Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/21/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Hey Alan, I'm sorry for being a bit cynical with regard to how seriously the FAA will be taking comments. I assure you that I will try to be positive, polite, and concise when I post my comment on the site. My cynicism is mainly born from watching the FCC's request for comments when the proposed dismantling the protections for net-neutrality (2017). I just went back and looked it up and there were 23,952,772 individual comments on the FCC's site. I didn't read them all, but I remember news agencies that were keeping track reporting that most were against the proposal, 20+ Million! The comments were ignored. This NPRM will receive no where near the scale of reaction, IMO. So, I'll admit, I am indeed cynical that they don't plan on doing exactly what they want regardless of the comments. Now, maybe it will all work out somehow. Either it will be quashed by adults at DOT, as @Av8Chuck alluded to. Or perhaps all of our craft (90%) will be easily up-gradable to meet the requirements as the NPRM says they will. And maybe we won't be taken to the cleaners by the new network service we will be required to subscribe to. And maybe all of the software handshaking that has to work perfectly to enable a mission to be flown will be solid. And then, maybe it won't negatively impact all of our uas related businesses. But that is a lot of maybes in there. Dang, more cynicism! I will be delighted to be wrong and the FAA is malleable to the fine arguments and reason presented in the comments. However, reading the thing it looks like the FAA went even farther than even the suggestions of the ARC in some cases. Not a great start.
  2. 1 point
    Hyperlapses with DJI drones.All you need to knowhttps://youtu.be/CWa_OF96VPo
  3. 1 point
    Absolutely. ATC through LAANC. Have a look at #5 https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers
  4. 1 point
    We launched ACUAS.org in response to the debate over what would become Part107 and the need for someone to protect our right to chose to become a commercial operator. It was founded on a simple premise that it wasn't up to the operator to prove that it was legal to operate commercially but the FAA to prove that it wasn't. Its against the law for the FAA to promulgate rules that are arbitrary and capricious so we felt there was value to holding the FAA accountable to the NPRM process and questioning many of the proposed suggestions from the "expert" alphabet organizations like Commercial Drone Alliance (who has never met a regulation they didn't like). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/commercial-drone-alliance-2018-legislative-priorities-gretchen-west-1/ At the time we took a lot of flack over that stance, most of the alphabet coalitions and user groups, made all sorts of promises, collected a lot of money, held concerts for congressional staffers etc.. Trouble was NONE of them represented the interest of either the hobbyists or the commercial operator. Most of them were formed by attorneys trying to stake a claim in the "wild west" of the new commercial market, magazine's and forums trying to build marketshare for their trade shows, or already established groups like AUVSI or the AMA pandering to their existing members to preserve the status quo. Most of these organizations had a seat at the table, so to speak, you might remember Colin Guinn flying at the House of Representatives: https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7868315/congress-drones-unmanned-aircraft-hearing. Trouble was, wrong table. The table that mattered was at the Office of Management and Budget OMB. That wasn't open to the public and you had to be invited (subpoenaed) to attend. We were asked to submit a paper about the risk versus regulations and what effect we thought it would have on innovation and costs. Once the NPRM was public and Part 107 became a reality, there really wasn't much for us to do. We discussed the possibility of working at the state level to address the over reach that was sure to follow at the local level but we didn't think we had the numbers to be effective. So we left the site up and it kind of languished. But a couple of months ago we started getting people signing up. In an informal market study it appeared that there were two categories: People disillusioned with the AMA and secondly, people concerned about how RID might effect their ability to make a living commercially in the future. The reason I'd be willing to start this up again has a lot to do with what @Spitfire76 posted about Flitetest. What they have built has been totally organic without political or corporate motivation. They have created a movement simply for the love of doing something. Whether you love to fly as a hobby or professionally should not matter. There are far too many wannabe pundits online that don't love it. They just want to make a name for themselves or support some ideology. I'm not interested in telling the FAA how to do their job, I'm interested in representing people who love to fly RC/UAVs to make sure that our right to do that is not infringed upon. Maybe if we joined together we could create a PAC that would have enough members to influence the regulations to protect our evocation. I hope this is something you would be interested in helping with.
  5. 1 point
    Hi all. To paraphrase an old saying, I'm a long time reader, first time poster here. As a Part 107 pilot who flies for an archaeological firm, a lot of the sites I'm mapping are out in the boonies where internet is nonexistent except via cell phone, and cell phone reception can be hit or miss if it exists at all. So the Remote ID issue is clearly something I'm keeping a close eye on. I have a few questions I was hoping you all might be able to answer, just to make sure my understanding of the NPRM is correct: A Standard Remote ID UAS would mean a transponder of sorts on the drone itself reporting it's location data and ID, as well as the hand controller/control station broadcasting via internet the same info to a Remote ID USS. So, there is definitely a hardware change needed to the drone itself, correct? A Limited Remote ID UAS, on the other hand, would only require the hand controller/control station broadcasting via internet but the drone itself can remain as-is? Or would there be a needed software change to insure compliance with the 400 ft radius limit imposed by the new rule? A related question regarding that 400 ft limit, as the NPRM was vague: is this a hemispherical 400 ft radius, or a cylinder 400 ft tall with a 400 ft radius? I presume the latter, but the NPRM just says "within 400 ft of the control station." If my understanding is correct, it seems that as long as the tablet I use for flight has a cellular data connection, I should be able to continue to fly my current drone as a Limited Remote ID UAS as it is with just a software update for the data reporting and possibly limiting the flight to a 400 ft radius. The 400 ft limit is a burden, but for what I'm mapping it should be a manageable hindrance in most circumstances. Now for the more speculative questions regarding implementation, should the new rule pass as it is written: Does anyone have any idea what such an on-drone transmitter might look like? As in, will a bolt-on solution be available for existing drones, or is it likely to be some more substantial piece of hardware? I read something about tamper-proof, which seems to me to imply a hardwired internal component. What happens if the internet connection fails during a flight? Does the drone automatically abort back to it's Home Point? Has the FAA dictated power and transmission range requirements for the transmitter? Who exactly is receiving the drone-transmitted broadcast? Manned aircraft? If so, how will that be implemented for the pilots in the cockpit? Via their TCAS, or maybe TAWS? What about the lowly GA pilot in a C172 with standard analog dials, who we might actually encounter at 400 ft altitude? If GA cannot generally receive the drone transmission, and GA in most cases are the most likely to have a close encounter with a legally flown drone, then what's the point of transmitting from the drone directly? So many implementation questions.... And of course, none of the above addresses the major hurdle for folks in an area with no available internet access. Surely the same software update needed to restrict a drone to within 400 ft of it's control station during Limited Remote ID flight can be employed to restrict flights to the same 400 ft limit outside of available internet coverage? How would that not be as safe? It's almost guaranteed those flights are in E or G airspace, and the odds of a close encounter with a commercial manned flight in such locations seem near minimal. This whole issue is really fascinating to me. At first blush, the NPRM sounded like an intelligent plan, but it's the nuance of its implementation that make me pause and consider it more critically. I personally like the idea of remote ID broadcasting. I just don't know what benefit there is having the transmission coming from the drone itself, especially if the pilot is staying under the 400 ft altitude limit and within line of sight as they are required by current regs. And I see no real purpose for the active internet reporting at all if a drone/control station is transmitting an active radio signal. I mean, GA pilots aren't required to actively report their position in real time online in VFR flight, they just need to have an active transponder. So, why more stringent rules for drones? My only conclusion is that the FAA is trying to clear a path for more expansive drone operations such as Amazon drone delivery by applying gross regulation to everyone, commercial operators and hobbyist alike. Would it not be much simpler to require all pilots to simply have the equivalent of a transponder on their person but keep the basic regulations as far as flight limits alone, and leave the heavy hardware components and active online reporting of in-flight assets to those entities looking to do more radical and potentially dangerous things such as beyond line of sight operations? I don't know, this whole thing just feels hugely overregulated, heavy-handed, and more complex than it really needs to be if the main goal is to make drone flights more readily apparent to manned aircraft. Thanks for letting me vent/rant, and ask a few clarification questions. Looking forward to your thoughts. -Jason
  6. 1 point
    I gave it a shot when we founded ACUA.org. There are far too many armchair quarterbacks who thought this type of regulation is a necessary step and that the AMA, DJI, AirMap and The Commercial Drone Coalition would represent commercial interest with the FAA. It certainly has been recently over the past six months but at ACUAS.org we were making this pitch four years ago. Most people just laughed at it. I’d give it anothe shot if we could get some adults to work with, if Alan were interested in working on such a cause and a couple of attorneys were interested in volunteering The thing to keep in mind is that AOPA has been against drones since day one.
  7. 1 point
    Bruce does a brilliant job of explaining the consequences to our hobby if this rule is allowed to go into law. He challenges the FAA on its pretense to be in the name of safety. He also doesn't believe that the AMA will be effective in influencing the FAA's decisions based on its inability to stop the repeal of 336. I would encourage anyone in this hobby to watch it.
  8. 1 point
    Hi @Kamau54, Welcome to the UAV Coach Community Forum and congratulations on getting your first drone! @Av8Chuck normally it would be haha, however it has been in the 40s and 50s here in SE Michigan. @Kamau54 if you are looking to learn more about drone laws in Michigan, feel free to check out out Michigan 'Drone Laws' page. We also have our 'The 5 Best Places to Fly a Drone in Detroit' guide. I hope this helps! - Chase
  9. 1 point
    I thought I would let you know of another location that has a designated drone flying area. Bill Frederick Park at Turkey Lake (ie- Turkey Lake Park) Look at the list of "Amenities" on the right side of the web page at the link below. You will see "Drone Flying Area (dedicated)" toward the bottom of the list. https://www.orlando.gov/Parks-the-Environment/Directory/Bill-Frederick-Park-At-Turkey-Lake In the section below that you can get a PDF map of the park. In the top left corner of the map you will see a symbol of a drone. That is the designated area. I called the park and they said the drone park is very popular. They said there is a local drone club that goes there every Saturday. I am trying to find that club. https://www.orlando.gov/files/sharedassets/public/departments/parks-amp-rec/bfp/billfrederickparkmap2017_printready-1.pdf
  10. 1 point
    Waterfall needs something to give it scale in the early shots. The video does not give a good sense of how big it is until you get to the shot that includes the bridge (IMO).
  11. 1 point
    I could use a set. I will produce a video showing the benefits of using them under the following conditions. Vote for your favorite scenario: Beautiful sunset over a naked beach. I’d say topless but that would be sexist. On the tarmac next to Airforce One while it taxis for takeoff. A hyperlapse of the scoreboard at the Super Bowl. An aerial shot of the CA Governers motorcade as it travels through Another wildfire invariably started by PG&E on his way to the ribbon cutting of the bullet train in Victorville at night BVLOS. (Imagine all of the high contrast shots of smoke, fire, and flashing lights) Im open to suggestions.
  12. 1 point
    I got an email from one of our students. Hey Alan! Just wanted to share some information with you! I was working in Marble Colorado filming a property with my drone. Everything went very well. I drove into the little town to eat lunch and had a conversation with a Local shop owner. They asked what brought me to town and I shared with them my drone services. The local shop owner had no problem with my services however they warned me that drones will be shot down in Marble Colorado by local land owners. I tried to explain to her that shooting a drone was illegal, she argued that it wasn't illegal and said it was a legal in the state of colorado to shoot a drone operating over private property. This concerned me GREATLY! How can we keep ourselves safe as drone pilots in remote areas where people are more then willing to shoot your drone out of the sky??? Im not sure I want to work in Marble again after this discussion I had. So there's two questions here: Is it legal to shoot down a drone? How can we keep ourselves safe as drone pilots / handle conversations like this? What do you think? (cc @Av8Chuck, @Steve Bennett, @Dave Pitman, @R Martin, @Ed O'Grady)
  13. 1 point
    We're celebrating our company's 5-year anniversary this week. Our team can't thank you all enough for reading, for training with us, and for helping to push this industry forward. It's been a wild ride. Here are a few thoughts on what we've learned. Would love to hear what you've learned as well! Please share.
  14. 1 point
    Congratulations @Alan Perlman and thanks for building UAVCoach. This is how I found out about UAVcoach back in 2015. http://droneradioshow.com/gaining-confidence-with-drones-alan-perlman-uav-coach/ I joined this forum shortly after you added it back in January 2016. I followed your training and passed my Part 107 on the second day that it was available from the FAA in August 2016. Cheers Richard
  15. 1 point
    CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL AT UAV COACH! I made the decision on new years day that within a year I would be staring a new career that would be my last. I got certification training from your terrific course, logged hundreds of hours on a wide variety of different copters before buying professional gear. I started Red Star Imagery in September, and currently have a fleet of 4 inspires and 2 phantoms that I use commercially. I have to give y'all a ton of credit for not only the terrific course, but strong motivation to succeed. I appreciate very much your commitment to the growth of the industry and professional and logical way in which you are approaching it. I am growing slowly and steadily and love every single shoot! I am excited to be in a new industry, and believe that with great programs and ambassadors like yourselves, all of us doing our part to grow things in a safe and smart way, seems like a bright future. Anyhow, you are very appreciated and if ever you need anything from this part of the country, just ask. Thanks All! Marko Boyer Red Star Imagery
  16. 1 point
    Hi, After Drone Pilot Ground School graduation & certification, I started a year ago with just my Mavic Pro and encouragement from a realtor friend. I enjoy photography so much that I quickly added interior stills and video to my business, but the aerials are what bring the clients. Fortunately for me, I’m older and retired and don’t have to support myself with this work. So I bought a Phantom 4 Pro last June and now have a Mavic 2 Pro for backup and for travel. I love the creative part of this work (post production!) and have gotten my clients all by word of mouth. It only takes a few, so create a portfolio and go for it! Marykayulsamer.com
  17. 1 point
    I have been able to "team up" with many local land-based real estate photographers that do the ground level and interior photos and video. I works out quite well because they have the proper equipment for that portion of the real estate marketing and rely upon me for all the aerial work. A win-win for each of us! Jay Burnham http://www.northshoredroneservices.com
  18. 1 point
    Before every single photoshoot, I arrive early and knock on every surrounding neighbors’ door and explain to them why they may see a drone above or near their house. And almost every single time, I get “ohh thank you, I appreciate you letting me know”. in my experience just making people aware of your intentions eases their inhibitions about drones.
  19. 1 point
    In short, it would generally be illegal to shoot down someones uav. The FAA considers them aircraft and willfully damaging them is forbidden and punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 2 › § 32 That said, if you remember, William Merideth got away with it in Kentucky. Even in states or municipalities that have enacted more stringent uas legislation, taking the law into ones own hands and shooting down a uas that was not threatening your safety would be seen as a crime (in most states). Here is a short article that addresses the subject. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-a-drone-flying-over-my-house-can-i-shoot-125546065994.html