Welcome Mavic Pilot!
Jump in and join our free DJI Mavic community today!
Sign up

Hobbyist Drone use killed?

Kokopelli633

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
76
Reaction score
59
Loc
UMRK
"Flying a sUAS is not a RIGHT given to you "

I would slightly modify that statement into.....
"
"Flying a sUAS anywhere you like is not a RIGHT given to you" and is an attitude widely displayed and even encouraged by some including at least one moderator in here
 
  • Like
Reactions: crystal-pete

Kokopelli633

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
76
Reaction score
59
Loc
UMRK
"it's hard to accept that anyone capable of flying a drone is incapable of such basic reasoning."

Believe it, the evidence is everywhere
(Lets face it if you can close your eyes for 10 seconds and not fall over, you probably have the ability to 'fly' a Mavic)
 

JAW

How Far Away is That Tree?
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
97
Age
71
Loc
Coastal NC Up to Long Island
I wonder what the parameters are for airports/ATC to allow or deny permission?
Under the current hobby rules (14 CFR Part 101 subpart E), which requires notification to airport towers and operators within 5 miles, they don't get to approve or deny, but then can object if they feel that the proposed flight will endanger air traffic.

The Part 107 authorization process either goes through the LAANC system, which just approves based on altitude restrictions in controlled airspace around airports, or through the older FAA authorization application portal, where requests are assessed based on location, altitude and other proposed constraints.
I was referring to the new procedure, post 336, where as a hobby flyer you need to obtain permission----if what I've read is correct in that you will have to obtain permission, as opposed to mere notification.
 

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
769
Reaction score
780
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
I was referring to the new procedure, post 336, where as a hobby flyer you need to obtain permission----if what I've read is correct in that you will have to obtain permission, as opposed to mere notification.
Yes you will indeed need actual permission (anything else makes no sense) from ATC either via LAANC or an Authorization.

They will allow if the flight falls within what has already deemed to be "acceptable" and if it does not affect Air Traffic in any way. We use an Air Space Grid to help us not request altitude that is dangerous etc but that grid isn't the end all just a guide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

sar104

Well-Known Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
6,151
Reaction score
5,899
Loc
Los Alamos, NM
I was referring to the new procedure, post 336, where as a hobby flyer you need to obtain permission----if what I've read is correct in that you will have to obtain permission, as opposed to mere notification.
It's presumably going to be LAANC or something equivalent, but I don't know if the FAA has even worked out how they will implement that requirement of Section 349 for recreational pilots:

In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within​
the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace​
designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior​
authorization from the Administrator or designee before​
operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and​
prohibitions.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
769
Reaction score
780
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
"Flying a sUAS is not a RIGHT given to you "

I would slightly modify that statement into.....
"
"Flying a sUAS anywhere you like is not a RIGHT given to you" and is an attitude widely displayed and even encouraged by some including at least one moderator in here

And PROUD of it! I'm saddened that anyone would have a problem with obeying the laws in order to be able to participate in the NAS SAFELY!! Why is it even a debate?
 

paulatkin73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
555
Reaction score
329
Age
45
Loc
Massachusetts
How many of you are tracking that section 336 was repealed and that you now have to get ATC authorization not just notify before you fly?

New FAA Reauthorization Act Has Big Implications for Hobbyist Drone Pilots - UAV Coach
i am not clear on that, as i heard nothing at all of the factual implications due to section 336 repeal, as it would also outlaw any model clubs and organizations and they did not issue any statements yet, so, it would be nice to know what is factually happening. re-authorization act was indeed signed on oct 5th, but, didn`t it also have to result with some new regulations be to prepared and issued after that, for approval by congress? and until that happens - a previous regulations - with section 336 in them - are still in effect? or not?
frankly, i no longer understand what happens there anymore.
 

sar104

Well-Known Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
6,151
Reaction score
5,899
Loc
Los Alamos, NM
i am not clear on that, as i heard nothing at all of the factual implications due to section 336 repeal, as it would also outlaw any model clubs and organizations and they did not issue any statements yet, so, it would be nice to know what is factually happening. re-authorization act was indeed signed on oct 5th, but, didn`t it also have to result with some new regulations be to prepared and issued after that, for approval by congress? and until that happens - a previous regulations - with section 336 in them - are still in effect? or not?
frankly, i no longer understand what happens there anymore.
We are in a transition stage as specified in the new Act, during which the FAA figures out how to implement the changes. The implementation will not have to go back to Congress.
 

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
769
Reaction score
780
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
and until that happens - a previous regulations - with section 336 in them - are still in effect? or not?
Until new laws/regs are actually codified (should be after the infrastructure is in place) we continue to follow 336.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulatkin73

paulatkin73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
555
Reaction score
329
Age
45
Loc
Massachusetts
We are in a transition stage as specified in the new Act, during which the FAA figures out how to implement the changes. The implementation will not have to go back to Congress.
did they define a timeframe for this period?

nevertheless, i suppose i was right and old section 336 is still in effect currently, right? ok, just posted that at same time with a response above. thx.
 

sar104

Well-Known Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
6,151
Reaction score
5,899
Loc
Los Alamos, NM
did they define a timeframe for this period?

nevertheless, i suppose i was right and old section 336 is still in effect currently, right? ok, just posted that at same time with a response above. thx.
No fixed time limit was specified.
 

mwardncsu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
71
Loc
Mebane, NC, USA.
You know what @sgrinavi , when you and your lady are riding around on your mountain bikes, you are probably comfortable in the knowledge that all of the cars you are sharing the road with, are obeying all the rules and give you the respect of sharing the road legally with you. I’m also sure when a vehicle does run close to you, or cuts you off on your bicycle (which seems to happen more often than it should) you get really really annoyed at that person for not complying with the laws of the road.
Imagine if all the drivers that come near you on your bike, had the same attitude to laws as you do..........
this is why we will never realize the dream that was The Jetsons :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

paulatkin73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
555
Reaction score
329
Age
45
Loc
Massachusetts
I just downloaded AirMap to my Crystalsky monitor. The Fly For Fun section, a.k.a., hobby flying, used to refer to sect 336. It now refers to sect 101E. Is 101E the "new" rules?
no. it is just a temporary state of an disarray i have mentioned above. correct answer is #29.

but, you know, i am no lawyer. :)
 

JAW

How Far Away is That Tree?
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
97
Age
71
Loc
Coastal NC Up to Long Island
I found this recap of the new rules. It came from the IEEE Spectrum web site

Number 1: “The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.” That seems reasonable, although it cuts out something that the previous 336 provisions appeared to allow—flying model aircraft for its development, say, by its manufacturer, who thus has a commercial interest in the operation.

Number 2: “The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.” This is similar to provisions of the earlier Section 336, but there are two differences. For one, the safety guidelines must be developed with the FAA—no more letting the community-based organization call the shots. Also, the earlier language of Section 336 had said “operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization,” which implied a flyer would have to be a member of such an organization. Now Section 349 replaces and with or, which to my reading says that membership is not required.

Number 3: “The aircraft is flown within the visual line-of-sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer colocated and in direct communication with the operator.” This liberalizes the previous prohibition against recreational FPV flight, allowing that it can be done by a recreational flyer so long as there is a visual observer present. This is a victory for FPVers, who earlier had no way to avoid breaking the rules short of obtaining formal certification as unmanned-aircraft-system pilots.

Number 4: “The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.” Sure, that’s only reasonable. Though it’s a little odd that the FAA is using this stipulation to define recreational flight—as if commercial drones would sometimes be allowed to interfere or not give way to manned aircraft. Could that really be what the law is implying?

Number 5: “[In airspace surrounding airports] the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.” Again, you have to wonder why this stipulation is being used to define recreational flight: Would the FAA ever allow commercial flight of small unmanned aircraft not to comply with airspace restrictions and prohibitions?

Number 6: “[In other airspace] the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions. This now makes the 1981 recommendation to keep under 400 feet a hard-and-fast rule. I suppose that’s to stay out of the way of all those Amazon shoe deliveries.

Number 7: “The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.” So it’s official: You can get carded now for flying a paper airplane. Actually, it’ll take the FAA some time to put the test in place. And it will be interesting to see what that test demands. Presumably it won’t be too hard, or else sales of rubber-band powered, balsa-wood airplanes will surely plummet.

Number 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.” Your model can get carded, too. This reverses a 2017 setback for the FAA, when its requirement for registering model aircraft was thrown out in court because it violated Section 336’s prohibition on making rules for models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgrinavi

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
769
Reaction score
780
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
Number 2: “The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.” This is similar to provisions of the earlier Section 336, but there are two differences. For one, the safety guidelines must be developed with the FAA—no more letting the community-based organization call the shots. Also, the earlier language of Section 336 had said “operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization,” which implied a flyer would have to be a member of such an organization. Now Section 349 replaces and with or, which to my reading says that membership is not required.
No they are not stipulating membership and never have. This allows you to fly either as a member (which would entail mean flying by the rules) or merely flying in accordance to the rules w/o membership.

Number 3:
“The aircraft is flown within the visual line-of-sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer colocated and in direct communication with the operator.” This liberalizes the previous prohibition against recreational FPV flight, allowing that it can be done by a recreational flyer so long as there is a visual observer present. This is a victory for FPVers, who earlier had no way to avoid breaking the rules short of obtaining formal certification as unmanned-aircraft-system pilots.
It also further defines that the VO has to be in the same general location (coloated) removing the grey area that a VO could be in the next field and perm assume the role of VLOS. This comes up a lot in the Commercial Arena with operators wanting to give the VO sole VLOS responsibility for the endurance of the flight. Not allowed.
Number 4: “The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.” Sure, that’s only reasonable. Though it’s a little odd that the FAA is using this stipulation to define recreational flight—as if commercial drones would sometimes be allowed to interfere or not give way to manned aircraft. Could that really be what the law is implying?
Not at all. Part 107 Regulations already have that built into it specifically so this is just clarifying the HOBBY operations must follow this.
Number 5: “[In airspace surrounding airports] the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.” Again, you have to wonder why this stipulation is being used to define recreational flight: Would the FAA ever allow commercial flight of small unmanned aircraft not to comply with airspace restrictions and prohibitions?
See above....

Number 6: “[In other airspace] the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions. This now makes the 1981 recommendation to keep under 400 feet a hard-and-fast rule. I suppose that’s to stay out of the way of all those Amazon shoe deliveries.
And it's way over due.

Number 7: “The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.” So it’s official: You can get carded now for flying a paper airplane. Actually, it’ll take the FAA some time to put the test in place. And it will be interesting to see what that test demands. Presumably it won’t be too hard, or else sales of rubber-band powered, balsa-wood airplanes will surely plummet.
Paper airplane is not a UAS. You're reaching a bit.

Number 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.” Your model can get carded, too. This reverses a 2017 setback for the FAA, when its requirement for registering model aircraft was thrown out in court because it violated Section 336’s prohibition on making rules for models.
Again way over due.
 

Babaganoosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
58
Reaction score
88
I get this guys line of thinking because I hate BS laws too. I'll admit I don't always follow BS laws but my method goes like this. If I break this law will it negatively infringe or potentially infringe on anyone else in any way?

If no it's a BS law. If there's a way it can infringe negatively on someone else don't do it. Not complying with airspace laws has a huge potential to infringe on many people's lives. Obviously not a BS law.
 

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
769
Reaction score
780
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
I get this guys line of thinking because I hate BS laws too. I'll admit I don't always follow BS laws but my method goes like this. If I break this law will it negatively infringe or potentially infringe on anyone else in any way?

If no it's a BS law. If there's a way it can infringe negatively on someone else don't do it. Not complying with airspace laws has a huge potential to infringe on many people's lives. Obviously not a BS law.

Just playing the devil's advocate here..... What allows you to pick which laws you follow and which you don't? I'm not saying I'm perfect and never broken any laws (my driving record says other wise LOL) but I am curious.
 

JAW

How Far Away is That Tree?
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
97
Age
71
Loc
Coastal NC Up to Long Island
Hey, guys! I didn't write the 8 point recap posted above. It was a cut and paste of an article in the Spectrum EEE, whatever that is. But it did accomplish what I was looking for....comments, critiques., etc. of the article.
BTW, the rubber band airplane comments relate back to earlier parts of the article: tongue-in-cheek and humorous. Here's a link to the complete article.
New FAA Rules for Drones Go Into Effect
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

BigAl07

Moderator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
769
Reaction score
780
Age
48
Loc
Western NC, USA
Hey, guys! I didn't write the 8 point recap posted above. It was a cut and paste of an article in the Spectrum EEE, whatever that is. But it did accomplish what I was looking for....comments, critiques., etc. of the article.
BTW, the rubber band airplane comments relate back to earlier parts of the article: tongue-in-cheek and humorous. Here's a link to the complete article.
New FAA Rules for Drones Go Into Effect

Well cited :)

Yes I'm all too familiar with the Rubber Band and Paper Airplane comments. One attorney was approved his FAA Section 333 Exemption (in that we had to mandate the exact aircraft, manuals, etc we were going to fly commercially) when he submitted using a Paper Airplane as his aircraft of choice. Talk about making a HUGE stir in the "then young" sUAS community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAW

paulatkin73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
555
Reaction score
329
Age
45
Loc
Massachusetts
Well cited :)

Yes I'm all too familiar with the Rubber Band and Paper Airplane comments. One attorney was approved his FAA Section 333 Exemption (in that we had to mandate the exact aircraft, manuals, etc we were going to fly commercially) when he submitted using a Paper Airplane as his aircraft of choice. Talk about making a HUGE stir in the "then young" sUAS community.
it is a subject where common sense gets into collision with an objective reality...
but, in the end, i think it should end up same way as current driving licenses ended up to be after those initial years/decades of early self-moving carriages becoming mainstream. no one controls anymore if your car will or will not crank up at a particular location, but you bear responsibility if you decide to drive wrong way on a highway. it is only logical for things to progress this way, and, well, essentially making a current or similar to - part 107 training - a mandatory step for anybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07 and JAW

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
60,093
Messages
701,743
Members
87,116
Latest member
FlippySan