New Regulations

[BigAl07]

It's great that 107 flyers can get instant authorization, but its my understaniding the "fly for fun" flyers apparently have to wait until Nov for LAANC to be implemented according to several videos I watched.
Doesn't make sense to make a law effective in May, but cant utilize until Nov. Does anyone have another take on this?

That's accurate. Keep in mind that you're potentially waiting 180 days for LAANC to be available to you. When Part 107 went into effect it was almost 2 years before LAANC was created and released to us. And even then it was a partial roll-out and it was another 90 days before my local airport was included. We had to apply for each airspace and wait up to 90 per request and then it could have been a DENIED request and you had to correct your errors and re-submit and wait your turn again.

In the Big Picture waiting up to 180 days for a hobby flight really isn't that big of a deal... really.

As stated above, if you "need" to fly before the 180 days "estimate" you still have options but they may not be exactly the ones you want. With Part 107 we had to wait regardless and many operators lost considerable revenue but mostly from "Lack of Planning Ahead".

 

[sar104]

Well, I notice I can change my 107 to fly for fun in AirMap. On my next job I need ATC I’ll see what happens when I try it under fly for fun and post back.

It won't send you a code, even though you submit the flight plan.

 

[D Greg]

Waiting 180 days is a long time when visiting an area 2000 miles away. Would not want to wait that long to get the video/photos.
Wanted to take a photo of a large family gathering from about 25 feet. Never able to get all faces when eye level. Never a problem at 25 feet.
Again, I certainly agree more stringent laws are needed. Just wish they were thought out and offered a smooth transition before passing them. But since I am Retired military, I certainly understand how the Government "works"..

 

[wcw1223]

Waiting 180 days is a long time when visiting an area 2000 miles away. Would not want to wait that long to get the video/photos.
Wanted to take a photo of a large family gathering from about 25 feet. Never able to get all faces when eye level. Never a problem at 25 feet.
Again, I certainly agree more stringent laws are needed. Just wish they were thought out and offered a smooth transition before passing them. But since I am Retired military, I certainly understand how the Government "works"..

Thank you for your service

 

[HFI]

I am a Part 107 pilot. I can understand the FAA wanting to reduce the workload on controllers by no longer allowing hobbyists to call the tower at controlled airports, but there is not yet any guidance for hobbyists on how to determine that you are indeed within controlled airspace. B4UFly is pending updates and LAANC is not yet available to the hobbyist. Yes, third party apps may help (e.g., AirMap) but why the lag between changing the rules and providing the needed support? I personally don’t think that the number of calls to tower staff have ever been very high or disruptive. The FAA has not provided any data demonstrating this that I am aware of.

Finally, I am often frustrated when the government’s response to rule-breakers and idiots is to make more rules. Typically this only put more restrictions on those who bother to follow the rules.

 

[offroadpyro]

It's confusing now the law changed.on UAV app it now shows some airport space that used to be yellow now green.But on air map it still shows them As yellow not green.Also neither app matches the DJI maps so I can see problems until DJI and LAANC are synced.

 

[sar104]

I am a Part 107 pilot. I can understand the FAA wanting to reduce the workload on controllers by no longer allowing hobbyists to call the tower at controlled airports, but there is not yet any guidance for hobbyists on how to determine that you are indeed within controlled airspace. B4UFly is pending updates and LAANC is not yet available to the hobbyist. Yes, third party apps may help (e.g., AirMap) but why the lag between changing the rules and providing the needed support? I personally don’t think that the number of calls to tower staff have ever been very high or disruptive. The FAA has not provided any data demonstrating this that I am aware of.

Finally, I am often frustrated when the government’s response to rule-breakers and idiots is to make more rules. Typically this only put more restrictions on those who bother to follow the rules.

Hobbyists are supposed to use the same method to determine airspace as Part 107 pilots - consult the sectional charts.

 

[Adamborz]

I still say people have been flying RC aircraft for decades... now the FAA decides it needs to step in? The laws only affect the law abiding, the idiots flying their drones near airports obviously don’t care about laws anyhow and won’t abide by them no matter how strict.

I would be curious to know if there is any data over the past decades about RC aircraft colliding with airplanes... I know now there are cameras onboard but there have been cameras onboard for years before the FAA ever stepped in. Of course the self leveling and such has gotten better...

 

[sar104]

I still say people have been flying RC aircraft for decades... now the FAA decides it needs to step in? The laws only affect the law abiding, the idiots flying their drones near airports obviously don’t care about laws anyhow and won’t abide by them no matter how strict.

I would be curious to know if there is any data over the past decades about RC aircraft colliding with airplanes... I know now there are cameras onboard but there have been cameras onboard for years before the FAA ever stepped in. Of course the self leveling and such has gotten better...

You are ignoring far too many factors here.

Firstly - all laws are only obeyed by the law abiding, all laws are broken, and therefore all laws are pointless - that's your conclusion? Are you sure about that?

Secondly, flying RC aircraft was a very niche activity, mostly performed at designated fields that were located so as not to conflict with air traffic, and with an effective level of self-regulation. In other words it didn't need much formal regulation. The number of consumer drones dwarfs the number of traditional RC aircraft, and they are flown, mostly due to ignorance but with some obvious cases of reckless disregard for air safety, in locations hazardous to air traffic. So suggesting that since traditional RC aircraft didn't need regulation therefore consumer drone use doesn't need regulation is clearly wrong - regulation is needed when responsible self-regulation fails.

 

[Adamborz]

and therefore all laws are pointless - that's your conclusion?

Ahhh, I remember you ?. Don’t know where I said all laws are pointless,...

 

[sar104]

Ahhh, I remember you ?.

I'm sure you do. It's a real drag when people point out flaws in your reasoning, isn't it?

Don’t know where I said all laws are pointless,...

You wrote:

"The laws only affect the law abiding, the idiots (flying their drones near airports) obviously don’t care about laws anyhow and won’t abide by them no matter how strict."​

If your conclusion is that this particular class of law-breaker doesn't care about the laws and won't abide by them no matter how strict, then why would that conclusion not apply to all kinds of law-breaker, breaking any law?

 

[Adamborz]

I'm sure you do. It's a real drag when people point out flaws in your reasoning,

I wouldn’t know... My reasoning doesn’t have flaws ha!!!

Now, let’s just say for example a person lives .5 miles from an airport and got a drone for his/ her birthday and decides to fly it in his/her backyard at 15’ high to take a selfie for IG. Bam, law breaker.... this guy/ girl tries to be a good person, doesn’t speed, wears their seatbelt and doesn’t drink and drive, and pays their taxes but now they are inadvertently breaking federal laws! Better lock him up and throw away the keys! silly!

I have bigger things to worry about, like jay walkers and people tearing the tags off their mattresses...

That’s a joke by the way... don’t go quoting me on that last part.... my mattress tags are all still on lol...

 

[sar104]

I wouldn’t know... My reasoning doesn’t have flaws ha!!!

Now, let’s just say for example a person lives .5 miles from an airport and got a drone for his/ her birthday and decides to fly it in his/her backyard at 15’ high to take a selfie for IG. Bam, law breaker.... this guy/ girl tries to be a good person, doesn’t speed, wears their seatbelt and doesn’t drink and drive, and pays their taxes but now they are inadvertently breaking federal laws! Better lock him up and throw away the keys! silly!

I have bigger things to worry about, like jay walkers and people tearing the tags off their mattresses...

That’s a joke by the way... don’t go quoting me on that last part.... my mattress tags are all still on lol...

Okay - but that's a different question about the detail of the regulation rather than arguing that it should not exist at all. And no one is going to get locked up for your scenario - just because it is a Federal regulation doesn't mean that.

Assuming that you are simply advocating that flying in controlled airspace should be legal - what exactly are you proposing? A blanket exemption below building height perhaps? A 50 ft limit within a certain distance of an airport? LAANC is simply a more graded approach to exactly that, and once it becomes available to recreational flyers, does that seem reasonable to you?

 

[Adamborz]

Rules, sure. Making me get a $150 license to sell photos... every two years is crazy. I can sell photos from my dslr without a license.

If the FAA doesn’t have the teeth to enforce the laws ( you said nobody is getting locked up) then that just fosters law breakers...

Case in point, Reading, PA made all parking tickets civil, not criminal. Now nobody gets locked up, they get bad credit. Do you really think the guy with 100 parking tickets in his glove box cares about bad credit? Take away the chance of going to jail, nobody follows the rules.

Keep making silly drone laws, people are going to break them... hey it’s only 15’ or 20’ or??? These laws are like gateway violations... break small ones now, hey break bigger ones later.

How about this, throw the book at the guy flying around the airport, and leave mom and dad alone filming their kids in the back yard.

How about making you show proof you took an online education on drones before you can buy one.

How about not selling drones that’ll fly 4 miles away from the controller unless you have a commercial license.

How about (and I KEEP SAYING THIS). Make a person prove they can fly drones to get a 107 certificate).

Be honest, even without these specific drone laws, there are enough other laws you could arrest a person who is flying a drone at an airport disrupting operations without thiese silly new laws.

If a person, with intent, does willfully and knowingly fly a drone in a dangerous manner.... that’s how it should read.

Dad taking a photo at 15’ in his backyard shouldn’t ever be breaking federal law, this is the USA not Russia or N Korea.

My opinion, I have my 107 because I follow the rules. I still think it’s silly. My obtaining that 107 certification did not make me 1 ounce a better or safer drone pilot.

1 last scenario for you: You got hired (you’re all legal and have your 107) to do something commercial with your drone. You didn’t have the forethought to register a future 107 flight at your job site through LAANC. So now you drive an hour, get to your remote job site and have zero cell service to go online and get ATC authorization to fly. You’re pretty sure you’re not near any airport and will only need to fly at 50’. Do you fly anyway??

Will the average Joe fly anyway without ATC authorization?

Prohibition was a law, segregation, women not voting, etc. just because you can make a law, doesn’t mean it’s a good law.

Sorry went off on a tangent there but not flying at an airport makes sense. Throw the book at that idiot. But, if there is a full size aircraft at 15’ in my back yard... I won’t fly my drone... promise. This is kinda like putting a 20 mph speed limit on a 55 mph road. People are going to disregard the laws. Make a few good laws, people will follow them. Make a million silly laws... people might bend a few.

Sorry, had a few beers, but I’m over 21 and not flying my drone so don’t tell the FAA!!

 

[sar104]

Rules, sure. Making me get a $150 license to sell photos... every two years is crazy. I can sell photos from my dslr without a license.

The license is to fly non-recreationally, not to sell photos.

If the FAA doesn’t have the teeth to enforce the laws ( you said nobody is getting locked up) then that just fosters law breakers...

Case in point, Reading, PA made all parking tickets civil, not criminal. Now nobody gets locked up, they get bad credit. Do you really think the guy with 100 parking tickets in his glove box cares about bad credit? Take away the chance of going to jail, nobody follows the rules.

Keep making silly drone laws, people are going to break them... hey it’s only 15’ or 20’ or??? These laws are like gateway violations... break small ones now, hey break bigger ones later.

So since it is tough to enforce - just make it legal?

How about this, throw the book at the guy flying around the airport, and leave mom and dad alone filming their kids in the back yard.

You don't think that's not exactly what will happen?

How about making you show proof you took an online education on drones before you can buy one.

Hang on - are you proposing yet another law?

How about not selling drones that’ll fly 4 miles away from the controller unless you have a commercial license.

And another one?

How about (and I KEEP SAYING THIS). Make a person prove they can fly drones to get a 107 certificate).

OK - the test fee probably just went up by a factor of 10 - are you good with that? For someone who doesn't like the existing laws you sure are enthusiastic about a whole load of new ones.

Be honest, even without these specific drone laws, there are enough other laws you could arrest a person who is flying a drone at an airport disrupting operations without thiese silly new laws.

Which laws would those be? So make flying in controlled airspace without clearance legal and just use some vaguely-worded criteria for arresting people?

If a person, with intent, does willfully and knowingly fly a drone in a dangerous manner.... that’s how it should read.

That law already exists. You like that one?

Dad taking a photo at 15’ in his backyard shouldn’t ever be breaking federal law, this is the USA not Russia or N Korea.

Perhaps you should suggest a specific exemption clause in Section 349.

My opinion, I have my 107 because I follow the rules. I still think it’s silly. My obtaining that 107 certification did not make me 1 ounce a better or safer drone pilot.

I can see why you would think that, since you seem to have forgotten all that you learned.

1 last scenario for you: You got hired (you’re all legal and have your 107) to do something commercial with your drone. You didn’t have the forethought to register a future 107 flight at your job site through LAANC. So now you drive an hour, get to your remote job site and have zero cell service to go online and get ATC authorization to fly. You’re pretty sure you’re not near any airport and will only need to fly at 50’. Do you fly anyway??

Great example. With that level of competence you might show up at your job site having forgotten to bring your drone. Do you fly anyway?

Will the average Joe fly anyway without ATC authorization?

If he doesn't care about following the law - maybe.

Prohibition was a law, segregation, women not voting, etc. just because you can make a law, doesn’t mean it’s a good law.

And just because you can make an analogy doesn't mean it's a good analogy.

Sorry went off on a tangent there but not flying at an airport makes sense. Throw the book at that idiot. But, if there is a full size aircraft at 15’ in my back yard... I won’t fly my drone... promise. This is kinda like putting a 20 mph speed limit on a 55 mph road. People are going to disregard the laws. Make a few good laws, people will follow them. Make a million silly laws... people might bend a few.

A great illustration of the futility of trying to debate a subject with someone who sees nothing but the two ends of the spectrum - endangering aircraft by flying recklessly around an airport and dad taking photos at 15 ft in his backyard. Do you really not see the problems and complexity of the vast range of scenarios in between, or are you imagining that it's some kind of clever argument to ignore them?

Sorry, had a few beers, but I’m over 21 and not flying my drone so don’t tell the FAA!!

Just be grateful that you are not responsible for figuring out aviation safety, or probably any other kind for that matter. Much easier to just drink beer and complain.

 

[N017RW]

The last sentence, above, probably explains numerous similar posts/threads here.

 

[Adamborz]

Except I’ve been a cop for 29 years and see lots of stupid laws written by out of touch people. At least I enforce laws, not just type on a keyboard.... sounds like you drank the cool aid and think having a 107 makes you a great safe “pilot” and more of a man! I’ve seen a lot of laws causing more problems than they solve....but I won’t bother trying to explain to you. But just look at all the school shootings, lack of respect from kids, there’s no repercussions for their actions because the government stepped in to prevent abuse. Yes the intentions were good, but it went way overboard now kids aren’t being taught to respect anything....

Kids to parents, if you touch me I’ll have you arrested.... kids to teacher same thing. Now fast forward 30 years and we have a great big problem in our hands.

Yes the intent of the law was to not abuse kids, but a lot of “enforcers” read it black and white and arrested parents who paddle their kids when they are bad. That is not the intent... just like that dad flying st 15’ in his backyard... there will be enforcers making examples of these people... mark my words!!

And since you can’t seem to comprehend English, I wasn’t proposing additional rules, I was suggesting what should have been from the beginning. Maybe the FAA should worry about full size aircraft instead of ignoring obvious safety issues like in the 737 MAX.

Now, keyboard warriors, I’m done responding to you. Make sure you follow every law the government gives you... because i assure you there will be “officials” that will throw the book at you for the slightest thing. I’ve know people like that. If it’s black and white... there will be no exceptions.

Just remember you asked for the laws.

Oh, and I guess you never speed or roll a stop sign or cross on a red signal, or cross mid block.

Oh and as far as there already being laws on the books, how about risking or causing catastrophe, disorderly conduct, trespassing, possessing instrument of crime (the drone if interfering with airplanes)...

The FAA can have online training like they do now... you enter your drivers license #, ss# etc to prove you are you. Wouldn’t cost anything that they aren’t already paying for online stuff. The testing fee for me to sell photos as a side job is ridiculous. I took a boat safety course online... I take my continuing education updates every year online to maintain certification as a police officer for free. No cost, but to fly drones commercially is harder than staying certified as a police officer. That just seems silly.

My opinions are mine, you obviously disagree. Good thing I’m the one in charge of enforcing them... you’d most likely being the one throwing the book at people for the letter of the law, not the spirit. Have a nice life; I was exempted from 107 but I got it anyway. I like to know what I’m talking about. You have no idea what being a police officer is about. I see some abuse their power.. which is why new overbearing laws scare me.

 

[Adamborz]

One last post by me on this:

“The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,”” wrote Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, “yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.”

Do you know justice Kavanaugh? I wonder what would happen if a hobbist appealed to the Supreme Court.

Rules are good, but overbearing government regulation should scare everybody.

My UAS are registered, I’m a AMA member forever and I follow the law because that’s who I am. I have my 107 and now use it commercially. But I still think having the FAA enacting drone laws is ridiculous, apparently Justice Kavanaugh agrees. There are plenty of laws already.

 

[sar104]

One last post by me on this:

“The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,”” wrote Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, “yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.”

Kavanaugh was correct, which is why it was struck down in federal court. But then the registration requirement was reinstated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, and so it's now not only legal, but a requirement for the FAA to implement it. There's considerable irony in your attempts to lecture on the law when you don't even know what current law is.

Do you know justice Kavanaugh? I wonder what would happen if a hobbist appealed to the Supreme Court.

It would get thrown out because the registration requirement is now established law.

My UAS are registered, I’m a AMA member forever and I follow the law because that’s who I am. I have my 107 and now use it commercially. But I still think having the FAA enacting drone laws is ridiculous, apparently Justice Kavanaugh agrees. There are plenty of laws already.

The difference is that unlike you, Kavanaugh undoubtedly understands the difference between the FAA violating the 2012 law and the FAA implementing the 2017 law that superseded it. The FAA doesn't enact laws - it implements them, sometimes correctly, sometimes not.

 

[Adamborz]

Kavanaugh was correct, which is why it was struck down in federal court. But then the registration requirement was reinstated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, and so it's now not only legal, but a requirement for the FAA to implement it. There's considerable irony in your attempts to lecture on the law when you don't even know what current law is.



It would get thrown out because the registration requirement is now established law.



The difference is that unlike you, Kavanaugh undoubtedly understands the difference between the FAA violating the 2012 law and the FAA implementing the 2017 law that superseded it. The FAA doesn't enact laws - it implements them, sometimes correctly, sometimes not.

Unfortunately, my point was lost on you.

Don’t worry though, when it gets to the point where the law makes it too restrictive for you to play with your drone... I’ll still be exempted!!