New regulation part 108?

[lookout]

 

[Vic Moss]

Incorrect (or possibly premature) information. Part 108 has been talked about in the past, and in the BVLOS ARC. There is nothing new in that video.

 

[db4476]

Incorrect (or possibly premature) information. Part 108 has been talked about in the past, and in the BVLOS ARC. There is nothing new in that video.

That was my first thought also

Cheers!

 

[Marty Markoe]

Usual talking heads having nothing to say.

 

[Vic Moss]

Usual talking heads having nothing to say.

In their defense, Ken is usually on target with much of his information. Just not this time.

 

[G Saunders]

From what I've been able to glean, Part 108 will have certification requirement for 'drone airlines' and the remote pilots it takes to operate them. An Elroy Chapparal or a Black Swan needs to be remotely piloted by somebody who can work with the air traffic control system to get flights in and out of airports, on airways, make instrument approaches, and communicate with air traffic control enroute and for arrivals and departures.

It takes another 40 hours of experience, passing an exam, and passing a check ride with the FAA to get instrument rated in an airplane or helicopter. It's not common knowledge, and it's not specified in Part 107.

From what I've seen, Part 108 will specify what's needed to certify a remote pilot and specify the tech to facilitate flight beyond VLOS on airways. There are already some training courses set up in Asia, and we'll need them here, and in the EU and UK to fly this new generation of 'heavy lift logistics drones'.

The FAA specifies what's need to run and get a flight school approved, or an Air Taxi operation under Part 135, or an Air Transport operation under Part 121. I believe Part 108 is coming along as DroneUp flies off the roofs of Walmarts and Google Wing flies for whoever summons a drone. They're doing it now with expensive waivers, but when Part 108 comes along, it won't require waivers, only an application and certification...

Please, I'm posting this as a reality check, so if anybody knows better, please update us...

 

[Vic Moss]

From what I've been able to glean, Part 108 will have certification requirement for 'drone airlines' and the remote pilots it takes to operate them. An Elroy Chapparal or a Black Swan needs to be remotely piloted by somebody who can work with the air traffic control system to get flights in and out of airports, on airways, make instrument approaches, and communicate with air traffic control enroute and for arrivals and departures.

It takes another 40 hours of experience, passing an exam, and passing a check ride with the FAA to get instrument rated in an airplane or helicopter. It's not common knowledge, and it's not specified in Part 107.

From what I've seen, Part 108 will specify what's needed to certify a remote pilot and specify the tech to facilitate flight beyond VLOS on airways. There are already some training courses set up in Asia, and we'll need them here, and in the EU and UK to fly this new generation of 'heavy lift logistics drones'.

The FAA specifies what's need to run and get a flight school approved, or an Air Taxi operation under Part 135, or an Air Transport operation under Part 121. I believe Part 108 is coming along as DroneUp flies off the roofs of Walmarts and Google Wing flies for whoever summons a drone. They're doing it now with expensive waivers, but when Part 108 comes along, it won't require waivers, only an application and certification...

Please, I'm posting this as a reality check, so if anybody knows better, please update us...

It's all speculation at this point, but BVLOS will very likely be part of the 108 regulations, assuming it actually goes through.

 

[lookout]

Total Guide to Part 89 Remote ID (Requirements, Waivers, Lists of Modules & Drones).

What drones or remote identification broadcast modules are compliant? Where is that list? What happens if I cannot comply?

jrupprechtlaw.com

This article kinda states that VLOS was a thing they borrowed from the AMA/modelers, but they forgot that while they were drafting the legislation that most quads had cameras. Modelers practically had to stay within VLOS as they didn't have cameras or GPS installed. But they had a paradigm problem realizing that quads were more capable in about the same weight. Also, the quad can stop and hover, the modelers have to keep moving.

Not sure that we need part 108 for BVLOS, when technically it could be part of 107 if they'd just left the quads and the modelers separate. The rules for the modelers was because they share common real estate. Quads can go there and done that just about anywhere. Maybe the paradigm is trying to get quads to need the use of an airport. Quads wouldn't do too well on a busy taxiway. Get blown around behind those big 300 horse power fans.

 

[jspil]

Forgive my ignorance, but exactly what are "shielded opps"? I have never heard this term before.

 

[Vic Moss]

Forgive my ignorance, but exactly what are "shielded opps"? I have never heard this term before.

Ops below tree top, below buildings in urban environments, etc.

 

[jspil]

Ops below tree top, below buildings in urban environments, etc.

Ok that makes sense, thanks for the answer. I've got to say that I can't think of any situation that would require that.

 

[Vic Moss]

Ok that makes sense, thanks for the answer. I've got to say that I can't think of any situation that would require that.

Recreational FPV, urban flights downtown, FPV in the forest, etc.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Incorrect (or possibly premature) information. Part 108 has been talked about in the past, and in the BVLOS ARC. There is nothing new in that video.

Thanx for saving me time.

D

 

[Tim40]

Ok that makes sense, thanks for the answer. I've got to say that I can't think of any situation that would require that.

I have 3 acres, 50-75% forested, that I use to love to fly through. Meaning FPV BVLOS. It's been made illegal by the FAA no matter what size quad. No matter how absurd the idea that other aircraft might be sharing the airspace between, through and under my trees - or behind the barn. So - there's this situation.

 

[lookout]

I have 3 acres, 50-75% forested, that I use to love to fly through. Meaning FPV BVLOS. It's been made illegal by the FAA no matter what size quad. No matter how absurd the idea that other aircraft might be sharing the airspace between, through and under my trees - or behind the barn. So - there's this situation.

The feds put the AMA fields under the same regulations as the quads, and used some of the AMA rules for the quads. And then made some of the quad rules apply to the AMA fields.

 

[Tim40]

The feds put the AMA fields under the same regulations as the quads, and used some of the AMA rules for the quads. And then made some of the quad rules apply to the AMA fields.

The FAA also criminalized flying the ubiquitous tinywhoop either FPV or BVLOS. Our FAA is non longer solely concerned with safety - proof is the two Boeing MAX aircraft the FAA let crash. Most of the rest of the world's aviation authorities had banned the MAX after the 2nd crash - but we had to force our FAA to ban em. It's not kosher anymore - seemed to be back in the day - but not anymore.