FAA Section 349, Recreational Operations ~ The bits & pieces

[kensteele]

So you are proposing letting drones fly just about anywhere, and making it the responsibility of manned aircraft to detect and avoid them? Brilliant.

i think the idea is to improve the technology since the airspace is changing and evolving. instead of holding back the drone industry like the aviation industry has been held back, open it up to new possibilities and new ideas. i don't mind the transponder approach as long as you leave the government out of it but i have my doubts.

 

[Rangerider]

So you are proposing letting drones fly just about anywhere, and making it the responsibility of manned aircraft to detect and avoid them? Brilliant.

Yeah, just like b1rds! There is a dual responsibility to see and avoid for both aircraft. At least the drones have lights and could have transpondersl Sar104, you evidently didn't understand my suggestion. Not inside an airport traffic area, etc. Everywhere with exceptions that are reasonable. A drone is unlikely to cause anywhere near the danger/damage that a manned aircraft piloted by a doctor, lawyer or military/jet pilot might cause. wouldn't you agree? I see fixed wing airplanes flying overhead all the time at 500 ft. Do they always fly at power off gliding distance to an airport or emergency landing area? This is a discussion that is going no where so I am done with it.

 

[sar104]

Yeah, just like b1rds! There is a dual responsibility to see and avoid for both aircraft. At least the drones have lights and could have transpondersl Sar104, you evidently didn't understand my suggestion. Not inside an airport traffic area, etc. Everywhere with exceptions that are reasonable.

Birds are natural hazards that aircraft have been designed to withstand, in most situations. Aircraft do not "see and avoid" birds except in very unusual circumstances. Drones have much worse physical characteristics from an impact perspective and aircraft, especially helicopters and GA, are not designed to cope with rigid-body impacts.

ADS-B out on drones is not going to happen. They don't have FAA-approved navigation systems needed to broadcast and, as drones become even more ubiquitous, they would simply generate too much traffic. But I suspect that some other sUAS broadcast and control system will be implemented eventually.

A drone is unlikely to cause anywhere near the danger/damage that a manned aircraft piloted by a doctor, lawyer or military/jet pilot might cause. wouldn't you agree? I see fixed wing airplanes flying overhead all the time at 500 ft. Do they always fly at power off gliding distance to an airport or emergency landing area? This is a discussion that is going no where so I am done with it.

I don't know where you are going with that observation. Is this yet another "there are more dangerous things than drones therefore we shouldn't regulate them" argument?

This is a discussion that is going no where so I am done with it.

Right - I'd probably knock over the king rather than try to defend that position too.

 

[kensteele]

I don't know where you are going with that observation. Is this yet another "there are more dangerous things than drones therefore we shouldn't regulate them" argument?

i think the suggestion is to instead regulate drones within proportion. birds maybe get 1 or 2 regulations. drones get maybe 3 or 4 regulations. leave the 20 to 200 regulations for the stuff that counts. a drone has never killed or injured a commercial flyer so while we don't avoid drone regulation completely, we don't pretend like it a national security risk and create an entire encyclopedia of rules to try to prevent the first accident.

i lost 2 bump-stocks because the entire country went into panic mode because of one idiot in las vegas. and the drone community is doing NOTHING to protect their own hobby except getting 107s which they think is going to protect them in the long run. in fact, we have people here that are embracing even more rules and regulations and more powerful laws with stiff penalties; ridiculous.

 

[sar104]

i think the suggestion is to instead regulate drones within proportion. birds maybe get 1 or 2 regulations. drones get maybe 3 or 4 regulations. leave the 20 to 200 regulations for the stuff that counts. a drone has never killed or injured a commercial flyer so while we don't avoid drone regulation completely, we don't pretend like it a national security risk and create an entire encyclopedia of rules to try to prevent the first accident.

i lost 2 bump-stocks because the entire country went into panic mode because of one idiot in las vegas. and the drone community is doing NOTHING to protect their own hobby except getting 107s which they think is going to protect them in the long run. in fact, we have people here that are embracing even more rules and regulations and more powerful laws with stiff penalties; ridiculous.

Rather than focus on the number of regulations, which is actually very few - both Part 107 and 'Section 349 are really short - it would be a more useful exercise to think about what they actually say. Which of the current Part 107 or Section 349 regulations would you abolish?

 

[tcope]

Which of the current Part 107 or Section 349 regulations would you abolish?

Part 107 completely. It is no longer needed. If it is safe for one one person to fly 400' above an object, why is it not safe for another?

CBO requirement under Section 349. It is 100% pointless.

That is my short list. If you include the registration... I'd get rid of that too. It was a lie by the FAA and has been shown to be as much.

 

[kensteele]

Rather than focus on the number of regulations, which is actually very few - both Part 107 and 'Section 349 are really short - it would be a more useful exercise to think about what they actually say. Which of the current Part 107 or Section 349 regulations would you abolish?

are you joking? where do i even begin with 349?

the "numbers" were simply an example, the quantity of regulations is meaningless. the numbers were meant to convey the importance or the relevance.

what parts of 349 do you think are so important, they are must haves and without them the skys are unsafe for anyone to travel? i understand how you used the word "abolish." this is disturbing to me.

 

[sar104]

Part 107 completely. It is no longer needed. If it is safe for one one person to fly 400' above an object, why is it not safe for another?

Because 400 ft over a structure will often put you into Class E airspace which, without the additional training that Part 107 provides, could be hazardous. Part 107 anticipates significantly more complex operations than recreational and provides numerous waiver options that similarly are not available for recreational flying.

CBO requirement under Section 349. It is 100% pointless.

That was likely a concession to the AMA, rather than codifying every rule in 14 CFR as was done for Part 107.

That is my short list. If you include the registration... I'd get rid of that too. It was a lie by the FAA and has been shown to be as much.

What was a lie by the FAA? Registration of recreational aircraft is required by Public Law 49 USC §44809 (a) (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.​

 

[sar104]

are you joking? where do i even begin with 349?

the "numbers" were simply an example, the quantity of regulations is meaningless. the numbers were meant to convey the importance or the relevance.

what parts of 349 do you think are so important, they are must haves and without them the skys are unsafe for anyone to travel? i understand how you used the word "abolish." this is disturbing to me.

So far you haven't made a single pertinent point regarding the content of the law, and now you admit that you don't know where to begin? If you are going to answer questions with questions then I'm not interested in this discussion.

 

[kensteele]

So far you haven't made a single pertinent point regarding the content of the law, and now you admit that you don't know where to begin? If you are going to answer questions with questions then I'm not interested in this discussion.

that's fine, i've made my points in several other threads so it's not like i'm shy. just trying to avoid repeating the same "rants" over and over in every single thread on the topic, i'm sure a lot of people don't appreciate the hijacking. maybe i'll just start a separate thread about hobby drone registration is ineffective and pointless.

besides, i know the type. it's going to be impossible to argue pretty much any point with some people because you're invested in the process and so deep in with government rules and regulations it's impossible to see from a hobbyist point of view. to some, the more laws, the better. i get that, i used to be that way too. then i found freedom.

 

[sar104]

that's fine, i've made my points in several other threads so it's not like i'm shy. just trying to avoid repeating the same "rants" over and over in every single thread on the topic, i'm sure a lot of people don't appreciate the hijacking. maybe i'll just start a separate thread about hobby drone registration is ineffective and pointless.

besides, i know the type. it's going to be impossible to argue pretty much any point with some people because you're invested in the process and so deep in with government rules and regulations it's impossible to see from a hobbyist point of view. to some, the more laws, the better. i get that, i used to be that way too. then i found freedom.

I've yet to see you make any actual argument anywhere on this subject - every time you are actually engaged by anyone on the subject you hide behind the "no point arguing with you" routine, with a sprinkling of other ad hominems that presumably you think strengthen your non-existent arguments. Just like your post above.

 

[kensteele]

I've yet to see you make any actual argument anywhere on this subject - every time you are actually engaged by anyone on the subject you hide behind the "no point arguing with you" routine, with a sprinkling of other ad hominems that presumably you think strengthen your non-existent arguments. Just like your post above.

ok that's great. i'm glad you and others feel i haven't made any arguments to date; i actually thought i may have been overdoing it but it appears no one has noticed. very good, i shall begin straight away, should be fresh for everyone.

 

[tcope]

Because 400 ft over a structure will often put you into Class E airspace which, without the additional training that Part 107 provides, could be hazardous. Part 107 anticipates significantly more complex operations than recreational and provides numerous waiver options that similarly are not available for recreational flying.

How does the Part 107 test make you more aware of an aircraft, where your drone is located or the distance from an object? Heck, people here claim to have passed the test and _still_ don't know the basics. Knowing the distance from the object or seeing a plane is even less basic. However, if that is not enough, hobby fliers will now need to take a test. I only see the need to educate someone ever so slightly on how to fly close to an object.

​

What was a lie by the FAA? Registration of recreational aircraft is required by Public Law 49 USC §44809 (a) (8):

When they claimed that the problem was not _getting_ the drone... it was matching it to the owner. 100% BS. They never get the drone. It was true then and we now know for a fact that it's true. In the years since the registration how many times has it been used as it was intended? We both know the answer is zero. For years they also lied when they claimed hobby fliers were limited to 400'.

 

[sar104]

How does the Part 107 test make you more aware of an aircraft, where your drone is located or the distance from an object? Heck, people here claim to have passed the test and _still_ don't know the basics. Knowing the distance from the object or seeing a plane is even less basic. However, if that is not enough, hobby fliers will now need to take a test. I only see the need to educate someone ever so slightly on how to fly close to an object.

It doesn't, necessarily, and you missed the point of course, which has nothing to do with colliding with the structure. Part 107 requires you to be much more familiar with airspace and should make you better able to plan such flights safely, and incorporates the use of visual observers to ensure that the airspace is clear.

When they claimed that the problem was not _getting_ the drone... it was matching it to the owner. 100% BS. They never get the drone. It was true then and we now know for a fact that it's true. In the years since the registration how many times has it been used as it was intended? We both know the answer is zero. For years they also lied when they claimed hobby fliers were limited to 400'.

It turns out that your assertion that something is BS isn't actually evidence for anything. And the FAA advised hobbyists to remain below 400 ft - nowhere did they write it as a regulation or claim it to be law. The only written opinion from them that I ever saw stated the opposite - that it was not a legal requirement.

 

[tcope]

It doesn't, necessarily, and you missed the point of course, which has nothing to do with colliding with the structure. Part 107 requires you to be much more familiar with airspace and should make you better able to plan such flights safely, and incorporates the use of visual observers to ensure that the airspace is clear.

How much knowledge is needed to see a plane that will fly within 400' of a structure. Are you saying that this can be done better by knowing flight paths, etc.?

IIt turns out that your assertion that something is BS isn't actually evidence for anything. And the FAA advised hobbyists to remain below 400 ft - nowhere did they write it as a regulation or claim it to be law. The only written opinion from them that I ever saw stated the opposite - that it was not a legal requirement.

No... they _did_ have it in print and told people there was a 400' limit. Once the AMA called them out on it, they changed the information.

 

[sar104]

No... they _did_ have it in print and told people there was a 400' limit. Once the AMA called them out on it, they changed the information.

Reference?

 

[Bigbird48]

Birds are natural hazards that aircraft have been designed to withstand, in most situations. Aircraft do not "see and avoid" birds except in very unusual circumstances. Drones have much worse physical characteristics from an impact perspective and aircraft, especially helicopters and GA, are not designed to cope with rigid-body impacts.

ADS-B out on drones is not going to happen. They don't have FAA-approved navigation systems needed to broadcast and, as drones become even more ubiquitous, they would simply generate too much traffic. But I suspect that some other sUAS broadcast and control system will be implemented eventually.



I don't know where you are going with that observation. Is this yet another "there are more dangerous things than drones therefore we shouldn't regulate them" argument?



Right - I'd probably knock over the king rather than try to defend that position too.

He's done with it be thankful we don't have to listen to him anymore?

 

[Slade]

That's a threat.

Yes it was.

 

[Rangerider]

So far you haven't made a single pertinent point regarding the content of the law, and now you admit that you don't know where to begin? If you are going to answer questions with questions then I'm not interested in this discussion.

Knocking over your king?

 

[sar104]

Knocking over your king?

No - the opponent simply refused to play.