Section 333

You personally do not need a pilot certificate, but you must have a PIC that does, and a visual observer (VO). You could be the VO.

It reminds me of the law where I live that requires the newspaper delivery boy of 11 years old that must have a motorcycle license to use his bicycle to deliver my newspaper.

(Please don't flame me, I was just offering an analogy).


Ok now I may be a little confused. What do you mean by "PIC"? I want to pilot the UAV. I don't want to observe.
 
You personally do not need a pilot certificate, but you must have a PIC that does, and a visual observer (VO). You could be the VO.

It reminds me of the law where I live that requires the newspaper delivery boy of 11 years old that must have a motorcycle license to use his bicycle to deliver my newspaper.

(Please don't flame me, I was just offering an analogy).
Sort of like watching someone else have sex with your girlfriend...:eek:
 
From what I've heard, they pretty much ignored over 30K comments from the public, and now the big boys (business lobby) are directing much of the rule changes. We'll see.

The NPRM for Part 107 Commercial SUAS operations had about 5,000 comments. Almost a thousand of them were carbon copies from the AMA website, and will likely be counted as one comment. There were a few well studied responses and quite a few really off the wall. And a couple of self-identified CFI's who can expect a visit from their FSDO.
I don't know where the "30,000" ignored responses came from. If someone can point me to the NPRM or Order, I would appreciate it.
 
The NPRM for Part 107 Commercial SUAS operations had about 5,000 comments. Almost a thousand of them were carbon copies from the AMA website, and will likely be counted as one comment. There were a few well studied responses and quite a few really off the wall. And a couple of self-identified CFI's who can expect a visit from their FSDO.
I don't know where the "30,000" ignored responses came from. If someone can point me to the NPRM or Order, I would appreciate it.
It was surely exaggerated when told to me. I assumed that would be understood. Point being, the hobbyist/recreational flyers have absolutely no say in the rule-making process. Big money will decide, as usual.
 
It was surely exaggerated when told to me. I assumed that would be understood. Point being, the hobbyist/recreational flyers have absolutely no say in the rule-making process. Big money will decide, as usual.
Hey Snerd, we agree on something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcknows0 and snerd
It was surely exaggerated when told to me. I assumed that would be understood. Point being, the hobbyist/recreational flyers have absolutely no say in the rule-making process. Big money will decide, as usual.
You're really hung up on money, aren't you?

The Part 107 NPRM is still in process and the law requires all public comments be addressed in the final rules. No one is being ignored. Some will be dismissed as nut-jobs because they simply said - in much less polite terms - "no damned drones - anywhere". (There were a few dozen along that line of thought.) The AMA boilerplate responses will be collected into a single reply. Mostly because the AMA boilerplate did not address a single proposed rule, and most of the thousand (approx) responses from the AMA members didn't even bother replacing the "[Insert personal introduction details such as: I am a [job/profession], a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and have been safely and responsibly flying model aircraft for ___ years. I am also a model aircraft club officer/educator/designer, etc.]. In all, there were about 100 responses that were well reasoned, educated and discussed specific rules proposed. And one from a lawyer who commented more than two dozen times.

But no one will be ignored.

Except for three organizations who were late to file their comments. The FAA basically said, tough. 60-days was enough time. The U.S. Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association, The Helicopter Association International and The Agricultural Retailers Association. If you think industry money is driving things, then the fact that HAI and Ag Pilots didn't get to comment (and they would have certainly been negative) indicates that the FAA is serious about moving quickly on the final rules. In the bureaucracy of the FAA, two years is pretty darned fast.

I find it quite ironic that neither the APOA or the EAA commented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stephen.houser1
You're really hung up on money, aren't you?..........
You really do see the world through rose-colored glasses, don't you? It's not money per se, it's the power that money brings with it. Our entire system of government is now run by it. If you can't even see that, any further conversation will be fruitless.
 
You really do see the world through rose-colored glasses, don't you? It's not money per se, it's the power that money brings with it. Our entire system of government is now run by it. If you can't even see that, any further conversation will be fruitless.
When only 34% of the eligible voters participate, who else is there to influence the decision makers in the Government? Politicians fear most an active, informed electorate. (Faux news is not information).
 
When only 34% of the eligible voters participate, who else is there to influence the decision makers in the Government? Politicians fear most an active, informed electorate. (Faux news is not information).
I don't disagree with any of the above.
 
Wow, that's two things we agree on. We're on a roll.
 
When only 34% of the eligible voters participate, who else is there to influence the decision makers in the Government? Politicians fear most an active, informed electorate. (Faux news is not information).

Do you mean FOX news? You're not one of those guys are you? I came here to talk about the Phantom and get rocking on maybe flying one commercially. Not to hear this nonsense.

(I don't really watch any news channel by the way, I listen to facts and use my own will and thought process to make intelligent decisions for myself.)
 
I never use Fox and News in the same sentence. Oops.
The FAA *says* that you need a Section 333 waiver to fly a small UAS (personal drone) for commercial purposes. But no one from the FAA can tell you *which* rule you would be violating. Raphael Pirker was the first and only drone operator that the FAA charged with flying for commercial purposes without a commercial pilot certificate. But absent a rule, that was dropped from the proceeding rather quickly. No other personal drone operator since then has been charged with flying a personal drone without a commercial pilot certificate.

This is probably why the FAA is advancing the Part 107 rules so quickly.
 
And the part 107 rules will develop a ground school and practical with a UAV in order to receive a "UAV Certificate" right?
 
I never use Fox and News in the same sentence. Oops.
The FAA *says* that you need a Section 333 waiver to fly a small UAS (personal drone) for commercial purposes. But no one from the FAA can tell you *which* rule you would be violating. Raphael Pirker was the first and only drone operator that the FAA charged with flying for commercial purposes without a commercial pilot certificate. But absent a rule, that was dropped from the proceeding rather quickly. No other personal drone operator since then has been charged with flying a personal drone without a commercial pilot certificate.

This is probably why the FAA is advancing the Part 107 rules so quickly.

Lets tell the whole story:
Yesterday, after an appeal by the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board overturned a March decision in FAA v. Pirker that vacated a $10,000 fine imposed on Raphael Pirker for reckless operation of an unmanned aircraft on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The decision now gives the FAA the authority to fine operators of unmanned aerial systems for flying recklessly or carelessly.

http://www.auvsi.org/blogs/auvsi-news/2014/11/18/pirker


Team BlackSheep Drone Pilot Raphael Pirker Settles FAA Case


HONG KONG, January 22, 2015
Team BlackSheep lead pilot Raphael “Trappy” Pirker has
settled the civil penalty proceeding initiated by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in 2013
concerning his flight of a styrofoam Zephyr II model aircraft (or “drone”) at the University of
Virginia in October 2011. The favorable settlement, involving a payment of $1,100 USD, does
not constitute an admission of any of the allegations in the case or an admission of any
regulatory violation.

http://www.team-blacksheep.com/docs/pirker-faa-settlement.pdf
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers