FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (UAS) - Deadline to comment is April 15 2019

[tleedom]

Regulations.gov

 

[Mavic Medic]

Just read it and commented. I like some of the changes but strobes at night below 400’ is just stupi in my opinion. I can see it in class B-C-D and other complicated airspace. But when i close my eyes and try to envision what the public is going to think with the possibility of several UAV at night within view all flashy up there. 911 calls are going to flood centers taking up resources for one example. The bright flash is going to reduce pilot VLOS in my opinion. And most importantly why fly at night if you cant film or take picture cause the flash is reflecting off moisture and things.

But its better than we have now so if we get at least this they can always fine tune it. Lets face it Part 107 pilots are rarely the danger to manned aircraft.

Just a few of my personal views on this. Thanks for posting this reminder.. I sent them a book! LOL

 

[brett8883]

Just read it and commented. I like some of the changes but strobes at night below 400’ is just stupi in my opinion. I can see it in class B-C-D and other complicated airspace. But when i close my eyes and try to envision what the public is going to think with the possibility of several UAV at night within view all flashy up there. 911 calls are going to flood centers taking up resources for one example. The bright flash is going to reduce pilot VLOS in my opinion. And most importantly why fly at night if you cant film or take picture cause the flash is reflecting off moisture and things.

But its better than we have now so if we get at least this they can always fine tune it. Lets face it Part 107 pilots are rarely the danger to manned aircraft.

Just a few of my personal views on this. Thanks for posting this reminder.. I sent them a book! LOL

I actually don’t think that part is unreasonable. Truth is I think people don’t even really notice. If the light is on top that means the people directly below aren’t gonna see it and those that do will think it’s a helicopter in the distance.

What gets me going is the flying over people rule. You have to prove that the drone blades won’t rupture skin? They suggest using a shroud? What idiot came up with that? Everybody knows that using a propeller cage makes a drone much more unstable and if its crashing into a group of people below that means the props stopped working duhhhhh?.

And then you have to prove the drone won’t cause more damage if it crashes then a ten lb object free falling. Where do they come up with this? How am I suppose to prove that. I am a drone pilot not an engineer.

I think the FAA needs to spend a little more time worrying about commercial jets being programmed to nose dive into the earth and I little less time on worrying about somebody getting a boo boo from a drone rotor.

 

[SoCalDude]

My official comment submitted is, "I suggest that the Part 107 certification include an actual flight test. There are so many certified remote pilots today that are "book smart", but do not know how to safely control and maneuver a sUAS aircraft."

 

[ac0j]

My comment is quit trying to label my toy a weapon, and keep your manned aircraft out of my hobby airspace.
You have 500' and up, I have 400' and below. I'll stay away from crowds and airports. That should be the long and short of it.
I know there will be some people that feel like real pilots with their drones that will disagree with me, And real pilots that think they are better than everyone else that think we need to be controlled.

 

[brett8883]

My comment is quit trying to label my toy a weapon, and keep your manned aircraft out of my hobby airspace.
You have 500' and up, I have 400' and below. I'll stay away from crowds and airports. That should be the long and short of it.
I know there will be some people that feel like real pilots with their drones that will disagree with me, And real pilots that think they are better than everyone else that think we need to be controlled.

I think they are really suppose to be 1000' plus! I agree with everything btw. I would like to know how FAA is telling manned pilots to avoid UAVs.

If as I suspect they aren't saying jack then I guess they aren't actually worried about them as a safety concern after all.

 

[ac0j]

I think they are really suppose to be 1000' plus! I agree with everything btw. I would like to know how FAA is telling manned pilots to avoid UAVs.

If as I suspect they aren't saying jack then I guess they aren't actually worried about them as a safety concern after all.

1000' if over people.
It is all the panty waist pilots that think a drone will make their "real plane" crash to the ground that are causing the trouble with the FAA. Even though it has been proved to be only as damaging as a bird strike should they ever collide with my drone while they are flying too low over me.
A drone has NEVER caused a plane crash or emergency landing. Sure seems like the FAA is going to a lot of trouble for a presumed threat.