Representation for Commercial sUAS

kloner

kloner

Aerial DP
You will see the real exemptions coming up soon. A lot of them were waiting to see what they did to us to start there submissions. Most what has come and gone at this point were people moving on our news presses about applying for it, next up will be the ones that wrote there exemptions after they announced ours and most likely are more in line with what the faa wants. I know our counsel is submitting 333's and theres no way those won't be going through unless they didn't listen to him. San Diego Gas and Electric is supposedly gonna get one shortly, there already on another faa process that was pre 333 but are limited to test sites.... 333 is suppose to let them work on there power lines across the county finally
 

S

Str8 Up

Member
I am writing our manuals for our section 333 exemptions right now for Electric Utility inspections. Here is the difference. I would not collude with the Electric Power Reasearch Institute, the Edison Electric Institute, or with other operators, using proprietary information as a group in order to get exempted. Why? Because it is wrong. Go back and read the Sherman Antitrust Act. It boggles my mind that a US Government Agency would encourage and actively conspire to create a non-competitive situation in this manner.
 

Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
Just for future comparative reference, have you ever seen what's involved in filing a document to export a product under ITAR regulations? Proprietary or not the documentation has to list a complete description of the product or component. Dimensions, voltage in/out, horsepower, metallurgy, composition, intended purpose or use and more. All of that info ends up going to several regulatory and enforcement agencies like State and Commerce. Do they share this information with more agencies or private oversight groups? That's a good question but considering government is pretty much owned by private corporations my guess is none of it remains secret or proprietary except from the general public.

Please don't misconstrue the above to imply I'm in favor of the practice. I'm not in the least but it demonstrates how much they care about our antitrust laws.
 

Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
I wonder just how much of this regulatory boondoggle is due to a lack of comprehension of what it is they intend to regulate? Based on the waiver requirements the FAA is still trying to regulate airplanes of much larger dimensions that what we use. It appears they are not making much distinction between ours and what they are accustomed to. A question I have relates to who has provided a detailed description of make up and capabilities to FAA members? Has any comprehensive information been shared at all outside of the usual media references? Perhaps it's reasonable to think the special interests that have been involved since day 1 of the 2007 ARC have generally been lobbying regulations for the product types they are involved with while little may have been provided for smaller multirotors. Lack of understanding would cause regulatory requirements that failed to address specific needs and capabilities. Perhaps some of the intent behind the waiver process was to develop information the FAA could learn from to better define what we are and do? That implies a logic that's foreign to governmental function but one can always hope.
 





SamaraMedia

SamaraMedia

Active Member
Hey Chuck, here's a drone strike - CNBC just broadcast the fiasco that happened over the weekend at a TGIF in NY during their drone mistletoe promo as a reporter is struck by a prop. Crap like this will not help the cause. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102250262?trknav=homestack:topnews:12

TGI Fridays' "mobile mistletoe drone" left a woman bloody and missing a piece of her nose last week.

Photographer Georgine Benvenuto was at a Fridays in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, when one of the operators tried to land the 10-inch aircraft on her head, but clipped off a part of her nose instead.

"It literally chipped off a tip of my nose," Benvenuto told the Brooklyn Daily. "It took off part of my nose and cut me here, right under my chin."

The drone's operator said the mistake wouldn't have happened if the woman hadn't flinched, according to the website.

"This was an isolated event during a demonstration for the reporter and photographer only, given by the licensed operator of the drone during the last day of this particular promotion," TGIF Fridays said, in a statement. "Of course, safety is our first priority and we are sorry that this isolated incident occurred." Wonder if the FAA will give a second look at his permit?
 

scotth

scotth

Member
I think I read that the FAA considers inside TGIF as navigable airspace and will be pursing a careless and reckless as per 91.13.
 

SamaraMedia

SamaraMedia

Active Member
Scary to think that inside a building can be considered navigable airspace. Just thought trying to land on top of the camera operators head a little irresponsible. I'll have to look into the 91.13.

Guess I'll hold off on that nano quad I was gonna buy to fly around in the house for practice...
 

Av8Chuck

Av8Chuck

Member
I was joking [sort of], apparently the joke is on TGIF. Do you think that drone operator showed his drone pilots license to the people at TGIF? If the FAA wants to fine anyone they should fine the news Producer who told the dumb A$$ reporter who "flinched" to "catch" the drone, the idiot that came up with this idea, the manager of the restaurant that allowed it to happen, that would be about $30K. Plus additional fine and jail time for the pilot, for impersonating a human.

Could you imagine someone coming up to you and asking you to do this: "You want me to do what!? Are you fu$%ing insane!!?" Its also kind of annoying how the article implied that the woman was some random person struck by the drone when it was the reporter. My guess that has more to do with the layout than the author. I wouldn't have fined the reporter, I'd give here the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know better which goes to show that reporters are really just sheep..
 

scotth

scotth

Member
"Jet Blue 1184 you're five miles from AROKE, turn left heading 090 to intercept the four left localizer.. report the salad bar in sight"
 

R

Ronan

Member
I'm trying to take some photos and videos of some very nice 'houses' (read mansions) with one of our drones. Of course it's problematic with all the crap happening.

Meanwhile in TGI... seriously!?...
 

Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
I think the activities at TGIF well define the term "moronic".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


pepper

pepper

Member
so how do we back door this issue? take a picture of the house or land from the ground, fly the sUAV and give them the pictures? only charge for the pic taken from the ground? i know this is an unspoken statement but has to be said.
 

R

Ronan

Member
"Drone technology is far surpassing the flying skills of the people who have them," said Paul Fraidenburgh, an aviation lawyer at Buchalter Nemer in Irvine, California. "The fact that someone is receiving money makes me feel safer about their operation."
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same response from anyone i have talked too...
 

Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
pepper said:
so how do we back door this issue? take a picture of the house or land from the ground, fly the sUAV and give them the pictures? only charge for the pic taken from the ground? i know this is an unspoken statement but has to be said.
Click to expand...

Be quiet, respectful, and don't brag a lot. Accept cash.
 

filmfly

filmfly

Member
The Small UAV Coalition seems so be doing good work at high levels to push for the commercial use of sUAS. As a lobbying organization for Amazon, DJI, and several other very large companies it appears they would be valuable partners in the efforts to improve some of the regulatory issues we face. I hope this support you are giving them Bart goes a long way to help them with the reform they are pushing for.

As a non-profit membership organization the ACUAS has been reaching out and talking about partnering with this and other groups on regulation changes, in addition to our efforts in support of individuals and small business. Both large and small companies should be allowed to participate in this industry.

Thank you Bart for helping both to inspire and promote the membership organization of ACUAS.org, and now for your interest in supporting the lobbying efforts of the Small UAV Coalition. I hope we are all successful at empowering the users of sUAS.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top