Orlando wants to fleece drone operators for every flight

[enigmamdw]

'You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.'

 

[Eonasdan]

Drone pilots seeking to fly in those areas can apply for a special permit at a cost of $20 per flight. An annual permit, available only to accredited pilots, is expected to cost $150.

100% of the goal of the city is laid out right there. We must tax all the things.

The question of if a license will actually do anything, my guess is that it would not. See also DUI.

 

[GhostRider]

Seems the City is looking to make some money off the expanding market of drones.

 

[Cyclicopath]

That's great information! Thank you for compiling it.

Sent from my SM-G900T using MavicPilots mobile app

This is "information" that can get you into a whole world of trouble. The FAA can and will take you to court for violating their regulations, do so at your risk and potential great expense (and at risk of being turned in by your fellow pilots, just as other drivers turn in drunks on the roads to protect themselves and others). At this time, we do not need to be encouraging people to act on what is called a "gray area," but rather we need to advise pilots to understand that until or unless the rules are changed, either from within the FAA or by outside legal intervention, it is in everyone's best interests to follow them.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

This is "information" that can get you into a whole world of trouble. The FAA can and will take you to court for violating their regulations, do so at your risk and potential great expense (and at risk of being turned in by your fellow pilots, just as other drivers turn in drunks on the roads to protect themselves and others). At this time, we do not need to be encouraging people to act on what is called a "gray area," but rather we need to advise pilots to understand that until or unless the rules are changed, either from within the FAA or by outside legal intervention, it is in everyone's best interests to follow them.

The information I gave is directly from U.S. code... it is not grey information and I in no way encouraged anyone to do anything in violation of current codes.
Please re-read the post so you can better understand it.

 

[LakeTravis]

In the USA, the airspace between 83' and 500' is a gray area, especially since drones have convoluted the question.

The FAA argues that it “has authority to regulate aircraft in U.S. Airspace” at any altitude because Federal law states that the FAA “shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1).

Even if navigable airspace does not extend to the surface, the FAA has argued that it may regulate below navigable airspace because it can prescribe regulations “on the flight of aircraft for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft” and “protecting individuals and property on the ground.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2).

Until we see a court case that addresses this problem, it will continue to be interpreted in many ways.

I'm afraid that is not true LuvMyTJ. Most of the flying we do with UAVs is (hopefully) in Class G airspace. That's any airspace below 14,500 to the ground and not in any of the airspace designated as controlled--around airports, restricted, subject to Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), Military Operations Areas and several other categories. In spite of what U.S. Code may say, the FAA Regs define Class G as:

Uncontrolled airspace or Class G airspace is the portion of the airspace that has not been designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E. It is therefore designated uncontrolled airspace. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the base of the overlying Class E airspace. Although ATC has no authority or responsibility to control air traffic, pilots should remember there are visual flight rules (VFR) minimums that apply to Class G airspace.

 

[LakeTravis]

I'm afraid that is not true LuvMyTJ. Most of the flying we do with UAVs is (hopefully) in Class G airspace. That's any airspace below 14,500 to the ground and not in any of the airspace designated as controlled--around airports, restricted, subject to Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), Military Operations Areas and several other categories. In spite of what U.S. Code may say, the FAA Regs define Class G as:

Uncontrolled airspace or Class G airspace is the portion of the airspace that has not been designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E. It is therefore designated uncontrolled airspace. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the base of the overlying Class E airspace. Although ATC has no authority or responsibility to control air traffic, pilots should remember there are visual flight rules (VFR) minimums that apply to Class G airspace.

And I'm not trying to be a troll or abrasive, just sticking with the facts.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

And I'm not trying to be a troll or abrasive, just sticking with the facts.

What is not true... the US code I posted verbatim is not factual?

 

[LakeTravis]

I didn't say U.S. Code, or you, were not factual, there is obvious ambiguity between what the Code and what the FARs say--I fly, so I follow the FAA, and they say Class G extends from the surface to 14,500. As I'm sure you know, there have been a number of cases on both sides--by drone operators and those who feel we have violated "private airspace". Until the courts make some decision, the ambiguity will continue to exist.

 

[GhostRider]

Class G airspace includes all airspace below 14,500 feet (4,400 m) MSL not otherwise classified as controlled. There are no entry or clearance requirements for class G airspace, even for IFR operations. Class G airspace is typically the airspace very near the ground (1,200 feet or less), beneath class E airspace and between class B-D cylinders around towered airstrips.

If no entry or clearance requirements are needed then whats the problem?

If you are a responsible operator and stay within the rules set by the FAA which is 400 Ft. or less then I don't see what the issue is.

Like I said before seems the city is after money.

 

[Rezistrat]

What we simply need is drone class airspace. Up to 400 feet a.g.l. drones should be permitted.Faa needs to fast track a simple notification app so we can fly safely whilst keeping manned aircraft from harm

 

[HVYMTL]

For those that live in Orlando... Come on over to Polk County. We have parks set up with dedicate rc air fields..

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MavicPilots mobile app

 

[allen deckard]

After reading the ordinance and why they put it in place it's extremely aggravating. The entire thing is because of what "might happen" not even in response to things that have happened. Leaving the entire drone part out its just aggravating when laws are created for a non problem.

In the mean time in the real world drone sales have bottomed out after they started talking about the ordinance.

I honestly don't want to admit it but I think it won't be long and the same restrictive nature will be nationwide.

People often govern by the fear of what might be rather than by the reality of what is.





Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[Kestrel]

Florida reminds me of California with some of its laws, they are truly draconian when it comes certain laws.

 

[GhostRider]

Florida reminds me of California with some of its laws, they are truly draconian when it comes certain laws.

This is very true...

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Oh yay... Glad I don't live in Orlando.

Orlando approves new rules for drones


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

One day your local politicians may feel the desire unless you're way off in the boonies.

 

[Philip Kahn]

New guy on this forum Have had many rc cars ,planes,helis,hobby store drones,and now a mavic pro platinum,love the mavic. Point is every new hobby attracts a bunch of good people and a small percentage of bad.Ive noticed when people have to put in some extra effort i.e. , aquiring a liscence you have to actually put effort into it cuts a lot of the bad folks out, although some will still be there breaking the rules till they get caught. Example some youtube videos of drones. Some great stuff and some real boneheads making a bad name for all who follow the rules and enjoy this addicting hobby

 

[Sprocket]

An operators license would be the best thing that could happen to the hobby. Have you ever had to show your automobile drivers license to buy a car? Retailers would have no obligation to check anything like that... maybe I am purchasing for a family member... I wouldn't need a license to do that. It would show authorities in the field that you have been trained and passed a knowledge test in order to safely operate one. Can you imagine if we just decided to do away with all licenses of all types? It is clear there is a need for it.

I've got the money to buy a used Cessna 172 cheap. Have a buddy that used to have his pilots license but lost it when he couldn't pass the medical. He will get us off the ground and let me have the controls. Can someone tell me what license I need to buy the plane? Just being sarcastic.
I don't know what the answer is, but something needs to be done to keep this sport as free of idiots as possible.
My post really helped with the problem. No?

 

[Pingman68]

Just FYI, Florida passed a law that bans cities like Orlando from enacting their own laws pertaining to drones.

 

[Classic flyer]

They should just create an E-Z Pass lane for drones in addition to all their other bloated exorbitant tolls. And I wonder what they consider an "accredited pilot."

"An annual permit, available only to accredited pilots, is expected to cost $150"

I believe an "ACCREDITED" pilot would be one that's 107 certified