Dave Pitman

Nope, doesn't matter. The certification never expires, you just go out of currency and loose privileges of operating. As soon as you pass the test, your are current.

Hi Steven, what specialty training did you receive? It sounds like you received a drone for a specific purpose is the reason I ask. If you're training for a specialty, you would hope that the company has folks lined up looking for that service. Your price estimate for a website is assuming it is custom to you, correct? Every new hire gets a custom to them site distinct from everyone else in the company and not a cookie cutter? If you value it at that price, then fair enough and that's all that matters. At any rate, I hope all works out well, really. You certainly are putting a lot of trust in a brand new company. It's not quite the same as taking courses at Embry Riddle or an internship with Insitu.

My curiosity is piqued. I find it fascinating that a company can start up and start selling "exclusive" sales areas for which they apparently have no current clientele or guarantee of future sales. And anxious folks are wanting to jump on board! The part 107 training can be had many places for very reasonable, or free if you just study what the FAA provides. And $1500 for a good consumer drone and that leaves $18500.00 in your pocket to help finance your startup. I'm a natural cynic, but does no one else find this business model a little one-sided?

Ah, the "Uber" of the drone world. The company and customers are happy. The sub-contractors got issues though. I'm on their list although I've never done a job for them. The amounts they offer are fine if the project site is next door and takes 30 min. Otherwise it is sort of a bad joke. But hey, there seems to be folks willing work for their rates so who can blame them if it's working. But lets not confuse that with being any great opportunity for drone pilots. Perhaps an interview with a Drone Base pilot making the big bucks is in order?

That's fine. Your original comment was more of a blanket statement in regard to National Parks. I was just clarifying that that statement is not true. Specific areas do carry that restriction, as you say! 🙂 Not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just detail oriented when it comes to airspace. And I certainly have room to learn too.

Sure. It states it there too. I think you may be confusing restrictions in specific named areas with National Parks, Forest Service, etc. in general, which will be described on the sectional chart for that specific location.

Welcome to the forum. It is not a regulation to stay 2000' above the highest object within 2000' horizontal distance. But it is "requested". Grab yourself a sectional chart that includes such lands and have a read. You were close though! And it is a good idea. Obviously not related to Part 107, but to manned aviation.

5G sounds great! Unfortunately, it relies on a dense, short hop, transmission system. Large urban areas are the most likely candidates to benefit by 5G. So, I agree that 5G will be great for future drones operating in 3% of the united states. The remaining 97% will probably be happy if the have solid 4G. This is the consensus of most ISPs that are not Verizon. By the time 5G starts finding it's way into rural America, low earth orbit internet will be a thing, no ground-based infrastructure needed.

The fpv quad is working perfectly. Right now, you think you want it to act like a dji drone. It's likely that when you get proficient with it, you will want it to react properly. Which is what it does now. DJI has their controllers set up that way so that almost anyone can fly it. At least in an open field. FPV quads are designed to be fully controlled by the operator every second. Your fingers will learn where the throttle needs to be to hover. You got this! 😉

No experience with them. For your investment, what written guarantees of business and income do they give you?

Hi Zaac, thanks for your response. With the RID NPRM, it is clear that the FAA is hoping to incorporate their vision of a UTM as soon as possible. Their NSA-PRISM template is a little over the top of what is required for safety and accountability for sure, but not surprising that they are trying, right? I'm glad that you agree this template is too much. When "big drone" gets approval and rolls out BVLOS operation at scale, they are going to have a UTM (operational tracking) scheme to go along with it. They have to from an operational point of view just like they have hardware and human personnel. It's not an option. If the FAA wants to (if they haven't all ready), they could get the prospective players in this space to agree on a standard for this UTM. Or, at least the portion that connects with and reports to the FAA. "Small drone" does not need to be involved or pay for this system. It's a very similar situation to manned aviation. For decades, "big air" has lobbied to have general aviation pay airspace fees in addition to aviation fuel tax in order to help subsidize their operation. Remember, it would be much better for "big drone" if "small drone" ceases to exist. General aviation has the AOPA to try and resist "big air" but "Small drone" has a pretty small voice as of now. That is why I was sensitive to the quoted comment. I appreciate your willingness to reflect on it a little bit. "We" certainly need all the help we can get and journalists that cover the latest uas topics are the front lines. Thanks again!

With regard to drones, better re-read §107.51

Zacc, please back up your statement (quoted) with reasoning related to "typical" small drone operators. Unless you are just parroting Big Drone's line in which case I hope they are paying you well.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers/