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

[SamaraMedia]

Thanks for the compliment @oldman

Not a fan of the militarization use of verbiage in the release either, sorties, missions...even in this civilian use. No wonder we can't get a break in changing the mindset of the public. Also mentioned something about capable of flying up to 24 hrs????? What special sauce they using?

 

[Old Man]

No special sauce, just well set up engines and clean air frames. You'll understand if I have to remain more than a little cautious where questions about this stuff is concerned.

I'm not keen on the militarization of anything and everything either, but that's where all the work has been for over a decade. I doubt there's any chance at all of realigning the terminology to better fit civilian uses. It often appears humans have a greater propensity for war than they do for sex, some countries more than others. The media always talks about "delivery drones" but all the big developers design first for the government, military, and LEA markets, which is chock full of cryptic acronyms. Hobbyists like to comment on how large the MR and RC industry is and it's contribution to the GDP. It's only a drop in the military/government grade sUAS bucket.

 

[econfly]

One huge problem is conflating a 24-hour flight time capability and coverage of many kilometers of space, with aerial photo work from a multirotor with 12 minutes of flight time. I keep saying the same thing, I know, but we really could use some intelligent regulatory thought on the vast differences here. A multi doing aerial photo work 200 feet up with property owner permission and LOS flying is not going to be a problem -- so why regulate that work as if it is a problem in the first place? The answer, apparently, is that there just is not a powerful lobby representing most of us here. The big boys have the money and the power. We don't.

 

[Old Man]

Exactly!!!!!!!!

 

[Dezy]

Does anybody think that the FAA will come up with a plan that is close to their original proposal?

 

[Dezy]

Ah - I'll take that as a no............
Bummer
I kind a liked it

 

[Old Man]

Based upon historic performance, I doubt the FAA will do anything until after a major event that causes public or political outrage. It's a knee jerk reaction agency.

BTW, I think the 107 looked pretty good too, but I can see where some 333 outfits would not like the competition.

 

[Dezy]

Based upon historic performance, I doubt the FAA will do anything until after a major event that causes public or political outrage. It's a knee jerk reaction agency.

So much for the mandate from Congress...

BTW, I think the 107 looked pretty good too, but I can see where some 333 outfits would not like the competition.

I would rather the FAA falter too, if I were them, but I'm not sure they have much pull, yet.

 

[econfly]

BTW, I think the 107 looked pretty good too, but I can see where some 333 outfits would not like the competition.

This is the real motivator for most all regulation: Interference with competition and free trade in order to extract political power and contributions.

 

[Old Man]

This is the real motivator for most all regulation: Interference with competition and free trade in order to extract political power and contributions.

That condition is worse than most might think. Just referring to the posted link about BLOS activities in New Mexico is a perfect example. The company performing the work over the BNSF rail lines is one of the FAA "Pathfinder" members, and the activities demonstrated in New Mexico not only were for establishing the viability of BLOS operations, but also to establish the processes, equipment, and regulations that will be necessary for any and everyone as BLOS operations are incorporated into the NAS. Since I'm pretty well aware of what's involved in making that system work I can state with reasonable assurance there will be nobody competing at this level whose working capital, and staffing levels, are much less than those of a Fortune 500 company. If you can't play at the FAA Part 135 and Part 121 levels, lack a corporate staff, and don't have an active training and safety program, don't bother trying to play the game. The deck is being stacked to assure the game has a predetermined ending

 

[Dezy]

For BLOS operations, I really do not have a problem with heavy regulations - I believe that it is needed.

I just hope that the FAA realizes that that sort of regulation is not needed for LOS below a couple hundred feet.

 

[econfly]

For BLOS operations, I really do not have a problem with heavy regulations - I believe that it is needed.

I just hope that the FAA realizes that that sort of regulation is not needed for LOS below a couple hundred feet.

Right now it seems like there is no constituency with power or money to get government to acknowledge or accommodate LOS flying under a low ceiling over property with owner permission --- i.e., the vast majority of situations requiring aerial photo work. The emphasis is all on big industry and airports.

 

[Dezy]

Right now it seems like there is no constituency with power or money to get government to acknowledge or accommodate LOS flying under a low ceiling over property with owner permission --- i.e., the vast majority of situations requiring aerial photo work. The emphasis is all on big industry and airports.

I would think that the best group for this would be the AMA.

 

[econfly]

I would think that the best group for this would be the AMA.

I don't know much about the AMA, but my impression is they are not out there advocating for multis and commercial LOS aerial photo work. If they are, I guess I am unaware of the effort.

 

[Dezy]

I don't know much about the AMA, but my impression is they are not out there advocating for multis and commercial LOS aerial photo work. If they are, I guess I am unaware of the effort.

Here is a link to their latest effort:

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5c...d1178&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe3b11717666047d751578&r=0

 

[Old Man]

I would think that the best group for this would be the AMA.

I wish that was so, however, the AMA has thus far been vociferous in rejecting any involvement with "for hire" activities.

 

[Old Man]

Here is a link to their latest effort:

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5c...d1178&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe3b11717666047d751578&r=0

I think you'll find those efforts are more focused in exempting amateur modeling from any registration requirements.

 

[MadMonkey]

I wish that was so, however, the AMA has thus far been vociferous in rejecting any involvement with "for hire" activities.

We need an equivalent organization for commercial activities. I don't think it's a good idea for the AMA to step into that field; they've done a great job with the hobbyist aspect though (imho).

 

[Old Man]

I agree, especially when considering the groups that are "advising" the FAA with aircraft registration concepts. None of them have much, if any, interest in what we do or want to do.

I was having this discussion with Bart just last week and the same issue that was presented then is just as relevant now. Putting something like this together takes money. Nobody can put the time and effort into something like this and still work a day job. It's exactly the reason the ACUAS had to cut it's losses and fade away. It's extremely time intensive, and once political activities get started, expensive.

 

[Old Man]

The members of the drone registration task force working group. The names highlighted in maroon are not there to the benefit the small drone users. The AOPA has published articles openly opposing the use of sUAS, as has ALPA. Some of the others are there to better control the regulations their as yet to be named and released products will need as airspace is awarded them. Three of those present are there to assure their company's/organization's survival. Of all the members, only three of them view us in a positive light.

Co-chairs are Dave Vos of GoogleX and Earl Lawrence, director of the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office. Here are the members:

Nancy Egan – 3D Robotics, General Counsel
Richard Hanson – Academy of Model Aeronautics, Government and Regulatory Affairs Director
George Novak – Aerospace Industries Association, Assistant Vice President and Regulatory Counsel
Chuck Hogeman, Aviation Safety Chair, and Randy Kenagy, Manager, Engineering & Operations – Air Line Pilots Association
Jim Coon – Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs & Advocacy
Sean Cassidy – Amazon Prime Air, Director, Strategic Partnerships
Ben Gielow – Amazon Retail, Senior Manager, Public Policy
Justin Towles – American Association of Airport Executives, Staff Vice President
Brian Wynne – Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, President and CEO
Parker Brugge – Best Buy, Senior Director, Government Relations
Douglas Johnson – Consumer Electronics Association, Vice President, Technology Policy
Brendan Schulman – DJI, Vice President of Policy & Legal Affairs
Paul Feldman – General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Vice President, Government Affairs
Dave Vos – GoogleX (Co-Chair)
Tony Bates – GoPro, President
Matt Zuccaro – Helicopter Association International, President
Mike Fergus – International Association of Chiefs of Police, Program Manager
John Perry – Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors
Brandon Declet – Measure, CEO
Randall Burdett – National Association of State Aviation Officials, Board of Directors
Sarah Wolf – National Business Aviation Association, Sr. Manager, Security & Facilitation
Baptiste Tripard – Parrot, Business Development
Tyler Collins – PrecisionHawk, Director of Business Development
Gregory McNeal – Small UAV Coalition, Co-founder of AirMap
Thomas Head – Walmart, Product Safety & Regulatory Compliance Manager