BTW, in every other professional, commercial operators has higher standard than non commercial operators. Take driving as example, commercial drivers must rest after 8 hrs driving while you and I can drive much longer. Hence comparing two set of rules from two different prospectives is meaningless.
Hobbyist vs. Commercial: calling the tower for clearance
- Thread starter Kristina Fowler
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 54
Still not buying it. Is the commercial operator driving a vehicle that requires greater operating expertise and training because of weight/axles/length/configuration, etc? I say yes - and special rules to ensure safety are justified.
In the scenario I'm describing, both operators (hobbyist and commercial) operate the exact same vehicle under the exact same conditions, on the exact same day and time, for the exact same duration, in the exact same airspace.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 54
I'm not an expert at CDL's, but I think if you check the record, you'll find that there are minimums and that apply to Commercial Drivers Licenses (primarily - but not limited to - weight of the vehicle in addition to other special use configurations) that I mentioned in my previous post. Not a valid comparison because the vehicles in my scenario are identical and the 2 missions are identical. My point stands.
Further to my point, I think an argument could be made that the commercial pilot should be granted the instant/quicker approval from the tower by virtue of passing the General Knowledge test and familiarity with regulations, weather, sectionals, NOTAM's and other aviation competencies, and the hobbyist be put in the time-out chair for weeks and given the opportunity to bone up on the perils of what he/she intends to do.
Last edited:
What you apparently aren't willing to accept is that no amount of making "points" on some internet forum will change the FAA's position on its operating regulations.
FAA typically employs something called "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" prior to implementing new regulations, and interested parties are afforded a window of opportunity to submit opinions and comments on such actions, pro and con. But once rules are in place, good luck changing them. It's pretty rare when it happens, and I doubt that it EVER happens based on some random complaint from an unhappy voice in the wilderness.
FAA does occasionally update their regulations internally, usually to accommodate improved technology. But that's a different situation.
Last edited:
Well said Racklefratz. On one side, the quadcopter community sees everyone in Part 101 and Part 107 flying similar lightweight craft, similar missions, similar flight times. OTOH, the FAA seems to be making Part 107 laws to cover "heavy gear" (up to 55 pounds) and just as likely flying a plane... test responses even go so far as to favor gliding scenarios over remaining battery reserve in the event of an emergency - I've yet to see quadcopter "glide" to safety.
Ditto on the matter of flight mission distance - apparently the FAA assumes Part 107 folks fly right up to VLOS. Otherwise wouldn't one think the FAA would mention, encourage, cite in regs and test sUAS remote PICs to *listen* for manned aircraft and helicopters? To me at least, the FAA operates under an entirely different paradigm than the massive DJI quadcopter community.
Ditto on the matter of flight mission distance - apparently the FAA assumes Part 107 folks fly right up to VLOS. Otherwise wouldn't one think the FAA would mention, encourage, cite in regs and test sUAS remote PICs to *listen* for manned aircraft and helicopters? To me at least, the FAA operates under an entirely different paradigm than the massive DJI quadcopter community.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 54
I can't argue that howling at the moon doesn't accomplish much. I'm a pragmatist by nature and a big fan of "the process". I came to this forum in hopes of discovering a flaw in my thinking that could resolve an issue that simply doesn't make sense - in my mind anyway.
BTW, don't assume I didn't already call and email Jason Blachek at the upcoming UAS Symposium in March and asked him to put this very issue on the agenda. He said he would try since the agenda was still open, but also said it was no guarantee it would be on the agenda. If you'd like to do the same, you can contact him here: TEL (571) 255-7789; [email protected]
Can't hurt to try, and I can see you're doing as much of that as you can.
As an instrument rated pilot (real airplanes), I come from more than 40 years of FAA-certificated flying and owning two aircraft. That experience provided me with a realistic view of how the FAA operates from a user standpoint, and, all I can say is, trying to change it is like trying to move a glacier. It's real hard to do, and doing it takes a long time, assuming it can be done at all. Good luck.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 54
I'll give the feds the benefit of the doubt. Hard to imagine the size and scope of the Airspace System and what's involved in making it run smoothly. Many tentacles to that octopus.
I'm also a multi-engine/IFR pilot - the rusty, non-current variety (upgraded aircraft 4 times). I actually went so far as to get a replacement ticket last year and was dead set on getting current plus my 333 in order to get my drone off the ground commercially. About that same time, Part 107 comes on the scene and I was glad to see it. I understand the pace of new or revised regs. A local FAA person at the regional office confessed that they're overwhelmed with the storm of UAV's that burst on the scene, seemingly overnight. They were caught by surprise but it looks like they're gradually catching up. In any event, the new grid system that's mentioned in this thread appears like a very useful solution.
Last edited:
Dunno. I saw that "grid" stuff here today for the first time, and I'm skeptical. This concept has a long way to go before FAA would be willing to interface its "grid" system with the various drone manufacturers' navigation systems. And unless something like that happens, I can't see how drone users can comply with any kind of navigation precision, since they wouldn't have any way to precisely know where they are within the prescribed grids. There's not even a system like that available to real aircraft pilots. Or am I missing something important here WRT drones?
Regardless, especially given the cavalier, contentious attitude of a lot of drone users now, the ones who say "I'll fly anytime, anyplace, and screw anyone who doesn't like it", I just don't see this as a be-all, end-all solution to keeping UAS out of where they're not allowed to be. Flying drones isn't like flying real airplanes. FAA has real airplanes' ID by virtue of their Mode S transponders, and pilots understand they can't get away with violations; drones are anonymous, and regulatory compliance is on the honor system - FAA is powerless to track down offenders unless they crash their drones and get implicated that way. Looks to me like drone navigation infractions are unenforceable.
At the end of the day, and although a nicely accessorized Inspire 2 setup appeals to me as a hobbyist, I'm nearly ready to abandon that idea totally, due to the goat-rope going on now with regulating drones. Life's too short.
Last edited:
ForeFlight has built-in grid options such as the CAP Grid. It would be extremely easy for Foreflight or other systems to integrate the FAA grid system. The problem is, its not likely that most UAV pilots, with the exception of serious commercial operators or regular pilots that already use the service will want to pay for the subscription service
So, I'm new to this commercial UAV stuff, but am a long time full size pilot. How are you guys handling airspace issues at the moment? I live in a city with 4 class D airports and one class C airport. Say I get a job request for a week from now, its in Class D....do I immediately have to turn the job down since its not possible to get an authorization or waiver in that time frame? Essentially half of this city is in controlled airspace...hopefully the system is fixed soon....
Several of us have similar situations and have requested authorizations/waivers for intermittent flights within a portion of various controlled airspaces. In my case, the class e(sfc) space covers most of the SW quadrant of my home town. I picked a central location in that area and requested a radius of (if I remember correctly) 2.5 nm. Asked for a waiver over 2 years. Similar to a previosly approved short term authorization in the same area.one of our local pilots just got a similar Class D request approved.
You'll need to request for an Airspace Waiver or you're always going to be behind the ball.
An Airspace Authorization is for a one-off session so you'd essentially always be submitting them and waiting.
The new "Grid System" will make it almost instantaneous for "Reasonably Safe" requests.
Let's take just a moment and understand WHY there are essentially two different sets of rules. You can bet your bottom dollar it's not because the FAA wants it this way. Talk about a nightmare from the ground up (see what I did there LOL).
Back in 2012 (FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012) Congress agreed that model aircraft (hobbyist) needed protection from new laws (and I agree they did). That pretty much tied the hands of the FAA. Because of this act, which essentially created a Safe Haven for anyone who was strictly a hobby/recreational use, the FAA had to take existing and future regulations and carve out any portion that pertained to strictly hobby flights.
The irony is at that time almost all Model Aircraft flights were carried out at "Flying Fields" that were either far from air traffic or they had an existing Letter Of Agreement (LOA) with local airport that gave guidelines about where and how high MODEL aircraft flew. Model Aircraft couldn't fly themselves (Gyro's were only being used for helicopter stabilization at that time) and they could not navigate themselves (GPS was still too big and bulky). If you didn't know how to fly or ou lost control of your Model Aircraft it might fly a few hundred yards then start the Death Spiral into terra firma LOL. Now with gyro stabilization and GPS guidance you don't need to know how to fly the aircraft. You just need to know how to swipe your charge card, charge batteries and hit the TAKE OFF button. The Gyro and GPS will take care of the rest for you. This took Model Aircraft far way from the safe confines of Flying Fields and put automated, self leveling, self navigating R/C aircraft in every backyard, empty lot, building top, and parking area across the nation.
We get upset with the FAA for TWO sets of regulations for seemingly the same action. But we've got to understand that it was not the FAA who created the fiasco but our Congress fueled by lobbyists with very deep pockets. It provided protection for the hundreds of thousands of R/C Aircraft enthusiasts who have flown by the rules and performed millions of hours of SAFE flights for decades.
Back in 2012 (FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012) Congress agreed that model aircraft (hobbyist) needed protection from new laws (and I agree they did). That pretty much tied the hands of the FAA. Because of this act, which essentially created a Safe Haven for anyone who was strictly a hobby/recreational use, the FAA had to take existing and future regulations and carve out any portion that pertained to strictly hobby flights.
The irony is at that time almost all Model Aircraft flights were carried out at "Flying Fields" that were either far from air traffic or they had an existing Letter Of Agreement (LOA) with local airport that gave guidelines about where and how high MODEL aircraft flew. Model Aircraft couldn't fly themselves (Gyro's were only being used for helicopter stabilization at that time) and they could not navigate themselves (GPS was still too big and bulky). If you didn't know how to fly or ou lost control of your Model Aircraft it might fly a few hundred yards then start the Death Spiral into terra firma LOL. Now with gyro stabilization and GPS guidance you don't need to know how to fly the aircraft. You just need to know how to swipe your charge card, charge batteries and hit the TAKE OFF button. The Gyro and GPS will take care of the rest for you. This took Model Aircraft far way from the safe confines of Flying Fields and put automated, self leveling, self navigating R/C aircraft in every backyard, empty lot, building top, and parking area across the nation.
We get upset with the FAA for TWO sets of regulations for seemingly the same action. But we've got to understand that it was not the FAA who created the fiasco but our Congress fueled by lobbyists with very deep pockets. It provided protection for the hundreds of thousands of R/C Aircraft enthusiasts who have flown by the rules and performed millions of hours of SAFE flights for decades.
I followed your argument until the last paragraph. Who lobbied for what, in terms of the fiasco you mention?
Honestly you really don't have a firm grasp on the laws/regs and who they are for. You're not seeing the BIG picture here. The UAS Community is a lot bigger than you realize and the laws/regulations have to be written in a way that covers EVERYONE.
You do realize that UAS also includes fixed wing aircraft? Many of us fly MultiRotors (MR), Single Rotor(Helicopter), and Fixed Wing (airplane or plank). The Remote Pilot Certificate has to have questions to demonstrate the knowledge for all of us in this industry. The Gliding Scenario you mention in an emergency is much needed in fixed wing during motor failure to determine which area to pick as the one to shoot for a landing in. With QUADrotors a motor failure means you probably need to get someone to help you locate the pieces when it impacts terra firma pretty near directly under the point of failure.
I think you over estimate the market shares a pinch. While DJI is the biggest hitter in consumer grade UAS there are still many MANY other "share holders" in the UAS market. If you think the FAA is going to give in to a manufacturer and change their standards, testing, regulations etc for them then I'm afraid you've got a long uncomfortable wait ahead of you.
Just remember that the UAS category is bigger than just quadcopters and our DJI quadcopter community. We need to step back and look at the BIG picture more.
AMA was the main voice lobbying Congress to protect hobby RC fliers from FAA regulation. Only coincidentally did "drones" get included in the definition. Note, 'drone' is basically a slang term for what are officially called sUAS. The faa makes no distinction between fixed wing, helps or quads. Its only the media and self-serving politicians who are fueling the public notion that quads are a different creature and that all are evil!
Sure - that's what it looked like you meant, but you also wrote that you agreed that the model aircraft community needed that protection from new laws, so it appeared that you agreed with those lobbyists, such as the AMA, on this issue. To put it another way, I was trying to understand whether you support the separation of regulation for recreation versus non-recreation, or whether you are arguing that it should have been done differently.
Similar threads
