A plea from a Professional Helicopter Pilot

[Airmotive]

Oh boy...where to begin.
My first post here and rather than simply saying hello, I'm wading into the deep end.
I Made my first flight today with my P2V+. It's replacing my gas fixed wing RC toys.
I'm also a commercial pilot and (now retired) professional skydiver (D-18218).
I also dabble in model rocketry...and routinely punch tiny holes into Class E airspace at 200+MPH.
I now work as an air safety investigator. So that's my credentials (or excuse, depending on how you look at it).
Anything that has to do with flying, I'm into it.

I've been reading and reading everything I can get my hands regarding my new hobby...including the infamous FAA Advisory Circular from 1981 that addresses RC aircraft operation. IMHO, it's an outdated piece of scrap paper, but it's, for now, the ONLY scrap paper we have.

The basic principle of aircraft separation is two-fold:
Big sky/little airplane.
See and avoid.

All the other regulations are there to cover our collective butts when principles #1 and #2 fail.

So where does that leave our little group of flying cameras?
I think the signal to noise ratio is pretty skewed right now. The OP's biggest threat is Canada geese. And if the OP's head is on a swivel looking for kamikaze geese, a similar-sized aircraft with strobe lights should be equally visible...regardless of altitude. (I've worked a bird strike that occurred at FL310...a mallard duck. Apparently, that is actually where many ducks cruise during migration).
In a practical sense, our aircraft present no more of a threat to navigation than Daffy or Donald. However, the threat does exist and cannot be ignored. The question is, how to EFFECTIVELY address the threat?
Make regulations too onerous and you risk either crushing the industry or, at the other extreme, have ALL regulations simply ignored. That's not being effective.
At the other end of the scale are regulations that serve no purpose other than to allow some bureaucrat to justify his GS15 paycheck, while doing nothing to improve flight safety or promote the safe use of the national airspace.

What's the answer?
That's beyond my paygrade. I would like to see commercial licensing and certification for commercial operators of UAS.
Different levels of commercial ops. I'd like to provide aerial video of properties my sister is selling (she's a real estate broker).
I'd like to be able to offer some aerial footage to my local news of the flooding near my home.
There's no logical reason for that to be completely banned, with zero recourse.

Why is it banned? Because no bureaucrat is willing to risk his pension on writing a regulation that ends up being quoted in the USA Today the first time a 2-pound news-gathering UAS tumbles into a burning building and bonks a fireman on the head.

The sad fact is, we no longer have "The Press". We have news-media companies whose sole purpose is to sell the news. How do they sell it? By getting their stories pushed to the top of search engines. Search engines are driven by keywords and right now one of the biggest keyword drivers is "drone". So every news editor is trying to stuff as many instances of the word "drone" into every news story possible. It's all about selling news, not about the first amendment, not about facts and certainly not about credibility. It's all about money.

Unfortunately, the word 'drone' is the current moneymaker for the media and the bureaucrats who write the regulations are loathe to risk their comfortable positions to develop effective policies regarding our little hobby, knowing full-well that the media is going to drag it into the "drone" fray along with every Predator and Global Hawk.

WE, as an organized group of hobbiests, need to take a lead. Similar to what skydivers did in the 60s with the Skydivers Information Manual.
I could go on, but it's 3am and I'm tired. More later.

PS: Hi everyone! I'm airmotive...and I have 17 minutes of flight time on my P2V+.

 

[Boozshey]

Thanks for your input... Welcome to the forum... It's nice to see another person educated in aviation in here and not just internet readers and believers.

 

[doug86]

Oh boy...where to begin.
My first post here and rather than simply saying hello, I'm wading into the deep end.
I Made my first flight today with my P2V+. It's replacing my gas fixed wing RC toys.
I'm also a commercial pilot and (now retired) professional skydiver (D-18218).
I also dabble in model rocketry...and routinely punch tiny holes into Class E airspace at 200+MPH.
I now work as an air safety investigator. So that's my credentials (or excuse, depending on how you look at it).
Anything that has to do with flying, I'm into it.

I've been reading and reading everything I can get my hands regarding my new hobby...including the infamous FAA Advisory Circular from 1981 that addresses RC aircraft operation. IMHO, it's an outdated piece of scrap paper, but it's, for now, the ONLY scrap paper we have.

The basic principle of aircraft separation is two-fold:
Big sky/little airplane.
See and avoid.

All the other regulations are there to cover our collective butts when principles #1 and #2 fail.

So where does that leave our little group of flying cameras?
I think the signal to noise ratio is pretty skewed right now. The OP's biggest threat is Canada geese. And if the OP's head is on a swivel looking for kamikaze geese, a similar-sized aircraft with strobe lights should be equally visible...regardless of altitude. (I've worked a bird strike that occurred at FL310...a mallard duck. Apparently, that is actually where many ducks cruise during migration).
In a practical sense, our aircraft present no more of a threat to navigation than Daffy or Donald. However, the threat does exist and cannot be ignored. The question is, how to EFFECTIVELY address the threat?
Make regulations too onerous and you risk either crushing the industry or, at the other extreme, have ALL regulations simply ignored. That's not being effective.
At the other end of the scale are regulations that serve no purpose other than to allow some bureaucrat to justify his GS15 paycheck, while doing nothing to improve flight safety or promote the safe use of the national airspace.

What's the answer?
That's beyond my paygrade. I would like to see commercial licensing and certification for commercial operators of UAS.
Different levels of commercial ops. I'd like to provide aerial video of properties my sister is selling (she's a real estate broker).
I'd like to be able to offer some aerial footage to my local news of the flooding near my home.
There's no logical reason for that to be completely banned, with zero recourse.

Why is it banned? Because no bureaucrat is willing to risk his pension on writing a regulation that ends up being quoted in the USA Today the first time a 2-pound news-gathering UAS tumbles into a burning building and bonks a fireman on the head.

The sad fact is, we no longer have "The Press". We have news-media companies whose sole purpose is to sell the news. How do they sell it? By getting their stories pushed to the top of search engines. Search engines are driven by keywords and right now one of the biggest keyword drivers is "drone". So every news editor is trying to stuff as many instances of the word "drone" into every news story possible. It's all about selling news, not about the first amendment, not about facts and certainly not about credibility. It's all about money.

Unfortunately, the word 'drone' is the current moneymaker for the media and the bureaucrats who write the regulations are loathe to risk their comfortable positions to develop effective policies regarding our little hobby, knowing full-well that the media is going to drag it into the "drone" fray along with every Predator and Global Hawk.

WE, as an organized group of hobbiests, need to take a lead. Similar to what skydivers did in the 60s with the Skydivers Information Manual.
I could go on, but it's 3am and I'm tired. More later.

PS: Hi everyone! I'm airmotive...and I have 17 minutes of flight time on my P2V+.

+ 100
can someone please make this a sticky??
This should be plastered all over the UAV forums. The point about media is well made.

Welcome Airmotive

 

[MikesTooLz]

The FAA has no doctrine or official statement that I know of with this "guideline" is my point. It was something the AMA has suggested.

If the FAA has come out with a cfr, far or other notam of the such then I'd like to read it. Do you have such a document or reference? Or are you just spouting off what you've read in all the other countless ignorant articles or "pleas" that you've read on the internet?

FAA Fact sheet reads - http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/new ... wsId=14153

Model Aircraft
Recreational use of airspace by model aircraft is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. In 2007, the FAA clarified that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and specifically excludes individuals or companies flying model aircraft for business purposes.
The FAA guidance is available at: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/medi ... /91-57.pdf

 

[rotorjunkie]

by Boozshey » Thu May 15, 2014 2:43 am

Thanks for your input... Welcome to the forum... It's nice to see another person educated in aviation in here and not just internet readers and believers.

Boozshey- I don't want to get into (blank) contest on who knows the regs better, me or you. In that situation, I would defer to your superior knowledge, being an Air Traffic Controller. However, that fact is you are in an Air Conditioned/Heated Control Tower ADVISING me, the PIC (Pilot in Command) of other aircraft, instructions and so forth. I have, on more than a few occasions, had to tell a controller that I was not going to comply with his/her instructions because it presented a severe safety hazard to myself, my passengers and/or my aircraft. Sometimes the controller is training, or gets too busy, or maybe because the A/C or heat is turned up too much in the control tower....whatever the case may be...it happens from time to time, and is clearly stated in FAR 91.3...

Sec. 91.3

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

My point is this...Its my life up there, not yours...true Canadian Geese are a hazard as are many other aircraft, or migratory birds. But the birds don't have their own forum...We Phantom Pilots/Owners do...just asking for some professional courtesy...

 

[Boozshey]

Sorry, if you are that low you are see and avoid. VFR is VFR, don't swap paint. If I were a "registered" aircraft flying you would have to avoid me. That's what it's going to come down to. Granted being educated in aviation I/we have an advantage of what may be a reasonable safe practice. But being a controller, I of course work by a very specific set of rules. Which makes me see a lot of things black and white. Black and white there are no "RULES" for this. So to spout out 400ft and 3 miles of an airport as being doctrine just irritates me. I'm a pretty chill dude most of the time, but that is just one of those things just sets me off.

As far as the FAR 91 goes, you are speaking about an emergency situation. In the cases of emergencies everything goes out the window. But I can promise one thing, if an IFR aircraft not in distress does not take my control instruction it's going to be followed by "Roger, maintain VFR, freq change approved..." If a VFR aircraft doesn't want to take a control instruction, that's their problem. VFR control instructions from ATC are merely an additional service. If you don't want to take them, then that's cool with me. I will make sure my IFR or VFR aircraft sees you and continue to issue traffic advisories as needed. However, your lack of following my instruction will most likely lead to poor VFR handling and you will be the last of my worries. Of course, that's all "emergency" situations aside.

Now back to the drones/UAS/RC multirotors. Whatever you want to call them. I will call them toys... If the FAA feels my toy is a hazard to the NAS and wants to consider it to an actual aircraft, then guess what.... I WILL HAVE THE RIGHT AWAY. It's pretty normal for the slower aircraft to always have the rightaway. Which you can get out of FAR 91.113 which establishes that intent.

But again, that is not the case and it is not a rule... So the last sentence of your OP, you stated "please please please stay below the 400 ft agl level that R/C aircraft are supposed to abide by. WE AREN'T SUPPOSE TO ABIDE BY ANYTHING. Just like I was taught to look both ways before crossing the street, I still don't HAVE to...

My head hurts now... Want to go have a beer?

 

[Boozshey]

Mikes Toolz, thanks for the link. I had not ever come across that AC. Doesn't change my opinion, but I do appreciate you sharing it, it does help me understand more to why the AMA and others spout off nonsense. So again, thank you.

 

[Dmetz82]

I am a huge opponent to pointless legeslation and pretty much despise government regulations. With that said, I FEEL flying over 400 feet is pointless and wreckless anyhow as we have no communication capabilities with other air traffic... Your more than welcome to disagree. My point is, flying at 400 feet is about where I can loose visual which could be a dangerous situation should a traffic or rescue copter appear in the distance, they close in very quickly. Having no means to communicate via radio to warn of the danger, it's just a matter of time before this leads to an accident which will certainly ground us all with over the top legeslation. The media would vilify all of us (think of us as the equivalent to pro gunners without the backing of a financial juggernaut like the NRA). It would be the end to all of our fun. I think it would be fair and reasonable to require a pilots licence for anything over 400 - 500 feet and radio communication be required above those heights.

I have gone out of my way to use a Flytrex as my black box and a Spot Locate to protect myself from a Flight 370 situation. If anything goes down I want to make sure I have all of the facts at my disposal in event of a legal defense.

Be smart my fellow pilots, be part of the solution. Don't cause the rest of us a problems because you wanted to see how high you could get or fly around Manhattan blindly like a complete moron bouncing off buildings, these will not classify as accidents it will be viewed as negligent and ignorant. (Rightfully so)

 

[CRankin]

In a practical sense, our aircraft present no more of a threat to navigation than Daffy or Donald. However, the threat does exist and cannot be ignored. The question is, how to EFFECTIVELY address the threat?
Make regulations too onerous and you risk either crushing the industry or, at the other extreme, have ALL regulations simply ignored. That's not being effective. At the other end of the scale are regulations that serve no purpose other than to allow some bureaucrat to justify his GS15 paycheck, while doing nothing to improve flight safety or promote the safe use of the national airspace.

Welcome to the forum! Glad to see another new member here who espouses some common sense in a well thought out post. Just to add my thoughts around yours...

I'm a firm believer that most government regulations fit the latter part of your description, especially when it comes to agencies like the FAA and their apparent sanctimonious attitude toward UAV operators.

I would like to see commercial licensing and certification for commercial operators of UAS.
Different levels of commercial ops.

I'd respectfully disagree with you on this one. If someone can operate a Phantom as a hobbyist without having licensing or being required to purchase insurance, then so should anyone who wishes to operate these for business purposes. There are plenty of people who do things "on the side" apart from their day jobs to make a few extra bucks, and placing onerous requirements on them will effectively shut them down and lock them out of a burgeoning industry. Not only is that unfair, it's unwise.

I'd like to provide aerial video of properties my sister is selling (she's a real estate broker). I'd like to be able to offer some aerial footage to my local news of the flooding near my home. There's no logical reason for that to be completely banned, with zero recourse.

Why is it banned? Because no bureaucrat is willing to risk his pension on writing a regulation that ends up being quoted in the USA Today the first time a 2-pound news-gathering UAS tumbles into a burning building and bonks a fireman on the head.

Some people are already doing the above today, and doing it safely. Operating UAVs for commercial purposes is no longer banned, since the FAA deservedly got its head handed to them the other month. The bureaucrats like to whine and sniffle about not allowing commercial use, but they really don't have the authority to do much or anything about it at present.

WE, as an organized group of hobbiests, need to take a lead. Similar to what skydivers did in the 60s with the Skydivers Information Manual.

I like this idea very much.

 

[beckham388]

Well said and welcome to our little band of flying misfits... "we are poor little lambs who have lost our way...baa, baa,baa.. - Black Sheep Squadron Theme Song."

Oh boy...where to begin.
My first post here and rather than simply saying hello, I'm wading into the deep end.
I Made my first flight today with my P2V+. It's replacing my gas fixed wing RC toys.
I'm also a commercial pilot and (now retired) professional skydiver (D-18218).
I also dabble in model rocketry...and routinely punch tiny holes into Class E airspace at 200+MPH.
I now work as an air safety investigator. So that's my credentials (or excuse, depending on how you look at it).
Anything that has to do with flying, I'm into it.

I've been reading and reading everything I can get my hands regarding my new hobby...including the infamous FAA Advisory Circular from 1981 that addresses RC aircraft operation. IMHO, it's an outdated piece of scrap paper, but it's, for now, the ONLY scrap paper we have.

The basic principle of aircraft separation is two-fold:
Big sky/little airplane.
See and avoid.

All the other regulations are there to cover our collective butts when principles #1 and #2 fail.

So where does that leave our little group of flying cameras?
I think the signal to noise ratio is pretty skewed right now. The OP's biggest threat is Canada geese. And if the OP's head is on a swivel looking for kamikaze geese, a similar-sized aircraft with strobe lights should be equally visible...regardless of altitude. (I've worked a bird strike that occurred at FL310...a mallard duck. Apparently, that is actually where many ducks cruise during migration).
In a practical sense, our aircraft present no more of a threat to navigation than Daffy or Donald. However, the threat does exist and cannot be ignored. The question is, how to EFFECTIVELY address the threat?
Make regulations too onerous and you risk either crushing the industry or, at the other extreme, have ALL regulations simply ignored. That's not being effective.
At the other end of the scale are regulations that serve no purpose other than to allow some bureaucrat to justify his GS15 paycheck, while doing nothing to improve flight safety or promote the safe use of the national airspace.

What's the answer?
That's beyond my paygrade. I would like to see commercial licensing and certification for commercial operators of UAS.
Different levels of commercial ops. I'd like to provide aerial video of properties my sister is selling (she's a real estate broker).
I'd like to be able to offer some aerial footage to my local news of the flooding near my home.
There's no logical reason for that to be completely banned, with zero recourse.

Why is it banned? Because no bureaucrat is willing to risk his pension on writing a regulation that ends up being quoted in the USA Today the first time a 2-pound news-gathering UAS tumbles into a burning building and bonks a fireman on the head.

The sad fact is, we no longer have "The Press". We have news-media companies whose sole purpose is to sell the news. How do they sell it? By getting their stories pushed to the top of search engines. Search engines are driven by keywords and right now one of the biggest keyword drivers is "drone". So every news editor is trying to stuff as many instances of the word "drone" into every news story possible. It's all about selling news, not about the first amendment, not about facts and certainly not about credibility. It's all about money.

Unfortunately, the word 'drone' is the current moneymaker for the media and the bureaucrats who write the regulations are loathe to risk their comfortable positions to develop effective policies regarding our little hobby, knowing full-well that the media is going to drag it into the "drone" fray along with every Predator and Global Hawk.

WE, as an organized group of hobbiests, need to take a lead. Similar to what skydivers did in the 60s with the Skydivers Information Manual.
I could go on, but it's 3am and I'm tired. More later.

PS: Hi everyone! I'm airmotive...and I have 17 minutes of flight time on my P2V+.

 

[Elginet]

I'm an air traffic controller. There is no FAA 400ft rule. People really need to get that number out of their head and understand the difference of AMA member rules vs FAA regulation.

Again, there are NO RULES for r/c aircraft!! Just plain common sense if that even exists...

Thank you for pointing that out. If I hear one more person mention this mythical 400' recommendation from the FAA, I'll scream.

VFR Aircraft are to "SEE & AVOID". An aircraft with more control (Airplane or Helicopter) are to yield right of way to an aircraft with less control (glider or balloon). Will that will soon include UAVs? Who knows. Hobbyists have long been "flying" things into the air, from R/C airplanes, to rockets and massive balloons holding a GoPro Camera, but now, because someone politician has a bug up their butt, the media is going to start making a federal case out of every incident. This is much like the anti gun lobby right now.

I WOULD urge anyone flying a UAV though to learn how to read a sectional or TCA chart and get them for the areas you live in, as this could save you a LOT of aggravation and possibly money if you're flying in the wrong place (near an airport etc..).

 

[Flyer91]

I suspect that this is the source of the statements that the FAA requires models to fly under 400' AGL.
It's the FAA AC 91-57 - Model Aircraft Operating Standards
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf

As you can see the document is over 30 years old, and an advisory that asks for voluntary compliance.
With the rapidly expanding proliferation of camera drones, that will probably change soon enough.

But IMHO: the federal government is not going to be the major player in banning drones.
That will come from park administrators, event promoters, the people that are in charge of safety at private vacation destinations, and any other persons that are in charge of playgrounds, beaches and municipal properties, that have legal council telling them that they may have (even if just a scintilla of) exposure to liability litigation if they don't ban them from flying at the areas they they are in charge of.

Since theses people are like most working folks .... and have a vested interest in remaining employed, and since banning them is the path of least resistance ...... 'that' is where our ability to fly them at the places and times that are the most photo-video worthy will come to the soonest end.
It's already happening ........ all with no FFA involvement whatsoever.
Even the mfg's of the drones themselves are putting their own limits on what, where, and when and how they can fly.

 

[doug86]

I am a huge opponent to pointless legeslation and pretty much despise government regulations. With that said, I FEEL flying over 400 feet is pointless and wreckless anyhow as we have no communication capabilities with other air traffic...

Just so we're clear, having a radio on a an aircraft is NOT a regulation for flying VFR in class G airspace. It's legal to fly an airplane without a radio as long as you're not in controlled airspace or near a control tower.

many answers to this and other questions here:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... r%2014.pdf

the part about a radio is on page 14-9