Wall Street Journal report, FAA regulations

[Bartman]

Did anybody read the report? It requires a subscription.

Here's a report on the report

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/faa-reportedly-set-to-issue-tight-drone-restrictions/

400ft, line of sight, daytime only......even if it requires a pilot license this almost sounds like sUAS regulations that we can live with.....but is it a simple sUAS regulatory structure or something much worse?

the closed production requirement that the waivered operators currently have to deal with will prohibit all of the smaller operators that have been trying to add aerials to their various media services.

 

[Vision Aerial]

Agree with you... up until the pilots license... ground school maybe, but really can't see what the need for a full pilots license is.

 

[Dewster]

That full pilot's license thing is ridiculous. It's shows that the FAA is stonewalling a mandate to allow commercial use of drones or they simply have no clue. You don't need a full pilot's license to safely operate a Phantom for Real Estate photography. We are not flying transcontinental drones. I would venture to say that most drone use are hobby sized craft.

Licensing should be similar to taking a driver's written exam and obtaining insurance. The knowledge base should cover flight altitude restrictions, airport traffic areas, restricted flight areas and public safety. There's no need for a DJI Phantom flyer to obtain a pilot's license to snap a photo of a house to make money.

 

[pepper]

as a pilot myself, the requirement for a pilot's lincense is completely STUPID! a agree with some sort of regulation to regulate the rogue idiot but come on. i spent a ton of money for my license and there are only a few things within my training that would help in UAV operations. now... i agree with no flying uav's around airports, UNLESS contact with ATC or filing a NOTAM. i do demo skydives into football games, events, etc and i have to file a NOTAM well before my jump. why can't we do the same as uav pilots.
i think 400 ft may be a little low, no airplane is going to be at 400 ft unless on final or making an emergency landing. now plenty of helicopter pilots do fly around 400ft. i have.
the FAA needs to pull the corn cob out of the back side and realize they are not god....

 

[Bartman]

...400ft, line of sight, daytime only......even if it requires a pilot license this almost sounds like sUAS regulations that we can live with...

my reasoning behind saying that was that if a pilot's license is the trick to getting the FAA to initially accept small UAS regulations that don't entail a pile of paperwork, an FAA inspector on hand, and a closed set for the flights (and maybe some hired security to keep it closed) then it's a good start.

keep in mind that the FAA has been known to initially overdo the regulatory framework (no $hit you're saying!) but they will typically revisit specifics once they have data that they can use as a basis to relax regulatory details. They are VERY risk averse in the absence of data but once they have data they will accept reasonable changes.

So having the pilot license requirement to initially allow some more mellow form of sUAS regulations would be a step in the right direction (with possible later reduction to a classwork requirement instead of the license) but I'm guessing based on a report on a report which was in a newspaper and we all know how misleading and flat out wrong a newspaper report can be.

 

[Vision Aerial]

Listen I'm all for some type of license and regulation, but a pilots licenses hardly relates. FAA ground school so people can learn about regulations, airspace, and whatnot for sure. But really it should be across the board, it's like when Jet Skis first came about, people were crashing into stuff and had no idea about how to operate.

 

[rilot]

In the UK we have to take a flight test before we are allowed to undertake aerial work. This is a demonstration of the operator's ability to fly within the limits as defined in their operations manual, and that they can fly safely while identifying risks and hazards. There is also a ground school element to it.
In my opinion, this is the right way to do it and maybe the FAA are going to go this route too.

 

[Vision Aerial]

Rilot.... thats 100% what we need for ALL operators here in the USA... newbie phantom pilots included.

 

[Bartman]

there are rumors swirling as to what the FAA will do. some make it sound like there will be a complete lock-down by the FAA with regulations being much worse than any of us might expect. the report from yesterday seems to hint towards what a lot of us had hoped for all along. granted, the pilot license is overkill for very-small UAS regulations, I agree with you guys on that. but if the 400 ft, daytime only, and line-of-site details are correct then that would seem to indicate a structure for very-small UAS that we haven't heard much about up to this point.

we'll just have to see what happens.

 

[Old Man]

Forcing a Pilot's license makes groups like AOPA, a very strong aviation advocacy group, happy. A very good way to starve to death is to be a flight instructor or small Fixed Based Operator. General Aviation Student Pilot starts have been in the gutter for over two decades and industry attempts to invigorate interest in general aviation have pretty much failed. The cost of participating in General Aviation was high in the 80's but soared to tropopause levels since then. Unless wealthy, people can't afford to buy pr rent a plane to fly themselves and recent definitions from the FAA have extremely limited what expenses a non commercial pilot can share with those that ride with him.

Mandating a Pilot's license is good business for the general aviation community since in pours money into the coffers of the FBO's that employ A&P's and instructors, while providing a small amount of stimulation to the GA aircraft and parts manufacturers. Anything beyond the ground school tests will have little benefit for the sUAS operators. Most operators driving the military grade stuff have been getting medicals and taking the Private Pilot written for years already but few have had any interest in continuing further in a quest for a full Pilot's license. They just don't have a need for one and it does not improve their skills as an sUAS operator. There's no "seat of the pants" sensations when your feet are still on the ground. So a license requirement for sUAS people is nothing more than a requirement to take dollars from one group and give them to another.

 

[Bartman]

@Old Man

I certainly understand the cynicism associated with this requirement, if it even is a requirement, but the FAA doesn't do things without great assessment of risk and whether or not a policy decision will leave them responsible when there's an incident.

A great example of this is the Part 121 Airline Pilot mandatory age 65 retirement policy. When they first raised the retirement age to 65 they required Captains over 60 to fly with First Officers that were under 60. They didn't really have data to support doing this or not doing this but by doing it they built in an added degree of safety (in theirs and the public's eyes). After five years of making us operate that way they've removed the restriction and pilots that are over age 60 can now fly together.

But let's wait and see what the final requirements are if/when they ever get published.

 

[Gary Seven]

but I'm guessing based on a report on a report which was in a newspaper and we all know how misleading and flat out wrong a newspaper report can be.

Especially true for that rag sheet, the WSJ. They tend to slither in the same swamp as Drudge et. al.

 

[mediaguru]

As someone who is looking to build a business, I WANT there to be licenses and safety guidelines to protect myself, my clients, and the public. That would help separate me from a user who just bought a "toy." That said, a pilot's license is WAY over the top and not reasonable.