The Hour Is Upon US! FAA To Divulge New sUAS Regulations Today (Sunday 2/15/2015)!

[Old Man]

I guess I should have asked the obvious: What IS that UAS, specifically?

I can't remember the name of the company. It was a concept put together by a bunch of young engineers in the American Midwest and initially marketed to some of our military. The payload is a modular arrangement that permits swapping of one type to another using the same turret set up. At the time they were not proven to be as reliable as desired. They may have improved since then, who knows. It looks pretty slick though

 

[Giovanni59]

I am a little disappointed that the restrictions are so minor. There are a million Phantoms out there and every Tom, Dick & Harry is in the business now. I would have thought they would at least require a two man operation and even a third person as spotter.

 

[Old Man]

The purpose of the NPRM is to establish the baseline for public comment and later review. I agree with you and what could get such a requirement added to the bill is enough public comments filed in the docket reference this. The document as currently published is not even close to what the final version will be. It's up to the people that will be bound by it to make themselves heard through the comment process to flesh it out.

 

[Giovanni59]

I understand, I imagine it will evolve. Funny, some auto check took the short version of the name Richard out. How ridiculous is that!
I did not know names were prohibited words on this website.

 

[Bartman]

I am a little disappointed that the restrictions are so minor. There are a million Phantoms out there and every Tom, **** & Harry is in the business now. I would have thought they would at least require a two man operation and even a third person as spotter.

i had an experience earlier last year where three customers had called me after having bad experiences with unskilled Phantom owners selling their services as pro A/P operators. in each case my services were so much better and my equipment so much more capable that the advantage to using me was obvious thanks to the Phantom owners.

it's going to be a wild time as this opens up but the unknowing public will eventually learn and the people that offer professional services without trying to gouge their clients will do very well.

 

[Giovanni59]

I agree totally. I know my still shots for realtors will ramp down and that is fine. It is the video work that will be very evident between these smaller UAVs and our larger rigs. I just invested in a Movi M10

 

[Old Man]

Nice! Real estate through a stock GoPro falls apart when straight lines are involved so even the real estate work will eventually flush the amateurs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tstrike]

Before we get too excited let's wait and see what the fines are for violation and who's going to enforce them. Everytime the .gov gets involved I'm reminded of this from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand-

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.


“Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted –and you create a nation of law-breakers– and then you cash in on guilt.


“Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

 

[Gary Seven]

You sure getting political posting RW stuff is the right thing to do here on this forum? Or is there some humor that escaped me?

 

[Ronan]

I am a little disappointed that the restrictions are so minor. There are a million Phantoms out there and every Tom, **** & Harry is in the business now. I would have thought they would at least require a two man operation and even a third person as spotter.

There could be 100 million phantom's out there... Doesn't matter. We are talking about PROFESSIONAL gear utilize by PROFESSIONALS. Once you are filing taxes, paying insurance, make a living out of it, etc... i can tell you, you better act professional, obey the laws/requirements/etc. It come's with the profession. Little Joe with his phantom 3.58, no insurance and wanting to make a quick buck... well there's lots of those in other professions, they don't stay around long, especially when they get slapt with a $10,000 fine for not having a certificate, or a huge law suite because their parent's home insurance doesn't cover the phantom through the windshield of that guy's Mercedes

As for the amateurs blinding themselves with their own phantom's... well what can you do? Its like that for pretty much anything...

 

[tstrike]

You sure getting political posting RW stuff is the right thing to do here on this forum? Or is there some humor that escaped me?

RW? That's from a work of fiction written in 1957. The devils in the details is all I'm saying. Wasn't the whole point of regulation to put up some kind of barrier to entry to protect mankind from errant rc pilots?

 

[JoeBob]

Before we celebrate:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150215/us-faa-drones-4b7cf0a65a.html
"Even if the White House approves the FAA's proposal, the agency is still required to offer it for public comment. Tens of thousands of comments are anticipated, and it could take two to three years for the agency to address them before issuing final regulations."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...87bdce-b51b-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html
"The long-awaited regulations — the FAA had been drawing them up for several years — are expected to lead to a revolution in commercial aviation. But they must first undergo a lengthy period of public review and comment that is projected to take at least until early 2017.

At least I can stop re-learning landnav for a pilot's license.

 

[Gary Seven]

RW? That's from a work of fiction written in 1957. The devils in the details is all I'm saying. Wasn't the whole point of regulation to put up some kind of barrier to entry to protect mankind from errant rc pilots?

Agreed. You're completely right when you say, "the devil's in the details." Clearly, there has to be some form of regulation/intervention before some clueless dolt kills a child with his Phantom. But how do we do this without placing an undue burden and expense on the qualified, experienced, or just downright responsible pilots? You're damn right the devil's in the details!

 

[Old Man]

You do this by responding logically and thoughtfully to the NPRM with suggestions that would make it better. That's what the process is all about. We are now in a 90 day public comment period. So ya'll should comment where it counts, with the FAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gary Seven]

You do this by responding logically and thoughtfully to the NPRM with suggestions that would make it better. That's what the process is all about. We are now in a 90 day public comment period. So ya'll should comment where it counts, with the FAA.

There's no arguing with that, @Old Man (sidebar: I have a tough time calling you that as I'm not so young myself!). Would you save me the trouble and point me to a link?

 

[filmfly]

Congrats Ronan, glad the clients are calling you again! I certainly agree that a lot of clear, positive comments will be necessary now to combat the other interests that won't be happy. We should also be clear in the points we aren't happy with.

BLOS (important for some waypoint or autonomous missions) is still the major question for most. We also have yet to see how difficult it will be to obtain "ATC permission" to fly in controlled airspace, or to register an aircraft. But these should be very minor compared to the overall ability this would give operators.

One thing worries me:
I'm hearing a lot of people expressing concern that these proposed regulations would let too many new operators begin commercial operations (the Buy & Fly crowd).

Is this a concern for public safety? (i.e. inexperienced operators will hurt people)
Is it a concern for the integrity of the sUAS industry? (i.e. inexperienced operators will scare away clients and raise insurance rates)
Or, is it a concern over competition? (i.e. GoPro Phantoms will steal work from those who have invested in quality equipment)

 

[filmfly]

There's no arguing with that, @Old Man (sidebar: I have a tough time calling you that as I'm not so young myself!). Would you save me the trouble and point me to a link?

Gary here is some information about the NPRM and how to respond. It doesn't seem to have been posted to Regulations.gov yet, but presumably when the work week starts it will be added.

http://www.acuas.org/nprm/

 

[Old Man]

Weeeellll, since the NPRM is posted we all might have an opportunity to suggest some further "codification" of multirotor use at the "hobby" levels. I'm certain some will cringe and shout "blasphemy" but what would be wrong with insisting on manufacturer provided documentation on safe user practices? How about truly functional user manuals? What about a minimum age for buyers, like 18 or something? Perhaps having to pass a basic flight safety quiz before departing the point of sale? There are just so many things that might be done that would at least make a statement that the responsible group at least tried to lead the horse to the water. What the horse did after that is on them and the responsible group can state with pride that they tried.

I detest the thought of more laws but someone mentioned earlier that it takes having a cop at the scene to get people to go the speed limit, not over it. A statement with a wealth of empirical evidence supporting it.

 

[Old Man]

filmfly,

If all are honest with themselves your answer is probably...yes.

 

[Gary Seven]

Gary here is some information about the NPRM and how to respond. It doesn't seem to have been posted to Regulations.gov yet, but presumably when the work week starts it will be added.

http://www.acuas.org/nprm/

Thank you.