R Martin

The LAANC Plot Thickens

Recommended Posts

I think a bigger potential problem is where do they get their information and would I get the same approval across all platforms.  We're on standby to fly the burn areas in Northern California, I logged in to check TFR's, what a clunky antiquated way of presenting data.  Something that should be so simple, and I'm sure it is, but I don't have the patience to figure out the bad design of the FAA website.

Another pet peeve of mine is that the companies on the FAA ARC committee's should not be allowed to profit from their involvement.  These companies are creating policies to regulate out the competition while a lot of "drone" companies who are engineering real solutions to real problems have no say in this process.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@R Martin, I got the same release from Jonathan earlier today.  This will enlarge, explode, and so on and so forth.  There are those that will criticize whatever the outcome, I'm sure.  In spite of all of that, I do believe that FAA is at least trying to work this all out.  OK so I'm an optimist!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with being an optimist, there's also nothing wrong with questioning the validity of these policies.

If all there is to getting clearance to fly in the squares of LAANC then why do we need all of this automation?  Not like the airspace is changing?  So what this has the potential to become is a drone specific chart.  What's the big deal?

Why do they need to send these publically available "drone" charts the third party vendors when all I have to do as a licensed operator is comply with the chart, the same way a pilot does?  Why do I need to get "authorization" from the third party?   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer is this.  Even though FAA wrote the rules, wrote the sylllabus, created the testing, and issued the Remote Pilot Certificates, I don't believe that they put certificate holders in the same category as pilots, and I'm not suggesting that they should.  If they did, then we probably would not have to go through all of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ed O'Grady said:

@R Martin, I got the same release from Jonathan earlier today.  This will enlarge, explode, and so on and so forth.  There are those that will criticize whatever the outcome, I'm sure.  In spite of all of that, I do believe that FAA is at least trying to work this all out.  OK so I'm an optimist!

 

If this streamlines the authorization process for commercial operators then I am all for it. I have always gotten fast service, but I also work for state government and have an FAA team assigned specifically to us. I know that is not feasible for the rest of the general public in terms of manpower, so anything that eases the burdens on you, the rest of the general public, is a positive step in the right direction.

I also noticed that in addition to the new system, the old system will remain in place so that I have the option to continue using the portal which works for me. I file well enough in advance for authorization that a month turnaround is not a big deal to me. That, and on the last round instead of six months the FAA extended the time period to one year for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Av8Chuck said:

Why do they need to send these publically available "drone" charts the third party vendors when all I have to do as a licensed operator is comply with the chart, the same way a pilot does?  Why do I need to get "authorization" from the third party?   

To answer your question, you need a third party vendor to approve your authorization because the FAA is swamped and needs the additional staffing without the additional overhead. I seriously doubt that the FAA envisioned that the demand would be so high for authorizations when they first allowed the general public to start flying UASs in the National Airspace.

As far as simply complying with the published charts, there are areas blocked off as -0- altitude and you would be barred from operating there at all without someone to consider an application. And you don't need authorization from a third party if you so choose; you can continue to use the established portal as well. Maybe with an outside party authorizing request, both methods will be a lot faster to negotiate. Maybe the vendors bog down next and the FAA portal is the speedier alternative. Maybe the entire process is improved to near-instant approval of request. Maybe your life will be made a little easier.

I've got enough to deal with without dealing in maybe's. I'll wait and see what shakes out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Av8Chuck said:

There's nothing wrong with being an optimist, there's also nothing wrong with questioning the validity of these policies.

If all there is to getting clearance to fly in the squares of LAANC then why do we need all of this automation?  Not like the airspace is changing?  So what this has the potential to become is a drone specific chart.  What's the big deal?

Why do they need to send these publically available "drone" charts the third party vendors when all I have to do as a licensed operator is comply with the chart, the same way a pilot does?  Why do I need to get "authorization" from the third party?   

 

This is what I was talking about before.

 

Quote

For airspace related operations,  there should be a straight forward prescriptive path to operate legally.  The ceiling grids are great, but they shouldn't be a planning tool in order to request an approval to operate.  They should be one element in what is required in order to operate in a given airspace without the need for some FAA subcontractor to decide anything.  The FAA needs to establish standardized regulations depicting what is required to operate in a given airspace just like they do with full scale.

The current approach of asking operators to guess as to what a particular FAA contractor wants to hear in order to approve an operation is simply asinine, IMHO.

Part 107 in it's current form is a good start but it is by no means complete.  They (the FAA) needs to get on with it. 

 

If the chart says that it is ok to fly up to 400' in a particular location, why do we need an algorithm to "grant approval?" 

When I fly full scale into class C (for example), I have to establish radio contact with the controller first.  Before my flight,  I don't have to go online and contact "x" company and get approval.  I just have to follow published regs and procedures.

Why do we need this unnecessary step when flying uas?  If the FAA feels that the Remote Pilot is not up to the same standard as a "regular" airman and needs "more help and oversight".  Then why not address that instead?

@R Martin  In areas that need special approval like the 0' areas you mentioned, then a contact of some kind would be warranted.  However those type areas are far fewer than just the area in "vanilla" controlled airspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ed O'Grady said:

I think the answer is this.  Even though FAA wrote the rules, wrote the sylllabus, created the testing, and issued the Remote Pilot Certificates, I don't believe that they put certificate holders in the same category as pilots, and I'm not suggesting that they should.  If they did, then we probably would not have to go through all of this. 

I agree, Ed.  The FAA is treating the Remote Pilot as a lower tiered certificate.  I would rather they require whatever is needed to allow operating with the same responsibility and liberty as with other certificates.  A private pilot can operate in basically the same way an ATP operates in the airspace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you've already interviewed Ben.  I think AirMap, along with DJI are largely responsible for this mess in the first place.

AirMap started out as a company who's website you could log into, pay money to add your company to a "no-fly-Zone" for a fee.  Now their influencing the regulation of the airspace?

For them and DJI this is all about pay-for-play. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally someone brought up AirMap as a regulating force.  If you are still using AirMap don’t!  They support legislation like the Feinstein bill and want local governments to regulate airspace.  This is all for their bottom line.  I highly suggest this community to look into this and make your own decisions.

Edited by Artax017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.