Unless Zbip wants to come down and start a lobby in favor of making US laws more clear and concise, more sensical, and
easier for the 'common man' to comprehend (and follow!)... Sounds to me like he'd make a good chairman/spokesperson...
It's the way the law is applied to the "common man" that fires me up the most.
I get it that rules are needed for large corporations like Amazon if they intend to crowd the skies with thousands of drones to deliver packages. And I do get it that a large industry like Amazon is an entirely different beast compared to the "common man" who just wants to conduct fun flights in his backyard. They represent opposite ends of the spectrum regulated by the FAA.
The common man merely has to pass the TRUST test (which is impossible to fail) in order for him to appreciate that there are a minimum set of perfectly reasonable "don't be stupid" rules which have to be followed. That makes sense. This "common man" is thereafter "trusted" to behave responsibly whenever flying his drone.
But that exact same "common man" is not allowed to inspect his own roof gutters using his exact same drone, unless he can first demonstrate a proficiency in deciphering aeronautic sectional maps, decoding METAR weather reports and NOTAMS, understanding the effects of hypoxia, application of de-icing fluids, traffic in airport patterns, runway taxi-clearances, radio procedures, and a multitude of other obscure details that have no bearing on his roof gutters.
Flying in your backyard is okay, but looking at the roof gutters is not? Taking an aerial photo of your own house is okay, but not if you stick that photo into a real-estate advertisement? Flying in farm field for fun is okay, but studying your own crops is not okay?
It's a result of Congress inserting the exemption for "recreational" flights. But it is clearly a wacky distinction.
[...] no agency has attempted to enforce against personal gutter inspection, as far as I'm aware, that point is both moot and a straw man argument.
Maybe they haven't sunk that low yet. But they
could, because it's the law. They haven't hesitated in the past when it comes to the wacky distinction between recreational versus non-recreational.
At the time, "model aircraft" were exempt from most of the FAA's jurisdiction on the condition that "model aircraft" are only used for recreational purposes. You weren't allowed to use a model aircraft for any commercial purpose.
The FAA shut down Gene Robinson when he volunteered his drone expertise to help Texas EquuSearch. This group conducted searches on horseback to find missing people. Gene proved that his camera equipped fixed-wing drones could cover larger territory far more quickly, more effectively, and more safely. His drones proved successful in many cases. But the FAA forced him to stop for the totally non-sensical reason that "model airplanes" were not legally allowed to be flown for non-recreational purposes.
The famous "Trappy" case, FAA vs Pirker, also hinged on the definition of "model aircraft" being flown for purely recreational purposes. He received payment for his flight, ergo it was non-recreational, which exposed him to the full fury of the FAA.
The law has thankfully evolved since those days. Gene is now permitted to use his drones for missing persons searches, but only with full Part 107 certification. Trappy wouldn't be permitted to repeat his antics, even with Part 107.
But the all-important artificial distinction between recreational vs non-recreational remains and I'm amazed that nobody seems concerned by that.