The FAA should talk to Transport Canada about whether or not they actually want people submitting paperwork for each and ever UAV flight. Transport Canada has regulations in place now, and are choking on the volume of paperwork being submitted.
Bureaucracies don't choke on paperwork, they revel in it. The individuals responsible for the day to day implementation of any policy will complain of the unintended consequences of a poorly thought out policy but they also know that their jobs are now secure for at least a couple of decades.
Just saw today that the FAA's Facebook page (yes they have one) is asking for comments on these exemptions, and calls them "precedent setting". That's from the Agency itself.
Press release:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=77985&cid=TW226
Link to comment to the FAA:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA-2014-0352;fp=true;ns=true
Whatever your opinion, I would encourage people to comment so it's clear that these regulations and any future rules don't get made in a vacuum - people, lots of people care about sensible SUAS rules
I don't want to sound negative, nor do I want to come off preachy but for many on these forums and people who think they would like to fly AP professionally this is an emotional topic. "WE" need to take a collective breath and separate process from execution.
The first thing that has to happen is that we have to define who "WE" are. Then WE needs to get an attorney to represent us in these negotiations, is there an attorney out there willing to volunteer their time for the cause?
I'm not suggesting that people don't comment, but the more comments made the more it will read like just about any forum on RCGroups. WE, it appears can't agree on anything.
As citizens of the US we have rights and the role of the government is to make sure that, in this case, our ("WE") rights don't interfere with the civil liberties of others and where there might be conflict, that's what the regulations are for. WE shouldn't "tell" [in the form of comments] what we think so that "THEY" can decide the proper coarse of action. WE tell them that we are going to do commercial AP and then THEY have to determine what effect it has on others civil rights.
What effect do you think the comments will have on this process? They will be used as plausible deniability to push their agenda [already existing rules], it will have little, if any effect on the outcome.
WE need to form a political action committee (PAC) which defines our industry (organization), focuses its resources and through its representation secures the future for professional AP.
Obviously this has been suggested before but in every attempt that I can recall the objective was to put forward a cohesive list of concerns to the FAA, as though the list was going to make a difference. It won't! WE need an attorney that can help us form a PAC that will carry some weight at these negotiations otherwise WE are merely spectators.
Here's something we should all think about:
Who do you think are involved with the majority of MR mishaps, hobbyists or professionals? Don't start a debate about what defines a professional, clearly its the hobbyists with the Phantom, whether they get paid for their AP does not define them as a professional. Yet the FAA says that it doesn't care about them, they only want to regulate the professional. Why?
And for all the hobbyists who think this won't effect them, your wrong. Since you can't really define the difference between the two groups by whether they get paid the simple and obvious solution: remove the camera from the quad. You can do flips in your living room all you want but much beyond that you will be treated as a criminal.
This is antithetical to the constitution. The FAA does not get to tell WE [the people] what to do, WE tell them what we are doing and its their job to figure out how to make that happen, not restrict it from us!
