[TriLUG] So here is a thought

[Peter Neilson via TriLUG]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:16:17 -0400, Hrivnak, Michael via TriLUG  
<trilug at trilug.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:45 PM, karl flores <karl.americorp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The vehicle would be operated by each of the HAM operators on the path  
>> and
>> would have "visual" on the device as it flies above the "tree tops" or
>> "roof tops" where the antenna are set up. It also has a built in camera
>> where the operator can maintain "visual".  I would think this project is
>> still in the planning and testing stage until a device is developed that
>> could fly a long distance. Once the device exists, then it would be a
>> process of getting a permit to test the vehicle. I also like the idea  
>> that
>> the HAM operators might be willing to work on this project.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, an on-board camera does not help from a regulatory
> perspective. A person on the ground must be able to see it with unaided
> vision at all times. Under the hobby regs (part 101), that person has to  
> be
> the operator. Under the more extensive part 107, which requires training
> and certification, a visual observer can be designated who stays in
> constant communication with a remote pilot in command. Even as the  
> military
> has gotten permission to start flying their drones in US civilian  
> airspace
> recently, despite all the surveillance technology they may have on-board,
> the FAA still requires them to have a designated visual observer at all
> times. You can search for "BVLOS" (Beyond Visual Line Of Sight) to read
> about some of the first approvals happening to operate that way in  
> civilian
> airspace, but it's mostly happening outside the US.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, nor an expert on these regulations, but I am a private
> pilot. In general, airspace regulations for all flights not on an
> instrument flight plan are built upon the basic responsibility that the
> pilot in command must "see and avoid" any and all obstacles or hazards,
> including other aircraft, weather, terrain, towers, buildings, etc. I
> suspect that the FAA simply does not trust that you can do that  
> effectively
> with a simple camera mounted on your drone. If you had enough cameras and
> the right setup on the operator's end that you could simulate the range  
> of
> vision an on-board pilot would have, then maybe you could apply for an
> exception.
>
> Michael

IIRC you need explicit permission from every nearby airport. I'm about two  
miles from one, and that removed any interest I might have had in drones.  
I have a suspicion that lots of drone operators are in ignorance or  
outright defiance of the regulations.