FAA using LAANC to Target UAS Operators

[Dave Pitman]

Came across this article about the FAA using LAANC requests to track down and check on commercial ops.

According to the piece, they are asking for not only what is required in the regulation (Part 107) but going further and asking for proof of factors we all believe are "best practice" items but not currently "required" by law.

If true, I think this is problematic. For example, when I submit a manned flight plan, it is to enhance safety in the NAS for everyone. If by submitting a flight plan, that marked me as needing a ramp check, then I would think twice about filing one, even if I was trying to do everything correctly. If the FAA is using a LAANC request as a means to locate and check up on uas ops, they are going against what they have done in the past. Maybe they just don't know how to randomly check on uas ops, but this seems like a lazy and wrong approach to me.

In addition, many of the factors listed in what they are checking may be "best practice", but are not currently included in the regulation and therefore the FAA rep has no basis for "verifying" them. Imagine being pulled over for a "courtesy stop" by local law enforcement and being asked to show your documentation for your advanced NASCAR approved driving training....huh??

Let's get this stuff into the regulation and THEN check for conformity. This is a backwards approach. What a shame.

"Ramp Checks" and Best Practices: Notes from the Drone Journalism Leadership Summit | Drone Business Center

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Just like the feds, rather than sending notices or posting this information on LAANC requests, they chose to play "got you" games. I doubt too many operators knew this before you posted it. I carry my 107 and obviously a copy of my LAANC authorization but not the rest of this nonsense. Since when do general aviaton aircraft started to carry maintenance logs on-board?

I do not carry maintenance logs to job sites for obvious reasons, not to lose them. So much for "our goal is education, not enforcement."

 

[MapMaker53]

If I were to be "ramp checked", I would simply provide them the information REQUIRED by the Part 107 regs as written and ignore the other requests, such as producing proof of insurance (even though I have $1M coverage through my employer) or a maintenance log -- because there is no mention in the regs that I am REQUIRED to have these. And the only phone number I am required to have on me is the local airport ATC that I received authorization from. Beyond that, calling 911 will suffice for an immediate response to any damage causing event on my part. "Best Practice" is something that is recommended, not mandatory. I'm a law-abiding person, and if the FAA wants to FORCE me to follow anything they consider to be "best practice", they can put it in the regs. Everything else as far as I'm concerned is voluntary and the FAA would be overstepping their authority if they hassled me.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

If I were to be "ramp checked", I would simply provide them the information REQUIRED by the Part 107 regs as written and ignore the other requests, such as producing proof of insurance (even though I have $1M coverage through my employer) or a maintenance log -- because there is no mention in the regs that I am REQUIRED to have these. And the only phone number I am required to have on me is the local airport ATC that I received authorization from. Beyond that, calling 911 will suffice for an immediate response to any damage causing event on my part. "Best Practice" is something that is recommended, not mandatory. I'm a law-abiding person, and if the FAA wants to FORCE me to follow anything they consider to be "best practice", they can put it in the regs. Everything else as far as I'm concerned is voluntary and the FAA would be overstepping their authority if they hassled me.

Agree, however they hold all the cards. Any guess that if we give the FAA dude only what the rules require and develop a "reputation", our LAANC requests may either get "lost" or denied for CS reasons? That is what bothers me.

 

[dronecyclops]

Agree, however they hold all the cards. Any guess that if we give the FAA dude only what the rules require and develop a "reputation", our LAANC requests may either get "lost" or denied for CS resons? That is what bothers me.

I only carry what FAA rules state with me but would provide any additional info asked as soon as possible & then start carrying said info for any additional upcoming requests I just don't want to carry ALL documentation all the time unless that is required

 

[R Martin]

"Ramp Checks" and Best Practices: Notes from the Drone Journalism Leadership Summit | Drone Business Center

Thanks Dave.

I was short on a few items and will add that to my binder I lug around. Going to need a coolie if that binder gets any heavier.ooo or attach straps to it and wear it.

 

[mdurbanek]

Hi guys - I have to admit that the more I read and hear, the less enthusiastic I am regarding the future of sane regulation of this endeavor. Most of you are serious drone operators. For me, the drone is just another camera.

Having said that, it is a REMARKABLE camera. It provides valuable viewpoints previously unavailable at any price. But all of this confusion and competition to rule the skies is depressing.

Good luck to all of us. We'll need it.

 

[R Martin]

Having said that, it is a REMARKABLE camera. It provides valuable viewpoints previously unavailable at any price. But all of this confusion and competition to rule the skies is depressing.

You can't brag about your remarkable camera without sharing some details. Don't be that guy....

 

[Weaponized]

I ain't scared

 

[Dave Pitman]

I don't think anyone is "scared". We are just hoping the FAA chooses to follow the rule of law and their own established policies.

Regulation first, then compliance. I know it's complicated.

 

[Weaponized]

I don't think anyone is "scared". We are just hoping the FAA chooses to follow the rule of law and their own established policies.

Regulation first, then compliance. I know it's complicated.

Just the rumor of ramp checks will have an effect. I doubt the FAA has the manpower to pull this off on any scale. They also must be careful about interrupting/distracting someone on the job.

I know I couldn't take 20 minutes away from a client (on their dime) for an interview, nor do I deviate from my inspection protocol since I could miss something expensive. If someone is distracting me...I let them know it quickly and they'll be asked to leave or wait until an appropriate time/place.

I rarely even have time after a job to waste without risking being late for the next. I would think they'd realize the disruption they could create and exercise discretion.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I would think they'd realize the disruption they could create and exercise discretion.

Exactly. I hope so too.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Exactly. I hope so too.

Come to think of it, how in the world would an FAA dude find you? The LAANC does not specify your launch point.....

 

[Dave Pitman]

Don't know. I don't think the article.went into that detail. However the operator should be fairly close to the requested grid, lat long, right?

 

[dronecyclops]

Come to think of it, how in the world would an FAA dude find you? The LAANC does not specify your launch point.....

Exactly what I thought you can file for several no way they know where you are

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Don't know. I don't think the article.went into that detail. However the operator should be fairly close to the requested grid, lat long, right?

Not necessarily. Skyward asks for an area you mark on a map, it could be a 1/5 mile radius, one mile radius or more. Here's one of the sites I work regularly. I'd love for someone to find me w/o any help.

 

[Dave Pitman]

No idea, guys.

 

[Earnest Ward]

Just the rumor of ramp checks will have an effect.

It's worth keeping in mind that rumor is all we're speaking about at this point - and a rumor, it seems, that the FAA played no part in starting.

Granted the recently passed FAA reauthorization bill included a budget increase. (The first in 20 years if I recall correctly.) But most, if not all, will go to modernizing and updating. If anything is left over, it will be (at best) split between adding a new low altitude (think sUAS) passive air traffic control & avoidance system AND maybe creating a new trans-atmospheric ATC system (think Richard Branson et al.)

Personally, I figure I'm more likely to be "ramp checked" by local law enforcement than the FAA and am fully prepared for that contingency. (Just part of doing business.)

 

[Mike Nevins]

And lets add to the fact that not all airports are enabled by LAANC! Oh, and what about DJI being the enforcer of regulation in the United States! China is NOT our friend. I hope other manufactures outside of China are aggressively getting ready to chalenge DJI.

 

[Dave Pitman]

t's worth keeping in mind that rumor is all we're speaking about at this point

So, to be clear, you are calling Jeff Rose, chief uas pilot for the Sinclair Broadcast Group a liar? I'm not sure what his motive would be.

I suspect I won't be seeing any FAA officials on my ops anytime soon. That doesn't mean however, that a high profile op will be equally unaffected. The principal is the same though.