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.
Ah, that is great! Lol. Thanks for the heads up.
Breaking the Drone Code Part Two
- Thread starter EyeWingsuit
- Start date
Ah, that is great! Lol. Thanks for the heads up.
LuvMyTJ
Admin
Please show me on the FAA pages where registering a drone is a drone license. I can see how the FAA compares it to manned registration... does that mean if I register a manned craft I am somehow miraculously licensed to fly it too?
See what that says there, "this document constitutes a Certificate of Registration"...
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 435
- Age
- 62
Registration is a license "plate." It lets the state department of motor vehicles know you have a vehicle on the road. The license "plate" is not a license to drive, nor is it a permit to drive.
Seriously, spend a few minutes googling "Hobbyist exemption," also known as a "336" to the world of the FAA, professionals when speaking to others about hobbyist flight, courts of law, attorneys, and just about everyone else on the continent who isn't a hobbyist themselves.
Purchasing a drone for purposes of hobbyist use does not need any additional permissions/licensing/permitting/authorization/letter from your mother that says you can fly.
You merely need to observe the rules of a national hobby organization or association. Nothing more. This forum alone qualifies as a "national hobby organization." The rules of the hobbyist in the NAS are well-known, published at least a dozen times in this forum. That is the only qualification one needs to fly for hobbyist/recreational purposes.
How is it that you're not understanding this? I do understand you *want* additional education, licensing, regulation, whatever. Eventually it may come. There are no plans of any sort at this time to implement anything further for hobbyist's. In order to do so, new rules would require a formal proposal (aka NPRM, another one of those "old things" dating back to 2012 and 2014). There is no NPRM for any hobbyist nor commercial UAV operation in place at this time.
The last NPRM for UAV/drones closed for commentary over 1 year ago, and was passed into law in February, 2016. It was scheduled to be implemented/executed on April 15, 2015. It didn't happen. Speculation now varies from as early as July 1 to as late as November 1, 2016.
Do note that the date of April 24, 2015 is yet another one of those pesky "old information" dates, but it is the current law.
Finally, from the mouth of the FAA themselves:
Truly, for those flying for fun, it's really, really simple to understand, to practice, and to enjoy. It's only when you enter the world of 333, COA, SCOA that it can become difficult.
LuvMyTJ,
Now where did I anywhere say that the hobby "registration" was licensing? I just reread the entire thread, and I can't find it. Section 336 has been in play for quite a while, long before the FAA required hobby fliers to register. It still does not change the fact that is, if you want to be considered a 'hobby' flyer, you need to follow section 336, for now anyway. If you don't follow their '336' regulations, you fall out of the model aircraft exemption, and are at the mercy of the FAA.
The sUAS registration is a joke. I could have 1 or a dozen aircraft, and they all have the same number. They are not registering sUAS, they are registering people. Now i do have two registrations for "commercial" sUAS, and each have a unique number.
Anyway, I am finding your tone in this discussion somewhat abrasive. You have been on the attack since your first post. I find it very hard an "administrator" of a multi rotor forum would act in such a manor. It is clear you are not 100% up on the current state of the regulations, and that is not a crime. But when someone, who is clearly more knowledgeable presents information, maybe you should at least digest what they are saying before you start telling them they have no idea what they are talking about. Now I never will say I am 100% up on them either, but at least I can have a civil discussion about it.
LuvMyTJ
Admin
I am no longer discussing the subject with the other guy so that is irrelevant. I am familiar with the rules, not a professional, but very aware of the rules. I have been an AMA member for years and involved in RC for almost 40 years. You and the other guy can try to twist it to your liking but I have nothing to prove to you or him. You did claim it was licensing, I quoted it for you, but now your back peddling. I also never said the other guy was wrong about anything, just misleading. For someone who claims to hate these forums it is interesting you still belong to them even when you down talk them.
The discussion is not about me, so lets get back on topic shall we?
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 435
- Age
- 62
-quote- I also never said the other guy was wrong about anything, just misleading. -/quote-
You specifically said I was wrong. As you've done with Rusty.
The fact is you're either intentionally "playing dumb" or you truly are ignorant of what regulations and recommendations are out there. Second to that, your words (as a moderator) have a negative impact on the credibility and quality of this forum. Your words carry a unique weight and if they're inaccurate or misinformed, it can have a deleterious effect on the community or someone's experience with the law/FAA. You're right, you have nothing to prove; you've already demonstrated you're not current when it comes to regulations. In spite of great information being provided through links, pictures, words, and experience you've demonstrated you aren't interested in either agreeing, or admitting that you were incorrect.
Being an "RC guy for years" doesn't mean squat. Truly, it works against you as your claims suggest you feel "it's always been done this way..." It's a new day in RC, it's a new day for the FAA. The AMA blundered this from the start because "it's always been done this way" and they lacked the foresight/vision that other organizations such as the EAA have had from the start. Nothing the AMA or RC'rs ever did could potentially land someone in jail, not by the old rules.
Change is inevitable. Growth is optional. Grow with us. This is a great community, a terrific forum, and the information here (sans this thread with you wrongfully arguing and now intentionally clouding clarity), is amongst the best group of people there are in the world of UAV.
You specifically said I was wrong. As you've done with Rusty.
The fact is you're either intentionally "playing dumb" or you truly are ignorant of what regulations and recommendations are out there. Second to that, your words (as a moderator) have a negative impact on the credibility and quality of this forum. Your words carry a unique weight and if they're inaccurate or misinformed, it can have a deleterious effect on the community or someone's experience with the law/FAA. You're right, you have nothing to prove; you've already demonstrated you're not current when it comes to regulations. In spite of great information being provided through links, pictures, words, and experience you've demonstrated you aren't interested in either agreeing, or admitting that you were incorrect.
Being an "RC guy for years" doesn't mean squat. Truly, it works against you as your claims suggest you feel "it's always been done this way..." It's a new day in RC, it's a new day for the FAA. The AMA blundered this from the start because "it's always been done this way" and they lacked the foresight/vision that other organizations such as the EAA have had from the start. Nothing the AMA or RC'rs ever did could potentially land someone in jail, not by the old rules.
Change is inevitable. Growth is optional. Grow with us. This is a great community, a terrific forum, and the information here (sans this thread with you wrongfully arguing and now intentionally clouding clarity), is amongst the best group of people there are in the world of UAV.
Last edited:
AMA has traditionally not been very progressive, they are becoming more irrelevant by the day.
When did I even say I "hate these forums". for Solo it seems the only game in town. I am no pro either, but I have kept myself informed with all the drams from Trappy's case up until present. (that is about the time I came back to RC). So no I don't have 40 years, but honestly, it is not the 1970s anymore. sUAS technology has gotten tothe point that the big players, Amazon, Google, Wal-mart, DHL, etc want in. You are aware that amazon wants the airspace from 200' - 400' for high speed automated drones, aka their drones. And that hobby would be limited to <200'AGL, or in 'approved' locations. An dI am not talking approved by AMA, approved by someone higher up the food chain. Amazon provides new details on its plan for a drone superhighway in the sky
As far as licensing goes, call it permission, call it authority, call it clearance, call it what ever, but it does not change the fact of what is is. As long as you follow the rules laid out in section 336, then you can fly as a hobbyist, otherwise you either go 336, or follow the full set of FAA regulations. The FCC calls this 'Licensing by rule', if you follow the rules, then you are 'licensed' to use that service. Maybe the FAA calls it differently, but the mechanism is the same. Yes their is no individual license requirement for FRS radios, however the entire service IS licensed. Just like their is no individual license to fly hobby RC (not yet anyways), but the entire hobby is licensed, or permitted, to use the airspace. Don't get hung up on a specific word.
I bring up the FRS/GMRS radios only because it is very similar to our situation. If you stick to just the FRS channels, then you do not need an individual license, the entire service is licensed. However, if you want to use higher power output and use the GMRS channels, then yes, as of 2 years ago when I got mine, you need a license. There was talk of dropping it, as hardly anyone followed the licensing requirements and just used the GMRS channels anyway.
LuvMyTJ
Admin
My apologies for the comment on not liking the forum, that was confusion with another member here, not you. I was wrong about that.
My hope is that there is eventually an actual license for drone operation of all types, hobby or otherwise. That may slow down some of the "more money than brains" crowd.
I think most of the people not following the guidelines/rules/laws today really could give a rats behind about registering or passing tests or obtaining a license. They'll just do it despite the fact - just like they are today. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing to educate and prove worth while flying in the public airspace, just like driving on the public roads. But not everybody driving is licensed, or insured, or obeys the laws, either. Won't stop them all, but we can try to educate as many as possible.
Apologies accepted on that.
I too would like to see some 'license'
for hobby use, but ALL hobby use, traditional included. It could be tiered off like other licensing schemes. Taking FCC amateur licensing as an example, 3 levels, of increasing difficulties. I know some of the old timers (and i do not mean that in a derogatory way) will not like it, but it is a small price to pay to ensure safety. Maybe there could be a provision that one could show they were an AMA member for x years and a member of a club that has sensible safety guidelines. That could be a one time amnesty clause, and going forward all others have to test out. I don't see the lower levels needing to be a hands on test, but maybe for aircraft with high potential for damage, like jets or giant scale, when if something were to go wrong, it goes wrong in a bad way. Lets face it, no one is getting hurt by a Flite Test foam airplane, but a jet, large heli, or 1/4 scale could do some hurt.Just a quick update, but probably should be a seperate discussion. HR-636 - "Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016" Which has passed both the House and Senate inclusdes a section on testing for model aircraft operations.
"(a) In general.—An individual may not operate an unmanned aircraft system unless—
“(1) the individual has successfully completed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test under subsection (c);
“(2) the individual has authority to operate an unmanned aircraft under other Federal law; or
“(3) the individual is a holder of an airmen certificate issued under section 44703."
full text of that section below
"(a) In general.—An individual may not operate an unmanned aircraft system unless—
“(1) the individual has successfully completed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test under subsection (c);
“(2) the individual has authority to operate an unmanned aircraft under other Federal law; or
“(3) the individual is a holder of an airmen certificate issued under section 44703."
full text of that section below
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 20
- Age
- 62
Is Flying a Drone Illegal? A Comprehensive Guide to America’s Drone Laws
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 435
- Age
- 62
his article is very well-written, very cogent.. I challenge him on a couple of points, however.
The article states:
"The FAA is disorganized and largely decentralized
The FAA is made up of a patchwork of Flight Standards District Offices, which report to regional flight standards offices, which report to FAA headquarters in Washington, DC. The FAA has many safety inspectors at both FSDOs and regional offices, who are the people who send official FAA warning letters and fines to drone operators. They’re the ones who call up drone pilots who do things that the FAA ostensibly doesn’t like. But the actual law and the actual regulations are so poorly defined that a safety inspector in New York may have a totally different interpretation of what is legal than one in Texas will. This means that some safety offices are lax about drones and others are strict about them."
I don't know if it was intentional, or to not cloud the waters, but the FSIMs are what the ASI's in the field use for enforcement (Our local UAV ASI's have not cited anyone yet, and my understanding is that they've been instructed to not do so, unless someone is abusive or blatantly ignoring the law).
The FSIM's...http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
Are quite clear on what the ASI's may do/how they may interpret the laws, AC's, and recommendations.
Ergo, I can't with the comment that they are "poorly defined to the point of allowing one ASI to ignore and another to be strict;" the choice in this exists regardless of the wording in the FSIMs (The law says no speeding over 65mph, but we all know some officers give verbal warnings, some give written warnings, and some outright give tickets, regardless of how well that particular law is written).
The other side of it is that Part 107 is quite well defined in scope, and what a 333 will provide is well-defined in scope, and so while some aspects may be ridiculous, the FAA is a fairly powerful agency with a reasonably strong foundation. The question then becomes, "who is ready to have a lawyer-measuring contest with a very large government agency?"
I'm not an attorney, so take my view with a large grain of salt. Then again, a great number of attorneys don't understand much about this area either. I'm glad 107 cleans up much of it. No matter what, it's indicative that both the FAA and UAV operators are disorganized, and the FAA is playing catch-up from every angle.
They could have been on top of it from the get-go, but when it's hazy in the pulpit...
The article states:
"The FAA is disorganized and largely decentralized
The FAA is made up of a patchwork of Flight Standards District Offices, which report to regional flight standards offices, which report to FAA headquarters in Washington, DC. The FAA has many safety inspectors at both FSDOs and regional offices, who are the people who send official FAA warning letters and fines to drone operators. They’re the ones who call up drone pilots who do things that the FAA ostensibly doesn’t like. But the actual law and the actual regulations are so poorly defined that a safety inspector in New York may have a totally different interpretation of what is legal than one in Texas will. This means that some safety offices are lax about drones and others are strict about them."
I don't know if it was intentional, or to not cloud the waters, but the FSIMs are what the ASI's in the field use for enforcement (Our local UAV ASI's have not cited anyone yet, and my understanding is that they've been instructed to not do so, unless someone is abusive or blatantly ignoring the law).
The FSIM's...http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
Are quite clear on what the ASI's may do/how they may interpret the laws, AC's, and recommendations.
Ergo, I can't with the comment that they are "poorly defined to the point of allowing one ASI to ignore and another to be strict;" the choice in this exists regardless of the wording in the FSIMs (The law says no speeding over 65mph, but we all know some officers give verbal warnings, some give written warnings, and some outright give tickets, regardless of how well that particular law is written).
The other side of it is that Part 107 is quite well defined in scope, and what a 333 will provide is well-defined in scope, and so while some aspects may be ridiculous, the FAA is a fairly powerful agency with a reasonably strong foundation. The question then becomes, "who is ready to have a lawyer-measuring contest with a very large government agency?"
I'm not an attorney, so take my view with a large grain of salt. Then again, a great number of attorneys don't understand much about this area either. I'm glad 107 cleans up much of it. No matter what, it's indicative that both the FAA and UAV operators are disorganized, and the FAA is playing catch-up from every angle.
They could have been on top of it from the get-go, but when it's hazy in the pulpit...Similar threads
New Posts
-
Free Music / SFX Resource for Your Videos - Over 2000 Tracks- Latest: Eric Matyas
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.