Oh great... is this true? (registration)

[Old Man]

I had mentioned this in another post awhile ago. But how come we've/I've never heard of any complaints, problems with the model rocket people? Those things can go to amazing heights, and at a tremendous speed, "basically uncontrolled". And they must still be pretty popular, as most hobby shops stock rocket kits and motors, as they refer to them. Maybe we should start calling our machines, "ELECTRIC ROCKETS"

Too small in numbers. Those that play with the big stuff mostly use designated ranges with cleared airspace. And some of them are really big! Plus they don't compete with aerospace giants for a piece of the business pie.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this registration thing is about aviation safety. That's just the ruse being used to push the first step in an agenda. If it was seriously about aviation safety there would be something in all this talk about being able to see and track sUAS while in flight. Registration does absolutely zilch for aviation safety.

 

[Old Man]

I never thought I'd be going this route but I've got 10 hrs towards my Sport pilots license...figure it's the lesser of two evils going forward if I truly want to do this as a legit business.

That works for you but I have to get current in type before submitting a 333 waiver request. Sounds like no big deal but if I have to use all my ratings in the process it will cost thousands to do three crash and dashes and a written test. If all I need to do is talk and act like a private pilot it will still be expensive, but not quite as bad. Last time I flew was three years ago.

 

[SamaraMedia]

Trust me, the last thing I want to do is dump thousands (which I've already done) into this only to find in a year or so not have the need for one and just pass a certification test. Who knows, if this current trend some how becomes a reality, I may just drop the whole "dream" of making this a career...

 

[Old Man]

Just speculating, but those with 333's will prolly be OK for quite awhile yet. I do think the spit in everyone's face BLOS folks are in for a pretty good shake down though. Some RC fixed wing as well. It's going to take some time for the independent testing (ASTM specifically) labs to come up with a bunch of certification parameters that will be imposed on everyone. If you have a pilot's license you're good to go with aerial photography and there's more than a few people that use full scale for inspection work. Agricultural is also using full scale with spectral imagery. Like I said, just speculating.

 

[econfly]

Trust me, the last thing I want to do is dump thousands (which I've already done) into this only to find in a year or so not have the need for one and just pass a certification test. Who knows, if this current trend some how becomes a reality, I may just drop the whole "dream" of making this a career...

This is the destructive power of fickle and inept governance. Uncertainty is far worse than even poor but clear regulation. People can't plan, invest, budget, or do anything else to build a business when the rules are unknown and unstable. Worse, the few rules we have require an irrelevant license -- both pushing many away from even trying to be legal and causing some to invest wasted dollars to get the appropriate license which may turn out to be pointless later. As I said before, the FAA could do something useful and offer us clear limitations for commercial work that would capture the vast majority of use cases and they could do it today: For example, daylight only LOS flying over private property with owner permission and under 200 feet AG -- make that legal for commercial work. This or something similar would be a clear first step that would unleash millions of dollars of legal, taxable, and productive aerial work. I really believe they value control more than they value serving the public or even offering benign regulation. Otherwise, why all of this delay, destructive regulation, and confusion?

 

[Oceans Eleven]

Rather than labeling people and offering associated negative implications (libertarian is a positive descriptor in my mind, though apparently not in yours), why not join the conversation and offer your own point of view?

Calm down there, Field Marshal. Obviously, directed sarcasm doesn't translate well in text mode.

The only post missing from this thread is the "Blue Helmets, black helicopters (sorry, 3DR), and FEMA concentration camps are next" posts. I'll give it a little more time.

 

[daniel]

All this because of DJI and he's Frking Phantom invention!!! before that little white drone, there was only Professional people flying professional builded multirotors by professional and responsable people with skills.....
Now,........we know.

 

[Webheadfred]

I'm not too concerned with the registration thing. I plan on getting whatever waivers needed. I DO take exception with the pilot license requirement they'll be requiring for commercial use. Requiring me to get a pilots license to fly a multi rotor is like requiring me to have a drivers license to run my lawn mower. Here is my email to the FAA attorney who wrote the proposed rule. I'm not sure he even got my point.

Dear Mr. Griffith,

I am an Air Traffic Control Supervisor in Knoxville, Tennessee. Additionally, I have an Extra Class amateur radio license.

I have been building from scratch and flying, my multi-rotor ‘drones’ for the past 4 years. You could say, I was on the cutting edge of the hobby. I program my own controllers, build all of my aircraft from scratch and fly them line-of-sight on my private property. Of course, I have a very large expense invested and I looked forward towards expanding my hobby into a commercial venture post retirement in March 2016.

My concern is the requirement for a pilot license. I understand the thinking behind this. I have taken flying lessons and in fact have several solos under my belt. I decided that flying was not for me. I am a 32 year air traffic controller; the last 9 years a a Front Line Manager in Knoxville, TN. I am well aware of safety related concerns and of course airspace. I am an expert in air traffic control. I know how the National Airspace System operates.

My question; if there any sort of waiver, or waiver request, from the requirement to attain a pilot license, in order to operate my UAV (‘Drone’)?

I know technology is changing faster than the Agency would like. I also know there are idiots simply purchasing over the counter devices and flying without any regard for anything. As a career air traffic controller, I also know that a pilots license doesn’t mean you’re not an idiot as there are a lot of unsafe pilots. It seems to me that there should be some sort of middle ground and that is what I seek. If you have any insight on this, I would appreciate your input.



Kind Regards,

Fred R******, FLM TYS ATCT

His Reply

Mr. R******,

The requirement to hold a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft is established in statute (49 USC 44711) and therefore the FAA cannot waive or exempt pilots from that requirement. In light of this the FAA proposed a pilot certificate requirement in the small UAS NPRM that is based on the pilot knowledge test. Until the small UAS rule is in place non-hobby operators are required to hold one of the current FAA-issued pilot certificates. If you are operating your UAS for hobby or recreational purposes you do not need to hold a pilot certificate.

Sincerely,

Dean Griffith

I get it. People are stupid and fly in unsafe proximity to aircraft; however; there is uncontrolled airspace below 1200 feet AGL outside of airport surface areas where ATC has no jurisdiction. They're simply trying to play catch-up and casting a huge net until it all gets sorted out.

 

[Old Man]

This is the destructive power of fickle and inept governance. Uncertainty is far worse than even poor but clear regulation. People can't plan, invest, budget, or do anything else to build a business when the rules are unknown and unstable. Worse, the few rules we have require an irrelevant license -- both pushing many away from even trying to be legal and causing some to invest wasted dollars to get the appropriate license which may turn out to be pointless later. As I said before, the FAA could do something useful and offer us clear limitations for commercial work that would capture the vast majority of use cases and they could do it today: For example, daylight only LOS flying over private property with owner permission and under 200 feet AG -- make that legal for commercial work. This or something similar would be a clear first step that would unleash millions of dollars of legal, taxable, and productive aerial work. I really believe they value control more than they value serving the public or even offering benign regulation. Otherwise, why all of this delay, destructive regulation, and confusion?

Econfly,

If one has a 333 the LOS flying in daylight under 200' with a property owner's permission is already given. Those with a 333 have what amounts to pretty much a national COA for ops below 200' if the airspace is otherwise legal to fly in. There's no letters to the area FSDO for scheduling or obtaining a COA required. But you still have to possess a current pilot's license and use a registered aircraft. As mentioned in the previous post, rather than amend 49 USC 44711 with a simple one line NPRM to permit low altitude sUAS LOS ops they elected to retain it as an all encompassing tool that limits commercial enterprise until a larger and more difficult to execute NPRM crawls through the legislative process, with no assurance the pilot's knowledge test will become the standard.

 

[econfly]

Calm down there, Field Marshal. Obviously, directed sarcasm doesn't translate well in text mode.

The only post missing from this thread is the "Blue Helmets, black helicopters (sorry, 3DR), and FEMA concentration camps are next" posts. I'll give it a little more time.

I can't see why you think ridicule and sarcasm are positive contributions to this discussion, but, this being the internet, such is hardly unique. Carry on.

 

[SchrodingersCar]

I often attribute questionable government actions to ineptness rather than hunger for power... this just feels like the FAA trying to hold off scrutiny by saying "Look! We're doing something, we promise!" without really caring what the effect is either way.

What's killing me is the original estimate for new rules from the NPRM was 2016... now people are saying 2017... or is it 2018? And what are the odds that after all is said and done and there are REAL rules set down, that the pilots license is still required? Who's got the inside info, anyone? I'm trying to make real business decisions here and dropping >$10k for what could prove to be a couple months of legality is firmly in the "no" category...

Is the consensus still a collective shrug?

 

[Old Man]

From my perspective there's no shrugging at all, the major aerospace players are still developing the rules THEY will be operating by, which in turn will be the rules the FAA instills on everyone else. At the executive levels our government agencies are not inept, but they do not establish the course decisions for laws are made. That's done by monied players outside of government. I still do not believe we are seeing delays in airspace and operating rules at all, but instead the process of corporate protectionism.

Others will certainly disagree, but if you have any real desire to participate, obtain the 333 but anticipate and prepare for more equipment and administrative requirements as everything moves forward. Bear in mind aerospace is interested in BLOS operations but unfortunately most of those operations perform the same functions, and more, that our equipment is capable of, but at a MUCH higher hourly rate.

A prediction; aerospace units will fly single missions where a wide spectrum of collected data can be identified, isolated, individualized, and sold to multiple customers without the data sold to one encroaching on another customer's subject matter. We need to consider developing such capability.

 

[Hexacrafter]

What's killing me is the original estimate for new rules from the NPRM was 2016... now people are saying 2017... or is it 2018? And what are the odds that after all is said and done and there are REAL rules set down, that the pilots license is still required? Who's got the inside info, anyone? I'm trying to make real business decisions here and dropping >$10k for what could prove to be a couple months of legality is firmly in the "no" category...

I do not think there has been any change from the FAA direction since it went into comments.
Here is how I understand it.
1. Those with 333 exemptions will continue to fly within the scopes of their 333 exemptions and blanket COA. But will still be able to fly in other locations on a site by site basis with a specific COA. A minimum of a Private Pilot license minimum will be required for this type of sUAS use.
2. The proposed "sUAS Operator" will be a new class of FAA regulated "position". No this will not be a pilot, but a sUAS operator. This will require a new "specialized knowledge test" and perhaps a flight proficiency test with each sUAS to be flown as an "operator". All sUAS to be flown will be required to have the same type of operator, maintenance & flight logs that are required for someone flying under a 333 exemption. Operators will be required to register their sUAS aircraft with the FAA and get a new sUAS number to mark their aircraft. The types of locations & airspace that an "operator" will be able to fly within will be similar to the types of locations currently available to those within the current blanket 333 COA.
3. Hobbyists will be required to mark their aircraft per the new rules & register their aircraft with the FAA. They will be able to fly for non-commercial purposes within the present "model aircraft" guidelines already adopted.

As I understand it, The BIG difference between a 333 exemption and the proposed "sUAS Operator" designations is the ability to get a "Site Specific COA" and the ability to fly on a closed set in more dangerous conditions with closed set participants.
Only time and a final release from the FAA will prove out the final outcome, but this is what I understand is underway.

 

[SchrodingersCar]

It's sounding more and more like it might be smartest to just bite the bullet and get that damn pilots certificate... but if they then turn around and say I can't fly without a $50,000 diamond-encrusted flight controller I swear I'm gonna write the FAA the meanest Yelp review...

 

[Old Man]

Some linkage might be starting to grow.

http://www.avm-mag.com/faa-expands-unmanned-aircraft-pathfinder-efforts/?tc=eml

 

[SchrodingersCar]

http://www.avm-mag.com/faa-expands-unmanned-aircraft-pathfinder-efforts/?tc=eml

Many airports control the bird population by deliberately introducing birds of prey to the area. Maybe the solution it to create one big drone that actively hunts all the little ones near the airport... or just train falcons to attack phantoms! Nobody steal my business idea, I thought of it first!

 

[Old Man]

Killer Drone!!

 

[Bartman]

Many airports control the bird population by deliberately introducing birds of prey to the area. Maybe the solution it to create one big drone that actively hunts all the little ones near the airport... or just train falcons to attack phantoms! Nobody steal my business idea, I thought of it first!

you're on a roll!
first the Yelp! comment and now drone-of-prey drones!

 

[Bartman]

can i copyright that name? Drone of Prey? that's going to be my 2204 powered 250 XY4 LiM racer.......

 

[SchrodingersCar]

We should form our own Drone Avengers that protects the common man from ill-informed phantom jockeys.

Did I take the thread way too off-topic again?