FAA Release NEW rules for UAS Operations

[mrwagdog]

It's kind of confusing because there are some "Covid" allowances (extensions/grace periods) in the formula for some.

Your "Currency" LAPSES (you go NON-Current) on the last day of the 24th month from the time you renewed your currency.

For instance lets say I was last recurrent on 12/1/2018. So the 24 months would have been up 12/1/2020. My "currency" would lapse 12/31/2020 and I would not be able to legally fly 1/1/2021. So depending on the day you last because current you would have 24 months and a few days extra.

If your Currency Lapses before the recurrent training and issuance of the new rules take place, you can not legally fly until either you take the recurrency TEST or you complete the recurrency TRAINING.

OK, thank you for that.

So in my particular case:

Original issue date was 7/31/2018, which would have ceased to be current 7/31/2020...

...but, due to covid allowances, I took the recurrent training on 7/24/2020 and was issued a certificate for it. That would extend my currency out to 1/31/2021.

After 1/31/2021 if I don't take the recurrent test in-person at a testing center, I will no long be current and can't make use of my Part 107, UNTIL the FAA implements the online recurrent training and test.

Do I have that right?

And again, thank you!

 

[Terry63]

If you last got your recurrent training on 7/31/2020 and add 24 months to that shouldn't you be current until 7/31/2022 ?

 

[brett8883]

It will probably be tied to the accelerometers. Programming and physics of how is beyond me. But companies like ParaZero and Indemnis have all of that worked out in their parachute software. So having DJI do it for their Mavic Mini series should be fairly easy for folks much smarter than I.

Rotors turn off automatically if an obstruction is detected. This is why it stops the motors and falls to the ground if you hit a tree. Will also turn off the rotors if it’s turned upside down. Some people do this to turn of their motors after a hand catch purposely.

 

[Vic Moss]

Rotors turn off automatically if an obstruction is detected. This is why it stops the motors and falls to the ground if you hit a tree. Will also turn off the rotors if it’s turned upside down. Some people do this to turn of their motors after a hand catch purposely.

DJI drones have that safeguard, which is nice. But it doesn't always work. So they need to make sure that happens.

 

[mrwagdog]

If you last got your recurrent training on 7/31/2020 and add 24 months to that shouldn't you be current until 7/31/2022 ?

There was a six month extension in 2020 for doing a recurrent exam which was granted by doing an online training. I completed it on 7/24/2020.

 

[brett8883]

DJI drones have that safeguard, which is nice. But it doesn't always work. So they need to make sure that happens.

I don’t quite understand what you mean. I haven’t heard of a situation where it didn’t work. Who determines that it “works?”

My next question is I see that Indemis already certifies that their product qualifies for level 2 on the Inspire 2 and has just 15 lbs of force.

So with that and let’s say a some simple prop guards would my Inspire 2 qualify for flight over people or do I need to have the FAA approve my set up with the combination of parachute and prop guards meaning that this really isn’t a change from having to get a waiver? Or is the FAA expecting us to get all new gear to comply with this?

 

[Vic Moss]

I don’t quite understand what you mean. I haven’t heard of a situation where it didn’t work. Who determines that it “works?”

My next question is I see that Indemis already certifies that their product qualifies for level 2 on the Inspire 2 and has just 15 lbs of force.

So with that and let’s say a some simple prop guards would my Inspire 2 qualify for flight over people or do I need to have the FAA approve my set up with the combination of parachute and prop guards meaning that this really isn’t a change from having to get a waiver? Or is the FAA expecting us to get all new gear to comply with this?

There have been many times it doesn't work for me. With both my Phantoms and my Mavics.

DJI will need to demonstrate that it's basically foolproof. Alan and Indemnis are having issue with getting the FAA to accept their parachute systems. They're not sure why. But if he can get his system to qualify for Category 3, they'll be in good shape.

As far as what will pass, who knows at this point. Time will tell. But we'll find out in 11-13 months.

 

[wco81]

So these new FAA rules won't supersede local regulations right?

Or regs by other agencies?

For instance, NPS will continue to bar drones as well local and state govts?

But certain professionals or maybe TV and movie productions will be able to fly over cities, national parks, etc. since they supposedly bring money to localities?

 

[lookout]

So these new FAA rules won't supersede local regulations right?

Or regs by other agencies?

For instance, NPS will continue to bar drones as well local and state govts?

But certain professionals or maybe TV and movie productions will be able to fly over cities, national parks, etc. since they supposedly bring money to localities?

The FAA has the oversight of the NAS, local and state governments don't.

 

[JMMath]

Better buy some KY.......

 

[Vic Moss]

So these new FAA rules won't supersede local regulations right?

Or regs by other agencies?

For instance, NPS will continue to bar drones as well local and state govts?

But certain professionals or maybe TV and movie productions will be able to fly over cities, national parks, etc. since they supposedly bring money to localities?

We can fly over those places already.

No local law supersedes the FAA’s control of the NAS.

 

[IDPhoto]

If RID let me still enjoy my recreational flights option 2 is good for me. I barely use my mavic 2 pro anyway and i am not planning to upgrade it in a long time or even at all. Still i refuse to include myself in a part 107 when my photos makes me ZERO money. I just like sharing them and in rare occasions show them in a local gallery. It actually costs me money to print and frame these **** things. The last gallery i featured one of my photos was a low light shot of the city i live in just before sunset. Donated it to the city hall and currently hanging in the mayor's office. As long as it lets me fly even in Class B like i do now with LAANC approval i am good. Question, now that i mention LAANC, will this be the end of LAANC?

 

[DanMan32]

No. RID and LAANC have two different purposes. LAANC is to get approval to fly in controlled airspace. Among other reasons RID is to identify you when you fly in controlled airspace and didn't get approval. [emoji16]
If you don't have RID and fly in controlled airspace, they may consider your AC a hostile.

 

[Vic Moss]

If RID let me still enjoy my recreational flights option 2 is good for me. I barely use my mavic 2 pro anyway and i am not planning to upgrade it in a long time or even at all. Still i refuse to include myself in a part 107 when my photos makes me ZERO money. I just like sharing them and in rare occasions show them in a local gallery. It actually costs me money to print and frame these **** things. The last gallery i featured one of my photos was a low light shot of the city i live in just before sunset. Donated it to the city hall and currently hanging in the mayor's office. As long as it lets me fly even in Class B like i do now with LAANC approval i am good. Question, now that i mention LAANC, will this be the end of LAANC?

As @DanMan32 mentioned, two different things.

As far as your M2P being allowed to fly, you can if you retrofit it. The modules to do that will be inexpensive and easy to install.

And you can continue to fly in Class B, as long as it's during the day. 44809 Recreational Flyers don't have an avenue to get permission to fly at night in controlled airspace. And we can fly 400' above a structure.

Nowadays, 107 pilots have more flexibility than 44809 flyers.

So if you want to fly at night in controlled airspace, and utilize the 400' "bubble", you'll need to get your 107 to fly legally.

 

[DanMan32]

As @DanMan32 mentioned, two different things.

As far as your M2P being allowed to fly, you can if you retrofit it. The modules to do that will be inexpensive and easy to install.

And you can continue to fly in Class B, as long as it's during the day. 44809 Recreational Flyers don't have an avenue to get permission to fly at night in controlled airspace. And we can fly 400' above a structure.

Nowadays, 107 pilots have more flexibility than 44809 flyers.

So if you want to fly at night in controlled airspace, and utilize the 400' "bubble", you'll need to get your 107 to fly legally.

You mean we can't fly 400' above a structure.

 

[Vic Moss]

You mean we can't fly 400' above a structure.

If you're a 107 Pilot, and not in Controlled Airspace. Recreational Flyers have a hard 400' limit. No added "bubble".

 

[dronerdave]

If you're a 107 Pilot, and not in Controlled Airspace. Recreational Flyers have a hard 400' limit. No added "bubble".

The 400 foot bubble was a huge concern for me. So was the internet idea. I have no problem adding a standalone transmitter to fly VLOS as usual. My guess is they will be fairly inexpensive being all the new stuff coming off the line will be able to transmit anyway. I could be wrong but it looks like the only people who would worry are those who fly out of compliance. I read:
Those flying outside of an established flying site can meet the Remote ID requirements by flying a standard Remote ID-equipped aircraft or an aircraft equipped with a broadcast module.

What I don't see is any info on what is considered VLOS. If the bubble has been scrubbed, all I hope is they define VLOS or leave it as it currently is.
Any info on that?

 

[Vic Moss]

The 400 foot bubble was a huge concern for me. So was the internet idea. I have no problem adding a standalone transmitter to fly VLOS as usual. My guess is they will be fairly inexpensive being all the new stuff coming off the line will be able to transmit anyway. I could be wrong but it looks like the only people who would worry are those who fly out of compliance. I read:
Those flying outside of an established flying site can meet the Remote ID requirements by flying a standard Remote ID-equipped aircraft or an aircraft equipped with a broadcast module.

What I don't see is any info on what is considered VLOS. If the bubble has been scrubbed, all I hope is they define VLOS or leave it as it currently is.
Any info on that?

The 400' bubble is a 107/44809 issue, not an RID issue. It is still there for recreational flyers.

The FAA decided not to define VLOS in the Final Rule. However, inside info says they are going to basically keep the current definition. Which means FPV can still fly with a VO.

 

[DanMan32]

There's no 400' bubble for recreational fliers, only 107.

 

[DanMan32]

If you're a 107 Pilot, and not in Controlled Airspace. Recreational Flyers have a hard 400' limit. No added "bubble".

I was commenting on this:

Recreational Flyers don't have an avenue to get permission to fly at night in controlled airspace. And we can fly 400' above a structure.

I'm sure he meant "can't", because recreational fliers can't fly 400' over structure and he was discussing recreational in that paragraph.