- Joined
- May 4, 2015
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 6
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. "
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.
How about you sign it and see?!? Do you really think these specific regulations are the "ONLY" way to make it safe?
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.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.
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.
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.... LOLThe NPRM comment window was the opportunity, No???
Having ad-hoc requests coming in will not improve their efficiency and seems simply unmanageable.
Can you define for me a "Small UAS"?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.
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.
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.
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.