FAA using LAANC to Target UAS Operators

[Kristina Fowler]

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

Part 107 Remote Pilot Certification field checks? All for it. Cross-examinations after you get your license? Not so much. If the conversation is intended to reinforce best practices, I think that's a terrific idea. Example: "Use your turn signal". However, giving pop-quizzes and penalizing you on incorrect answers when your Remote Pilot License is already in your back pocket is not my cup of tea.

 

[Earnest Ward]

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.

"To be clear" Dave, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I'm not calling anyone a liar, and I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggesting that I am.

On the other hand, over the years I have, on occasion, encountered an overzealous individual within the FAA who has had a personal interpretation of regs that departed from regulatory intent. (In addition to currently being a 107 certificated remote pilot, I have been a 61/91/135 pilot for nearly 40 years.) I would not, however, accuse the entire FAA of being guilty of the zealous overreach demonstrated by one of their field operatives until there was evidence from multiple sources of a more systemic/nationwide problem - and would take such a potentially provocative accusation by others with a grain of salt.

 

[Kristina Fowler]

In all my preparation for the 107 test, I don't recall seeing a requirement for keeping flight logs for Part 107 operations. What did I miss?

Part 107 Rules

 

[HawkView]

The confirmed instances I am aware of were all in relation to high-visibility public events, and not a LAANC request.

 

[skyeboysteve]

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

DJI's Aeroscope for one....

 

[skyeboysteve]

As for logging props / rotor flight times--that's something I've thought about doing; but wasn't sure how to mark all my propellers with unique markings (like the serial numbers you see on full scale aircraft props). For one thing I couldn't find any information if using paint or a magic marker might weaken the structural integrity of the plastic blades over time due to some unforseen chemical reaction... Then again I balance my props with tape, and that adhesive might be causing issues already. Adding colored dots to the hub can only distinguish so many props; although I suppose a coded pattern could be used. Then again, I suppose one thing to do is if you ever change out one prop; change them all out together and reset your prop logs.

Anyone here actually log your prop's flight time? Part of the reason I didn't bother; was because there's no studies that have been done to show what the typical lifespan of these props are (at least with DJI) anyway; and I assumed they'd probably last long enough till I upgraded to the latest and greatest... but I can see why the FAA might be curious for the same reasons--and hoping we'll log our props to build a study from--even though it's not a requirement.

 

[Dave Pitman]

"To be clear" Dave, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I'm not calling anyone a liar, and I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggesting that I am.

Well, if Jeff Rose said his crew was "ramp checked" and was asked for things beyond the current reg. And you stated that [ramp checks] were just a rumor, I'm not sure how else to take it? I'm sorry if you are offended, though. Perhaps you were saying something else was a rumor?

 

[Dave Pitman]

In all my preparation for the 107 test, I don't recall seeing a requirement for keeping flight logs for Part 107 operations. What did I miss?

..or maintenance logs, proof of insurance, etc. All this stuff will probably make it into the reg at some point, but it isn't part of it now.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Anyone here actually log your prop's flight time? Part of the reason I didn't bother; was because there's no studies that have been done to show what the typical lifespan of these props are (at least with DJI) anyway; and I assumed they'd probably last long enough till I upgraded to the latest and greatest... but I can see why the FAA might be curious for the same reasons--and hoping we'll log our props to build a study from--even though it's not a requirement.

There is no data to support a "usable lifespan" for many things on our uas like exist in manned aircraft. There isn't any point picking an arbitrary # without being based in testing. You could remove a perfectly good prop because it has x # of flight hours on it and replace it with a brand new part that has an invisible defect and think you are doing a good thing. We do not need to get the cart before the horse. Data first, then guidelines.

To your question, I do not randomly replace parts like props. I do replace parts if there is any indication of wear or issues.

 

[Weaponized]

I hope other manufactures outside of China are aggressively getting ready to chalenge DJI.

PLEASE. I've submitted 3 custom unlocks that apparently got lost in cyberspace and I'm done. There's no feedback to the end user after a submission UNLESS it gets approved and shows up in your app. Apparently DJI thinks we can operate a business by "guessing" that...
1. A submission was recieved
2. A submission is under review
3. A submission was denied
4. The reason it was denied

I have to resubmit 3 unlocks and I have no clue why. Even having made contact with a DJI rep in a Facebook group, and emailing the flysafe@dji email address. Unacceptable in any country, in any language.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Unacceptable in any country, in any language.

Preaching to the choir.

Fill out their form and let them know what you think.

DJI and "Pay for Play"

 

[Weaponized]

Preaching to the choir.

Fill out their form and let them know what you think.

DJI and "Pay for Play"

Done

 

[R Martin]

Anyone here actually log your prop's flight time? Part of the reason I didn't bother; was because there's no studies that have been done to show what the typical lifespan of these props are (at least with DJI) anyway; and I assumed they'd probably last long enough till I upgraded to the latest and greatest... but I can see why the FAA might be curious for the same reasons--and hoping we'll log our props to build a study from--even though it's not a requirement.

We log time on all our components. Have been since we began flying. Never reached the end of service life by failure. I always replace a prop pair yearly whether it needs it or not. Never had cause to replace it because of damage inflicted by piloting error...yet.

 

[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.

Sorry RM for the delay, I've been off the forum. I think you misunderstood me...I just have a P4 Advanced. But as an architectural photographer it's a remarkable camera. The focal length of the lens is ideal, the stability of the platform in the air allows fairly low shutter speeds when necessary, and 20 MP is plenty for most viewing needs. I have spent many years climbing onto the top of various Suburbans just to get a little elevation.This is much better!

 

[R Martin]

Sorry RM for the delay, I've been off the forum. I think you misunderstood me...I just have a P4 Advanced. But as an architectural photographer it's a remarkable camera. The focal length of the lens is ideal, the stability of the platform in the air allows fairly low shutter speeds when necessary, and 20 MP is plenty for most viewing needs. I have spent many years climbing onto the top of various Suburbans just to get a little elevation.This is much better!

No worries. Just pulling your chain. And I agree that some elevation sets your apart from the rest. I'm playing more with the photography side lately and it is fun to work with in free flight.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

DJI's Aeroscope for one....

Or they can just add a "launch location" space to the LAANC form.

 

[zhanover]

Hmm. Well, leave it up to the Feds to complicate something and sow fear, debatably unnecessarily. I'll be logging component hours and carrying logs with me all the time. Since my home base is operating in close proximity of the DC SFRA (and eventually inside it with authorization - I have clients with the ability to make it happen) I will now fully expect "spot checks" whether they are simple field inspections or full-bore ramp checks.

Yes, I'm completing the DC SFRA WINGS course as an additional layer of education, which I'm sure the FAA would consider required for sUAS inasmuch as it is for GA VFR in the SFRA. Now I'm imagining a couple G-men running up to me in the field carrying on an inquisition about KDCA APP/DEP procedures

Just a thought -- digitizing your documentation and storing on your flight control device (assuming iOS or Android not CrystalSky) seems pretty easy to this Millennial.