I have a question on this drone license thing. Would it include Rafio Controlled Airplanes? That has been a hobby since the early 1960 maybe earlier. From friends many years ago the only license you need was a HAM Tech License if you needed the power to fly higher and further.

TrueTexan wrote:I have a question on this drone license thing. Would it include Rafio Controlled Airplanes? That has been a hobby since the early 1960 maybe earlier. From friends many years ago the only license you need was a HAM Tech License if you needed the power to fly higher and further.

Yes - that's the whole point. Trump negated Obama's carve-out that exempted model aircraft from the registration requirement. The FAA's lumped an RC glider into the same category as a NASA Predator and a UPS delivery 'drone'.

AndyH wrote:

TrueTexan wrote:I have a question on this drone license thing. Would it include Rafio Controlled Airplanes? That has been a hobby since the early 1960 maybe earlier. From friends many years ago the only license you need was a HAM Tech License if you needed the power to fly higher and further.

Yes - that's the whole point. Trump negated Obama's carve-out that exempted model aircraft from the registration requirement. The FAA's lumped an RC glider into the same category as a NASA Predator and a UPS delivery 'drone'.

Again — I’m no Trump fan — but this ain’t Trump.

If you read the the ARC report, especially the dissent opinions at the end, you’ll see that most everyone involved thinks that AMA and model aircraft should NOT be excluded from future regs.

FAA is just giving in as what’s the point in taking a position that has no support from any other agency, politician or industry. Manned aviation thinks rec flyers will kill them.
Part 107 flyers hate rec flyers cause they give everyone a bad name (and part 107 is overly regulated meaning many people routinely break the rules. )
Dems are anti drone cause Sen. Feinstein saw one outside her window (true story.)
Repubs are anti-drone cause ISIS and China.
Amazon is anti-drone cause get out of their way, the sky belongs to them you serfs.
Local and state governments want to regulate so they can give you tickets.
Telecos and AirMap types want a complicated, always on the network tracking system so you have to pay to fly.

If you’re not a member I strongly recommend joining AMA (telling them you fly drones) and DUGN and NODE (basically just an email alert list. And just in general showing everyone who will listen that drones can do good things. And are fun. Not too different from guns.

gator68 wrote:

AndyH wrote:

TrueTexan wrote:I have a question on this drone license thing. Would it include Rafio Controlled Airplanes? That has been a hobby since the early 1960 maybe earlier. From friends many years ago the only license you need was a HAM Tech License if you needed the power to fly higher and further.

Yes - that's the whole point. Trump negated Obama's carve-out that exempted model aircraft from the registration requirement. The FAA's lumped an RC glider into the same category as a NASA Predator and a UPS delivery 'drone'.

Again — I’m no Trump fan — but this ain’t Trump.

Look - the current president signed a law that removed an exemption that the last president signed and that the FAA didn't want. We can guess that the FAA wanted registration as that's what they did anyway even after Pres Obama signed the exemption. I'm not bashing the current president, but I'm not covering for him, either. (I won't argue that plenty of groups are pulling his strings - so from that angle, I do understand that you're talking about them. But they didn't sign the paper.)

gator68 wrote:Manned aviation thinks rec flyers will kill them.

SOME pilots believe that way. Some people also think the Earth is flat and that we never landed on the moon. Giving in to idiots is not a plan I can support.

gator68 wrote: And just in general showing everyone who will listen that drones can do good things. And are fun. Not too different from guns.

I'm not going to tell anyone that "drones" are fun because the masses equate 'drone' with "hellfire" and dead wedding parties. The first problem is one of messaging. The second is capitulating to bad messaging.

i do not have a pilot's license of any sort. i do not want one, but i have about 20 hours of training in sailplanes, and 5 in hang gliders. there is a far103 ultralight in my future, and i've been an eaa member for 4 or 5 years and sometimes hang out with pilots. most of them are among the nicest, humblest, most interesting people you'll ever meet, but some are the most arrogant, self-assured, superior(in their own minds) people on the planet. worse even than bicycle elitists, yet paradoxically less focused on the money aspect, maybe because of how very, very, very expensive personal aviation can get.

gator68 wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:I’d probably pay some amount for IFF type signaling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Take a look at UAvionix. They’re proposing a low-power (like <1W) ADS-B module for UAS. They already have pretty affordable systems on the market. I don’t know what you fly, or if you really need transmit. Their receiver can give you awareness of any ADS-B equipped aircraft in the area.
UAvionix.com

To me this is a better and more practical solution than being required to strap an LTE dog tracker to your drone and pay ongoing subscription fees to both the telecom and an ANSP.

Costs more than the aircraft. Yikes.

Sounds like the government wants to make drones and RC aircraft only available to the corporations, government agencies and the very wealthy, under the disguise of its for your protection. Trust Us.

Inquisitor wrote:

gator68 wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:I’d probably pay some amount for IFF type signaling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Take a look at UAvionix. They’re proposing a low-power (like <1W) ADS-B module for UAS. They already have pretty affordable systems on the market. I don’t know what you fly, or if you really need transmit. Their receiver can give you awareness of any ADS-B equipped aircraft in the area.
UAvionix.com

To me this is a better and more practical solution than being required to strap an LTE dog tracker to your drone and pay ongoing subscription fees to both the telecom and an ANSP.

Costs more than the aircraft. Yikes.

Current pricing is based on low volume and the requirement to xmit at 20W. Their actually a pretty good deal for GA that are required to equip.

Long term pricing for use on sUAS (if allowed to xmit low power) will be much, much, much less. ADS-B receivers are already built into some DJI products as an example.

AndyH wrote:

gator68 wrote:

AndyH wrote:

TrueTexan wrote:I have a question on this drone license thing. Would it include Rafio Controlled Airplanes? That has been a hobby since the early 1960 maybe earlier. From friends many years ago the only license you need was a HAM Tech License if you needed the power to fly higher and further.

Yes - that's the whole point. Trump negated Obama's carve-out that exempted model aircraft from the registration requirement. The FAA's lumped an RC glider into the same category as a NASA Predator and a UPS delivery 'drone'.

Again — I’m no Trump fan — but this ain’t Trump.

Look - the current president signed a law that removed an exemption that the last president signed and that the FAA didn't want. We can guess that the FAA wanted registration as that's what they did anyway even after Pres Obama signed the exemption. I'm not bashing the current president, but I'm not covering for him, either. (I won't argue that plenty of groups are pulling his strings - so from that angle, I do understand that you're talking about them. But they didn't sign the paper.)

gator68 wrote:Manned aviation thinks rec flyers will kill them.

SOME pilots believe that way. Some people also think the Earth is flat and that we never landed on the moon. Giving in to idiots is not a plan I can support.

gator68 wrote: And just in general showing everyone who will listen that drones can do good things. And are fun. Not too different from guns.

I'm not going to tell anyone that "drones" are fun because the masses equate 'drone' with "hellfire" and dead wedding parties. The first problem is one of messaging. The second is capitulating to bad messaging.

Oh god, multiple embedded quotes... posting from phone...

Look the point about Trump is that if you focus on him you will lose politically. Registration was first implemented (illegally!) under Obama. This is a nothing issue to either president, they signed this 336 thing as a tiny piece of more important bills. You have to look at Congress.

Re pilots. It doesn’t matter what an individual pilot thinks. It matters what their national organization is doing in Washington. The official position of ALPA, AOPA, HAI and NAAAis that drones will inevitably kill pilots. So they must be tightly regulated. If you belong to any of these organizations please lobby your leadership! Otherwise you are giving on to idiots.

Re drones. You’ve already lost that battle. The FAA created the “Drone Advisory Committee” not the “Unmanned Aerial Systems Advisory Committee.”

TrueTexan wrote:Sounds like the government wants to make drones and RC aircraft only available to the corporations, government agencies and the very wealthy, under the disguise of its for your protection. Trust Us.

Remember there is a feedback loop between government and industry!
Amazon is one of the biggest lobbyists in this space and they’d be happy to have zero rec flyers.
On the other hand, some people see the rec flyers as a flock of sheep. With proper management they can be sheered for years to come. So some people want rec flyers to exist, they just want them properly *managed* like a resource.

The Commercial Drone Alliance weighs in. They represent a number of the companies that were on the ARC.
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3 ... ed-ids-too

so i'm a criminal now because i own a 9" rc helicopter and a 24" span rc airplane? yay.

lurker wrote:so i'm a criminal now because i own a 9" rc helicopter and a 24" span rc airplane? yay.

Not yet. But they want to make it so that you are. You are an existential threat to *their* airspace.

I always wondered if you needed any sort of permit to fly the big model planes. I used to know a fella that it, but I never put my skull sweat into it till drones became a thing.

gator68 wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:I’d probably pay some amount for IFF type signaling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Take a look at UAvionix. They’re proposing a low-power (like <1W) ADS-B module for UAS. They already have pretty affordable systems on the market. I don’t know what you fly, or if you really need transmit. Their receiver can give you awareness of any ADS-B equipped aircraft in the area.
UAvionix.com

To me this is a better and more practical solution than being required to strap an LTE dog tracker to your drone and pay ongoing subscription fees to both the telecom and an ANSP.

A $25 SDR dongle and a netbook can give me a picture of ADS-B equipped aircraft in the area, too. But since not all aircraft are fitted with ADS-B, the same safety zone that's always been there should be there anyway - the gap between a model aircraft's 400' above ground level (AGL) ceiling and manned craft's 1000 or 1600 AGL floor. In other words, tech doesn't keep aircraft apart.

gator68 wrote:Re drones. You’ve already lost that battle. The FAA created the “Drone Advisory Committee” not the “Unmanned Aerial Systems Advisory Committee.”

I didn't lose a thing - I'm not playing their game.

More and more, federal agencies are reminding me of my old Wild Weasel friends. YGBSM?!

Inquisitor- you're a part 107 op? As in 'dual instruction in manned aircraft to get a license'? How does this look from your perspective?

I'm working through the FARs in order to get back to flying and bloody hell are things getting more centrally controlled. Gotta hit an FAA website to give a medical history before getting a flight physical. Tons of new licenses in the manned and unmanned spaces.

Part 107 - small unmanned aircraft - unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff. Seriously - a biennial flight review? Gah. Time to put my RC gear on ebay, I guess.

FYI...RC's under attack again. Petition time.

https://www.flitetest.com/articles/rule-336

About Section 336

At the moment, the 'Special Rule' exempts model aircraft activity from FAA regulation. Essentially what this means is that, as long as you abide by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) guidelines, you can fly your plane or quad.

You currently have to:

Register your aircraft with the FAA as a 'modeler'
Mark your model aircraft with your personal registration number
This is a pretty simple system that came into effect a few years back. However, things might be about to change.

Wait a moment... you need to have a "flight physical" exam to fly a small, under 55 lb model aircraft that you are obviously not in? The same "flight physical" exam that you need to fly a Cessna or a LearJet or an 757..?

rascally wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:56 pm Wait a moment... you need to have a "flight physical" exam to fly a small, under 55 lb model aircraft that you are obviously not in? The same "flight physical" exam that you need to fly a Cessna or a LearJet or an 757..?

No. Sorry, I combined different parts into the post. I'm working to get 'current' again for my pilot's license (part 91) and some of the things that used to be done by the doctor during a flight physical are now done on-line on the FAA website.

The part 107 process for drone pilots appears to have the same sort of 'biennial flight review' requirement - some sort of time with an instructor every two years to make sure you're still safe to fly. Other pilots have the same requirement.

Separately, this was interesting. I'm not entirely sure why this commercial op needed actual flight training. Maybe it was an artifact from the pre- or early part 107 days. It looks like cool work, though!

Part 107 requires one to take a test at an official FAA certified test center. It has little to do with small UAS operations. (You have to know runway markings and METAR...)
If you pass you get a license. You have to retake the test every two years to keep the license current. There’s no flight test or any practical component to the part 107 certificate.

gator68 wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:54 am Part 107 requires one to take a test at an official FAA certified test center. It has little to do with small UAS operations. (You have to know runway markings and METAR...)
If you pass you get a license. You have to retake the test every two years to keep the license current. There’s no flight test or any practical component to the part 107 certificate.

From my reading of the current FARs..er... "14 CFR Part 107" I agree. It appears the gent in the above videos was required to go through part 61 training as it was before the current part 107 process existed, but I may be wrong about that.

(On his company's website is information about part 107 and a part 333 exemption, which supposedly "The Section 333 Exemption process provides operators who wish to pursue safe and legal entry into the NAS a competitive advantage in the UAS marketplace, thus discouraging illegal operations and improving safety.")
https://www.copterkidsllc.com/
https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/section_333/

The part 107 ticket requires a biennial flight review as well as re-taking a written test.
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/ne ... wsId=20516


Thanks, BTW, gator68 for your earlier posts. I hadn't flown for about 12 years and couldn't believe all this 'drone' stuff had gotten to the point that it did. I still think the manned flying community has lost a few brain cells over model aircraft, but you guys accurately reported the situation. Thanks for your patience!

ETA...found some more tidbits. It looks like it was the Section 333 exemption that requires the pilot in command to also have a part 61 license. I can't find anything that suggests that a part 107 pilot needs more than to retake the written test, but the part 61 pilot operating a drone under the section 333 exemption needs a regular biennial flight review. If the part 61 pilot isn't current in airplanes, they have to take the part 107 written test if they want to keep flying drones.
https://uavcoach.com/drone-certification/#7

[emoji106]
The old part 333 exemptions still required the UAS operator to be a traditional pilot. Technically you were a pilot flying an aircraft and they gave you an exemption for certain regs: like marking and seatbelts.

If you hold a “real” pilot cert it’s a bit easier to get your part 107 cert.

But there is *no* flight review or performance test to get the part 107 cert directly. You just need to pass the multiple choice test and pass a TSA background check.

Perfect timing, gator68! Thanks! I think we were typing at the same time.

From the AOPA... The house passed the FAA reauthorization - the Senate is expected to pass it.

Drones take up a significant portion of H.R. 302. The bill addresses the safe integration of drones into the airspace, including restrictions on model aircraft flying above 400 feet and in Class B, C, D, or E airspace. It also gives the FAA more flexibility in approving drone applications and directs the agency to update its rules regarding drones carrying property while flying for hire.

http://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news ... ation-bill