FAA app of NFZ's currently in beta

[The Editor]

Have not seen anybody pick up on this so thought this may (or maybe not) be of interest to you USA domiciled flyers.

B4UFLY Smartphone App

 

[Tj_]

I noticed it a while back but didn't do anything for me since I'm an Android fanatic.

 

[Joola]

There wasn't a sign up for the beta after development was announced. If there was, I completely missed it. It's nice to see something like this for new pilots make who might not know where to look for up to date TFRs and NFZs.

I hope the app is free. The last thing we need is a paywall between new pilots and information to help them fly safely and legally.

 

[kcobello]

Like it, but I just received a new update on the regs and there is a 500' buffer for people and buildings in place or being proposed. I do think this is a bit much, even for how I feel that the regs are a good thing. You might just be able to fly in a cornfield and that's it.

 

[CaptainBadge]

I am using it. Pretty mediocre. Problem with it, hobbyists will find it pretty cumbersome and professionals should be filing a NOTAM which if you are going through that process it makes the app useless. Now if they incorporated filing a NOTAM in the app then we would be talking. About the only good thing to it is checking out an area ahead of time before you travel there but i have always used foreflight and find it much easier.

 

[Joola]

Like it, but I just received a new update on the regs and there is a 500' buffer for people and buildings in place or being proposed. I do think this is a bit much, even for how I feel that the regs are a good thing. You might just be able to fly in a cornfield and that's it.

Can you explain more? You're saying you received insider info on revisions to the proposed FAA regs that would restrict flight within 500' of people or buildings? As you implied, that would ban recreational operations over most of the US. I'm afraid I don't believe your source.

 

[CaptainBadge]

Nothing new. Common knowledge that 500 feet from non participants is being reviewed as a possibility in upcoming regs. It's already a part of the 333. But to answer your question, it came straight from the Director of the FAAs UAV division who spoke at the UAV Expo last month.

 

[Joola]

Nothing new. Common knowledge that 500 feet from non participants is being reviewed as a possibility in upcoming regs. It's already a part of the 333.

I don't think it's fair to say that's common knowledge. It's not included as an item in the FAA proposed rule making for sUAS. I don't put much stock in the requirements to operate under a 333 exemption because they are erring on the side of caution and have made operation overly restrictive.

 

[CaptainBadge]

Sorry, wording maybe a bit strong. As a 333 operator I think you are right. What many people think incorrectly is that the regs are going to relax with 107. Other than the removal of the Pilots License requirement and replacement with a drone operators license, you will still need a 333, still have to register your aircraft and get N Numbers, still have to file your monthlies and file NOTAMS. The FAA is always going to consider using UAV's for hire to be a commercial aviation endeavor and as such make sure that people operating in this sector abide by the rules. It's nothing new to those of us who have worked in the commercial aviation side, its just new to those just getting into commercial aviation.

 

[Joola]

Got it. I wasn't aware a 333 exemption would still be required to operate commercially. It's tough because there is so much speculation about what's going to happen and what will be required with no reliable timeline as to when it'll be in place. It's a very frustrating waiting game.

 

[CaptainBadge]

Got it. I wasn't aware a 333 exemption would still be required to operate commercially. It's tough because there is so much speculation about what's going to happen and what will be required with no reliable timeline as to when it'll be in place. It's a very frustrating waiting game.

From what we are hearing from the inside you can expect to see Type approval for UAV and something similar to ADS-B which would allow other aircraft in the area to see your drone on its displays. Type approval is going to screw up a whole bunch for people who already have equipment, especially custom stuff. If you think getting a 333 is a pain, wait until they have to make a determination on the airworthiness of your custom aircraft. Bubble = burst.

 

[Recce2]

Getting a 333 is just the start. Add on State registration and commercial operator registration. After that, UAS Liability insurance for each aircraft running about $100/month. Lot's of hoops to jump through.

 

[kcobello]

Can you explain more? You're saying you received insider info on revisions to the proposed FAA regs that would restrict flight within 500' of people or buildings? As you implied, that would ban recreational operations over most of the US. I'm afraid I don't believe your source.

Traverse Legal buddy and I thought I posted the link here. I will repost it.
https://www.dronelaw.pro/faa-rules-...-drone-within-500-feet-of-people-or-property/.

There ya go.

 

[IrishSights]

From here in the UK this sounds bizzare. So the general height restriction is 400' ( or is it 200'?) But you gotta stay 500' from people, vehicles vessels...eh? that means you cannot fly at all unless you have permission? I feel for you guys!

 

[Joola]

Traverse Legal buddy and I thought I posted the link here. I will repost it.
FAA Rules Say You Can't Fly Your Drone Within 500 Feet of People or Property. - Hire a Drone Law Attorney - Section 333 Exemptions.

There ya go.

Yeah, I figured out what you were referring to from other members and another thread that was covering this topic. It's definitely an overly restrictive condition for the 333 exemption. I don't think we'll see it in the actual regs that FAA puts out, except maybe for sUAS over 55 pounds and when testing new equipment/systems. That's just my speculation. We'll have to wait and see.