PBS Feature

[Whitard]

Here is a link to last night's "drone" piece on the Newshour---

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/drone-in ... tion-lags/

As usual for this show, the Newshour provides a sober, educational look at the issues of privacy and safety of UAV's and the evolving technology.

 

[sdtrojan]

Here is a link to last night's "drone" piece on the Newshour---

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/drone-in ... tion-lags/

As usual for this show, the Newshour provides a sober, educational look at the issues of privacy and safety of UAV's and the evolving technology.

Good piece

 

[garrock]

The FAA spokes person in that video makes a point to say they are not regulating how drones are used... just the safety.

So... why is the FAA claiming they can't be used for commercial purposes ??? Only personal use.

 

[derrickduff]

The FAA spokes person in that video makes a point to say they are not regulating how drones are used... just the safety.

So... why is the FAA claiming they can't be used for commercial purposes ??? Only personal use.

Because everybody knows commercial operators with liability insurance, a reputation, customers and a livelihood on the line have absolutely no concern for safety!

 

[msinger]

So... why is the FAA claiming they can't be used for commercial purposes ???

Because there are existing FAA regulations and US laws for commercial aircraft use. The FAA is categorizing UAS as aircraft, so they must follow all existing regulations/laws.

 

[garrock]

Video TimeStamp: 8:45 Listen carefully to officially what the FAA says:

• 
  "The FAA has one focus, we don't regulate anything that fly's in our air space for its use, what we regulate for is safety. With this technology, that's where our focus needs to be as well."

So the FAA should live up to their words and butt out of the small business personal use aspect.


From a liability stand-point, small business For Profit entity's have far more at risk than personal use.
This notion of "For Profit" being extra special over "Personal Use" is very ... very... Last Century in thinking.

The FAA can write all the words they want. But, they do make the law. And, they have no real power to enforce their edicts other than slap a law suit on someone and see if it scares them; which further distracts the FAA from fulfilling the mandate congress gave them in February 2012.

Does anyone recall what the FAA said in late 2012 whey they failed to deliver the list of test sites???

• 
  They said: .. "Before the FAA can do anything further, the privacy issue must be addressed."

So then they wanted to be the voice of privacy... whatever.

 

[derrickduff]

So... why is the FAA claiming they can't be used for commercial purposes ???

Because there are existing FAA regulations and US laws for commercial aircraft use. The FAA is categorizing UAS as aircraft, so they must follow all existing regulations/laws.

That's the problem. They are not considered aircraft in the same way when used for recreation. But when used commercially they suddenly fall into the same class as real aircraft???

garrock was pointing out the inconsistency with the FAA spokesperson in the video stating they are only regulating safety where in reality they are very much concerned with exactly how one uses their UAV and real aircraft for that matter. Just ask a private pilot about compensation received from passengers. A UAV flying over a field more than 5 miles from an airport and no crowds around, perfectly legit. Getting paid for the footage of the flight, illegal. That sounds a lot like how the UAV is used to me.

 

[SteveMann]

The FAA can write all the words they want. But, they do make the law.

Just a small clarification. Only Congress can make laws, the agencies, in this case the FAA, make the rules to enforce the law.

You should write a letter to your congresscritter and politely ask them to light a fire under the FAA. Use a piece of paper and a stamp - a written, signed letter is worth more than a thousand e-Mails. If a few hundred of us do this from various parts of the country, they may actually think about doing something.

Yes, sometimes my imagination reaches into Fantasyland - Congress doing something, LOL :lol: .

 

[msinger]

So... why is the FAA claiming they can't be used for commercial purposes ???

Because there are existing FAA regulations and US laws for commercial aircraft use. The FAA is categorizing UAS as aircraft, so they must follow all existing regulations/laws.

That's the problem. They are not considered aircraft in the same way when used for recreation. But when used commercially they suddenly fall into the same class as real aircraft???

I don't think this is the case. UAS that are used for recreation are also aircraft. They don't have the same regulations/laws as aircraft used for commercial purposes though.

 

[derrickduff]

Your splitting hairs. I didn't say they weren't considered aircraft, in the FAA's eyes. They are not the same as a real aircraft, no 12 year old is going to get a Cessna for christmas and fly it in his back yard. However, once a UAV is used commercially they automatically fall into the same class as a Cessna, requiring a license. This is the inconsistency so many of us have a problem with.

 

[msinger]

However, once a UAV is used commercially they automatically fall into the same class as a Cessna, requiring a license.

That's not the FAA's fault. A US law requires that commercial aircraft pilots hold a proper certificate. They are simply enforcing the law. It would make more sense to create a new certificate for micro UAVs, but it's easier (and lazier) to just randomly select an existing pilot license.

 

[garrock]

The FAA can write all the words they want. But, they do NOT make the law.

Just a small clarification. Only Congress can make laws, the agencies, in this case the FAA, make the rules to enforce the law.

Opps. error on my part. I left out an important word.

 

[ianwood]

However, once a UAV is used commercially they automatically fall into the same class as a Cessna, requiring a license.

That's not the FAA's fault. A US law requires that commercial aircraft pilots hold a proper certificate. They are simply enforcing the law. It would make more sense to create a new certificate for micro UAVs, but it's easier (and lazier) to just randomly select an existing pilot license.

Asserting that an RC toy is a plane and only when used commercially and suddenly after years of not doing so is the FAA's fault. It's illogical, inconsistent and despite the Pirker outcome, almost entirely without merit. The new rules are not in effect. They're not even proposed yet. Only the FAA's new interpretation of the old rules exists. It defies logic and it exists only because it fits nicely into a giant gap they haven't yet bothered to fill.

If Congress or the White House doesn't step in and fix this, it will be settled in the courts and the FAA will lose. Outside of the NTSB (who are clearly too close to the FAA/DOT), their case holds no water. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that.

Meanwhile, an entire industry atrophies.

 

[msinger]

Asserting that an RC toy is a plane and only when used commercially

An RC toy is an aircraft, not a plane. Under 14 CFR 1.1, "aircraft" means, "a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." It's always an aircraft -- does not matter if you're using it for fun or commercially.

It's illogical, inconsistent and despite the Pirker outcome, almost entirely without merit. The new rules are not in effect.

Many FAA regulations are definitely illogical and inconsistent when applied to UAVs. The existing regulations are in effect though. I'm sure you already know this though because the FAA is trying to enforce them every chance they get.

Only the FAA's new interpretation of the old rules exists.

Kind of. But, the existing regulations apply to all aircraft. That is why the FAA is requiring people to get an exemption if they cannot follow any of them.

If Congress or the White House doesn't step in and fix this, it will be settled in the courts and the FAA will lose

Unfortunately, the government (Congress) is not faster than the government (FAA). It's the battle of the slow to change.

their case holds no water. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that.

Lawyers can see anything if you flash enough money in front of them

 

[ianwood]

An RC toy is an aircraft, not a plane. Under 14 CFR 1.1, "aircraft" means, "a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." It's always an aircraft -- does not matter if you're using it for fun or commercially.

Up until last year, the FAA didn't interpret "aircraft" to include RC. Up until last year, they had one advisory circular that they applied to all RC use. This year, they decided to reinterpret their definition of aircraft. By their new, broader interpretation, one could arguably classify baseballs, paper airplanes and toy store bought balloons as aircraft.

The existing regulations are in effect though. I'm sure you already know this though because the FAA is trying to enforce them every chance they get.

There are no existing regulations for UAS. There is only a reinterpretation of old regulations in attempt to cover UAS. I am saying that this convenient reinterpretation will lose in any court that is not under the DOT's thumb (as the NTSB appears to be). There are already several lawsuits against the FAA that are pending. If I was trying to make a livelihood in this space, I would join them.

 

[msinger]

This year, they decided to reinterpret their definition of aircraft.

They should be constantly working to adjust their regulations. Unfortunately, they do not adjust at the speed technology changes.

By their new, broader interpretation, one could arguably classify baseballs, paper airplanes and toy store bought balloons as aircraft.

A Phantom is clearly an aircraft according to the law. So, it seems the FAA is doing nothing wrong by enforcing their regulations. Why they choose to not enforce them for all aircraft is no doubt inconsistent. It would certainly be silly and a waste of time to attempt to regulate paper airplanes though -- even if the law says they are aircraft. Considering the FAA's main goal is safety, it makes far more sense to target aircraft that actually pose a threat to safety.

There are no existing regulations for UAS.

If there are no existing regulations, then why are people submitting exemption petitions -- and why did the FAA even invent that process?

The regulations are real. They exist. You choosing to ignore them doesn't make them go away. All of this pent up denial would be better spent on trying to get the regulations changed/updated.

I am saying that this convenient reinterpretation will lose in any court that is not under the DOT's thumb

This is your opinion. No facts support this assumption.

 

[ianwood]

Unfortunately, they do not adjust at the speed technology changes.

Clearly. Glacial is not a pace that technology supports.

A Phantom is clearly an aircraft according to the law.

A Phantom is clearly an aircraft according to the FAA.

The regulations are real. They exist. You choosing to ignore them doesn't make them go away. All of this pent up denial would be better spent on trying to get the regulations changed/updated.

Correct. The regulations exist for real aircraft. There are no regulations that apply specifically to UAS, baseballs or paper airplanes. We have to wait until 2017 to get UAS regulations.

 

[EMCSQUAR]

Correct. The regulations exist for real aircraft. There are no regulations that apply specifically to UAS, baseballs or paper airplanes. We have to wait until 2017 to get UAS regulations.

LOL - "I like to report an unidentified terrorist baseball - Yes I'll hold...."

 

[msinger]

The regulations exist for real aircraft. There are no regulations that apply specifically to UAS, baseballs or paper airplanes. We have to wait until 2017 to get UAS regulations.

If this is true, why do people need an exemption from the FAA in order to use a UAS commercially? What are they requesting exemption from?

(Yes, I know this is a rhetorical question. They are requesting exemption from regulations that apply to aircraft... because UAS are aircraft.)

 

[ianwood]

So you just accept the FAA's summary decision to reinterpret UAS as aircraft? They did so without any NPRM. They pressured their peers at NTSB to overturn what was clearly a highly flawed case. Now they use that hollow victory to maintain a death grip on the entire industry. Without any public consultation whatsoever. I'm sorry but that's not cricket.

I guess the entire industry should really just sit around and wait 2 more years until the FAA finally gets around to doing what they should have done 10 years ago.