Are we as hobbyist UAS users in the clear for now? can we jump for joy? or to soon?
06-23-2016, 04:17 AM
#26
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good for you ! 
I am actually almost in the same boat. NO PUN INTENDED ! LOL
I have a recently completed BUSA Eindecker 90 and have not even taken it out of my building shop yet to fire up the engine or perform a maiden test flight. But, I have considered running my Warehouse Hobbies Off Shore boat. Mind you with NO worries or problems from any organizations.
I am actually almost in the same boat. NO PUN INTENDED ! LOLI have a recently completed BUSA Eindecker 90 and have not even taken it out of my building shop yet to fire up the engine or perform a maiden test flight. But, I have considered running my Warehouse Hobbies Off Shore boat. Mind you with NO worries or problems from any organizations.
Mike
06-23-2016, 05:58 AM
#27
At the risk of being labelled all sorts of things, and recognizing this addresses only commercial flying under part 107, I did note some hints of alignment around a 400 foot altitude limit. Given that we haven't seen the final rule for model aircraft (due sometime in the future), I wonder whether this could be a harbinger of what we might see in that rule.
"Further, the revised limit addresses other concerns regarding potential confusion between model aircraft and small unmanned aircraft. Specifically, limiting operations to 400 feet is consistent [emphasis added] with FAA guidance on model aircraft best practices identified in AC 91-57A, thus standardizing operating altitudes [emphasis added] for the majority of small unmanned aircraft flying in the NAS. A 400-foot altitude ceiling is also consistent [emphasis added] with the approach adopted in other countries. Specifically, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom all set a 400-foot [emphasis added] or lower altitude limit on UAS operations conducted in those countries."
- Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, final rule, pg 223
"Further, the revised limit addresses other concerns regarding potential confusion between model aircraft and small unmanned aircraft. Specifically, limiting operations to 400 feet is consistent [emphasis added] with FAA guidance on model aircraft best practices identified in AC 91-57A, thus standardizing operating altitudes [emphasis added] for the majority of small unmanned aircraft flying in the NAS. A 400-foot altitude ceiling is also consistent [emphasis added] with the approach adopted in other countries. Specifically, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom all set a 400-foot [emphasis added] or lower altitude limit on UAS operations conducted in those countries."
- Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, final rule, pg 223
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-23-2016 at 06:20 AM. Reason: Added "e" at end of "not" in this sentence "...I did note some hints..."
06-23-2016, 06:05 AM
#28
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being labelled all sorts of things, and recognizing this addresses only commercial flying under part 107, I did not some hints of alignment around a 400 foot altitude limit. Given that we haven't seen the final rule for model aircraft (due sometime in the future), I wonder whether this could be a harbinger of what we might see in that rule.
"Further, the revised limit addresses other concerns regarding potential confusion between model aircraft and small unmanned aircraft. Specifically, limiting operations to 400 feet is consistent [emphasis added] with FAA guidance on model aircraft best practices identified in AC 91-57A, thus standardizing operating altitudes [emphasis added] for the majority of small unmanned aircraft flying in the NAS. A 400-foot altitude ceiling is also consistent [emphasis added] with the approach adopted in other countries. Specifically, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom all set a 400-foot [emphasis added] or lower altitude limit on UAS operations conducted in those countries."
- Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, final rule, pg 223
"Further, the revised limit addresses other concerns regarding potential confusion between model aircraft and small unmanned aircraft. Specifically, limiting operations to 400 feet is consistent [emphasis added] with FAA guidance on model aircraft best practices identified in AC 91-57A, thus standardizing operating altitudes [emphasis added] for the majority of small unmanned aircraft flying in the NAS. A 400-foot altitude ceiling is also consistent [emphasis added] with the approach adopted in other countries. Specifically, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom all set a 400-foot [emphasis added] or lower altitude limit on UAS operations conducted in those countries."
- Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, final rule, pg 223
Mike
06-23-2016, 08:18 AM
#31
First, they repeatedly used some form of the word "consistent;" and I think that's no accident. FAA has to provide consistency to ensure rules are enforceable. Secondly, they denied a to mix sUAS and manned aircraft at 500' and above as too big a risk. "The FAA disagrees that a further increase in altitude is justified. Higher-altitude small unmanned aircraft operating in airspace that is transited by most manned aircraft operations would no longer be separated from those manned aircraft, which would greatly increase the risks of a collision.[emphasis added]" Thirdly, they did this despite the fact that this rule applied to only those certified for commercial ops, a group that has to actually demonstrate greater knowledge than hobby fliers. Now, if it's too big a risk to allow those with demonstrated knowledge to mix above 500 feet, would it not be even greater risk to allow hobby fliers with no demonstrated knowledge to do so?
So, given they stress on consistency, given the rationale that mentions manned aircraft largely above 500 feet, and that they didn't give that higher limit for a group that has to demonstrate knowledge via FAA testing, I think it's not if hobby fliers altitude restrictions, it's a matter of when. That said, perhaps they'll allow higher limits using the NOTAM process. But only time will tell.
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-23-2016 at 09:13 AM. Reason: clean up awkward language.
06-23-2016, 09:40 AM
#32
Not yet...
First, they repeatedly used some form of the word "consistent;" and I think that's no accident. FAA has to provide consistency to ensure rules are enforceable. Secondly, they denied a to mix sUAS and manned aircraft at 500' and above as too big a risk. "The FAA disagrees that a further increase in altitude is justified. Higher-altitude small unmanned aircraft operating in airspace that is transited by most manned aircraft operations would no longer be separated from those manned aircraft, which would greatly increase the risks of a collision.[emphasis added]" Thirdly, they did this despite the fact that this rule applied to only those certified for commercial ops, a group that has to actually demonstrate greater knowledge than hobby fliers. Now, if it's too big a risk to allow those with demonstrated knowledge to mix above 500 feet, would it not be even greater risk to allow hobby fliers with no demonstrated knowledge to do so?
So, given they stress on consistency, given the rationale that mentions manned aircraft largely above 500 feet, and that they didn't give that higher limit for a group that has to demonstrate knowledge via FAA testing, I think it's not if hobby fliers altitude restrictions, it's a matter of when. That said, perhaps they'll allow higher limits using the NOTAM process. But only time will tell.
First, they repeatedly used some form of the word "consistent;" and I think that's no accident. FAA has to provide consistency to ensure rules are enforceable. Secondly, they denied a to mix sUAS and manned aircraft at 500' and above as too big a risk. "The FAA disagrees that a further increase in altitude is justified. Higher-altitude small unmanned aircraft operating in airspace that is transited by most manned aircraft operations would no longer be separated from those manned aircraft, which would greatly increase the risks of a collision.[emphasis added]" Thirdly, they did this despite the fact that this rule applied to only those certified for commercial ops, a group that has to actually demonstrate greater knowledge than hobby fliers. Now, if it's too big a risk to allow those with demonstrated knowledge to mix above 500 feet, would it not be even greater risk to allow hobby fliers with no demonstrated knowledge to do so?
So, given they stress on consistency, given the rationale that mentions manned aircraft largely above 500 feet, and that they didn't give that higher limit for a group that has to demonstrate knowledge via FAA testing, I think it's not if hobby fliers altitude restrictions, it's a matter of when. That said, perhaps they'll allow higher limits using the NOTAM process. But only time will tell.
06-23-2016, 09:46 AM
#33
Now, I could see that FAA might allow it from fixed sites (i.e. clubs) provided they issue a NOTAM. It would also allow FAA some measure of control if these ops impact full scale ops too much for their comfort.
06-23-2016, 10:00 AM
#34
I just find it hard to believe that FAA won't push for consistent altitude limits. I also think it's inconsistent to allow commercial guys, who actually have to prove knowledge of airspace and rules, to be held lower than section 336 folks (who don't have to do any of that). Even if there is a similar knowledge test for section 336 fliers, why would they be allowed a wider operational envelope?
Now, I could see that FAA might allow it from fixed sites (i.e. clubs) provided they issue a NOTAM. It would also allow FAA some measure of control if these ops impact full scale ops too much for their comfort.
Now, I could see that FAA might allow it from fixed sites (i.e. clubs) provided they issue a NOTAM. It would also allow FAA some measure of control if these ops impact full scale ops too much for their comfort.
Last edited by GSXR1000; 06-23-2016 at 10:19 AM.
06-23-2016, 10:14 AM
#35
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Not yet...
First, they repeatedly used some form of the word "consistent;" and I think that's no accident. FAA has to provide consistency to ensure rules are enforceable. Secondly, they denied a to mix sUAS and manned aircraft at 500' and above as too big a risk. "The FAA disagrees that a further increase in altitude is justified. Higher-altitude small unmanned aircraft operating in airspace that is transited by most manned aircraft operations would no longer be separated from those manned aircraft, which would greatly increase the risks of a collision.[emphasis added]" Thirdly, they did this despite the fact that this rule applied to only those certified for commercial ops, a group that has to actually demonstrate greater knowledge than hobby fliers. Now, if it's too big a risk to allow those with demonstrated knowledge to mix above 500 feet, would it not be even greater risk to allow hobby fliers with no demonstrated knowledge to do so?
So, given they stress on consistency, given the rationale that mentions manned aircraft largely above 500 feet, and that they didn't give that higher limit for a group that has to demonstrate knowledge via FAA testing, I think it's not if hobby fliers altitude restrictions, it's a matter of when. That said, perhaps they'll allow higher limits using the NOTAM process. But only time will tell.
First, they repeatedly used some form of the word "consistent;" and I think that's no accident. FAA has to provide consistency to ensure rules are enforceable. Secondly, they denied a to mix sUAS and manned aircraft at 500' and above as too big a risk. "The FAA disagrees that a further increase in altitude is justified. Higher-altitude small unmanned aircraft operating in airspace that is transited by most manned aircraft operations would no longer be separated from those manned aircraft, which would greatly increase the risks of a collision.[emphasis added]" Thirdly, they did this despite the fact that this rule applied to only those certified for commercial ops, a group that has to actually demonstrate greater knowledge than hobby fliers. Now, if it's too big a risk to allow those with demonstrated knowledge to mix above 500 feet, would it not be even greater risk to allow hobby fliers with no demonstrated knowledge to do so?
So, given they stress on consistency, given the rationale that mentions manned aircraft largely above 500 feet, and that they didn't give that higher limit for a group that has to demonstrate knowledge via FAA testing, I think it's not if hobby fliers altitude restrictions, it's a matter of when. That said, perhaps they'll allow higher limits using the NOTAM process. But only time will tell.
But yes...time will tell. The end of the hobby was just around the corner but a year or two ago...
06-23-2016, 10:35 AM
#36
First, I don't think I ever said the hobby would end. If anything, I said it would change. One the first point though, do you disagree with the logic? Do you really see FAA allowing less qualified people to enjoy wider operational limits in the NAS? I'd love to hear the argument.
06-23-2016, 11:30 AM
#37
First, I don't think I ever said the hobby would end.
I seem to recall you implying it.
If anything, I said it would change.
The only thing constant is change. Nothing new there.
One the first point though, do you disagree with the logic? Do you really see FAA allowing less qualified people to enjoy wider operational limits in the NAS? I'd love to hear the argument.
Less qualified than what current qualifications are you referring to?
I seem to recall you implying it.
If anything, I said it would change.
The only thing constant is change. Nothing new there.
One the first point though, do you disagree with the logic? Do you really see FAA allowing less qualified people to enjoy wider operational limits in the NAS? I'd love to hear the argument.
Less qualified than what current qualifications are you referring to?
06-23-2016, 11:51 AM
#38
"To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
o Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either:
- Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center; or
- Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a flight review within the previous 24 months, and complete a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA."
Contrast that with section 336 fliers which neither have to pass an aeronautical knowledge test at FAA approved center nor hold a part 61 certificate (with caveats above) and online sUAS training administered by FAA. Hence the characterization as "less qualified."
06-23-2016, 12:20 PM
#39
I know what franklin is basically saying, basically he is saying; Why would us hobbyist model airplane/uas pilots have less restrictions than the pilots who fall into the Part 107 category.
I certainly hope we hobbyist retain our cbo guidelines and not have hardfast restrictions that 107 operators/pilots will have...
I certainly hope we hobbyist retain our cbo guidelines and not have hardfast restrictions that 107 operators/pilots will have...
06-23-2016, 01:01 PM
#40
I'm not going to argue with Franklin but, to me, his logic is the same logic used by the government with the startup of TSA - "you have to be a government employee to be professional". We, who have been safely flying for 40-60 years aren't as "professional" or "qualified" as the pipsqueek who passed the "government" exam - whatever it may contain.
That's the beginning, and end, of my statement.
That's the beginning, and end, of my statement.
06-23-2016, 02:08 PM
#41
I'm not going to argue with Franklin but, to me, his logic is the same logic used by the government with the startup of TSA - "you have to be a government employee to be professional". We, who have been safely flying for 40-60 years aren't as "professional" or "qualified" as the pipsqueek who passed the "government" exam - whatever it may contain.
That's the beginning, and end, of my statement.
That's the beginning, and end, of my statement.
Section 336 fliers have no such qualification process. Therefore less standardized with respect to level of knowledge of operational rules, the law, and the airspace in which they operate.
06-23-2016, 02:59 PM
#42
Part 107 operators (more qualified) due to:
"To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
o Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either:
- Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center; or
- Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a flight review within the previous 24 months, and complete a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA."
Contrast that with section 336 fliers which neither have to pass an aeronautical knowledge test at FAA approved center nor hold a part 61 certificate (with caveats above) and online sUAS training administered by FAA. Hence the characterization as "less qualified."
"To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
o Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either:
- Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center; or
- Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a flight review within the previous 24 months, and complete a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA."
Contrast that with section 336 fliers which neither have to pass an aeronautical knowledge test at FAA approved center nor hold a part 61 certificate (with caveats above) and online sUAS training administered by FAA. Hence the characterization as "less qualified."
06-23-2016, 03:31 PM
#43
And so it's then logical to allow them to enjoy a BIGGER operational envelope than people who have actually demonstrated a level of knowledge on an FAA administered test? I think not.
06-23-2016, 03:40 PM
#44
How is the operational envelope BIGGER non-commercial users than it is for commercial users?
06-23-2016, 05:20 PM
#45
"Section 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:
(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:
(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and
(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit."
By contrast, the section 336 fliers merely have a 400 foot "guideline," and no airspeed limit (under the FARs). And yet unlike the part 107 fliers, never have to prove they know anything about anything.
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-23-2016 at 05:23 PM.
06-23-2016, 06:12 PM
#46
It's right there in the rule for you to read, but I'll quote it for you:
"Section 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:
(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:
(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and
(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit."
By contrast, the section 336 fliers merely have a 400 foot "guideline," and no airspeed limit (under the FARs). And yet unlike the part 107 fliers, never have to prove they know anything about anything.
"Section 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:
(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:
(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and
(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit."
By contrast, the section 336 fliers merely have a 400 foot "guideline," and no airspeed limit (under the FARs). And yet unlike the part 107 fliers, never have to prove they know anything about anything.
06-23-2016, 08:12 PM
#47
It looks to me like you can fly an RC jet, and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I did visit a club that was out flying a few days ago. Nobody there was talking. As a former hobbyist, I couldn't get a word out of them. I did not cross the spectator fence, because nobody I knew there had motioned me over. I have a hunch that the atmosphere at that club is very tense at the moment. I think they are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
06-23-2016, 10:42 PM
#48
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if you do not want to follow 101.41 then yes, by default you must operate under 107, even for hobby, and that does have an altitude limit.
06-24-2016, 02:11 AM
#49
06-24-2016, 02:20 AM
#50
Nothing indicates that is the case. Section 336 has no altitude limits and the AMA has gotten the Senate to write in a waiver for CBO (AMA) operators.
So if you do not want to follow 101.41 then yes, by default you must operate under 107, even for hobby, and that does have an altitude limit.
So if you do not want to follow 101.41 then yes, by default you must operate under 107, even for hobby, and that does have an altitude limit.
As I pointed out above, commercial sUAS pilots actually have to prove they know something about the FARs, and they're limited to 400 feet. Furthermore, in their discussion of comments on the part 107 rule, did you see how the FAA repeatedly talked about the majority of manned aircraft operating above 500 feet? (I seem to remember using that exact phrase in my comments to FAA about this rule and the pending rule on model aircraft). And did you note how they said allowing the commercial sUAS above 500 feet was too risky for that reason? So if it's too risk to allow commercial sUAS above 400' due to potential conflict with manned aircraft, why would it suddenly be less risky to allow non-commercial sUAS above 400'? Is there some magical bubble around "model aircraft"? Perhaps a force field that prevents them from hazarding manned aircraft as the commercial ones would? I don't think so. I believe that a 400' limit makes abundant sense for consistency.
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-24-2016 at 02:59 AM.
