Oh great... is this true? (registration)

[Bartman]

Bart,

I'm still under the impression that a property owner holds use control of the airspace in and above their property up to a certain level. That may be between 200' and 400' AGL, IRRC.

that may very well be the case and even the FAA might not ever intend to try to regulate airspace inside of buildings but they did successfully change the definition of "aircraft" to include basically anything that intentionally flies through the air so I don't see how there would be a legal limit on outdoors airspace only. Theoretically if you are at a party and throw a cheeseburger at another guest you can be violated by the FAA for careless/reckless operation of an aircraft. Careless/reckless is basically the only regulation they can enforce at this point along with airspace violations.

 

[Dezy]

Theoretically if you are at a party and throw a cheeseburger at another guest you can be violated by the FAA for careless/reckless operation of an aircraft.

FUNNY!

 

[Vermiform]

Commercial operators are already required to register their aircraft. It's a requirement in a 333 exemption. If you operate commercially you are supposed to possess a 333 exemption. If you are operating commercially without an exemption you are operating illegally with an illegal aircraft.

It just branches out exponentially from there.

Correct. I guess I meant hobbyists like me that are aspiring to be commercial videographers one day, that really have no interest in racing.

 

[sledge57]

Can't decide whether it's time to say screw it and sell it all or buy everything I want while I can....

 

[Bartman]

fwiw, the 333 process seems more manageable now than it's ever been. sure there is still the license requirement but that aside, getting legal isn't the proposition it once was. even I'm considering a 333 application just to have it for local real estate work with the heli's I already have!

but this has been the problem all along, trying to figure out how to manage the risk associated with the large purchases that are required to get up and running while guessing what regulatory nightmare might lurk around the bend....... horrible, i agree!

 

[Bartman]

that may very well be the case and even the FAA might not ever intend to try to regulate airspace inside of buildings but they did successfully change the definition of "aircraft" to include basically anything that intentionally flies through the air so I don't see how there would be a legal limit on outdoors airspace only. Theoretically if you are at a party and throw a cheeseburger at another guest you can be violated by the FAA for careless/reckless operation of an aircraft. Careless/reckless is basically the only regulation they can enforce at this point along with airspace violations.

i was just thinking about this some more, if a big mega-mall were to come up with a use for unmanned aircraft, maybe to deliver mochachinos from the barista to the try-on rooms across the mall, would the FAA try to get involved and claim the inside of the mall is navigable airspace?

it seems far fetched but is it really?

 

[Old Man]

. Theoretically if you are at a party and throw a cheeseburger at another guest you can be violated by the FAA for careless/reckless operation of an aircraft.

In that case, I propose we organize a protest and have a national food fight. They can't bust everybody.

 

[dazzab]

fwiw, the 333 process seems more manageable now than it's ever been. sure there is still the license requirement but that aside, getting legal isn't the proposition it once was. even I'm considering a 333 application just to have it for local real estate work with the heli's I already have!

Does a 333 exemption require the pilot to have a private pilot's license? I thought it did, in which case it's a show stopper for me.

 

[fltundra]

Does a 333 exemption require the pilot to have a private pilot's license? I thought it did, in which case it's a show stopper for me.

Yes

 

[ProfEngr]

The FAA needs to go crawl back in the hole it slithered from and someone put a huge rock over it.

 

[Oceans Eleven]

Me thinks there are lots of libertarians in this thread. Geez...

 

[Old Man]

You mean people that prefer to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their actions while controlling their own destiny? Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!

 

[cootertwo]

I had mentioned this in another post awhile ago. But how come we've/I've never heard of any complaints, problems with the model rocket people? Those things can go to amazing heights, and at a tremendous speed, "basically uncontrolled". And they must still be pretty popular, as most hobby shops stock rocket kits and motors, as they refer to them. Maybe we should start calling our machines, "ELECTRIC ROCKETS"

 

[Old Man]

The FAA needs to go crawl back in the hole it slithered from and someone put a huge rock over it.

I won't go that far but I do believe the FAA needs to step out of the stone age and recognize that regulations intended for much larger manned aircraft are in large part not suitable for most sUAS. They are mandating that sUAS follow the same regulations and use the same equipment and training requirements as those written decades ago for larger aircraft. They are not writing new regs or FAR sub chapters that are being designed to fit new and somewhat unique aircraft and their modes of operation. Instead they are using a mentality of "anything that flies IS the same and WILL BE treated the same. I think you'll find that in their ancient minds the transponder used on a 737 is the same one that should be used on a 3 kilo MR, and that any work performed on an MR should be performed by a certified A&P and inspected afterwards by an IA certified A&P. I do believe that very shortly we'll see requirements to use only PMA certified and approved parts on our MR's.

 

[cootertwo]

Old Man, that reminded me of an old saying, and could very well apply to this mess.
"I can handle the lions and tigers in the jungle, it's the nats on my ass that will kill me"

 

[SamaraMedia]

fwiw, the 333 process seems more manageable now than it's ever been. sure there is still the license requirement but that aside, getting legal isn't the proposition it once was. even I'm considering a 333 application just to have it for local real estate work with the heli's I already have!

but this has been the problem all along, trying to figure out how to manage the risk associated with the large purchases that are required to get up and running while guessing what regulatory nightmare might lurk around the bend....... horrible, i agree!

I never thought I'd be going this route but I've got 10 hrs towards my Sport pilots license...figure it's the lesser of two evils going forward if I truly want to do this as a legit business.

 

[ProfEngr]

Old Man....

Agreed. I just get disgusted quite often as I watch "the feds" destroy our Freedoms.

 

[Krzy4RC]

I personally think its gonna be something like having to register yourself, if you fly anything in a certain category. Over a certain weight, certain range capabilities, certain camera capabilities. Then you will be required to put your number on the vehicle. Like AMA Requirement.

And like the AMA requirement, it will be ignored by most. Especially the ones they are worried about. (High flying, flying around public buildings/airports, etc..)

 

[econfly]

Me thinks there are lots of libertarians in this thread. Geez...

Rather than labeling people and offering associated negative implications (libertarian is a positive descriptor in my mind, though apparently not in yours), why not join the conversation and offer your own point of view?

 

[Vermiform]