This is why it's bad. ^^^^^^^^^ Did someone else interpret what they read differently?
2018 FAA Reauthorization - Not Good
- Thread starter STKNRUD
- Start date
This is why it's bad. ^^^^^^^^^ Did someone else interpret what they read differently?
I remember seeing it on a faasafety.gov training class I took before I pulled the trigger on a King Schools course. Here's a screenshot.
Attachments
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
Cheech Wizard
Well-Known Member
That's out of the Advisory Circular 107-2
5.7 VLOS Aircraft Operation. The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small UA at all times during flight. Therefore, the small UA must be operated closely enough to the CS to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UA operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used during the aircraft operation. However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity. For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with a small UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in part 107, §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances of what would prevent a remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one. If VLOS cannot be regained, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for a loss of VLOS. These procedures are determined by the capabilities of the sUAS and may include immediately landing the UA, entering hover mode, or returning to home sequence. Thus, the VLOS requirement would not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UA CS. 5.7.1 Unaided Vision. VLOS must be accomplished and maintained by unaided vision, except vision that is corrected by the use of eyeglasses (spectacles) or contact lenses. Vision aids, such as binoculars, may be used only momentarily to enhance situational awareness. For example, the remote PIC, person manipulating the controls, or VO may use vision aids to avoid flying over persons or conflicting with other aircraft. Similarly, first person view devices may be used during operations, but do not satisfy the VLOS requirement. While the rule does not set specific vision standards, the FAA recommends that remote PICs, persons manipulating the controls, and VOs maintain 20/20 distant vision acuity (corrected) and normal field of vision.
Arial Foto
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 20
- Reactions
- 10
I too am not a model aircraft enthusiast (I bought a consumer drone for photography purposes), but I did join the AMA. They are not just a “club”: they are a lobbying and advocacy group that has long worked hard to protect Section 336 (Part 101), and they also provide group liability insurance for their members.
They are also the ones getting the short end of the stick, and I feel for them. Community-based organizations like theirs have been around longer than the FAA. Their membership was relatively small: mainly middle-aged men building fixed-wing and helicopter RC models in their garage, maybe taking a supervised child or grandchild to a grassy field to fly safely and responsibly. Hobby shop owners were careful to vet and lecture their customers about proper use. These guys were community-minded, accountable, safety-conscious and respectful of their society—and because they self-policed and operated within the spirit of their group, legislators and law enforcement gave them latitiude and they didn’t need overly restrictive regulations. They worked hard to maintain their legal right to practice their hobby safely and responsibly, including the special rules granted them under Section 336.
I think the big mistake of the past was deciding that consumer drones qualified as model aircraft. I do see the challenge: some of those model hobbyists experimented with multi rotor aircraft (including quadcopters), and blazed the trail for the inexpensive consumer technology that so many of us enjoy today. (Of course, it is difficult to draw a well-defined line now: if you exempt model quadcopters as different from consumer drones, what’s to prevent drone manufacturers from selling basically off-the-shelf drones as nominally “DIY hobby kits”, finding loopholes and skirting the spirit of the law like gun companies do? Slippery slope...)
With consumer drone use exploding (over 2.5 million drones sold just in the US in the past twelve months alone), and anyone 13 years or older able to register and fly a drone under the same special rules, it must have really taken model aircrafters by surprise. Suddenly their skies were filled with more and more, cheaper and cheaper drones—many of them operated by yahoos that didn’t know, didn’t care to know, or didn’t care to observe, the rules they were supposed to follow.
Section 336 is very explicit about flying under CBO rules such as the AMA’s—and admittedly those CBO rules are pretty lax, given they were originally designed for that small group of self-policing model aircrafters. Truthfully, many drone users claiming to fly under Section 336 have never even looked at the AMA’s or other CBOs’ safety rules.
Now I hear people exchanging exasperated stories about close encounters with drones, reports on the news, and crazy stuff like that UK passenger airline that almost hit a drone at ~18,000 feet! The public gets paranoid, worrying about death from above, privacy and spying, pedophiles, noise, and general nuisance. Legislators respond rashly to the public outcry, passing overly restrictive and ill-informed laws and ordinances. The yahoos don’t care about the laws and continue to practice the reckless, irresponsible and annoying behaviors in increasing numbers, while the model aircrafters and responsible sUAS operators bear the burden of their actions. It snowballs from there.
There is a lot of great stuff in HR302: changes long overdue for commercial airline flights (minimum seat sizes, no dogs in overhead bins, no taking seats from paid customers, working lavs, disabled access, pregnant women pre-boarding, etc). Believe it or not, I read the 1200+ pages of it two weeks ago. Even most of the drone stuff is good (funding vocational and community college education to train UAS pilots, opening the door to new commercial uses like delivery, etc), and I like the idea of some sort of test or license, which they’ve prescribed as being administered at the CBO level. But putting model aircrafters under the increasing jurisdiction of the FAA? Deeply unfair.
I wrote to my senators and representatives advocating that the bill not be passed as is, just because I feel so badly for the model aircrafters getting roped in with the bad drone operators. But it is hard to kick a giant piece of legislation back for one point out of thousands. And really, something needs to be done because consumer misuse is only going to get worse.
With costs so low and access so easy, it’s not the commercial users and model aircraft hobbyists that are crowding the lower skies: it’s consumer drones. The bar of entry is too low. And that could ruin it for the rest of us that operate safely, courteously and responsibly.
There was a time when anyone with enough money could buy or build a car and do whatever they wanted with it. There was no DMV, no seatbelt laws, no license or registration, and in some places weak or nonexistent traffic laws mainly geared toward carriages and horses. Then consumer vehicles became so affordable and commonplace that eventually more and more controls had to be passed: yahoos were everywhere, hurting and annoying too many people. Today, nobody loves the DMV, but everyone agrees that we need licenses, minimum ages, tests and drivers’ ed for our own common sake. Passing the driving test and getting a driver license has become a celebrated American rite of passage, a coming-of-age milestone. No one wants to roll back the clock to 1900.
As for me, well, as long as 336 exists, I can fly for fun, safely, responsibly and in accordance with the rule of law. I belong to the AMA to support their efforts and to show my appreciation, as well as to benefit from the advocacy they give (and their group liability insurance that hopefully I will never need). If the law adds a recreational test, I am already Part 107 certified, so I’m sure I could clear that hurdle easily. And no matter what I can still fly commercially under Part 107. The useful industrial applications of sUAS continue to grow, and so the government recognizes a viable industry worth protecting and bolstering. Even so, commercial drone use is getting economically squeezed by increasing competition, and so true commercial use will ultimately limit itself in numbers by its own profitability. I’ll keep my commercial certification even if I don’t end up flying for profit: it’s still a great tool in my photo bag!
They are also the ones getting the short end of the stick, and I feel for them. Community-based organizations like theirs have been around longer than the FAA. Their membership was relatively small: mainly middle-aged men building fixed-wing and helicopter RC models in their garage, maybe taking a supervised child or grandchild to a grassy field to fly safely and responsibly. Hobby shop owners were careful to vet and lecture their customers about proper use. These guys were community-minded, accountable, safety-conscious and respectful of their society—and because they self-policed and operated within the spirit of their group, legislators and law enforcement gave them latitiude and they didn’t need overly restrictive regulations. They worked hard to maintain their legal right to practice their hobby safely and responsibly, including the special rules granted them under Section 336.
I think the big mistake of the past was deciding that consumer drones qualified as model aircraft. I do see the challenge: some of those model hobbyists experimented with multi rotor aircraft (including quadcopters), and blazed the trail for the inexpensive consumer technology that so many of us enjoy today. (Of course, it is difficult to draw a well-defined line now: if you exempt model quadcopters as different from consumer drones, what’s to prevent drone manufacturers from selling basically off-the-shelf drones as nominally “DIY hobby kits”, finding loopholes and skirting the spirit of the law like gun companies do? Slippery slope...)
With consumer drone use exploding (over 2.5 million drones sold just in the US in the past twelve months alone), and anyone 13 years or older able to register and fly a drone under the same special rules, it must have really taken model aircrafters by surprise. Suddenly their skies were filled with more and more, cheaper and cheaper drones—many of them operated by yahoos that didn’t know, didn’t care to know, or didn’t care to observe, the rules they were supposed to follow.
Section 336 is very explicit about flying under CBO rules such as the AMA’s—and admittedly those CBO rules are pretty lax, given they were originally designed for that small group of self-policing model aircrafters. Truthfully, many drone users claiming to fly under Section 336 have never even looked at the AMA’s or other CBOs’ safety rules.
Now I hear people exchanging exasperated stories about close encounters with drones, reports on the news, and crazy stuff like that UK passenger airline that almost hit a drone at ~18,000 feet! The public gets paranoid, worrying about death from above, privacy and spying, pedophiles, noise, and general nuisance. Legislators respond rashly to the public outcry, passing overly restrictive and ill-informed laws and ordinances. The yahoos don’t care about the laws and continue to practice the reckless, irresponsible and annoying behaviors in increasing numbers, while the model aircrafters and responsible sUAS operators bear the burden of their actions. It snowballs from there.
There is a lot of great stuff in HR302: changes long overdue for commercial airline flights (minimum seat sizes, no dogs in overhead bins, no taking seats from paid customers, working lavs, disabled access, pregnant women pre-boarding, etc). Believe it or not, I read the 1200+ pages of it two weeks ago. Even most of the drone stuff is good (funding vocational and community college education to train UAS pilots, opening the door to new commercial uses like delivery, etc), and I like the idea of some sort of test or license, which they’ve prescribed as being administered at the CBO level. But putting model aircrafters under the increasing jurisdiction of the FAA? Deeply unfair.
I wrote to my senators and representatives advocating that the bill not be passed as is, just because I feel so badly for the model aircrafters getting roped in with the bad drone operators. But it is hard to kick a giant piece of legislation back for one point out of thousands. And really, something needs to be done because consumer misuse is only going to get worse.
With costs so low and access so easy, it’s not the commercial users and model aircraft hobbyists that are crowding the lower skies: it’s consumer drones. The bar of entry is too low. And that could ruin it for the rest of us that operate safely, courteously and responsibly.
There was a time when anyone with enough money could buy or build a car and do whatever they wanted with it. There was no DMV, no seatbelt laws, no license or registration, and in some places weak or nonexistent traffic laws mainly geared toward carriages and horses. Then consumer vehicles became so affordable and commonplace that eventually more and more controls had to be passed: yahoos were everywhere, hurting and annoying too many people. Today, nobody loves the DMV, but everyone agrees that we need licenses, minimum ages, tests and drivers’ ed for our own common sake. Passing the driving test and getting a driver license has become a celebrated American rite of passage, a coming-of-age milestone. No one wants to roll back the clock to 1900.
As for me, well, as long as 336 exists, I can fly for fun, safely, responsibly and in accordance with the rule of law. I belong to the AMA to support their efforts and to show my appreciation, as well as to benefit from the advocacy they give (and their group liability insurance that hopefully I will never need). If the law adds a recreational test, I am already Part 107 certified, so I’m sure I could clear that hurdle easily. And no matter what I can still fly commercially under Part 107. The useful industrial applications of sUAS continue to grow, and so the government recognizes a viable industry worth protecting and bolstering. Even so, commercial drone use is getting economically squeezed by increasing competition, and so true commercial use will ultimately limit itself in numbers by its own profitability. I’ll keep my commercial certification even if I don’t end up flying for profit: it’s still a great tool in my photo bag!
Last edited:
Arial Foto
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 20
- Reactions
- 10
Epilogue: I suspect HR302 will have to pass as-is. Long-time model aircrafters may not love it, but nothing stays the same forever. And most of those guys are smart and responsible enough to clear any certification and legislative hurdles. Their craft may not be the wide open and free field that it once was, but with bad drone operators increasingly filling the skies, the alternative is simply unthinkable.
I just joined the forum because I just bough a Mavic 2!
I've been an AMA member for many years and I am a president of an AMA club, I am also an Assistant Regional Director for KS and MO for the SC IMAC SIG (Special Interest Group) under AMA. There are many issues with the Bill, the biggest one for us is now the 400' limitation was put back in. We fly at designated sites in airspace class G. The designation for the field is a charter flying site through AMA, which has our Longitude and Latitude and is available to the FAA. So they know where we exist, and if they choose can ask aircrafts to fly around the designated fields, at the same time we watch for air traffic. The designated flying fields are outside of a 5 mile radius of an airport, not over people, not over buildings, not over houses etc. We have been flying safely for over 100 years with an impeccable safety record. We AMA members have insurance through AMA in the event we do any damage to private property or persons. But we also abide by the rules AMA gives to us or we can no longer fly at our designated sites. This Bill Goes around all that AMA does for us in an attempt to regulate those persons operating a UAS.
The first version of this Bill in May wasn't too bad. AMA got their language in and the 400' rule was not in there. But it's back and that is a very big problem. There are other SIGs in AMA, such as the glider community, that are towed up to around 1500' and released to sore around looking for thermals. My SIG is a scale version if IAC, we compete in precision aerobatics and fly RC Airplanes that go up to 42% in size and the top of my schedules, which I am in a lower class will take my 42% to 1000'. The upper classes will need at least 1800'
The 2-stroke engines we use to fly these big planes are typically proven and test by us hobbyists and then put into production for our military. This will eliminate this process and cause either these manufacturers to go out of business or charge an outrageous amount for them back to the US Government.
There are also SIGs (Special Interest Groups) that fly large scale jets and will easily go to 2000', they need this space to safely perform a turnaround maneuver.
I read earlier what the big deal is on the 400'... well now you know.
By the way, watching people try to fly quads, or "drones" unsafely over people, houses, businesses, and even airports on YouTube is the very reason this is in a Bill. It is not because the operation of RC Airplanes at a certain altitude by AMA members has changed.
By the way, I am catching so much grief by the airplane community for my Mavic 2 purchase, but I just love it. I do fly it at my designated flying field, never have I flown it within the city limits. I also live about 4 miles from an airport, therefore I cannot fly it at home. I am an AMA member and I am acting responsibly.
I've been an AMA member for many years and I am a president of an AMA club, I am also an Assistant Regional Director for KS and MO for the SC IMAC SIG (Special Interest Group) under AMA. There are many issues with the Bill, the biggest one for us is now the 400' limitation was put back in. We fly at designated sites in airspace class G. The designation for the field is a charter flying site through AMA, which has our Longitude and Latitude and is available to the FAA. So they know where we exist, and if they choose can ask aircrafts to fly around the designated fields, at the same time we watch for air traffic. The designated flying fields are outside of a 5 mile radius of an airport, not over people, not over buildings, not over houses etc. We have been flying safely for over 100 years with an impeccable safety record. We AMA members have insurance through AMA in the event we do any damage to private property or persons. But we also abide by the rules AMA gives to us or we can no longer fly at our designated sites. This Bill Goes around all that AMA does for us in an attempt to regulate those persons operating a UAS.
The first version of this Bill in May wasn't too bad. AMA got their language in and the 400' rule was not in there. But it's back and that is a very big problem. There are other SIGs in AMA, such as the glider community, that are towed up to around 1500' and released to sore around looking for thermals. My SIG is a scale version if IAC, we compete in precision aerobatics and fly RC Airplanes that go up to 42% in size and the top of my schedules, which I am in a lower class will take my 42% to 1000'. The upper classes will need at least 1800'
The 2-stroke engines we use to fly these big planes are typically proven and test by us hobbyists and then put into production for our military. This will eliminate this process and cause either these manufacturers to go out of business or charge an outrageous amount for them back to the US Government.
There are also SIGs (Special Interest Groups) that fly large scale jets and will easily go to 2000', they need this space to safely perform a turnaround maneuver.
I read earlier what the big deal is on the 400'... well now you know.
By the way, watching people try to fly quads, or "drones" unsafely over people, houses, businesses, and even airports on YouTube is the very reason this is in a Bill. It is not because the operation of RC Airplanes at a certain altitude by AMA members has changed.
By the way, I am catching so much grief by the airplane community for my Mavic 2 purchase, but I just love it. I do fly it at my designated flying field, never have I flown it within the city limits. I also live about 4 miles from an airport, therefore I cannot fly it at home. I am an AMA member and I am acting responsibly.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Are you in Class G airspace? Our AMA field had no problem getting approved by our local (less than 3-miles away) non- tower controlled airport that also serves an active general aviation and a CalFire air tanker base. I also got permission to fly my Mav 2 Pro within 3.75 miles out. With all the opportunities we have for flying here, hope no-one messes it up for the rest of us!
I wrote both of my Senators and asked them to vote NO on HR 302. I also renewed my AMA membership 4 months early!
Personally, I am in FAVOR of required aeronautical knowledge testing for hobbyist drone pilots. This forum (and other social media sites) have proven there are far too many "rules are meant to be broken" cowboy drone pilots out there making it tough on those of us that care about this hobby. If required testing and more stringent policing keeps them out of the skies, all the better.
My unhappiness with HR 302 lies in the broad authority it gives the FAA Administrator to regulate hobbyist drone pilots with zero Congressional oversight and in possible violation of my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Mark
Personally, I am in FAVOR of required aeronautical knowledge testing for hobbyist drone pilots. This forum (and other social media sites) have proven there are far too many "rules are meant to be broken" cowboy drone pilots out there making it tough on those of us that care about this hobby. If required testing and more stringent policing keeps them out of the skies, all the better.
My unhappiness with HR 302 lies in the broad authority it gives the FAA Administrator to regulate hobbyist drone pilots with zero Congressional oversight and in possible violation of my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Mark
EyeFlightDrone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2018
- Messages
- 193
- Reactions
- 141
- Age
- 44
At this point America's democracy n Constitution are meaningless. Money n might equal power. The citizen is on par with the prisoner. In fact free health, dental, food n shelter makes being a prison not so bad.
Cheech Wizard
Well-Known Member
Yeah, don't get political newbie, go to Faceboog for that, The Mods and Admins and many members frown upon political crap. Just saying.
JSKCKNIT
Well-Known Member
Read through most of the comments and there's very valid arguments to be made for and against the bill.
Like Mark above said, I too am in favor of a knowledge test. After all the near miss, illegal flights by airports etc., I knew it was coming. Honestly feel that drone video by Las Vegas McCarran Airport, whether real or fake, really got the ball rolling on regulating drones.
Like Mark above said, I too am in favor of a knowledge test. After all the near miss, illegal flights by airports etc., I knew it was coming. Honestly feel that drone video by Las Vegas McCarran Airport, whether real or fake, really got the ball rolling on regulating drones.
bluntnose
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 32
- Reactions
- 27
- Age
- 80
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
Cheech Wizard
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Lets take a look at that. I never heard of this incident. Watch the whole thing, at one point fines and penalties are mentioned.
And then this happened.... BAD PRESS! One A******, is all it takes.
Check this out: Don't be the guy who flew a drone over a jet landing at Las Vegas airport
Last edited:
I'll betcha VLOS will be "going away" soon. Up & coming businesses involving drones cannot operate with that restriction in effect...
Cheech Wizard
Well-Known Member
Here is another example of a dope with a drone. I hope he never finds it. Looks like we have to start condemning , reporting and policing our own. At least in the Las Vegas incident the Drone Community vigorously condemned the action and are working with the FAA to find the person.
JSKCKNIT
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
3 Forster Beach Mid North Coast, NSW, Australia 🇦🇺- Episode #16- Started by Squidinc
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
