And so it begins
06-02-2016, 09:56 AM
#4
This is not a "beginning," the FAA has been unequivocal about the fact that commercial UAS operations (which this was) are not allowed without specific permission from them - in this case, a 333 exemption. It seems from the letter that was posted, the FAA sent him a notice (in January) about this which he apparently ignored. He continued his commercial operations despite this information and he got caught by local law enforcement and based on their evidence, the FAA violated him.
I do not agree with a lot of ways that the FAA is dealing with this, but anyone who is involved in UAS operations knows what the "rules" the FAA is operating under are - even if they are not yet codified as FARs. As a commercial pilot, this guy knew he was in violation of the FAA's current "interpretation" of the rules and he should have expected that they would violate him if they caught him - especially since they had already warned him.
It should also be noted that the details of the flight seem to indicate that it was over people - which is specifically prohibited by the section 333 exemptions that the FAA grants (a 500 foot separation from the UAV to "uninvolved" people is mandated) and is also in violation of the AMA safety code.
Bob
I do not agree with a lot of ways that the FAA is dealing with this, but anyone who is involved in UAS operations knows what the "rules" the FAA is operating under are - even if they are not yet codified as FARs. As a commercial pilot, this guy knew he was in violation of the FAA's current "interpretation" of the rules and he should have expected that they would violate him if they caught him - especially since they had already warned him.
It should also be noted that the details of the flight seem to indicate that it was over people - which is specifically prohibited by the section 333 exemptions that the FAA grants (a 500 foot separation from the UAV to "uninvolved" people is mandated) and is also in violation of the AMA safety code.
Bob
Last edited by rhklenke; 06-02-2016 at 10:17 AM.
06-02-2016, 02:30 PM
#5
If the incident happened the way it was described in the article it could happen to anyone flying any type of RC craft. According to the article no charges were filed against the flyer but yet the FAA went after him anyway.
06-02-2016, 04:40 PM
#6
I also fail to see how this relates to model aircraft. The FAA letter even mentions he was flying outside the protection of "model aircraft" since he was doing it for a company and being paid by a client for his services.
He didn't follow the rules and got his pee pee slapped.
He didn't follow the rules and got his pee pee slapped.
