FAA Set To Approve Drones For Filming...

The idea that you need a full-scale private pilot license to operate a remote controlled UAS is incredibly stupid.

That's like saying you need a CDL with 500 hours in a big rig to operate a go-kart.
 
You only need a CDL if you put a camera on the go-kart and make money off of it.

Once you put a camera on something and charge people for doing so, recklessness sets in. It's a verifiable fact.
 
Joshua Cadmium said:
You only need a CDL if you put a camera on the go-kart and make money off of it.

Once you put a camera on something and charge people for doing so, recklessness sets in. It's a verifiable fact.
Click to expand...

Almost without exception, all of the reckless, near-miss incidents involving UAV's have been via clueless non-commercial hobby types flying Phantoms, so in this case, your statement doesn't add up.
 
Joshua Cadmium said:
You only need a CDL if you put a camera on the go-kart and make money off of it.

Once you put a camera on something and charge people for doing so, recklessness sets in. It's a verifiable fact.
Click to expand...

A better comparison is a CDL for a riding lawn mower used by a commercial lawn care service. Why isn't a CDL required? The potential for injury and property damage is about the same as a small commercial UAV?
 
The FAA has very limited resources and would rather keep track of hundreds of operators versus tens of thousands. The PPL gives them something to take away from you should you not tow the line.
 
The main problem is that they have gotten so inexpensive that they are easily accessible by everyday reckless people.
If only production companies were using them, the accidents would be very few.

A required CDL for a riding lawnmower is a good comparison.
 
boomstrikevideo said:
Almost without exception, all of the reckless, near-miss incidents involving UAV's have been via clueless non-commercial hobby types flying Phantoms, so in this case, your statement doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

It actually wasn't supposed to add up - I was being (dryly) humorous. :)

I agree that the restrictions don't make much sense at all. If you're doing it for commercial purposes, you're likely going to take more precautions, as your reputation and livelihood is on the line (which is not necessarily the case for those doing it for fun.)
 
I've always said that I have no (zero, none) problem with an "RC multirotor" license from the FAA that requires the same book learning about airspace rules and procedures as a private or rec pilot but with the practical instruction being done using RC aircraft. We SHOULD be knowledgeable and mindful of the airspace rules and we SHOULD be able to demonstrate that we can safely operate our RC multirotors.

What's stupid is that they're currently requiring a private pilot's license that REQUIRES being checked out in a full-scale aircraft but DOESN'T REQUIRE being checked out on the device we're actually going to fly. I have NO desire to ever fly a Cessna so why would I get checked out on one for my license?

What I'm hoping will happen with these new rules the FAA is supposedly working on is something a little more sensible... maybe a UAS license like I mentioned above. Maybe transponders. Maybe a requirement to stay in radio contact with the local ATC center wherever you're flying. Hopefully safety checks of the aircraft. If they're really sensible, they'll opt out stuff that's under a certain size (I'd say 25 lbs. would be a good lower bound) from the transponder stuff.

It really can't continue as the free-for-all it currently is. There are too many idiots out there running around with too little knowledge and responsibility. I cringe every time someone posts "I'm looking to fly a GH4/5DM3/NEX/some other bigger camera, what should I buy?". If you don't already KNOW, you're at least a year or two out of being competent to fly something that big.
 
All indication point to the proposed regs looking very similar to the Section 333 exemptions. Part of the reason for the PPL is the required TSA background check. Don't complain, the AOPA has it's PAC lobbying hard for a commercial rating....it can always be worse.
 
With the payload limits increasing, GPS plotting and the prices dropping....I can see where Homeland Security might be getting involved in this.
Interesting times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top