Questions for the Experienced guys about the video recording and its playback issues

[YuKay]

Law is written in the literal sense. What is written is what "is". Where definition is required it's provided. There is no allowance for interpretation. Where you might be running into comprehension issues is in the definition of payment/consideration/compensation. When a law is written allowing or prohibiting compensation they don't go down rabbit holes to exempt this or that. Payment or consideration of any kind is payment in the U.S. We might want to remember that U.S. aviation law forms the basis for much of the world's aviation law.

In the area of differences in flight safety between a commercial and amateur pilot, an area I feel drone regulations seriously drop the ball, is with full scale aviation a commercial pilot is trained to much higher standards in all aspects of the operation of the aircraft. In full scale a pilot is trained to make maximum utilization of an aircraft's capabilities. This is an area where an amateur/Private Pilot can run into a lot of problems as their ability to control the aircraft in some situations may not be up to what is needed to survive when attempting to maximize aircraft capability. So they crash and die, perhaps killing others on the ground. IMO it's unfortunate that all commercial drone operators don't have to test and demonstrate their ability similar to full scale. That day is probably on the horizon but it's not here yet. However, a commercial drone operator at least in principle certifies through their testing process they are cognizant of all the rules that promote flight safety and have the ability to recognize when a flight or action would be unsafe. The commercial testing process also establishes the commercial operator is aware of his/her responsibilities in understanding their aircraft, systems, and emergency procedures should they become needed. They also certify they understand airspace and how it is to be used. Anyone can read the various forums and easily see that most amateur operators don't have a clue in any of those areas and are totally dependent on their aircraft's automation to save the day if and when something failed within the system. That something will eventually fail is pretty much assured.

We should bear in mind that drone regulations are being written using pre-existing full scale regulation formatting so drone flyers hoping for more laxity in regulation are not likely to see much of what they hope for. We should also understand that commercial aviation regulations are heavily influenced by professional aviation groups that are doing all they can to protect the jobs of those employed in manned aviation from incursion by drone operators. Commercial carriers are adding even more influence to shape the regulations to favor their slice of the commercial pie. In the EU and UK they already pretty much own the the airspace system. In the U.S. many of our regulations were developed "after the fact". Our CAA became the FAA to start getting a better handle on air safety after a mid air between a couple airliners over the Grand Canyon. A great many new rules have come into being only after many people died due to a lack of them. Where drones are concerned, even though regulatory agencies are far behind where they should be, they are trying to get ahead of the game by developing rules before people are killed instead of after. Something that has become very clear over the years is that aviation accident rates for amateur pilots are much, much higher than they are for commercial pilots. Professional pilots, even with drones, have a better understanding of what they fly, train to higher standards, and work hard to maintain their proficiency. Their livelihood depends on it. I think we can agree that is not the case with the average amateur hobby flyer.

I'm always a sucker for a well-crafted post - especially by someone who knows a lot more about the subject than I do. But I have to challenge you on a couple of points.

Firstly, the need for safety regulation is proportional to the risk. The commercial drone pilot who flies over and close to crowds of people and built-up areas is obviously a potentially greater safety risk than the guy who flies in his back yard and nowhere near crowds of people or big buildings. So the two do not need the same qualifications, permits or oversight. And neither of them has anywhere close to the level of responsibility of a commercial passenger jet pilot. So, to me, it's a nonsense that the rules and regulations for manned aircraft have simply been copied to cover small unmanned drones with a top speed of 50mph and a mass of just 2kg.

Based on what I have just been reading, more of which shortly, the lawmakers and regulators have reached the same conclusion, in Europe at least.

I also think you might be scaremongering with your argument about the significant danger of amateur drone pilots crashing into pedestrians. The fact is that they are not allowed to fly within 150m of pedestrians and any who did would quickly be reported. I suggest the obvious: if there have been so few reports of pedestrian accidents, that can only be because there have been so few pedestrian accidents. Of course there is the potential for abuse, drunkenness, joyriding, etc but any pilot with a full set of certifications could also be guilty of that. And even airline pilots can slip through the net and decide to commit suicide when they are carrying 300 passengers. So there can never be a guarantee of safety. What the drone regulations should do is tailor the skill, knowledge and capability of the pilot to the risk he wants to be exposed to. And if he doesn't want to fly anywhere near other people or buildings, that risk is infinitesimal - and primarily limited to himself and his own property. So he doesn't need any qualification if he doesn't want one. And, to revert back to where I came in, I think he should be at liberty to accept a casual payment is one is offered to him, as long as he doesn't raise his risk profile.

 

[YuKay]

…Perhaps we should lobby for dividing the drone categories a bit finer than 2 the orders of magnitude (0.55 to 55 lbs.) of the current legislation. Perhaps drones under, say, 5 lbs. should not require FAA pilot certification for hobby or commercial operation. Or perhaps an energy based differentiation would work better; maximum speed times weight. Perhaps the probability of serious human injury or property damage due to a failure in the pilot or aircraft should be included in the analysis.

Your wish is coming - in Europe if not the US. The new draft regulations, which are due to come into force in about a year's time, do change the playing field, most particularly by:

• making no distinction between commercial and non-commercial drone operations (unlike the FAA);
• tailoring the rules to reflect the different levels of risk posed by different types of operation, aka ‘specific operations risk assessment’ (SORA);
• requiring no regulations at all for pilots of drones with <250g mass;
• requiring all other pilots to undergo online training and an online test;
• requiring no practical test for pilots of 'open' category drones;
• reducing the qualifications needed to fly drones with no camera;
• reducing the qualifications needed to fly drones which don't permit automatic flight;
• requiring all drones above 250g mass to be CE marked;
• requiring all drones above 250g to be registered on a central database;
• requiring all drones with a camera to emit an electronic ID and be geo-zone reactive;
• imposing no insurance requirement at EU level;
• requiring all drone manufacturers to build in a matrix of control modules to auto-restrict operation according to different types of customer/usage - including a low-speed button to qualify some drones to fly within 3m or 5m of people - and to include a compulsory 'information notice' with every drone; and also to give each drone a standard-specific serial number.

"The objective of this Opinion is to create a new regulatory framework that defines measures to mitigate the risk of operations in the:
— ‘open’ category, through a combination of limitations, operational rules, requirements for the competency of the remote pilot, as well as technical requirements for UAS, such that the UAS operator may conduct the operation without prior authorisation by the competent authority, or without submitting a declaration; and
— ‘specific’ category, through a system that includes a risk assessment being conducted by the UAS operator before starting an operation, or an operator complying with a standard scenario, or an operator holding a certificate with privileges.
Moreover, this Opinion is intended to:
— implement an operation-centric, proportionate, risk- and performance-based regulatory framework for all UAS operations conducted in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories;
— ensure a high and uniform level of safety for UAS operations; — foster the development of the UAS market; and
— contribute to addressing citizens’ concerns regarding security, privacy, data protection, and environmental protection."
​

https://rpas-regulations.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EASA_EU_Opinion-No-01-2018_180207.pdf

 

[Rubik]

Your wish is coming - in Europe if not the US. The new draft regulations, which are due to come into force in about a year's time, do change the playing field, most particularly by:

• making no distinction between commercial and non-commercial drone operations (unlike the FAA);
• tailoring the rules to reflect the different levels of risk posed by different types of operation, aka ‘specific operations risk assessment’ (SORA);
• requiring no regulations at all for pilots of drones with <250g mass;
• requiring all other pilots to undergo online training and an online test;
• requiring no practical test for pilots of 'open' category drones;
• reducing the qualifications needed to fly drones with no camera;
• reducing the qualifications needed to fly drones which don't permit automatic flight;
• requiring all drones above 250g mass to be CE marked;
• requiring all drones above 250g to be registered on a central database;
• requiring all drones with a camera to emit an electronic ID and be geo-zone reactive;
• imposing no insurance requirement at EU level;
• requiring all drone manufacturers to build in a matrix of control modules to auto-restrict operation according to different types of customer/usage - including a low-speed button to qualify some drones to fly within 3m or 5m of people - and to include a compulsory 'information notice' with every drone; and also to give each drone a standard-specific serial number.

"The objective of this Opinion is to create a new regulatory framework that defines measures to mitigate the risk of operations in the:
— ‘open’ category, through a combination of limitations, operational rules, requirements for the competency of the remote pilot, as well as technical requirements for UAS, such that the UAS operator may conduct the operation without prior authorisation by the competent authority, or without submitting a declaration; and
— ‘specific’ category, through a system that includes a risk assessment being conducted by the UAS operator before starting an operation, or an operator complying with a standard scenario, or an operator holding a certificate with privileges.
Moreover, this Opinion is intended to:
— implement an operation-centric, proportionate, risk- and performance-based regulatory framework for all UAS operations conducted in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories;
— ensure a high and uniform level of safety for UAS operations; — foster the development of the UAS market; and
— contribute to addressing citizens’ concerns regarding security, privacy, data protection, and environmental protection."
​

https://rpas-regulations.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EASA_EU_Opinion-No-01-2018_180207.pdf

View attachment 8823

Thanks for posting this YuKay. Maybe I should be careful what I wish for!
It makes a lot of sense to take the commercial vs hobby aspect out of the safety regulations. But is does put more training and testing requirements on hobby fliers like me.
Pat, is there any chance something like this could fly across the pond?

 

[PatR]

YuKay,

I have to view situations as they are, not as I would desire them to be. Nor can I view what “we” fly as in a very specific and limited size as our “class” covers a lot of territory. There is only a weight range to work within. No other dimensionality is specified. You mentioned a 2kg weight, which is not very much but me and many others fly systems in the same “class” of much larger dimensions and much higher weight. Sure, size and weight classifications could be more diversified but until they are we must operate under the rules currently in force.

As you mentioned, there is always people that will deliberately violate pretty much any rule. Rules are there to guide the law abiding, they do nothing to deter those with the desire to violate law. However, those with more to lose are more prone to operate within the confines of law. Even for them what they think they should be able to do may not be something they can do without violating law. So as law abiding people, they obey as failure to do so may render undesirable consequences.

 

[PatR]

Something akin to what has been proposed in Rubik’s post could work here but to effectively serve all involved would require considerably more definition.

 

[Rubik]

I just got a UAS survey request link sent out by the AMA:
https://csuci.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4Mh85Q3fbe4tGBL
I used it as an opportunity to voice my concerns.

 

[PatR]

They go off piste with the climate change questions.

 

[rdonson]

You have to take this with a grain of salt as Trump’s name is involved but....

White House wants to let law enforcement disable civilian drones

 

[PatR]

It started before him. The gov has provided a lot of anti drone development grant money that initiated with Obama. The UK was pouring money into it starting about the same time. They’ll have to change FCC regs here before they can field legal jamming technology.

As the article emanates from Bloomberg we have to take it with a 100lb sack of salt.

 

[YuKay]

You have to take this with a grain of salt as Trump’s name is involved but....

White House wants to let law enforcement disable civilian drones

But the principle is correct imho. The potential for terrorists to use drones against us is considerable. Hopefully potential terrorist targets could be built in to every consumer/professional drone's no-fly zones. I would also endorse the idea of individual property owners having the right to apply for (maybe pay for) their property to be a no-fly zone.

 

[OnTheRopes]

Of course a customer can exert control over the pilot he is paying. He can tell him where and when to fly, when to stop, what to photograph, etc. 7(b) doesn't say that that the customer needs to have total control over the operator: only that he should not have zero control. Therefore any measure of control means that the pilot need not be classified as a commercial operator.

If you are not familiar with this definition, perhaps it is new?

Not true
The safety of the aircraft is solely the pilots responsibility just as a ship at sea is the responsibility of the Captain. A paying client can ask or even tell them where to go but it is up to the pilot to consider safety, weather, hazards etc and not fly if they consider it unsafe to do so. The pilot has total responsibility.

 

[Dr Delta]

Burpppp

 

[PatR]

But the principle is correct imho. The potential for terrorists to use drones against us is considerable. Hopefully potential terrorist targets could be built in to every consumer/professional drone's no-fly zones. I would also endorse the idea of individual property owners having the right to apply for (maybe pay for) their property to be a no-fly zone.

You might want to re-think that. I don’t know of anyone that wants or likes drones flying over their property, or finding themselves featured in a published film or photo they had not agreed to. I also can’t think of anyone who would not want to be protected from terrorist acts.

If everyone could file to have their property or business locations listed as a no fly zone there would be nowhere to fly. The public already has a much more negative view of drones than most drone flyers recognize.

 

[YuKay]

You might want to re-think that. I don’t know of anyone that wants or likes drones flying over their property, or finding themselves featured in a published film or photo they had not agreed to. I also can’t think of anyone who would not want to be protected from terrorist acts.

If everyone could file to have their property or business locations listed as a no fly zone there would be nowhere to fly. The public already has a much more negative view of drones than most drone flyers recognize.

I do think that every private property owner should have that right. You might too if your back yard were suddenly invaded by drones. That said, we don't own the air above us any more than we own the oil, gas, coal, gold and silver beneath us so I can't see it happening - at least not unless the government can charge $100 a year for the privilege. I'm not so much thinking about the privacy thing but the noise of drones while I'm trying to grab a siesta in the sun (on land that I do own) would be most unwelcome.

 

[YuKay]

Not true
The safety of the aircraft is solely the pilots responsibility just as a ship at sea is the responsibility of the Captain. A paying client can ask or even tell them where to go but it is up to the pilot to consider safety, weather, hazards etc and not fly if they consider it unsafe to do so. The pilot has total responsibility.

I don't doubt that but the drone regulations are couched in non-aviation jargon - and as per one of my earlier posts, their explanation of "operator control" is not the same as the conventional definition of pilot responsibility. In their terms, it is possible for another person to have some degree of control over the drone operator, foreign as that may sound.

 

[PatR]

Only the person at the control of the aircraft is an operator. In the U.S. a certificated commercial sUAS pilot can allow a non certificated pilot to fly the aircraft during a commercial activity, but only with one aircraft at a time. The certificated pilot remains the pilot in command for the entire period the non certificated operator is at the controls and retains responsibility for any and everything associated with the flight. The PIC is the sole and final authority over the aircraft at all times. The PIC might allow someone else to control them but in doing so they are not relieved of any amount of their responsibility as a PIC. That's part of the reason why in the U.S. an entity that solicits a non certificated sUAS pilot to conduct commercial operations can be liable for up to 10X the penalties that are levied against the person actually flying the aircraft.

As a full scale and sUAS commercial pilot and previous full scale ground and flight instructor I can assure you that NOBODY can tell a pilot what to do and force him/her to do it and absolve the pilot from ultimate responsibility. That's been tried a great many times and the FAA and NTSB has ruled against the pilot every time. It's the reason FAR 91.3 exists.

 

[YuKay]

Only the person at the control of the aircraft is an operator. In the U.S. a certificated commercial sUAS pilot can allow a non certificated pilot to fly the aircraft during a commercial activity, but only with one aircraft at a time. The certificated pilot remains the pilot in command for the entire period the non certificated operator is at the controls and retains responsibility for any and everything associated with the flight. The PIC is the sole and final authority over the aircraft at all times. The PIC might allow someone else to control them but in doing so they are not relieved of any amount of their responsibility as a PIC. That's part of the reason why in the U.S. an entity that solicits a non certificated sUAS pilot to conduct commercial operations can be liable for up to 10X the penalties that are levied against the person actually flying the aircraft.

As a full scale and sUAS commercial pilot and previous full scale ground and flight instructor I can assure you that NOBODY can tell a pilot what to do and force him/her to do it and absolve the pilot from ultimate responsibility. That's been tried a great many times and the FAA and NTSB has ruled against the pilot every time. It's the reason FAR 91.3 exists.

We're going back and forth a bit but I should have clarified that my previous post about the language used by the drone regulator applied to Europe. I haven't looked at the USA - and based on the mountain of documentation put out by the EU and CAA, I don't intend to spread my wings any wider.

So, for clarity, the European drone regulator states that a third party can have a degree of control (in their terms) over the pilot/operator of a drone -- and that for some reason, this somehow can render a paying flight non-commercial (in their terms).

I do think that all the European drone rules are being rewritten from the ground up for a big unveiling later this year or early next and that will be very welcome if they are more coherent - even if I have to pony up for an online learning course when the new regs come in.

And since they are writing in regulations which fundamentally change the way in which drones are manufactured, I assume that there might already be worldwide agreement on adopting some of these measures.

 

[PatR]

That agreement was supposed to have been in place back in 2012 or 2013

 

[Rubik]

those with more to lose are more prone to operate within the confines of law.

That little nugget goes a long way to explain a lot of problems in society.

 

[PatR]

Perhaps better parenting would go further. We’ll save that for a different place and time.