By the way the FAA is checking the popular forums, the DJI Inspire 1 forum is not an exception, this post even will be monitored.


The whole section 333 is a joke let's be honest. So least see here make commercial entities jump through hoops while hobbyists are allowed to fly if they follow the rules? They say they are worried about safety then why not ban all Drone flights not related to emergency services? The FAA cannot truly ban commercial usage, it didn't hold up in court with the one guy who the FAA unsuccessfully tried to fine $10 Grand at the University of Virginia and it will not hold up again.

The whole National Airspace ordeal is overblown as well, if there's a plane or helo flying lower than 400 feet in a semi-populated area then there's more of an issue going on than Joe Blow from Acme drones flying his quadcopter. The FAA is using scare tactics and using quasi-gestapo tactics like encouraging citizens, local police  and rival businesses to snitch on non section 333 holders.

It's ludicrous, Malaysia wonder if it's really the helicopter and fixedwing community putting pressure on the FAA to preserve their businesses because they had to invest  millions of dollars to do jobs that a guy with 5 Grand and a drone can do, often with  better results.

Again someone please answer this question. If it's about safety why can the hobbyists still fly without a tre tre tre? Also what constitutes commercial use? If you're a business and you are out practicing is that commercial? If you do a favor and take video of your buddies house and later he decides to pay you out of generosity is that commercial? If you do jobs for free is that commercial? If you take a video post it to YouTube and your channel is monetized yet haven't received money is that commercial? Who decides what is commercial? The local law enforcement guy that the FAA has empowered to be the drone gestapo that gets overzealous and confiscates your drone because he deemed you doing commercial activities when actually you're a hobbyist? This is very irresponsible and totally illogical of the FAA, and no, no got darned airliner is going to be downed from a drone. Fear mongering at its best.

Now you see why the NTSB threw out that FAA fine against that guy, their regulations for Drones has more holes than a Reno Brothel.

A Section 333 doesn't magically make you fly safely, flying safely is what makes you fly safely. Also what's with the mandatory sports pilot requirement. So Joe Blow with a sports pilot license is automatically a more safe flyer than a commercial owner? Yes because drone flight and drone experience is covered in the sports license course. Owait it isn't! Facepalm? They talk about how a sports license holder is safer because he knows meteorological stuff and safe flight windows and yada yada, which brings me back to this question. What about the danged hobbyists who are allowed to fly without a 333, oh that's right hobbyists are magically safe because they don't make money, got it! Also hobbyists since they aren't concentrating on dum stuff like profits and stuff have more time to concentrate on safe meteorological windows of flight. Brilliant!!!

Its a worldwide government conspiracy against freedom. The FAA basically just adopted EU papers which try do handle it like this.

However as I already said I also think to make the reason for the flight the citerium if its allowed or not will not held in any high court.

Getting a sports pilot license in order to fly a drone is much more likely to result in death or injury than if you didn't do flight training.  It is irresponsible for the FAA or anyone else to encourage people to fly real aircraft at all.  That is where death from the sky happens.

Most if not all of the drone "issues" have been caused by hobbyists.

If it is about safety, why the FAA cares that I charge or don't charge for aerial photos is a mystery to me.

The number of hobbiests flying drones is an order of magnitude higher than those flying commercially...yet the focus is on the commercial user.

it is quite silly... look over the people that got approved. MOST DO NOT HAVE a sports licence. If you really read them, there are average people (not businesses) getting approved and don't meet the requirements.

gybo102 Posted at 2015-9-23 09:55
it is quite silly... look over the people that got approved. MOST DO NOT HAVE a sports licence. If y ...

they approve them without the sport license because a sport license has absolutely nothing to do with flying a UAV.  Its kinda like saying you need your CDL with all endorsements to ride a bicycle.

sultangris01@gm Posted at 2015-9-23 23:02
they approve them without the sport license because a sport license has absolutely nothing to do wi ...

I agree, im just saying...  I talked with a FAA Rep on the phone and they told me up and down that a sports licence is required to be approved. And when I mentioned the people that got approved without one, all she could say was, its required. I don't get it. I spoke on the phone twice with her, And it seems they are just giving them out to whoever applies honestly, so wait your 3 months, and get approved.

gybo102 Posted at 2015-9-23 10:15
I agree, im just saying...  I talked with a FAA Rep on the phone and they told me up and down that ...

clearly she doesnt know whats going, lol

gybo102 Posted at 2015-9-23 10:15
I agree, im just saying...  I talked with a FAA Rep on the phone and they told me up and down that ...

An 80 year old retired school teacher can apply for and receive a 333 exemption.  But if she uses that exemption to perform a commercial operation she has to use an FAA certificated pilot to be the "pilot."  Until the FAA has the final rules in place they don't care that a person with zero flight hours in an actual aircraft is an incredible RC pilot.  They put more faith in someone with an actual FAA pilot certificate piloting UAVs because they know that individual understands the National Airspace System (NAS).  That person passed a written and practical test on the NAS.
The guys flying these UAVs into LaGuardia and Kennedy airspace in front of airliners on final approach are either oblivious to the NAS or are intentionally trying to hit airplanes full of people.  That's where the FAA is coming from.  I'm no fan of the FAA, but I completely understand this interim measure they are using until they come up with comprehensive rules.   Would you prefer that they just banned all UAV flying for now?  Hobby and commercial?

[backcolor=rgba(0, 9, 24, 0.8)]SHOP NOW »

wingingit Posted at 2015-9-23 20:07
An 80 year old retired school teacher can apply for and receive a 333 exemption.  But if she uses  ...

whats to understand? you stay under 400 feet, away from airports and yield to real air traffic.  Its not rocket science.

Highly unlikely anyone is intentionally trying to crash their $3000 drone into a plane, more likely theyve observed flight patterns and are flying in perfectly safe areas where no plane would ever go other than being closer to them than the faa allows and someone sees the drone within a mile of the airport and freaks out about it.  Even more likely the majority of these reports are false and there is no drone, there cant be that many oblivious people who dont realize they arent supposed to be that close.  Come to think of it i havent heard of any drone sightings lately, maybe the fear mongering media finally gave up their anti drone agenda.

sultangris01@gm Posted at 2015-9-23 21:53
whats to understand? you stay under 400 feet, away from airports and yield to real air traffic.  I ...

I agree. I fly in open areas away from airports and keep below 400 feet. If I were to see a low plane or helicopter coming, I could easily drop down.

Im of the opinion that the FAA really just doesnt want drones in the national airspace period.  They're dragging thief feet to allow enough 'hobbyists' to behave badly (and document it) so they can justify these ridiculous 'temporary' regulations as permanent.

JasonA Posted at 2015-9-24 09:32
Im of the opinion that the FAA really just doesnt want drones in the national airspace period.  They ...

They will not prevail ultimately. The drone issue may eventually reach THE high court.

Delete replied to wrong post.

gybo102 Posted at 2015-9-23 22:55
it is quite silly... look over the people that got approved. MOST DO NOT HAVE a sports licence. If y ...

You realize that you can apply for an exemption and stipulate that your pilots will have the proper certifications right?  Just because the boss of my company gets an exemption doesn't mean he has to have a cert. just his pilots.  That's what you agree to.

"The guys flying these UAVs into LaGuardia and Kennedy airspace in front of airliners on final approach are either oblivious to the NAS or are intentionally trying to hit airplanes full of people.  That's where the FAA is coming from.  I'm no fan of the FAA, but I completely understand this interim measure they are using until they come up with comprehensive rules.   Would you prefer that they just banned all UAV flying for now?  Hobby and commercial?"

So let's say for the sake of argument that all commercial operators have pilots licenses. How does that reduce the above concern?

alan@goldsteinp Posted at 2015-9-28 16:59
"The guys flying these UAVs into LaGuardia and Kennedy airspace in front of airliners on final appro ...

Alan.  It reduces the concern because a certain (albeit small)  group of the folks flying UASs will have studied and know the NAS in detail.  They are also less likely to do something bone headed because they have "skin in the game" so to speak.  I have 35 years, about 20K hours and many different certificates from AP mechanic up to ATP.  I'm not going to put all that at risk even if I was prone taking risks.

Now if your point is that the vast majority of UAS flights are still going to be operated by folks with no airspace training no one can argue with you there.  The FAA isn't solving the whole puzzle here.  They are just doing something that reduces concerns at some level until they can come up with a full solution.  Once again, I'm not ever going be an FAA fanboy.  I'm just cutting them a little slack for now.

@wingingit.  I'm a licensed pilot as well and my dad worked for the FAA. It is humorous to me the UAS crowd getting up in arms about the regulating on the part of the FAA. As a pilot, we have grown accustomed to the rules and regs.  If you as as "lowly" UAS flyer get bummed out about the regs.... buy yourself a copy of the FARs book.....weighing in at over 1200 pages these days.

My suggestion is the same as above....cut the FAA some slack for now.  I totally agree....regulating the "commercial" UAS pilot is based on an antiquated certification process held dear by the FAA. It makes little sense. I'm hopeful that once the dust settles things will fall into place. But be careful what you wish for.

Just remember....it's this same attention to regulation and certification by the FAA that gives most airline travelers peace of mind when the odds of something catastrophic are slim.

"Alan.  It reduces the concern because a certain (albeit small)  group of the folks flying UASs will have studied and know the NAS in detail.  They are also less likely to do something bone headed because they have "skin in the game" so to speak. "

You'd first have to make an assumption that any of the commercial users who don't have exemptions are part of the problem to begin with or likely to be a problem in the future. Can you show that is the case and that the FAA believes that 333 exemptions improves safety in some significant way?

I recently had a discussion with an associate who works as an investigator with the FAA to help write the new rules.  He told me that commercial users like me who shoot over open real estate projects are exactly the kind of people who are putting these things to good use.  We are not a big concern and I don't see the FAA coming after us at this point. He says their concern is mostly the 700,000 drones that will be sold in the US this year mostly to hobbyists and noobs. They worry about flights into stadiums, airports, over crowds, security at nuclear power plants, prisons, etc. I'm sure he is assessing their potential use by terrorists too.  

The entire 333 exemption is dumb because it is voluntary... you only theoretically "have" to have one if you are charging money or doing something else defined as commercial.  Otherwise, you and anyone else can do all the flying you want without an exemption.  And what is the penalty for non-compliance by a commercial user... I don't believe there has ever been a test case on that... not even Raphael Pirker's case which was about safety concerns. I doubt very much if those with 333 exemptions can demonstrate a better safety record than commercial users who don't have the exemption. Are there any stats on this?

The FAA has no idea who is flying these things or where.  How about only licensing truck drivers and letting anyone else drive a car at any age at pretty much at any place without passing vision or driving tests or having insurance?

sorry, I am new to this forum and new to drones/UAS.  After buying mine and talking to a guy, I read everything I could get my hands on about the 333 exemption and the proposed new rules.  I also read some of the legal rulings.  Am I wrong here, or is this just the FAA's attempt to regulate something it has no legal authority over?  Model aircraft are exempted from their regulations.  I am a little confused, but I don't like the idea of having to get a sport pilots license to make $20 from videoing a field that I am going to cut or clear with my equipment.  I saw the proposed rules had a test that could be taken to qualify a UAS pilot for 2 years, but that hasn't been finalized.  It looks like they are only regulating people who try to make a dollar, and not some recreational person with a poor civic attitude.

Any help here?  Am I close to this issue or have I veered off course?

It's all about the Benjamins Gentleman   It's  all about the Benjamins

ecriscit Posted at 2015-11-18 07:54
sorry, I am new to this forum and new to drones/UAS.  After buying mine and talking to a guy, I read ...

You are correct.  The 333 exemption only applies to commercial use, people wanting to sell their footage, however technically it doesn't apply at all in a court of law as the faa has no jurisdiction over uavs.  They are just trying to use it as a temporary solution while they create laws that do apply to commercial uav use.  That's why they easily give 333s without a pilots license, they know it's not legal to require one as it has nothing to do with flying a uav.  When they do finalize a law regarding commercial uav usage a pilots license won't be a requirement then either.   If you're just flying recreationally you don't need to worry about this 333 exemption stuff.

ecriscit Posted at 2015-11-17 16:54
sorry, I am new to this forum and new to drones/UAS.  After buying mine and talking to a guy, I read ...

Howdy Ecriscit!

I think I can help you with this question.  The first thing to realize is that your comment about the FAA having "no legal authority over" UAVs is unfortunately, debatable.

Why debatable?

On November 18, 2014, the NTSB ruled on a very complex case about model flight.  It was concerning a young man named Raphael Pirker.  In the ruling, the NTSB found that Mr. Pirker's Zephyr model was indeed an "Aircraft" as defined by the FAA's regulations.

Ugh!  

Frustratingly for us, this lead the FAA to apply all of their rules regarding aircraft (like having seatbelts; annual inspections; transponders; etc) to our small, simple DJI machines and similar devices by other manufacturers.

To "alleviate" us from some of those unecessary rules, the FAA created the incredibly complex, Section 333 exemption process.  Let any of us know if you have any questions about that.  It's a can of worms.

Hope this helps get you started

-Angel

gybo102 Posted at 2015-9-23 08:15
I agree, im just saying...  I talked with a FAA Rep on the phone and they told me up and down that ...

I have a 333 exemption and a pilots license is not required to get the exemption. A licensed pilot has to be there while flying. If a company gets a 333, they don't have to be licensed but whomever is flying the drone for them needs a current pilots license. (It may now be that a licensed pilot has to be there next to the drone polit and not an private pilot has to be operating the drone)
I got mine 7 months ago when you had to be a private pilot with a third class medical or higher (I've had mine for over 20yrs). Now the rule is you can be a sport or recreational  pilot and have a drivers license.
So in time I think the final rule will be just some kind of testing and no pilots license required.
Originally the Airline Pilots Union wanted commercial drone flyers to have a commercial pilots license and 1st class medical. I am very curious to see how the FAA rules play out.