Breaking the Drone Code Part Two

[EyeWingsuit]

http://tinyurl.com/BreakDroneCode-Pt2

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Does that article pertain to commercial operation? It has outdated links over a year old.
Also, it is authored by an outfit that charges fee's to help set you up and he seems to be making it look harder than it is.

 

[pyrate]

Still confused by the 107
is that for just casual "operators"
or folks who might want to make a little money

 

[LuvMyTJ]

The link references the over a year old 107 proposed new rules. The rules that shook out of that is what we have now.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

The link references the over a year old 107 proposed new rules. The rules that shook out of that is what we have now.

Almost. No part of Part 107 has been executed/put into rule yet.
Here is a summary of the NPRM: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/021515_suas_summary.pdf

Here is what we EXPECT Part 107 to offer up:

Proposed Part 107 Operator requirements

• Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center. This would likely be your local flight school location
• Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
• Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing pilot airman certificates, never expires).
• Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test every 24 months.
• Be at least 17 years old.
• Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule (This is the referenced "Ramp Check" in the article).
• Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage.
• Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation.

No need for previously licensed FAA pilot as operator. The Part 107 aeronautical knowledge test contains only segments from the Private Pilot test that are relevant to sUAS operations.
An extra VO (Visual Observer) is not required for flights. One operator is the only individual responsible for the flight and the location of the sUAS.
No need for Air Traffic Control clearance in class G airspace. This is a big deal. In short, it means that uncontrolled airspace up to 500 feet may be available to you. This would negate the need for a COA (certificate of authorization) unless you intend to fly near airports.

Why would you want a 333 then? If you plan on flying in controlled airspace (ABCD airspace), at night, or other tightly controlled operations. Here's the thing; if you have a 333, you'll be exempt from everything above in blue, and will have the ability to file for controlled airspaces and nightflights (or other SCOA). So....having a 333 in the system prior to 107 offers up some significant advantages, and a couple disadvantages.

• You'll likely be less well-trained.
• You'll be precluded from SCOA's.

Figure out what's best for your needs, and whether you're interested in the wait for somethign we're not 100% sure of at this time.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

So it is for commercial operators only correct? I still hope some sort of hobby licensing comes down the pipe sooner or later.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I guess I'm not following your question. There already is hobby "licensing." It's called a 336 exemption. It's (I felt anyway) clearly defined in my Part 1 article.
The FAA specifics can be read here. The short of it is that if you are a member of a "Hobby Organization" (this forum alone, could define your "organization") and you're not enjoying any benefit beyond "relaxation," then you're already in the clear provided you follow these specific guidelines:

the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower … with prior notice of the operation….

Further;
Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights. Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight.

I hope this helps clarify your question.
It boils down to a simple thing with reasonably narrow interpretations. If you're a member of AMA (for one example), and fly within the above constraints, you have nothing further to worry about. No weddings, stock video/photo, real estate, inspection, YouTube-revenue generating media...you're golden. But doing ANYTHING that benefits more than your smile, and that includes a free dinner from your favorite neighbor who is selling his own house, falls into the realm of 333, and/or the upcoming Part 107.

Forgive me if my article wasn't clear enough; my intent was to answer this question very specifically.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I am fully aware of what makes a flight "commercial" in nature. There is no "licensing" for hobby use (there should be). I think you are confusing it with the "registration" for hobby use which all operators flying in the NAS are required to do (I've never seen is referred to a "336 exemption" except on the web site you keep linking to with the old links). I am aware of hobby rules, which does not require you to be a member of any organization as you stated. Anyone who is flying in the US 13 years of age & up can register a hobby AC with the FAA. The hobby end of it is done now, has been since the beginning of the year. The only confusion comes in when the 333 comes into play. It seems many people are waiting till the FAA simplifies the commercial end of it.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I'm not confusing anything. There is no hobby "licensing" because there needs to be none. Like you, I do believe education should be required but the FAA has chosen to ignore hobbyists pursuant to PL 112-95. The Fed defined Hobbyist/recreational vs Commercial, and determined that there is no process necessary for those flying in a hobbyist format.
In your above post, you wrote "I still hope some sort of hobby licensing comes down the pipe sooner or later." There is no license in planning, there is no license needed.

As far as "old links," there is no new information, as the FMRA sec PL112-95 defines in parts 331-336 what the FAA may or may not do and can or cannot regulate with regard to UAV/drone flight. The 336 exemption is well-known to anyone involved in aviation, FAA nomenclature, or aviation law. I didn't create the exemption, didn't name it, and didn't enact it. Your frustration is misdirected.

I understand you're not happy that they haven't changed (and won't be changing) the rule process since 2012 but that's beyond my scope of control. As far as hobby organization, you DO have to fly within the stated rules of a "nationally recognized hobby group." You don't have to be a *member* but you do have to be observant of the rules of a nationally recognized hobby group. Being a moderator/participant in this forum meets that requirement, as I indicated earlier.

There is no confusion about 333 amongst those that want to fly commercially and have dedicated 30 minutes of research on Google or FAA websites. I suspect the resistance is due to the complexity and/or cost of obtaining a 333.

What is clear is that I've not explained it clearly enough.

 

[Rusty Jones]

Why would you want a 333 then? If you plan on flying in controlled airspace (ABCD airspace), at night, or other tightly controlled operations. Here's the thing; if you have a 333, you'll be exempt from everything above in blue, and will have the ability to file for controlled airspaces and nightflights (or other SCOA). So....having a 333 in the system prior to 107 offers up some significant advantages, and a couple disadvantages.
•You'll likely be less well-trained.
•You'll be precluded from SCOA's.

Figure out what's best for your needs, and whether you're interested in the wait for somethign we're not 100% sure of at this time.

You say the 333 will still have some advantages over someone with just a part 107 certificate. Two of those being a) able to file for controlled airspaces and b) night ops (or other SCOA)

BUT then you say there are dis-advantages, specifically:
•You'll likely be less well-trained.
•You'll be precluded from SCOA's.

Can you clarify a little. It sounds like you are saying 333 holders could file for SCOAs, then say they are precluded from SCOAs

I am just about finished writing my 333 request, really just copy & paste from several other petetions that I thought were decent, then taylor to my needs. Should I even bother at this point with a 333? By time the FAA geta arounf to reviewing my 333, Part 107 should be in effect?

AND once the FAA has the "unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating" do you know if that will satisify the PPL requirement in the 333 exemptions?

 

[LuvMyTJ]

The only thing I am struggling with is your misinformation. You sir said "There already is hobby "licensing." but no, there is not. Registration & licensing are not the same thing. I said I hope licensing comes along sooner or later for all operators, hobby & commercial. I am aware there is none now, hence my hoping for it. Letting anyone with more brains than money to operate one is not a good approach.

Since you have descended into insulting me, I will be exiting this conversation as it is no longer productive.

 

[Rusty Jones]

I am fully aware of what makes a flight "commercial" in nature. There is no "licensing" for hobby use (there should be). I think you are confusing it with the "registration" for hobby use which all operators flying in the NAS are required to do (I've never seen is referred to a "336 exemption" except on the web site you keep linking to with the old links). I am aware of hobby rules, which does not require you to be a member of any organization as you stated. Anyone who is flying in the US 13 years of age & up can register a hobby AC with the FAA. The hobby end of it is done now, has been since the beginning of the year. The only confusion comes in when the 333 comes into play. It seems many people are waiting till the FAA simplifies the commercial end of it.

Maybe I can clear this up a little
A section 336 exemption is not something we need to file for, it is already in place.

Public Law 112-95

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased
set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered
by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of
an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

All this did, as far as I know, is spell out in law what model aircraft can and can not do.(I do not know if this was done before or not) If you follow the rules, as most of recreational flyers do, then you are flying under Section 336. of Public Law 112-95. Simple.

Now if you want to do ANYTHING other than "hobby or recreational purposes" you currently need to file for a Section 333 exemption.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

You say the 333 will still have some advantages over someone with just a part 107 certificate. Two of those being a) able to file for controlled airspaces and b) night ops (or other SCOA)

BUT then you say there are dis-advantages, specifically:
•You'll likely be less well-trained.
•You'll be precluded from SCOA's.

Can you clarify a little. It sounds like you are saying 333 holders could file for SCOAs, then say they are precluded from SCOAs

I am just about finished writing my 333 request, really just copy & paste from several other petetions that I thought were decent, then taylor to my needs. Should I even bother at this point with a 333? By time the FAA geta arounf to reviewing my 333, Part 107 should be in effect?

AND once the FAA has the "unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating" do you know if that will satisify the PPL requirement in the 333 exemptions?

Those holding 333's are/will be able to file for SCOA's. Current expectations based on the proposed rule indicates 107 operators won't have that privilege. Night flights fall into SCOA. The disadvantage goes to the 107 permittee, not to the 333 permittee.

 

[Rusty Jones]

The only thing I am struggling with is your misinformation. You sir said "There already is hobby "licensing." but no, there is not. Registration & licensing are not the same thing. I said I hope licensing comes along sooner or later for all operators, hobby & commercial. I am aware there is none now, hence my hoping for it. Letting anyone with more brains than money to operate one is not a good approach.

Since you have descended into insulting me, I will be exiting this conversation as it is no longer productive.

Re: Licensing

it is called "Licensing by rule" It is no different than the FRS radios you can buy at any big box store. They are licensed by FCC ruling. As long as you follow the regulations your are licensed. Just like Section 336, follow the rules and you are "licensed"

 

[Rusty Jones]

Those holding 333's are/will be able to file for SCOA's. Current expectations based on the proposed rule indicates 107 operators won't have that privilege. Night flights fall into SCOA. The disadvantage goes to the 107 permittee, not to the 333 permittee.

OK, so the million dollar question.....
Current 333 exemptions require a PPL, will the "unmanned aircraft operator certificate satisfy the PPL requirement in the 333 exemptions?

 

[EyeWingsuit]

OK, so the million dollar question.....
Current 333 exemptions require a PPL, will the "unmanned aircraft operator certificate satisfy the PPL requirement in the 333 exemptions?

This has been hotly debated; why the FAA hasn't specifically addressed this topic indicates they don't know the answer themselves. I suspect the PPL will be required for SCOA applications to satisfy P91 ;205.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

The only thing I am struggling with is your misinformation. You sir said "There already is hobby "licensing." but no, there is not. Registration & licensing are not the same thing. I said I hope licensing comes along sooner or later for all operators, hobby & commercial. I am aware there is none now, hence my hoping for it. Letting anyone with more brains than money to operate one is not a good approach.

Since you have descended into insulting me, I will be exiting this conversation as it is no longer productive.

How did I insult you? I suppose I could/should feel the same, but I don't. It is somewhat a surprise that a moderator of a UAV forum is unaware of what a 336 is, or how recreational/hobbyist use is managed in the NAS. It has been discussed in-depth here. You called me out suggesting there is no current "336" and that it's all "old information." It's unfortunate you don't understand the current status of the FAA, but that is not for lack of me trying to explain it to you. It's more unfortunate that you take my explanation first as being inaccurate, and second as an insult. Neither, in my view, are fair. If anything, an apology is warranted for a moderator suggesting my representation of 336 is "old" or "inaccurate" when it's been clearly presented as neither.

 

[FloridaFlyer]

You say the 333 will still have some advantages over someone with just a part 107 certificate. Two of those being a) able to file for controlled airspaces and b) night ops (or other SCOA)

BUT then you say there are dis-advantages, specifically:
•You'll likely be less well-trained.
•You'll be precluded from SCOA's.

Can you clarify a little. It sounds like you are saying 333 holders could file for SCOAs, then say they are precluded from SCOAs

I am just about finished writing my 333 request, really just copy & paste from several other petetions that I thought were decent, then taylor to my needs. Should I even bother at this point with a 333? By time the FAA geta arounf to reviewing my 333, Part 107 should be in effect?

AND once the FAA has the "unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating" do you know if that will satisify the PPL requirement in the 333 exemptions?

Could you share that with us when you're done? If you wouldn't mind?

 

[FloridaFlyer]

[QUOTE="

There is no confusion about 333 amongst those that want to fly commercially and have dedicated 30 minutes of research on Google or FAA websites. I suspect the resistance is due to the complexity and/or cost of obtaining a 333.

What is clear is that I've not explained it clearly enough. [/QUOTE]

That was the best!

 

[EyeWingsuit]

Could you share that with us when you're done? If you wouldn't mind?

Understand that the FAA is now looking closely at the copy/paste submissions. they have been thoroughly embarrassed over the number of copy/pastes from Peter Sach's paper airplane submission.