dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Who will register their Phantom with the FAA?
- Thread starter Chuck Young
- Start date
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Joke's on me!View attachment 34874
The quote you just quoted was a joke bro . Wasn't me that said that .
I just copyed and pasted
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Well, hopefully, you will beat the rush, caused by 2 million drone owners trying to get a headstart!
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Flying in open airspace (away from airports), at say 500-600ft., your chances of hitting anything with the exact same height, same trajectory, and same 20min timeslot are so slim, I would consider it a miracle if anyone had their drone hit by something.
The suggested rules were made for hot air baloons and other large craft, not plastic toys smaller than a goose.
Its like taking a matchbox car, putting it on the shoulder of the highway and waiting till someone runs it over.
I'm not condoning it, rather I believe a person with common sense will not have any issues.
The suggested rules were made for hot air baloons and other large craft, not plastic toys smaller than a goose.
Its like taking a matchbox car, putting it on the shoulder of the highway and waiting till someone runs it over.
I'm not condoning it, rather I believe a person with common sense will not have any issues.
I cannot argue that the odds of an individual person's drone hitting anything at altitude would be remote. Especially in my case where I shoot wind farms. My chances are even more remote due to the requirement that pilots fly no lower than 500' above the highest obstacle. My reputation and business would be toast if someone who knew of the default 200' AGL limitation for Section 333 commercial flight turned me in.
Boy am I glad we got off the "Global Warming" cul-de-sac this topic swerved into, I HATE dealing with religious fanatics!! I don't know how much more of the "lies, damned lies and statistics" I could handle!
I will likely wait to register my hobby UAVs until this issue finishes winding it's way thru the courts, one way or the other. As I'm still building a sUAV that I intend to use commercially (a Tarot 680PRO hex with a Tarot ZYX-M flight controller), I will cross that bridge when I come to it.
My objections have been to the registration of model aircraft used for hobby purposes (not just for drones either, but ALL hobby models), though I recognize and accept that the commercial use of a sUAV falls under a completely different category than hobby models do. I'm fine with that...
But my response to the FAA request for comments at Regulations.gov was as follows (which closes tomorrow Nov 6th, FYI, so go comment while you can):
This model aircraft registration system concept is ill conceived as not only does it violate the hobby aircraft carve-out in the 2012 law, it creates a new and unwieldy system of regulation that simply would not hold up in court to the inevitable challenges as the "public safety" loophole this is predicated on would not hold up under any critical scrutiny by a 3rd party, such a judge or jury, or Supreme Court Justice. And without ensuring the operators are schooled in the safe operation of their model aircraft within the national airspace, it doesn't even achieve it's stated goal!
Instead, the effort to create a system (only to spend more money defending it and then dismantling it when that fails) is better exerted towards creating a practical solution to the problems posed by model aircraft in the national airspace.
A good model to base this solution on is the national frequency spectrum and amateur radio operators (ham radio operators), where many of the problems of co-existence were solved ages ago. For ham radio, the equipment isn't registered, the operator is licensed for it's use and is able to use any equipment for any non-commercial operation he is licensed for once he passes a test of knowledge for the safe and responsible operation of that equipment.
And like most ham operators who own many different pieces of equipment, a hobby aircraft modeler usually owns several different hobby models that have a large range of performance and operational characteristics (usually a dozen or more, if our local club is any indication).
Given that registration does not guarantee a model aircraft operator understands the rules of safely for operating in the national airspace, licensing model aircraft operators similar to how hams are licensed may be the ONLY path to ensure each flight is performed by a responsible individual who has proven knowledge of how to operate his hobby aircraft safely.
And that's IS what this is about, isn't it, the continued safe operation of model aircraft in the national airspace? Your proposal to simply register model aircraft doesn't even make a dent in that problem, and could instead exacerbate it, making it worse!
Yes, licensing hobby aircraft operators would require changes to the law. But I believe you will find wide support for this in both Congress and the modeling community as it's a proven solution with a track record of working for ham operators and has protected other national assets for scores of years. And for equipment that may be used by unlicensed operators, FCC Part 15 provides a template for similar rules to license the actual equipment and could be used as well with similar limits to operation that conceptually parallels the emitters that Part 15 governs, but in the model aircraft world.
I will likely wait to register my hobby UAVs until this issue finishes winding it's way thru the courts, one way or the other. As I'm still building a sUAV that I intend to use commercially (a Tarot 680PRO hex with a Tarot ZYX-M flight controller), I will cross that bridge when I come to it.
My objections have been to the registration of model aircraft used for hobby purposes (not just for drones either, but ALL hobby models), though I recognize and accept that the commercial use of a sUAV falls under a completely different category than hobby models do. I'm fine with that...
But my response to the FAA request for comments at Regulations.gov was as follows (which closes tomorrow Nov 6th, FYI, so go comment while you can):
This model aircraft registration system concept is ill conceived as not only does it violate the hobby aircraft carve-out in the 2012 law, it creates a new and unwieldy system of regulation that simply would not hold up in court to the inevitable challenges as the "public safety" loophole this is predicated on would not hold up under any critical scrutiny by a 3rd party, such a judge or jury, or Supreme Court Justice. And without ensuring the operators are schooled in the safe operation of their model aircraft within the national airspace, it doesn't even achieve it's stated goal!
Instead, the effort to create a system (only to spend more money defending it and then dismantling it when that fails) is better exerted towards creating a practical solution to the problems posed by model aircraft in the national airspace.
A good model to base this solution on is the national frequency spectrum and amateur radio operators (ham radio operators), where many of the problems of co-existence were solved ages ago. For ham radio, the equipment isn't registered, the operator is licensed for it's use and is able to use any equipment for any non-commercial operation he is licensed for once he passes a test of knowledge for the safe and responsible operation of that equipment.
And like most ham operators who own many different pieces of equipment, a hobby aircraft modeler usually owns several different hobby models that have a large range of performance and operational characteristics (usually a dozen or more, if our local club is any indication).
Given that registration does not guarantee a model aircraft operator understands the rules of safely for operating in the national airspace, licensing model aircraft operators similar to how hams are licensed may be the ONLY path to ensure each flight is performed by a responsible individual who has proven knowledge of how to operate his hobby aircraft safely.
And that's IS what this is about, isn't it, the continued safe operation of model aircraft in the national airspace? Your proposal to simply register model aircraft doesn't even make a dent in that problem, and could instead exacerbate it, making it worse!
Yes, licensing hobby aircraft operators would require changes to the law. But I believe you will find wide support for this in both Congress and the modeling community as it's a proven solution with a track record of working for ham operators and has protected other national assets for scores of years. And for equipment that may be used by unlicensed operators, FCC Part 15 provides a template for similar rules to license the actual equipment and could be used as well with similar limits to operation that conceptually parallels the emitters that Part 15 governs, but in the model aircraft world.
Last edited:
Don't wait - we have no clues what impact the emergency model aircraft registration will have on the workload at Oklahoma City. If any.
Also when they say 400 ft is the limit, what 400 ft are they referring to. 400 Feet above sea level? 400 feet above you? 400 feet above the ground directly under it? I haven't seen that specified anywhere. So its most likely an arbitrary number. Not only that, but its not even a requirement that you have any way of measuring how high your quad is. Funny huh? lol
I guess that nobody figures out that it is AGL. If it is like regular flying it is always agl not mean sea level. Where is your common sense There does not have to be any specifics. If you can't figure it out that is agl you people have a problem. Don't try to make a loophole.to get out of registering your drone
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2015
- Messages
- 757
- Reaction score
- 152
When a small plane takes off, and flies at 1000', is he 1000' from sea level, or from the ground where he took off. Come on. If you have trouble with this, you need to sell your drone. Joe is correct.
If you read through the FAA regs (and I'm paraphrasing), small manned planes must be at least 1000 altitude in densely populated areas and at least 500 ft above the highest structure in rural areas. They can be lower than that only in barren areas. So regarding UAVs, it would make sense that they mean 400 feet from the ground we are flying over since they're goal is to keep us separate from manned aircraft.
Your sarcasm detector is working well, lol. About as well as your loophole detector.
This is a perfect example of why the FAA feels we are in need of education.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2015
- Messages
- 621
- Reaction score
- 194
- Age
- 60
Yup, I think they just want to make sure people know 400 feet is the limit. With all the drones out there now and after Christmas, they need to get their message out somehow.
I can think of two exceptions to the 1000', 500' above the highest obstacle rule:
1. "except to takeoff or land." In my experience this exception includes learning to make emergency landings during flight training. The instructors cut the engine to idle and let us descend to 100-200' above ground level (AGL) to ensure we would be able to land in the selected field.
2. Crop dusting aircraft fly within feet of the crops
Be alert
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
As much as it pains me to admit it (tongue in cheek), GoodnNuff and I agree 100% here! The fact is that all altitude guidelines have always been AGL, and still are. The FAA cares not that your Phantom is incapable of AGL calculations anywhere but over a flat earth. The 400 foot suggested "above your launch point" is irrelevant to the FAA if you are 650 feet AGL, because you launched from 250 above MSL, and are flying at 400 feet above that location, as measured by DJI GO, but are now flying over sea level ground or the ocean!
You must know the topography of the are you intend to fly over relative to your launch point to manually calculate 400 feet AGL! Similarly, you will crash into the ground by flying to an elevation more than 400 above your launch point, if you do not exceed 400 feet in the DJI GO app! Beware, and please educate yourself! Similar threads
- Sticky
