dirkclod
Premium Pilot
I bet it will be.
Might lose but just the way I see it . Forbes says
Might lose but just the way I see it . Forbes says
Guess we will soon find out .
must read for all
- Thread starter flpholt
- Start date
The author in the comments says he based the article on one from a law journal, written by a former FAA lawyer....see quote below from the comments:Forbes is a fairly reputable source of info. After all they are the ones that chase those with money. If it is a rumor, then the egg will be on their face.
It's like any other gossip that you hear. But it is a hot rumor that is possible.
Let's just wait for it shall we?.. I still see egg on face!
Part 107 does not provide for beyond line of sight (BLOS):
§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:
(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;
(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and
(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:
(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or
(2) A visual observer.
What is not mentioned in the article is whether BLOS would be potentially covered by this paragraph of Part 107:
§107.205 List of regulations subject to waiver.
A certificate of waiver issued pursuant to §107.200 may authorize a deviation from the following regulations of this part:
(a) Section 107.25—Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft. However, no waiver of this provision will be issued to allow the carriage of property of another by aircraft for compensation or hire.
(b) Section 107.29—Daylight operation.
(c) Section 107.31—Visual line of sight aircraft operation. However, no waiver of this provision will be issued to allow the carriage of property of another by aircraft for compensation or hire.
(d) Section 107.33—Visual observer.
(e) Section 107.35—Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft systems.
(f) Section 107.37(a)—Yielding the right of way.
(g) Section 107.39—Operation over people.
(h) Section 107.41—Operation in certain airspace.
(i) Section 107.51—Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
And, apparently in paragraph (c), Section 107.31 is one item than can be covered in a waiver.
§107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:
(1) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;
(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;
(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and
(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:
(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or
(2) A visual observer.
What is not mentioned in the article is whether BLOS would be potentially covered by this paragraph of Part 107:
§107.205 List of regulations subject to waiver.
A certificate of waiver issued pursuant to §107.200 may authorize a deviation from the following regulations of this part:
(a) Section 107.25—Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft. However, no waiver of this provision will be issued to allow the carriage of property of another by aircraft for compensation or hire.
(b) Section 107.29—Daylight operation.
(c) Section 107.31—Visual line of sight aircraft operation. However, no waiver of this provision will be issued to allow the carriage of property of another by aircraft for compensation or hire.
(d) Section 107.33—Visual observer.
(e) Section 107.35—Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft systems.
(f) Section 107.37(a)—Yielding the right of way.
(g) Section 107.39—Operation over people.
(h) Section 107.41—Operation in certain airspace.
(i) Section 107.51—Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
And, apparently in paragraph (c), Section 107.31 is one item than can be covered in a waiver.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 43
- Age
- 54
After doing some reading.. this is usa only i assume.. we have transport canada i think.
Sent from my SM-N930F using PhantomPilots mobile app
Sent from my SM-N930F using PhantomPilots mobile app
Correct. TC is currently working on regulations. We should see something early next year. What bothers me is that they are talking about much stricter regulations for over model aircrafts over1 kg. That would affect our Phantoms! Currently, the regulations encompassing Phantoms, flown for hobby, in Canada are very few and very loose. There are some guidelines from TC, but these are not the law. The regulations will be the law and may hit us hard.
Sent from my MotoG3 using PhantomPilots mobile app
This fun hobby is beginning to not be fun anymore. I had planned to buy the P3A this weekend but I guess I'll wait then to see what happens on Monday. If I'm going to be forced to get certified and pay the yearly fee just to fly recreationally, I might have to just get out of the hobby all together. I'm sure I won't be the only one that will feel this way.
Last edited:
What's important to note here (hopefully this helps clear up the fuzzy area) is that with the FAA.... if you are a hobby/recreational flier you have to meet all the criteria as such which includes abiding by the "Community based guidelines". Once you do not abide by them (and many people don't realize you entered into a contract with the FAA when you registered your HOBBY registration) you no longer fit into the" Hobby" box any more. Anything that doesn't fit into hobby defaults back to Part 107 or even the potential for Section 333 Exemptions (This process will still be available for specific needs/waivers etc). Flying BLOS and FPV are not withing the "Community based guidelines" so that defaults back to NONhobby.
So basically you're a hobbyist so long as you fit entirely into that small box but the first time you step out of it you are no longer a hobbyist.
Loretta Alkalay is an experienced Aviation Attorney and she is retired from the FAA. She has an intimate understanding of the FAA from both sides of the fence and to date I've not seen her miss a single detail in her predictions. She is a HUGE asset to our community and highly regarded in the industry from all levels. If I were a betting man I'd put my money on her predictions/suggestions. She's really that good.
One thing to keep in mind here.... When Congress tied the FAA's hands in regards to regulating "Model Aircraft" (this was designed to protect R/C aircraft flying who do so safely in a controlled environment and who really don't need any regulation) it created this mess of confusion. If it weren't for that act in 2012 you can bet your bottom dollar that the FAA would be regulating hobbyist just as tightly as commercial operations. But due to the 2012 act the only way the FAA can regulate is to separate hobbyist into other "regulate-able" categories. I predicted this would happen a few years ago when we first learned that the FAA could not regulate "hobby" aircraft. I told several people, "They will figure a way to regulate as much as they can (and in some cases a little more until they get slapped)" and it's our job to either figure out how to play inside the Hobby box or go and get the required certifications.
So basically you're a hobbyist so long as you fit entirely into that small box but the first time you step out of it you are no longer a hobbyist.
Loretta Alkalay is an experienced Aviation Attorney and she is retired from the FAA. She has an intimate understanding of the FAA from both sides of the fence and to date I've not seen her miss a single detail in her predictions. She is a HUGE asset to our community and highly regarded in the industry from all levels. If I were a betting man I'd put my money on her predictions/suggestions. She's really that good.
One thing to keep in mind here.... When Congress tied the FAA's hands in regards to regulating "Model Aircraft" (this was designed to protect R/C aircraft flying who do so safely in a controlled environment and who really don't need any regulation) it created this mess of confusion. If it weren't for that act in 2012 you can bet your bottom dollar that the FAA would be regulating hobbyist just as tightly as commercial operations. But due to the 2012 act the only way the FAA can regulate is to separate hobbyist into other "regulate-able" categories. I predicted this would happen a few years ago when we first learned that the FAA could not regulate "hobby" aircraft. I told several people, "They will figure a way to regulate as much as they can (and in some cases a little more until they get slapped)" and it's our job to either figure out how to play inside the Hobby box or go and get the required certifications.
Seems to me there will be many that simply ignore all this and "take" their chances.. Similar to those that drive without a DL and/or insurance.
Well said.. I'll just add there is another way, however unlikely..... Change/remove the people in power that have the propensity to ignore the law..
I can see this to. But your chances of getting away with driving without a DL/insurance is higher I think because drone pilots are spotable. My question is what would be the consequences if you get caught with out a certificate? I'm thinking a fine, confiscation of your bird, or possible jail time? I guess that would depend on how the local law enforces it. For me, I don't know about taking that chance. There are people out there that are just waiting to turn you in. Right now they can't do anything about it at least until possibly Monday.
Or to back them down and remove their overreach.
But in today's bigger government world that might not be possible...
As much as we think we are a big group of people the reality is that UAS operators (both hobby and commercial) don't hold a lot of weight in the big picture. We want to think we can push our weight around and get/do what we want but I can tell you without hesitation that the first time a manned aircraft is struck by one of our RC toys the full weight and power of the FAA will come crashing down (pun intended).
The reason being is that if the major airlines and aviation industry lose a single $$ because of John Q. Public being afraid to fly in manned aircraft the amount of lobbying and $$$ that will be thrown against this industry will be mind blowing. It won't matter how many attorneys we hire, how much we clinch our fists and pout if people hold back from flying in manned aircraft we will pay the price dearly. It doesn't matter if this happens in NYC or in some far off country right now we are living under the "glass umbrella" that nothing really bad could happen from our "toy" aircraft. As soon as this is proven wrong to ANY degree we will see insanely tight regulations and very restrictive legislation.
I don't believe we are a big group at all. I do think it is sad that our government is so out of control they can overreach on anything and it takes decades to reel them back in, if it is possible at all. And even reeling them back in means they just overreach in a different way.
Sometimes I wonder if I want to be a test case or not....
I completely agree and this has been proven many times recently. We are on the same side of that fence for sure.
I think if the government makes things too tight, some will leave the hobby, some will still fly but not comply with the rules and take a chance. I guess with the newer DJI drones you have to register before you can even start up the drone. I have 3 P1s and basically invisible to the system but I am registered on the first day. If a person is flying a drone and not complying with the rules and is confronted with the law and facing a stiff fine, they could ditch the tx in a bush and walk away. They could actually have home point somewhere else to land and avoid the law. Another thing on this FPV thing. If it does pass that FPV is not something a hobby flyer can do, is it ok to have FPV on a lcd screen but not for the pilot, but for others to watch or glance at but flying in VLOS. I know its early in the game to get answers that are accurate. Soon you may need a permit to chew gum.
Well whatever the Gov'ts agenda is if its to steer people away from drone flying in general, then they are on the right track. I'm a recreational flyer and the thought of compensation did enter my mind and I totally understand having to go through the certifications to get compensated. I have fun flying and just looking at the footage I get. I create little videos that my family and fiends can check out. If they are going to make it where I have to pass a test and pay a yearly fee.....just to have fun....then honestly the Gov't did their job on me because I'll probably have to find another hobby...which will probably end up being regulated at some point to. Like you said....we'll need a permit to chew gum.
I was shopping around for a P3A but now I think I better hold off on that until I know for sure if I'm going to pay to fly from now on.
just look at all the racing drones those people are going to have to get a 107 there's goes there sport
This is what is still on the FAA website listed if you fly for fun
Fly for Fun
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Fly for Fun
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
It still states we can fly with fpv as long as we maintain los. At least thats how I interpreted it.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Similar threads
- Sticky
