Originally Posted by cicopo

I know this isn't the primary concern here but who regulates the other side of UAV's when doing video downlinks re Tx power output / the need to have an Amateur Radio Operators License? Are they going to try to enforce their rules & regs? Or will they be relaxed?

Originally Posted by cicopo

I know this isn't the primary concern here but who regulates the other side of UAV's when doing video downlinks re Tx power output / the need to have an Amateur Radio Operators License? Are they going to try to enforce their rules & regs? Or will they be relaxed?

Originally Posted by Avweb

Commenters seemed to generally have a constructive approach to the NPRM and suggested changes that would fix issues that would affect their use of the devices. But there were those who simply don't think they have any place in society or reason for being. Many of those commenting are model aircraft enthusiasts who are clearly worried that regulations will spread and "ruin our hobby." The next step is for the agency to digest the comments and then rewrite the proposed rule to reflect the suggestions it agrees with. It's not clear how long that might take but the agency has repeatedly said it's putting a huge amount of resources into the process.

Originally Posted by Anthony Gall

These rule proposals will destroy a growing segment of technology without stopping anyone that disobeys the rules. UAS should be allowed to operate commercially under 400' AGL at all times WITHOUT the FAA getting involved. You rule just puts an unnecessary burden on people that are already following UAS rules through the AMA.

The FAA cannot stop people who don't care about rules. And there have been no fatalities due to an UAS yet. UAS have not been proven that they can damage a full size air plane yet. But the FAA is going ahead with regulations for our "safety" as if a small UAS is capable of shooting down a large airliner. This is just a knee jerk reaction. The FAA has been behind on UAS legislation, and now that if is finally proposing a rule, it is the wrong rule.

The FAA needs to leave the established rules, and also allow commercial use. And also be more concerned about Pilot's mental health, like we saw with the German Wings crash earlier this year.

The proposed licencing is tedious and expensive. A pilot should be able to attain a one time license, not test every two years. This is not a full scale airplane. It is completely different. Also, the current policy of allowing exceptions to the commercial use by using a commercial pilot are completely unnecessary and ridiculous. Being a full scale pilot does not correlate at all to flying a UAS. It is ignorant to even think so.

Commercial UAS should be allowed to operate freely with a one time license as long as they stay under 400 AGL, and do not fly in a dangerous manner. And line of site DOES NOT need to be maintained. Some of the most useful features of UAS, like bridge inspections, crop inspections, and search and rescue operations can be done safely without Line of Sight. And if they are hindered by sticking to line of site it will be no better than a person having to climb a bridge to inspect it, or checking their crop, etc.

Please amend your rules to be less stringent, and please realize that UAS under 400 AGL is none of the FAA's business.

Originally Posted by Helno

Stop being so antagonistic. Both BC and I are Maac members.

If you think that this NPRM is only between TC and Maac then you really don't understand the process.

When this process occurs in the full size world (there is currently one happening in regards to airport usage) the various groups (COPA, UPAC) ask there members to send a message in support of the position they hold.

Until the NPRM is released we really have no idea how to react. It might be very clear legislation that only effects a very specific subset of flyers or it could be an overbearing regulation that would effect all model flying. Once we see it then individual comments that are appropriate get sent in. It could be a simple altitude restriction that effects glider pilots then we send in messages asking for some leeway to allow the activity to continue based on years or prior safe operation.

Originally Posted by Helno

Stop being so antagonistic. Both BC and I are Maac members.

If you think that this NPRM is only between TC and Maac then you really don't understand the process.

Originally Posted by Lazy Ace

Wasn't asking for your opinion. Not interested in the general public I am interested in supporting MAAC. The question was directed to Mr. Egan the MAAC spokesperson. Truth of the mater I don't concern myself with the interests of non members as most times it fly's contrary to mine and I feel MAAC's as well.

I keep hearing "HEY DON"T FORGET ABOUT US OTHER FLYERS" but until they actually contribute/support the organization I don't find much incentive to support them or their wants.

Dennis

Originally Posted by Lazy Ace

Wasn't asking for your opinion. Not interested in the general public I am interested in supporting MAAC.

Originally Posted by bcsaltchucker

TC as a government agency has to consider the opinions of the general public and affected stakeholders like us RC flyers. So a well thought-out letter from you and I each can help our cause, incrementally.