And commercial delivery begins in the US
04-24-2019, 09:22 AM
#1
Thread Starter
And commercial delivery begins in the US
The ink isn't even dry on the comments submitted to the FAA on the latest "Advance" Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Safe and Secure Ops. Those comments were of such concern to the FAA that just days later, Secretary of Transportation announced the certification of a commercial drone delivery company in VIRGINIA! One can't believe that Amazon Prime Air and others are far behind.
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23554
Can't help but this will increase calls to both keep hobby stuff below 400 feet and remote ID for everyone.
Of note, with respect to the ANPRM mentioned earlier, it appears that FAA met with six groups. AMA wasn't one of them. "Supporting documents" located here:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FAA-2018-1086
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23554
Can't help but this will increase calls to both keep hobby stuff below 400 feet and remote ID for everyone.
Of note, with respect to the ANPRM mentioned earlier, it appears that FAA met with six groups. AMA wasn't one of them. "Supporting documents" located here:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FAA-2018-1086
04-24-2019, 01:39 PM
#3
Thread Starter
What's more likely is RemoteID for all recreational and 400 feet in class G not being waived.
04-24-2019, 06:54 PM
#4
Not knowing a whole bunch about Geofencing, I have to assume that the delivery drones will already have the equipment on board to avoid hospitals, small airports etc. That being the case wouldn't it be as simple as a club site that has been evaluated and approved for a waiver installing a transponder?
04-24-2019, 09:11 PM
#5
The problem with installing a transponder is that it would show up as a full sized airport, not an R/C field. Transponders don't differentiate between R/C fields, local airports, the big "international" airports or military air bases. In fact, the only way a pilot would know the difference would be to have a sectional map in front of them or, in the case of a military air base, is to watch the rotating beacon light and count the flashes as it goes around
04-25-2019, 02:37 AM
#7
Thread Starter
Not knowing a whole bunch about Geofencing, I have to assume that the delivery drones will already have the equipment on board to avoid hospitals, small airports etc. That being the case wouldn't it be as simple as a club site that has been evaluated and approved for a waiver installing a transponder?
Kinda like the 400 foot in class G? Seems like someone was thinking ahead for this day...
04-26-2019, 03:26 AM
#8
Banned
So a toy plane field is an equivalent of a hospital? This is about cost. Requiring delivery drones to avoid toy plane fields imposes a cost on commercial providers, costs in the form of longer flights, less direct routes, etc. The FAR easier approach, FAR simpler to implment, enforce, and execute, is to cap altitude for toy planes.
Kinda like the 400 foot in class G? Seems like someone was thinking ahead for this day...
Kinda like the 400 foot in class G? Seems like someone was thinking ahead for this day...
04-26-2019, 08:29 AM
#9
Thread Starter
This is going to get far worse before it gets any better. I see a major issue being the wide dissemination of incorrect information being presented as fact. Coupled that with simple old defiance of laws. How many "It's my right to fly" have we seen? I predict the hobby is in serious trouble without even knowing it. Will be interesting to see how the online test goes. Assuming it's a valid test and not some government give away, I also predict most modelers will fail it. At least the first time. And many who fail will then ignore the requirement or quit the hobby. Yep! Next year or two should prove interesting.
04-26-2019, 09:16 AM
#10
Banned
I agree. The level of denial among the AMA acolytes is pretty astonishing. The AMA didn't have the clout to head off registration, didn't have the clout to preserve 336, and didn't have the clout to stop the most recent bill's limitations ... and yet they've got the clout to get airspace carve outs and exemptions to break what's pretty specific in the law? I don't think so.
The online test will be interesting. I look forward to it even though I too have my 107.
04-27-2019, 03:50 AM
#12
Thread Starter
Yep. And yet AMA deludes themselves into thinking they have influence. Within the last couple days, they posted in their government blog that they co-chaired a meeting. Out of that they made this statement:
"Regulations for recreational drone operators should be easy for the public to understand and rigorous enough to ensure safety. We are proud to have led the first meeting of stakeholders to help the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) craft this exact approach. At the meeting we also discussed safety and knowledge tests for recreational model aircraft and drone operators, and the process for recognizing community-based organizations. We look forward to working with the recreational drone community and the FAA to strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety." (note 1)
Some observations:
- This isn't a meeting at the "big kids" table. Note the stakeholders that are NOT there: Airlines, ALPA, etc.; police, fire, and emergency responder groups; media groups; Amazon Prime Air, Google, etc.; DoD, DHS, etc.
- As it's operating in isolation, it's at best a "wish list" or perhaps wishful thinking
Even taking apart their statement... it's largely a "master of the obvious" type thing. "Needs to be simple and easy to understand" and "strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety" .... well duh. Sure glad we spent member money on travel and hotels to come up with those pearls of wisdom. Otherwise, they're just talking about what they discussed. AMA has been "talking" about a lot of things. What were the RESULTS of those discussions? A point curiously absent from AMA's release. And lastly, I think the statement exposes the only thing AMA cares about at this point, perhaps because they might realize it's the only thing they might actually achieve, and that's the CBO recogniztion. If you read 349, it defines criteria and directs FAA to create a process. So what is there to discuss here? I mean it's pretty clear in the language already. So what's AMA "discussing?" In the end, being recognized as a CBO will be a hollow victory, for it doesn't bring AMA any tangible authority. It'll look good on the wall, and the marketing major ED will publicize the crap out of it, but in the end it will mean little in practical terms.
I see this as AMA trying to grasp anything, no matter small, to show they're doing SOMETHING. For further proof, look no further than their government blog post talking about the Utah legislation that says folks have to use B4UFly. Whoopie do. Similarly with the post about letters of agreement. Call me crazy, but isn't that just doing what the law said to do? How is that a result of AMA's "influence?"
Note 1: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2019/04/26/ama-cta-lead-first-stakeholder-meeting-on-recreational-uas-regulations/
"Regulations for recreational drone operators should be easy for the public to understand and rigorous enough to ensure safety. We are proud to have led the first meeting of stakeholders to help the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) craft this exact approach. At the meeting we also discussed safety and knowledge tests for recreational model aircraft and drone operators, and the process for recognizing community-based organizations. We look forward to working with the recreational drone community and the FAA to strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety." (note 1)
Some observations:
- This isn't a meeting at the "big kids" table. Note the stakeholders that are NOT there: Airlines, ALPA, etc.; police, fire, and emergency responder groups; media groups; Amazon Prime Air, Google, etc.; DoD, DHS, etc.
- As it's operating in isolation, it's at best a "wish list" or perhaps wishful thinking
Even taking apart their statement... it's largely a "master of the obvious" type thing. "Needs to be simple and easy to understand" and "strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety" .... well duh. Sure glad we spent member money on travel and hotels to come up with those pearls of wisdom. Otherwise, they're just talking about what they discussed. AMA has been "talking" about a lot of things. What were the RESULTS of those discussions? A point curiously absent from AMA's release. And lastly, I think the statement exposes the only thing AMA cares about at this point, perhaps because they might realize it's the only thing they might actually achieve, and that's the CBO recogniztion. If you read 349, it defines criteria and directs FAA to create a process. So what is there to discuss here? I mean it's pretty clear in the language already. So what's AMA "discussing?" In the end, being recognized as a CBO will be a hollow victory, for it doesn't bring AMA any tangible authority. It'll look good on the wall, and the marketing major ED will publicize the crap out of it, but in the end it will mean little in practical terms.
I see this as AMA trying to grasp anything, no matter small, to show they're doing SOMETHING. For further proof, look no further than their government blog post talking about the Utah legislation that says folks have to use B4UFly. Whoopie do. Similarly with the post about letters of agreement. Call me crazy, but isn't that just doing what the law said to do? How is that a result of AMA's "influence?"
Note 1: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2019/04/26/ama-cta-lead-first-stakeholder-meeting-on-recreational-uas-regulations/
04-27-2019, 05:43 AM
#13
Banned
Interesting......... Consumer Technology Association is located in Alexandria, VA. Having lived some 15 miles from them for 10 years, I've never heard of them. But then, there are some 3500 tech related businesses in the greater DC area. But since they also have a drone as the main pic on their web site, I also suspect they are fairly new to the market.
Speaking of which, they tout themselves as a "trade association representing the $398 billion U.S. consumer technology industry". IOW they try to link up your company with other companies and agencies that can use your services and/or provide your company with some sort of service. A coordinator if you will for organizations with similar interests. But "Consumer Tech Industry" is a very broad term and can basically encompass anything electronic. Requiring a broad range of expertise which equates to a lot of employees, or at least a lot of contacts. I suspect they're stretching reality a bit.
Attendees at the meeting makes for an interesting list. But what I find interesting are those who were absent.
The meeting was held in Alexandria, VA. Less than 15 miles from downtown DC. Every major and most minor players in the Aviation Industry have facilities and personnel in the greater DC area. Many probably within a couple of blocks of the meeting location. Yet we don't see the FAA there. Nor Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics and a host of others.
Now some here will no doubt claim I am once again bashing the AMA. Not my intent. Never has been. Rather my intent is to make AMA members aware of the status of the AMA with regard to the rest of the aviation community. And to hopefully make the members aware that they need to start taking a more proactive role in the running of the AMA. That they need to pay attention to what the AMA is doing, who they're doing it with and more importantly, who they're NOT doing it with.
Industry and government have already relegated the AMA to an also ran status. IOW they showed up for the game but did nothing of importance and don't really matter. The only way this will ever change is through a concerted effort by the Membership. THE MEMBERSHIP! Relying on the EC is a fools errand. The membership needs to get busy and take back their AMA.
Speaking of which, they tout themselves as a "trade association representing the $398 billion U.S. consumer technology industry". IOW they try to link up your company with other companies and agencies that can use your services and/or provide your company with some sort of service. A coordinator if you will for organizations with similar interests. But "Consumer Tech Industry" is a very broad term and can basically encompass anything electronic. Requiring a broad range of expertise which equates to a lot of employees, or at least a lot of contacts. I suspect they're stretching reality a bit.
Attendees at the meeting makes for an interesting list. But what I find interesting are those who were absent.
The meeting was held in Alexandria, VA. Less than 15 miles from downtown DC. Every major and most minor players in the Aviation Industry have facilities and personnel in the greater DC area. Many probably within a couple of blocks of the meeting location. Yet we don't see the FAA there. Nor Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics and a host of others.
Now some here will no doubt claim I am once again bashing the AMA. Not my intent. Never has been. Rather my intent is to make AMA members aware of the status of the AMA with regard to the rest of the aviation community. And to hopefully make the members aware that they need to start taking a more proactive role in the running of the AMA. That they need to pay attention to what the AMA is doing, who they're doing it with and more importantly, who they're NOT doing it with.
Industry and government have already relegated the AMA to an also ran status. IOW they showed up for the game but did nothing of importance and don't really matter. The only way this will ever change is through a concerted effort by the Membership. THE MEMBERSHIP! Relying on the EC is a fools errand. The membership needs to get busy and take back their AMA.
04-27-2019, 05:56 AM
#14
Yep. And yet AMA deludes themselves into thinking they have influence. Within the last couple days, they posted in their government blog that they co-chaired a meeting. Out of that they made this statement:
"Regulations for recreational drone operators should be easy for the public to understand and rigorous enough to ensure safety. We are proud to have led the first meeting of stakeholders to help the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) craft this exact approach. At the meeting we also discussed safety and knowledge tests for recreational model aircraft and drone operators, and the process for recognizing community-based organizations. We look forward to working with the recreational drone community and the FAA to strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety." (note 1)
Some observations:
- This isn't a meeting at the "big kids" table. Note the stakeholders that are NOT there: Airlines, ALPA, etc.; police, fire, and emergency responder groups; media groups; Amazon Prime Air, Google, etc.; DoD, DHS, etc.
- As it's operating in isolation, it's at best a "wish list" or perhaps wishful thinking
Even taking apart their statement... it's largely a "master of the obvious" type thing. "Needs to be simple and easy to understand" and "strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety" .... well duh. Sure glad we spent member money on travel and hotels to come up with those pearls of wisdom. Otherwise, they're just talking about what they discussed. AMA has been "talking" about a lot of things. What were the RESULTS of those discussions? A point curiously absent from AMA's release. And lastly, I think the statement exposes the only thing AMA cares about at this point, perhaps because they might realize it's the only thing they might actually achieve, and that's the CBO recogniztion. If you read 349, it defines criteria and directs FAA to create a process. So what is there to discuss here? I mean it's pretty clear in the language already. So what's AMA "discussing?" In the end, being recognized as a CBO will be a hollow victory, for it doesn't bring AMA any tangible authority. It'll look good on the wall, and the marketing major ED will publicize the crap out of it, but in the end it will mean little in practical terms.
I see this as AMA trying to grasp anything, no matter small, to show they're doing SOMETHING. For further proof, look no further than their government blog post talking about the Utah legislation that says folks have to use B4UFly. Whoopie do. Similarly with the post about letters of agreement. Call me crazy, but isn't that just doing what the law said to do? How is that a result of AMA's "influence?"
Note 1: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...s-regulations/
"Regulations for recreational drone operators should be easy for the public to understand and rigorous enough to ensure safety. We are proud to have led the first meeting of stakeholders to help the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) craft this exact approach. At the meeting we also discussed safety and knowledge tests for recreational model aircraft and drone operators, and the process for recognizing community-based organizations. We look forward to working with the recreational drone community and the FAA to strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety." (note 1)
Some observations:
- This isn't a meeting at the "big kids" table. Note the stakeholders that are NOT there: Airlines, ALPA, etc.; police, fire, and emergency responder groups; media groups; Amazon Prime Air, Google, etc.; DoD, DHS, etc.
- As it's operating in isolation, it's at best a "wish list" or perhaps wishful thinking
Even taking apart their statement... it's largely a "master of the obvious" type thing. "Needs to be simple and easy to understand" and "strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety" .... well duh. Sure glad we spent member money on travel and hotels to come up with those pearls of wisdom. Otherwise, they're just talking about what they discussed. AMA has been "talking" about a lot of things. What were the RESULTS of those discussions? A point curiously absent from AMA's release. And lastly, I think the statement exposes the only thing AMA cares about at this point, perhaps because they might realize it's the only thing they might actually achieve, and that's the CBO recogniztion. If you read 349, it defines criteria and directs FAA to create a process. So what is there to discuss here? I mean it's pretty clear in the language already. So what's AMA "discussing?" In the end, being recognized as a CBO will be a hollow victory, for it doesn't bring AMA any tangible authority. It'll look good on the wall, and the marketing major ED will publicize the crap out of it, but in the end it will mean little in practical terms.
I see this as AMA trying to grasp anything, no matter small, to show they're doing SOMETHING. For further proof, look no further than their government blog post talking about the Utah legislation that says folks have to use B4UFly. Whoopie do. Similarly with the post about letters of agreement. Call me crazy, but isn't that just doing what the law said to do? How is that a result of AMA's "influence?"
Note 1: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...s-regulations/
05-07-2019, 12:03 PM
#16
Yep. And yet AMA deludes themselves into thinking they have influence. Within the last couple days, they posted in their government blog that they co-chaired a meeting. Out of that they made this statement:
"Regulations for recreational drone operators should be easy for the public to understand and rigorous enough to ensure safety. We are proud to have led the first meeting of stakeholders to help the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) craft this exact approach. At the meeting we also discussed safety and knowledge tests for recreational model aircraft and drone operators, and the process for recognizing community-based organizations. We look forward to working with the recreational drone community and the FAA to strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety." (note 1)
Some observations:
- This isn't a meeting at the "big kids" table. Note the stakeholders that are NOT there: Airlines, ALPA, etc.; police, fire, and emergency responder groups; media groups; Amazon Prime Air, Google, etc.; DoD, DHS, etc.
- As it's operating in isolation, it's at best a "wish list" or perhaps wishful thinking
Even taking apart their statement... it's largely a "master of the obvious" type thing. "Needs to be simple and easy to understand" and "strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety" .... well duh. Sure glad we spent member money on travel and hotels to come up with those pearls of wisdom. Otherwise, they're just talking about what they discussed. AMA has been "talking" about a lot of things. What were the RESULTS of those discussions? A point curiously absent from AMA's release. And lastly, I think the statement exposes the only thing AMA cares about at this point, perhaps because they might realize it's the only thing they might actually achieve, and that's the CBO recogniztion. If you read 349, it defines criteria and directs FAA to create a process. So what is there to discuss here? I mean it's pretty clear in the language already. So what's AMA "discussing?" In the end, being recognized as a CBO will be a hollow victory, for it doesn't bring AMA any tangible authority. It'll look good on the wall, and the marketing major ED will publicize the crap out of it, but in the end it will mean little in practical terms.
I see this as AMA trying to grasp anything, no matter small, to show they're doing SOMETHING. For further proof, look no further than their government blog post talking about the Utah legislation that says folks have to use B4UFly. Whoopie do. Similarly with the post about letters of agreement. Call me crazy, but isn't that just doing what the law said to do? How is that a result of AMA's "influence?"
Note 1: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...s-regulations/
"Regulations for recreational drone operators should be easy for the public to understand and rigorous enough to ensure safety. We are proud to have led the first meeting of stakeholders to help the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) craft this exact approach. At the meeting we also discussed safety and knowledge tests for recreational model aircraft and drone operators, and the process for recognizing community-based organizations. We look forward to working with the recreational drone community and the FAA to strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety." (note 1)
Some observations:
- This isn't a meeting at the "big kids" table. Note the stakeholders that are NOT there: Airlines, ALPA, etc.; police, fire, and emergency responder groups; media groups; Amazon Prime Air, Google, etc.; DoD, DHS, etc.
- As it's operating in isolation, it's at best a "wish list" or perhaps wishful thinking
Even taking apart their statement... it's largely a "master of the obvious" type thing. "Needs to be simple and easy to understand" and "strike the appropriate balance between innovation and safety" .... well duh. Sure glad we spent member money on travel and hotels to come up with those pearls of wisdom. Otherwise, they're just talking about what they discussed. AMA has been "talking" about a lot of things. What were the RESULTS of those discussions? A point curiously absent from AMA's release. And lastly, I think the statement exposes the only thing AMA cares about at this point, perhaps because they might realize it's the only thing they might actually achieve, and that's the CBO recogniztion. If you read 349, it defines criteria and directs FAA to create a process. So what is there to discuss here? I mean it's pretty clear in the language already. So what's AMA "discussing?" In the end, being recognized as a CBO will be a hollow victory, for it doesn't bring AMA any tangible authority. It'll look good on the wall, and the marketing major ED will publicize the crap out of it, but in the end it will mean little in practical terms.
I see this as AMA trying to grasp anything, no matter small, to show they're doing SOMETHING. For further proof, look no further than their government blog post talking about the Utah legislation that says folks have to use B4UFly. Whoopie do. Similarly with the post about letters of agreement. Call me crazy, but isn't that just doing what the law said to do? How is that a result of AMA's "influence?"
Note 1: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...s-regulations/
So, what will the FAA do about this? What can they do? And I still have yet to hear or read about this new upcoming test requirement.... Maybe all of this will come to requiring a Part 107 license for ALL operators, even at the local club level. Who knows?
05-07-2019, 01:51 PM
#17
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spin one way spin another way..Spin it whatever way makes you feel good... Part 107 is over kill and has zero provisions for recreational flying.. The skies are a public resource and thus we have the same rights to this airspace as commercial interests. Thus the testing is going to be geared towards basic knowledge of the airspace etc.. To sit there and say that no special considerations would be given to air clubs or modelers, even if they have a reputation for following the rules, just because commercial interests would not allow it, or the FAA would not allow it on behalf of commercial interests, is commercial interests denying the rights of others. to said public space and that's utter nonsense. 349 is supposed to be a set of rules designed to go after the would be criminal, not deny access to the airspace to everyone else except for commercial entities. And some of this other stuff is just mere spin....
Whatever the case in regards to testing.. it couldn't be any harder than a Microsoft Systems Engineer certification or an Amazon Web Services Solutions Architect Certification...of which I am both. I took a 160 question practice test for part 107 and passed with flying colors without any serious study...I studied for MCSE and AWS for over 6 months every day to pass those exams. I am one of those engineer folks that enjoys this hobby..
Whatever the case in regards to testing.. it couldn't be any harder than a Microsoft Systems Engineer certification or an Amazon Web Services Solutions Architect Certification...of which I am both. I took a 160 question practice test for part 107 and passed with flying colors without any serious study...I studied for MCSE and AWS for over 6 months every day to pass those exams. I am one of those engineer folks that enjoys this hobby..
Last edited by maximusminimus; 05-07-2019 at 03:41 PM.
