DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

New FAA Actions on Recreational Flights and Model Aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.

kadras

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
279
Reactions
308
Location
USA-CO
Two new/recent actions by the FAA.

The simple one first.
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft; Withdrawal (effective April 11, 2019) Regulations.gov
"This action withdraws the FAA's interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft. That interpretation no longer is valid or necessary because Congress repealed the special rule for model aircraft."

This next item was posted on March 11, 2019 and is open for comment for 60 days, which is May 10, 2019. As of today (May 8), there have been zero comments.

The FAA proposes "collecting information pursuant to new requirements that limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft must now apply for airspace authorizations in controlled airspace." This notice for comment is for the FAA to get permission from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect data, not the implementation of the system. Regulations.gov

Bottom line on this is "Similar to the existing process for part 107 operations, the FAA proposes to use LAANC and a web portal to process airspace authorization requests for limited recreational operations...prior to conducting any small UAS flight in Class B, Class C, Class D, or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport. Previously, only persons operating under part 107 have been required to request these authorizations."
 
Two new/recent actions by the FAA.

The simple one first.
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft; Withdrawal (effective April 11, 2019) Regulations.gov
"This action withdraws the FAA's interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft. That interpretation no longer is valid or necessary because Congress repealed the special rule for model aircraft."

This next item was posted on March 11, 2019 and is open for comment for 60 days, which is May 10, 2019. As of today (May 8), there have been zero comments.

The FAA proposes "collecting information pursuant to new requirements that limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft must now apply for airspace authorizations in controlled airspace." This notice for comment is for the FAA to get permission from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect data, not the implementation of the system. Regulations.gov

Bottom line on this is "Similar to the existing process for part 107 operations, the FAA proposes to use LAANC and a web portal to process airspace authorization requests for limited recreational operations...prior to conducting any small UAS flight in Class B, Class C, Class D, or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport. Previously, only persons operating under part 107 have been required to request these authorizations."

Too bad many of those who continue to fly in defiance of the law do not realize or care about the responsibilities they have as drone pilots , and that what they’ve been doing is part of a cause and resulting bad effect situation.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind, these are proposals not regulations. That said, it gives you some insight into where the collective heads at the FAA reside.
 
My local Class D airport doesn’t have LAANC yet.


There are several smaller airports in areas where I work that don't participate in LAANC (hopefully it's just a matter of time). For those we had to submit and get Airport Authorizations but fortunately they last for a couple of years and are easy to Renew when the time comes about if LAANC isn't active for them yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Former Member
I have a COA for this area, so I’m ok, but still have to call the tower. The other day there were some puffy clouds but pretty good visibility, but the tower denied me because they were IFR. I wonder if I could have asked fo a “special VFR clearance” for drone flight (1 mike visibility, stay clear of clouds)?
 
I have a COA for this area, so I’m ok, but still have to call the tower. The other day there were some puffy clouds but pretty good visibility, but the tower denied me because they were IFR. I wonder if I could have asked fo a “special VFR clearance” for drone flight (1 mike visibility, stay clear of clouds)?


I don't think that ATC can give a waiver from the FAR's unless the FAA allows for such a waiver. VFR conditions are not listed as "waiverable" so I don't think it would even be worth asking.
 
If a pilot of a manned aircraft can request it, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a drone pilot staying under 100 ft could as well. But if it’s not in the regs as doable, maybe not. I didn’t think to ask until after I hung up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Former Member
I don't think that ATC can give a waiver from the FAR's unless the FAA allows for such a waiver. VFR conditions are not listed as "waiverable" so I don't think it would even be worth asking.

The Part 107 visibility requirements (107.51) are waivable but if the operation was under a COA then it would depend on the precise terms of the COA.
 
The Part 107 visibility requirements (107.51) are waivable but if the operation was under a COA then it would depend on the precise terms of the COA.


I stand corrected. For some reason I have never stumbled across 107.51(c) being a "waiverable" item but you are 100% correct in that it is.

§ 107.51(c) Operating Limitations for Small Unmanned Aircraft: Minimum Flight Visibility
  • 1. Describe how the Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC) will be able to maintain visual line of sight (VLOS) with the small unmanned aircraft (sUA) or drone when operating with visibility less than 3 statute miles (mi).
    • a. How will the RPIC maintain VLOS of the sUA or drone when visibility is reduced?
    • b. What is maximum distance the sUA or drone will be visible to the RPIC, Visual Observer(s), and other aircraft?
      • 1. How was that visibility determined?
  • 2. Describe how, and what procedures will be used to ensure, the sUA or drone will be able to avoid non-participating aircraft when operating with visibility less than 3 mi.
    • a. How will the RPIC see and avoid, or detect and avoid, non-participating aircraft when the ground or flight visibility is less than 3 mi?
  • 3. Describe how the visual conspicuity of the sUA or drone will be increased to be seen at a distance of at least 3 mi.
    • a. Will the sUA or drone be visible for at least 3 mi in the location where the RPIC will operate?
      • 1. If yes, how will you accomplish this?
      • 2. If no, why do other aircraft not need to be able to see your sUA or drone from at least 3 mi?
 
If a pilot of a manned aircraft can request it, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a drone pilot staying under 100 ft could as well. But if it’s not in the regs as doable, maybe not. I didn’t think to ask until after I hung up.
I just called the tower to determine whether a special VFR would be granted, and he said no. But then he said be on the lookout for new regs on the 16th. “You won’t be calling the tower anymore.” I asked if they were getting LAANC, and he said no. Anybody know what’s up? Was he assuming hobbyist or 107?
 
I just called the tower to determine whether a special VFR would be granted, and he said no. But then he said be on the lookout for new regs on the 16th. “You won’t be calling the tower anymore.” I asked if they were getting LAANC, and he said no. Anybody know what’s up? Was he assuming hobbyist or 107?

I haven't heard any rumors that Part 107 is changing, but Part 101 will be. Maybe he incorrectly assumed, since it is generally Part 101 pilots who will be calling the tower, that you were flying under Part 101 rather than a COA?
 
I haven't heard any rumors that Part 107 is changing, but Part 101 will be. Maybe he incorrectly assumed, since it is generally Part 101 pilots who will be calling the tower, that you were flying under Part 101 rather than a COA?
Maybe, but I’ve always called the tower, even with the COA. The controllers seem confused about what they’re supposed to do. Most thank me, and ask me to call again when I’m finished. One asked me the details of the COA, including the number. And one told me not to call. “If anything goes wrong, there are procedures for that under 107.” His colleague later told me he was wrong. No wonder we’re confused...
 
Maybe, but I’ve always called the tower, even with the COA. The controllers seem confused about what they’re supposed to do. Most thank me, and ask me to call again when I’m finished. One asked me the details of the COA, including the number. And one told me not to call. “If anything goes wrong, there are procedures for that under 107.” His colleague later told me he was wrong. No wonder we’re confused...
Looks like controllers should have to take the 107 test for drones also...
 
Maybe, but I’ve always called the tower, even with the COA. The controllers seem confused about what they’re supposed to do. Most thank me, and ask me to call again when I’m finished. One asked me the details of the COA, including the number. And one told me not to call. “If anything goes wrong, there are procedures for that under 107.” His colleague later told me he was wrong. No wonder we’re confused...
Looks like controllers should have to take the 107 test also...

They certainly should be aware of the basic rules.
 
Anyone have a guess as to when LAANC authorization might be available for hobbyists in controlled airspace? I've been waiting to see the implementation changes since the passage of the reauthorization.
 
Too bad many of those who continue to fly in defiance of the law do not realize or care about the responsibilities they have as drone pilots , and that what they’ve been doing is part of a cause and resulting bad effect situation.
You have that right. We are drowning in rules that seem to change every week!
There have been more people killed or hurt by private and commercial pilot actions than drones.
By what you read online you think there are FAA investigators around every tree.
Go to State Farm Insurance and get some insurance. It will cover repairs and replacement of your drove and give you liability coverage too. I have heard this only cost around $ 60.00 per year.
Use common sense when flying your drone. Don't do anything stupid. Self-Policing is the best thing we have going.
 
You have that right. We are drowning in rules that seem to change every week!
There have been more people killed or hurt by private and commercial pilot actions than drones.
By what you read online you think there are FAA investigators around every tree.
Go to State Farm Insurance and get some insurance. It will cover repairs and replacement of your drove and give you liability coverage too. I have heard this only cost around $ 60.00 per year.
Use common sense when flying your drone. Don't do anything stupid. Self-Policing is the best thing we have going.

One look at how people drive when a cop isn’t around will prove that “self-policing” does not work as a deterrent as too many people fail to do do it. Its already the same with drones and some other things. After a few more eyeballs or other large liability claims hit the insurance companies, they will want a FAA license number for issuing liability insurance policies for everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,599
Messages
1,554,259
Members
159,605
Latest member
petravka