Ha, you’re good! Yes, I seem to have accumulated way too many RC aircraft over the years...that’s why I’m thankful to be able to make some $$ now with my drone!!
Do You Think That the FAA Rules are Ridiculous?
- Thread starter Ohana Ross-Roberts
- Start date
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 266
- Age
- 39
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 266
- Age
- 39
This wonderful place should really just have a chat room.. haha then everyone can chime in
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
We kinda do it's called Off Topic and it's fun there at times .
Crazy at times also .
Crazy at times also .
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 266
- Age
- 39
Ah thats right. i have seen it and didnt know thats what it was. but makes sense. I definitely like to talk ill be there.. ?We kinda do it's called Off Topic and it's fun there at times .
Crazy at times also .
Thanks for the info!
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 167
- Age
- 63
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 266
- Age
- 39
Is starboard even a thing on aircraft?? I thought that was boats...
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 262
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.mossphotography.biz
Some most definitely are. Which is why there are things like Drone Advisory Council (DAC) and DAC Task Groups (I'm on TG 3, and we're dealing with the waiver process). But it's a moving target at the moment.
When the FAA first took on the control of drones, they tried to shoehorn us into the NAS under modified manned aviation rules. It was meant as a stop gap action, and it was mandated by Congress. And when Congress tries to mandate things they know little about, stuff like 333 (assuming you mean 333, and not 303) is what comes out of the meat grinder.
[side note] if you still think 333 is the law of the land, you're been asleep at your sticks for about 3 years. Please get current on your knowledge base before you come onto the forums and opine.
Back to your OP:
Overall, the FAA is crafting and changing the rules as we speak. It takes time and patience when dealing with the FAA. That's just how it is. Even those inside the FAA that I work with understand that the FAA moves at a glacial speed, and are trying to speed things up.
Many inside the FAA understand our issues and are working on it. And it you really take a look at the current rules, they're not all that hard to understand. The attitude of some here (screw the rules, etc.) are why the rules are necessary in the first place.
If you are of the mindset that the rules don't apply to you, or "it's not illegal if you don't get caught", do us all a favor and sell your drone. You are the ones that cause the problems.
For the rest of your, who do follow the rules (or at least to the best of your ability), thank you. That makes things much easier for those of us who are actually working to make a difference in this industry.
Some examples of how things are getting better are LAANC, the waiver process (still not great), and clarification of hobby rules. And many more improvements are in the works and trying to get implemented.
The FAA asks for patience. So please follow the current rules, and "don't be that guy".
When the FAA first took on the control of drones, they tried to shoehorn us into the NAS under modified manned aviation rules. It was meant as a stop gap action, and it was mandated by Congress. And when Congress tries to mandate things they know little about, stuff like 333 (assuming you mean 333, and not 303) is what comes out of the meat grinder.
[side note] if you still think 333 is the law of the land, you're been asleep at your sticks for about 3 years. Please get current on your knowledge base before you come onto the forums and opine.
Back to your OP:
Overall, the FAA is crafting and changing the rules as we speak. It takes time and patience when dealing with the FAA. That's just how it is. Even those inside the FAA that I work with understand that the FAA moves at a glacial speed, and are trying to speed things up.
Many inside the FAA understand our issues and are working on it. And it you really take a look at the current rules, they're not all that hard to understand. The attitude of some here (screw the rules, etc.) are why the rules are necessary in the first place.
If you are of the mindset that the rules don't apply to you, or "it's not illegal if you don't get caught", do us all a favor and sell your drone. You are the ones that cause the problems.
For the rest of your, who do follow the rules (or at least to the best of your ability), thank you. That makes things much easier for those of us who are actually working to make a difference in this industry.
Some examples of how things are getting better are LAANC, the waiver process (still not great), and clarification of hobby rules. And many more improvements are in the works and trying to get implemented.
The FAA asks for patience. So please follow the current rules, and "don't be that guy".
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 67
- Age
- 84
My only issue with the rules and requirements is that the FAA lumped all unmanned flying things together. RC enthusiasts have been flying fixed wing aircraft safely for decades. Multirotors, being so easy to fly, opened up RC to anybody with money in their jeans. It's amazing there have not been more serious incidents.
Since SUAS are in <400' airspace where no manned ac should be under normal conditions (with the notable exceptions of airports and disaster locations) it seems to be a case of government overreach to license persons flying plastic toys for fun and photography.
It's even more absurd to be regulating the air space below treetop level. So my answer would be "yes" I think the new rules are ridiculous and should be rethought.
Besides, you can't fix stupid, and the stupid folks are going to do stupid things regardless of the law.
It's even more absurd to be regulating the air space below treetop level. So my answer would be "yes" I think the new rules are ridiculous and should be rethought.
Besides, you can't fix stupid, and the stupid folks are going to do stupid things regardless of the law.
This keeps being asserted but is still completely incorrect - there many legitimate reasons for aircraft, especially helicopters, to be legally operated below 400 ft AGL.
Perfect - just add the usual ridiculous argument that stupid people break laws and therefore laws are pointless.
Hey, PhoenixOne. Starboard and Port are a thing on aircraft just like on boats. If you look at the navigation lights on a boat and aircraft you will see they have the same colours. Red on the left (port) and green on the right (starboard) and a white one at the rear. I actually have a set that I mount on my P3S to fly legally in Canada at night.
Have yourself a great day.
I understand the genesis and sense of urgency which necessitated the Congress passing new (and very restrictive) uas laws. I’m glad to hear it’s a fluid process that isn’t set in stone.
I would think more uas operators would be happy if the waiver process for things like flying over people would be eased (I’m not saying eliminated). Like maybe you need a waiver to fly over events like concerts or gatherings of the masses, but it’s eased on the matter of somebody accidentally walking under your drone when that wasn’t your intent.
When law enforcement agencies give up on using drones because the waiver process is too extensive and time consuming... that is a problem. I know, I’m facing that exact situation right now. Maybe the bosses don’t understand it, but when they deny programs because nobody is authorized by the FAA to fly (even with 107) because of the waivers (their words)... it becomes a safety concern.
Also, I find with the ever changing rules, local PDs have no idea what the laws are, which makes them become oblivious to them (ignore drone use) or worse, they just try to shut it all down even when it’s Legal. Have you ever known a police officer to “act” like he doesn’t know the law?
I’m in a position (being local police officer and real estate photographer with 107) to see it from both points of view.
So, bottom line I’ve found in my experience that the cops don’t understand the law, nor does the public (especially the real estate agents that think you can fly mile high or that you even need to be 107 certified).
Just my 2 cents, but the whole 107 certification should have different classes to it. Like driving a car vs driving a commercial vehicle. You need certain endorsements if you plan on operating at an airport that the rest of us don’t need, and hence don’t have to remember which frequencies pilots are required to switch to when speaking with ground crews etc,
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2015
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 15
- Age
- 68
Wow this is a hot button topic, proceed with caution. Sure we share airspace with manned aircraft and we are limited as to what we can do, there is a serious safety concern so yes we need to be educated. I cringe when I see videos of people bragging about how high or how far they flew, definitely not VLOS. I have my Part 107, in fact just took my recurrent test a couple weeks ago, and yes I passed. I think the initial test to get your Part 107 is just fine, (I use to think different) it's just a base line so you are aware of potential problems, FAA Rules & Regulations, your surroundings, safety, weather conditions that can affect your drone, etc...To me its your learners permit before you become a private pilot. As for my recurrent test I questioned some of the topics that I will be tested on like runway signage and markings, thought to myself when am I ever going to be flying or taxi my sUAS on Runway 09? Maybe not now but one day in the future maybe.
Because businesses are starting to look at all the uses for sUAS's its only going to get worse as testing goes. I think there should be different tiers to your sUAS license like we have for driving a vehicle. There are classes, a regular drivers license doesn't give you the privilege to drive a semi you need to pass another test to qualify. The same should go for Part 107 pilots. It should be different for the industry you plan to work in. My 2 cents worth.....
Because businesses are starting to look at all the uses for sUAS's its only going to get worse as testing goes. I think there should be different tiers to your sUAS license like we have for driving a vehicle. There are classes, a regular drivers license doesn't give you the privilege to drive a semi you need to pass another test to qualify. The same should go for Part 107 pilots. It should be different for the industry you plan to work in. My 2 cents worth.....
Ridiculous? MOSTLY, yes. I think the sectional chart stuff is very valuable. Here's my list of ridiculous crap we'll never use as UAS pilots:
1) METARS
2) Airport signage (turns out, we're not allowed to fly there, remember????)
I'm sure there's more, but I can't remember them right now.
If I had my druthers, they would expand the sectional chart questions, expand NAS questions and add a practical test...like getting a CDL. As long as there's no practical test, all the 107 proves is that you know how to study and take tests. It insures ZERO safety.
D
It would be interesting to see the statistics on non certified drone flyers and certified drone flyers. I bet 20 to 1 would be on the low side.
Similar threads
