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

[sar104]

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.

Why does this keep getting asserted? It's not easier to fly under Part 107 - that's precisely where all the regulations are, and where waivers/authorizations are required.

 

[zocalo]

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.

Agree entirely, and that's part of the reason why I'm holding off. Here in the UK we currently have precisely one option which is required for anything commerical involving a drone; a PfCO. "Commercial" theoretically includes simple stuff like monetizing a YouTube or Instagram channel, although I don't think anyone has been busted for this so far. I'm a little more exposed though as I already have a sideline in SLR photography, and I'd rather not take the risk since I absolutely intend to use drones for paid photographic commissions. A PfCO is also expensive, once you factor in the required study time, prep work, and tests, so not something you're going to undertake on a whim.

Sometime between now and November - if all goes to plan - we're due new legislation to back up mandatory registration and a competency test/certification. The vagueness on timing is due to the fact that registration is supposed to go live in September and be mandatory by the end of November, so the legislation just needs to arrive before that becomes a requirement. There is currently no information on what else might come with that, including potential alternatives to the PfCO, relaxing commercialisation of drone imagery rules, or no other substantial changes at all. Once that's published I'll have a better idea of the options and can choose the most appropriate one(s) for my usage, whether that's the PfCO and/or something else entirely.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

I was addressing your earlier comment that implied that it was to avoid the regulations associated with recreational flying

I'm sorry, if I gave that impression then I certainly worded what I said poorly indeed. Perhaps I stressed too highly the benefits and didn't highlight the associated responsibilities. I just naturally assumed anyone who made the decision to obtain any sort of certification had (like myself) very carefully weighed the pros and cons balance and committed to operating in a professional manner before going down that path.

Being an RePL myself and being hyper aware of the extra responsibility as well as the extra freedoms it put upon me I would most certainly never suggest to someone they take any step so as to "avoid" a regulation. You're obviously correct. it simply doesn't work that way.

The way it works as I perceive it, and certainly how it works here is that the certification and required insurance amounts to taking and acknowledging the responsibility once in a formal manner for the trade off of being able to operate without having to "jump through the procedural hoops" on every individual occasion and of course that the certification will give access to some opportunities that would not exist as a recreational operator. Having a "blanket certification" most certainly does not exempt one for responsibility.

As someone else pointed out with the "profession driver" analogy if anything it removes ambiguity and codifies our responsibilities but if you are committed to operating in a responsible manner within the guide lines then it is still advantageous. If on the other hand you are going to be a "cowboy" about it then no amount of certs are going to save you from a sticky end.

Regards
Ari

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

Waiting until then because I'm hoping for a "PfCO light"

That's a reasonable hope. At the moment and also under the new rules to take effect mid year we have a class of pilot called "Excluded Recreational Pilot" (ERPA) which is essentially for people who are primarily hobbyists but might want to do the occasional job "for commercial operations" as it's phrased in the U.K. and as "for commercial interest" can be such a nebulous concept at times it's a good cover to have.

At the moment to fly as Excluded requires no formal certification, under the new regime mid year every class will require a sliding scale of certification. A recreational pilot (RPA) will need to do online training and testing of the most basic kind totaling about 10 minutes. An ERPA will need to show a little more, their process being again online and taking about 30 minutes of investment in time and testing. We won't go into RePL other than to say it costs thousands, requires a large amount of time and formalised theoretical and practical flying assessment.

Then and now it (ERPA) entitles you to operate commercially within the Standard Operating Copnditions with an R.P.A.S. under 2Kg. Commercial operation within controlled airspace is not allowed for ERPA. You can fly in controlled airspace here even as a Recreational pilot as long as you follow the SOCs but need an RePL to do it commercially. Insurance for ERPA is not mandated but you'd be nuts not to have it.

It's probably some ways off, but I'd also like to see some international equivalency for these

Now do not take this as a definitive statement but, obviously, being a commercial operator I've been watching closely the formulation of the new rules coming into effect here mid year and providing submissions. I will say that there is a section in the legislation that cover international pilots both as tourists but also in the terms of aircraft registration and the way I read it it does suggest that some sort of equivalency is assumed and may even be underway behind the scenes. It'll probably be a thing that requires countries to be a signatory to some sort of agreement you would assume.

The similarities between the certifications regimes slowly forming in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Australia at the very least make it a possibility. Also I did note that while the original word was that to fly in Canada you would need to be a citizen the draft legislation there allows for immigration officers to ask for your R.P.A.S. accreditation on entering the country which hints at that possibility.

As I said, not established fact but more informed speculation.

Regards
Ari

 

[Willie14228]

Why does this keep getting asserted? It's not easier to fly under Part 107 - that's precisely where all the regulations are, and where waivers/authorizations are required.

I too never meant to imply that as a commercial licensed pilot that it would be easier only that there would be less direct oversight as far as being able to go out and fly. From what I understand by everybody's comments this is the primary reason why they think it's a good idea to go and get the 107 license I personally disagree with that I believe that when everything is all said and done the 107 is going to be even more restrictive and places more responsibility onto the pilot

 

[sar104]

I too never meant to imply that as a commercial licensed pilot that it would be easier only that there would be less direct oversight as far as being able to go out and fly. From what I understand by everybody's comments this is the primary reason why they think it's a good idea to go and get the 107 license I personally disagree with that I believe that when everything is all said and done the 107 is going to be even more restrictive and places more responsibility onto the pilot

Maybe - I'm not sure. Part 107 is not a trivial endeavor for most people, and it doesn't (yet) come with many advantages beyond being able to do commercial or other non-recreational flying. I've seen a few people say that they did it just because it seemed worthwhile, or a good way to challenge their capabilities, but I don't recall anyone saying they did it just to avoid oversight. That may change, of course, now that the Special Rule was, inevitably, repealed; the FAA gets to impose airspace restrictions on hobbyists and the balance of the equation will look different.