Its all worryingly simple.
Write manuals, get an N number for your airframe apply for a COA and the pilot needs a PPL.
What took them so long!
In their applications, the firms said the operators will hold private pilot certificates, keep the UAS within line of sight at all times and restrict flights to the “sterile area” on the set. In granting the exemption, FAA accepted these safety conditions, adding an inspection of the aircraft before each flight, and prohibiting operations at night. The agency also will issue Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COAs) that mandate flight rules and timely reports of any accident or incidents.
“The applicants submitted UAS flight manuals with detailed safety procedures that were a key factor in our approval of their requests,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We are thoroughly satisfied these operations will not pose a hazard to other aircraft or to people and property on the ground.”
The full press release
Comments
"...All you need is a PPL..."
Seriously? To fly an Iris with a GP3 commercially? Lunacy.
No not the Hollywood folks John, the test site selection process. It was delayed and without any real purpose. The term white elphants springs to mind. There were some great choices that seemed to be ignored.
> Justin H. Can we sic the Dept. of Commerce on the FAA, waving fistfulls of projected tax revenues?
Would be nice, but the FAA's attitude throwing its weight around and clearly showing they could not care less lost revenues (along with technological primacy) makes that success doubtful ...
Seems the only thing that will work is a well publicized lawsuit win by heavyweights like Amazon. (The FAA vs Pirker loss was obviously not enough, just a slap on the wrist). Along with congress pressure and a few resignations at the FAA top. But good luck with that ....
> I can't believe folks are only calling foul on the test sites now, we knew before they were selected for political reasons they had no purpose.
These Hollywood companies same?
> If I were an American innovator I would forget waiting and link up with somebody in Europe ...
Or proceed knowing full well he has a right to do so, ignoring the FAA illegal shenanigans. What 3DR and 99% of commercial companies having anything to do with drones are actually doing ...
The UK is sure doing it right. If only the FAA (forget about leading) could have at least followed that path ...
I can't believe folks are only calling foul on the test sites now, we knew before they were selected for political reasons they had no purpose.
There is not one that is less than a 5 figure sum a day to use there was never a test schedule laid out.
They were selected in the wrong places, the two best options were ignored and folks just let it happen.
Follow the money.
There are efforts to redress the balance but I doubt folks will get behind them.
I get bored of trotting it out but in the UK in 2006 the CAA said what should the rules look like about 110 of us said oh like this and they took it all on board and created some pretty restrictive rules to start. Every year since they have been taking away restrictions and adding extensions all based on real world data from licenced operators. This is happening in many European countries.
If I were an American innovator I would forget waiting and link up with somebody in Europe that can get you tax advantage. Test sites like Aerohub have tax incentives to use, a hanger and airspace for cheap in a lovely part of the world. There are similar all over Europe if Cornwall is not your kettle of fish.
That's quite a bummer on the test sites, John. I live within 90 minutes of the Warm Springs site in Oregon and was looking forward to it becoming a bit of a hub for regional UAV businesses, of which there are many, both military and commercial. Not much of a test site if you can't, you know, test stuff.
The line-of-sight requirement above also seems unreasonable. None of this is encouraging a serious commercial UAV industry in the US. Can we sic the Dept. of Commerce on the FAA, waving fistfulls of projected tax revenues?
Meanwhile ... on that other "let's try to set a illegitimate fake precedent" initiative ...
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-wont-tell-its-drone-test-s...
Amazon, 3DR, the AMA ...
It would also help if the general media did a bit of homework, recognize the PR maneuver for what it is and call the bluff. Or not play the FAA propaganda game if they have already done said homework.
This includes sUAS news, Gary :)
I was of course being satirical in my previous post. However, I do think this is exactly what these petty despots are up to: By "granting" permission, and by the permittees' acceptance thereof, a precedent of sorts that is not so easy to challenge directly is established. It looks more and more like the only way to deal with these clowns is going to be outright defiance thereby forcing them back into court. But who has the resources and the balls?
Ah it took Jack to spot the loophole. Hollywood gets it easy and everyone else is going to get ASTM F-38 or are they?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next