Forbes: Drone Users Largely Silent Regarding FAA Rules

[Boomerang]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcne ... t-flights/

 

[QYV]

that's scary. I guess I'm guilty of not officially commenting, basically for the reason he said it's just so darn complicated. I'll be making my voice heard through!
I wish the guys that made the fireworks videos had the forethought to linkthat article or the FAA comment or something :/

 

[Just_Satch]

Thank you for sharing - I commented and passed on to a friend, hopefully more do the same!

 

[ianwood]

I posted this before but repeating it here:

You can officially make comments on this and the FAA is obligated to review those comments:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComm ... -0396-0001

You'll need to make them in a professional manner to be taken seriously. There's a guideline for comments here:
http://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_Fo ... mments.pdf

If someone wants to write up a template or paragraph or two that succinctly explains why commercial use of UAV should not be treated as aircraft, we can all cut and paste it and get everyone else to do the same.

This is what I wrote:

In the continued absence of regulations for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or more specifically model aircraft, the FAA has been caught in an awkward position. The growth of new types of model aircraft over the past decade including new multi-rotor types has placed increasing pressure on the FAA to define regulations for their safe and practical use in the National Airspace (NAS).

All users of the NAS including model aircraft users should be concerned that these rules still do not exist. And all Americans should be alarmed by the FAA's haphazard and illogical approach to controlling and curtailing the use of model aircraft.

The FAA’s most recent approach is to assert that longstanding regulations for general aviation apply to model aircraft used in commercial applications and they are effectively no different from full-sized aircraft. The FAA makes this claim despite numerous declarations to the contrary over the years along with a total lack of enforcement or other efforts to support this assertion until now. The FAA makes this claim despite the ruling of an NTSB judge against just such an assertion where the FAA tried to apply general aviation aircraft regulations to a 5lb piece of styrofoam.

By defining a model aircraft as a real aircraft, it means it is subject to nearly impossible regulations which would effectively ground all model aircraft in commercial operation until such time the FAA defines actual regulations for their use. At their current rate of progress, that could be several years from now. This only applies to commercial use of model aircraft as private “hobby” use has been placed off limits to the FAA’s interim measures through an act of Congress. This has not stopped the FAA from attempting to promulgate rules that apply to non-commercial use ahead of the real regulations they are long overdue to produce.

Grounding commercial use of model aircraft across the United States may not seem important to some and many others may be unnerved by their use altogether as result of their portrayal in the press. But it is undeniable that the nascent industry is strategically important with numerous beneficial uses being discovered all the time. Consider the following uses:

• search and rescue operations
• inspections in hazardous environments like high-voltage power lines
• wildfire tracking and containment
• agricultural use where farmers can inspect their crops to efficiently identify and fix problems

If the FAA has their way, these uses and many others like them will stop cold in their tracks. Many people will lose their livelihoods. Productivity will suffer and more people will be put at risk. The US will fall further behind in a strategically important new technology. We need the FAA to "fast track” a simple “light-handed” framework for small model aircraft that doesn’t stifle the industry and allows for the safe shared use of the NAS until more comprehensive rules can be put in place.

 

[derrickduff]

Well said Ian. I'll be using your statement if you don't mind with this added in after the paragraph about the FAA applying general aviation regulation to model aircraft:

"Instead of accepting the decision of the NTSB the FAA immediately appealed to the full NTSB board and doubled down on their efforts to outlaw commercial use of model aircraft. This can easily be viewed as a waste of tax payer dollars and quite honestly absurd. The FAA has been mandated by Congress to integrate UAVs into the NAS. This mission to punish those breaking no existing laws is a waste of resources and causing further delays to create a safe integration of UAV’s into the NAS."

 

[varmint]

Bump.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDe ... -0396-0001

Would somebody please sticky that link?

There are 12099 people registered on PhantomPilots alone, DJI alone has 135K followers on their facebood page, and we can't get more than 3500 people to give enough of a shite about their own hobby to spend 5 minutes intelligently commenting? C'mon people.

 

[derrickduff]

The number of replies has jumped about 1000 in the last couple days. We still have two weeks for submissions. I imagine the numbers will go up dramatically the closer we get to the 25th.

 

[ianwood]

We need 1,000s more. Your average non-contentious issues get 10s of thousands of comments.

 

[SilentAV8R]

The crappy response will be used by the FAA to show that this is not a big deal. As I have often said, we are our own worst enemies.

AMA alone has 165,000 members and if every single one of the FAA responses were AMA members it means less than 2% responded. Then add in the non-AMA community and it tells the FAA that we just don't care.

I think a lot of people went to some of the various petitions that were floating around. Those are meaningless to the FAA and will have zero effect on anything.

 

[thongbong]

Is there a way for the admins to send everyone a PM about commenting or making this a sticky?

 

[Happyflyer]

ianwood,
Very well done. If you are looking for another job, I think you would do very well writing speeches for some of the politicians in Washington.

 

[varmint]

Yes, great writing. And thus I have inocculously bumped this topic

 

[CarlJ]

it tells the FAA that we just don't care.

I know this isn't a popular view...but I don't care. It's pretty clear that as a community we're pretty divided. You've got the "do anything I want when I want, and the FFA has no authority" crowd and then the other side that advocates safe responsible flying, and we're NEVER going to agree.

Let them do their worst and clear out the riffraff.

 

[thongbong]

I know this isn't a popular view...but I don't care. It's pretty clear that as a community we're pretty divided. You've got the "do anything I want when I want, and the FFA has no authority" crowd and then the other side that advocates safe responsible flying, and we're NEVER going to agree.

Let them do their worst and clear out the riffraff.

It really does feel like no one really cares or cares to read. I posted in the FPV section about the FAA criminalizing FPV and nobody seemed to give a rats as. Oh well, I tried. I don't fly with FPV goggles, currently, but thought it would be nice to bring attention to the matter for all my brethren pilots. It's going to be a lot easier for the FAA to get something passed on criminalizing FPV then it is to criminalize drones, and they know most drone pilots use FPV.

 

[ianwood]

it tells the FAA that we just don't care.

I know this isn't a popular view...but I don't care. It's pretty clear that as a community we're pretty divided. You've got the "do anything I want when I want, and the FFA has no authority" crowd and then the other side that advocates safe responsible flying, and we're NEVER going to agree.

Let them do their worst and clear out the riffraff.

I am not sure those things are mutually exclusive. I like to think I can advocate and practice safe responsible flying but I also think the FAA has got its head up its backside. Multi-rotors and FPV are not only fundamentally changing the RC space, they're placing entirely new demands on the NAS. Most importantly, they are introducing all sorts of new opportunities. The FAA has been negligent in their lack of readiness to meet these demands. Their lack of foresight has led them to make foolish and impulsive decisions in a failing attempt to fill the void.

Even under the direct orders of Congress, they have failed to make anything work even on a transitional basis.

So, I think there's a lot at stake and we should all care. Ask a realtor. Ask a farmer. Ask a firefighter. Ask a filmmaker. Ask an FPV enthusiast who flies responsibly. And you have to balance that with the interests of privacy, nuisance, public safety, etc. Not to mention keeping the skies safe for all the aircraft that are already flying in it.

It really does feel like no one really cares or cares to read. I posted in the FPV section about the FAA criminalizing FPV and nobody seemed to give a rats as. Oh well, I tried. I don't fly with FPV goggles, currently, but thought it would be nice to bring attention to the matter for all my brethren pilots. It's going to be a lot easier for the FAA to get something passed on criminalizing FPV then it is to criminalize drones, and they know most drone pilots use FPV.

I don't read the FPV section. In fact, I am so glad it exists because it means I don't have read the "which FPV should I get" posts 30 times a day! You should repost it in this thread.

 

[thongbong]

I don't read the FPV section. In fact, I am so glad it exists because it means I don't have read the "which FPV should I get" posts 30 times a day! You should repost it in this thread.

What I posted in the FPV section was a direct link to this thread and another of the same matter, as to not make multiple threads of the same issue. just trying to call attention to the issue at hand since the FAA's ruling will highly impact any FPV'er out there.

 

[CarlJ]

I am not sure those things are mutually exclusive. I like to think I can advocate and practice safe responsible flying but I also think the FAA has got its head up its ***. Multi-rotors and FPV are not only fundamentally changing the RC space, they're placing entirely new demands on the NAS. Most importantly, they are introducing all sorts of new opportunities. The FAA has been negligent in their lack of readiness to meet these demands. Their lack of foresight has led them to make foolish and impulsive decisions in a failing attempt to fill the void.

Even under the direct orders of Congress, they have failed to make anything work even on a transitional basis.

So, I think there's a lot at stake and we should all care. Ask a realtor. Ask a farmer. Ask a firefighter. Ask a filmmaker. Ask an FPV enthusiast who flies responsibly. And you have to balance that with the interests of privacy, nuisance, public safety, etc. Not to mention keeping the skies safe for all the aircraft that are already flying in it.

Without doubt there are those that span both sides, people with keen minds and good intentions. I'd stand up for people like that, but you know I'm not talking about you.

 

[QYV]

I know this isn't a popular view...but I don't care. It's pretty clear that as a community we're pretty divided. You've got the "do anything I want when I want, and the FFA has no authority" crowd and then the other side that advocates safe responsible flying, and we're NEVER going to agree.

Let them do their worst and clear out the riffraff.

the part of this position that confuses me is how you think the FAA is just going to clean out the riffraff and leave you alone to enjoy your hobby. They aren't trying to "clean out the riffraff" they want to regulate quadcopters and 5ghz FPV video transmission out of existence completely... so guess what I'm the riffraff, you're the riffraff, we're all the riffraff.

 

[SilentAV8R]

the part of this position that confuses me is how you think the FAA is just going to clean out the riffraff and leave you alone to enjoy your hobby. They aren't trying to "clean out the riffraff" they want to regulate quadcopters and 5ghz FPV video transmission out of existence completely... so guess what I'm the riffraff, you're the riffraff, we're all the riffraff.

Sort of. From what I can see they want to stop all BLOS flying and/or the use of goggles. But there is so much more they want to do as well. Like cripple the model industry's ability to develop, test, and market new RC aircraft, require people to get permission to fly within 5 miles of an airport as opposed to simply notifying the airport, subject all modelers to enforcement using Part 91 manned aircraft rules as they see fit, and they laid the groundwork to use their ability to formulate new rules affecting airspace that may ultimately end much of the current RC hobby (aerobatic flying, soaring, jets, etc.)

So this thing is so much more than just the VLOS/FPV googles issue.

 

[CarlJ]

the part of this position that confuses me is how you think the FAA is just going to clean out the riffraff and leave you alone to enjoy your hobby. They aren't trying to "clean out the riffraff" they want to regulate quadcopters and 5ghz FPV video transmission out of existence completely... so guess what I'm the riffraff, you're the riffraff, we're all the riffraff.

I live on a farm in rural Indiana, so I'll always be able to fly. If the FAA requires us to be licensed, I'll comply, in fact I hope it's that easy. Don't really care about FPV...so I guess that covers it.