[POLL] Requirement to self-unlock NFZ: Reasonable or Infringing on Freedoms

[STUFF2C]

All that happens with restrictions is it forces people to go black market... beit drones themselves or the software that controls them.

If it gets overly bothersome to fly with ridiculous restrictions... RRR MAITIE... I'll fly with me eyepatch and go full on Pirate.

 

[Tbredhed]

All that happens with restrictions is it forces people to go black market... beit drones themselves or the software that controls them.

If it gets overly bothersome to fly with ridiculous restrictions... RRR MAITIE... I'll fly with me eyepatch and go full on Pirate.

My question to you is what is bothersome and ridiculous about not flying within 5.6 km/3 nm, in my country don't see where your from, of an airport?

 

[STUFF2C]

My question to you is what is bothersome and ridiculous about not flying within 5.6 km/3 nm, in my country don't see where your from, of an airport?

Missed the important part sir... "if it gets overly bothersome". As of now I'm fine with most of it... I fly mostly unbothered.

 

[Tbredhed]

Missed the important part sir... "if it gets overly bothersome". As of now I'm fine with most of it... I fly mostly unbothered.

My apologies misinterpreted your post.
Cheers

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

I think it's a matter of perspective.

From the point of view of the safety regulators when so many people just go down to the local retailers and buy an R.P.A. and go off and fly without a clue they see it as a just "handbrake" or a "safety net" in the quest for public safety, and come on ... we all know someone who is or was "that guy" and in our heart of hearts we know it probably is a fair enough precaution if they could just do it half right.

From the point of view of Mr Average who goes down to the retailer and buys an R.P.A. and gets home and finds he can't fly on his property because he lives too close to an airport or restricted zone ....well of course he's going to think he's been hard done by because he was uneducated about the realities and they haven't matched up with his expectations. I'm not exaclty sure who's fault that is, his, the retailer for not telling him? Perhaps the manufacturer for not putting a "You may not be able to do exactly what you want when you want with this" disclaimer on the packaging ...

To me it's an unnecessary procedure because I'm an RePL which in Australia means I put in a load of money and time for the training so I can pretty much fly anywhere, some places I may need to put special procedures in place or get permissions but it can be done. There are no "no fly zones" in Australia any more, just 3 different categories of "restricted" airspace that I can apply to the controlling body for exemption in. I can fly up to the side boundaries of aerodromes because I also have a Aeronautical Radio Certificate and can get clearance from ATC and talk to the manned pilots if needed, I've studied and been found proficient in aircraft procedures, holding patterns, approach and departure path behaviour blah blah so to me it's just another pain in the butt. I get DJI to unlock an aircraft for work in one of these places, it develops a fault, I want to fly a different aircraft ....oooops

I still recognise as someone else said that this is the kind of thing we are going to have to increasingly put up with as time goes by unless we want to see the right to access these devices severely curtailed .. so I grit my teeth and put up with it. Grudgingly.

I *do* feel that there should be some mechanism in place where if you are a RePL / Part 107 / whatever your countries equivalent is that you just provide a copy to DJI or whichever manufacturer is and they say "Oh well, this person is a certified commercial operator, they are trained in the rules and aren't going to risk their licence" and just unlock your account permanently. After all, manned aviation pilots don't have to contact Boeing or Airbus to get their aircraft unlocked do they? I suppose that would be too easy and sensible to ever actually happen eh?

As an increasing number of people in the U.S. are doing part 107 not to operate commercially but just to be out from "under thumb" it would certainly make sense, probably encourage more people to do the training as well for that matter which just has to be good all around from everyone's perspective. Not many people in Aus do the RePL unless they are going into the industry but at $2k with the radio cert I can guess why.

Just my $AU0.02 worth of course, you may not agree.

Regards
Ari

 

[martinclm1]

Drones are like drugs.They make stupid people do bad things. We all know the rules and most of us follow them.
Also if a bird can fly at heights greater than 400' then a drone in uncontrolled air space should be able to.
There have been a lot more bird strikes than drone strikes with planes.

 

[packnrat]

dear packnrat if you feel so strongly about communist chinese i wonder what made you buy a DJI drone in the first place perhaps one made in France like a parrot drone would have been a better choice just saying that all

cost, availability, lack of knowing about "other" drone company's, easy to cart around. i tend to jump in with both feet, but i bought the "best rated" drone for my needs and budget.
and not just for drones, (many other ways we as Americans, Austrailans, Dutch, spanish, etc like to just have fun) but the over reach of the "man" can be a problem, if not a threat.

i belive the new restrictions will only hurt having a drone. can i still fly it if i do not get a permit from the feds? will dji just lock it up so it does not work? i always have belived in personal responsablty. i know hard to just go out and arrest the bad flyers. far easer to punish the rest of us.
in a past life where i worked the till kept coming up short at times. so i played around with the work hrs. and after doing this for about a month. i knew who was taking the cash. same prossess and the fbi, cia, dod, faa, fcc or any of the letter agancys can find there person.
as others here have said we do not have privacy in life any longer. video cams set up in places were the drone has been seen. easy to track it from there to the human behind it. and new new regs needed for this.

 

[sar104]

As an increasing number of people in the U.S. are doing part 107 not to operate commercially but just to be out from "under thumb" it would certainly make sense, probably encourage more people to do the training as well for that matter which just has to be good all around from everyone's perspective.

Part 107 comes with far more regulations than Part 101, so that would be a strange decision.

 

[STUFF2C]

Part 107 comes with far more regulations than Part 101, so that would be a strange decision.

Not when you have the ability to fly under either depending on what you are doing with that particular flight. I fly under both.

 

[sar104]

Not when you have the ability to fly under either depending on what you are doing with that particular flight. I fly under both.

Okay - well Part 107 obviates the need to notify airports within 5 miles, so that removes a required step, though not a restriction. If the airport has surface controlled airspace then Part 107 is more restrictive. They have the same VLOS requirement but Part 107 limits you to 400 ft AGL, which Part 101 (currently) does not. Beyond that I'm not sure what Part 107 buys you unless you are getting waivers or authorizations for flights that would otherwise be recreational.

 

[STUFF2C]

I live within the 5 mile limit, so I fly 107 when at home. Taking pictures and practicing for commercial work. I am however limited to 100' because of airport proximity. Just makes things easier to adhere to the rules having both optiins.

 

[sar104]

I live within the 5 mile limit, so I fly 107 when at home. Taking pictures and practicing for commercial work. I am however limited to 100' because of airport proximity. Just makes things easier to adhere to the rules having both optiins.

Fair enough. In terms of my response to the assertion that many recreational fliers are getting Part 107 qualified to avoid regulations however, I still think that is very unlikely.

 

[STUFF2C]

Yeah, I did it for a couple reasons...
It was pretty simple to do.
Gave me options to fly both ways.
I actually wanted to make sure I was educated enough to stay fairly safe.
And last... the license looks pretty cool

 

[sar104]

Yeah, I did it for a couple reasons...
It was pretty simple to do.
Gave me options to fly both ways.
I actually wanted to make sure I was educated enough to stay fairly safe.
And last... the license looks pretty cool

I'm not sure if I would have made the effort without a specific need for it, but maybe I would have done it anyway.

 

[Willie14228]

As a person who has had a commercial driver's license for 15 years any person who gets one for no other reason than what you might see as freedom is a huge mistake.
What you may not realize is that when you license yourself as a commercial operator you are taking full responsibility, you are signing a federal document stating you are a fully trained professional and therefore in an event of an accident or situation of breaking a rule/law have no excuse of ignorance of said law. Further looking at the deck of cards being stacked against drones and public perception I see in the near future that all drones will need to be insured as your drone will be registered as a commercial device it cannot be insured as a non-commercial device this will mean the difference of $75 per year for all of your devices for non-commercial to around $400 per year for a minimum of $500,000 coverage per device and this is with no recorded accidents.
As a commercial operator you are painting a Target on your back for every "I'm going to sue you" jack@#$#" and lawyer in the U.S
If you think I'm exaggerating drive down the highway anywhere in the United States and count the injury lawyer billboards with words along the lines of "hit by a truck call us"

 

[STUFF2C]

In the "Airmap" app Droneinsurance.com offers pay as you fly insurance policies. My plan is to just invoice the customer for the ins cost to cover the flight. Seems like the simplest way to handle it. Thier site lets you choose the amount and type of ins you need for said flight. Might be pricey, but allows you to cover any insurance needs a commercial company would require. As far as casual flying, like most, I'm living on the edge.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

Part 107 comes with far more regulations than Part 101, so that would be a strange decision.

I couldn't comment on the rational in any meaningful way as I'm not int he U.S. it's just a trend I am noticing from here and other R.P.A. related forums where I am a member. Also a lot of the YouTube commentators seem to be going down that path.

Personally I think gaining certification of any kind even if you only intend to fly recreationally is a big positive. It gives the individual with the certification more protection and cred when having to deal with the public or the authorities which is good for them and it makes the hobby/industry look more professional and safe which is good for all of us.

Regards
Ari

 

[sar104]

I couldn't comment on the rational in any meaningful way as I'm not int he U.S. it's just a trend I am noticing from here and other R.P.A. related forums where I am a member. Also a lot of the YouTube commentators seem to be going down that path.

Personally I think gaining certification of any kind even if you only intend to fly recreationally is a big positive. It gives the individual with the certification more protection and cred when having to deal with the public or the authorities which is good for them and it makes the hobby/industry look more professional and safe which is good for all of us.

Regards
Ari

Those all sound like valid reasons. YouTubers in particular will need Part 107 if they are getting paid for content. I was addressing your earlier comment that implied that it was to avoid the regulations associated with recreational flying, and simply pointing out that Part 107 does the opposite - it brings a lot more regulation into play.

 

[zocalo]

Personally I think gaining certification of any kind even if you only intend to fly recreationally is a big positive. It gives the individual with the certification more protection and cred when having to deal with the public or the authorities which is good for them and it makes the hobby/industry look more professional and safe which is good for all of us.

Agreed. Once the new UK legislation comes in later this year I'm absolutely planning on getting my PfCO (FAA Part 107 equivalent), or whatever might get introduced with the new legislation that's most appropriate for me because of this. (Waiting until then because I'm hoping for a "PfCO light" as I'm just a hobbyist intending on doing occassional paid commissions/image sales alongside my SLR-based sideline, but if needs must it'll be the full PfCO.)

It's probably some ways off, but I'd also like to see some international equivalency for these, kind of like with international drivers licenses. If I have my PfCO, then it would be nice to be able to take it to (say) the US and have it recognised as an effective Part 107, without having to go through any local registration hoops. Obviously applying for any specific local waivers would still be required, but it would at least cut back on some of the paperwork for everyone involved.

 

[Willie14228]

Agreed. Once the new UK legislation comes in later this year I'm absolutely planning on getting my PfCO (FAA Part 107 equivalent), or whatever might get introduced with the new legislation that's most appropriate for me because of this. (Waiting until then because I'm hoping for a "PfCO light" as I'm just a hobbyist intending on doing occassional paid commissions/image sales alongside my SLR-based sideline, but if needs must it'll be the full PfCO.)

It's probably some ways off, but I'd also like to see some international equivalency for these, kind of like with international drivers licenses. If I have my PfCO, then it would be nice to be able to take it to (say) the US and have it recognised as an effective Part 107, without having to go through any local registration hoops. Obviously applying for any specific local waivers would still be required, but it would at least cut back on some of the paperwork for everyone involved.

I am not against licensing but believe that you should do so under the proper license, after all even full fledged pilots have private and commercial.

Let me make a suggestion go to the FAA website and look at all the statistical data that they have for accidents and incidents look at the fact that one of the brackets in that data is whether or not it was a commercial or private aircraft.
Now consider this everybody is getting a commercial license just because it's easier go out and fly without having to get any type of waiver or permission what's going to happen when those individuals starts breaking the law or doing something that get somebody hurt. All of that data is going to show that this happened by a commercial entity, so what is going to happen to you guys who are legitimate commercial entities all of that data is going to go against you not against the hobbyist flyer. The fact is there has to be a true line drawn between commercial and hobby otherwise when lawmakers starts looking at that all of that data what they will see is that the commercial side of the drones needs to have more strict laws and more regulations.