Licensed pilots to fly drones?

[xray328]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/03/10/comed-iit-team-up-to-use-drones-to-inspect-power-lines/

What good would a "licensed pilot" be? How does that qualify you to fly a drone? Unless there's a drone pilot license? That's something I could see in the near future.

 

[Capt_Beavis]

You have to be licensed to fly a plane to fly a drone commercially. they mentioned something about that in one of the episodes.

 

[Corbarrad]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/03/10/comed-iit-team-up-to-use-drones-to-inspect-power-lines/

What good would a "licensed pilot" be? How does that qualify you to fly a drone? Unless there's a drone pilot license? That's something I could see in the near future.

It's for safety reasons.
Mainly the financial safety of the organisations issuing said licenses, that is.
I don't think official licenses are available as of yet.
Teaching institutes will jump on this chance, though and soon you won't be able to get insurance for a drone flight without a license from said institutes.

Which is all well and good in the case of professionals inspecting power lines and such.
A safety briefing is one thing, but you don't want to get inbetween the lines and risk triggering an arc that leaves all of the midwest without power just because you can't control that fancy drone of yours.

I don't think licenses should be necessary for the guy shooting a house for a real estate company where the stakes are relatively low as long as common sense is observed. Common sense should be applied by all involved parties, though, not just the pilot.

 

[FAI-F1D]

Which is all well and good in the case of professionals inspecting power lines and such.
A safety briefing is one thing, but you don't want to get inbetween the lines and risk triggering an arc that leaves all of the midwest without power just because you can't control that fancy drone of yours.

I don't even see that as benefitting from licensure. The power companies who own the lines are the folks best able to determine the safest methods for inspecting their power lines.

And all that falls into the purview of grid security, which is yet another essential national security issue which has been made worse by the government being involved in it...

 

[Barron.Barnett]

I don't even see that as benefitting from licensure. The power companies who own the lines are the folks best able to determine the safest methods for inspecting their power lines.

And all that falls into the purview of grid security, which is yet another essential national security issue which has been made worse by the government being involved in it...

As someone who used to work in that industry, I can testify to this. Though it doesn't help that often times companies wait until they finally are bit before doing something to solve the problem. That said, government involvement has not made it better, and actually in many cases made things worse.

I've found that 99% of the things government does in these types of things provides the illusion of security while not actually providing tangible additional benefits over anything else. All they really do is collect money and spend money, and they never spend it wisely. Even that 1% is mainly there for the instance of pure dumb luck they do something right, which I haven't seen in a long time.

Best way to solve this problem, is actually enforce the laws which are already on the books for reckless actions. When some idiot does something like crashing his drone through a window, prosecute him and hold him accountable for the damages. You don't need a license to do that and people can skip doing the license thing anyway. Punishing bad behavior is the best way to discourage it. Not creating a new revenue stream where honest people now get to choose between complying or paying for the continued enjoyment of their hobby.

How many licenses from the government do I need to prove I'm an honest citizen? I have more licenses than just about anyone already, why do I need more? Doubly so since the majority of them are fill out this paperwork to show I'm not an idiot and pass a background check.

 

[Piperpilot3tk]

The first thing wrong with this thread is that everyone keeps referring to radio control model aircraft as "Drones". By using the term "Drone" you are perpetuating the idea of an unmanned, and most likely armed aircraft which is actually called a UAV or UAS (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle/System). Yes I do believe that a licensed pilot should be required to fly a UAV since they pose a significant possible threat to air traffic and people on the ground if they are operated incorrectly.

The radio controled model aircraft we operate do not pose a significant threat to air traffic if operated below 500 feet AGL or outside of the terminal area of an airport, nor do they pose a significant threat to people on the ground if they are operated with some common sense and are not flown overhead of crowds and the general public.

The reason why the FAA is still requiring commercially operated multirotor aircraft to be flown by a licensed pilot is that the pilot has been trained in regards to the regulations that govern the National Air Space (NAS), also they can move more quickly to a "resolution" in requiring a license that already exisits. Thier bogus theory is that a Private Pilot, or higher rated pilot, will not fly the UAV/UAS in controlled terminal airspace or in the path of air traffic. There are many things wrong with this logic and the FAA's requirements. I am a licensed private pilot who just very recently started flying multirotor model aircraft. In no way would I be any safer flying a quad or hex copter inspecting a bridge or filming aerial footage than a 15 year old kid who can fly a multirotor a hundred times better than me!

The two biggest issues I have with the FAA's NPRM are:
#1: The FAA considers radio control model aircraft to be UAVs/UASs. There should be a finite definition of what qualifies as a UAV/UAS and what a radio control model aircraft is. Currently the NPRM qualifies any unmanned object that flys as a UAV/UAS to include a foam free flight glider from Walmart.

#2: Under the NPRM the FAA is defining all airspace to ground level as the NAS. This is a huge power grab that has gotten a free pass and no one is talking about it. So under the new "rules" you are in the NAS when you walk outside of you're front door.

 

[Barron.Barnett]

The first thing wrong with this thread is that everyone keeps referring to radio control model aircraft as "Drones". By using the term "Drone" you are perpetuating the idea of an unmanned, and most likely armed aircraft which is actually called a UAV or UAS (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle/System). Yes I do believe that a licensed pilot should be required to fly a UAV since they pose a significant possible threat to air traffic and people on the ground if they are operated incorrectly.

You have two options. You can try and spend your time fighting the verbiage fight, trying to swap out the language for something better. Or you can try and reclaim the term and alter the nomenclature.

Both require considerable effort and each has it's upsides and down sides.

You can spot a similar analogy from the firearms arena with "assault weapons", this term was born entirely out of legislative means and done with an intent to scare and intimidate. Much the same as "drone".

You can use the alternative vocabulary all you want, even in interviews, it will usually be edited out by the media so while your effort up front was there, it falls flat.

I find there are better ways to spend time than worrying and arguing about what term I use to describe what. Doubly so if I can use that term to immediately get a mental connection with someone and then describe the system in a manner as to destroy the fear and misconceptions about it. Because honestly that's the real problem and you're fighting an 800lbs gorilla when it comes to language as the media will continue using that term even if you don't. Pick and choose your battles. You best bet in this battle is to get a solid legal definition, see your point #1.

As for #1 and #2, I did voice both of those concerns in my commentary letter. This is a power grab and well I just got finished with one from the ATF today.

 

[Ground loop]

As someone who used to work in that industry, I can testify to this. Though it doesn't help that often times companies wait until they finally are bit before doing something to solve the problem. That said, government involvement has not made it better, and actually in many cases made things worse.

I've found that 99% of the things government does in these types of things provides the illusion of security while not actually providing tangible additional benefits over anything else. All they really do is collect money and spend money, and they never spend it wisely. Even that 1% is mainly there for the instance of pure dumb luck they do something right, which I haven't seen in a long time.

Best way to solve this problem, is actually enforce the laws which are already on the books for reckless actions. When some idiot does something like crashing his drone through a window, prosecute him and hold him accountable for the damages. You don't need a license to do that and people can skip doing the license thing anyway. Punishing bad behavior is the best way to discourage it. Not creating a new revenue stream where honest people now get to choose between complying or paying for the continued enjoyment of their hobby.

How many licenses from the government do I need to prove I'm an honest citizen? I have more licenses than just about anyone already, why do I need more? Doubly so since the majority of them are fill out this paperwork to show I'm not an idiot and pass a background check.

I cant agree more.

 

[Piperpilot3tk]

You have two options. You can try and spend your time fighting the verbiage fight, trying to swap out the language for something better. Or you can try and reclaim the term and alter the nomenclature.

Both require considerable effort and each has it's upsides and down sides.

You can spot a similar analogy from the firearms arena with "assault weapons", this term was born entirely out of legislative means and done with an intent to scare and intimidate. Much the same as "drone".

You can use the alternative vocabulary all you want, even in interviews, it will usually be edited out by the media so while your effort up front was there, it falls flat.

I find there are better ways to spend time than worrying and arguing about what term I use to describe what. Doubly so if I can use that term to immediately get a mental connection with someone and then describe the system in a manner as to destroy the fear and misconceptions about it. Because honestly that's the real problem and you're fighting an 800lbs gorilla when it comes to language as the media will continue using that term even if you don't. Pick and choose your battles. You best bet in this battle is to get a solid legal definition, see your point #1.

As for #1 and #2, I did voice both of those concerns in my commentary letter. This is a power grab and well I just got finished with one from the ATF today.

These are all valid points, and while I agree that educating the public is the answer, I do not think that "language doesn't matter". Words do matter and the last poeple that should be using the "drone" word is radio control hobbiests, doing so just add to the misinformation and false assumptions that most of the public already have.

 

[Margaleona]

Section 333 info?

Does anyone know if one can study independently for this "Pilot Skills Test" required for obtaining the Section333 exemption or one can only take the test after taking part in a course?
And is there a requirement too hire a lawyer to apply for this exemption? Seems like the applications I saw were all done by lawyers on behalf of the client/bussiness.

thank you for any info you can share!

 

[Tman2003]

I have heard recently that you have to have an amateur "ham" license to fly fpv.