Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Sign This Petition to Avoid FAA Pilot License to Fly Drones!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Nick Davis, Sep 21, 2015.

  1. BigAl07

    BigAl07 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    I realize what a total drag it is to require this but by law this is the only way the FAA can meet current regulations in regards to proper training etc. I don't see how a petition regardless how many signatures can change that.
     
  2. brianb87

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    148
    Better yet.. Stop crashing in stadiums, cities, houses. Be responsible and you wouldn't need a petition
     
  3. Jeff48920

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    502
    Location:
    Pomona, IL
    Better yet, let's all sign the petition and lobby the government for more effective regulation.
    We should also lobby to create an environment where people don't have to break the law to earn a few stinking bucks photographing and videographing for clients.

    Here was the rationale I used on my petition sign in

    "the current regulations are frivolous and overly regulatory and do nothing to create a safer environment for the use of remotely operated consumer aircraft models. Less restrictive and better crafted regulations can effectively create safer use of this equipment. "
     
  4. Nick Davis

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well said! I am a Commercial Rotorcraft Licensed Pilot and I still think these regulations are ridiculous. That doesn't mean I am opposed to any sort of regulation. Just like most knee-jerk regulations, this goes way to far!
     
    athill16 and Vanjo Grale like this.
  5. Nick Davis

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    6
    How about you sign it and see?!? Do you really think these specific regulations are the "ONLY" way to make it safe?
     
    Vanjo Grale likes this.
  6. RoyVa

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    449
    Location:
    Virginia
    In retrospect ... Is it the gun that's the problem or the persons hand it's in... Same with the drones possibly.
     
    JKDSensei, Reed L and BigAl07 like this.
  7. BigAl07

    BigAl07 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    In regards to the "current" regulations I absolutely do. This debate is long and endless but yes until the regulations are brought up to speed to safely "integrate" UAV into our NAS I sure do. If there was another provision that would guarantee the UAV operator had been trained, tested and shown proficient in the needed areas of NAS integration I would whole heartedly agree and go that route but fact of the matter there is no such as of this writing.

    The "Pilot Certification" requirement is merely a temporary solution to a much larger problem and one that I sincerely hope will be resolved in 2016/2017.

    I won't sign it because I don't believe it is worth the time it took to say "No". Look at it like this.. if it's going to take x number of months to get this corrected from now what in the world makes you think that signing a petition which would in essence make the process start all over again is going to be any quicker? It's not. If the petition were to gain ground (and it won't) it would merely mean everything that is in process right now in regards to this would have to be recreated or at least modified and we all know our Gvt doesn't do anything "good" quickly.

    That's just my 2 cents and take it for what you paid for it.
     
  8. N017RW

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,240
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Palm Beach Co.- FL
    First, you had your opportunity during the 'comment window' for the NPRM to state your opinion on the new regs., now you want a mulligan?

    Second, you will see the requirement dropped in the future. The potential for commerce will take care of it.
     
    JBG likes this.
  9. Jeff48920

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    502
    Location:
    Pomona, IL
    Or, on the other hand, if everybody felt like you, maybe the FAA would decide, that if UAV owners don't care, why should they modify the current regs.
    So since it costs you nothing, to sign, I am forced to believe you are one of those who may be worried that drawing attention to themselves by standing tall could have repercussions from the government.
     
    Vanjo Grale likes this.
  10. BigAl07

    BigAl07 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    Come on Jeff you can get down off your high horse... I'm in the same boat as you except I have a different opinion. I have no problem "standing tall" and getting attention. I'm on many "lists" and have been for many years and that's just part of the game. I can assure you that "drawing attention to myself" is not, nor has it ever been a problem for me.

    • Do I relish the idea of spending several hundred dollars to get my pilot certification up to "current"? Heck no.
    • Do I believe that a being able to fly a Cessna 172 makes me a better UAV operator? Heck no!
    • Do I believe that the ground school and NAS training to get a SPL/PPL (or higher) is needed to safely integrate our UAVs into NAS with "existing" regulations and certified training available? Absolutely.

    Keep in mind that the current regs are being modified already and we're not going down a dead-end road with this. Things are going to change and hopefully for the better but with anything US Gvt related it takes time... a LOT of time. You're simply looking for a "Fast Lane" and in this matter there simply isn't one.
     
    N017RW likes this.
  11. Jeff48920

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    502
    Location:
    Pomona, IL
    Guess we will agree to disagree. I think I have much more experience in federal and state regulatory issues than most. Let me assure you, if the agencies don't hear from those who have a stake in certain outcomes, they will surely do nothing.
     
  12. N017RW

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,240
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Palm Beach Co.- FL
    The NPRM comment window was the opportunity, No???
    Having ad-hoc requests coming in will not improve their efficiency and seems simply unmanageable.
     
    ianwood likes this.
  13. Jeff48920

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    502
    Location:
    Pomona, IL
    While it would be nice to know that the agencies do limit their response to official comments, it has been shown repeatedly that between the close of comments and implementation of the rules, mysterious things happen.... LOL
     
  14. SteveMann

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Westford, MA
    Sigh.
    Big sigh.

    The FAA only has the ability to exempt rules they make. The Section 333 exemptions apply to various rules in 14CFR parts 61 and 91 that would prevent you from legally operating a UAS for commerce. The FAA does not have the authority to exempt operators from laws passed by Congress. Only Congress can change that.

    I'll speak slowly here - The rules in 14CFR are those promulgated by the FAA pursuant to the laws passed by Congress and published in 49USC.

    From the preamble to the FAA Part 107 NPRM:
    "Because a small UAS involves the operation of an aircraft, this triggers the FAA’s registration and certification statutory requirements. Specifically, subject to certain exceptions, a person may not operate a civil aircraft that is not registered. 49 U.S.C. 44101(a). In addition, a person may not operate a civil aircraft in air commerce without an airworthiness certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1). Finally, a person may not serve in any capacity as an airman on a civil aircraft being operated in air commerce without an airman certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A)."
    You can have a petition to the FAA with a gazillion signatures, but only Congress can change the certification requirements in 49 U.S. Code § 44711 and 49 U.S. Code § 44703.

    The statutory airman certification requirement is precisely what the Part 107 NPRM will accommodate by creating a new class of airman certificate specifically for small UAS. Section 333 exemptions allow a certificated airman to operate a UAS for commercial purposes before the Part 107 rules are finalized.

    You may not like the process, but the regulators are really trying to accommodate the industry.
     
  15. Nick Davis

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    6
    Can you define for me a "Small UAS"?
     
  16. Jeff48920

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    502
    Location:
    Pomona, IL
    Sigh.....and Sigh again
    The FAA, like all agencies, has the ability to speak with Congress about legislation affecting its operation. If it doesn't know exactly what is expected from the majority of those it regulates, then it will not have any reason to go to Congress.
    These small UAVs in commercial operation could be easily covered with specific additional legislation or additional rules once enabling legislation is passed. In my opinion something as easy as the following draft rule could create a safer environment for the commercial operation of small UAVs for photography and videography.

    Having a pilot license of any kind is an overly restrictive regulation for this application as is an airworthiness certificate. We need to let folks know

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Commercial Use of Small Remotely Operated Aircraft
    for Aerial Photography or Videography



    Section I. Definitions

    For the purpose of this section the terms:

    Commercial Use: Either directly or indirectly obtaining monetary payment or any other thing of value in exchange for the Owner or Operator of a SROA (See below)using that SROA to produce (or cause to be produced) and/or distribute (or cause to be distributed) any aerial photographs or videos.

    Operator: Any person who physically controls the SROA.

    Owner: The person, corporation or other legal entity having title to the SROA

    Small Remotely Operated Aircraft (SROA): shall be defined as any Aircraft (as defined in this Act) that weighs under 7 pounds (inclusive of battery and any additional payload).

    Section II. Regulations

    Any commercial use of Small Remotely Operated Aircraft for aerial photography or videography is subject to the following regulations:

    1. The name, address, and phone number of the owner/operator of the SROA must be provided in English; in a legible font equal or greater than 12 point type; and affixed to SROA during each and every flight.

    2. The SROA may not exceed 400 feet above ground level during any flight.

    3. The SROA must be visually within the unaided sight of the operator.

    4. The Operator may not launch the SROA in any area that has been designated a “NO FLY” zone by the FAA.

    5. The Operator may not launch the SROA in any conditions (physical, geographical or meteorological) that increase the likelihood that the Operator could lose control of the SROA.

    6. The Operator may not be under the influence of any psychotropic drug or alcohol.

    7. The Operator must possess a valid Driver’s License issued from his/her state of residence.

    8. The Owner/Operator must obtain and maintain liability insurance for the operation of an SROA in the amount of $______________ per occurrence.

    9. The Operator must be over the age of 21.

    10.The SROA must not be operated in such a manner that would create a situation in which it would be more likely than not for the SROA to cause harm to persons or property.

    Section III. Penalties for Violation (TBD)
     
  17. Vanjo Grale

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    OBX North Carolina
    Why don't they require any training for hobbyists? I'll never understand why taking pictures of a house is illegal if my wife uses them in her listing, but I can fly for thrills all I want. The latter would seem to entail far more risk to the public.
     
    BigAl07 likes this.
  18. BigAl07

    BigAl07 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    I completely agree. I've always thought this was about as "backwards" as they come. I asked an attorney about why this is and his reply was, "With current regulations that's the only group that they can go after. The hobbyist are currently protected from this during "regular" flying so long as they do it safely. Add the designation of "Commercial" to the flight and then the FAA can have some degree of regulation over them."

    What's funny is that most "commercial UAV Operators" are the ones with the most skin in the game and flying the safest. It is usually the punk who just bought the UAV or who doesn't give a hoot about rules & regulations (it's their God given right to fly anything, anywhere, anytime, and any way they desire) who bring regulation and hardship down on the rest of the industry. I'm not saying that commercial operations don't have mistakes and such but that sector of the industry is so small compared to the hobbyist that it would make sense that regulations be across the board regardless if you're making a dime or not.
     
    Sim597 and Vanjo Grale like this.
  19. SteveMann

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Westford, MA
    Yes, the FAA could go to Congress to ask for a change in the law, but the effort would be an absolute waste of time and resources since the forthcoming Part 107 rules will create an airman's certificate for small UAS operations.

    If Congress did change the law, then the FAA would have to start all over with a new NPRM.

    You are coming into the theater in the middle of the movie. Congress DID pass law that compels the FAA to regulate small UAS in commercial use. It is called: FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Section 333 of that act gave the FAA authority to exempt rules which is why we have 1500 Section 333 exemptions.

    You absolutely, positively DO NOT want Congress to reopen this issue.

    Since the law passed in 2012, the fear mongers have been running amuck. Personal drones are now Public Enemy number one thanks to sensational, mostly fictitious news media. There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been hundreds of thousands of hours of flight of small drones, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash that resulted in a serious injury as defined by the NTSB to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury- See CFR 49 §830.2). There is also not one verifiable report of a collision between a small drone and a manned aircraft. Not one.

    With this hysterical background, you really, REALLY do not want Congress to turn their attention to this issue. Be careful what you ask for.

     
    BigAl07 likes this.