LAANC for hobbyists!

[Gryphon962]

that's going to happen sometimes. not going to apologize for it.
i'm not the only one who gets that impression. but you think the drone community is solid, all on the same page, supportive of one another?

That's not the issue. He hasn't posted over and over about some fantasy 'loophole' being 'exploited' by Part 107 holders. You have, and other posters have patiently and respectfully pointed out the errors in your assertions, and your misunderstanding of the Part 107 system. You even manage to drag gun politics in here with no valid reason other than a claim that all government rules aren't necessary or are 'stupid'. You even came up with some bizarre explanation of why you couldn't enter National Parks - because they don't allow guns - which was really out there for a drone forum.

Now, I'm sure there are some aspects of drones where you have some experience, or knowledge, that you gained from a reputable source. THAT is the sort of input we'd really like to get from you. Peace.

 

[kensteele]

That's not the issue. He hasn't posted over and over about some fantasy 'loophole' being 'exploited' by Part 107 holders. You have, and other posters have patiently and respectfully pointed out the errors in your assertions, and your misunderstanding of the Part 107 system. You even manage to drag gun politics in here with no valid reason other than a claim that all government rules aren't necessary or are 'stupid'. You even came up with some bizarre explanation of why you couldn't enter National Parks - because they don't allow guns - which was really out there for a drone forum.

Now, I'm sure there are some aspects of drones where you have some experience, or knowledge, that you gained from a reputable source. THAT is the sort of input we'd really like to get from you. Peace.

how would you feel if the np would not allow you to enter the park with a drone in your possession? national park is not a bizarre situation. we faced the same problem with guns, a blanket ban, so we fought to have the states control what goes on in the national park within their boundaries. why can't the drone community do that? you're just accepting it until somebody else fights that fight for you and then when the ban is lifted because of someone's else hard work/lobbying that you didn't bother to support them on (or you were actually against it because you support whatever the government does), you'll probably beat me into the nps to get your first drone footage. that situation is repeated over and over throughout this community; looking for a little help and a little less resistance. that's the divide i'm referring to. i'm really not trying to make the hobby unsafe.

 

[Gryphon962]

how would you feel if the np would not allow you to enter the park with a drone in your possession? national park is not a bizarre situation. we faced the same problem with guns, a blanket ban, so we fought to have the states control what goes on in the national park within their boundaries. why can't the drone community do that? you're just accepting it until somebody else fights that fight for you and then when the ban is lifted because of someone's else hard work/lobbying that you didn't bother to support them on (or you were actually against it because you support whatever the government does), you'll probably beat me into the nps to get your first drone footage. that situation is repeated over and over throughout this community; looking for a little help and a little less resistance. that's the divide i'm referring to. i'm really not trying to make the hobby unsafe.

The right policy for all government agencies that control land accessible by the public for recreational use would be to allow drone use on their lands by Part 107 - certified operators only. That would provide an acceptable level of risk mitigation against injury to third parties. It would also provide a major incentive to all drone owners to get certified.

You imply that I'm a passenger, waiting for others to lobby for changes. In fact, I recently wrote to the AMA to ask them to intervene with local cities to help them rewrite their out-of-date and repressive drone-related laws.

 

[kensteele]

The right policy for all government agencies that control land accessible by the public for recreational use would be to allow drone use on their lands by Part 107 - certified operators only. That would provide an acceptable level of risk mitigation against injury to third parties. It would also provide a major incentive to all drone owners to get certified.

You imply that I'm a passenger, waiting for others to lobby for changes. In fact, I recently wrote to the AMA to ask them to intervene with local cities to help them rewrite their out-of-date and repressive drone-related laws.

ha, i see what you did there!

so why the big push to get pilots to get 107, are we trying to incent people to start a business? i think it's incorrect to classify 107 as certified and recreational as non-certified outside the context of commercial work, is that really the right way to look at it?

anyway, we need you to help convince municipalities to repeal not re-write. appreciate the participation nonetheless.

 

[Drgnfli]

Looks like LAANC is available right now! I used Airmap to input all my info on LAANC except I didn't hit "submit". The app asked for Duration, Altitude, my name, MP's name, insurance, weight, question if flying over people, within VLOS, hit next - shows your 'flight brief'. Then you can "submit". Isn't that LAANC?

I suggest if you have an older copy of Airmap that you uninstall it & get the latest version because my older version did not provide me with that info... If it wasn't so **** windy here I would hit "Submit" to check it out ... So what's up???

 

[Gryphon962]

Looks like LAANC is available right now! I used Airmap to input all my info on LAANC except I didn't hit "submit". The app asked for Duration, Altitude, my name, MP's name, insurance, weight, question if flying over people, within VLOS, hit next - shows your 'flight brief'. Then you can "submit". Isn't that LAANC?

I suggest if you have an older copy of Airmap that you uninstall it & get the latest version because my older version did not provide me with that info... If it wasn't so **** windy here I would hit "Submit" to check it out ... So what's up???

In Airmap, at the start of the process you have to select your rules from the list starting with FAA Part 107 Certified. Before I was certified I tried to select recreational, and went through the whole flight plan process, and hit submit, and nada..... it does nothing. However, if you select 107 at start, do same, it responds to the submission and texts you an authorization.

 

[sar104]

In Airmap, at the start of the process you have to select your rules from the list starting with FAA Part 107 Certified. Before I was certified I tried to select recreational, and went through the whole flight plan process, and hit submit, and nada..... it does nothing. However, if you select 107 at start, do same, it responds to the submission and texts you an authorization.

That's correct - you can submit a flight plan under recreational rules, but it won't generate an authorization.

 

[kensteele]

yes i used to think i could use laanc to submit and didn't have to worry about generating an authorization, i thought that was enough to "notify" and then i flew. did that twice because i learned that's not the process. you submit today as a hobbyist and you won't get a text message back, not until the end of the month. can't wait, my neighborhood is waiting for me fly over everything!

 

[Gryphon962]

So all that will change is that everyone will use LAANC to get some measure of 'approval' whether they have 107, the new exam passed, or nothing.

What this wont change is the almost total prohibition placed upon us by most cities and counties in the country. And none of their laws or restrictions are in Airmap.

As we are far more likely to be cited by a local LEO for doing something the city has banned than cited by the FAA, I dont think this new LAANC thing is going to be worth ten cents..

 

[sar104]

So all that will change is that everyone will use LAANC to get some measure of 'approval' whether they have 107, the new exam passed, or nothing.

What this wont change is the almost total prohibition placed upon us by most cities and counties in the country. And none of their laws or restrictions are in Airmap.

As we are far more likely to be cited by a local LEO for doing something the city has banned than cited by the FAA, I dont think this new LAANC thing is going to be worth ten cents..

What makes you think that most cities and counties prohibit sUAS flight? That's simply not true.

 

[kensteele]

What makes you think that most cities and counties prohibit sUAS flight? That's simply not true.

every city and state in this country (usa) prohibits suas flight when they can mark it down as disorderly conduct, trespassing, disturbing the peace, invasion of privacy, or failure to obey when a officer tells you to land and you keep flying. they "infringe" on your flying activities without expressly forbidding the activities which they either can't, don't know how, or not yet ready to do.

we have a city here that is talking about passing a law prohibiting drones in the city (all public property) but they're not quite ready because they don't know if they'll get sued or not says their lawyers. but they want to. in the meantime, the patrol officers will see to it you don't fly around town.

so it's not prohibited but if you can't fly without the city intervening, distinction without a difference. agree not everyone is affected, many will fly unnoticed for sure. i guess you're taking your chances. i flew in that city park a couple of times and noticed no other drone flyers ever before i called the park administrator and was flat out told no drones.

 

[sar104]

every city and state in this country (usa) prohibits suas flight when they can mark it down as disorderly conduct, trespassing, disturbing the peace, invasion of privacy, or failure to obey when a officer tells you to land and you keep flying.

So just like any other activity. That's a pointless observation.

they "infringe" on your flying activities without expressly forbidding the activities which they either can't, don't know how, or not yet ready to do.

That's simply gibberish.

we have a city here that is talking about passing a law prohibiting drones in the city (all public property) but they're not quite ready because they don't know if they'll get sued or not says their lawyers. but they want to. in the meantime, the patrol officers will see to it you don't fly around town.

So you know an unspecified city where unspecified people are talking about prohibiting drones on public property in the city (but have noticed that might not be legal so haven't prohibited it) from which you defend that the statement that all counties and cities in the US have banned sUAS. Can't argue with that.

so it's not prohibited but if you can't fly without the city intervening, distinction without a difference. agree not everyone is affected, many will fly unnoticed for sure. i guess you're taking your chances. i flew in that city park a couple of times and noticed no other drone flyers ever before i called the park administrator and was flat out told no drones.

Outstanding. So you actually know of one city park where it's not allowed.

 

[Gryphon962]

What makes you think that most cities and counties prohibit sUAS flight? That's simply not true.

All four cities in my area have laws to that effect. Ok, small sample, but the situation is dire here in the urban areas of SoCal.

One very common approach they take is to consider UAS same as model aircraft, either explicitly stated, or sometimes not. Another is to prohibit 'landing, taking off, or operations' unless you get a permit from city hall; in some cases they do actually issue permits, but you have to join not only the AMA but also a local model aircraft club to get the permit (so fee + fee + fee) to fly at a model aircraft site.

 

[sar104]

All four cities in my area have laws to that effect. Ok, small sample, but the situation is dire here in the urban areas of SoCal.

One very common approach they take is to consider UAS same as model aircraft, either explicitly stated, or sometimes not. Another is to prohibit 'landing, taking off, or operations' unless you get a permit from city hall; in some cases they do actually issue permits, but you have to join not only the AMA but also a local model aircraft club to get the permit (so fee + fee + fee) to fly at a model aircraft site.

Interesting - so they have prohibited operations throughout those cities, rather than just in city parks etc.? And in the wider counties? While I've heard of a number of municipalities that have tried to do that, they really have no such jurisdiction over private land.

 

[Gryphon962]

Interesting - so they have prohibited operations throughout those cities, rather than just in city parks etc.? And in the wider counties? While I've heard of a number of municipalities that have tried to do that, they really have no such jurisdiction over private land.

Check out this one, from my nearest city. And yes, UAS are treated as model aircraft:

Rolling Hills Estates:

8.36.040 - Model aircraft prohibition.

Code of Ordinances

Title 8 - HEALTH AND SAFETY

Chapter 8.36 - MISCELLANEOUS HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

No person shall fly a model aircraft within the city limits. For the purpose of this section, "model aircraft" means and includes any model aircraft which maintains flight.

***
As this sort of thing clearly needs some pushback, and recognizing that individuals cant fight every city hall, I wrote to the AMA's government advocacy group with extracts from the muni code of those four local cities, asking them to intervene by providing drafts of sensible, well-referenced laws that they could drop in to replace the ill-informed and out of date nonsense they have in the books now. Sadly, despite my $75 paid to join the AMA, no response so far.

If anyone else who is an AMA member has local cities that need some advocacy on our behalf, please send the relevant section of their code to [email protected]

Maybe if enough of us do that, they might actually do something.

 

[sar104]

Check out this one, from my nearest city. And yes, UAS are treated as model aircraft:

Rolling Hills Estates:

8.36.040 - Model aircraft prohibition.

Code of Ordinances

Title 8 - HEALTH AND SAFETY

Chapter 8.36 - MISCELLANEOUS HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

No person shall fly a model aircraft within the city limits. For the purpose of this section, "model aircraft" means and includes any model aircraft which maintains flight.

***
As this sort of thing clearly needs some pushback, and recognizing that individuals cant fight every city hall, I wrote to the AMA's government advocacy group with extracts from the muni code of those four local cities, asking them to intervene by providing drafts of sensible, well-referenced laws that they could drop in to replace the ill-informed and out of date nonsense they have in the books now. Sadly, despite my $75 paid to join the AMA, no response so far.

If anyone else who is an AMA member has local cities that need some advocacy on our behalf, please send the relevant section of their code to [email protected]

Maybe if enough of us do that, they might actually do something.

Glancing through those codes - you have much bigger problems than just the model aircraft regulation.