Early leak: FAA will require a pilot's license for drone flying

[Brent Kaplan]

The FAA chairman was Interviewed on ABC network this morning, he spoke about many subjects and whe asked about Drones he suggested that they stay away from airports, fly craft in line of sight and stay under 400 feet.

[Jim Michael]

Looks like this one is a tad over 400 feet and apparently a commercial operator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Bg...ature=youtu.be

[Brent Kaplan]

True, but its a good example of the exception. Safe to fly a drone but keep aircraft away

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect for shoots like that one, there'd be a a procedure in place to get a clearance from the appropriate aviation authority. For example, I've been filming in a helicopter approx 50ft from the top of a 650ft power station chimney - the station wasn't yet running at the time, that would need special permission.

[Jim Michael]

Originally Posted by Brent Kaplan

True, but its a good example of the exception. Safe to fly a drone but keep aircraft away

To keep aircraft away you file a NOTAM, but you can't do that in the current environment.

[Mark Dobson]

Originally Posted by Kevin Martorana

First of all...I agree with almost all the statements in this thread.


We use the drone for many shots like jib replacements and crane shots. Most of these never go higher than 100'. If I have a private or commercial plane, flying at 100-400' over a campus, river, cornfield or ANYTHING...we have a bigger problem than my drone.

............

OH..Privacy issue. If I'm being hired by a corporation, university or private entity that is AUTHORIZING me to get footage for a project for them...how can the FAA control that ? Right now they say they can.

So, should a test and license be made for us in the production world to show we know how to operate a drone and use 'reasonable intelligence' when flying one....like the boat license ? SURE. I'm in. Will it stop idiots from flying 2000'AGL near an airport or anywhere for that matter ? No.

...............

............... But don't tell me I need a private pilots license.

Hi Kevin,

loved your post, great to hear from someone with your experience, ( 2" tape !, I only go back to Umatic tapes) who's as excited as I am by the possibilities of these very accessible flying cameras. And I've got my order in for the DJI Inspire 1 which unfortunately has been delayed whilst they design an eyelid for the camera.

If you were over here in the UK I'm sure you would already have taken advantage of the BNUC-S™ pilots qualification and from your description of how and where you work you would breeze through the course as it's all pretty much to do with getting permission to fly from the landowner, checking there are no other low level aviation activities near you location, keeping an accurate log of you flying operations and a maintenance log of your aircraft and batteries.

But here in the UK the law is clear. You cannot operate a UAV commercially without this license. The companies supplying the training are having a bumper crop time with a huge take up of companies pushing people to get this accreditation.

I think there will be a clear delineation in the market between people like me who are happy with the quality of a mounted gopro 4 for example, or an Inspire 1 and those flying the larger UAVs with C300s or GH4s strapped onto them.

Between the slowly emerging 4K market place and the rise of the drone these are exciting times for grown up kids.

Mark

[Kevin Martorana]

Mark...

thanks for you view from over the pond !!!!! I TOTALLY agree with having some sort of qualifications/license, etc to show that we are intelligent, law abiding folks who want to use this "TOOL" for our business. And you are correct....if you want to fly a 20k quadcopter with a RED or larger camera on it....then you are clearly working in a much higher production level and should have the FAA approvals. With the GoPro technology with just HD...forget about 4k. HD still looks great....but with this technology, we are able to do MULTIPLE crane-esk and jib-esk shots in MINUTES. And we weren't flying higher than 50' for these shots !!!

Yes...the Inspire looks cool. I assume every 6 months these things will change like cell phones. Right now our Phantom2+ with a Hero 3+ works just great for the work we're doing.

I hope the US will take heed...and look at what you have done in the UK and make some changes.

[David Heath]

Yes, I also agree with all Kevin says. One thing that I do think he may have missed out though is any requirement to have insurance etc, certainly for commercial use. It's just one more reason why some form of regulation for such use makes sense - but let's not go over the top.

The jet-ski analogy is also a good one, but I'd take it further in that once such things get licensed it establishes a legal framework for what may and may not be at least good practice. Consequently, even if people will still do stupid things, it then becomes far easier to successfully sue when they go wrong. (And gives protection to operators who abide by the rules, for that matter.)

(And on the subject of 2" tape - when we're talking about editing, was that all tape-tape, or did you ever have the fun of physically cut editing?)

[Chris Medico]

Originally Posted by Kevin Martorana

Mark...

thanks for you view from over the pond !!!!! I TOTALLY agree with having some sort of qualifications/license, etc to show that we are intelligent, law abiding folks who want to use this "TOOL" for our business. And you are correct....if you want to fly a 20k quadcopter with a RED or larger camera on it....then you are clearly working in a much higher production level and should have the FAA approvals. With the GoPro technology with just HD...forget about 4k. HD still looks great....but with this technology, we are able to do MULTIPLE crane-esk and jib-esk shots in MINUTES. And we weren't flying higher than 50' for these shots !!!

Yes...the Inspire looks cool. I assume every 6 months these things will change like cell phones. Right now our Phantom2+ with a Hero 3+ works just great for the work we're doing.

I hope the US will take heed...and look at what you have done in the UK and make some changes.

Lets not ignore the real possibility that the rules when they come out will likely have hardware requirements as well as operator requirements.

If they put in place the requirements that I'm hypothesizing will be in there, small platforms like the Phantom will not be allowed for commercial operation. Maybe a special version but not the off the shelf stuff we are all buying right now. At a minimum I'm guessing that it will take a machine that has been approved to fly via a TSOa (Technical Standard Order Authorization). Exactly what that looks like I don't know. It won't be cheap regardless. Nothing that flies under the FAA umbrella is ever going to be cheap.

So don't get so caught up on the license issue that you miss the hardware stuff. Otherwise spending a few thousand on a license will be nothing compared to the $20k "approved" platform you'll have to buy to fly for hire.

You can bet there is a lobby already pushing that agenda to keep small operators from competing in the market.

[Mark Williams]

Due to the impending regulations I will not be able to pay the government's "entry" price nor have the time to be certified to FAA standards to do commercial work. I have sold all my training quadcopter gear and am moving on to other things.

[Brian Drysdale]

In the UK, 20kg seems to be the weight which introduces more complex requirements for the unmanned aircraft.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

In the UK, 20kg seems to be the weight which introduces more complex requirements for the unmanned aircraft.

Regarding a minimum hardware requirement, that seems overkill for a lot of work, ("commercial" only means "you get paid something" after all), but pretty sensible for other jobs.

If somebody's commercial work is (say) taking aerials of properties with few or no people around, it seems silly to make them follow the same regulations as (say) broadcasters wanting to use a drone for a major event over the heads of thousands of people. Surely the former only demands a basic and simple licence, whilst in the latter there's a very good case for a minimum hardware requirement and a degree of redundancy, quite apart from the licensing issues?

[Chris Medico]

One has to understand that the FAA isn't under a mandate to be fair, reasonable, accommodating, or any other descriptor suggesting common sense. They are evaluating things with the narrow focus of safety. They are risk averse. It will be the responsibility of lawmakers and other interested parties (users and industry) to push back against "safety at any cost" so a reasonable compromise can be struck.