AIRR proposed rules (goodbye 333's, hello BLOS)

SanCap · Feb 18, 2016

kcobello said:
Trust me when I say I am frustrated for all of us. We have spent thousands to work carefully and follow rules to start a business in commercial AP. We have and are jumping through these hoops to try and make some money and others happy with images of their property and yet we are being held hostage by unreasonable altitiude requirements. Im not talking about over 400' or even 200' which we can work with, but this 500' from buildings, structures and yes people. Im not going to fly 10' over a crowd for that matter but these rules have to be reasonable to perform and I think right now they are not. Sorry my little rant...

Depending on what you are shooting there is a way around the 500 feet rule. You need permission from the structure owner, all people not involved in the production must be free and clear from any debris or UAV that may fall. Its not perfect but it is something. Item # 27 in mine and all 333 exemptions are written like this.

All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:
1. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and
2. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles, or structures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.
  
  The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

kcobello · Feb 18, 2016

Thanks SanCap, That makes me feel a little better... and its reasonable..

SanCap · Feb 18, 2016

kcobello said:
Thanks SanCap, That makes me feel a little better... and its reasonable..

You better have a laser rangefinder in your tool kit!

RaptorMan · Feb 18, 2016

Reasonable my @ss -- this is a clear effort to make use of drones so onerous that ONLY folks being paid big bucks will be able to implement the controls they require. This is a death sentence of private UAV operation -- period!

Brian

SanCap · Feb 18, 2016

RaptorMan said:
Reasonable my @ss -- this is a clear effort to make use of drones so onerous that ONLY folks being paid big bucks will be able to implement the controls they require. This is a death sentence of private UAV operation -- period!

Brian

OK.

damoncooper · Feb 18, 2016

I guess we have justification for the 45mm lens

rmb · Feb 20, 2016

Outta Control said:
I know we all are. Only the folks that are already licensed pilots that fly sUAS are the ones beating their chest about 333.

Reality is the FAA didn't see this coming and just did a knee jerk response into something that should have been dealt with 4 years ago.

rmb · Feb 20, 2016

The problem we are all seeing with these mindless yahoos out there tarnishing the industry is in big part created or at lease sustained by the FAA itself. If UAVs were classified into categories like cars, trucks, taxi cabs, etc. and required an appropriate license and education appropriate to each, and everyone had to take and pass a $500 - $1000 course and re-certify every year or 2, etc. 90% of these idiots would simply go away, the desired safety goals would be achieved and the Feds would put enough money in their pockets to fund real enforcement. But alas, name me 5 things our government does well?

Fly safely all!
R

Mopar Bob · Feb 20, 2016

rmb said:
The problem we are all seeing with these mindless yahoos out there tarnishing the industry is in big part created or at lease sustained by the FAA itself. If UAVs were classified into categories like cars, trucks, taxi cabs, etc. and required an appropriate license and education appropriate to each, and everyone had to take and pass a $500 - $1000 course and re-certify every year or 2, etc. 90% of these idiots would simply go away, the desired safety goals would be achieved and the Feds would put enough money in their pockets to fund real enforcement. But alas, name me 5 things our government does well?

Fly safely all!
R

Yes, I agree with this approach. And like most solutions to big problems, a simple solution will usually work. If you are serious about flying a drone, and safety conscious: take a course, prove your skills and obey the rules. Break the rules and loose your license. That will keep most idiots off the flying arena. Then the FAA can stop coming up with other ******* solutions, that won't work anyway.

RaptorMan · Feb 20, 2016

The problem with an approach like that is that a substantial number of folks with UAV's have really cheap ones that are below the Phantom level and getting them to pay for a license is, well, not going to happen. So, unless you ban them entirely you're left with a tiered approach with the bottom feeders being the ones most responsible for the things that make it into the news in a bad way. Explain to me how you incorporate the entry level folks into a $500 licensing scheme and get back to me...

Brian

Mopar Bob · Feb 20, 2016

RaptorMan said:
The problem with an approach like that is that a substantial number of folks with UAV's have really cheap ones that are below the Phantom level and getting them to pay for a license is, well, not going to happen. So, unless you ban them entirely you're left with a tiered approach with the bottom feeders being the ones most responsible for the things that make it into the news in a bad way. Explain to me how you incorporate the entry level folks into a $500 licensing scheme and get back to me...

Brian

I will take a quick stab at this, recognizing the limited research into the answer. And I offer this as only food for thought. I would classify the entry level drones as toys and allow them to be played with as toys without licensing. Limit them to be flown no higher than 50 feet with a short radius. This can be handled by the quality of the radio installed. Then all other serious pilots should be tested and licensed. This will leave the piloting of the drones used for serious filming or entertainment to only those people willing to pay for the training and testing and are willing to fly by the rules. And lastly, do you think charging for a license is going to detract the serious pilot? You pay $200 for a single battery just to fly. And the battery is disposable.

RaptorMan · Feb 21, 2016

Mopar Bob said:
I will take a quick stab at this, recognizing the limited research into the answer. And I offer this as only food for thought. I would classify the entry level drones as toys and allow them to be played with as toys without licensing. Limit them to be flown no higher than 50 feet with a short radius. This can be handled by the quality of the radio installed. Then all other serious pilots should be tested and licensed. This will leave the piloting of the drones used for serious filming or entertainment to only those people willing to pay for the training and testing and are willing to fly by the rules. And lastly, do you think charging for a license is going to detract the serious pilot? You pay $200 for a single battery just to fly. And the battery is disposable.

In principle that might work but that leaves a few holes...

First, how do you draw the line between toy and non-toy -- what weight, size, speed etc?

And second, what about the millions of drones out there already that you'd classify as toys but have greater range than your limits? Yeah, DJI et al may roll out new firmware that cripples these newly classified toys but what about the folks that refuse to update or complain about buying something that was marketed with one set of capabilities but is now forced into a vastly lower set of capabilities? DJI and the others will need to hire a few thousand lawyers to handle that problem.

Brian

Jimmykjimmy · Feb 21, 2016

So much speculation so much BS. Too bad the FAA has caused all of this.

Mopar Bob · Feb 21, 2016

RaptorMan said:
In principle that might work but that leaves a few holes...

what about the millions of drones out there already that you'd classify as toys but have greater range than your limits?

Brian

Time will take care of that as the older units break or get forgotten. New rules effective only for equipment produced after a certain date. Or something like that.

Phatzo · Feb 21, 2016

damoncooper said:
Good observation. I'm asking in the UAV Legal forum.

where is that forum?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

damoncooper · Feb 21, 2016

Phatzo said:
where is that forum?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FB: UAV Legal something or other. It's public.

Phatzo · Feb 21, 2016

damoncooper said:
FB: UAV Legal something or other. It's public.

thanks, will check.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jay Baldwin · Feb 21, 2016

I have a 333 and find it nearly impossible to fly in compliance and get shots that will make clients happy. I am holding my breath hoping for reasonable advances in application of logic. Many factors could go the right way, but the again, it's the FAA. Keeping my day job until it settles in 2-4 months.

AIRR proposed rules (goodbye 333's, hello BLOS)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency