Alan Perlman

I used https://skyvector.com and clicked the specific chart, "Las Vegas" — that isolates the chart and allows you to zoom closer into the border of the chart, where you'll find more information like MOA operating altitudes and times.

The floor of Fallon South 4 MOA is 200 ft. AGL...meaning that as long as you're under 200 ft. AGL, you wouldn't be operating in the MOA. And yes, those two statements represent additional information — that the MOA excludes airspace below 2,000 ft. AGL (i.e., the MOA doesn't start until 2000 ft. AGL instead of 200 ft. AGL)

Have flown with Ryan a bunch and can vouch for his equipment being in top shape. This is a great deal!

I'd have to see the Sectional Chart, but yes it sounds like under 2000 ft. AGL, it would be Class E up to 1,200 ft. AGL, then Class E. You could include as part of your application, but maybe parse out that request to make it clear to the FAA that you understand how MOAs work and if your risk mitigation needs to change.

Gio, a lively discussion. Hope it was helpful! Keep us posted if you end up flying. Would love to see some photos / videos

Yah, our intent with this wasn't fear-mongering. It's just that the language is open to interpretation, and we get this question a lot about how to interpret them: 107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance (a) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must, upon request, make available to the Administrator: (1) The remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating; and (2) Any other document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter. (b) The remote pilot in command, visual observer, owner, operator, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must, upon request, allow the Administrator to make any test or inspection of the small unmanned aircraft system, the remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system, and, if applicable, the visual observer to determine compliance with this part. So this article was our attempt at addressing the vaguery surrounding "Any other document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter." I encourage our students, particularly the ones who are new to aviation and looking to professionalize their ops, to use this article as a way to evaluate their own commercial sUAS operation and to see if any of the information could be used to improve internal processes.

Hey @stevenraub — we look forward to setting you up with John in Grand Bay!

No, have heard there's room for improvement and trying to see what other options are out there.

That'd be great — I really appreciate you giving back and bringing your experience to the community in this open forum. Here's a lighting kit a lot of our students have been using: https://lumecube.com/collections/drone-products/products/lume-cube-phantom-4-kit I've got their setup for the Mavic, and it works really well. They are BRIGHT BRIGHT BRIGHT.

When you're putting your app together, be as specific as possible when it comes to not just the equipment and all its fail-safes, but where you'll be flying as well. The more specific and contained the flight path / mission parameters, the easier approval will be. They're not at the point yet where they are approving all BVLOS operations in Class G airspace like they do with the Daylight Operations waiver. Hopefully, we'll get there soon and will have stronger performance-based standards and direction from the FAA to help streamline the application and approval processes.

I'm aware of the DJI AGRAS MG-1 — what else are people using out there, and what are you spraying? Thanks!

Oof I love Peter Lik's work. Heading to Miami with my wife and kiddos in a few weeks and specifically making a trip to the boardwalk to visit his gallery there

Hi @CodeRedSolar — thanks for posting. Will share in our next email on Saturday morning.

Got this question over email and thought it'd be great to post here:

Ha. Thanks for sharing. I don't always agree with his snarky rheroric, but he raises some great points in this article. I'm hoping we'll see stronger equipment and technology qualifications and standards for BVLOS (or EVLOS as Egan wrote) sooner rather than later. The U.S. is lagging behind other countries. Hard to know what'll happen with PH. They've raised a boatload of moola!