Ed O'Grady

Members
  • Content count

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Ed O'Grady last won the day on April 7

Ed O'Grady had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

125 Excellent

2 Followers

About Ed O'Grady

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Steve these are all Class E facilities. I'm sure there are others that are not yet listed, but those that are listed are class E. And for @Uaviator53, they listened - they deleted the E2-E6 designations in the final release. They simply show Class E. I'm lucky here. My 2 airports of interest are both in the release.
  2. Here's the good ole' boy side of the drone world. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/man-takes-drone-out-for-a-sunset-flight-drone-gets-shot-down/
  3. BNSF has been working closely with FAA on a pathfinder project since May 2015. On opening day of Part 107 they were granted the waiver under 107. They are limited to inspecting their own right of way but they remain a partner with FAA. Here's a link to an early article http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/communications/faa-bnsf-partner-on-use-of-drones.html Astraeus Aerial's .31 waiver is a re-issued waiver that was originally granted in November I believe. Both waivers involve the use of FPV and their website will give you a sense of where they are. http://www.astraeusaerial.com/ Yes it was a 107.29 waiver I applied for. I made the very same mistake that FAA has complained about. I looked at previous approvals, looked at the performance standards, and basically mimicked previous approvals. Wrong!. In reality, I really don't need it at the moment so I have not reapplied yet.
  4. Hello @EricB and welcome to the mob here. As far as insights go, let me see if I have it straight. You have your 107, you're flying a P4Pro for several months, and you have those 4 contacts in diverse areas. Get up early tomorrow and hit the pavement my friend. And just had a thought - chronicle the whole thing and discuss with your TV friend about airing it. I'd say you've got some work ahead of you!
  5. Thanks to @Uaviator53 for providing that which I overlooked - the link! Thank you my friend. I still don't know exactly why FAA stopped posting the info online. At first I thought they were just not acting upon them due in some way to the President's executive order regarding new regulations, even though they were not regulations at all. One mid level FAA person said that was it and then another a few days later said not at all. But I knew thanks to some of our friends here that they were in fact granting some waivers and rejecting some as well ( I was one of the "rejectees"). But it is interesting that the "moratorium" on posting the approvals lasted about 90 days - whatever that means.
  6. The FAA has updated the online list of waivers that have been granted since they stopped publishing that information in late January. As has been discussed previously, they did continue to issue waivers but just were not posting them online. The new information adds 379 waivers issued since 1/23 and every one is a waiver of 107.29 - daylight operations. 4 of those waivers add relief from 107.35 - operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft and 1 adds 107.35 along with 107.31 - visual line of sight operations.
  7. I couldn't agree more with @Uaviator53. Not only the web videos but TV shows as well. File a report, a file number is assigned, and rarely does anything go from there - or at least so it seems. If they were to bust a couple of little guys and make a big deal about it then it might just open a few eyes.
  8. A while back we discussed the "flying over moving vehicle prohibition" and I specualted why above. Just happened to come across the reasoning by FAA from the original rollout written by an FAA attorney. This rule will not, however, allow operation of a small unmanned aircraft over a moving vehicle because the moving vehicle operating environment is dynamic (not directly controlled by the remote pilot in command) and the potential impact forces when an unmanned aircraft impacts a moving road vehicle pose unacceptable risks due to head-on closure speeds. Additionally, impact with a small unmanned aircraft may distract the driver of a moving vehicle and result in an accident.
  9. And here's the actual text of all that taken from the Federal Register The term “over” refers to the flight of the small unmanned aircraft directly over any part of a person. For example, a small UAS that hovers directly over a person's head, shoulders, or extended arms or legs would be an operation over people. Similarly, if a person is lying down, for example at a beach, an operation over that person's torso or toes would also constitute an operation over people. An operation during which a small UAS flies over any part of any person, regardless of the dwell time, if any, over the person, would be an operation over people. The remote pilot needs to take into account the small unmanned aircraft's course, speed, and trajectory, including the possibility of a catastrophic failure, to determine if the small unmanned aircraft would go over or strike a person not directly involved in the flight operation (non-participant). In addition, the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach to ensure that: (1) The small unmanned aircraft does not operate over non-participants who are not under a covered structure or in a stationary covered vehicle; (2) the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (§ 107.19); and (3) the small UAS is not operated in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another (§ 107.23). If the remote pilot cannot comply with these requirements, then the flight must not take place or the flight must be immediately and safely terminated.
  10. Just checked - still there including your E2 - E6
  11. As they say in the garbage business, I am at your disposal!
  12. I do have an inspector I can call, but I have to box off at least an hour - he loves to talk! Maybe Friday am.
  13. Not sure it means anything to us actually. It really still boils down to Class E Surface, 700 ft floor and 1200 ft floor - I think! Whether it be drones or manned operations, it still seems the same. I've never seen any of these on sectionals but the new grid system does have the classifications included. The actual public release may not have them - have to wait till next week for that.
  14. Hey Luis, this looks like the answer to the Class E airspace designators. This from FAA AIM updated last May. Aeronautical Information Manual Basic with Changes 1 and 2, effective 11-10-16.pdf
  15. Well, it happens that you are in Alert Area A-371. As best as I can tell, you are OK to fly but must excercise extreme caution due to Ft Campbell activity. My advice would be to ctc your flight service station or 1-800-wxbrief.