Why would they care? Is there some sort of difference in the safety factor?

Or is it meant to allow current pilots/owners of full-sized aircraft the means to recoup their investments, while disallowing newer technology to take their place?

Can anyone logically explain this to me?

Thanks.

I think they look at it as a safety factor. But, they will let any amateur off the street fly without and safety regulations, flying over crowds and putting the public in danger. In the mean time, us as professionals who belong to organizations such as the AWA always keep safety as number one.

I don't get it!!

Logic does not always rest at the FAA.   My take on this is a panic scramble to find the balance in regulation.   
Fear and past info fuel a lot of the FAA.s decision.   Be patient my fellow pilot.    Time heals all wounds.
Give this about a year or two and the FAA will most likely relax their position a little bit.
Hopefully to the point of common sense.  Having said that keep in mind that a lot of this depends on us ,the pilots.
Help us all be good stewards.     If you see hear or know of a pilot being dangerous,irresponsible,or just plain stupid,do not hesitate to make your position known.
Other than that I dare say that the FAA (As A Whole) understands why they are doing what they are doing.    After all,they have no precedent go buy.

We are all just going to have to be patient.  

chris@corp-medi Posted at 2015-5-26 03:01
I think they look at it as a safety factor. But, they will let any amateur off the street fly withou ...

Hi,
What's the AWA?
typo?

chris@corp-medi Posted at 2015-5-26 03:01
I think they look at it as a safety factor. But, they will let any amateur off the street fly withou ...

I don't think a 2,000 pound exhaust-belching hunk of metal and rotor flying over me is very safe. I do not believe the "safety factor" explanation. At all.

However, I do believe it's about money and technology, and who the players are.

Michael Starley Posted at 2015-5-26 03:04
Logic does not always rest at the FAA.   My take on this is a panic scramble to find the balance in  ...

Relax their position on what, exactly? Controlling airspace below 400'?

I am referring to their position on exepmtions.    What it takes to acquire them and the steps that a licensed pilot must take prior to a flight. Who is hobby and what hobby class can legally do.
I kind of sense a little irritation.   Is  there a story here?

That would help me answer the question better.  

Michael Starley Posted at 2015-5-26 04:26
I am referring to their position on exepmtions.    What it takes to acquire them and the steps that  ...

The story is that differentiating between a flight for profit and one for hobby is absurd. Can you explain the safety differences between the two?

Yes, I'm irritated. You should be as well.

I was.   Trust me the whole reason for the purchase of my bird was to make enough money to purchase a beautiful s1000.      
The way that things are going now is just a little frustrating.   I used to install medical equipment.     Took it's toll on the body.
Looking for a new career I researched my bird for over a year(Wanted To Acquire Real World Experience).   Saved up.....ordered and received bird.

At that time I already had a client lined up.   A good one.  I had steadily pumped him up on this idea.  He contacted a lot of his clients and off we go.
Smooth sailing right?   Wrong.      One of his major clients receives word from a well known local broadcast company that they cannot run the spots due to the FAA.  Since then I have proven to my client that the broadcast company was wrong.      His big client then spoke to the broadcast company who promptly caved and allowed the spots.

The frustration came from having to verbally pump everyone back up and reassure them that all is well.   When some people hear the letters FAA their first thought is the worst.  Still having to smooth things over to this day.   Not really a deal breaker just a lot of unnecessary reassurance.
Where the FAA has hit me financially is that a lot potential customers(That Have Never Met Me) are too concerned, at this point,due to the FAA to use my services.  Not the end of the world just a speed bump.
We will just have to be patient,be good stewards,and let time heal the wounds.(Relax The Rules).  It will happen.    When our government begins to realize the economic benefits accessibility will be much better.

At this time it is not illegal to charge for Expertise Of Flight Exhibition.   That is what is written on my paychecks.   Leave no paper trail,stay within the guidelines of hobbyclass according to the FAA and enjoy.
Things will get better.   

Michael Starley Posted at 2015-5-26 05:02
I was.   Trust me the whole reason for the purchase of my bird was to make enough money to purchase  ...

I have not considered Expertise of Flight Exhibition as a charge, only Editing. This could be helpful.

In doing that the key to success is following the FAA guidelines to a T.   If the worst case scenario unfolds,(Crash or Worse FlyAway) you should not  be subject to federal ramifications.   Just do not get comfortable.
After all you are walking a tight rope.   Mind your Ps and Qs.

Aerographis Posted at 2015-5-26 04:33
The story is that differentiating between a flight for profit and one for hobby is absurd. Can you ...

The FAA is BUILT on this sort of distinction.  If you fly a private plane you see it all the time.  As a private pilot you cannot fly for money - to do that you need a commercial ticket.  They interpret "flying for money" so strictly that if your passenger buys you lunch as a "thank you" for the flight they will find you in violation.  All this UAS situation is doing is bringing the FAA's already insanely rigid thinking into the UAS space.  No one who has dealt with them in another context is at all surprised.

PeteGould Posted at 2015-5-26 06:35
The FAA is BUILT on this sort of distinction.  If you fly a private plane you see it all the time.  ...

I can understand the issue when flying passengers, cropdusting, newscasting, or any other function that involves being around populations. When full-sized aircraft go down, it's usually plenty of destruction.

OTOH, when is the last time you read of serious injury sustained from a <55 lb. aircraft going haywire?

This simply does not compute. Following the money trail seems to be a more realistic premise.

PeteGould Just curious.   I know that the FAA has determined that some schools such as Auburn in Alabama are to be training facilities.  Just by chance have you caught wind of individuals  opening training centers for UAVs?      I do not know how the FAA would certify the instructor but that would be a good business.   
For the money and for the ability to help educate others on safe responsible flight.  

...aaannnd like magic, this appears:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/ ... -marblehead-parade/

Front-page Drudge, who has been beating the anti-drone drum for a while.

Aerographis Posted at 2015-5-26 06:54
I can understand the issue when flying passengers, cropdusting, newscasting, or any other function ...

I'm simply saying that the FAA is bringing its existing mindset into this subject matter area. If you think it's easier to believe that the FAA have been paid off by some industry, and are harassing UAV operators for that reason, that's up to you. That's just not what I believe.

Michael Starley Posted at 2015-5-26 06:57
PeteGould Just curious.   I know that the FAA has determined that some schools such as Auburn in Ala ...

I think it will be an interesting business indeed. I haven't heard anything yet, though.

Cool  Thanx Man

http://www.meetup.com/The-Los-An ... =mc1_grp&rv=mc1

Can some explain this to me then

From Forbes Magazine

FAA Says Media Can Use Drone Photos From Citizen Journalists, Not Professionals.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2015/05/07/faa-says-media-can-use-drone-photos-from-citizen-journalists-not-professionals/

pidetectives@ya Posted at 2015-5-27 08:40
Can some explain this to me then

From Forbes Magazine

When did the FAA receive the right to restrict trade in non-controlled airspace? Do they claim control of everything from ground level to 400', as well as the right to govern the commerce within it?

This is the point I am getting at. It's wrong-headed thinking.

Aerographis Posted at 2015-5-27 08:27
http://www.meetup.com/The-Los-Angeles-Drone-User-Group/events/222736090/?a=mc1_grp&rv=mc1

I'm curious about how they can sell this as certifying you for FAR 107 when that FAR technically does not yet exist.

According to this GPO site as of May 21, 2015 we don't have any official standard to test / train to.  Albeit, this training might prove sufficient to get certified when the time comes.  But it might also be extreme overkill.

Aerographs, my guess is the FAA is taking the same approach much abused by the federal government to exert regulatory power - put it in the context of commerce.  

But who knows, there might be a bit of "crony capitalism" mixed in.  Problem is, who can we find to ferret out the truth?  Can we handle the truth?

kneverett Posted at 2015-5-27 08:57
I'm curious about how they can sell this as certifying you for FAR 107 when that FAR technically d ...

Sounds like driving school to me.

This is laughable:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read ... -without-permission

Aerographis Posted at 2015-5-27 09:36
This is laughable:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-tells-the-media-it-cant-use-drones-for- ...

Agreed.  The lack of common sense is almost criminal.

kneverett Posted at 2015-5-27 09:38
Agreed.  The lack of common sense is almost criminal.

At least I'm not the only person to speak out. If we don't hang together, we hang separately.

The FAA has the right to control all airspace.  This is why we need coherent regulations.  

HermosaDrones Posted at 2015-5-28 08:04
The FAA has the right to control all airspace.  This is why we need coherent regulations.

Really? I'm looking, but I can't find it here:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_p ... %20Chapter%2014.pdf

Or perhaps I just don't understand the definitions of Uncontrolled Airspace (Class G). It's rather confusing.

HermosaDrones Posted at 2015-5-28 08:04
The FAA has the right to control all airspace.  This is why we need coherent regulations.

I thought rights belonged to the people and the government has responsibilities to benefit the public well being while protecting individual rights?  It's all too easy to hand power to the government when they use it to step on other peoples rights and not your own.

kneverett Posted at 2015-5-28 22:52
I thought rights belonged to the people and the government has responsibilities to benefit the pub ...

I have a friend that has been flying for over 40 years and keeps 2 planes at the local airport.

Put him on a Sim for fun and I think his longest flight was 5 seconds before he crashed.

Full size & hobby are two completely different skill sets to fly.

Just because you can fly a Cessna doesn't mean you can fly an RC craft so the FAA may actually be promoting pilots that More dangerous than those of us that have years of time on the sticks.

Aerographis Posted at 2015-5-28 10:22
Really? I'm looking, but I can't find it here:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_ ...

Class G airspace is still under the regulatory guidelines of Transport Canada and FAA as well as all other Nations that use the same regulatory system, which is pretty much common global dog. Class G airspace is simply not controlled by a tower and is in theory not space an aircraft should occupy unless landing or taking off, crop dusting , air shows or fighting fires or flying in accordance with pre determined altitudes both minimums and maximums for east and west travel. This is supposed to keep separation in corridors for normal small aircraft passage to prevent head on collisions. Normal flight elevations are at 2000 feet AGL plus or minus 500 feet depending on direction.

But to answer the question about commercial distinction with regards to manned aircraft. There are classifications just like trucks. Passenger endorsements, type certifications , Multi engine, single engine
etc. These are for safety. There is the single engine commercial such as freight and mail, which is clearly a cash cow for FAA and TC. And soon there will be a similar cash cow for UAV's of all sizes! Case in point... the newly proposed ultra stupid registration garbage the Transport Canada intends to enforce! This will no doubt be an attempt to cash in on the UAV phenomena by imposing a registration fee of some sort, perhaps an annual cash grab. It may reguire all UAV pilots to take a course that will teach you nothing more than how to fill out your registration and a cheque to REVENUE CANADA! And insurance! oh yeah gotta pay some insurance company a bunch of money so that in the event of an emergency they can decide to pay or not for your incompetence. It's all about the money don't think it's for any other reason.

Navigator53 Posted at 2015-5-29 23:16
I have a friend that has been flying for over 40 years and keeps 2 planes at the local airport.

P ...

Can't disagree there.  The FAA needs a new paradigm of thinking to get this done right.

On the other hand - our CASA is finalising a new revision to our regulatory framework that will open up commercial flight ops without controllers or operators certification for sub 2Kg RPAS. (usual recreational rules apply). Doesn't that have our fledgling commercial UAV industry upset! Lots of people who are in the establishment stages of their businesses, having purchased equipment and gone through the process of certification are very unhappy.

Of course this only affects the very bottom rung of the ladder (real estate photos and such) but it sends an interesting signal.

I'm just looking at the Inspire, seeking to find the best attachment points for helium balloons - gotta offset a kilo!  ;-)

Farnk666 Posted at 2015-6-11 09:02
On the other hand - our CASA is finalising a new revision to our regulatory framework that will open ...

I think CASA like every other Aviation Authority should look for standardisation.

The UK CAA seem to have it about right with classifications of UAV up 7kg then up to 20kg.  I also think that commercial Pilot examinations and proof of competence such as the EuroUSC BNUC-S Pilot License should be adopted globally so that Pilot certifications can be recognised in a similar way as commercial fixed wing pilots under the ICAO international agreement.
We just need some common sense here from the respective Aviation Authorities.