FAA Approves some UAVs

[THRAWN]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/10/faa-drones-trimble-vdos-clayco-woolpert-amazon/20187761/

[Eclipse]

The floodgates are open, now it's just a matter of how quickly they can process the exemptions.

In a couple of years the exemptions won't be necessary.

There will be a couple of incidents, some rules that all sides hate and think are unworkable will be
put in place, and drones will become another fact of life in the big city.

[sardak]

Every exemption the FAA has issued so far requires the PIC of the UAV to hold either a private pilot license and 3d class medical or a commercial license and 2d class medical, depending on the planned use of the UAV.

There are rules on how much training the pilot must have before becoming PIC. Some of the maintenance rules read just like "real" aircraft.

Operation within 5 nautical miles of any non-towered airport shown on a sectional requires written approval of airport management. In some cases the operator must have NOTAMs issued. Operations in areas shown in yellow on charts are prohibited.

Flights must be in daylight VFR and the PIC must maintain visual line of sight (VLOS) of the the UAV. The PIC can't change during a flight. Use and roles of observers are an issue. Even with an observer, the PIC must still maintain VLOS. There is continuing discussion on whether observers need a license and medical, medical only or neither.

Each exemption is different, but most of the same requirements are the same between them. The FAA is trying to rein all this in, but they're coming faster than it wants.

Mike

[RiverAux]

I don't think those sort of rules will stand for very long before Congress gets around to nixing at least some of them.  You're just not going to convince many people that it makes sense to spend thousands of dollars and a crazy amount of time to get a pilots license in order to fly one of these things.  I'm not a particular fan of them, but that is fairly ridiculous. 

[Eclipse]

+1 - they already fly themselves at a price point affordable for most people and certainly for business use.

It'll be a niche for a couple years and generate some income for a few pilots, but that won't last.

As we've seen time and again, once something which is generally benign and usually safe becomes
easy enough for your grandma to use, regulate it is kinda besides the point.

You can raise the "safety" flag all you want, but there's a lot of people who >don't< live anywhere near
a major airport, etc., that would be the primary safety concern, and if you are inclined to do something
dumb, history tells us a law won't stop you.

[Live2Learn]

I just saw a long article in the local paper (yes, I still read a 'paper' paper... I like how it crinkles when I change pages) that said Congress may get into the regulation writing business at the behest of the UAS lobby.  Can't say I'm excited about that.  Congress uses a pretty blunt instrument...

[Live2Learn]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Drone-Safety-Campaigns-on-the-Rise-in-UK223300-1.html

This article discusses problems in the UK with UAS.  According to the CAA (UK equivalent to the FAA here in the States) a small UAS came within 20 feet of an Airbus on final to Heathrow... Not good!

There might be some benefit for those of us who fly aircraft for charitable purpose (CAP), for personal transportation, or who fly IN commercial aircraft to communicate our safety concerns to our Members of Congress.  I'm sure Senators and Representatives are getting an ear full from the UAS lobby who want laissez-faire in the sky.   http://www.standard.net/Business/2014/12/23/FAA-drone-approvals-bedeviled-by-warnings-conflict-internal-emails-show

Last summer I flew out of a small airport in NC Washington about 1/4 mile from the local RC enthusiasts 'air field'.  Twice we shut down operations because the RC models over flew the hangars and ramp, coming within 100 yds of the active runway.  Sure, pilots (of real aircraft) reported the problem to the airport manager etc..  However RC "pilots" seem to rely upon word of mouth to learn what they can and cannot do...  Compliance with basic safety considerations assumes all who 'get the word' will then act responsibly -- which is not at all certain.   Not good.  Not good at all.