Revoking 336 Hobby Rules

[BigAl07]

Actually that is my point we need to start steering away from the actual word DRONE! UAV and all those are a much better choice! And when we have the serious discussions maybe we should be using the alternative words rather than DRONE!

WE lost this battle back in.... 2013 or 2014.... It's way too late to start swimming upstream now. Many of us fought/wrestled with this from the get-go but it was a futile battle once the media stream adopted it and "applied" it to our R/C MultiRotors.

Are you aware that the definition of DRONE is something that makes a low humming sound? It is also an unmanned vehicle that delivers missiles according to Wikipedia and dictionary.com

LOL Yes very aware of the origination of the word DRONE. I fly them and raise them (Male honey bee) day in and day out.

I do believe in the discussions of our crafts we should be using terms like quadcopter instead of drone. Unmanned air vehicle is okay but sort of sounds mysterious to the general public again. How about autonomous aerial vehicle. Aerial photography platform?

But even this is not good enough because there are still several different factions of this type of craft!
We have racing crafts that do fpv! We have little selfie cameras that fly. We have aerial photography vehicles we have do all kinds of cool things. But why do we need to call them drone? I don't think we have any missiles coming from any of these vehicles? Do we?

At present I believe our terminology of this is what is hurting us! We need to have a more positive spin on our Hobby and our craft and what they do!

Technically the "correct" term is Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) but UAS performs very well in certain circles or Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) if you're only talking about the structure of the aircraft itself and not the control system as a whole.

I can assure many have tried to steer the masses away from DRONE for years and it's not going to happen. It's caught on like gas on a flame and is officially a BUZZ WORD now.

I guess it’s just a regional issue, given the politics of the general population: around here, I don’t really see any negative connotation of note as you speak of. Even the military version is generally thought of on the positive side, as is about anything to do with the military.. As long as it’s on the right side, I guess. Not much talk of “baby killers” here unless you just watch the national news. Our birds have a more negative public view in most cases than the ones killing terrorists, due to the standard public privacy concerns, etc..


That being said, UAV, UAS, and sUAS sound like so much acronym claptrap for those “in the loop” of some certain technological arena. (Which, I guess, is exactly what they are). I don’t really see those catching on as you speak. “Autonomous” might be a good term to stay away from, given the current debate regarding the societal dangers of AI.

Part of the "Paranoia" is that people in the 40's+ age range grew up in a time when "Robotics/Automation" was portrayed in horror movies as taking over the planet. So many movies depicted "Machines" becoming intelligent and initially spying on humans "covertly" and then ultimately taking over the planet. Guess what's "sort of" happening in reality right now? So we add flying Robots to the list of actual technology and then put some stranger potentially miles away looking at the video feed and we have ourselves a crap-storm of paranoia on a stick. Even though I'm confident very few people will admit it, their childhood Sci-Fi fears are partially coming real.

I’m still good with drone, barring something really exciting that comes down the pipe.

Best comment today!! LOL

Right. But the point is that it's beyond the point of no return with the usage of the word drone. Nothing we do will get the public to understand quadcopter or UAV instead of drone.

^^^^ Nailed It! Many of us have fought that battle and it's a lost cause.

We still use other terms when speaking with like-minded individuals but when speaking to the general population DRONE is the only term they understand. We do presentations, speak at events, and teach sUAS operations around the southeastern US and when speaking to "Droners" we use UAS but when speaking to John Q. Public we explain that the technical term is UAS (or sUAS) but we use the term DRONE as that is what they understand and will use when they repeat our information.

I personally believe it's much more important to be an Ambassador for the industry and prove how awesome and BENEFICIAL our sUAS are to the masses than standing on the podium trying to hammer a new term into their heads.

 

[BigAl07]

Part of the "Paranoia" is that people in the 40's+ age range grew up in a time when "Robotics/Automation" was portrayed in horror movies as taking over the planet. So many movies depicted "Machines" becoming intelligent and initially spying on humans "covertly" and then ultimately taking over the planet. Guess what's "sort of" happening in reality right now? So we add flying Robots to the list of actual technology and then put some stranger potentially miles away looking at the video feed and we have ourselves a crap-storm of paranoia on a stick. Even though I'm confident very few people will admit it, their childhood Sci-Fi fears are partially coming real.

And to help substantiate (well at least on the Big Picture scene) my above claim:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[African wildlife]

In our experience, here in the UK, there's excellent public understanding of the word "drone" - and it's not limited to the military type or what we fly. And when SpaceX use one of their drone ships/barges, such as "Of Course I Still Love You", to recover one of their Falcon 9/Heavy rockets, people get the fact that this is something unmanned and remotely controlled.

 

[Tony Micle]

If CNN is for it, I'm against it! [emoji6]

 

[RunningWithScissors]

In our experience, here in the UK, there's excellent public understanding of the word "drone" - and it's not limited to the military type or what we fly.

Hey, African, where you been, bro'?

 

[David Kraft]

I’d sooner see DJI to lock beginner mode until X amount of flights or until you score a 90 or better on that lil quiz of theirs. Maybe both. Have a pre set number of flights say 25without crashes then unlock the quiz. And with a score of 90 or better you unlock normal mode (no flight plan, no atti, no follow me, no POI) until 50 crash free flights then every option will now be unlocked.

Any thoughts ??

You forgot to RESET AND PENALIZE on crash detected...

 

[RunningWithScissors]

If CNN is for it, I'm against it!

Seems like I've heard that before, somewhere. But, where?

 

[eeire54]

It would be simple matter for DJI, and other makers, to implement a "Hobbyist Flying Mode" as well as a "Pro (107) Flying Mode" in as much as they could control the flight distance of their gear. Much as they do with the need to log in to DJI to get beyond 100 feet, etc. Hobbyist could limited to maybe 500 feet and 100 feet in altitude (VLOS), with the "Pro Mode" unlocked to the radio's range (BVLOS) along with some extras like maybe within 1/2 mile of airport, etc.

FAA could inform DJI of who has a current 107 that could allow for the unlock. The 107 flying unlock could also be verified by the 107 operator's fingerprint or facial recognition as installed on many cellphones and tablets too. No verification means no GO 4 or RC radio transmission is switched back to "Hobbyist Flying Mode."

A bunch of flying tiers wouldn't work as the local cops who might be called to investigate would have no idea of an airborne drone or the operator's tier and they may have to intervene too much to find out.

To become a 107 you don’t even need a drone do you?

 

[N017RW]

To become a 107 you don’t even need a drone do you?

No

You don’t need any ‘stick time’ to take your private pilot written either

Well at least when I did it.

 

[flockshot]

No

You don’t need any ‘stick time’ to take your private pilot written either

Well at least when I did it.

You do need 'stick time' to get the license except for drones.

 

[N017RW]

Yes to get a PPL certificate you must have hours AND take check flights but not to just take the written (when I did it).
In contrast there is no flying competence test for a 107 certificate.

 

[BigAl07]

To become a 107 you don’t even need a drone do you?

^^^^^ This one single fact should give great concern to many. It shows ZERO flight ability but shows you learned how to pass a test. Very short sighted IMHO on behalf of our FAA.

 

[sar104]

^^^^^ This one single fact should give great concern to many. It shows ZERO flight ability but shows you learned how to pass a test. Very short sighted IMHO on behalf of our FAA.

It's a significant omission, but the additional cost and complexity of adding flight testing would be considerable, and there would not even be a set of qualified flight examiners to conduct the testing. The logistics almost certainly ruled it out.

 

[BigAl07]

It's a significant omission, but the additional cost and complexity of adding flight testing would be considerable, and there would not even be a set of qualified flight examiners to conduct the testing. The logistics almost certainly ruled it out.

But without any type of flying skills verification the "test" has little to no merit IMHO.

 

[sar104]

But without any type of flying skills verification the "test" has little to no merit IMHO.

I completely agree. I was just pointing out that there was no easy solution to that part of the problem.

 

[BigAl07]

I completely agree. I was just pointing out that there was no easy solution to that part of the problem.

It would be a logistical and "budget" fiasco I totally agree. Our "Industry" was screaming FOUL because the Section 333 required some form of "Manned Aircraft" certification to fly a drone so the FAA (as is usual when they get pressured) had a knee-jerk reaction and only half way made any progress. Now today we have this "mess" of a Part 107 "test passing" situation.

But I wouldn't mind paying the extra to include hands-on testing and flight demonstrations. I did it for my PPL and my state DL. Both were stressful days but both opened up many doors for me down the road.

 

[sar104]

It would be a logistical and "budget" fiasco I totally agree. Our "Industry" was screaming FOUL because the Section 333 required some form of "Manned Aircraft" certification to fly a drone so the FAA (as is usual when they get pressured) had a knee-jerk reaction and only half way made any progress. Now today we have this "mess" of a Part 107 "test passing" situation.

But I wouldn't mind paying the extra to include hands-on testing and flight demonstrations. I did it for my PPL and my state DL. Both were stressful days but both opened up many doors for me down the road.

The remaining question is who would conduct the testing, since there is no qualified pool of examiners. This is a bit of a bootstrap problem.

 

[BigAl07]

The remaining question is who would conduct the testing, since there is no qualified pool of examiners. This is a bit of a bootstrap problem.

This pool would have to be created/verified once the program was created and standards written. It doesn't have to be difficult but it should have come along with the testing. I fully realize with no standardization in aircraft specs etc that it would be a daunting task but it needs to be addressed.

 

[BigAl07]

It's good to note that the HOUSE passed the FAA ReAuthorization Bill on Friday 4/27/2018.

One key point of the bill (as it's currently written) is it will indeed give the FAA authorization to Regulate Hobby UAS operations as opposed to keeping them "immune" to new rules and regulations.

"The new bill will impact both commercial unmanned aerial vehicle operators and hobbyist drone pilots. For instance, the reauthorization bill allows the FAA authority to regulate hobbyist drone users."

It's important to note that it passed with a very large margin of 393 - 13 so unless something blows up in the Senate it's likely to pass even though the Senate has their own version in the works but rumor has it their version is very similar to the one on the table already. They are scheduled to address it as soon as next month (which is technically tomorrow LOL). The current "budget" is "good" until the end of September so I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see it go to the wire "just because they can".

 

[Fly Dawg]

I will be very curious to see what the final version of the "Bill" actually is. For those of us who have little to no need or interest in a "Part 107" type regulation for commercial fliers, as we only fly as a "hobby", it will be very interesting to see how the bill is truly worded. I am all in for any necessary training, or possible hobbyist licensing ( Which in reality might be a good thing ) and any testing that might be required to obtain such. I would however, highly object to anything that would be considered "Overboard" for a simple hobby flyer. Personally, I feel that even the current "Part 107" is a bit "Overboard" in the requirements, but that is just an opinion. I completely understand the need for such, but for those of us as mentioned before, who fly for pure enjoyment of the experience, it would really put a strain on the enjoyment of hobby flying. Especially, for those of us at or near retirement age. It's enough of a struggle just to visit the DMV every 5 years. We shall see.