FAA rules that make no sense. Post your opinion.

[RFP]

Could you be more specific? In what way is the FAA intruding more than the CASA?

It seems to me from all that I’ve read that you face overbearing licensing regulations, no fly zones etc etc. All I see are folk complaining about the rules and regs. I’ve seen your maps that come up in the Go app and they are crazy! There seem to be arguments galore about who has authority - FAA or states or local authorities. It seems a mess. We only have to deal with CASA who bend over backwards to help drone operators do their jobs or fly for fun. We have a brilliant app which clearly shows where you can fly or not or to be aware of areas such as helicopter pads etc. No geofencing! Trust is the key

 

[sar104]

It seems to me from all that I’ve read that you face overbearing licensing regulations, no fly zones etc etc. All I see are folk complaining about the rules and regs. I’ve seen your maps that come up in the Go app and they are crazy! There seem to be arguments galore about who has authority - FAA or states or local authorities. It seems a mess. We only have to deal with CASA who bend over backwards to help drone operators do their jobs or fly for fun. We have a brilliant app which clearly shows where you can fly or not or to be aware of areas such as helicopter pads etc. No geofencing! Trust is the key

The geofencing is implemented by DJI, not the FAA, and that's worldwide, not just in the US. You have exactly the same kind of DJI geofencing zones in Australia. I've no idea what you mean by "overbearing licensing regulations" - they are not particularly onerous at all. For hobbyists they are almost non-existent. For Part 107 operators the FAA is being as helpful as their resources permit, given that they were not really funded to take on this extra mission scope. My interactions with them have been very positive.

Where there is a bit of a problem is with some local authorities trying to regulate sUAS operations to what seems like an unreasonable degree, and intruding on FAA jurisdiction in the process. But I suspect that a lot of that is being driven by a negative public perception of drones in the US.

 

[RFP]

That’s great to hear that in reality, the licensing regs are not onerous - not that you’d get that from those who whine about everything!

I’m not sure you’re correct though when it comes to geofencing. By mistake I flew in our major airport’s airspace and there wasn’t a problem. Not until I got home and realised that I had been within prohibited airspace. So that video went down the tube! Why is it that the best places to fly are so often in no fly zones. Me thinks it’s a Communist conspiracy.

Thanks for the detailed reply and good flying!

 

[Robert Prior]

While I agree with the majority of what you stated, the last portion is entirely wrong. Just because YOUR not flying near airport etc doesn't mean that everyone in the nation isn't flying at/near airports. I've actually flown FROM/OVER an airport runway last fall (legally and coordinated). It can happen and there are good reasons why we should know that information.

Keep in mind that Part 107 encompasses a LOT more than just Phantoms and Mavics. It covers a lot more than just Real Estate images and pretty landscape scenes. Some of us do fly at/near airports and some of us are in direct contact with ATC for some flights. Part 107 covers all nonHobby/Recreational flights that are under 55lbs which is a lot more than you'd think. Part 107, as it stands today, has to cover just about anything you can do with a sUAS outside of hobby/recreational.

I whole heartedly agree that Part 107 should have a Flight Demonstration aspect and I voiced that opinion in the comments on the new NPRM section that closed today. If you can't physically fly a sUAS safely then you should have the card in your pocket.

Up here in Canada you need to pass a Flight Review as well as an exam to get your Pilot Certificate - Advanced. The flight review process seems to be a bit Wild West at the moment with authorized flight reviewers able to charge what they think the market will bear (I've seem posts here of people being quoted $150 for a review, others $500). I like the idea but think the rates need to be fixed (like drivers license exams).

Ordinary hobbyists up here need to pass an exam to get their Pilot Certificate - Basic just to fly (limits: below 400', uncontrolled airspace only, >100' from people, >5.6 km from airports, etc). I passed that exam last weekend but most of the questions were irrelevant to the kind of flying I'm allowed to do. (Which is a rant for a separate thread.)

It sounds like your Part 107 could do with some endorsements, like drivers licenses have. Or possibly a graduated system, again like drivers licenses. (Ontario licences, at any rate. YMMV.) So someone who just wants to take pretty landscapes or real estate pictures not in controlled airspace could get a certificate that allows them to do that without needing to learn procedures that are irrelevant for them.

 

[BigAl07]

Up here in Canada you need to pass a Flight Review as well as an exam to get your Pilot Certificate - Advanced. The flight review process seems to be a bit Wild West at the moment with authorized flight reviewers able to charge what they think the market will bear (I've seem posts here of people being quoted $150 for a review, others $500). I like the idea but think the rates need to be fixed (like drivers license exams).

Ordinary hobbyists up here need to pass an exam to get their Pilot Certificate - Basic just to fly (limits: below 400', uncontrolled airspace only, >100' from people, >5.6 km from airports, etc). I passed that exam last weekend but most of the questions were irrelevant to the kind of flying I'm allowed to do. (Which is a rant for a separate thread.)

It sounds like your Part 107 could do with some endorsements, like drivers licenses have. Or possibly a graduated system, again like drivers licenses. (Ontario licences, at any rate. YMMV.) So someone who just wants to take pretty landscapes or real estate pictures not in controlled airspace could get a certificate that allows them to do that without needing to learn procedures that are irrelevant for them.

While I do agree that Part 107 could use some "Multi-Tier" upgrades we have to keep in mind that this is a brand new system and will take some time to "Tweak to Perfection". Just a pinch under 3 years ago we were required to have an actual Pilot's License (as in getting into the plane and flying) and the masses moaned and groaned saying that bar for entry was too high (I liked it because I already had that LOL). So the FAA did as requested and created a new system that did NOT require a true Pilot's License and honestly it's kind of too easy which I hope they change in the future. Our society is all about "making it easier for anyone and everyone" and sometimes that is not in the best interest for safety... this is one of those cases IMHO.

This may ruffle some feathers but none-the-less.... I don't think that a pulse should be the bare minimum for getting your RPIC.

 

[Meta4]

Anyone got their take on FAA drone rules? Which do you think make no sense or can not be enforced. Which should be discussed and repelled as obsolete?

I've never been able to understand why the FAA thinks it's unacceptable to fly from a moving boat or car.
It's not a particularly hazardous thing to do.
What's their thinking behind that?

 

[BigAl07]

I've never been able to understand why the FAA thinks it's unacceptable to fly from a moving boat or car.
It's not a particularly hazardous thing to do.
What's their thinking behind that?

I can honestly say, I've never heard of any "Clarification" as to why/how that's such a taboo action. Maybe due to lack of situational awareness, probability that it will be around other similar vehicles???? Only spit balling here . . . .