following the rules

[Roadking]

I had to pass up 2 jobs this week because the Client wanted photos in class B airspace. The killer is that the locations were both over 6 miles from the airport but still in class B which extends 7 miles.

Also one location was only a hundred yards from power towers that were much higher than I need to fly to get the job done.

I agree with safety and follow the rules but it is very frustrating when the rules are extreme. Good example of government regulations hurting small business.

I found out later that one of the jobs was done by someone else. I'm not a rat but feel like a sucker.

Rant over.

 

[Jim Roof]

I had to pass up 2 jobs this week because the Client wanted photos in class B airspace. The killer is that the locations were both over 6 miles from the airport but still in class B which extends 7 miles.

Also one location was only a hundred yards from power towers that were much higher than I need to fly to get the job done.

I agree with safety and follow the rules but it is very frustrating when the rules are extreme. Good example of government regulations hurting small business.

I found out later that one of the jobs was done by someone else. I'm not a rat but feel like a sucker.

Rant over.

It would be great if drone pilots were able to do the same thing that helicopter pilots do every day of their lives... pick up the phone and call the tower for clearance into Class B. Of course, helicopters get in only when they have Mode C transponders and are issued their unique squawk code when crossing into Class B surface area. Still, from having done a couple of decades of aerial photography in and around Atlanta's Hartsfield/Jackson airport, I know that once you get a mile out from the departure end everything is 3-4K AGL overhead. Approach end is a different story, but not letting a drone operate 7 miles out from the approach if they stay under 400 AGL is overkill. But, keep in mind that everyone gets hurt by a few bad actors who have likely taken their drones up a few thousand feet in Class B and made life harder for the rest of us.

There is also the real, but very slight possibility that some technology fails and a small UA ends up in a fly-away at the worst possible moment and at the worst possible spot.

 

[Crack The Sky]

I had to pass up 2 jobs this week because the Client wanted photos in class B airspace. The killer is that the locations were both over 6 miles from the airport but still in class B which extends 7 miles.

Also one location was only a hundred yards from power towers that were much higher than I need to fly to get the job done.

I agree with safety and follow the rules but it is very frustrating when the rules are extreme. Good example of government regulations hurting small business.

I found out later that one of the jobs was done by someone else. I'm not a rat but feel like a sucker.

Rant over.

Are you sure you needed to penetrate the Class B ? What was the bottom of the Class B? Send the location to us and let's look at it.

 

[Roadking]

The location is Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens.
6500 S New Hope Rd
Belmont, NC 28012
United States
Like I said, kclt is SFC at bottom for 7 miles.
Planes over the above address are at 20,000' by then. Check it out. I'd be happy to hear if I'm mistaken. Thanks.

 

[Crack The Sky]

The location is Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens.
6500 S New Hope Rd
Belmont, NC 28012
United States
Like I said, kclt is SFC at bottom for 7 miles.
Planes over the above address are at 20,000' by then. Check it out. I'd be happy to hear if I'm mistaken. Thanks.

Yup. Sorry to say, you are correct. Surface B.
Hold your head high, you are doing the right thing. I've been skunked by much less then legal operators too. This behavior will get washed out. Faa judgement day is coming; I sense a major crackdown in the not too far future.

 

[macoman]

Yup. Sorry to say, you are correct. Surface B.
Hold your head high, you are doing the right thing. I've been skunked by much less then legal operators too. This behavior will get washed out. Faa judgement day is coming; I sense a major crackdown in the not too far future.

No just a major crackdown... We could get laws similar to Canada... Very restrictively and unfriendly to drone.

 

[Crack The Sky]

No just a major crackdown... We could get laws similar to Canada... Very restrictively and unfriendly to drone.

Fear not. It will not affect folks that operate legally anyway.

 

[Roadking]

I just think a bit more common sense is in order for the licensed pilot rules. If you fly up to treetop height anywhere it should be ok. If a tower is 500' and I fly at 400' what is the risk?
Ok, you can come up with some extreme "what-if", but rules should not be imposed based on a remote possibility. If that was the case nothing would be flying.

 

[Crack The Sky]

I just think a bit more common sense is in order for the licensed pilot rules. If you fly up to treetop height anywhere it should be ok. If a tower is 500' and I fly at 400' what is the risk?
Ok, you can come up with some extreme "what-if", but rules should not be imposed based on a remote possibility. If that was the case nothing would be flying.

Part 107 says that as long as you are with-in 400' laterally from the tower/structure, you can fly up to the top & up to 400' above it, providing of course, that you do not enter controlled airspace.

 

[Roadking]

Part 107 says that as long as you are with-in 400' laterally from the tower/structure, you can fly up to the top & up to 400' above it, providing of course, that you do not enter controlled airspace.

Once again i hope I'm incorrect, but I don't think I am.
Let's say you're in the middle of a forest surrounded by trees 80' tall. It happens to be in Class B airspace SFC to whatever. The minute you leave the ground you're in violation. If you want to take a photo of a birds nest 50' up one of the trees, you can't, even though the tree is 30' higher than the nest.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Once again i hope I'm incorrect, but I don't think I am.
Let's say you're in the middle of a forest surrounded by trees 80' tall. It happens to be in Class B airspace SFC to whatever. The minute you leave the ground you're in violation. If you want to take a photo of a birds nest 50' up one of the trees, you can't, even though the tree is 30' higher than the nest.

You are correct. The Class B Surface Airspace precludes all flight performed under the Part 107 rules, unless you have a prior issued Waiver or Authorization from the FAA.
Under Part 101 Hobby rules the flight would still not be allowed, since Class B is the only controlled airspace that the hobbyist is not allowed to simply call the controlling agency, and inform them of their flight intentions. On another quick note, we know if it was not controlled airspace we could make the bird-watching flight, (Except for violating possible Fish & Wildlife rules on wildlife harassment, etc. which I know nothing about). However don't get lulled into thinking that you could legally climb to 400' feet above the 80' tree. To the FAA, a tree is not a structure/tower/building, and you would be bound by the 400' AGL ruling. I applaud your efforts to try and always do the right thing.
The following link was just published this morning by the FAA. I'm sure you will find it interesting.
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2017/media/MayJun2017.pdf

 

[Roadking]

It just amazes me that Ultralights have less restriction than drones.
Here's an example:

 

[Crack The Sky]

The reason they can fly around up there is because of what the FAA calls, SAA. See And Avoid. With an onboard pilot who is constantly scanning at the flight altitude for conflict, the threat of a mid air collision is minimized, as opposed to the drone which is operated from the ground with limited visibility for the operator. hence, the need for the current VLOS rule which frustrates a lot of people .

 

[Roadking]

I get that but:
- the guy is 175 lbs
- His equipment is another 50 - 60 lbs
- He has a tank filled with gasoline
- He is at 15,000'
- He can't see 360*
- If a plane or jet is coming at him he'd have to make some pretty quick evasive action
- If he did get hit, the chances are both he and the plane are coming down

all that as opposed to a 4 lb plastic drone with a battery and a camera that can see and avoid pretty much that same as that pilot.

Not wanting to get into any dispute, good dialogue.
But it just doesn't equate in my opinion.

 

[macoman]

I get that but:
- the guy is 175 lbs
- His equipment is another 50 - 60 lbs
- He has a tank filled with gasoline
- He is at 15,000'
- He can't see 360*
- If a plane or jet is coming at him he'd have to make some pretty quick evasive action
- If he did get hit, the chances are both he and the plane are coming down

all that as opposed to a 4 lb plastic drone with a battery and a camera that can see and avoid pretty much that same as that pilot.

Not wanting to get into any dispute, good dialogue.
But it just doesn't equate in my opinion.

Agreed with you... Drones are basically yours compared to that machine that the guy is flying.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Pu

I get that but:
- the guy is 175 lbs
- His equipment is another 50 - 60 lbs
- He has a tank filled with gasoline
- He is at 15,000'
- He can't see 360*
- If a plane or jet is coming at him he'd have to make some pretty quick evasive action
- If he did get hit, the chances are both he and the plane are coming down

all that as opposed to a 4 lb plastic drone with a battery and a camera that can see and avoid pretty much that same as that pilot.

Not wanting to get into any dispute, good dialogue.
But it just doesn't equate in my opinion.

I hear you, bro. I've been a commercial pilot & flight instructor for almost 40 years. I can quote the FAA regulations with my eyes closed. Many of them are written so poorly, vaguely and open to interpretation, ( a favorite topic of pilot lounge talk is deciphering "FAA Speak"), that I have wondered for many years whether they do it on purpose to have ammo to hang you if the need arises, or if they just don't have anyone to write the rules in plain English.
To their credit, the premise for all of their rules is always based in safety. Having said that, like many things today, the technological advancements have left the rule making process in the dust. Government grinds along very slowly.

No doubt, the FAA is scratching their heads on how to safely fit sUAS into the existing airspace, and how to track & catch offenders of the rules.
What law-abiding sUAS community members need to think about is how skydiver's & hang-glider/para-glider drivers have managed to keep the FAA off their back all of these years. No FAA licensing is required for those airborne pursuits which is amazing.
The FAA of course, has total control over where they can operate in the airspace but has stayed away from certifying the participants, except parachute riggers.
Here's how they did it.
As their sports grew, they quickly formed community based organizations that:
Certified, qualified persons as instructors
Promoted safety through graduated licensing tiers, based on proficiency & testing
Developed rules of conduct
Cast off the law breakers, (VERY bad for public perception & image)
Embraced the FAA in a supporting/advisory role
Developed many more safety based efforts

Through those remarkable accomplishments, the FAA has maintained for many years now, a "hands off - watch & wait" position.
The sUAS people need to get on the ball, or it's going to roll right over them.

 

[Roadking]

I think too that the other sports attract people who are more serious about learning and doing things the right way. Let's face it, in those sports it's their life on the line.
Unfortunately with sUAS's a guy gets it for his BD and takes it out of the box and starts flying. The only risk he sees is possibly crashing the thing.
I actually like the idea of rules and regulations and even having to get certified to fly commercially. I just think that once you go through all of that it should allow you, the trained pilot, to fly wherever and use your discretion.
The certification allows me to fly commercially but really doesn't provide any other benefit. In some cases a recreational flyer has more flexibility.
Anyway, my original point was that I should be able to fly at least as high as any structure (including a tree) anywhere. Good discussion. Thank you.

 

[Crack The Sky]

I think too that the other sports attract people who are more serious about learning and doing things the right way. Let's face it, in those sports it's their life on the line.
Unfortunately with sUAS's a guy gets it for his BD and takes it out of the box and starts flying. The only risk he sees is possibly crashing the thing.
I actually like the idea of rules and regulations and even having to get certified to fly commercially. I just think that once you go through all of that it should allow you, the trained pilot, to fly wherever and use your discretion.
The certification allows me to fly commercially but really doesn't provide any other benefit. In some cases a recreational flyer has more flexibility.
Anyway, my original point was that I should be able to fly at least as high as any structure (including a tree) anywhere. Good discussion. Thank you.

You are very perceptive. The attitude difference, (contempt for the laws), that we are seeing in this new sUAS game has never been seen before in the flying community. I believe like you, that it is because all other flyers have "skin in the game". Their own lives are at stake. The drone flyer has nothing to lose but his drone. New world, and I believe the FAA is scrambling to address it. Here's some fun statistics.
750,000 drones have been registered since that start of that program, (how long is that now? A year?).
The FAA thinks that the registered drones represent 1/3 of the drones actually flying.
750,000 is the total number of airplane & helicopters that have ever been registered, since Orville & Wilbur got off the ground. Maybe 20% of them are still flying.

 

[Roadking]

I have always loved new technology and this is just another example of being on the "bleed" edge.
It will all get sorted out eventually.

 

[RW-1]

750,000 is the total number of airplane & helicopters that have ever been registered, since Orville & Wilbur got off the ground. Maybe 20% of them are still flying.

I've only one thing to add to that, it's a but.

Out of those flyers already, many are R/C modelers now affected by the reclassification of R/C to UAS. Those flyers fly as if they're skin is in the game, certainly until the advent of Quads/Drones that were easy enough to fly, modelers had cheap, and expensive flying stuff.

I just want to say that those flying R/C shouldn't be grouped into the bad 10% of the overall population of flyers out there now. 99% of that group follow AMA and local club field guidelines to take advantage of AMA liability insurance. Those rules are not far from those imposed on the UAS community now.