H.R.302, Section 349 (US)

[Douglas Scott Sr]

This is a excellent video of the 100 pages, relevant to ( UAS ) , proposed FAA regulations..

 

[Cellblock776]

I wonder how the clause about having to have a written privacy policy will affect us.

 

[Douglas Scott Sr]

This is exactly what this bill says with regards to hobbyists;

44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

 

[Douglas Scott Sr]

Thank you for the most current and correct information..

 

[grtday]

There is a YouTube link discussing how vague and far-reaching this bill, set to pass this week, truly was.

1200 pages that no Legislator will bother to read, that could certainly affect us and new hobby. (Remember the Obamacare debacle?)

Please view the video or at least, read the attached article from the Houston Comical discussing how this bill will impact our freedom to fly!

Please share this Email with any other drone flyers you know and post to the various drone boards.

Thanks and fly cheerfully!

Ron


Below is a letter to send to your respective Senators and a link where to find their addresses:

Find Your Representatives - Common Cause


Dear Senator (Insert the name of YOURS) ,


I am studying and will soon to be licensed UAV Drone Pilot.


The bill H.R. 302 before the Senate this week represents a bill which enables the FAA to seize the property of drone pilots without due process or oversight. The language within it does not adequately define the conditions under which the FAA. Law enforcement, or other governmental officials can intercept, seize, or destroy the property of an individual drone owner. It stands in direct conflict to the 4th amendment of the Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


While I entirely support sensible legislation to protect and coordinate the airspace to provide for efficient use and the safety of all, this bill provides an open door for abuse and unjustified action by the FAA, law enforcement, or any other governmental officials


I urge you to vote against passage of this bill.


Sincerely,



(Your name, address, phone, and email.)

 

[BigAl07]

@grtday many of us not only support this bill, we've been asking for it a long time coming.

Answer me this:

Why would two people, flying the exact same aircraft, flying the exact same manner, in the exact same position/time etc have 2 totally different sets of rules to abide by simply determined by the "intent of the flight"? Simply because I've studied, taken a test, and I am trying to make some $$ to support my family why do I have more strict and difficult rules than someone flying for pure fun?

Now I know this won't stop the crazy stuff but it does make things a lot more simple and logical IMHO.

 

[bsartist]

I wonder how the clause about having to have a written privacy policy will affect us.

Yeah, I wonder about this too. While codifying some of the safety and airspace stuff etc. seems like a pretty good idea, this privacy thing seems like bureaucratic bull. And how do they define collecting information? Does that include video or photos with people in them? If so I think that’s ridiculous and burdensome.

Anyhow I hope the AMA or someone with some legal help can maybe draw up a boilerplate that we can all use when flying under 107 rules.

 

[flockshot]

I am enjoying the conversation on this thread, even though it mirrors many other threads we have all participated in.
My flying rules are very simple. The FAA makes the rules, and I follow them. So simple.

 

[bsartist]

I am enjoying the conversation on this thread, even though it mirrors many other threads we have all participated in.
My flying rules are very simple. The FAA makes the rules, and I follow them. So simple.

Not every rule is simple, easy to follow nor reasonable. An example might be an ill defined and potentially overly burdensome privacy statement requirement. To be honest, though, I guess I need to go into the statute to see if it’s more we’ll defined and less burdensome than the video leads me to believe.

 

[bsartist]

I am enjoying the conversation on this thread, even though it mirrors many other threads we have all participated in.
My flying rules are very simple. The FAA makes the rules, and I follow them. So simple.

Oh. One more thing. I think you earlier said that’s 1200 pages you don’t need to read. How can you follow them if you don’t read them. ;-))

 

[flockshot]

Oh. One more thing. I think you earlier said that’s 1200 pages you don’t need to read. How can you follow them if you don’t read them. ;-))

I have not read the 1200 pages, nor do I intend to. All the information pertinent to me has been gleaned out of the bill and discussed in detail. I doubt that the guys and gals who enjoy reading bills have missed anything that I would concern myself with. After all, the people making it law, haven't read it all either.

 

[flockshot]

Not every rule is simple, easy to follow nor reasonable. An example might be an ill defined and potentially overly burdensome privacy statement requirement. To be honest, though, I guess I need to go into the statute to see if it’s more we’ll defined and less burdensome than the video leads me to believe.

I got the impression that there could be a privacy concern also. I commented on a YouTube video that I believed that the privacy issue could well (and perhaps should) be tested in the courts. In todays aviation world, the 'aircraft' and everything about it, is available to the FAA. The pilots of those aircraft, perhaps not so much, without them needing to take additional action.
But I digress, so getting back to your point about unreasonable and/or burdensome FAA regulations. I will follow the FAA regulations, period. If I don't like them I will support changing them. But I will follow them, and I don't need the AMA for that.

 

[bsartist]

I have not read the 1200 pages, nor do I intend to. All the information pertinent to me has been gleaned out of the bill and discussed in detail. I doubt that the guys and gals who enjoy reading bills have missed anything that I would concern myself with. After all, the people making it law, haven't read it all either.

It was tongue in cheek. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

 

[flockshot]

It was tongue in cheek. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

LOL, ok. Sometimes on this site you can't tell for sure.

 

[bsartist]

I got the impression that there could be a privacy concern also. I commented on a YouTube video that I believed that the privacy issue could well (and perhaps should) be tested in the courts. In todays aviation world, the 'aircraft' and everything about it, is available to the FAA. The pilots of those aircraft, perhaps not so much, without them needing to take

I got the impression that there could be a privacy concern also. I commented on a YouTube video that I believed that the privacy issue could well (and perhaps should) be tested in the courts. In todays aviation world, the 'aircraft' and everything about it, is available to the FAA. The pilots of those aircraft, perhaps not so much, without them needing to take additional action.
But I digress, so getting back to your point about unreasonable and/or burdensome FAA regulations. I will follow the FAA regulations, period. If I don't like them I will support changing them. But I will follow them, and I don't need the AMA for that.

additional action.
But I digress, so getting back to your point about unreasonable and/or burdensome FAA regulations. I will follow the FAA regulations, period. If I don't like them I will support changing them. But I will follow them, and I don't need the AMA for that.

I’m not suggesting flouting the law. And I’m not focused on the privacy issue. True I did mention unreasonable regulations but that’s not all I said. I mentioned regulations that were not simple nor easy to follow. My politics aside, I’m not really being an anti-government activist here so my point really isn’t about willful non-compliance. Nor is my position meant to assail the practice of following the rules.

To clarify my main point is this: When laws are written poorly, they may be difficult to comply with even for the best intentioned. So you may not be complying and not even know it.

My concern about the privacy statement requirement was born out of concern for *wanting* to comply but not knowing how if that part of the statute is relatively content free and gives me no guidance on what I’m really supposed to do to comply. What a privacy statement should look like.

Now if everyone of us flying under part 107 has to spend more money on lawyers to draft up a privacy statement for ourselves then I think that’s an unreasonable burden. And complying may not be so easy (read cost prohibitive).

Having said that, I think it’s a mitigating factor to hope that maybe someone (like the AMA as an example) who may have lawyers could draw up a common boilerplate that we can all use and - poof - simple and easy compliance.

We’ve all seen the watershed of pages and pages of privacy policy legal documents that we have to click through and accept. They are a nuisance to us. But quite the burden on the companies that have to craft them. Probably using their corporate legal team. If I were a very small business I would hope that I could find something off the shelf that applies well enough to my business.

This *is* about following the rules. Not really about activism. At the same time I’m glad to see your comment on supporting change if you disagree.

I hope this helps clarify my position.

 

[bsartist]

One more example not to drop credentials but to show how my experience might show where I’m coming from.

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s I was the head of electronic communication technology (email, instant messaging etc.) for a large investment bank. This was when the legal requirements for retention/retrieval as well as surveillance of electronic communication was really heating up and at the same time new forms of electronic communications were being invented. Of course the firm’s position, understandably, was “we must follow the rules” and it fell to me to provide the technical solutions to comply. I worked very closely with my legal and compliance teams. But soon that wasn’t enough.

The regs coming out of the SEC and NASD were written by people who had no clue of tecnology let alone electronic communication specifically. Ambiguity was rampant. “Electronic communication” wasn’t even clearly defined. We created a consortium of compliance and tech people from many banks to meet regularly just to try to figure out how to define the problem and to be able to comply. Sure, email and instant messaging were the obvious ones. But what about web forms that get filled out, what about IP voice communications or voicemail for that matter. Technology literally didnt exist to be able to surveill and retain *everything* that *might* be swept up in the definition. Arbitrary decisions were being made by each firm without clear regulatory guidance. “exclude voicemail. figure out how to deal with AIM. Blackberry must be dealt with but not MSM.” Etc. We were trying desperately to comply - burning through resources and stomach lining along the way. And STILL we were left with areas that could technically be considered non-compliant. Even when we did comply we could be told “we don’t think you’re surveilling enough.” Or “Your retrieval times are too slow.” Not because it was in the regs. But because they said so.

Clearly this example is way over the top compared to what we are dealing with right now with this bill. But these types of things can happen even if on a smaller scale. I don’t relish being the test case for whether my privacy statement covers everything they “think” it should.

But as I’ve said, I admit to not yet reading that part of the statute.

 

[Cellblock776]

And more discussion, this time by the Drone U guys and Vic Moss,

 

[bsartist]

I finally read it and I’m attaching two screencaps from the sections relevant to the privacy notice issue. As I feared totally ambiguous and nearly impossible to comply with without clarification. Sounds like boilerplate pulled from other laws that apply to web sites or whatever and not written with the understanding of what we do. What information do we collect? Does that include video or stills? Do I need to cover those in my privacy statement? What else do I need to do to comply with something this nebulous? Something written with the sUAS pilot in mind with some more specificity would be much more helpful toward compliance.

 

[MapMaker53]

Just got an email from the AMA that the Senate passed the bill. Trump is expected to sign it into law.

 

[Phill2]

This is exactly what this bill says with regards to hobbyists;

44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

Apart from clause 7 that's basically the rules we have down here in Oz.