Commercial sUAS petition is live at Whitehouse.gov

stitch1615 · Jul 31, 2014

Av8Chuck said:
I may have quoted some of what you said but my comments were not targeted at you, I just meant to address some of your concerns, sorry for coming off preachy.

The one thing that pissed me off and at the same time motivated me to get more involved was the ban on the national parks. Interestingly it wasn't the FAA that did that.

I take nothing personal.
I am quite accustomed to both positive and negative reactions to my comments. LOL. I enjoy and invite both.

National Parks. Quite right, the FAA didn't do that but I suspect that SECTRAN and SECINT have some very close ties and a bug in the ear is all it would take. The reasoning is absolute bullsh*t and yet our community has been silent.
I'd suggest anyone with a Senator or Congressman who has a National Park in their district should be getting flooded (LOL) from the 0.001% of their hobbyist constituents. In fact, write them even if you don't have a park. This has implications for all of us and even a small voice is better than rolling over and playing dead.

OK, Hobbyist's, let's be more responsible and quit making it so hard on the Pros. And Pros, how about a bit of support for us hobbyist's. We all probably started the same way.

There is the guy with the "DroneLaw" or whatever it is. They identify with Pros and have little time for hobbyist's. To bad, because I believe hobbyist's outnumber the pros by a boat load. It's going to take some cooperation by all to see this thru.
If the AMA thinks this will have no effect on them they are kidding themselves.

'nuf said. I didn't mean to hijack the thread.

Motopreserve · Jul 31, 2014

If the AMA thinks this will have no effect on them they are kidding themselves.

the AMA has been very vocal about their stance on this latest interpretation being antithetical to the FAA modernization act written/passed in 2012. I have heard the higher-ups speaking quite succinctly about this in several interviews, and none of it sounded like they were kidding themselves. In fact, they have set up for donations to be used specifically for fighting this interpretation if you choose.

I am am pretty sure they are also the organization that directly appealed to the FAA (and succeeded) in getting the comment period extended another 60 days so everyone would have time to weigh in.

stitch1615 · Jul 31, 2014

Motopreserve said:
the AMA has been very vocal about their stance on this latest interpretation being antithetical to the FAA modernization act written/passed in 2012. I have heard the higher-ups speaking quite succinctly about this in several interviews, and none of it sounded like they were kidding themselves. In fact, they have set up for donations to be used specifically for fighting this interpretation if you choose.

I am am pretty sure they are also the organization that directly appealed to the FAA (and succeeded) in getting the comment period extended another 60 days so everyone would have time to weigh in.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a long time member and supporter and I see them as one of our only hopes.
I'd like to see them be a little more transparent about what's going on but I guess they will when they can.

Roto5411 · Aug 1, 2014

It has been rather amusing to see the omnipotent FAA, who believes that they should be able to make a "policy", say jump, and everyone will ask how high...only to have their policies challenged and slapped down in the courts. The latest case involved Texas Equusearch Mounted Search and Recovery. Equusearch asked for an expedited review or a motion for a stay, but the court granted the FAA request for a motion of dismissal. The FAA realized they didn't have a leg to stand on, but their motion for dismissal backfired on them and new law was created, essentially clearing the way, at least in the near term, for commercial UAS operations. Equusearch resumed operations during a search on the 30th.
Don't expect any speedy appeal in the Pirker case either. I suspect the full NTSB Board is going to put off this case for years, or at least until the FAA gets its act together and creates new law in accordance with [FONT=&quot]5 U.S.C. Section 553 Rulemaking.
ROTO
[/FONT]<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

UAS_JOBS · Aug 24, 2014

I end up talking to quote a few people in the industry about twhat they hear is going on. If you want to check in feel free eric@uascareercentral.com and if you want feel free to register at www.uascareercentral.com as we send out updates sometimes and help connect people.

Commercial sUAS petition is live at Whitehouse.gov

stitch1615

Member

Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast

stitch1615

Member

Roto5411

Member

UAS_JOBS

Member