P3 scrutiny from the FAA and the NTSB From Tahoe Ed

[envisionabove]

Yesterday Tahoe Ed from RC-Groups informed the P3 forum that they have been visited by the FAA and the NTSB at DJI Offices were he works.

What were they looking for?
Quote:" 333 exemptions and the license to operate in a controlled air space. We had the former but not the latter. That was an issue for our vendor. We were teathered at 8' and they had objections. I just wanted to let our users know that they are getting serious about drones. Especially about public displays." End Quote

Seeing posts I reached the 5 Miles limit or I hit 400 feet today on this site, one mite want to keep bragging rights on the low.

It seems the P3 is under scrutiny being one of the more advanced public saturated quads currently on the market.

This is similar to the Facebook deletions but is hitting closer to the more advanced forums like DJI Pilots and RC-Groups.

 

[tcope]

Seeing posts I reached the 5 Miles limit or I hit 400 feet today on this site, one mite want to keep bragging rights on the low.

As has been mentioned, doing these things is against FAA _recommendations_. That is, it's perfectly legal.

The FAA would look at commercial use and flying in a reckless manner but there is no indication that they are looking at people for "violating" recommendations.

 

[envisionabove]

No that's a good point! the so called recommended limits is just that now, I think they really need to get this licencing cleared up fast before no one knows what is and what is not the correct way to fly.
I found it quite interesting they Visited a DJI Supported Office to snoop. I wonder what or if RC groups gave them everything they asked for information wise?

 

[Jeff48920]

The truth is that, like many other federal agencies without specific authority, the FAA will try to rattle people into compliance with their "recommendations" instead of doing the hard work getting the recommendations codified.
The problem is that if you don't cooperate with them your lives can be made miserable by harassment.
Flying a "tethered" aircraft with an 8 foot maximum in a restricted airspace without a permit is a technical violation BUT it is a chickenshit harassment technique and shows the intent of the agency.
My takeaway from all of this is to censor your public disclosures and just enjoy your accomplishments.
Use the forums to discuss issues related solely to "within recommendation" issues and set up informal networks of friends to discuss other matters.
Just my two cents.

 

[ScottyT]

It's only a matter of time I expect. People love gloating and showing off on social media and it will only take a few to ruin it for the rest of you.

The guidelines you have in the USA are still pretty good even if they came in to law as they are. Other countries have already got tough laws in place, or soon will have, and the related fines are already filling the bureaucratic coffers.

 

[F6Rider]

There was a huge front page story on drones in the Sacramento Bee yesterday, discussed the pro's and con's and was fairly well balanced, but did list several cases of drones invading the controlled airspace around fires. If you fly a drone around a forest or grass fire you need your *** kicked, you are putting lives in danger as that airspace is chock full of air tankers, smoke jumpers, helicopter spotters and news copters, all in communication with a controller. In California a drone invading the area around a fire will cause the grounding of those air tankers, with all kinds of ripple effects. And if they catch you (just a matter of time) just hand them your wallet. There is already a bill introduced in the Senate to address this and pass on the cost of grounding the tankers to the drone pilot, man that could ruin your whole day.

 

[SteveMann]

... instead of doing the hard work getting the recommendations codified.

You really need to learn how rules are promulgated. The FAA is prohibited by Congress (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012) to make any rules regarding hobby flight. FAA could license hobby operators, but the FAA can't do it without authorization from Congress.

The FCC already licenses Amateur Radio Operators using Volunteer Examiners. There's no reason that they couldn't do the same with hobby aircraft operators. At the very least it would assure that operators have read the rules.

 

[Jeff48920]

You really need to learn how rules are promulgated. The FAA is prohibited by Congress (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012) to make any rules regarding hobby flight. FAA could license hobby operators, but the FAA can't do it without authorization from Congress.

The FCC already licenses Amateur Radio Operators using Volunteer Examiners. There's no reason that they couldn't do the same with hobby aircraft operators. At the very least it would assure that operators have read the rules.

Dear Steve

With all due respect.... learn to read. My post reflects this sentiment exactly. I have a pretty good idea how administrative law works. I was a government lawyer for over 15 years and dealt with many agencies.

 

[Andy Collins]

I don't want to get into the "rules or suggestions" debate, but I have dealt with the FCC for 25 years in the radio industry,,guess what, there are things that might just be a 'suggestion', however if you don't follow it, your life won't be the same.

The FAA has a staff of attorneys,,if they come after you and you want to fight them, you better have a 6 figure budget for attorneys defending yourself.

Just play by the rules and make your life simplier, and it makes everyone that wants to fly a quad's life easier.

Congress is hearing about the small percentage of drone flyers that don't follow the rules,, you do NOT want the FAA going to them and asking for laws to be passed by Congress,,I promise you, they would be so restrictive you would just use your drone for a paperweight.

 

[tcope]

Just play by the rules and make your life simplier, and it makes everyone that wants to fly a quad's life easier.

Play by the rules, requests or recommendations? That is what the issue is about. What you are stating is that everyone should just do what other people tell them and never question their authority in the matter.

For example, if we let Fienstein have her way, DJI and every other drone manufacture would be forced out of business.

 

[acherman]

So much for Freedom. [emoji6]

 

[Jeff48920]

Here is the bottom line. If you choose to challenge authority that is great...Ghandi and King did it. They also were willing to pay the price. Go ahead and be the test cases. We all will stand back and root for you.
If you choose to resist in other ways, contact your representatives and keep NTSB and FAA from promulgating unduly restrictive UAV laws.
If you just want to be rebellious and flaunt authority without a firm knowledge of what that authority is... Knock yourselves out.
One of these days though, someone somewhere is going to screw the pooch big time and knocking some poor woman in Seattle out is going to look like chicken feed.
Participatory government is possible if we, as a group, band together and propose realistic and enforceable regulations. Anyone interested in forming such a group contact me and I will see what I can do about setting up a private FB group established to discuss our thoughts and plan to lobby the agencies and congress.

 

[Jeff48920]

Following up on my last post, I just established a Facebook page for a group I am calling "Committee for the Establishment of Reasonable UAV Regulations - CERUR". It is an open group. Feel free to make suggestions there.

 

[ChuckMRN]

[QUOTE="SteveMann, post: 446881
The FCC already licenses Amateur Radio Operators using Volunteer Examiners. There's no reason that they couldn't do the same with hobby aircraft operators. At the very least it would assure that operators have read the rules.[/QUOTE]
This is interesting... I am a ham radio op and when you get your license your personal info is posted on the web. The ham community is encouraged to do "Self Policing" and as far I can tell the community is pretty aggressive about it. It's like the town I live in in California publishing the phone numbers for neighbor to call on neighbor for not following watering restrictions. Good thing/Bad thing? You decide....

 

[envisionabove]

[QUOTE="SteveMann, post: 446881
The FCC already licenses Amateur Radio Operators using Volunteer Examiners. There's no reason that they couldn't do the same with hobby aircraft operators. At the very least it would assure that operators have read the rules.

This is interesting... I am a ham radio op and when you get your license your personal info is posted on the web. The ham community is encouraged to do "Self Policing" and as far I can tell the community is pretty aggressive about it. It's like the town I live in in California publishing the phone numbers for neighbor to call on neighbor for not following watering restrictions. Good thing/Bad thing? You decide....[/QUOTE]

W6TJL

So yes they self police here in San Diego not in a police mode but Educational mode. The FCC has a presents and do go after violators. The testing could easily be adapted into an FAA format. Flying tests? I feel RTFM and study some basic principles should cover what the FAA would feel sufficient for a large portion of the Hobbyists to fly for entertainment, then a more robust test (exam) for commercial usage with legal responsibility and more focused safety measures that should apply for that purpose.

I really hope they are looking into this option or format, but then we have the BIG BOX sort of MEGA Corporations like Amazon trying to do what our level would not be doing. If they lump us in with them were going to be SOL on most things commercial based. Simply flying around a house or golf course has such a lower foot print to what they are trying to do.

Rambling as well.... But Companies Like Amazon are going hurt us smaller pilots. Sad

 

[flyNfrank]

Considering all circumstances, everything is flowing pretty good here in the US. Yeah there is some that have gotten out of line on occasions. But for the most part it is moving along not so bad.

As for the discussion on the FAA fining drone pilots for violating whatever,....all involved on each side should look for ways to co-exist. Most drone operators at a tragic event are generally just trying to help out in their own way. They are not meaning any wrong doing, it just works out that away. That particular instance should involve a drone pilot who has went through some type of flight training to be around other safety operations. A trained drone pilot would have the ability to help save lives in ways that no other operation is able to.

Things take time to develop. There is so much that can benefit if the right people understand we need to co-exist instead of driving enthusiast away.

 

[Oso]

There was a huge front page story on drones in the Sacramento Bee yesterday, discussed the pro's and con's and was fairly well balanced, but did list several cases of drones invading the controlled airspace around fires. If you fly a drone around a forest or grass fire you need your *** kicked, you are putting lives in danger as that airspace is chock full of air tankers, smoke jumpers, helicopter spotters and news copters, all in communication with a controller. In California a drone invading the area around a fire will cause the grounding of those air tankers, with all kinds of ripple effects. And if they catch you (just a matter of time) just hand them your wallet. There is already a bill introduced in the Senate to address this and pass on the cost of grounding the tankers to the drone pilot, man that could ruin your whole day.

Thanks for the tip on that story from yesterday's Bee. I pulled the Bee out of my recycle bin and was able to find it. I don't know how I missed it, and on the front page no less!

For others in case you are interested:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article27021067.html

 

[F6Rider]

Yep, that's the one, my own Representative is the one pushing these bills, raising the fine for flying in a restricted fire area to $5000 from the existing $1000, and or 6 months in jail.

 

[PaulMuns]

Wasn't that drone in California flying at 10,400 feet? My guess would be a military or other government entity operating said drone.

 

[jcknows0]

It's only a matter of time I expect. People love gloating and showing off on social media and it will only take a few to ruin it for the rest of you.

The guidelines you have in the USA are still pretty good even if they came in to law as they are. Other countries have already got tough laws in place, or soon will have, and the related fines are already filling the bureaucratic coffers.

Yeah I was looking at Israel's policy just in case I visit. While on the whole fair outside Jerusalem (150m height), I would be deathly afraid of having my drone shot out of the air or being mistaken for a baddie.