HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jun 29, 2014, 09:10 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2014
60 Posts
Discussion
How can we as a community play nice with the FAA?

I have been following the FAA controversy pretty closely and it seems like lots of people have opinions, but no meaningful organized effort is being made to address their concerns. I want to start a discussion about what we can do to improve the perceptions surrounding our hobby. The goal here is to offer a middle ground that addresses the FAA's concerns about safety, privacy, commercial use of RC craft, and FPV flying, in a way that demonstrates that meaningful improvement is possible while keeping our hobby accessible and enjoyable for us.

My idea is to develop a set of safety rules and good flying guidelines, that demonstrate how we can operate in a way that is safe, enjoyable, and possibly commercially viable. I would like to then promote these throughout the community hopefully with participation from vendors and respected experts to any outlets available to us.

I would like to hear ideas from members here about what these should look like. Instructional videos for safety and pilot training? Form an independent society that can license drone operators for commercial use? All ideas are welcome. Lets hear em!
Pippy is online now Find More Posts by Pippy
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jun 30, 2014, 10:39 AM
Stupidity doesn't fly
JC3233's Avatar
United States, PA, Philadelphia
Joined Oct 2013
302 Posts
I been voting for cheap yearly licencing or permits. Maybe $20 renewal each year with an online test or something. This can grant us FPV flight within a certain distance and if stopped by the public or officers, we can show that we know what we're doing.

The test should definitely include a rigorous safety section. Officers should be allowed to ask for permits, and those that don't own one should be fined. This allows the safer pilots to show the world the fun and benefits of the hobby without the idiots ruining it for us. This way, those that get caught flying 10,000 feet over an airport can get their butts handed to them with the public knowing that they were "flying without a license" like a 13 year old driving without a license. Those with a permit should be allowed to buddy box or train one student and take full responsibility for that student.

They should also allow a more rigorous test for commercial pilots that cost more but less than $100 and grant them more range and a larger craft. The money collected from this should go towards more education for the public on RC as well as a public flight club/field that people can join.

Oh and every craft must have a sticker with the permit number and owners Name or Phone number. This makes pilot less inclined to fly into private property or up to someones window.

I certainly feel like there needs to be some regulation rather than a total ban for this hobby. I'd be happy to get a yearly permit as I already do for hunting or fishing. Keeps it safer, or at least in our minds.
JC3233 is online now Find More Posts by JC3233
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 10:49 AM
Registered User
Made in Austria's Avatar
United States, NV, Las Vegas
Joined Dec 2013
581 Posts
Give them an inch and they take a mile.
Made in Austria is online now Find More Posts by Made in Austria
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 11:12 AM
jab
Unregistered User
Joined Aug 2007
1,057 Posts
AMA tried to play nice, but FAA still went behind their back.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
jab is offline Find More Posts by jab
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 11:14 AM
DWA
John 3:16
DWA's Avatar
South Orange County,CA.
Joined Dec 2004
9,416 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jab View Post
AMA tried to play nice, but FAA still went behind their back.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
Yup. That was not cool!
DWA is offline Find More Posts by DWA
RCG Plus Member
Old Jun 30, 2014, 01:03 PM
Registered User
United States, OR, Mt Hood
Joined May 2014
254 Posts
Take a peek at multirotors,com in the multirotor general discussion forum. The site is more dedicated to the multirotor professionals and so is working on a fast response to the FAA edict that might provide some help for the hobby side of things. Next is to use what the AMA has provided on a massive scale to get our input in prior to the close of the review deadline.

Don't hope and wait for someone else to do it, get involved personally or you stand a high chance of seeing your hobby pretty much ended. The FAA and Congress do not read these forums so what is said here is all wasted keyboard time where they are concerned. They are not hearing what you are saying unless you address them directly.
PatR is offline Find More Posts by PatR
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 01:24 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2014
60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC3233 View Post
I been voting for cheap yearly licencing or permits. Maybe $20 renewal each year with an online test or something. This can grant us FPV flight within a certain distance and if stopped by the public or officers, we can show that we know what we're doing.

The test should definitely include a rigorous safety section. Officers should be allowed to ask for permits, and those that don't own one should be fined. This allows the safer pilots to show the world the fun and benefits of the hobby without the idiots ruining it for us. This way, those that get caught flying 10,000 feet over an airport can get their butts handed to them with the public knowing that they were "flying without a license" like a 13 year old driving without a license. Those with a permit should be allowed to buddy box or train one student and take full responsibility for that student.

They should also allow a more rigorous test for commercial pilots that cost more but less than $100 and grant them more range and a larger craft. The money collected from this should go towards more education for the public on RC as well as a public flight club/field that people can join.

Oh and every craft must have a sticker with the permit number and owners Name or Phone number. This makes pilot less inclined to fly into private property or up to someones window.

I certainly feel like there needs to be some regulation rather than a total ban for this hobby. I'd be happy to get a yearly permit as I already do for hunting or fishing. Keeps it safer, or at least in our minds.
I really like this idea and I think most hobbyists would have no problem working within these rules. Also, every phantom flying idiot who flys over a crowded stadium would have their license revoked and the rest of the community would not have to pay for his bad decisions.
Pippy is online now Find More Posts by Pippy
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 01:27 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2014
60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatR View Post
Take a peek at multirotors,com in the multirotor general discussion forum. The site is more dedicated to the multirotor professionals and so is working on a fast response to the FAA edict that might provide some help for the hobby side of things. Next is to use what the AMA has provided on a massive scale to get our input in prior to the close of the review deadline.

Don't hope and wait for someone else to do it, get involved personally or you stand a high chance of seeing your hobby pretty much ended. The FAA and Congress do not read these forums so what is said here is all wasted keyboard time where they are concerned. They are not hearing what you are saying unless you address them directly.
That's the plan. i want to compile a meaningful message from people here and other forums to express our willingness to work with the FAA in a way that most of us are happy with. I could (and I have) go and rant on the comment section on the FAA interpretation, but I feel like we need to be unified and coherent with our response, otherwise it is just angry noise.
Pippy is online now Find More Posts by Pippy
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 01:54 PM
Registered User
Joined Jun 2009
376 Posts
You don't matter. Your input doesn't matter. Your quad or your FPV doesn't matter.
Northrop. Boeing Lockheed. Dream hammer. Global hawk.


These are the names of those that matter. They have paid congressional lobbyist. They have a working relationship with the DOD snd the FAA
They have toys too and the FAA isn't letting them play with their toys so why do you think the
FAA vs UAV argument includes your 1000 dollar toy ?
You. And I will sit and wait.
Of course unless you have the money to hire a lobbyist.



That's where we stand. I didn't want to be rude but I do need to point out the real argument and the real players.


But I will say you have an excellent web handle
splitboarder is offline Find More Posts by splitboarder
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 02:01 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2014
60 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitboarder View Post
You don't matter. Your input doesn't matter. Your quad or your FPV doesn't matter.
Northrop. Boeing Lockheed. Dream hammer. Global hawk.


These are the names of those that matter. They have paid congressional lobbyist. They have a working relationship with the DOD snd the FAA
They have toys too and the FAA isn't letting them play with their toys so why do you think the
FAA vs UAV argument includes your 1000 dollar toy ?
You. And I will sit and wait.
Of course unless you have the money to hire a lobbyist.


That's where we stand. I didn't want to be rude but I do need to point out the real argument and the real players.
Welp, guess we should all just roll over and accept it then. Seriously though, I understand your sentiment and I agree somewhat, but I dont think apathy does anyone any good.
Pippy is online now Find More Posts by Pippy
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 02:05 PM
Registered User
United States, OR, Mt Hood
Joined May 2014
254 Posts
The FAA does let them play with their toys, using a set of rules largely developed by the big name players 6-7 years ago. All the major players are operating in some manner within U.S. airspace, and doing so legally. University of N. Dakota, B.P. Alaska, Border Patrol, training areas in New Mexico, Texas, Oregon, Maryland, and other states, local police jurisdictions, and anywhere a firm has developed and applied for a C.O.A. are in constant use.

The primary problem is we are a dealing with a situation that started 8 years ago but modelers sat on their hands figuring that someone else would handle it. Some of us were involved and got the AMA to start paying attention soon enough to get included in the rule making discussions. Unfortunately they didn't get involved soon enough to do anything but listen but that alone provided the information that needed disseminated to RC modelers. Most didn't bother to read them let alone respond or get involved.

The attitude you are presenting now assures that absolutely nothing will be attempted, let alone accomplished, for our hobby. That is exactly the attitude that many others have adopted, along with the "let someone else deal with it, I want to go play" that has put us where we are today. I work with one of the sUAS that is currently flying inside U.S. airspace and I know that if we get our acts together we can do something and not simply accept the hand that is getting dealt to us.
PatR is offline Find More Posts by PatR
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 03:04 PM
Registered User
Joined Jun 2009
376 Posts
Quote:
Registered UserUnited States, OR, Mt Hood
Joined May 2014
104 Posts The FAA does let them play with their toys, using a set of rules largely developed by the big name players 6-7 years ago. All the major players are operating in some manner within U.S. airspace, and doing so legally. University of N. Dakota, B.P. Alaska, Border Patrol, training areas in New Mexico, Texas, Oregon, Maryland, and other states, local police jurisdictions, and anywhere a firm has developed and applied for a C.O.A. are in constant use.
You may be working with the above, but they are SMALL players.

The Big ones are the ones who will be landing at your states largest airport side by side with the 737's . Those are the big boys, and NO they are not being allowed to play as of yet.

Think of the cargo that FedEx flies per day. Now, automate the entire process. Thats what big players are looking at

Or, do you work with the contractor whos altitude envelope is at 80, 000ft and mach 1?

Or, maybe you work for the people who already have a drone capible of crusing at 300 feet for 30 days without landing for agricultural surveying


Do any of the aircraft you are working with use dreamhammer?


Quote:
The attitude you are presenting now assures that absolutely nothing will be attempted, let alone accomplished, for our hobby. That is exactly the attitude that many others have adopted, along with the "let someone else deal with it, I want to go play" that has put us where we are today. I work with one of the sUAS that is currently flying inside U.S. airspace and I know that if we get our acts together we can do something and not simply accept the hand that is getting dealt to us.

You dont know anything about me or my attitude but I can bet if you call up my federal representative and ask him if he knows anything about this legal battle He will give you my name. I was doing the political string tugging long before Mr. Pirker was fined.
splitboarder is offline Find More Posts by splitboarder
Last edited by splitboarder; Jun 30, 2014 at 03:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 04:55 PM
Registered User
United States, OR, Mt Hood
Joined May 2014
254 Posts
Predator is flying border patrols at both north and south U.S. borders and Global Hawk is flying U.S. airspace maritime missions. They are also being launched from the U.S. for mission flights overseas. I'd say that qualifies them as active inside U.S. airspace. Scan Eagle, Hunter, Shadow and others are regularly using special airspace inside the U.S. and Aerovironment units and Scan Eagle are both participating in Alaskan airspace operations. The state of Oregon AUVSI just closed a request for proposal period for the use of unmanned surveillance over forest lands. That's all open source info. There is much much more that is not open source and won't be mentioned.

You are correct, I do not know anything about you but you made a post that generated my perception. I was not the only one that perceived it in that manner. As for Mr. Pirker, he should have been shot, not arrested.
PatR is offline Find More Posts by PatR
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 05:38 PM
Registered User
Joined Jun 2009
376 Posts
The Boarder patrol would not be classified as commercial use. Nor would the flights that were done over San Diego county for CalFire in cooperation with the Boarder Patrol
Scan Hawk is old military technology brought out to be used with Aeroviroment.
Aerovironment chose that platform as it was the fastest way to get a COA

There are companies located in the US building and selling military grade UAV'S for commercial purposes and they can't sell them Here

As I said these companies have paid staff who do nothing but lobby in their behalf and they are not being heard


Just trying to let people know where the hobby group stands in the pecking order
splitboarder is offline Find More Posts by splitboarder
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2014, 07:51 PM
Registered User
United States, OR, Mt Hood
Joined May 2014
254 Posts
Now we start to agree on something. Our hobby is indeed very far down on the list.

BTW, that paid staff you mentioned are the same people that sat in with the FAA during the original sUAS airspace and equipment meetings developing what we are seeing today. Perhaps they were heard considerably better than you are aware. All of them can sell to anyone our government believes will comply with ITAR regulations, and they do. I know two of them and what we do in this hobby was never factored into the proposed regulations. In essence is was perfectly fine if our hobby died on the vine. The AMA was not originally intended to have been included in those meetings but some last minute leveraging activity got them a chair to listen from.

I've been rolling with this stuff since I first started providing info on upcoming regulatory intentions to the AMA back in 2006 and 2007. Although on the west coast I had the ear of a District 10 VP that relayed my info to AMA staff. I have neither left the business nor stopped following the activities of the UAV industry from the inside, not from the outside reading distorted news articles.
PatR is offline Find More Posts by PatR
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion This is why we can't have nice things.. M3Roc Multirotor Talk 26 Jun 26, 2014 08:10 PM
Discussion See, this is why we can't have nice things... dll932 Life, The Universe, and Politics 23 Jun 14, 2014 10:49 AM
Discussion See, this is why we can't have nice things dll932 Life, The Universe, and Politics 22 Jan 24, 2014 01:10 PM
Discussion How Can We Tax Someone for Not Buying Something from a Website that Doesn't Work? craab Life, The Universe, and Politics 2 Oct 10, 2013 08:35 AM
Discussion As far as the FAA is concerned can we contract to take photos via RC heil/plane? Adams123 Aerial Photography 23 Mar 01, 2008 10:10 AM