FlySafeTraining.org...anybody been through their program?

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Just wondering if anyone here has been through the training program at FlySafeTraining.org .

They tout a 3 day program with a certification element built in using tests at the end of the weekend. People come and speak about aerial media skills and equipment topics but I'm just curious if anyone has attended.

This isn't an endorsement by any means and the "certification" they offer has no meaning to the FAA or any other regulatory agency. FlySafeTraining.org only certifies that you went to their three day seminar.

Anybody? Good, bad, indifferent?

Thanks,
Bart
 

Old Man

Active Member
Bart,

Sorry if I seem cynical here but if an organization's training syllabus and certification is not recognized by an agency that sets the standards for training, what standard is the training organization certifying to? Does it provide type specific flight system training? A&P qualification? Flight safety or airspace rules and familiarization? What flight system is used to support actual flight training? What equipment options are used? Can they provide an endorsement for taking the Private Pilot written test?

There's a lot of people making a little to a lot of money from multirotors right now but the majority are not the ones that actually fly multirotors because that's not viewed as legal. How to make money from multirotors without actually flying one seems to be a common motive. The ones that actually fly multirotors are the ones used for funding those that don't if you get my drift.

The greatest benefit I see in their course guidelines is showing people how to use checklists, airframe, and flight logs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Ol Man, you won't get an argument from me. I've got the same question, that being, how valuable can this "certification" be if it's only recognized by the company offering it?

People with absolutely no experience might get a small boost in their efforts by a weekend like this but I'd argue they could get as much or more by being involved online somewhere (perhaps even here!) and by doing a little research while also posting whatever questions that they might have.

FlySafeTraining.org might be laying the groundwork to do a program that will have a more meaningful certification attached to it one day but as it is now it looks to me as if the certification claim has little meaningful value. I wonder to what degree they explain the deteriorating regulatory/operating environment in the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Having said all of that I'd be curious to hear what customer of the program have to say about it. It could be that they're teaching enough of the basics to make it worthwhile. Who knows though unless we get firsthand info from someone that was there
 

tstrike

pendejo grande
I imagine a lot of these types of certification programs will start popping up trying to catch the phantom flyer guys looking for legitimacy.
I remember the great bartender shortage of '82, tons of bartending schools pop up, the great mutual fund seller shortage of '87, tons of mutual fund selling schools pop up, the great realtor shortage of '05…you get my gist.
 

Old Man

Active Member
Yep, as a certified FAA Ground Instructor I could start up a multirotor/Private Pilot ground school.... At least the attendees could walk away with a signature that legitimately qualified them for something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SamaraMedia

Active Member

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 10.01.22 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 10.01.22 PM.png
    673.9 KB · Views: 188
  • Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 10.00.49 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 10.00.49 PM.png
    35.2 KB · Views: 193


Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
both or those sites seem to reference the same online training. that training seems to be the ground school requirement for the FAA Private Pilot written exam. the exam can't be taken without classroom or online review of the material and a signed endorsement saying you've received the training and are ready for the exam.

neither site seems to explain what additional topics are covered specific to sUAS operations. if it's a Private Pilot written exam prep course then that's fine but the UAV part is ambiguous.

@JoeBob did you actually take the course? what did it include?
 

JoeBob

Elevation via Flatulation
Bart: I've just started the course, and you're right about there being no reference (so far) to UAVs specifically. Probably because there is no official FAA UAV regs written. I'll take this course as an economical way to prepare myself for whatever the FAA comes out with, as many of the speculative discussions online believe that Groundschool will be the minimum requirement for being certified to operate.
 

SleepyC

www.AirHeadMedia.com
Bart: I've just started the course, and you're right about there being no reference (so far) to UAVs specifically. Probably because there is no official FAA UAV regs written. I'll take this course as an economical way to prepare myself for whatever the FAA comes out with, as many of the speculative discussions online believe that Groundschool will be the minimum requirement for being certified to operate.

Are the course instructors FAA certified flight Instructors? If not, then you are probably just taking a pre-emptive class for the real class you will need to take with a FAA Flight Instructor.
 

Old Man

Active Member
The FAR's specifically reference the ability of a person to undertake the ground school course as a home study endeavor. One still has to obtain an endorsement but they do not need to attend a structured classroom study course. I'll post the applicable FAR when I get home. Study materials run under $100.00. FAR part 61.105 (a) with additional reference to 61.105 (b).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Old Man

Active Member
Are the course instructors FAA certified flight Instructors? If not, then you are probably just taking a pre-emptive class for the real class you will need to take with a FAA Flight Instructor.

The course can be taught with a certified ground instructor. It does not have to be a flight instructor. Both can endorse for the written exam. Again, this is referenced in the FAR's.
FAR part 61.215 (a) (1) (2) (3)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
There are two different types of courses being discussed here...first is FlySafeTraining.org (who happened to join us today as an advertiser).....FlySafe offers a weekend course that covers a range of topics related to being a commercial sUAS operator and they "certify" their graduates via their own criteria.

The other options appear to be online courses that satisfy the ground school prerequisite for the FAA Private Pilot written exam.....a test like this won't do anything for commercial sUAS purposes except to get a person one step closer to completing a private pilot licensing process where the written is arguably the easiest box to check (the others being flying lessons, solo flights, and a check ride with an FAA inspector or licensed examiner).
 

Old Man

Active Member
Bart and all,

The way things are laid out at the moment there is nothing at all specific to sUAS in the FAR's. The FAA permits the logging of hours operating a UAV but none of those hours can be used to qualify for any aircraft or type rating or privilege. Kind of like getting all dressed up with nowhere to go. I've made it a point to call someone out on another forum that listed themselves as a UAV CFI, and directly questioned how the title was obtained since there is none such in the federal CFR's.

What is applicable, and solely because the FAA is requiring it in the Part 333 Waivers, is the Private Pilot ground school or training, because they are requiring waiver applicants that will actually be flying to have a Private Pilot's license. I compare that to mandating people obtain a ship's Master's license because they intend to float a rubber duck in their bath tub. From my perspective the only reason to force sUAS operators, specifically those operating multirotors in the customary environments, is as a direct benefit to AOPA. They've been complaining about the lack of new pilot starts for years along with their declining membership. The moment someone applies for a Third Class medical AOPA is notified and an application for AOPA membership is sent to the medical applicant. That is done by AOPA of course but if anyone wants to use their waiver they'll be submitting the medical form. Both AOPA and ALPA would just love for everyone to also have to be a commercial pilot because that's even more money spent at FBO's and keeping AOPA membership employed as flight and ground instructors. It also makes the aircraft lease back owners, A&P's, fuel sellers, aircraft parts manufacturers, and other businesses associated with full scale happy by increasing their revenue streams. ALPA might like it because they might finally get some people that are hungry enough to work for the salary levels paid by the regional carriers.

Once again, people and businesses that sell stuff and services to the multirotor operators are benefiting. The only people not benefiting are the actual M/R operators. Even if you have a waiver the process of submitting application for each and every shoot, with the delays associated, are preventing people from realizing the revenue they should be generating after being subjected to multiple levels of regulatory compliance.

One thing is certain, there seems to be nobody that is pushing hard for any modifications to the PP ground course syllabus that would expand the course by adding curriculum that would expand the knowledge level of full scale pilots relative to sUAS and/or add sUAS specific curriculum that would directly benefit the sUAS operator with information/regulation that would be vastly more applicable to the type of flight operations they would be participating in. To date everything is going precisely as I predicted in that the FAA is not changing their game to accommodate sUAS, but instead forcing sUAS to play a game they can't be competitive in. At this time I understand there is no plan to modify the part 333 waiver process, What we have is what we will continue to have. The focus is on integrating Tier II stuff and perhaps introducing a new class for what would be a Tier 1.5 class that currently fits Tier 1 by being under 55lbs. but having capabilities of long duration, high (<18k') to low (400-500') altitude, high speed (50 to 100 knots), BLOS flight operations. Three sUAS specifically meet those standards with the Aerosonde and Scan Eagle.

Without a standardized curriculum specific to sUAS/multirotors I can't find justification for anyone to attend independent "UAV" flight schools. If they are going for the FAA side of things and get the course at a cost equal or less than the cost associated with a local junior college or adult course, fine, but for the sUAS side, it's hard to justify. There are no published standards for any type of multirotor ground school courses and such needs to be present to establish relevance. The industry hasn't thus far even been able to come up with a reasonable set of safe operating standards, let alone incorporating them into a training syllabus.
 


Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Old Man, as I said before you won't get an argument from me but do keep in mind that it will be these early participants in the market that will likely adapt most quickly as things do start to come into focus and they will then be more in tune with what the FAA will actually require.

Having said that, FlySafe's program is an all-in-one introduction to the world of commercial sUAS operations including some business set-up stuff. For the completely uninitiated it might get someone very quickly from nothing to something at which point they will have to continue up the learning curve on their own. Throw in some good networking potential, the ability to be hands on with actual multi-rotor equipment, and some contacts to call on with additional questions later on and it might be a worthwhile proposition for some. Probably not everybody but we're talking about a lot of Type-A people so nothing will ever suit everyone!!!

So long as everyone continues to understand that the FAA hasn't laid out any future requirements yet and so long as everyone understands that what goes today might not go tomorrow, then we're at least able to understand the risks involved in executing any particular plan of attack.

The online groundschool being called a UAV groundschool is a little goofy if you ask me but, again, so long as people know what it is that they are buying then it's on them to make the call.

All good stuff worthy of conversation, IMHO. :)
 

Top