A Word From the FAA

[tcope]

There will NEVER be people, or aircraft in the same space that I am flying. Why should I have to go through these hoops for the FAA when its the "mavic distance record" guys, or the "I have a 107, I am a pilot just like the guy in the cessna" they need to regulate.I am all for limits, I am all for registration, I am NOT for putting undue requirements on ME because of what YOU want to do. If someone thinks they NEED to fly above 400', or near airports and glide slopes Make a test for them to pass.

You are suggesting that they make some laws that apply to everyone but you and only a few laws that include you. See any problems with that? Also, all those other people.... they say the same things you just said... their will "never' be aircraft in the areas they fly and only certain laws should apply them them because they are not part of the problem. I've never been in a auto speeding accident so I see no reason why speed limits should apply to me.

It does not work that way.

 

[ac0j]

You are suggesting that they make some laws that apply to everyone but you and only a few laws that include you. See any problems with that? Also, all those other people.... they say the same things you just said... their will "never' be aircraft in the areas they fly and only certain laws should apply them them because they are not part of the problem. I've never been in a auto speeding accident so I see no reason why speed limits should apply to me.

It does not work that way.

I see your point. Your missing mine.
Why not just tell UAV pilots stay under 400’ ( and make that law and not a suggestion) stay more than 5 miles from airports, helipads and glide slopes . THEN , just enforce those laws?
How does a registration of any kind support safety? I’ll use the driver license comparison here. Save for there is almost no risk of major incidents with life and property with a toy drone.
Again, I know how it currently is and I think it’s over reaching. Soon it will involve kites and balloons on strings if we let this continue.
The timid pilots just need to figure out that with changing tech there will be added risk and change their flying habits to reduce their fears.
These are TOYS about the size and weight of a shoe. NOT nuclear warheads.
People that really. don’t want to be hit by a baseball, stay clear of baseball games.

 

[tcope]

I see your point. Your missing mine.
Why not just tell UAV pilots stay under 400’ ( and make that law and not a suggestion)

Done.

How does a registration of any kind support safety? I’ll use the driver license comparison here.

There is no indication that is does provide any degree of safety. I've always said this.

Soon it will involve kites and balloons on strings if we let this continue.

I've flown kites for 18 years now.... there are regulations on the books limiting kite flying (things tethered to the ground).

My point was you can't use the argument, "I'm this or that" as a reason why laws don't need to be made. You are one person and laws are not written to govern one person. It does not matter if we agree or disagree that certain laws should exist... but we do need to understand that our arguments need to be based on _everyone's_ flight.... not just our own.

 

[Ozarkwoods]

I posted this in your other thread but IWill Post it here too

I am within the five mile radius of an airport. So I am looking for an area to fly, my son lives in Broken Arrow OK, so I thought I would look at ordnance’s of that city to see if drones are prohibited. Here is what I found
*note the section on Scope at the end.*

So reading this unless the city has a designated area all take offs and landings are prohibited within the city limits.

Chapter 3.5 - AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS[1]



Sec. 3.5-1. - Operation of airports, heliports, etc., within city limits prohibited; exceptions.



No person shall operate any airport, heliport, air terminal, landing field, or landing site within the city limits; provided this prohibition shall not apply to any heliport used by and associated with an ambulance service or hospital which is duly licensed by the state to serve Broken Arrow, and which is primarily used for the transportation by air of sick or injured persons, medical supplies and health care providers.
(Code 1977, § 3.5-1; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)



Sec. 3.5-2. - Permitted locations for takeoffs and landings.

No airplane or helicopter shall take off from or land upon any land, building, or structure within the city limits except:
(1). At a permanent heliport allowed by applicable law;
(2) At a site specifically authorized by city council for such activity as a temporary use under such terms and conditions as the council may prescribe; or
(3) As necessary to respond to an emergency involving a threat to human life or to property; or
(4) At the location of a nonrecurring event, in which fewer than six landings or takeoffs are anticipated during any semiannual period.

(Code 1977, § 3.5-2; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)

Sec. 3.5-3. - Applications for use of land under this chapter; notice.
An applicant for the use of land under this chapter shall cause the site to be posted and give written notice to the surrounding property owners, located within 300 feet of the landing site, of the application at least ten days in advance of the hearing. The sign shall have the dimensions and size of lettering comparable to the sign used in zoning applications within Broken Arrow. Such applications may be referred to the special events committee for recommendation.

Sec. 3.5-4. - Items considered at hearing on application.

At any hearing on an application under this chapter, consideration shall be given to the openness and lack of development of the land, the location of electrical and natural gas lines, the distance to private residences, the frequency of the use, and the volume of sound anticipated.

(Code 1977, § 3.5-4; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)

Sec. 3.5-5. - Scope of chapter.

The provisions of this chapter are intended to regulate all "heavier than air" craft regardless of configuration, construction or means of propulsion. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to regulate "lighter than air" craft such as hot air balloons.

(Code 1977, § 3.5-5; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)

 

[tcope]

I posted this in your other thread but IWill Post it here too

The provisions of this chapter are intended to regulate all "heavier than air" craft regardless of configuration, construction or means of propulsion. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to regulate "lighter than air" craft such as hot air balloons.

(Code 1977, § 3.5-5; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)

It was written in 1996. Not sure what the point is.

 

[Ozarkwoods]

It was written in 1996. Not sure what the point is.

Doesn’t matter when it was written, my point is is covers all “heavier then air” craft. It is still in effect.

 

[Lon Denard]

Doesn’t matter when it was written, my point is is covers all “heavier then air” craft. It is still in effect.

The time frame matters because there weren't any consumer grade drones in '96 so the ordinance doesn't apply to flying toys, it applies to manned aircraft. They didn't want guys landing their copters in the city park.

 

[Norb_DAIS]

The time frame matters because there weren't any consumer grade drones in '96 so the ordinance doesn't apply to flying toys, it applies to manned aircraft. They didn't want guys landing their copters in the city park.

I would interpret it the same way -- the intent of the ordinance is "heavier than air" aircraft, and it could be argued that sUAS fit in that blanket description. This is just another gray area that the FAA is trying to address. I agree that maybe that at the time that this was written, drones weren't in their minds...unless they were very forward thinking. Call the City Hall and see if there is someone who can provide legal clarification of the ordinance as it relates to sUAS.

I looked up the city ordinances where I live and they don't address sUAS at all, so I go by current FAA regulations (as I understand them.)

 

[Lon Denard]

I would interpret it the same way -- the intent of the ordinance is "heavier than air" aircraft, and it could be argued that sUAS fit in that blanket description. This is just another gray area that the FAA is trying to address. I agree that maybe that at the time that this was written, drones weren't in their minds...unless they were very forward thinking. Call the City Hall and see if there is someone who can provide legal clarification of the ordinance as it relates to sUAS.

I looked up the city ordinances where I live and they don't address sUAS at all, so I go by current FAA regulations (as I understand them.)

I know I'm a "scofflaw" but my fall back position is if there isn't a specific law against, it's not against the law.

 

[covpack]

Read the 2018 FAA reauthorization act just passed by congress and signed by the President. GO TO Text - H.R.4 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018

Basically, the FAA will start requiring a test for recreational pilots, however, it will not be considered a certification. Per section 344: (1) require the completion of an online or electronic educational tutorial that is focused on knowledge of the primary rules necessary for the safe operation of such UAS and whose completion time is of reasonable length and limited duration.
The new law goes on to say that recreational pilots will not have to hold a 107 or commercial (107) drone license. Section 344 states:
(c) Maintaining Broad Access To UAS Technology.—When issuing rules or regulations for the operation of UAS under this section, the Administrator SHALL NOT—
(1) require the pilot or operator of the UAS to obtain or hold an airman certificate;
(2) require a practical flight examination, medical examination, or the completion of a flight training program;
(3) limit such UAS operations to pre-designated fixed locations or uncontrolled airspace; or
(4) require airworthiness certification of any UAS operated pursuant to this section.


The FAA Act also goes on to say that DRONES WILL NOT be banned from any airspace, again as stated in section 344:
(3) require UAS operators within Class B, C, D and E airspace to obtain authorization, as the Administrator may determine to be necessary within that airspace, but only after the Federal Aviation Administration has developed and implemented an automated airspace authorization system for the airspace in which the operator wants to operate; and (4) include provisions that provide specific operational rules for UAS operating in close proximity to airports in class G airspace.

Finally, the system being developed is known as the LAANC. You can access it through several phone apps, I use Airmap, which is free. But if you read the new law then states that "but only after the Federal Aviation Administration has developed and implemented an automated airspace authorization system for the airspace in which the operator wants to operate." The system is running but has several bugs. Not sure when it will be fully operational. My airports are on it in my town (Las Vegas). Issue is that when I file a flight plan, I have never received confirmation. I had to followup with a phone call. Again, that is one of the bugs. I hear people have had problems getting airport approval and, thus, DJI geofencing release for those wanting to fly within the 3 mile limit of airports - some times up to 6 months. I wonder if LAANC will fix such.

FYI on LAANC
FAA UAS Data Exchange
FAA Facilities participating in LAANC

 

[Ozarkwoods]

I would interpret it the same way -- the intent of the ordinance is "heavier than air" aircraft, and it could be argued that sUAS fit in that blanket description. This is just another gray area that the FAA is trying to address. I agree that maybe that at the time that this was written, drones weren't in their minds...unless they were very forward thinking. Call the City Hall and see if there is someone who can provide legal clarification of the ordinance as it relates to sUAS.

I looked up the city ordinances where I live and they don't address sUAS at all, so I go by current FAA regulations (as I understand them.)

I will be getting an interpretation of the law from city hall. Now the way it reads it does not say you can’t fly in air space above the city just can’t take off or land in the city. I will report back what I have learned from the city.

 

[stldan]

I would hope your assumption would be incorrect. Should the premise hold true, many CBOs would be out of business legally and be forced to, possibly, travel extreme distances to have fun. I know it only takes but a few to ruin it for all with more and more regulation. I really hope that would not be the case. I do know that the FAA would definitely consider that a viable possibility, but I sincerely hope not.

Since we have a republican government now, shouldn’t we have less regulations, less government interference? I do think we need a way to weed out the ones making the rest of us look bad, but how do we do that without ridiculously strict rules for those of us “playing nice” ?

 

[Lon Denard]

Since we have a republican government now, shouldn’t we have less regulations, less government interference? I do think we need a way to weed out the ones making the rest of us look bad, but how do we do that without ridiculously strict rules for those of us “playing nice” ?

Okay not to get into politics but a significant number of regulations have been removed in the last two years. Regardless of party, no government can forever ignore the calls for regulation from the general populace. The thing to understand and as was posted, you shouldn't get too worked up yet. As far as I can tell, not much has actually changed yet. The FAA has been basically given a mandate to enact some rules for drone pilots. I guess the "negative"thing is we are no longer "immune" from regulation. I'm honestly not that worried about it. There are actual regulations on the books that virtually every one of us violate daily without knowing it.

 

[mannok77]

We don't need any language that states "developed areas". Way too much interpretation to that. I'm trying to think of any precedent in aviation. The yellow areas on sectional charts may be generally considered populated areas. Consider this: The yellow areas are more of a representation of the area of lights you would see when flying over them at night. They are designed for a manned aircraft flying over them, possibly thousands of feet in the sky. A sectional chart is a basic chart for pilots navigating visually using landmarks and lights on the ground. When flying a drone you may only want to stick to a 1000 foot radius for a particular operation. That is very specific. We don't need any broad-stroke rules telling us we can't fly in a very large area for some unproven reason.

 

[jsinon]

Good points. I guess where I am coming from, the way I fly is for fun. There will NEVER be people, or aircraft in the same space that I am flying. Why should I have to go through these hoops for the FAA when its the "mavic distance record" guys, or the "I have a 107, I am a pilot just like the guy in the cessna" they need to regulate.
I am all for limits, I am all for registration, I am NOT for putting undue requirements on ME because of what YOU want to do. If someone thinks they NEED to fly above 400', or near airports and glide slopes Make a test for them to pass. The more freedom you want, the more work thats required.

This is where I'm at, and why I've waited until recently to buy a drone. As a landscape photographer I'd like to use my drone only to capture unique perspectives of some of the places I now photograph from the ground(lots of middle of nowhere stuff). The closest thing to "commercial" use would be images winding up on my website for people to buy prints. I have zero interest in any other commercial use of my drone, yet I feel I need to get my 107 anyway.

 

[ac0j]

This is where I'm at, and why I've waited until recently to buy a drone. As a landscape photographer I'd like to use my drone only to capture unique perspectives of some of the places I now photograph from the ground(lots of middle of nowhere stuff). The closest thing to "commercial" use would be images winding up on my website for people to buy prints. I have zero interest in any other commercial use of my drone, yet I feel I need to get my 107 anyway.

You will certainly need a 107 to do that legally. But my opinion is that the FAA calling you commercial just because of that is dumb. And a waste of FAA time and resources.

 

[jsinon]

You will certainly need a 107 to do that legally. But my opinion is that the FAA calling you commercial just because of that is dumb. And a waste of FAA time and resources.

That's exactly my feelings on the matter. I get the need for some type of regulation for what I would consider "real" commercial use of a drone. But so far 99+% of what Ive been reading/studying with regards to obtaining my 107 is completely irrelevant to what I would be using the drone for. Hell, I cant see myself flying anywhere near 400' for what I want to do, let alone near airports, etc. Perhaps a tiered certification, I don't know. But for the time being if the FAA says I need to get a 107 in order to legally sell prints of the photos I take(or share them on my facebook page for that matter), then so be it.

 

[Bigbird48]

We have idiots here to.People just want to fly take picture of the trees and be left alone. I know the rules, I fly with care, and away from people and when the government tells me I have to spend a bunch of money and become a licensed pilot thats when I become an outlaw. I'm really sick and tired of everyone thinking they know better then me and tell me what to do. If I want to fly my drone out in the woods and take pictures I'm gonna do it.If I'm not bothering anybody leave me the heck alone.

 

[macoman]

We have idiots here to.People just want to fly take picture of the trees and be left alone. I know the rules, I fly with care, and away from people and when the government tells me I have to spend a bunch of money and become a licensed pilot thats when I become an outlaw. I'm really sick and tired of everyone thinking they know better then me and tell me what to do. If I want to fly my drone out in the woods and take pictures I'm gonna do it.If I'm not bothering anybody leave me the heck alone.

I know how u feel about it. I feel the same way as well. This is why I fly my drones away in remote places so not one bother me and I do not bother anyone. If my drone crashed or lost control, I don't have to worry that the drone will hit or damage valuable property. Because where I go to fly is just a river or lake or mountains with a lot of vegetation.

 

[Lennyg]

"I have a 107, I am a pilot just like the guy in the cessna" .

Those are the worst. Some get their 107 and all of a sudden become experts in aviation rules/regs and get their honorary Drone Police Badge. I was at a FOB the other day and there was a guy buying IFR High Alt charts, one of the guys asked what he flew and he Proudly states. "I'm a licensed Drone Pilot"