(RE: New UAS regulations) Overeach - thy name is government...(drones)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hypatia's Protege, Jun 21, 2016.

  1. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    Seems the DOT are taking their our toys rather seriously!:rolleyes:

    The new operator requirements are particularly 'amusing'!

    Curious that (second only to possession/use of firearms) private transportation devices (and, hence, autonomous mobility) so frighten our elected officials keepers:confused::rolleyes::mad:

    Best regards

    PS @Aleph(0) -- I can but hope this thread's title meets with your approval...?;)
  2. Aleph(0)


    Mar 14, 2015
    HP I say title is good but content is a little lame:p Cuz you're not noticing part 107 applies just to commercial uas operation! HP it's an easy mistake you made cuz they hide non hobby stipulator pretty well:rolleyes: But I am telling you accurate truth:)! You know my livelihood keeps me like totally wed to FAA so just trust me:)! Now I'm saying ur right about government confusing servant and master:mad:!
  3. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    And I would say your powers of clairvoyance leave much to be desired:rolleyes: -- Indeed you missed my point entirely! Commercial or pleasure said 'conveyances' are TOYS! -- I wonder who'll be the first UAS 'aviator' to be 'pinched' for intoxicated operation?:rolleyes: --- IIRC the federal limit = .04% (i.e. 1/25 of 1%) said low concentration being a rather high bar:D

    All the best
  4. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    I think the concern is that originally the FAA wanted its rules to apply to all operators of anything that flew and was controlled from the ground. That would, of course, include control-line flying, but not free flight! And, it would include the burgeoning hobby of indoor RC flying. There was a lot of political lobbying by the hobbyist group(s), but that group's pockets are not very deep. The US Senate passed an amendment to a reauthorization bill to exempt recreational pilots, but I believe it has been tied up in joint conference committee. Eventually, the FAA stepped back from that original position.

    However, there is deep suspicion that the current Final Rule is just the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak. The FAA has said that its sole intent is to ensure "safety." Are there any other activities in which professional participants are known to be more dangerous than recreational participants? How does one make a link between getting paid and being unsafe?

    It seems more likely that the FAA has made that distinction at this time, because it was the easier path to take given the number of hobbyists versus commercial users. Also, addressing only commercial users now makes it easier to enact increased user fees to fund the enforcement bureaucracy. I suspect that once the dust settles on this initial Rule, the FAA will continue to publicize incidents and the public will see that irresponsible recreational users account for most of them. At that time, recreational users will be enrolled in the program.

    The major problem I have with the FAA rules is their scope of coverage. Not a single member of our modeling club has objected to the need to regulate FPV (first-person view) without a safety pilot in visual contact at all time. In other words, if you put a camera on your airplane and just take pictures of the local filed for fun, it is no more unsafe than flying without a camera. However, if one is flying solely by use of the camera (visualize a military drone), there are obviously greater risks. The problem is that the FAA has lumped FPV without a safety pilot with all other types of RC flying.

    Regards, John
    Aleph(0) and Hypatia's Protege like this.
  5. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    My guess (hope) is that this matter will eventually 'shake out' in a fashion similar to amateur radio regulation (given a return to less radical central government, that is:rolleyes:). Dubious claims of 'public protection' being but the reliable (even if rather predictable) 'foot in the door' anywhere the easily dominated, absolutely gullible, myopic (I daresay even 'kalnienk-minded') 'general public' are concerned:rolleyes:

    Regulators 'follow the money' and long experience has taught them that 'private individuals' will readily (if begrudgingly) pay - so long as they needn't 'jump through' too many 'hoops' -- Consider, for instance, (again, with reference to communications) the 'Type Acceptance' exemption and greatly eased/streamlined 'RF exposure evaluation' requirements applicable to Amateur Radio -- Granted! The ARRL is significantly more 'formidable' than model aircraft advocacy groups -- even so, I feel my illustration 'holds' -- especially in light of the veritable 'goldmine' in fees 'wrestable' from the burgeoning interest in the latter...

    Best regards
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
    jpanhalt likes this.
  6. JohnInTX


    Jun 26, 2012
    @Hypatia's Protege
    Thanks for the report.
    The thread title was modified by a moderator. It wasn't me so I don't know what the original title was. Hopefully, it meets with your approval.
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  7. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    Very pleased to hear that!:)

    The modification consists merely of addition of the string "(drones)" to the right of the original title...

    Indeed it does!:) -- Inasmuch as 'drones' is likely more familiar than 'UAS', the modification likely increased the thread's readership!:)

    Many sincere thanks!