New FAA rules in the works

F

firehawk

Veteran
Proposed changes stand to really tighten down on sUAS operations here in USA.
Too much to try to type out but the video on this page explains it for FAA and EU.
Sounds like operating a sUAS (drone) is going to become more troublesome and costly in the next couple of years.
https://www.suasnews.com/2020/01/the-phantom-4-pro-is-back/
This could make an owner operator more inclined to hire a drone op then deal with all the stuff yourself.
And of course may mean that even more people just operate illegally than try to comply with it all, but that will become harder to do when new aircraft won't let you fly unless you are in compliance
 
These rules are already silly, so I guess it's getting sillier. In the real world, out of scaremonger's brains, drones cause very few accidents. Rational people would ban cars before tightening on drones.
 
Samuel H said:
These rules are already silly, so I guess it's getting sillier. In the real world, out of scaremonger's brains, drones cause very few accidents. Rational people would ban cars before tightening on drones.
Click to expand...

In the real world sUAS have
caused major airports to close for several days
been used to smuggle drugs into prisons (many multiple occurrences)
been used for illegal surveillance
flown illegally in urban areas
etc etc
Enough for people to get pissed off with it and legislators decide to clamp down before it gets out of hand.

As has said often enough on drone forums "It only needs a few idiots...."


The capabilities of modern consumer drones today far outstrips that of the high end drones of only a few years ago (other than some military ones) and that they are in the hands of "everyone".
Automobiles are controlled to a greater or lesser extent in all countries as are aircraft.
The difference is that aircraft legislation tends to be unified internationally and as organisations like EASA and FAA are both looking at the same problem at the same time sUAS legislation are likely to be similar globally.
 
And on the other side, every year, 40 thousand people die in car accidents in the US, and over 4 million get seriously injured. These don't usually appear in the news anymore, because we got used to that. But really, if you're going to ban one type of machine, start with cars.

(I understand there are many more cars than drones, actually, around 250 times more; yet, even adjusting for that... I don't think drones killed 160 people in the US last year)
 
Samuel H said:
And on the other side, every year, 40 thousand people die in car accidents in the US, and over 4 million get seriously injured. These don't usually appear in the news anymore, because we got used to that. But really, if you're going to ban one type of machine, start with cars.

(I understand there are many more cars than drones, actually, around 250 times more; yet, even adjusting for that... I don't think drones killed 160 people in the US last year)
Click to expand...

Apples and pears.

Aircraft have been and are fully regulated as is airspace in the same way internationally. All they are doing is amending the rules for new small aircraft in *their* airspace.
It seems they are all (all the worlds Civil Air Regulators) implementing similar rules in similar time frames.

Cars don't come into it that is a completely separate thing that is nothing to do with the civil air regulators.
Neither are firearms or drugs for that matter except as hand luggage or freight ON an aircraft.
Come to that they DO regulate cars and trucks as air freight.
They also have regulations for vehicles air side but not off the airfields.
Not their problem.
 
To be fair, in the USA the airspace is a public area just like the airwaves. They're regulated, but we the people own them. It's not *their* airspace over here, it's *ours*.

The truth is, like Samuel H said, drones really aren't a massive problem. Sure there are some idiots running around doing stupid stuff, but the stuff they're doing is already illegal. Making it more illegal (especially when they're little to no chance they get caught) isn't going to help.

Remote ID is great. I'm all for it, but the NPRM the FAA put out differs significantly from the proposal the working group put together and will cause significant cost increases and pain for operators trying to be legal. Considering how poorly the FAA's enforcement of drone issues currently is (they really don't have the staff to do the kind of large-scale enforcement action that'd be needed to scare people into compliance) they rely on voluntary compliance for a lot of these things. The more restrictive and difficult you make compliance, the more likely someone is to just go rogue... so there's a balancing act there. This is going to cause less compliance and not more. This current NPRM shows the heavy hand of the security apparatus (DHS, FBI, etc.) on it as well as huge industrial players who want to effectively own a big chunk of the airspace to make money (Amazon, UPS, etc.).

Honestly, the best thing for nearly all of the things you mention is counter-drone tech... and it's being deployed to stop this stuff. Remote ID is also good, but it needs to be done in a way that most people will comply.

Also, someone who's flying contraband into a prison or illegally surveilling someone (how is that even possible, you have no right of privacy from the air) is going to know enough about it to use a homebuilt without Remote ID.
 
puredrifting said:
I don't need more Big Brother scrutinizing my every move so I will be selling my drone. I'm done, as a hobbyist, the hassles just aren't worth the fun.
Click to expand...

I suspect that is partly the intent.
This legislation will remove a lot of the casual flyers.
The same thing happened when they started regulation for larger aircraft in the early days.
At one time anyone (with money) could get an aeroplane and fly no medical, licence or anything.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I don't need more Big Brother scrutinizing my every move.......
Click to expand...
And that is really what it is about but we can't discuss that here.

Among other goals of these proposed changes are to reduce the number of sUAS that fall into the hands of wild, reckless individuals who cause problems and peeping toms who cause other problems.

Those who want to operate illegally still will. Those who want to operate legally such as us doing video production will either have to (1)give up and get out, (2) comply or (3) do it illegally.
Clients will want the work done and if JoeBob is willing to do the work, "hey it's just a simple 50ft shot, right?" illegally then he may get more work than the guy trying to comply with the ever tightening regulations.

So I see the result of this being that more people who otherwise are trying to comply will throw up their hands and then try to operate illegally, or give up aerial.

The catch here for those deciding to operate illegally being the new proposed sytem will stop new sUAS from even being able to take off unless you have complied. So you'd likely have to run with an older one or build your own. And the poor hobbyists of who the drone community owe so much to for helping advance the field, are set to just about not be legally able to fly (hardly anywhere) because their aircraft cannot comply with either proposed ID method.
And then there are all the problems such as the guy that has a properly ID'd aircraft, with proper clearances, following every rule, to still not be able to fly on the job because of errors and glitches that occur in this proposed system. Yes.

As the # of sUAS increase this is indeed an interesting situation on what really should be done.
 
Samuel H said:
These rules are already silly, so I guess it's getting sillier. In the real world, out of scaremonger's brains, drones cause very few accidents. Rational people would ban cars before tightening on drones.
Click to expand...

completely agree, this is down right ridiculous at this point.
 
According to what I heard the new proposals are still in discussion and thus not confirmed yet, so there still may be time to voice your comments to affect the outcome.

A lot of my clients expect aerial shots. I don't know about you guys but being able to offer such is pretty important for my business.
And if I should should ever have any time off I would enjoy flying for fun, and always in a safe way of course
 
jbregar said:
Also, someone who's flying contraband into a prison or illegally surveilling someone (how is that even possible, you have no right of privacy from the air) is going to know enough about it to use a homebuilt without Remote ID.
Click to expand...

Exactly! It's like a friend of mine says, a lock will keep an honest man honest. Meaning, someone who wants to do something bad/illegal is going to do it regardless of rules or laws against it. Laws are only for the law-abiding.

I'm not advocating "the wild west" here, I have all of my drones registered with the FAA, but there needs to be common sense.
 
Run&Gun said:
Exactly! It's like a friend of mine says, a lock will keep an honest man honest. Meaning, someone who wants to do something bad/illegal is going to do it regardless of rules or laws against it. Laws are only for the law-abiding.

I'm not advocating "the wild west" here, I have all of my drones registered with the FAA, but there needs to be common sense.
Click to expand...

But do you use them for any work and if so, are you a Part 107 pilot? I looked into it but I am in LA and all of the drone ops here have $30k to $50k or more into their drones so they can carry Alexa Minis and REDs.
I don't think there will be much work in my area for anything less than these so I said to heck with it, I'm not going to become a professional pilot.
 
puredrifting said:
But do you use them for any work and if so, are you a Part 107 pilot? I looked into it but I am in LA and all of the drone ops here have $30k to $50k or more into their drones so they can carry Alexa Minis and REDs.
I don't think there will be much work in my area for anything less than these so I said to heck with it, I'm not going to become a professional pilot.
Click to expand...

How popular is the i2/x7?
 
jbregar said:
To be fair, in the USA the airspace is a public area just like the airwaves. They're regulated, but we the people own them. It's not *their* airspace over here, it's *ours*.
Click to expand...

The FAA *effectively* owns the airspace. The same as the Police effectively own the highways. There are lots of Sovereign Citizen videos on YT showing what happens when you try and explain to the Cop that is it *your* highway. Normally a smashed window and hand cuffs. I have seen a news item where a US citizen took one of "his" military tanks ("borrowed" from the National Guard) on to a highway. The Police shot him dead. IT is probalby a Good Thing that the FAA are people in suits not carrying batons, guns and handcuffs :-)

So whilst philosophically it is The People's Air Space in practical and legal terms the FAA control it, on behalf of the people, for the good of society.
The FAA see a drone as a small aircraft just like any other aircraft but flown by a non-poilot.....
 
Samuel H said:
And on the other side, every year, 40 thousand people die in car accidents in the US, and over 4 million get seriously injured. But really, if you're going to ban one type of machine, start with cars.
Click to expand...

Flawed argument, imo.

Flawed in that drones are not anywhere close to being as necessary in life as autos. Drones are not transporting heart attack sufferers to receive care. Drones are not transporting unemployed persons to job interviews. Drones are not transporting millions of children to schools. Very few people need a drone in society today, if any at all.

The argument is flawed because drones are not remotely as close to being as indispensable as are autos. Drones are mostly used for entertainment purposes.
 
puredrifting said:
But do you use them for any work and if so, are you a Part 107 pilot? I looked into it but I am in LA and all of the drone ops here have $30k to $50k or more into their drones so they can carry Alexa Minis and REDs.
I don't think there will be much work in my area for anything less than these so I said to heck with it, I'm not going to become a professional pilot.
Click to expand...

Nope. Completely recreational. Too much hassle and expense for little reward in a crowded niche full of people that are either a) extremely good at it and have the big boy toys or b) will do it almost for free just to offer the service(and probably flying illegally).
 
rob norton said:
How popular is the i2/x7?
Click to expand...

I would say zero, zilch. It's Hollywood, they only hire big boy toys here. Seriously. I've been shooting low budget TV and features yet they still had the big octocopter carrying an Alexa mini. Very little market here for low end drone work.

When I shot in the Sahara Desert for Prison Break a few years ago, the production flew in the drone team. From Finland. For just two days work. They didn't hire from Italy, the flew the dudes in from Finland, I shot a little piece on the whole drone thing
as Prison Break was known for that iconic opening helicopter shot over a guard tower at Fox River Prison in Illinois from S1 so many years ago and they recreated it in Morocco, which was doubling for Yemen in the story.

These guys had a $100k drone package, full FIZ for any Arri or RED, the drone was huge, complex and heavy, I don't know the manufacturer but it was big and could carry really heavy cameras. Their day rate was impressive, they didn't need to work very often to make
a good living ;-)
 
Last edited:
The thing about the Part 107 certificate is it's just not that big of a deal to go get it. Less than 10% of my money comes from drone stuff directly, but I use a drone often enough it's handy to have. I don't fly anything spectacular, just a Mavic 2 Pro, but it's good enough for the market I operate in (low-to-mid-level corporate and documentary) for the limited amount we use drone shots.

Getting the Part 107 was literally a week or two of studying, $150, and taking a relatively easy test. Keeping it current is the same $150 (every two years) and a much easier test. It's just not a big deal.

Thinking you're going to go full-time drone op and make tons of cash is mostly a locked-up market. Especially in Hollywood where the cost of entry is going to be insane. That said, it's a valuable service I can offer my clients if there's a reason to use it. I've talked more of my clients out of drone footage than I have into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top