More FAA Commercial Exemptions Granted

[SilentAV8R]

http://www.suasnews.com/2014/12/33273/f ... xemptions/

SO as long as you are a huge company or have significant resources, you can get a Section 333 exemption.

 

[N017RW]

Yea.

I only skimmed through one of the grants. I took it to indicate that some type of Pilot Certificate is (still) required and cannot be waived due to statute requirements.

Additionally there's requirements to establish in-house training and various other documentation, etc., like you said, likely putting this 'waiver' beyond the reach of many here at this time.

 

[ianwood]

SO as long as you are a huge company or have significant resources, you can get a Section 333 exemption.

Give that Amazon is still being denied, it looks like it takes even more than that. Maybe you need friends in high places at the FAA.

 

[msinger]

Some interesting FAA quotes regarding the pilot license requirement:

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot privileges and limitations, Clayco requested regulatory relief to operate its UAS without an FAA - certificated pilot. Although Section 333 provides limited statutory flexibility relative to 49 USC§ 44704 for the purposes of airworthiness certification, it does not provide flexibility relative to other sections of 49 USC. The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate, as prescribed in 49 USC§ 44711.

the FAA is requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations for two reasons, the first of which is to satisfy the statutory requirements as stated above. The second is because pilots holding an FAA issued private or commercial pilot certificate are subject to the security screening by the Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously determined by the Secretary, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with Section 33.

Therefore, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third - class airman medical certificate is appropriate for the proposed operation.

It seems obtaining a private pilot license requires flying an actual plane. If the purpose is only to fly a Phantom, requiring someone to learn how to fly a plane (and actually do it) seems like a bit much to ask.

http://www.aopa.org/letsgoflying/ready/ ... tions.html

 

[sdtrojan]

That exemption approval spigot is not even dripping yet, we need someone other than defense contractors to get approvals. It's just stupid.

Regarding the certs, I certainly don't mind taking some kind of a cert course if required at some point, but a PPL??? No way!

 

[Meta4]

http://www.suasnews.com/2014/12/33273/faa-grants-five-more-commercial-uas-exemptions/

So as long as you are a huge company or have significant resources, you can get a Section 333 exemption.

I don't think so .. they have only issued 12 exemptions for commercial use (and two of those are to the same company).
It's not about money at all. To the FAA it's all about safety and keeping (commercial) drones grounded is safe .
If their brain cells connected I wonder how they'd cope with the cognitive dissonance of allowing a million recreational drones doing what their owners want but commercial use limited to 11 users for "safety" reasons.

 

[Meta4]

I love this one
the FAA is requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations for two reasons, the first of which is to satisfy the statutory requirements as stated above. The second is because pilots holding an FAA issued private or commercial pilot certificate are subject to the security screening by the Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously determined by the Secretary, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with Section 33.

There must be some serious security concerns over civil UAS operations - but somehow this is no issue for recreational use???

If the FAA had authority over medical matters, they would require that only holders of a medical degree would be allowed to apply a bandaid.

 

[msinger]

Agreed. The people they really have to worry about are recreational users. Most wannabe commercial users are probably not as irresponsible, so I'm not sure why the FAA is zeroing in on them.

All I can conclude is that they are trying to apply existing FAA rules -- which target commercial usage. But, I know if I wait long enough, someone is going to come in here and point me to http://dronelawjournal.com

 

[Meta4]

Yes .. Here's my take on why they are so fixed on commercial use risk
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30134&p=277021&hilit=+FAA#p277021