The "Reality" of Commercial UAV Use?

[PCMAerial]

So after this new FAA Ruling, while researching and trying to learn as many facets of the law as possible. I'm curious as to what your take is on the "REALITY" of a commercial UAV operator here in the United States?

Not here to stir a political debate, or a debate of hobbyists vs professionals, or US vs UK. Just a general discussion, what are we gonna do? I'll admit my piece of UAV equipment has helped pay the bills quite a few times using afe and responsible flying (below 400ft, miles from airports, no flying over civilians)

So now I'm wondering what the heck everyone is doing. My mind has been scrambled since this ruling, and I know I can't be the only one..

Anyone phased and now no longer flying commercially?
Anyone not phased and still flying & paying the bills?
Is it a hobby and you don't mind the new ruling?
I've seen new petitions going around and signed every one already.

I truly believe in preserving our craft of UAV for of course hobby flights, but also for professional and responsible, SAFE commercial flights. Then comes the debate of "SAFE" vs "Unsafe".

So after rambling I'm just curious, what does everyone think?

-Thanks

 

[Ronan]

AFAIK there are no LAWS that states you can't make money using a r/c platform. The FAA can blow steam all they want, they do not make laws out of thin air. There's already a federal judge that slap them for it, and i beleive the US President also mentioned something awhile back.

There's thousands of companies out there using r/c platforms for various things. They are a big plus to the economy, safety and a whole range of other factors. That's why pretty much all countries in the world adapted some basic laws and guidelines YEARS ago and moved on to more important topics.

 

[Old Man]

Personally, I think the only reason airspace integration of UAV's hasn't happened yet is because the language hasn't been perfected that locks the small players out. Just suppose the FAA actually manages to permit "homebuilt" aircraft as they did with full scale homebuilts, they would end up labelled as "experimental" and not permitted for use in most commercial operations.

As one that was cognizant of aerospace industry efforts in the initial discussions with the FAA about opening airspace to UAV use, I know first hand that modeling activities weren't initially even considered. The play ground was only intended for the big boys. When the airspace opens up they will likely only permit "certificated" aircraft. Those aircraft will be equipped with avionics and other sensors we can't carry due to their size and weight, let alone afford. There will be structural requirements that will have to be proven through brutally expensive testing, then years of waiting for approval after submitting test documentation.

Then we have the "Commercial Pilot" factor to consider. As the regs now stand one must be a rated Commercial Pilot in order to fly for hire. The low time Commercial Pilot is quite limited in what they can get paid to do. Banner tow, local scenic flights within XX miles of the departure airport, flight instruction, agricultural spraying, and aerial photography. A couple of those work for us but one still has to bear the time and expense of becoming an actual rated full scale pilot. OTH, the large UAV corporations have been shifting their operations over to rated pilots. For a few years they were using civilians without full scale training but have pretty much all shifted to requiring all their operators to have at least an FAA Third Class medical certificate and have passed the Private Pilot written exam. Some are requiring a Class II medical certificate, which is the commercial level medical. The folks pushing the Predator require at minimum a Private Pilot certificate with an Instrument rating. Ultimately I think everyone will have to be a rated pilot for work inside the U.S. regardless of what they fly if done for hire.

Since big money controls big government my guess has the aerospace corporations and the military/law enforcement groups using this period of time to set in concrete the path the FAA will establish moving forward. It's all about the money and corporate America certainly wants all of the money and no competition. Big companies love extensive regulations because they can afford to deal with them, already having the staff in play for the work involved. The small guy can't afford to hire all the various function people necessary to keep up with the paperwork. We'll still be able to do this but only on the sly. Caught advertising flying for hire without the ratings and type certificates and it will be a lot worse than getting caught contracting without a license.

 

[Ronan]

Personally, I think the only reason airspace integration of UAV's hasn't happened yet is because the language hasn't been perfected that locks the small players out. Just suppose the FAA actually manages to permit "homebuilt" aircraft as they did with full scale homebuilts, they would end up labelled as "experimental" and not permitted for use in most commercial operations.

As one that was cognizant of aerospace industry efforts in the initial discussions with the FAA about opening airspace to UAV use, I know first hand that modeling activities weren't initially even considered. The play ground was only intended for the big boys. When the airspace opens up they will likely only permit "certificated" aircraft. Those aircraft will be equipped with avionics and other sensors we can't carry due to their size and weight, let alone afford. There will be structural requirements that will have to be proven through brutally expensive testing, then years of waiting for approval after submitting test documentation.

Then we have the "Commercial Pilot" factor to consider. As the regs now stand one must be a rated Commercial Pilot in order to fly for hire. The low time Commercial Pilot is quite limited in what they can get paid to do. Banner tow, local scenic flights within XX miles of the departure airport, flight instruction, agricultural spraying, and aerial photography. A couple of those work for us but one still has to bear the time and expense of becoming an actual rated full scale pilot. OTH, the large UAV corporations have been shifting their operations over to rated pilots. For a few years they were using civilians without full scale training but have pretty much all shifted to requiring all their operators to have at least an FAA Third Class medical certificate and have passed the Private Pilot written exam. Some are requiring a Class II medical certificate, which is the commercial level medical. The folks pushing the Predator require at minimum a Private Pilot certificate with an Instrument rating. Ultimately I think everyone will have to be a rated pilot for work inside the U.S. regardless of what they fly if done for hire.

Since big money controls big government my guess has the aerospace corporations and the military/law enforcement groups using this period of time to set in concrete the path the FAA will establish moving forward. It's all about the money and corporate America certainly wants all of the money and no competition. Big companies love extensive regulations because they can afford to deal with them, already having the staff in play for the work involved. The small guy can't afford to hire all the various function people necessary to keep up with the paperwork. We'll still be able to do this but only on the sly. Caught advertising flying for hire without the ratings and type certificates and it will be a lot worse than getting caught contracting without a license.

I fail to see why/how the FAA doesn't do what most other government entities in other countries have done (years ago too).

I would be pretty damn ashamed to be working for the FAA at this point.

I also would like to know what say the FAA has in MY private airspace, i.e: my garden, or on private owned land that has closed airspace (i.e: nuclear powerplant, energy plants, certain industrial sites, etc). I doubt they can say anything as it's all owned and closed airspace (no commercial flights near those places).

 

[AboveAllAP]

CNN think they can report about this

[video]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/06/25/exp-erin-sot-quest-amazon-delivery-drones.cnn.html[/video]

 

[Ronan]

So anyone has a actual concrete answer on the FAA ban of commercial drones?

The lawyer i talked too a year ago told me it's not a legality issue since there are no laws that states drone's can't be used commercial, except for the FAA claiming there is with no legal back-up.

I just saw in the news again that the FAA said commercial drones are illegal and a bunch of drone users commentating that they are waiting for them to become legal.

 

[kloner]

I also would like to know what say the FAA has in MY private airspace, i.e: my garden, or on private owned land that has closed airspace (i.e: nuclear powerplant, energy plants, certain industrial sites, etc). I doubt they can say anything as it's all owned and closed airspace (no commercial flights near those places).

I'm 99% sure airspace starts where things that are not attached to the ground end.... ie the airspace over your garden isn't yours. I'm on 5 acres and have military, private planes, commercial jets all fly over it and nobodys ever asked or sent me tax for using it..... it can be controlled airspace or uncontrolled airspace, non the less it aint yours.

the only private owned land i've seen with closed airspace over it in my area is disneyland..... theres actual notams posted and refreshed as they expire. in school i remember something about wildlife refuges had a 2500 foot ceiling,,, probably to avoid migratory birds more than anything else. military has a crap load marked out on the map

 

[Ronan]

I'm 99% sure airspace starts where things that are not attached to the ground end.... ie the airspace over your garden isn't yours. I'm on 5 acres and have military, private planes, commercial jets all fly over it and nobodys ever asked or sent me tax for using it..... it can be controlled airspace or uncontrolled airspace, non the less it aint yours.

the only private owned land i've seen with closed airspace over it in my area is disneyland..... theres actual notams posted and refreshed as they expire. in school i remember something about wildlife refuges had a 2500 foot ceiling,,, probably to avoid migratory birds more than anything else. military has a crap load marked out on the map

What about the whole 'above 400 feet from your land' is where 'public' airspace starts?

I know where i work it's private airspace and no military or commercial flights are allowed (powerplant).

 

[econfly]

What about the whole 'above 400 feet from your land' is where 'public' airspace starts?

I know where i work it's private airspace and no military or commercial flights are allowed (powerplant).

You are being sensible. But since when has government been sensible? The best solution, in my mind, to all of this is clarification along the lines you suggest.

Set a ceiling above ground and define property rights clearly under that ceiling to belong to the land owner. That takes care of just about everything. Want to spray agricultural land by flying under that ceiling? -- no problem, you own the land you own the space. Want to fly RC under that ceiling? -- no problem, if you own the land or have permission.

The RC community is no help to itself here. You look at just about every incident (or even imagined incident) and what you find is someone flying over land they don't own. It's the clown flying over airport space, the FPV guy zooming over a ballpark or public space (cities, etc.). RC types need to accept that property rights matter, and it's both rude and intrusive to fly over property they don't own or have permission to use. Personally, I see someone's phantom over my farm and it's time for some skeet practice.

On the other side of this, it makes zero sense to say that the government or manned aircraft have some special right to every inch of airspace over my land. Now clearly we have a subjective gray area here, but we just need to pick a sensible number (I would prefer more like 1000 feet than something small like 400).

It's beyond simple if we approach it sensibly: Under 1,000 feet (say, for example) the landowner decides who flies. Above that it's public airspace and subject to FAA rules.

What will screw this up, almost certainly, will be a combination of two entitled groups who don't respect private property: (1) RC users, hobby types and commercial, who want to fly over land they don't own, and (2) manned aircraft advocates who will insist on taking as much airspace as they can get. The result will be a complex and confusing mess, which is to say that it will be just like everything else produced by government.

 

[Ronan]

You are being sensible. But since when has government been sensible? The best solution, in my mind, to all of this is clarification along the lines you suggest.

Set a ceiling above ground and define property rights clearly under that ceiling to belong to the land owner. That takes care of just about everything. Want to spray agricultural land by flying under that ceiling? -- no problem, you own the land you own the space. Want to fly RC under that ceiling? -- no problem, if you own the land or have permission.

The RC community is no help to itself here. You look at just about every incident (or even imagined incident) and what you find is someone flying over land they don't own. It's the clown flying over airport space, the FPV guy zooming over a ballpark or public space (cities, etc.). RC types need to accept that property rights matter, and it's both rude and intrusive to fly over property they don't own or have permission to use. Personally, I see someone's phantom over my farm and it's time for some skeet practice.

On the other side of this, it makes zero sense to say that the government or manned aircraft have some special right to every inch of airspace over my land. Now clearly we have a subjective gray area here, but we just need to pick a sensible number (I would prefer more like 1000 feet than something small like 400).

It's beyond simple if we approach it sensibly: Under 1,000 feet (say, for example) the landowner decides who flies. Above that it's public airspace and subject to FAA rules.

What will screw this up, almost certainly, will be a combination of two entitled groups who don't respect private property: (1) RC users, hobby types and commercial, who want to fly over land they don't own, and (2) manned aircraft advocates who will insist on taking as much airspace as they can get. The result will be a complex and confusing mess, which is to say that it will be just like everything else produced by government.

Agreed and it makes me laugh. France, UK, Canada, and a LOT of other countries have dealt with it years ago, everyone is (mostly) happy and it's business as usual.

What is so different about America?

 

[econfly]

A big part of the problem is that a sensible solution would almost certainly require the FAA and/or manned aircraft to relinquish some control. That won't happen. The manned flight guys are going to want as much space as they can get and they will use safety as an argument. And remember that there is a lot of money at stake here. Just as many here would like to use RC craft to make money filming, there are existing commercial interests for using manned aircraft to do the same, just for example. And the simple (and my preferred) solution of allocating clear airspace property rights (under some sensible ceiling) to landowners implicitly undermines the ability of commercial and governmental interests to control that same space. Just consider Amazon and the like with their pipedreams/hopes of using "drones" for deliveries. Most likely they will want some rights to fly over private property (and not just the property of the package recipient). Simply put we have too many interests with conflicting desires to expect this to end well.

 

[dazzab]

Safety my ***! If a 747 is in the same airspace that I fly my SkyJib in then they have a lot more to worry about than my 'drone'.

 

[Bartman]

i don't think it's about the big players wanting a piece of the sUAS market. After all, the US aerospace industry hasn't made a regional airliner yet with them coming almost exclusively from Brazil, Canada, and France. Why would they suddenly want to make 10lb drones when Embraer has been killing the market initially with EMB 145's and now EMB 170's???

I think it's about the FAA being too insecure to admit they've screwed all of this up and their need to save face by making it all seem very technical and methodical now that they've started with a few test sites. I keep saying that the FAA doesn't roll over for anyone and certainly not for a user group that they probably laugh at in private. It sucks for us but that's my guess.

 

[stitch1615]

What about the whole 'above 400 feet from your land' is where 'public' airspace starts?

I know where i work it's private airspace and no military or commercial flights are allowed (power plant).

I believe the space above your power plant is "restricted airspace" not private airspace and it was the FAA that determined that for safety reasons. Airports, power plants, military bases and a few others are Restricted Airspace as indicated on sectional charts used by pilots.
As is typical, the US government takes years and years to do anything. It is so bogged down in it's own red tape that seldom does anything get done in a timely fashion. My guess is that at some point the EPA will also get involved and not want LiPo batteries flying over fire prone forests. It's ridiculous bureaucratic BS but they will get around to it sooner or later.
In the mean time money will be made, rules will be broken and I suspect that at sometime they will put the responsibility on the shoulders of the manufacturers and sellers.
Most fireworks are illegal in the state of Florida unless you have a pyrotechnic license so the sellers now have you sign a waiver saying that you hold a license. You don't have to show it, you simply have to say you have it. Fireworks sales are booming, pun intended, and no one is getting arrested unless you burn down someones house.
I believe the FAA is cocked and ready to pounce as soon as someones garage gets burned down or a fly away hurts some kid in a playground.
These rules have been posted in the Federal Register and that is all they need to go to court on.
If you have the time and resources to fight them then go ahead and taunt them. Don't look for DJI or Horizon Hobby to be your saviour and come to your rescue, I don't see it happening.

Fly safe and let the sleeping giant lie.

 

[Eightball]

If you guy's want to get the FAA off are back's STOP flying over 400 ft STOP flying over or around people STOP flying in the city's STOP flying around airport's STOP making videos and putting them on YouTube and Facebook were they can be used against you. STAY out of there airspace by Law no aircraft large or small can come under 500 ft only to land or takeoff can they come under 500 ft. I am a aircraft mech and I worked for these people for 30 Yrs they are no joke. They fly over a billion people a year in the US with no accident's and they are going to keep it that way. From what I read the new law is saying that you can not fly FPV with goggles. I did not see any thing on flying FPV with a Monitor. If you see someone doing this kind of flying ask them to STOP. It is very hard to get a ruling for us when the FAA has 100,000 video's of this kind of flying.

 

[Bartman]

If you guy's want to get the FAA off are back's STOP flying over 400 ft STOP flying over or around people STOP flying in the city's STOP flying around airport's STOP making videos and putting them on YouTube and Facebook were they can be used against you. STAY out of there airspace by Law no aircraft large or small can come under 500 ft only to land or takeoff can they come under 500 ft. I am a aircraft mech and I worked for these people for 30 Yrs they are no joke. They fly over a billion people a year in the US with no accident's and they are going to keep it that way. From what I read the new law is saying that you can not fly FPV with goggles. I did not see any thing on flying FPV with a Monitor. If you see someone doing this kind of flying ask them to STOP. It is very hard to get a ruling for us when the FAA has 100,000 video's of this kind of flying.

It all seems very simple when you put it that way!

 

[Bartman]

Safety my ***! If a 747 is in the same airspace that I fly my SkyJib in then they have a lot more to worry about than my 'drone'.

maybe not a 747 but how about a medevac helicopter with nurses, pilots, and patients on board? then can very well transit your flying site at high speed and low altitude on their way to or from an accident or hospital.

 

[econfly]

maybe not a 747 but how about a medevac helicopter with nurses, pilots, and patients on board? then can very well transit your flying site at high speed and low altitude on their way to or from an accident or hospital.

This is where I just don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

Take your example. Obviously that medevac heli needs to land somewhere to pick up the patient. But why do they need to fly under, say, 500 or 1000 feet, between the pickup and the hospital? This is what I don't understand at all -- where/when manned aircraft has a legitimate purpose for being that low to the ground.

I get it for agriculture (spraying in particular). I get it for photo/video work. But I don't get it for just about anything else. This is why it seems to me like setting a ceiling for RC use that is the floor for manned flight would be an easy solution almost everywhere.

As an aside, and less relevant for this forum, I wonder how RC airplane guys see this issue. I'm fine keeping it under a short ceiling (400 feet, etc.) because I'm flying multis and just want to do photo/video work. The guys with the RC planes and jets would probably like (need?) more room.

 

[gtranquilla]

We recognize....
When properly used, both the FPV goggles and FPV screen monitor add a degree of safety with respect to MR battery voltage level etc.
The FPV goggles further enhance safety by means of eliminating excessive sunlight washout on an FPV screen monitor.
The downside is being distracted by the screen when direct line of sight could help to avoid a flight incident.
For this reason TC requires all Pilots to have a spotter.
In many cases the Pilot flies by line of sight and has the videographer or photographer use the screens.
Hopefully, in view of these factors, the FAA will not make FPV transmitters and screens illegal to sell as a ways and means for enforcing such arcane regulations against FPV.

If you guy's want to get the FAA off are back's STOP flying over 400 ft STOP flying over or around people STOP flying in the city's STOP flying around airport's STOP making videos and putting them on YouTube and Facebook were they can be used against you. STAY out of there airspace by Law no aircraft large or small can come under 500 ft only to land or takeoff can they come under 500 ft. I am a aircraft mech and I worked for these people for 30 Yrs they are no joke. They fly over a billion people a year in the US with no accident's and they are going to keep it that way. From what I read the new law is saying that you can not fly FPV with goggles. I did not see any thing on flying FPV with a Monitor. If you see someone doing this kind of flying ask them to STOP. It is very hard to get a ruling for us when the FAA has 100,000 video's of this kind of flying.

 

[Eightball]

We can all come up with all the excuse's in the world. The FAA dose not CARE. If these LAW's are put on the book's we will never get them removed. We need to be asking the FAA what do we need to do to keep are FPV. Like if we stay down under 250 ft flying no further than a 1/4 of a mile away staying away from people out of city's and so and so on. Any one that can't stay with in the rules let the FAA deal with them. I have a DJI 550 with the V2 controller I can set my height to 250 ft and I have a Minnie IOSD to see how far out I am so do most that fly FPV. We have tell July 25 to get them to change there mind's. We should be asking the AMA to cut us a deal of some kind. With the FAA or we will lose are FPV for good. Even if they can