More Quads flying high with FAA approval

msinger said:
SilentAV8R said:
it is there to make sure you know the "rules of the road" so you can avoid causing issues for others.
And, obtaining a private pilot certificate will make sure you know the rules of the road for flying a UAV? I don't buy that for a second.

That is a problem then. So you are saying that you feel that there is nothing to be gained from you understanding how to operate in the NAS, which the FAA defines as going to the ground? Knowing the rules other aircraft are abiding by, what they are doing and why, the ins and outs of airspace designations and restrictions, all useless to you?? Really??

Sad to say, but are are the guy the FAA is worried about. In the case of the NAS ignorance it NOT bliss.

Now, having said that, I feel the FAA should come up with a "sUAS license." One that recognizes the realities of what we are doing, but the background knowledge would still be the main emphasis of that. Oh, and this pertains ONLY to commercial applications, not to hobby use.
 
msinger said:
SilentAV8R said:
it proves you have at least a minimum knowledge of airspace, operating rules for aircraft, and an understanding of the NAS
And, how exactly does that help you fly your Phantom 50 feet or so in the air so you can capture photos for real estate purposes?

I think in a few years most large realty groups will own their own inexpensive camera drone and do their own filming. I really don't see a big future in this arena for drone pilots. But that is just me of course. But the drone shots have already lost their wow factor as far as I'm concerned. When I buy a home I'm focused on eye level views, not what a bird will see when he flies past.

I think agriculture and mapping is where drones will really be utilized in the future.
 
SilentAV8R said:
So you are saying that you feel that there is nothing to be gained from you understanding how to operate in the NAS, which the FAA defines as going to the ground?
Woah, woah, woah... stop the clock! When did I say that?

SilentAV8R said:
Sad to say, but are are the guy the FAA is worried about. In the case of the NAS ignorance it NOT bliss.
And, you are a little misinformed.

The FAA is only concerned with safety in the NAS. That said, requiring someone to have a private pilot certificate is not a reasonable way to teach them the ins and outs of the NAS.

SilentAV8R said:
Now, having said that, I feel the FAA should come up with a "sUAS license." One that recognizes the realities of what we are doing, but the background knowledge would still be the main emphasis of that.
Welcome back to reality :)

The problem is that no such certificate exists. And, the FAA is claiming a private pilot certificate can be used in its place.

SilentAV8R said:
Oh, and this pertains ONLY to commercial applications, not to hobby use.
And, now, you're contradicting yourself. NAS ignorance is NOT bliss. So, shouldn't all UAV pilots be required to have some sort of airman certificate?
 
HailStorm said:
I think in a few years most large realty groups will own their own inexpensive camera drone and do their own filming.
There are countless photography companies in existence today that take photos for real estate use. If these companies are around, someone must be keeping them in business.

Operating a camera is much easier than operating a drone.
 
Perhaps.

My point is that cameras have been around for many (many) years and real estate companies are still hiring people to shoot photos for them. It's odd to think they would all run out and buy drones before buying cameras.
 
msinger said:
Perhaps.

My point is that cameras have been around for many (many) years and real estate companies are still hiring people to shoot photos for them. It's odd to think they would all run out and buy drones before buying cameras.

If there was a "Like" button, I'd click it for this post ;-)
 
Personally, I would like to see regulations established with four classes of drones. Class-A would be "Toy Class", and limited to 100' alt. Class-B would be hobby class, limited to 400'. Class-C would be "Commercial Class", limited to 1000' alt. and requiring FAA license and a basic rules of air traffic safety course. And Class-M would be military drones for DOD use. IMO there is no need for hobbyists to be flying above 400' and interfering with piloted aircraft. These types of categories would allow toys to be toys, hobbyists to ability to fly around and take photos from a nice height without interfering with piloted aircraft, and commercial entities the ability to take a course and get a commercial drone permit. If one wishes to do more than that, hey, join the military and have some real fun taking out the bad guys. Just my opinion.
 
MapMaker53 said:
Personally, I would like to see regulations established with four classes of drones. Class-A would be "Toy Class", and limited to 100' alt. Class-B would be hobby class, limited to 400'. Class-C would be "Commercial Class", limited to 1000' alt. and requiring FAA license and a basic rules of air traffic safety course. And Class-M would be military drones for DOD use. IMO there is no need for hobbyists to be flying above 400' and interfering with piloted aircraft. These types of categories would allow toys to be toys, hobbyists to ability to fly around and take photos from a nice height without interfering with piloted aircraft, and commercial entities the ability to take a course and get a commercial drone permit. If one wishes to do more than that, hey, join the military and have some real fun taking out the bad guys. Just my opinion.


How would you differentiate "toy" drones from "hobby" drones?
 
SilentAV8R said:
msinger said:
SilentAV8R said:
it proves you have at least a minimum knowledge of airspace, operating rules for aircraft, and an understanding of the NAS
And, how exactly does that help you fly your Phantom 50 feet or so in the air so you can capture photos for real estate purposes?

Because the FAA knows that way too many Phantom pilots, along with many other sUAS pilots, do NOT stay below 50 feet. They need an administrative hammer to hold over a pilot's head.

And it is not designed so much to help you to take pictures of homes, it is there to make sure you know the "rules of the road" so you can avoid causing issues for others.
But the FAA's area of concern isn't "way too many Phantom pilots". They are enforcing what is effectively a complete ban on any commercial UAS activity while allowing open season for recreational activity. They have it completely ***-backwards. The overwhelming majority of commercial use is well below 400 ft. Real estate photography is treetop height or less. But the FAA believes that NAS extends down to just above the blades of grass in your backyard and it's their role to keep commercial drones out of NAS. When laws are that stupid, it's stupid to expect they will be respected.
 
Pmcdn said:
MapMaker53 said:
Personally, I would like to see regulations established with four classes of drones. Class-A would be "Toy Class", and limited to 100' alt. Class-B would be hobby class, limited to 400'. Class-C would be "Commercial Class", limited to 1000' alt. and requiring FAA license and a basic rules of air traffic safety course. And Class-M would be military drones for DOD use. IMO there is no need for hobbyists to be flying above 400' and interfering with piloted aircraft. These types of categories would allow toys to be toys, hobbyists to ability to fly around and take photos from a nice height without interfering with piloted aircraft, and commercial entities the ability to take a course and get a commercial drone permit. If one wishes to do more than that, hey, join the military and have some real fun taking out the bad guys. Just my opinion.


How would you differentiate "toy" drones from "hobby" drones?

Maybe according to weight or flight (alt & distance) capability. Forgot to mention that Hobby Class would require an AMA type membership with liability insurance coverage. Toy class would not. If one modifies a toy class drone to give it hobby class capability, well then it would fall into the hobby class. Just trying to imagine a reasonable system. I'm not saying it would be an easy system to police. LOL. At least it wouldn't be complete anarchy in the sky. Doing anything outside of your class restrictions would be considered "reckless use" and subject to a fine of some sort if caught.
 
MapMaker53 said:
Just trying to imagine a reasonable system. I'm not saying it would be an easy system to police. LOL. At least it wouldn't be complete anarchy in the sky.
Unless legislation is able to be be policed there is no point introducing it.
 
Meta4 said:
Unless legislation is able to be be policed there is no point introducing it.

And there in lies the rub...

How are they going to catch the pilots flying from 1 K away? It will be difficult, at the very least.

The media is on the attack. Not just CNN, but Fox too. NBC, ABC, CBS, MSN... all have negative drone stories. It almost seems like a coordinated attack on our hobby. We've got city councilmen calling for moratoriums on flight. Local legislation that prohibits flight in certain areas. We face fines already for flying over 400 feet or outside of AMA safety guidelines. The National Parks booted us. Rednecks are shooting at them. Kids are getting beat up at the beach while flying them. Pilots are seeing them everywhere.

Put it all together, and you get a ban on drones, or at least severe restrictions. That's why mine flies with a Jolly Rodger flag! Sky Pirate! I do fly within AMA rules, so screw them all.
 
DrJoe said:
Meta4 said:
Unless legislation is able to be be policed there is no point introducing it.

And there in lies the rub...

How are they going to catch the pilots flying from 1 K away? It will be difficult, at the very least.

I heard an interview the other day where the idea of geofencing was brought up. It will no doubt be illegal to do BLOS flying, so they can potentially require geofencing built into say a Phantom that limits you laterally. A couple of years back, long before any of us had heard of the Phantom or any of this, there was talk of limiting all sUAS, commercial and models to no moare than 1,500 feet laterally.
 
At this point I think it might be easier to just operate commercially and let them take you to court (not really ;-) ), where they will eventually loose - at least until legislation is passed. Of course no one wants to be taken to court by the FAA, but if your doing something like taking pictures from 50 feet in the air for a real estate web site, I think the FAA will loose. They might convince a judge or two, but with a half decent lawyer someone will successfully defend themselves in court and this will all end up in congress - where it will stall out because no one really gives a ****.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.