Originally Posted by
JW0311
Is that a sane comparison? Forgive my ignorance but can we really make the distinction between a commercial drone pilot and a recreational pilot simply based on the exchange of money? I can understand a commercial pilot who fly's a couple of hundred people from place to place being held to a strict and ridged standard; however, I can't see this standard being used in a drone situation. Specifically the court case in question. It seems that the FAA would have had no problem with this guy if he had not taken money for his flying. I'm sure I'm missing something because that seems insane. Is it the FAA's intent to use current regulation with regards to private vs.commercial pilots and simply transfer it over for use in the drone community? I don't get it.
James
As for whether or not it seems rational, consider that there are essentially no physical descriptors that can distinguish between a model aircraft and some small UAS. The essential thing that separates them from us is the purpose in their operation. There are significant differences here. Model airplanes are operated (mostly, exceptions being the usual nitwits that can't act responsibly) over ground areas that are devoid of persons and their property that might be injured in the event of a crash. The defining property of a safe recreational/hobby model flying site, whether a club site or an open field of opportunity, is that it is a place where a model airplane can crash without causing harm to anyone or anything other than itself. Such flying spaces are of little use to operators of UAS for public services (as your FD or some law enforcement operations), or some commercial enterprise, common examples being aerial photography of real estate, coverage of news or sporting events and the like. These public and civil users are expected to fly over over people and their property, and so the possibility of loss of control or structural failure presents hazards significantly greater than the non-event a model airplane crash nearly always represents. This is why model airplanes have been excepted from regulation involving pilot and aircraft certification that all other aerial vehicles must comply with. I think the distinction made by FAA is rational, but do understand why you would question it. I had to convince myself, and the bottom line I arrived at was I can't think of a better, fairer way to do it.
It is not the FAA's intent to do as you stated. They realize that it would place an unwieldy burden on operators of small 'drones' and in fact their intent is to pare down from current full scale regulation and tailor a minimal set of rules to allow them to operate without posing undue hazard to the citizenry. I don't fault them for their intent, but do find them lacking for their execution, which is far behind schedule and so has interminably denied availability of the technology to applications that could/should be benefiting from it, e.g., your Fire Dept.