Why must this continue being about in or out of context? Is it legal or not to fly higher than 400 ft. and out of LOS? Is it legal to profit from using a drone without special exemption from FAA or not?
The video is promoting Corporatism, plain and simple. The website specifically states "in partnership with the FAA". Is there a time in history when it ever worked out for the better of the common man and not ended up wallowed in corruption and cronyism?
Why is it illegal to make money with a drone UA without special exemption by the FAA? A toy? If I hire a 15 year old kid to bring his flying toy to film my property, how is that any different than hiring him to cut my lawn with his parent's mower? If I hire an 18 year old that owns 'John's Photography' and enter into a contract to do it, why is it illegal?
It's no wonder the U.S. is #12 on the economic freedom index and falling every year. It is not about opinions, it's about how many road blocks the government is going to put in place to make it near impossible for an entrepreneur to profit from his ideas without bankrupting him first.
I've worked as a ME and QE, mostly in the QA capacity for over 30 years, 10 in aerospace and know how the game is played.
They had to employ an attorney to get an exemption in order to use commercially? Look at the list of rules and regulations. If they ever have a mishap, it is guaranteed the FAA will swoop in, pour over every single entry in their logs, find fault (they always do), then the NTSB gets involved and it's game over. It will bankrupt them or be so expensive to continue as they won't be able to afford the cost of fines, litigation and conformance.
A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on
August 18, 2014
(79FR48818).
The FAA received 3 comments regarding the notice of petition for exemption. Of the three comments, one expressed support of the petition, one was opposed, and one was neutral but raised issues and concerns. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) submitted comments in opposition to the petition. The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) expressed various issues and concerns regarding the petition. The Small UAV Coalition submitted a comment in favor of the petition.
The Small UAV Coalition (hereafter the Coalition) outlined its members’ support for advancing regulatory and policy changes permitting operation of sUAVs for commercial, recreational, and philanthropic purposes. In support of Clayco’s petition, the Coalition states
that the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than required, and that
There is going to be much pressure by powerful interests to require more and more permits, insurance, "training" and other qualifications (not excluding a pilot license) that will keep the little guy out. Hollywood has deep pockets so to them $2000-3000/day is nothing to pay two guys to do filming for their movies.
Back to the farmer. Is he going to pay $2000-3000/day to survey his crops? Thus far, the exemptions I've read are for high end film making and none for agricultural which I would argue is much safer than filming a movie. A good article about this: http://fortune.com/2014/09/16/despite-faa-dithering-a-drone-economy...
The arguments given by opponents to commercial use of sUAS (as FAA refers to it) by non-licensed pilots are laughable. Pilot unions, Big Ag pilot associations et al want operators certified (licensing) as if these drones are like flying Air Bus 320's. Considering that an experienced 12 year with their _______ could probably fly circles (literally) around any licensed pilot is what makes their argument laughable.
Would I consider joining the AMA again or the sUAS specific organizations? Possibly, but not if they are going the route of "partnering" with the FAA.
Let's make this simple and straightforward. Let's not use the endless permutations and combinations of adjectives and adverbs as found in the 40,000-word English language to justify the PSA or the need for safety.
There's a PSA, it's for novices. The PSA is not a sweeping statement nor is it a hasty generalization or oversimplification of facts. It's a message for those who just got a UA for Xmas.
That being said, a PSA by "private organizations aligning themselves and holding hands with government agencies" is not at all bad considering that you are able to fly your UA in airspace that has hitherto minimal risks. Simply said, a PSA is a reminder and not a doctrine that is absolute and all encompassing, nor is it an end-all and be-all statement from the powers that be. It's a reminder is a reminder, is a reminder, is a reminder....
Thus, in the presence of rationalization, and in taking away emotions, with the absence of the PSA you have nothing. And doing nothing at this point in time means we're not building and just opining.
Everyone knows an opinion, along with the adjectives and adverbs that come along with it, is part of the freedom of speech and Constitutionally guaranteed right of self-determination. However, opinions are not PSA. So, the PSA has a point, taken in its proper context and taking into account its target market.
UA, I think, will fly with information compounded upon compounded information. UA will not succeed based on personal opinions. No system, engineering, flight or what not, takes off based on opinion. Information, such as the PSA and the need for safety, is what we build on.
First of all I have 2 Pixhawk powered copters and probably 200+ flights between those and my first KK2 little quad, but still consider myself a novice pilot of these things although am much better of course than 1 year ago. My eyesight ain't what it used to be, and have concluded will never be able to match the skills of many others. Hearing about Pixhawk (well APM at the time) is the whole reason I got into this hobby. The old days of destroying dozens/hundreds of meticulous building in a moment of indecision are largely ameliorated by a FC system, GPS, accels, compass.....WOW....that sure beats the old days.
Having grown up starting with rubber band props in the 60's, then line control in the 70's, then power planes and finally gliders, RC is nothing new to me, but went into the "new age" of flying totally blind (some may say I still am :) )
Before moving to the country the only places to fly were AMA sanctioned airfields. I joined the clubs and paid the AMA fees like everyone else, but by the end of the 80's they had become largely cliques and elitists, taking the fun out of it for beginners and even experienced pilots. When I lost my last big glider due to radio malfunction, it took the wind of out my sails so to speak. Never did find that glider, and never flew again until last year.
What I'm saying is there are hundreds if not more of videos on youtube and elsewhere of 'UA' flying around in cities with houses and cars within 50-100 ft of the takeoff, gleefully flying around the neighborhood buzzing rooftops and the like. DJI flyways have their Facebook page. What amount of PSA's are going to stop that?
Of course nobody flies their 'UA' out of LOS when doing missions, and always they can take control knowing the orientation is correct to bring it home manually......wink wink.
As far as insurance goes, that is MY responsibility. Safety? That's mine too. Ha! None of these things are intrinsically safe. Give me a break. Sure one can take precautions, do all the pre-flight checks and the like, but in the end if they decide to fail and go off on their own, it's Russian Roulette. Basically it boils down to personal responsibility, something that long been abandoned.
I'll venture to say 95% of all crashes occur within LOS. The odds of my damaging property or persons flying out of LOS are orders of magnitude lower than a city dweller within a few hundred feet of takeoff, but everyone is thrown into one box.
The bottom line is whenever I see private organizations aligning themselves and holding hands with government agencies, watch out; it will ultimately end up bad. It may start out with good intentions, but Corporatism never ends well for the average person.
All I need to do is look at what happened to Bruce Simpson in New Zealand; criticize the Borgs and you're marked for life. The flying clubs are in bed with the politicians there. So if you really want to know what I don't like about the video, it is the "we're all in this together" garbage, when what will really end up happening is make flying unaffordable, over regulated and controlled by special interest groups on a power trip, granted special status by bureaucrats who then create all sorts of stupid rules to please their Master. Monetary reward then becomes a factor. Naturally the ambulance chasers and insurance companies benefit from all this as well when it becomes a requirement to buy the necessary permits etc.
It's this same type of mentality that makes me hate buying new lawnmowers because some do-gooder safety group decided we are too stupid to operate a lawn mower (worse a lawn tractor) and must have warning stickers slapped all over them stating that putting your hand inside the mower take could cause physical injury, so they put "safety" devices on them that shut the damn things off if you release the handle. Well I'm smarter than that! I'll just have my 5 year old grandson put HIS hand in their. Or if you get off the tractor seat, it turns off. There are people actually getting paid to come up with these idiotic "safety" features. Who pays for all this? Duh.
In a nutshell, all I'm saying is beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing and be careful what you wish for.
Context. It makes a lot of difference if you use context.
I won't get defensive here but let's be blatantly honest for the sake of factual and actual statements. You have to watch the video to understand the target market for it. Target market and context. It's for those who just received a UA for Christmas.
Anybody who's giving a UA for Xmas knows, especially for those who've flown UA for years, that nobody receives a "a sophisticated autonomous FC like Pixhawk" to a newbie who's never flown a UA all his/her life.
With regards to "a sophisticated autonomous FC like Pixhawk serve," you make it seem like the weather conditions, pilots, and quality of the UA are ceteres paribus. They are not. You can fly a UA in a rural area and what are you supposed to do with LOS for hours on end? Survey? Photos? And then what? You can fly your UA out of LOS, but it's your responsibility to know what it's going to hit and who it might hit. You can't just say "I'm sorry" in a rural or urban setting after the fact. Did you even mention anything about insurance or safety?
I reckon you would like the flight autonomy, but you disdain the social responsibilities.
With all due respect and all the love in the world, its' your neck of the woods and no one's stopping you.
However, and most importantly, please bear in mind that NOT all who use UAs are farmers nor are they exclusively for farm or rural use. In this context and considering the target market, by all means fly but also be responsible.
Is this public service message meant for kiddies opening their $50 drones that probably couldn't fly high enough or far enough to violate these rules?
If LOS is the rule forever, and people religiously follow it, what purpose then does a sophisticated autonomous FC like Pixhawk serve? Redundant GPS, RTL, Mission Planner? For what?
If you live in a rural area, what is the logic in limiting to LOS? Even with LOS, if you lose control of the craft it can still cause just as much damage as a 5 mile autonomous flight plan gone awry. Really though, what is the definition of line of sight?
LOS where I live is limited by wooded areas unless out in the farming areas where some farms go for miles with only a few houses and small blocks of woods dotted here and there.
What's ironic about this is I know farmers that pay people to survey their crops (one has 7,000 acres). They say it saves them a lot of time and money and were surprised when told they and/or the person(s) providing the service are likely breaking the law.
Comments
It's a PSA for safety. Nothing more.
If you want to link it to your disdain for corporations. You could. I won't stop you.
If you want to emote, rant, and opine. I won't stop you either.
And your desire to challenge corporatism DOES NOT and will NEVER supplant safety.
SAFETY ABOVE ALL!
It's a PSA for safety. Any interpretation beyond that is entirely yours. Happy New Year!
Let's stop bloviating ok?
Why must this continue being about in or out of context? Is it legal or not to fly higher than 400 ft. and out of LOS? Is it legal to profit from using a drone without special exemption from FAA or not?
The video is promoting Corporatism, plain and simple. The website specifically states "in partnership with the FAA". Is there a time in history when it ever worked out for the better of the common man and not ended up wallowed in corruption and cronyism?
Why is it illegal to make money with a drone UA without special exemption by the FAA? A toy? If I hire a 15 year old kid to bring his flying toy to film my property, how is that any different than hiring him to cut my lawn with his parent's mower? If I hire an 18 year old that owns 'John's Photography' and enter into a contract to do it, why is it illegal?
It's no wonder the U.S. is #12 on the economic freedom index and falling every year. It is not about opinions, it's about how many road blocks the government is going to put in place to make it near impossible for an entrepreneur to profit from his ideas without bankrupting him first.
I've worked as a ME and QE, mostly in the QA capacity for over 30 years, 10 in aerospace and know how the game is played.
Here is an exemption for Aerial Mob:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/media/Aeri...
They had to employ an attorney to get an exemption in order to use commercially? Look at the list of rules and regulations. If they ever have a mishap, it is guaranteed the FAA will swoop in, pour over every single entry in their logs, find fault (they always do), then the NTSB gets involved and it's game over. It will bankrupt them or be so expensive to continue as they won't be able to afford the cost of fines, litigation and conformance.
Here's one for Clayco Inc.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/media/Clay...
Gee, who could be opposed to commercial use?
On pg 8 (my bold):
There is going to be much pressure by powerful interests to require more and more permits, insurance, "training" and other qualifications (not excluding a pilot license) that will keep the little guy out. Hollywood has deep pockets so to them $2000-3000/day is nothing to pay two guys to do filming for their movies.
Back to the farmer. Is he going to pay $2000-3000/day to survey his crops? Thus far, the exemptions I've read are for high end film making and none for agricultural which I would argue is much safer than filming a movie. A good article about this: http://fortune.com/2014/09/16/despite-faa-dithering-a-drone-economy...
The arguments given by opponents to commercial use of sUAS (as FAA refers to it) by non-licensed pilots are laughable. Pilot unions, Big Ag pilot associations et al want operators certified (licensing) as if these drones are like flying Air Bus 320's. Considering that an experienced 12 year with their _______ could probably fly circles (literally) around any licensed pilot is what makes their argument laughable.
Would I consider joining the AMA again or the sUAS specific organizations? Possibly, but not if they are going the route of "partnering" with the FAA.
And that's all I have to say about this subject.
Let's make this simple and straightforward. Let's not use the endless permutations and combinations of adjectives and adverbs as found in the 40,000-word English language to justify the PSA or the need for safety.
There's a PSA, it's for novices. The PSA is not a sweeping statement nor is it a hasty generalization or oversimplification of facts. It's a message for those who just got a UA for Xmas.
That being said, a PSA by "private organizations aligning themselves and holding hands with government agencies" is not at all bad considering that you are able to fly your UA in airspace that has hitherto minimal risks. Simply said, a PSA is a reminder and not a doctrine that is absolute and all encompassing, nor is it an end-all and be-all statement from the powers that be. It's a reminder is a reminder, is a reminder, is a reminder....
Thus, in the presence of rationalization, and in taking away emotions, with the absence of the PSA you have nothing. And doing nothing at this point in time means we're not building and just opining.
Everyone knows an opinion, along with the adjectives and adverbs that come along with it, is part of the freedom of speech and Constitutionally guaranteed right of self-determination. However, opinions are not PSA. So, the PSA has a point, taken in its proper context and taking into account its target market.
UA, I think, will fly with information compounded upon compounded information. UA will not succeed based on personal opinions. No system, engineering, flight or what not, takes off based on opinion. Information, such as the PSA and the need for safety, is what we build on.
No offense taken, but you fail to see my point.
First of all I have 2 Pixhawk powered copters and probably 200+ flights between those and my first KK2 little quad, but still consider myself a novice pilot of these things although am much better of course than 1 year ago. My eyesight ain't what it used to be, and have concluded will never be able to match the skills of many others. Hearing about Pixhawk (well APM at the time) is the whole reason I got into this hobby. The old days of destroying dozens/hundreds of meticulous building in a moment of indecision are largely ameliorated by a FC system, GPS, accels, compass.....WOW....that sure beats the old days.
Having grown up starting with rubber band props in the 60's, then line control in the 70's, then power planes and finally gliders, RC is nothing new to me, but went into the "new age" of flying totally blind (some may say I still am :) )
Before moving to the country the only places to fly were AMA sanctioned airfields. I joined the clubs and paid the AMA fees like everyone else, but by the end of the 80's they had become largely cliques and elitists, taking the fun out of it for beginners and even experienced pilots. When I lost my last big glider due to radio malfunction, it took the wind of out my sails so to speak. Never did find that glider, and never flew again until last year.
What I'm saying is there are hundreds if not more of videos on youtube and elsewhere of 'UA' flying around in cities with houses and cars within 50-100 ft of the takeoff, gleefully flying around the neighborhood buzzing rooftops and the like. DJI flyways have their Facebook page. What amount of PSA's are going to stop that?
Of course nobody flies their 'UA' out of LOS when doing missions, and always they can take control knowing the orientation is correct to bring it home manually......wink wink.
As far as insurance goes, that is MY responsibility. Safety? That's mine too. Ha! None of these things are intrinsically safe. Give me a break. Sure one can take precautions, do all the pre-flight checks and the like, but in the end if they decide to fail and go off on their own, it's Russian Roulette. Basically it boils down to personal responsibility, something that long been abandoned.
I'll venture to say 95% of all crashes occur within LOS. The odds of my damaging property or persons flying out of LOS are orders of magnitude lower than a city dweller within a few hundred feet of takeoff, but everyone is thrown into one box.
The bottom line is whenever I see private organizations aligning themselves and holding hands with government agencies, watch out; it will ultimately end up bad. It may start out with good intentions, but Corporatism never ends well for the average person.
All I need to do is look at what happened to Bruce Simpson in New Zealand; criticize the Borgs and you're marked for life. The flying clubs are in bed with the politicians there. So if you really want to know what I don't like about the video, it is the "we're all in this together" garbage, when what will really end up happening is make flying unaffordable, over regulated and controlled by special interest groups on a power trip, granted special status by bureaucrats who then create all sorts of stupid rules to please their Master. Monetary reward then becomes a factor. Naturally the ambulance chasers and insurance companies benefit from all this as well when it becomes a requirement to buy the necessary permits etc.
It's this same type of mentality that makes me hate buying new lawnmowers because some do-gooder safety group decided we are too stupid to operate a lawn mower (worse a lawn tractor) and must have warning stickers slapped all over them stating that putting your hand inside the mower take could cause physical injury, so they put "safety" devices on them that shut the damn things off if you release the handle. Well I'm smarter than that! I'll just have my 5 year old grandson put HIS hand in their. Or if you get off the tractor seat, it turns off. There are people actually getting paid to come up with these idiotic "safety" features. Who pays for all this? Duh.
In a nutshell, all I'm saying is beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing and be careful what you wish for.
an UA... an UA.... an UA.... pardon my grammar :-)
Context. It makes a lot of difference if you use context.
I won't get defensive here but let's be blatantly honest for the sake of factual and actual statements. You have to watch the video to understand the target market for it. Target market and context. It's for those who just received a UA for Christmas.
Anybody who's giving a UA for Xmas knows, especially for those who've flown UA for years, that nobody receives a "a sophisticated autonomous FC like Pixhawk" to a newbie who's never flown a UA all his/her life.
With regards to "a sophisticated autonomous FC like Pixhawk serve," you make it seem like the weather conditions, pilots, and quality of the UA are ceteres paribus. They are not. You can fly a UA in a rural area and what are you supposed to do with LOS for hours on end? Survey? Photos? And then what? You can fly your UA out of LOS, but it's your responsibility to know what it's going to hit and who it might hit. You can't just say "I'm sorry" in a rural or urban setting after the fact. Did you even mention anything about insurance or safety?
I reckon you would like the flight autonomy, but you disdain the social responsibilities.
With all due respect and all the love in the world, its' your neck of the woods and no one's stopping you.
However, and most importantly, please bear in mind that NOT all who use UAs are farmers nor are they exclusively for farm or rural use. In this context and considering the target market, by all means fly but also be responsible.
Happy New Year!
Is this public service message meant for kiddies opening their $50 drones that probably couldn't fly high enough or far enough to violate these rules?
If LOS is the rule forever, and people religiously follow it, what purpose then does a sophisticated autonomous FC like Pixhawk serve? Redundant GPS, RTL, Mission Planner? For what?
If you live in a rural area, what is the logic in limiting to LOS? Even with LOS, if you lose control of the craft it can still cause just as much damage as a 5 mile autonomous flight plan gone awry. Really though, what is the definition of line of sight?
LOS where I live is limited by wooded areas unless out in the farming areas where some farms go for miles with only a few houses and small blocks of woods dotted here and there.
What's ironic about this is I know farmers that pay people to survey their crops (one has 7,000 acres). They say it saves them a lot of time and money and were surprised when told they and/or the person(s) providing the service are likely breaking the law.