First New look of FAA Memorandum 2019

[tleedom]

I don't know if they'll implement Insurance Requirements (they should IMHO) but the rest of it sounds great to me and it could be on the horizon.

This also brings up a good point of membership in AMA and liability coverage, will hobbyists have to use a designated fixed site within controlled airspace to be covered, or can I still use my 107 for clearance and be covered?

 

[sar104]

Yes I did and the quote above precisely addresses my point. Joe beat cop had better have an applicable state statute in HIS tool kit if he’s going to go around questioning, citing or arresting drone flyers.

I was responding to your comment that the jurisdictional issues are not addressed by any toolkit. They are explicitly addressed in the FAA LE toolkit.

 

[Deleted member 94307]

I’m all for this..everyone who wants the freedom to fly should get certification.

The notion that the class g airports are to busy to take phone calls is nonsense.. the problem as always is no way to enforce this.

Now that they are doing this they should allow part 107 pilots to fly from empty parks..
rangers have time to check up on us and could check Reg. And cert.

They just keep coming up with more rules on top of rules and no one enforcing them. Will still lead to a horrible accident. Then they will want to ban drones entirely... all because government incompetence and mismanagement .

I recently called the state park office because I read pilots could get approval. I asked to fly from a state park on a week day at 6:30am. To get pics of city skyline for commercial photography. I was told I would have to pay $2500 for permit and be insured.. they told me it’s getting harder to find places to fly drones to which I said “no sir ...there are plenty of places to fly legally .. I just want a safe place where I don’t have to worry about being robbed while I fly.. it’s so true ....

 

[DroningOn]

Despite the fact that FAA regs control the air from the ground up, many communities have made laws. LEO is charged with enforcing them, even if they are not valid.
For example, there’s a forest of local laws in AZ despite the overriding state law stating that only the state can regulate.
Pity the LEOs that have to sort it all out in taking field actions.

You’re exactly right. There are countless examples of states that have enacted mirror or redundant laws copying federal statutes. This allows local law-enforcement to be involved with enforcing what is otherwise federal law. In the absence of such laws, local law enforcement has a limited or no power.
While the FAA has the sole power to regulate airspace in the drone realm, there is absolutely nothing stopping state legislatures from enacting laws requiring people to abide by federal regulations. This happens all the time in the other industries especially mine.

 

[Deleted member 94307]

This also brings up a good point of membership in AMA and liability coverage, will hobbyists have to use a designated fixed site within controlled airspace to be covered, or can I still use my 107 for clearance and be covered?

Covered by whom? What’s the best way to be insured. Drone insurance is to much money?

 

[Thomas B]

Covered by whom? What’s the best way to be insured. Drone insurance is to much money?

Check it out on the AMA website: $2.5 million liability, $10k property damage, and $1k drone coverage are part of a regular membership for $75/yr. you also get othe benefits, see below:

Membership Options | Academy of Model Aeronautics

NULL

www.modelaircraft.org

 

[Burk]

Here is what goes into effect at the end of the week:

Here's a list of Section 349 taken directly from the bill which goes LIVE later this week:

SEC. 349. EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED RECREATIONAL OPERATIONS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.—Chapter 448 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

Ҥ 44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

“(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:

“(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

“(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

“(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

“(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

“(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

“(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

“(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

“(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

“(b) Other Operations.—Unmanned aircraft operations that do not conform to the limitations in subsection (a) must comply with all statutes and regulations generally applicable to unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems.

“(c) Operations At Fixed Sites.—

“(1) OPERATING PROCEDURE REQUIRED.—Persons operating unmanned aircraft under subsection (a) from a fixed site within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, or a community-based organization conducting a sanctioned event within such airspace, shall make the location of the fixed site known to the Administrator and shall establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the air traffic control facility.

“(2) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT WEIGHING MORE THAN 55 POUNDS.—A person may operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds, including the weight of anything attached to or carried by the aircraft, under subsection (a) if—

“(A) the unmanned aircraft complies with standards and limitations developed by a community-based organization and approved by the Administrator; and

“(B) the aircraft is operated from a fixed site as described in paragraph (1).

“(d) Updates.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in consultation with government, stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall initiate a process to periodically update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as appropriate.

“(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In updating an operational parameter under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider—

“(A) appropriate operational limitations to mitigate risks to aviation safety and national security, including risk to the uninvolved public and critical infrastructure;

“(B) operations outside the membership, guidelines, and programming of a community-based organization;

“(C) physical characteristics, technical standards, and classes of aircraft operating under this section;

“(D) trends in use, enforcement, or incidents involving unmanned aircraft systems;

“(E) ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that updates to the operational parameters correspond to, and leverage, advances in technology; and

“(F) equipage requirements that facilitate safe, efficient, and secure operations and further integrate all unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system.

“(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as expanding the authority of the Administrator to require a person operating an unmanned aircraft under this section to seek permissive authority of the Administrator, beyond that required in subsection (a) of this section, prior to operation in the national airspace system.

“(e) Statutory Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.

“(f) Exceptions.—Nothing in this section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception set forth in this section, relating to—

“(1) updates to the operational parameters for unmanned aircraft in subsection (a);

“(2) the registration and marking of unmanned aircraft;

“(3) the standards for remotely identifying owners and operators of unmanned aircraft systems and associated unmanned aircraft; and

“(4) other standards consistent with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system.

“(g) Aeronautical Knowledge And Safety Test.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, other industry stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, which can then be administered electronically by the Administrator, a community-based organization, or a person designated by the Administrator.

“(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Administrator shall ensure the aeronautical knowledge and safety test is designed to adequately demonstrate an operator’s—

“(A) understanding of aeronautical safety knowledge; and

“(B) knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration regulations and requirements pertaining to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in the national airspace system.

“(h) Community-Based Organization Defined.—In this section, the term ‘community-based organization’ means a membership-based association entity that—

“(1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

“(2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

“(3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;

“(4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe aeromodelling operations within the national airspace system and the protection and safety of individuals and property on the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator;

“(5) provides programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and

“(6) provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.

“(i) Recognition Of Community-Based Organizations.—In collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180 days of the date of enactment of this section that identifies the criteria and process required for recognition of community-based organizations.”.

(b) Technical And Conforming Amendments.—

(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for chapter 448 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:


“44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft.”.
(2) REPEAL.—Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) and the item relating to that section in the table of contents under section 1(b) of that Act are repealed.

 

[pmshop]

Despite the fact that FAA regs control the air from the ground up, many communities have made laws. LEO is charged with enforcing them, even if they are not valid.
For example, there’s a forest of local laws in AZ despite the overriding state law stating that only the state can regulate.
Pity the LEOs that have to sort it all out in taking field actions.

And many communities were stripped of those ordinances by the FAA citing those ordinances need FAA approval.

 

[Thomas B]

The allowance for remote testing via the internet is a good idea.

 

[Thomas B]

And many communities were stripped of those ordinances by the FAA citing those ordinances need FAA approval.

True! Problem is new ones grow like weeds and LEOs must enforce... huge waste of resources.

 

[tleedom]

Covered by whom? What’s the best way to be insured. Drone insurance is to much money?

Verifly provides affordable commercial Drone insurance on a "As Needed" basis.

Drone Liability Insurance by the Hour

Learn more about our on-demand liability insurance for private and commercial drone flights. Starts at just $10 per flight.

www.verifly.com

 

[Deleted member 94307]

That’s crazy... how are they going to notify all the recreational fly who still don’t even know about the number on the outside ?

This is not going to make the skys safer.. once some fool fly’s into a plane and causes a horrific accident then maybe people will find out about all the new laws.

Why not require companies to restrict flights through their software.. no flying allowed in class b c d airports ???? You already can’t take off when a TFR goes into effect for the president (NJ)

 

[sar104]

That’s crazy... how are they going to notify all the recreational fly who still don’t even know about the number on the outside ?

This is not going to make the skys safer.. once some fool fly’s into a plane and causes a horrific accident then maybe people will find out about all the new laws.

Why not require companies to restrict flights through their software.. no flying allowed in class b c d airports ???? You already can’t take off when a TFR goes into effect for the president (NJ)

Communicating this is going to be a huge problem. I would not be surprised if manufacturers do end up with pretty hard geofencing.

 

[Thomas B]

Communicating this is going to be a huge problem. I would not be surprised if manufacturers do end up with pretty hard geofencing.

And that will really be a mess... DJI maps for NFZs are different than all the others, plus they are not an FAA LAANC provider.. check the list:

UAS Data Exchange (LAANC)

www.faa.gov

 

[Montana John]

Despite the fact that FAA regs control the air from the ground up, many communities have made laws. LEO is charged with enforcing them, even if they are not valid.
For example, there’s a forest of local laws in AZ despite the overriding state law stating that only the state can regulate.
Pity the LEOs that have to sort it all out in taking field actions.

You know what happens when LEO's get frustrated by confusing laws? Clue: they don't just say "forget it," and go away. Nope. Somebody gets cited for something, or maybe somebody goes for a ride in the back of the patrol car. Supervisory personnel at the station or judges can sort it out later.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Telephone contact with the local (KCOS) Colorado Springs Tower Supervisor indicates they too had just received a very short notice of the implementation of the FAA Brief. Supervisor did state there are no MOA's in standing for the KCOS area concerning fixed flight areas. He further stated their instructions are simply to inform UAS operators to maintain the stepped altitude recommendations for their respective areas. Mine is on the cusp of 50-100 feet altitude. (Manned AC are to be at 500 minimum (non-congested) and 1000 (congested) areas. No matter, we are still required to yield to manned!!!

He further stated the easiest way around the stepped altitudes is (as applicable only for 107 pilots) is to submit flight plan via LAANC. So, in a sense, one can fly as Part 107 and enjoy altitude higher than 50 feet, at least in my area. Makes sense!

So, once my health permits me to get back to flying, I'll know what I can do. Meanwhile, I'm still learning how to live with a stoma, not my idea of fun.

 

[tcope]

On Friday, presumably, they will cancel AC 91-57A and release AC 91-57B. That should contain clear guidance.

Are we still talking about information from the FAA?

 

[MavicMikeK]

Here's the AMA's response to the FAA letter...

Dear members,

Some of you may be aware of a recent FAA Memorandum that addressed altitude and flying restrictions in controlled airspace. This memorandum was intended as FAA guidance to educate air traffic control facilities (ATC) on best methods to respond to recreational flyers seeking authorization, not as guidance to recreational operators.

Recent legislation under Section 349 (c) states operators in controlled airspace will be required to seek authorization from towered airports, unless flying from a charted flying site. We successfully championed that if you are flying at an AMA flying field or sanctioned event, you can continue flying by following AMA's safety program and within the existing agreements your club or contest director has with nearby airports.

AMA has been in contact with the FAA regarding this memorandum, and we have been assured that our flying sites' current agreements with air traffic control facilities (ATC) will be honored and our members can continue flying within AMA's safety program, as usual. This memorandum was not intended for public distribution, and out of context can read as problematic or contradictory to previous messaging to protect our operations. The FAA clarified this memorandum is just one of many steps in the Section 349 implementation process.

Future steps in the implementation process will require letters of agreements (LOA) between AMA flying sites in controlled airspace and nearby ATC. Updates and guidance on how clubs should proceed with LOAs will be provided to our members in the coming days. Please monitor social media and www.modelaircraft.org/amagov for the latest information.

 

[tleedom]

Here's the AMA's response to the FAA letter...

Dear members,

Some of you may be aware of a recent FAA Memorandum that addressed altitude and flying restrictions in controlled airspace. This memorandum was intended as FAA guidance to educate air traffic control facilities (ATC) on best methods to respond to recreational flyers seeking authorization, not as guidance to recreational operators.

Recent legislation under Section 349 (c) states operators in controlled airspace will be required to seek authorization from towered airports, unless flying from a charted flying site. We successfully championed that if you are flying at an AMA flying field or sanctioned event, you can continue flying by following AMA's safety program and within the existing agreements your club or contest director has with nearby airports.

AMA has been in contact with the FAA regarding this memorandum, and we have been assured that our flying sites' current agreements with air traffic control facilities (ATC) will be honored and our members can continue flying within AMA's safety program, as usual. This memorandum was not intended for public distribution, and out of context can read as problematic or contradictory to previous messaging to protect our operations. The FAA clarified this memorandum is just one of many steps in the Section 349 implementation process.

Future steps in the implementation process will require letters of agreements (LOA) between AMA flying sites in controlled airspace and nearby ATC. Updates and guidance on how clubs should proceed with LOAs will be provided to our members in the coming days. Please monitor social media and www.modelaircraft.org/amagov for the latest information.

Here

AMA Government Affairs Update 5/14/19

I know there are already some threads about this FAA memorandum, just thought I would post the AMA's take on it...

mavicpilots.com

 

[51 Drones]

Wait, so regarding fixed sites. Does that mean in Controlled AS, you will only be able to fly in these "fixed sites"? Like a dog park or drone park? Or does fixed site mean already established sites where RC pilots fly?