The FAA just cancelled AC 91-57 the one that many folks used to justify commercial aerial photography from unmanned aircraft in the USA.
Now look to the “full special” interpretation for Model Aircraft for your guidance.
Patrick said this at the time about that.
Folks in the U.S. UAS community (which now including paper airplane aficionados too) were surprised and dismayed by the FAA’s “full special” interpretation for Model Aircraft. The community is completely flabbergasted by the lack of response from the regular gaggle of advocacy groups. UAS freedom(s) just took a major hit in the U.S. and folks are asking where the hell is the leadership? We are usually treated to quick responses (canned goods) heralding any announcement from the FAA (no matter how trivial or nonsensical they may be), as enlightened and a giant step in the right direction. We can guess who got the special dispensation/backroom deal neutering.
Shocked and awed –
The community is collectively wondering what’s up with the subdued response? Where is the mobilization of the membership(s)? Adding to the dismay is the notion that this edict could have possibly caught advocacy groups off guard? It has many feeling like we just suffered a regulatory tsunami without warning and no disaster plan!
* To everyone’s integration credit… The FAA did state repeatedly that the hobby would look the same after regulation was announced. However, in this instance it would appear that reality and the FAA have parted company again.
If you want to join the Hollywood set these are the requirements for your platforms
We commissioned our art department at sUAS News to create this simple graphic to explain the system over there ;-)
Comments
Once you take emotion out of the argument, Matt isn't that far off base. Yes the requirements look onerous and overreaching, but they are very standard in the aviation industry, and in reality extremely lax compared to many operations. So the FAA wants to make sure you can actually fly the drone. What is wrong with that? The FAA wants to make sure you know how the drone works both mechanically and digitally. What is wrong with that? The FAA wants to make sure you know how the manned airspace system works, is divided, and how what rules apply where and when? Kind of common sense if you are going to be operating in the same area. And the FAA wants to be able to identify an aircraft if its involved in a mishap by assigning it a number. No where anywhere in the linked article did it say a "certified" aircraft. Im far from a troll, but a realist. There is no UAV operator certificate in place at the current time. So by saying a private certificate is adequate is a quick workaround to get machines in the air, under regulation, some form of integration/separation rules, and appease some operators. Its a step forward, and a much better one than a complete ban. People complain about all this regulation, but live in a world where the government tracks your car by plate ID number, can track you by use of your phone, internet companies can determine where you are in the world in a few minutes anytime your online, facial recognition cameras track people around cities, safety advances are mandated in cars, trucks, buildings, homes, schools, roads, phones, most consumer products etc. Anyone with a spare day can easily meet these requirements. And I am willing to guess if you took and passed the FAA private pilot written test you could apply for an exemption for holding a full certificate. Where I work a phantom came within 30 feet of colliding with a helicopter last week on landing. You do NOT want a UAV to cause a manned aircraft crash. That would be the death nail for consumer grade products. You cannot control stupid or teach common sense, regulation is the next worst thing to do.
What Chim said! Buy that man a beer.
Or this https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf
Maybe someone should show the FAA this http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/page-6557.html
Hey Mathhew Kraczun: I think you must be a plain old troll but on the off chance that you are merely deranged:
Your statement that there is some sort of "existing and working system, that everything that flies uses" can only be called an outright intentional lie, because anyone with even the bare residual intelligence to log into these forums knows that everyone who wants to can fly recreational R/C aircraft, some up to half-scale and even bigger, some turbine-powered, some weighing up to 55 pounds, etc. etc. without your idiot "N" numbers, without your idiot "certification" and without the slightest involvement of your idiot FAA out-of-control fascistic wannabe sky-police (populated by bumblers and boobs who would at best be employable as burger-flippers in private industry).
We have been flying such aircraft, in large and increasing numbers, all over the country, since BEFORE anyone strapped themselves into a large version and left the ground. No one not personally involved has ever paid much attention to all this activity, even though there have been occasional incidents, and in fact Congress not long ago specifically told the FAA to stay out of the field.
There is NO sensible reason (or legal basis) for the present totally arbitrary distinction that allows me, as a hobbyist, to fly and film as I please (without of course violating general rules regarding trespass, privacy, endangerment, etc.) while my neighbor, who wants to do exactly the same thing for a living, is harassed by people like you (yes, you, because it is people like you who enable these pathetic pseudo-goons with their tin badges).
There are plenty - and I mean really plenty - of existing laws on all sorts of levels that can and should be applied to keep individuals from becoming a hazard when they pilot any sort of little aircraft. The occasional idiot who flies into an airport, or crashes into a crowd, or films the neighbors in their hot tub, etc. can be arrested and prosecuted or sued with no help from the FAA or any other such agency. We as a society long ago established general laws that can be applied to all sorts on misconduct. We do exactly the same thing with bicycles, ATVs, chain saws, lasers, alcohol, shotguns (gasp!) etc. etc. That's all we need, and THAT is the system that works and is already in place.
@Grey McCray
you do realize these rules are about getting UAVs up in the air now while it would take years if not decades to get a working UAV pilot certification program up and running? if you want to get to UAV's off the ground anytime soon this is honestly the best short term option there is.
as for tail/N numbers you don't need a break you need a reality check UAV's need a easily visible identification system more then just about any other aircraft. as you said yourself "your not in them" it's easy to brake the law or crash and cause damage and simply walk away without taking responsibility. you don't want them to use the already existing and working system, that everything that flies uses, no you want them to come up with a whole new system just for drones.
@Pedals2Paddles
no the problem isn't the FAA it arm chair quarterbacks like you don't know or honestly care complexity of this you just want to do anything you please without thinking about how it effects anyone else.
@ Mathew,
Nonesense, getting a pilots license in the US costs well over $20,000.00 for flight time alone, flight time that is largely not relevant to flying a UAV and which could be much better handled where necessary in a simulator or by flying a UAV at much less expense.
This is simply a move by the FAA for keeping them from having to implement an actually appropriate UAV pilot certification program.
It is complete nonesense.
And as far as the N number is concerned, give me a break, they are applying requirements for implementation of a non-existent certification procedure once again based on current airplanes, but for which no one anywhere on the planet is qualified to do.
Some kind of certification is undoubtedly needed, but we need an organization actually dedicated to figuring out what a reasonable approach is, not one dedicated to making it impossible and simply trying to pass the buck.
By the way, I do have a private pilots license for VFR but there is no way I think that that should be a requirement for flying UAVs, UAVs are their own thing and the one thing that is definitely true is that you are not in them.
Best Regards,
Gary
Matthew, sorry, everything you said is incorrect and makes no sense. Neither does anything the FAA does.
the joke here is these aren't really a "completely unnecessary set of hurdles for the prospective UAV pilot." they all make sense.
in lue of a uav license and all infrastructure needed to make that work have UAV pilots getting pilot license makes sense. after all you learn more then just how the plane works you learn the rules of the sky and get some respect for those that fly. this will
even the n Numbers make sense because there needs to be away to identify the owner of a UAV without hoping you see them controlling it. it's freaking a license plate and no one complains about them but it's some how evil to put on you UAV?
I just stopped reading when I got to the part about registering it with an N-Number.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next