FAA interim guidance for commercial small UAS operations

[AirTrafficJO]

I have attached a memo I received at work outlining the interim rules for operating small UAS in the NAS. Thoughts?

 

[Team_Monkey]

There is no reason a PIC of an sUAS should be required to have a private pilots license. That seems unreasonable and of little to no use to the actual safe operation of a radio controlled model aircraft.

Requiring operation to be below 200' is probably going to be a non issue anyway due to the types of work normally performed but why require them to be 300' below the limit of GA aircraft (500')? Previous guidelines have stated 400' was the limit of a model aircraft.

 

[brettp2004]

It sounds like it mainly applies to commercial use. This really needs to go before the courts and get hammered out, it seems like every day there is something with conflicting guidance on it. The reality of it though, the FAA can't regulate someone flying a RC airplane any more than they can someone flying a kite, or throwing a baseball into the air. I think they know that, and I understand they want to make sure it doesn't impede the operation of normal aircraft, but this is the typical knee jerk reaction of a government agency when faced with something they don't know how to deal with. Unfortunately, I work for the government and I see these knee jerk reactions every day. It'll blow over and eventually reasonableness will prevail.
On the bright side, I'm currently getting my private pilot's license, so does that mean I'll be able to fly anywhere with my quadcopter that I could in a regular plane?

 

[AirTrafficJO]

Don't quote me on this, I am not affiliated with the writing or rules of this document. I believe this is a way that commercial operations can be legally accomplished while they finish deveolping the actual guidance and licensure that was proposed in the last document they released a month or so ago. It is just a way for the FAA to cover their rear end while still allowing "a few peole" to operate legally. Obviously there are probably only a handful of commercial multirotor operators that have a private pilot's license and that sucks but it is a tiny step forward in the mean time. Once they develop tests and establish official testing sites things will be much less restrictive.

 

[Maingear]

I read some pending waivers on the docket and requests from pilot certificates are common in the requests. I don't see why they would refuse if the AO is in an unpopulated area and there is a 200' AGl cap.

My $.02

Justin

 

[makattack]

Here's the thing, if other departments / groups in the US Government can't follow the rules themselves, and end up with a mess like this:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...pent-2-1-million-on-23-drones-that-dont-work/

How can the FAA possibly see any ability to regulate this commercial use? If the FBI and ATF both failed to realize they were breaking the law, and ended up having to suspend a program that had already spent a lot of money after they figured that out, how can the FAA expect civilian commercial operators/potential operators to do the same?

That said... I think the FBI and ATF need to hire some of the FliteTest guys if they can't get a model to fly over 20 minutes:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/03/25/doj-pissed-away-2-1-million-on-drones-that-dont-work/

 

[Maingear]

Regs are for private and comercial use, not government. Cities/ counties reguraly take posetion seized aircraft and can fly them without annuals. Sell them for close to scrap prices after required period of time for a song.

I worked on the us marshials Hawker 800 once and it was worse than the repossesses jets!

Justin