Drone Wars: The FAA Awakens

n57flyguy said:
I am aware of that, it is an AC.

Describe 'balls to the wall' in an attempt to make these illegal for a (and please define a) small operator to use.
Click to expand...
Small operator would be a hobbyist and illegal to use would be using an FPV format to operate them (with or without a spotter) regardless of altitude or location or using any device to capture photos or video without a commercial license. It's way more dangerous to use full size equipment to capture aerial photography.
 
wheelsup said:
That's like saying you can get a speeding ticket for "driving" and RC car down the highway.

You can't; it's not legal to operate an RC car on a highway (if you cause a ruckus the local police will get you for something, I assume). The FAA could make this a lot simpler if they would give hobbyists some reasonable areas to operate in. Now with "rule changes" it's actually not legal to use goggles and race friends between trees. Pretty stupid, what traffic are you going to hit at 3' above the ground?
Click to expand...

Re-read:

It would be wise to insist it is more of their obligation, that even being remotely operated, UA's are aircraft that do fall under the FAA's regulation, rule making, and enforcement, rather than a 'land grab.'
Click to expand...

You are arguing the FAA can't while admitting they just did based on the analogy that it is not legal to race [UA] between trees.
 
wheelsup said:
Small operator would be a hobbyist and illegal to use would be using an FPV format to operate them (with or without a spotter) regardless of altitude or location or using any device to capture photos or video without a commercial license. It's way more dangerous to use full size equipment to capture aerial photography.
Click to expand...

"Operator" gives me impression you are speaking of commercial operations, which is different from being a hobbyist. You can still use UAs for capturing photos for personal use, though yes, you cannot control UAs outside of line-of-sight without normal vision.
 
n57flyguy said:
Re-read:

You are arguing the FAA can't while admitting they just did based on the analogy that it is not legal to race [UA] between trees.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm saying the FAA overstepped and went nuts.

According to the FAA you cannot operate and RC craft using goggles, regardless if LOS limits are observed or not.

Yes as a "hobbyist" (ie non-commercial operator) you can take pictures. But the second you get paid for it, you can't, according to the FAA. It's dumb. Most people won't follow dumb rules that don't make logical sense. The film industry just did it anyway until finally the FAA caved and essentially said "fine, OK, you win, but here's an operating certificate" and they said "whatev".
 
Meh...I'm going to serve up a big hot cup of "I told you so".

It was inevitable that the RC guys, who have decades of responsibility and good citizenship on their side, got hosed on this. The FAA completely blew off the AMA's recommendations.

Thank God the CB craze died out...at least the Ham radio guys are safe...for now.

Richman
 
This is good news - VERY good news. This simply requires UAV owners (US citizens age 13+) to register with FAA at a cost of $5.00, and then affix the registration number to their UAVs that weigh between 250 grams and 55 pounds. Local law enforcement is authorized to intervene when they see reckless, dangerous behavior. Even if the LEO doesn't know FARs, if there's no registration written on the UAV, he can confiscate and subject the owner to a civil penalty up to a $27,500, and possibly criminal charges.

Heavy-handed? No. Pay five bucks, write the number on your toys, fly them properly. It ain't hard.
 
tomokc said:
Heavy-handed? No. Pay five bucks, write the number on your toys, fly them properly. It ain't hard.
Click to expand...

Ain't hard? All I heard in my head was "Challenge Accepted".

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the general public when it comes to anything involving aviation. I've been a fly on the wall while passing through some FBOs and had the privilege of overhearing some real doozies.
 
Am I the only one that does not want the Federal Government licensing these things while they fly over our homes?

One need not look far to see what our government is capable of with respect to drones.
 
tomokc said:
This is good news - VERY good news. This simply requires UAV owners (US citizens age 13+) to register with FAA at a cost of $5.00, and then affix the registration number to their UAVs that weigh between 250 grams and 55 pounds. Local law enforcement is authorized to intervene when they see reckless, dangerous behavior. Even if the LEO doesn't know FARs, if there's no registration written on the UAV, he can confiscate and subject the owner to a civil penalty up to a $27,500, and possibly criminal charges.

Heavy-handed? No. Pay five bucks, write the number on your toys, fly them properly. It ain't hard.
Click to expand...
Reading that further intensifies the ridiculousness of the FAA.

Think of all the kids getting these for Xmas this year. Now technically required to register them with the FAA. Insane.

http://www.amazon.com/Air-Hogs-Fury...0298764&sr=8-1&keywords=air+hog+fury+jump+jet

It's not about the money ($5 every three years, big whoop) it's the incredible overreach by the agency. We're talking RC toys here! A more reasonable set of rules from the FAA would've gone a long way toward encouraging compliance.
 
wheelsup said:
Yeah I'm saying the FAA overstepped and went nuts.

According to the FAA you cannot operate and RC craft using goggles, regardless if LOS limits are observed or not.

Yes as a "hobbyist" (ie non-commercial operator) you can take pictures. But the second you get paid for it, you can't, according to the FAA. It's dumb. Most people won't follow dumb rules that don't make logical sense. The film industry just did it anyway until finally the FAA caved and essentially said "fine, OK, you win, but here's an operating certificate" and they said "whatev".
Click to expand...

You should work on your analogies and colloquial terms then, quite confusing in an industry where certain words mean very different things. :)

As overstepping/overreach is concerned, we all had our time to comment on the NPRM period and discuss it with congress.
 
Can someone explain to me how this makes UAV's safer for other aircraft that are sharing the same sky? I understand it adds some level accountability if someone get's a hold of your drone registration number after an incident where the UAV is downed and it creates a database so law enforcement can go knocking on doors if there is an incident, but is the registration number going to be printed big enough where an aircraft crew can read it while they are overtaking the UAV at ~150 knots?
 
exneophyte said:
Can someone explain to me how this makes UAV's safer for other aircraft that are sharing the same sky? I understand it adds some level accountability if someone get's a hold of your drone registration number after an incident where the UAV is downed and it creates a database so law enforcement can go knocking on doors if there is an incident, but is the registration number going to be printed big enough where an aircraft crew can read it while they are overtaking the UAV at ~150 knots?
Click to expand...

It's not the kind of thing that the FAA can really do much about. So, this is as good as it will get.

Personally, I'm not happy about it. I have 7 "drones" to register, and one that is still in kit form.
 
mshunter said:
I have 7 "drones" to register, and one that is still in kit form.
Click to expand...
57993032.jpg
 
exneophyte said:
57993032.jpg
Click to expand...

Mine all look like real airplanes. So I'm different.

A Cub, a Laser 200, a Dago Red, a P51D, a Hell Cat, a Pitts S2B, and another Cub, but it's still just a bunch of balsa wood sticks. I'm still collecting the rest of the stuff for it (engine, servos, receiver, etc.)

$40 every three years isn't much. But it's still a PITA!
 
mshunter said:
Mine all look like real airplanes. So I'm different.

A Cub, a Laser 200, a Dago Red, a P51D, a Hell Cat, a Pitts S2B, and another Cub, but it's still just a bunch of balsa wood sticks. I'm still collecting the rest of the stuff for it (engine, servos, receiver, etc.)

$40 every three years isn't much. But it's still a PITA!
Click to expand...
And if you don't register it, how could they possibly enforce this?

Or better yet, if I build one from parts, it won't have a serial number in the first place and could hardly be any different from the one the 14yo built that lives right down the street! Stupid law.........

This is clearly a way to have some "meat" in the law if and when a drone hits an airplane.
 
My understanding is you register once and write the number on all your "drones".

If you do it soon it's free for the first round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top