Promoting Commercial sUAS.

[SJBrit]

I'm going to disagree somewhat with one part of this discussion: that it is bad for us to let the FAA categorize and separate us into "professional" and "hobbyist" camps. I think it's not only essential that that happens, but that there is in fact a third category that one might call "dabblers" - that group of people who buy a RTF craft on a whim, and proceed to post pictures of themselves breaking altitude records or crashing into buildings in Times Square. The trouble with NOT separating groups of people is that the FAA will regulate to the lowest common denominator and I think there is a world of difference between the categories and the responsibility of the pilots involved.

This isn't new or controversial - it's exactly how the FAA manages full scale pilots, with VFR rules, IFR rules, commercial rules. Each has their own set of certification standards, and each their own set of constraints and freedoms depending on the type of activity and airspace you are flying in.

I'm not saying we shouldn't present a united voice, but that that voice should be preaching a message of regulating based on tiers of activity, with restrictions and certifications commensurate with the risk. It's all a matter of what the pilot has to lose by taking risks:

1) A commercial sUAS pilot is risking his or her livelihood when taking risks and potentially injuring others. This is a largely self-policing group of people intent on promoting safety with or without the FAA stepping in to tell them how to do that.

2) A hobbyist is risking a craft which has potentially cost them very many hours in design and build and certainly no small amount if financial investment. The hobbyist also has a long term stake in the continuation of the sUAS industry and thinks beyond the current flight. This is a cautious group who understands the risks involved, and are responsible enough to be allowed certain freedoms not available to the last group:

3) A dabbler stands only to lose the actual craft they are flying in the event of endangering it and others. This is normally a sunk cost that's easy to walk away from meaning that there is no voice of caution whispering in their ear. There is no long term commitment to the industry since the next whim will be a 90mph jet ski. This is the group that ought to be of most concern in terms of public safety, and as a result ought to face the most stringent restrictions.

This is why I think that we ought to be very much thinking about categories of sUAS pilot, and making sure that the FAA understands who we are, what we do, and how much personal vested interest the different groups have in terms of safety and the longevity of this industry.

 

[Av8Chuck]

There's not as much disagreement as you might think. I used the example of AOPA, AOPA was formed to protect the rights of private citizens to own airplanes and operate them in the NAS, they didn't differentiate between type of pilot. If you owned an airplane you were a member.

I hesitate to use the terms "reality" and "government" in the same posting, but it would be nice if the regulations the FAA impose reflect reality, but clearly they don't. I can take the same MR and shoot some aerial and if I do it for the love it its legal, if you pay me a dollar its not. So the issue doesn't appear to be safety, integration into the NAS, or how much my livelihood depends on the success of my mission, if it were unsafe it should be illegal for both.

The downside to your argument is how to define the different categories. If you think that because you pay $15K+ for your UAV that somehow makes you safer or a professional, it doesn't! Not according to Boeing who sells $3M UAVs to its commercial customers, they will argue that you are the hobbyist.

So the debate shouldn't be about how to pigeon hole each other to fit some arbitrary definition, it should be about the regulation of commerce and our rights as citizens to benefit from our participation in that commerce. It shouldn't matter whether that participation is for commercial, philanthropic or civil use. If we organize around the simple desire to be allowed to be in this industry then we might have a chance to get enough people to join together in much the same way AOPA got airplane ones to join together. If we chose to define different classes of sUAS operators we won't get any agreement and have no leverage with the FAA [which I'm pretty sure they would be quite OK with that].

Remember this is a new industry that has not even made it out of the primordial soup yet, no matter how far up the food chain you might think you are you will always be considered pond scum by those above you...

 

[SJBrit]

Yes, agreed, but I am still wary about "one law to rule them all" since such laws always cater to the lowest common denominator and in the case of MRs that's pretty low!! I take your point about the AOPA and perhaps that's how we should model our approach, but the AOPA doesn't make laws and the full scale licensing laws are very much stratified in terms of use case. I suppose I see MRs being regulated just like pilots are: commercial and private, with some separation of private into two categories analogous to VFR and IFR - meaning higher level training and certification to open up more advanced operating freedoms.

 

[Ronan]

I'm going to disagree somewhat with one part of this discussion: that it is bad for us to let the FAA categorize and separate us into "professional" and "hobbyist" camps. I think it's not only essential that that happens, but that there is in fact a third category that one might call "dabblers" - that group of people who buy a RTF craft on a whim, and proceed to post pictures of themselves breaking altitude records or crashing into buildings in Times Square. The trouble with NOT separating groups of people is that the FAA will regulate to the lowest common denominator and I think there is a world of difference between the categories and the responsibility of the pilots involved.

This isn't new or controversial - it's exactly how the FAA manages full scale pilots, with VFR rules, IFR rules, commercial rules. Each has their own set of certification standards, and each their own set of constraints and freedoms depending on the type of activity and airspace you are flying in.

I'm not saying we shouldn't present a united voice, but that that voice should be preaching a message of regulating based on tiers of activity, with restrictions and certifications commensurate with the risk. It's all a matter of what the pilot has to lose by taking risks:

1) A commercial sUAS pilot is risking his or her livelihood when taking risks and potentially injuring others. This is a largely self-policing group of people intent on promoting safety with or without the FAA stepping in to tell them how to do that.

2) A hobbyist is risking a craft which has potentially cost them very many hours in design and build and certainly no small amount if financial investment. The hobbyist also has a long term stake in the continuation of the sUAS industry and thinks beyond the current flight. This is a cautious group who understands the risks involved, and are responsible enough to be allowed certain freedoms not available to the last group:

3) A dabbler stands only to lose the actual craft they are flying in the event of endangering it and others. This is normally a sunk cost that's easy to walk away from meaning that there is no voice of caution whispering in their ear. There is no long term commitment to the industry since the next whim will be a 90mph jet ski. This is the group that ought to be of most concern in terms of public safety, and as a result ought to face the most stringent restrictions.

This is why I think that we ought to be very much thinking about categories of sUAS pilot, and making sure that the FAA understands who we are, what we do, and how much personal vested interest the different groups have in terms of safety and the longevity of this industry.

A few comments about your 3 points:

1) There's just as much risk from a hobbyist that flies his multirotor at the local park, downtown public area, in/over his neighborhood. If anything, a professional has more training, a better understanding of the equipment, regulations and safety measures (that's why it's crucial to make sure professionals meet a standard!).

2) I'm pretty sure we all work hard for our money to our hobby and professional toys/equipment. I know i worked hard for 3 years to be able to afford starting this business with zero-debts, i did not borrow from the bank.

3) What group is that? I see stores that only stay open 6 month before closing. What stops a hobbyist or professional from 'changing his mind'? Nothing, it's actually a right of living in a free country.

I TOTALLY agree we need to make sure we let the FAA know what sUAS are, the pilots, etc. We are not flying r/c airplanes, we are not flying large UAVs and we certainly aren't militarized!

There's not as much disagreement as you might think. I used the example of AOPA, AOPA was formed to protect the rights of private citizens to own airplanes and operate them in the NAS, they didn't differentiate between type of pilot. If you owned an airplane you were a member.

I hesitate to use the terms "reality" and "government" in the same posting, but it would be nice if the regulations the FAA impose reflect reality, but clearly they don't. I can take the same MR and shoot some aerial and if I do it for the love it its legal, if you pay me a dollar its not. So the issue doesn't appear to be safety, integration into the NAS, or how much my livelihood depends on the success of my mission, if it were unsafe it should be illegal for both.

The downside to your argument is how to define the different categories. If you think that because you pay $15K+ for your UAV that somehow makes you safer or a professional, it doesn't! Not according to Boeing who sells $3M UAVs to its commercial customers, they will argue that you are the hobbyist.

So the debate shouldn't be about how to pigeon hole each other to fit some arbitrary definition, it should be about the regulation of commerce and our rights as citizens to benefit from our participation in that commerce. It shouldn't matter whether that participation is for commercial, philanthropic or civil use. If we organize around the simple desire to be allowed to be in this industry then we might have a chance to get enough people to join together in much the same way AOPA got airplane ones to join together. If we chose to define different classes of sUAS operators we won't get any agreement and have no leverage with the FAA [which I'm pretty sure they would be quite OK with that].

Remember this is a new industry that has not even made it out of the primordial soup yet, no matter how far up the food chain you might think you are you will always be considered pond scum by those above you...

Good points.

Yes, agreed, but I am still wary about "one law to rule them all" since such laws always cater to the lowest common denominator and in the case of MRs that's pretty low!! I take your point about the AOPA and perhaps that's how we should model our approach, but the AOPA doesn't make laws and the full scale licensing laws are very much stratified in terms of use case. I suppose I see MRs being regulated just like pilots are: commercial and private, with some separation of private into two categories analogous to VFR and IFR - meaning higher level training and certification to open up more advanced operating freedoms.

Pretty sure we don't want 'one law to rule them all' since we have, at least, 2 categories. But we can't let the FAA divide us, we have to fight together.

 

[Old Man]

As far as flight is concerned, there is already "one law to rule them all" and that law is fairly inclusive under the Code of Federal Regulations named the Federal Aviation Regulations. All the specific of size, types, qualifications and categories occurs within that very wide band of regulations.

Arguing about semantics is self defeating and precisely what government and large aerospace would like to see us do. Ultimately everyone flying model aircraft for fun and sUAS for hire are too closely related to be wasting time and effort in tiff's over who is who and what is what. I fly model airplanes of giant scale with 100cc+ gas engines. Along with those I've put ~2000 hours in flying military grade sUAS on several continents. Then we have manned aviation experience, followed up with multirotor flight. All of those categories require high levels of safety to prevent loss/damage to property and loss of life and injury. Every one of them requires specific skill sets, with three of the four mentioned sharing numeroeus skill sets. Personally I'm a member of the AMA, AOPA, and recently the new sUAS pilot's association for whatever that's worth. each one of those groups brings things to the table that are very closely related to what the other groups are trying to accomplish.

Bottom line is there is no reason for separatist or elitist positions when time is of the essence. What's needed is common consensus that all should have the ability to fly, either making money at it or for fun. The breakdown of who is who and how it's done can be handled after the one most important point is hammered out. Doesn't matter what deck of the ship you're on after the hull goes underwater. You're all dead regardless. The option is for those that can see what's coming to help those at other levels rise above the coming catastrophe, with everyone joining hands to pull together to save all.

 

[Ronan]

As far as flight is concerned, there is already "one law to rule them all" and that law is fairly inclusive under the Code of Federal Regulations named the Federal Aviation Regulations. All the specific of size, types, qualifications and categories occurs within that very wide band of regulations.

Arguing about semantics is self defeating and precisely what government and large aerospace would like to see us do. Ultimately everyone flying model aircraft for fun and sUAS for hire are too closely related to be wasting time and effort in tiff's over who is who and what is what. I fly model airplanes of giant scale with 100cc+ gas engines. Along with those I've put ~2000 hours in flying military grade sUAS on several continents. Then we have manned aviation experience, followed up with multirotor flight. All of those categories require high levels of safety to prevent loss/damage to property and loss of life and injury. Every one of them requires specific skill sets, with three of the four mentioned sharing numeroeus skill sets. Personally I'm a member of the AMA, AOPA, and recently the new sUAS pilot's association for whatever that's worth. each one of those groups brings things to the table that are very closely related to what the other groups are trying to accomplish.

Bottom line is there is no reason for separatist or elitist positions when time is of the essence. What's needed is common consensus that all should have the ability to fly, either making money at it or for fun. The breakdown of who is who and how it's done can be handled after the one most important point is hammered out. Doesn't matter what deck of the ship you're on after the hull goes underwater. You're all dead regardless. The option is for those that can see what's coming to help those at other levels rise above the coming catastrophe, with everyone joining hands to pull together to save all.

Exactly.

What new sUAV association? I thought it was still in talks...

 

[kloner]

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/

 

[Old Man]

There are several, but I was referring to the new Drone Pilot's thing that I can't see helping much of anyone the way it's laid out. Mostly just a gathering of names. It appears the manufacturers have already formed their own working group. There is something currently forming intended to represent all the various factions, especially the users/working groups and help tie them together to create a common voice.

 

[Old Man]

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/

Good start but those fail to mention numerous other sub sections of the FAR's, which are daunting in how much they cover. The rule of law is already in place, it only lacks amending to permit or deny what we do or qualify who does what, with what, and how.

 

[SJBrit]

Sure, I agree - live today, fight tomorrow. Down the line I expect there to be categories of licensing but for now it's a matter of making sure there IS an industry before we get into the nuances of usage and licensing categories.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Old Man]

I think we're all starting to read the same page. One thing at a time with the rest to follow

 

[Av8Chuck]

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/

A couple of things that I think everyone needs to understand.

1. Non of this is personal, so don't take it that way -- [Kloner, that's not aimed at you I'm just mentioning it in the reply to your post].

2. I am talking about advocating for the legal commercial use of sUAS, not trying to define the "term" sUAS, determine what I think the rules should be or trying to persuade people to my way of thinking. Personally, I would like to help organize and be a part of an organization that:

3. Simply represents my legal right for my sUAS business to exist so that it is not onerous for me to be in business with regulations that allow me to focus on the success of my business rather than the regulations of my business.

Regarding these links, here's the rub: the first link is to the e-CFR [better known as the FAR/AIM], the second link is to Section 333 of the 2012 Modernization Act H.R 658 which is an "initiative."

The bible for pilots is the FAR/AIM, IF ITS NOT IN THE FAR AIM then the FAA DOES NOT REGULATE IT. Pointing to two different documents is great but means very little, none of H.R. 658 has made it to the FAR/AIM. The reason for this is that the FAA is required by law to follow a well defined NPRM process to create the rule, they have not done that and therefore have no authority to regulate sUAS.

This is a quote from Peter Sachs Esq.. The attorney that won the case against the FAA.

Despite what you might have seen, heard or read to the contrary; despite the FAA’s claim that it has authority over RCMA; despite the FAA having sent several cease and desist letters, (obtained recently via FOIA request by Attorney Patrick Mckay), to persons who were operating RCMA for commercial purposes, there exists not a single federal statute, not a single federal regulation and no case law that in any way regulates the operation of RCMA.
None.
Federal statutes, regulations and case law concerning RCMA do not exist.
In the absence of any federal statute, regulation or case law that prohibits a particular activity, that activity is completely legal. That’s how the law works. Nothing is illegal solely because a government agency claims that it’s illegal. There must be something engrossed in our bodies of law that actually states that it is illegal. Since there is nothing at all in our bodies at law that make it illegal, at this time, RCMA are completely unregulated federally, and anyone is free to operate them in any manner they wish, whether for pleasure or profit, regardless of what the FAA might claim.
Please note that I am not asserting any opinion as to whether RCMA should ever be regulated. Rather, I am asserting that at this time, they are not federally regulated. Nor will they be anytime soon. Under Section 336 of the FMRA of 2012, Congress has dictated that the FAA will not be permitted to “promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”
But the same Act will exclude RCMA’s that are used commercially from the definition of RCMA, and the FAA will be able to promulgate rules and regulations for RCMA used commercially. Thus the exact same make and model of RCMA will ultimately be regulated if used commercially, and unregulated if used non-commercially. Since the FAA’s primary reason for existence is safety, it begs the question how the exchange of money is even remotely related to safety.
Much of this quote was taken directly from the Federal Court ruling against the FAA. So we have two different branches of government providing different information, one who is responsible for "administrating" the NAS the other for protecting the rights of citizens.

So who do we listen to? Its simple, we don't take sides, we listen to ourselves. What the judiciary is saying is that in the absence of regulation it is not against the law and its up to the FAA to develop the regulations through the NPRM process that Congress can then ratify into law. If we want to have a future in this industry as small sUAS business owners then we'd better get "DIRECTLY" involved in that process.

The discussion we should be having is "WHAT CONSTITUTES DIRECT INVOLVEMENT." What does it take to get a seat at the regulatory table and challenge the prerogatives of government and big business? If we sit on our hands thinking that this problem is too big or that others will solve it for us then you should not expect to be in this business and we will get what we deserve.

I have a saying, "You can't be a chimp and do business with a gorilla, the gorilla will always eat your bananas." What this means is that to be effective we need to become a gorilla. How do we do that? The same way AOPA did. Bitching about this on a forum is pointless, organizing ten to twenty thousand individuals that represents them is way more powerful than you can imagine. That is not a petition, or comment but something that provides leverage to get the seat at the table. Even having a seat at the table doesn't guarantee the outcome but I can guarantee the outcome if we don't get invited to the party.

The Internet, more importantly forums like these provide a great tool for evangelizing for the cause and getting people to join, all we have to do is be able to agree on what we're asking everyone to evangelize for. To me this is simple, all I want is the opportunity to compete, so the only thing I care about is that commercial sUAS is legal and that the regulations are not arbitrary and capricious so that I can afford to compete.

Finally, keep in mind that our country is based on the rule of law, a rule that at its core is based on the rights of the individual, not the governments rights or the rights of big business but our rights and those rights are spelled out in the constitution. That is why the FAA has lost in court, because they do not have the authority to take an individuals right to be in this business away. The framers of the constitution understood that government would want the power to regulate commerce in such a way as to circumnavigate the rights of the individual business owners and wrote in specific protections. So believe it or not this will get sorted out in our favor. The trouble is that once the regulations have been ratified into law then it requires going to the Supreme Court to get them changed, or we can come together as a community, not to debate the rules but to give us leverage so that we can be directly involved in the regulatory process to protect our rights in advance of the regulations.

 

[kloner]

Attorneys can argue all they want, they might win here (if the pockets are padded) and might not, it's alot of futures riding on a very thing rug

Fact of the matter is our government is letting the FAA control this and if you want in, you better get in line cause there are hundreds of 333 exemption requests on there desks now and i'd bet the reasonable requests will be granted, the ones arguing the faa's stance will be squashed. I'm by no means a genius so take it for what it's worth

You can try reinventing the wheel or just bolt it on and roll.

 

[Av8Chuck]

Attorneys can argue all they want, they might win here (if the pockets are padded) and might not, it's alot of futures riding on a very thing rug

Fact of the matter is our government is letting the FAA control this and if you want in, you better get in line cause there are hundreds of 333 exemption requests on there desks now and i'd bet the reasonable requests will be granted, the ones arguing the faa's stance will be squashed. I'm by no means a genius so take it for what it's worth

You can try reinventing the wheel or just bolt it on and roll.

To borrow your analogy the FAA has only provided you with a run flat spare tire that is restricted to 35mph. Sure beats walking but I want to go bigger and faster...

 

[kloner]

that's after they observe, analyze and educate themselves off the 333 exempted companies so yea, it'll be a while.

 

[Old Man]

The mission is to organize and become a voice, not some squeak heard in the dark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[R_Lefebvre]

This discussion is interesting. I definitely agree with Old Man and Chuck. To the point that, I think companies should not follow the 333 process, and instead, continue down the road of civil disobedience that many already are. The 333 process is sounding more and more like the SFOC process up here in Canada, and let me tell you, it does not work! Some Americans have pointed to Canada as another example of a country which does allow UAV usage for commercial purposes, but after trying to work within it, I'd rather be in the US at this point, where I would know I can operate freely.

Here's the break-down on the situation in Canada.

We are allowed to operate commercially, provided we obtain a Special Flight Operations Certificate. This sounds very much like the 333 process. So, what does the the SFOC entail? Proof of airworthiness and reliability of the aircraft? No. Proof of the pilot's skill and ability? No. Proof of pilot and/or operator training and certification? No, there is none. What it is is basically a plan, very ad hoc, where you try to convince some guy in Transport Canada, who may or may not know anything about this stuff, that your operations will be safe. There are no rules to be followed, no examples. You write a bunch of words on paper, and he judges the merits of your argument. Your argument is supposed to include discussion of safety of people on the ground and in the air. Typically, you'll say you will only fly in remote areas and not over people. You may or may not have a radio for contacting air traffic. You may or may not have more than one ground crew. None of this is really clear. It's up to the judgement of TC official on the day he reads your application. And as for the machinery, I've seen people say "I'll be flying this Gaui X7 RC Helicopter" and they say "OK, yep, looks good to me." No mentions of what servos you might be using, what flight controller, what control link, how your planned payload compares to the manufacturer specified maximum payload...

But here's where it gets really bad. The application process takes 20 or more days. It could take 6 months. And you're not guaranteed to be approved. How many people think they can run a company under those conditions? You have to go through this for each and every flight. Submit application, and wait an unknown period of time. AND, you have to have insurance. So you have to pay for insurance, with no guarantee you're actually going to use it.

And then it gets worse. Some companies, after a history of safe operations, can get a Blanket SFOC, which means that they can fly anywhere, anytime, with no wait. Once one of those is established in your area, how do you get started, competing with that? The result is at this point, there's a couple big players, and then a bunch of guys operating illegally. There is no room for anybody trying to legitimately start up. Nobody is going to hire the guy who needs to was 1-3 months to be able to do a job.

The 333 process seems sort of the same. I'm not sure if the approvals are done on a case by case basis. But I noticed that the approved aircraft were "an Aerocrafter Hexacopter" and "an Aeronavics Skyjib". Uh... those are not systems. They're frames. Their airworthiness is not determined until you stuff them full of motors and ESC's and a flight controller. Why bother even naming frames?! It's completely pointless. It does nothing to guarantee the system is safe.

I tried to follow the SFOC process, and quickly got bogged down. The first step is actually to get insurance. I submitted applications, and they were rejected. Why? Because I mentioned that I was developing new systems. I thought it best to be honest. I was told that they aren't interested in insuring development systems. They "only want to insure proven systems like the DJI Phantom". Uh... I think most people here would agree that the Phantom is only "proven" to be flown by morons 90% of the time, and to have random flyaway events... If somebody takes a Skyjib frame, and buys some KDE motors, and some Maytech ESC's, and a SuperX flight controller, and connects it all together themselves, are they not developing a system? Absolutely they are! And this comes back to the argument I've been having in the Arducopter forum... the fact that Arducopter is open sources, and constantly under develoment, does not in and of itself make it less reliable than a commercial system. All the commercial systems are still under development. Can anybody point to a commercial system that has never had a firmware update?

This all just points to the fact that the people running the show, do not understand this stuff. Yet they get to judge what is safe or not?

This is a recipe for anarchy, not effective regulation of the industry.

I even figured, well if I could at least get the insurance, then I submit a whole bunch of "dummy" SFOC's, establish my record of safe operations, and then when I get a blanket, *then* I can hang out my shingle for real. Nope, can't do that. And is there anything I could do, some course, some process, to get certified so that I can skip this 20+ day waiting period? Nope.

I basically threw up my hands and said... well, people are already paying me for engineering, not flying, so I'm just going to stick with that. And I put the idea of starting my own services company on the backburner.

 

[kloner]

All i can say is good luck with that. I've seen a few of the petitions following us with an attitude similar to what i hear here and that attitude certainly gets them dismissed from contention...

This is drawing a line between legal & illegal ops and we will see a big difference in how those cases are handled

 

[Av8Chuck]

Robert is simply pointing out his experiences with the bureaucratic red tape in Canada, does that mean it will end up that way here? I don't know but its certainly a strong possibility given how the FAA is responded to the current situation. If things continue to where you have to get a COA for every mission then we should all just go to work for the FAA. This is kind of the nature of large bureaucracies.

No where in what I'm saying am I suggesting taking on the FAA by ignoring it, what I'm trying to get across is that I have a right to be in this business and if the government doesn't think that's the case then they have to prove otherwise. The Federal judiciary has ruled that they have not met that standard of proof.

OK, so now what do we do? By taking the steps that the FAA has taken they have literally created a monopoly in the entertainment industry and what it comes down to is if I want to work getting paid to do AP in this industry I can go to work for one of the six companies that have a COA or I can "do it illegally." I'm not a criminal and I'd appreciate it if the government would not treat me as one, but this is how I chose to feed my family. I don't have a problem if for every person that the FAA prohibits from making a living doing commercial AP that an equal number of FAA employees give up their career's. They are not elected officials, what gives them the right to decide who can participate and who can't?

Unfortunately that's not going to happen. So what I continue to speak out for is for all the people effected by this to come together to create an organization with enough membership that we can try to gain some representation in the regulatory process.

I certainly am not drawing a line, nor am I crossing one, I'm pretty sure the FAA drew the line at a dollar, now they have to let the rest of us who don't have COA's know how we can make a dollar too.

Also some perspective would be helpful, of the several hundred COA's that have been applied for only five have been turned down and I think three of those were withdrawn.

 

[Old Man]

First and foremost, the 333 notice is not law, and courts have already established that. What is law is that commercial aviation operations are regulated under the FAR's. OTH, RC models are not regulated, again substantiated by the courts, so commercial aerial modeling activity fell within cracks in the system the FAA created a long time ago. At the moment the work is in closing the cracks.

The 6 firms that were granted operational waivers have an opportunity to do a few good things and perhaps one bad thing. For the good they can operate in a manner that helps establish effective and safe operating practices that can assist with the foundational needs of new regulatory standards. They can use their operations to validate many products and systems used in the craft and trade. They can develop a reasonable aircraft and operator certification system that best fits the type of operations our aircraft can and do provide. For the bad they can lock up positions with the industry that effectively block any others from competing in. The six waivers are not the only companies that have expended hundreds of thousands of dollars and immeasurable time in building their businesses. I applaud all that have done all that they have and wish nothing but the best for those that are the first to use the system to their professional advantage. Others will certainly follow.

OTH, who will be the ones to determine if even the 6 will be permitted to continue over time? Will that be professional pilots and FBO's that lose business to MR's? Perhaps FAA personnel whose only exposure to MR's has been the negative press generated by the Phantom mentalities? Or the Senators or Congressmen whose PAC's are swelling from aerospace contributions while their kids and distant relatives collect high salaries from aerospace companies they are not qualified to work for? Perhaps by law enforcement groups that cannot tolerate unapproved and independent oversight? Perhaps a better option has the people most familiar, and having the most experience with the products and systems after they come together to let people know they exist and already have serious skin in the game.

I've spoken with people at various levels of the hobby and pro oriented sUAS crowd, and yes, hobbyists are also sUAS operators. There is no real distinction at the moment differentiating between their aircraft and ours. Most, including small hobby shops, have indicated they see the need for a common voice and would be willing to put their names in the hat. We all understand protecting what we have worked for and support that absolutely, but we should not be so narrowly protectionist that most will suffer. What's needed is for those that already do promote our continuance, and to generate language that will help establish how we do it for presentation to the legislative branches of government. The FAA is very sensitive to lobbying at multiple levels, as has been proven so many times in their history. We reached this regulatory point though the lobbying efforts of commercial and private aviation groups and aerospace corporations directed at the FAA in order to open the airspace for them, not us.