UAS: The FAA Tightens the Screws

[BigAl07]

In a story titled:
UAS: The FAA Tightens the Screws
Plane-ly Spoken
March 14, 2019 by Mark E. McKinnon

UAS operators will be facing greater oversight and inspections from local Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) under a new National Policy recently issued by the FAA. The document requires all FSDOs to immediately update their 2019 National Work Program Guidelines to include new Required Surveillance Work Activities. (click the link below for the FULL story)

UAS: The FAA Tightens the Screws

UAS operators will be facing greater oversight and inspections from local Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) under a new National Policy recently

plane-lyspoken.com

 

[SirThomas]

I see a positive out of this. If FSDO's do more surveillance, then both legal hobby and 107s should be in great shape since we will be following the rules. If fines and confiscation of illegal activity starts to increase, that word will get out on the 'net and that might get rid of a lot of the folks giving the hobby/occupation a bad reputation.

I did find it interesting that the FSDO's might focus their attention on areas where they have had reports before, but ALSO locations that have been requested by LAANC. That second part makes me feel like they are going to be a little like rangers checking licenses at local fishing holes just to make sure everyone is legally flying.

 

[BigAl07]

I see a positive out of this. If FSDO's do more surveillance, then both legal hobby and 107s should be in great shape since we will be following the rules. If fines and confiscation of illegal activity starts to increase, that word will get out on the 'net and that might get rid of a lot of the folks giving the hobby/occupation a bad reputation.

I did find it interesting that the FSDO's might focus their attention on areas where they have had reports before, but ALSO locations that have been requested by LAANC. That second part makes me feel like they are going to be a little like rangers checking licenses at local fishing holes just to make sure everyone is legally flying.

That's in line with my reading as well. I support and encourage BOTH!!

 

[Andre Levite]

Anything that improves safety in close proximity to airports benefits everybody. I'm glad they are taking this step before there's an incident. When an incident eventually does happen FAA will be forced to drop the hammer.

Air safety has been the top news story for months first with the airport shutdowns in England and now with the 737 Max groundings. Drone pilots need to avoid that kind of negative national attention.

 

[BigAl07]

Very well said @Andre Levite

 

[Andre Levite]

Very well said @Andre Levite

Thanks, Boss!

 

[Deleted member 15525]

I wish they could do more. Now that I earned FAA Cert. to fly 107 I can’t believe how many people do it illegally. Realtors don’t know or care that they could lose their license using a friend with no license to work for them.

The only area that bothers me is how picky the FAA is about flying over people. You can’t even get a waiver if you specify a low altitude and small drone with prop guards.. FAA should stay focused on keeping the air space safe and let us use common sense when it comes to flying near people.. I also think it’s ridiculous that we can’t fly in or over state parks. If no people are present that should be allowed.

 

[BigAl07]

The only area that bothers me is how picky the FAA is about flying over people. You can’t even get a waiver if you specify a low altitude and small drone with prop guards.

The majority of the danger of a falling sUAS isn't from the props but the falling MASS of the aircraft striking a person. Prop guards are designed to protect the PROPS from strikes against solid surfaces. If you wanted to try and keep a person from getting prop strikes you'd need a more 360deg protection then just from the tips of the props.

While the aircraft on this forum are on the LIGHTER side of the spectrum anything over .55lbs and under 50lbs is in the same basket. Do you want a 5lb sUAS spiraling down towards your head or the head of someone you love? what about 10lb or more? sUAS is a broad range with the majority being heavier and larger than just the Spark and Tello. Think BIG PICTURE and it makes more sense.

FAA should stay focused on keeping the air space safe and let us use common sense when it comes to flying near people.

Exactly how is keeping a sUAS from falling on people's heads NOT attempting to keep Airspace Safe?

The problem is so many people lack or prefer to NOT use common sense. We, as an industry, did not demonstrate the ability to "police ourselves" leaving the door wide open for the FAA to step in and do it for us.


The FAA gave us more than enough time to prove we could self police and we merely proved the opposite and still do so daily. John Q. Public is now worried about sUAS (partially they should be but mostly it's media HYPE) and the majority speaks and the law makers will react and not so kindly.

I also think it’s ridiculous that we can’t fly in or over state parks. If no people are present that should be allowed.

We can fly OVER state & National parks. We can't fly FROM National Parks and in some states some state parks but we CAN fly over them. Personally I'm very glad we have strong restrictions on Parks in general because many of us go to these areas to get away from nuisances and technology all together. There are way too many other great places to fly that would not spoil the beauty and NATURE in the parks to open them up to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thinks they have a right to fly there.

How in the world can you know "no people are present"? National Parks are supposed to be NATURAL and WILD (mostly) so why spoil that with our toys?

 

[Deleted member 15525]

I’m all for rules but TO ME airspace refers to the airspace where planes fly... killing 200 people by flying to high or to near controlled airspace is what the rules are all about. there is little risk in flying a spark with prop guards 50 feet over people’s heads and it’s a risk I am willing to take. If I hurt someone it’s on me. If someone did get hurt (very unlikely with safe guards in place including visual observers) it would most likely be one person. A law that is in place to protect one person normally doesn’t happen..

I think you better read up. I thought the same about state parks but I have read that the FAA says not to fly over state parks as well as from them. Someone else chime in about that.

 

[Deleted member 15525]

By the way don’t be to hard on me. I’m not photographing the outdoor school event I had hoped to because I take the part 107 rules seriously..

 

[Deleted member 15525]

Do you really own a UAS? Toys? I know there’s no one there when there are no cars in the lot and I see no people.. it’s the most beautiful place to take pictures.

 

[BigAl07]

I’m all for rules but TO ME airspace refers to the airspace where planes fly... killing 200 people by flying to high or to near controlled airspace is what the rules are all about.

Well the definition of the National Airspace System is from the tops of the ground/grass etc up to where outer space (or is it inner space) starts. While it's not been tested in court in many years I suspect with our new technology the Court System will re-enforce that theory going forward when/if it's challenged. If your aircraft CAN fly higher than 100', weighs more than a stick of butter, has GPS guidance and Gyro Stabilization it should be regulated as an aircraft and limited to where it can fly in the NAS.

there is little risk in flying a spark with prop guards 50 feet over people’s heads and it’s a risk I am willing to take. If I hurt someone it’s on me. If someone did get hurt (very unlikely with safe guards in place including visual observers) it would most likely be one person. A law that is in place to protect one person normally doesn’t happen..

But this is about more than just our SPARK! That''s but one of MANY sUAS that are being regulated. Until sUAS Classifications come about a Spark gets the same regulations as Alta8 or Matrice class aircraft...period.

If you or that "one person" is the one hurt you might feel a little bit differently. Safety is about All not all but one.

Do you really own a UAS? Toys?

Do I own a sUAS? I own a "couple" and I've flown sUAS from micro-Mini (palm of your hand) up to fixed wing that have 8'+ wingspan and spinning a 24" prop. I've flown some sUAS that were capable of over 120MPH.

Yes our Sparks, Mavics, and Phantoms really are toys. They use toy grade components with toy grade specs for off-the-shelf purchasing. Just because we USE them for more than toys doesn't make them any more robust and less toy.

I know there’s no one there when there are no cars in the lot and I see no people.. it’s the most beautiful place to take pictures.

I'd bet you money I've been "there" with no vehicles. We get dropped off or if we are very eager we leave a vehicle in a distant area and hike down to camp for the week and hike back out. Lack of a vehicle does not guarantee no one is in the area. Our Parks are regulated to maintain the NATURAL aspect and I hope and pray they stay that way for many generations to come.

 

[Andre Levite]

Well the definition of the National Airspace System is from the tops of the ground/grass etc up to where outer space (or is it inner space) starts. While it's not been tested in court in many years I suspect with our new technology the Court System will re-enforce that theory going forward when/if it's challenged. If your aircraft CAN fly higher than 100', weighs more than a stick of butter, has GPS guidance and Gyro Stabilization it should be regulated as an aircraft and limited to where it can fly in the NAS.


But this is about more than just our SPARK! That''s but one of MANY sUAS that are being regulated. Until sUAS Classifications come about a Spark gets the same regulations as Alta8 or Matrice class aircraft...period.

If you or that "one person" is the one hurt you might feel a little bit differently. Safety is about All not all but one.



Do I own a sUAS? I own a "couple" and I've flown sUAS from micro-Mini (palm of your hand) up to fixed wing that have 8'+ wingspan and spinning a 24" prop. I've flown some sUAS that were capable of over 120MPH.

Yes our Sparks, Mavics, and Phantoms really are toys. They use toy grade components with toy grade specs for off-the-shelf purchasing. Just because we USE them for more than toys doesn't make them any more robust and less toy.



I'd bet you money I've been "there" with no vehicles. We get dropped off or if we are very eager we leave a vehicle in a distant area and hike down to camp for the week and hike back out. Lack of a vehicle does not guarantee no one is in the area. Our Parks are regulated to maintain the NATURAL aspect and I hope and pray they stay that way for many generations to come.

You are witnessing the all to common "wild West - no rules" attitude. People acting like if you break the rules but don't get caught that everything is still okay.

Inevitably somebody will cause an injury or get caught flaunting a regulation. That's the day that flying a drone is criminalized. The only way to not be "that guy" is to fly know the rules and fly responsibly.

 

[GeoM1]

I wish they could do more. Now that I earned FAA Cert. to fly 107 I can’t believe how many people do it illegally. Realtors don’t know or care that they could lose their license using a friend with no license to work for them.

The only area that bothers me is how picky the FAA is about flying over people. You can’t even get a waiver if you specify a low altitude and small drone with prop guards.. FAA should stay focused on keeping the air space safe and let us use common sense when it comes to flying near people.. I also think it’s ridiculous that we can’t fly in or over state parks. If no people are present that should be allowed.

Good points! I agree that many realtors do not know rules yet, but I do think most do care.

 

[BigAl07]

Good points! I agree that many realtors do not know rules yet, but I do think most do care.

Any Realtor who is even remotely "in the loop" with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has been notified, trained, warned, and pummeled with the rules that they must have a Part 107 or use a supplier who is Part 107. NAR is VERY proactive and forth coming (since roughly 2015, a year before Part 107 was even a real thing). This isn't a new/recent requirement and they will lose their license if they are caught and proven guilty of operating without a license.

If a Realtor claims they don't know about needing Part 107 they are about 99% positive to be outright lying to your face and simply trying to save a few $$ along the way.

 

[Troy.Spark]

Here is my one cents worth on this. Rules and Laws never will make anything safe. Only the person in charge of the craft will. Case in point look at autos and Moyorcycles how many laws and rules are their. Now tell me how many times a day you see them broken. Or better yea even if they are being follow and a wreck happens people are still hurt. Hence my thoughts here. People will do what people want. Why be hard on the people trying to do the right things.

 

[BigAl07]

Here is my one cents worth on this. Rules and Laws never will make anything safe. Only the person in charge of the craft will. Case in point look at autos and Moyorcycles how many laws and rules are their. Now tell me how many times a day you see them broken. Or better yea even if they are being follow and a wreck happens people are still hurt. Hence my thoughts here. People will do what people want. Why be hard on the people trying to do the right things.

How many more wrecks and worse wrecks would happen if there were not rules/laws on the roads?

 

[SirThomas]

Here is my one cents worth on this. Rules and Laws never will make anything safe. Only the person in charge of the craft will.

I would agree that rules and laws by themselves will not make operating something safe. The people who operate them must also be willing to recognize that the rules are defined for the greater good of all users and that if all users agree to follow those rules, that indeed in general the activity will be safer.

I worked for a company that hammered safety in the workplace home every week until it was a way of thinking not just a set of rules. The result was that company was 6x more safe to work at than other companies in its industry and 10x more safe than a company in general.

I think your example of automobile drivers is a good one. Compare the compliance with rules of auto drivers compared with aircraft pilots. There is a reason why it is safer to fly than to drive to the airport.

 

[Troy.Spark]

If we want to make the UAV as safe as possible then you need to be licensed to purchase said toy. Then nobody could claim ignorance.

 

[lmel2005]

Every piece of technology gets "regulated" when it reaches a "critical mass".
Regulations have to adapt, as technology evolves, also.

Rules for drones came, when their number reached some millions worldwide.

So, most of us agree, that drones must be regulated, for safety reasons mainly.

BUT.
Rules must be logical, operators must follow the rules, and public must be informed about drone technology.

All this paranoia about drones, is not logical.
Drones are NOT lethal weapons. Statistics are very encouraging.

If someone is breaking a rule (or law), it's a matter of authorities to enforce this rule.
Stop all this crying about "they are ruining our hobby".
It's not logical to say "new rules are coming, because someone violated the rules".

For example, let's say someone flew over an airfield.
What "new" regulation do you expect, after that? Flying over airfields, is ALREADY illegal!

Commercial drones will be the hobbyists "enemy" in the future.
They will use the same airspace with us, and big companies don't share anything.