Revoking 336 Hobby Rules

I am a 107 hobbyist. I believe that the FAA should control aircraft, and be responsible to me to keep flying safe. Nobody, other than the FAA has stepped up and said that they will be responsible for keeping the skies safe. So I will follow their rules and try to get them to change the ones I don't agree with. The CBO safety rules that violate FAA regulations, I believe, should be changed to comply with the law. I also think that AMA field locations should be given waivers covering long periods of time so as not to interfere with traditional model aircraft flying practices at CBO fields.
 
My guess is lobbyists for companies that are serious on future drone deliveries are pushing to eliminate all drone flights that aren't authorized by a flight plan. A main obstacle for goods delivered by drones will be other drones from the surface to 400 feet. I recently viewed a news clip on Amazon's research and plans for drone deliveries in which it was stated that Amazon is working with the FAA in developing their drone service and that all Amazon drone deliveries will be preceded by a flight plan. Get ready deep pockets will be ruling the class G ( uncontrolled) air space :-(
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Coach56
My guess is lobbyists for companies that are serious on future drone deliveries such as amazon are pushing to eliminate all drone flights that aren't authorized by a flight plan. A main obstacle for goods delivered by drones will be other drones from the surface to 400 feet. I recently viewed a news clip on Amazon's research and plans for drone deliveries in which it was stated that Amazon is working with the FAA in developing their drone service and that all Amazon drone deliveries will be preceded by a flight plan. Get ready deep pockets will be ruling the class G ( uncontrolled) air space :-(


I'd guess Amazon would "like" to have that much "pull" but in the talks I've been privvy to, the driving force is John Q. Public being "Drone Skeered" and being very vocal to their elected representatives about this. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
I'd guess Amazon would "like" to have that much "pull" but in the talks I've been privvy to, the driving force is John Q. Public being "Drone Skeered" and being very vocal to their elected representatives about this. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I believe that the FAA has a solid record of taking care of General Aviation in a positive way. You can still hand start your 1946 Taylorcraft, that has no lights or any means of communication whatsoever and fly it all over the country. We are now part of General Aviation and our privileges should be solid in my opinion. Besides, we vote.
 
I'd guess Amazon would "like" to have that much "pull" but in the talks I've been privvy to, the driving force is John Q. Public being "Drone Skeered" and being very vocal to their elected representatives about this. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Very good point, but why eliminate 336? I'm thinking of the future when and if drone delivery takes place and there are drones flying every which way delivering their goods without VLS. Maybe perfected obstacle avoidance? Anyway as I said it's a guess, sort of a chicken little ... the class G sky is falling
 
Very good point, but why eliminate 336? I'm thinking of the future when and if drone delivery takes place and there are drones flying every which way delivering their goods without VLS. Maybe perfected obstacle avoidance? Anyway as I said it's a guess, sort of a chicken little ... the class G sky is falling


This is nothing more than my personal opinion...

336 was a short sighted knee-jerk reaction by Congress in 2012. Instead of spending the time (and $$) to research the technology and see where it is headed they simply caved in to the AMA's lobbyist (big $$) and passed 336 limiting the FAA's ability to regulate sUAS. Keep in mind that at that time the vast majority of sUAS (still called R/C aircraft back then) were flying at a local flying club with rules in place which protected the interest of the club. 336 is perfect for those "specific" instances and ONLY those instances.

Step forward just 12 months and we start to realize that 336 was in error and people started flying from their yards, parking lots, and ultimately near airports and other "sensitive" areas.

IMHO 336 was intended to "protect" flying clubs etc but the rest of our hobby group was benefiting from the "protection" it created for the industry as a whole. Once the aircraft became "Smart" with Gryo Stabilization, GPS guidance, and Autonomous flight modes 336 no longer fits its intended course and should be repealed completely. As soon as the aircraft no longer required flying skills, landing strips, and hands on control, Section 336 became obsolete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeNewbe and N017RW
It is hilarious that people think that “drone deliveries“ is something possible. I hope the guy in the Amazon marketing department got a huge bonus for thinking up this fantasy. The amount of free advertising that Amazon has gotten is off the charts. They even have actual drone owners believing this is possible. Kudos to him!
 
It is hilarious that people think that “drone deliveries“ is something possible. I hope the guy in the Amazon marketing department got a huge bonus for thinking up this fantasy. The amount of free advertising that Amazon has gotten is off the charts. They even have actual drone owners believing this is possible. Kudos to him!

First, it has been done/used for real deliveries. Second, there is a _very_ good possibility that it will become mainstream. To think it's not viable only shows a lack understanding of how it works.
 
Like I said...... hilarious!

You do know that package delivery has already been used publically, right? In other words, it's been used and works as stated. Yet you state to claim it works is "hilarious". Like, motor cars or flying people in big tubes with wings is "hilarious"? Did you also find self driving cars "hilarious"? When you actually read up on drone deliveries you will see that it's currently not that difficult to do. In return, it's a billion dollar service. USP is also testing drone deliveries.

In case you want to see it work in real life:

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

Again, to think it's not viable just shows ignorance... when it's actually been done in real life.
 
And some people believe that we never landed on the moon and Elvis is still alive.
 
In the USA, there’s a lot of enthusiasm expressed by the commercial operators.
But there’s also a great deal of legal hurdles to be overcome.
 
Thoughts? Yes - I think I hear screams of horror and outrage.

With the exception of a very small number of real idiots where nothing anyone does would help - I fail to see the problem eliminating the model flyer freedom should solve.
 
With the exception of a very small number of real idiots where nothing anyone does would help - I fail to see the problem eliminating the model flyer freedom should solve.

I think there are other categories, beyond, real idiots, that raise significant issues. The situation with long-range consumer UAVs is very different from the limited, mostly VLOS, mostly confined to hobby fields, model aircraft activities of the past. The evolving use of consumer UAVs in almost any location, in much larger numbers, and beyond line of sight represents a quite different threat to the NAS. Some is due to reckless flying of the kind that you alluded to, but much is also due to simple ignorance and lack of training. FAA regulation is going to be needed to address that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
New guy here, impressive discussion so far. I am torn, I owned/piloted a 40 foot cruiser for a bunch of years and was always amazed that there is no Captain's license required to take any 'pleasure' vessel on the water. There is nothing worse then trying to pilot a large boat on a narrow waterway and having some jerk on a jetski zooming in and out and not yielding the right of way.

I see this in much the same light, you can kill a lot of people with a 40 foot boat, particularly if you are on a crowded river ( I live near Chicago and boated on Lake Michigan and related rivers ). Yet rather then put a crap load of restrictions on pleasure boats the Coast Guard just rigidly enforces those laws on the books and makes those laws easily searchable and simple to understand.

Seems to me the thing the hobby needs is a way of enforcing the laws on the books. I have seen some really STUPID stunts on youtube already, those folks should be fined, in some cases heavily.

On a boat, even a kayak, you must have it registered and display the registration number right on the hull. The first thing I did when I got my Phantom was register myself with the FAA, put my number on the hull of the Phantom as well as my phone number, just in case of a fly away. I would be all for an affordable beacon to retrofit on my bird.

I have a lot to learn, I've not been above the tree line yet, but really hope I can use this for what I bought it for, a hobbyist flying photo/video platform.

I really appreciate how civil this discussion has been and look forward to contributing. Now it's off to the AMA site to sign up there.
 
New guy here, impressive discussion so far. I am torn, I owned/piloted a 40 foot cruiser for a bunch of years and was always amazed that there is no Captain's license required to take any 'pleasure' vessel on the water. There is nothing worse then trying to pilot a large boat on a narrow waterway and having some jerk on a jetski zooming in and out and not yielding the right of way.

I see this in much the same light, you can kill a lot of people with a 40 foot boat, particularly if you are on a crowded river ( I live near Chicago and boated on Lake Michigan and related rivers ). Yet rather then put a crap load of restrictions on pleasure boats the Coast Guard just rigidly enforces those laws on the books and makes those laws easily searchable and simple to understand.

Seems to me the thing the hobby needs is a way of enforcing the laws on the books. I have seen some really STUPID stunts on youtube already, those folks should be fined, in some cases heavily.

On a boat, even a kayak, you must have it registered and display the registration number right on the hull. The first thing I did when I got my Phantom was register myself with the FAA, put my number on the hull of the Phantom as well as my phone number, just in case of a fly away. I would be all for an affordable beacon to retrofit on my bird.

I have a lot to learn, I've not been above the tree line yet, but really hope I can use this for what I bought it for, a hobbyist flying photo/video platform.

I really appreciate how civil this discussion has been and look forward to contributing. Now it's off to the AMA site to sign up there.
.

I think the problem here is that the FAA isn’t accustomed to dealing with the general public. Ten years ago, the “public” they had to deal with consisted of a handful of RC hobbyists. Now you’ve got fifty kids in every zip code on their street on Christmas afternoon putting a phantom or the like well into what once was the exclusive domain of licensed flight. By comparison, the coast guard was built around a well established civilian boating population, and the rules were built to accommodate that condition.

There’s a lot of people in the FAA “sphere of influence” here that are desperately trying to put the cat back in the bag here. It ain’t happening. There’s enough drones in civilian hands, and a blurry enough line between the levels of the units themselves, that trying to get it back into the exclusive hands of the traditional “guardians of the NAS” is going to be a political quagmire. The only way out of this in my view, no matter how much screaming we get from everybody currently in the FAA purview, is for the regulations to reflect the new reality, rather than trying to force that reality into a box that it simply won’t fit into.
 
It might prevent a lot of the people that get these under there Christmas tree, and after barley reading the quick start guide, run outside to fly them without even knowing a what air space their in. Then they stand there as the drone flys away.

Maybe knowing that they have to have a license, will keep them from getting the drone for Christmas in the first place.

I see some very immature drone flying on youtube by some of the Father's Day drone owners. Everything from spying on their neighbors to trying to send there drone up carrying a bag of rocks.

Just like convicted felons never own guns because they know they can’t.
 
Ten years ago, the “public” they had to deal with consisted of a handful of RC hobbyists.
Only 10? Try 30 or more....There have been RC aircraft since the 70's. And LOTS of them.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic