Re: UAS America Files FAA Petition Rulemaking for microdrone
I see two significant problems with the proposed Part 107.
There is a problem with 107.13(h) "No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft over privately-owned property without the express or implied permission from the property owner, tenant in possession, or an authorized representative thereof." It is illogical and likely unenforceable. In the 1946 case U.S. vs. Causby, the Supreme Court said landowners have exclusive right of airspace surrounding their property. In part, the decision says “The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land”. Overflight above 100 ft AGL is completely acceptable as it is not always possible to reach the intended location without some overflight. ( I was once threatened with a lawsuit for flying a helicopter over private property to take aerial photos of an inaccessible property that was completely surrounded by private properties.)
107.19(d) conflicts with the proposed Pilot Qualification and Certification. "UAS Fund proposes that no medical certificate be required for operation of this category of UAS." but 107.19 says: "Any other FAA pilot certificate that has as a requisite a written airman knowledge test may, if said certificate is current and in good standing, serve as a micro unmanned aircraft pilot certificate under subsection (b)". The conflict is that a Pilot Certificate does not expire, but a recurring flight review (the BFR) is required to be current. Therefore I am required by 107.19 to have a current medical and BFR. Since it is impossible to receive a pilot certificate (except for the Student Pilot) without passing a written exam, then currency is not required.
I also have a problem with codifying an insurance requirement in FAR 107. This has never been done before in federal regulations because tort insurance is the exclusive domain of the states. (Don't argue about Obamacare because health insurance is not tort insurance).
Silent is concerned that this may further delay the pending NPRM, but more likely, if this Petition for Rulemaking is similar to what the proposed NPRM also says, the FAA would more likely dismiss the petition without prejudice because of the duplication.