Is waiver approval objective or subjective

[zalo]

I have been attending the FAA Drone Waiver Webinar series. Much of the discussion focuses on identifying and mitigating hazards to ensure safety. A question was asked if there exists a list of risks that must be addressed for each of the different waivers. The response was that the applicant was responsible for determining what the safety issues might be. If that is the case, knowing that every applicant can not posibbly addresses every issue, it would seem the granting of a waiver is more subjective than objective. I've applied for 2 daytime waivers: one was granted and the other denied, even though the applications were identical in addressing risks.

It would seem a better approach to the granting of waivers would be to have a list of risks/hazards, and have the applicant describe how they plan to mitigate each. If those plans are sound then the waiver is granted; rather than the applicant guessing what the FAA reviewer is looking for in the application.

 

[R Martin]

It would seem a better approach to the granting of waivers would be to have a list of risks/hazards, and have the applicant describe how they plan to mitigate each. If those plans are sound then the waiver is granted; rather than the applicant guessing what the FAA reviewer is looking for in the application.

That is operating on the assumption that every situation is identical. It's unfortunately not one form fits all. You have to be able to identify the risk for each situation and then mitigate the risk. And to the satisfaction of the FAA to boot. I wish it was a bit more transparent on their reasons for denial though. At least you could learn from your mistakes that way and move forward.

 

[MapMaker53]

It would seem a better approach to the granting of waivers would be to have a list of risks/hazards, and have the applicant describe how they plan to mitigate each.

The FAA provides just that. Go to the following page and scroll down to the list of waiver categories. Below that list are the FAA concerns in each waiver category and the questions you should address in your application by describing the steps you would take that would mitigate those concerns. If the FAA is satisfied with your approach, you will be granted the waiver.

Waiver Safety Explanation Guidelines for Part 107 Waiver Applications

Unfortunately, if the FAA is not satisfied with your approach and your waiver gets denied, they don't tell you why. But with careful review of the concerns and the application, you can often figure it out yourself and try again.

 

[Dave Pitman]

The current process is definitely somewhat subjective. Remember that the FAA employees or subcontractors may have no uas experience at all. They have a checklist and do their best (we hope) to assess if the applicant has satisfied their checklist. I am sure their checklist is evolving.

Someday, the FAA will write regulations for you to follow if you want to operate in some common manner. You know, like their supposed to.

The amount of man hours they are wasting by not writing a regulation for night flight (for example) is probably appalling. Could you imagine if flying IFR (manned) required pilots to write a VFR waiver request rather than simply obeying the regs. And IFR flight of manned aviation is magnitudes more dangerous than flying an rc at night.

But hey, its a good use of public $$, right?

 

[Earnest Ward]

The current process is definitely somewhat subjective. Remember that the FAA employees or subcontractors may have no uas experience at all. They have a checklist and do their best (we hope) to assess if the applicant has satisfied their checklist. I am sure their checklist is evolving.

Someday, the FAA will write regulations for you to follow if you want to operate in some common manner. You know, like their supposed to.

The amount of man hours they are wasting by not writing a regulation for night flight (for example) is probably appalling. Could you imagine if flying IFR (manned) required pilots to write a VFR waiver request rather than simply obeying the regs. And IFR flight of manned aviation is magnitudes more dangerous than flying an rc at night.

But hey, its a good use of public $$, right?

Dave, when you mentioned IFR training you may have inadvertently touched upon why the FAA requires 107 pilots to write a waiver application. That is, sUAS Remote Pilots are not required to receive ANY training in order to earn their original certification and, therefore, are an Unknown in regards to their ability to operate safely at night.

As a manned aircraft pilot (Comm-ASMEL-I, CFI-A, and former Accident Prevention Councilor)) who has "migrated" to the commercial sUAS community, I can see where you're coming from when you say, "IFR flight of manned aviation is magnitudes more dangerous than flying an rc at night." But, since sUAS night ops take place at or below 400' AGL without ATC radar or vertical/horizontal separation of traffic, the manned IFR flights would have to be over mountainous terrain without radar coverage to truly be "magnitudes more dangerous."

In addition to writing regulations, the FAA will need to rethink aeronautical charts too. The Sectional is only marginally useful for sUAS pilots; it's scale is intended for faster, higher flying pilots who are covering more ground horizontally. sUAS pilots are going to require a digital map that cover a smaller geographic area but in far greater detail - and this, in turn, could make both night ops and, eventually, BVLOS safer and more practical. (I hope.)

 

[Dave Pitman]

I agree with all your points @Earnest Ward, especially regarding the training.

My general "more dangerous" comment was more about comparing the consequences of something going wrong between a typical GA single pilot true IFR flight compared with hovering a small rc aircraft in a field adjacent to an auto dealership taking marketing or lighting audit photographs (a typical night time mission). When I like to do these is in the wee hours of the morning when streets and sidewalks are empty. There is little to no risk of any kind to me or the public. With the GA IFR flight IF something goes wrong, the consequences are usually much higher.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I have been attending the FAA Drone Waiver Webinar series. Much of the discussion focuses on identifying and mitigating hazards to ensure safety. A question was asked if there exists a list of risks that must be addressed for each of the different waivers. The response was that the applicant was responsible for determining what the safety issues might be. If that is the case, knowing that every applicant can not posibbly addresses every issue, it would seem the granting of a waiver is more subjective than objective. I've applied for 2 daytime waivers: one was granted and the other denied, even though the applications were identical in addressing risks.

It would seem a better approach to the granting of waivers would be to have a list of risks/hazards, and have the applicant describe how they plan to mitigate each. If those plans are sound then the waiver is granted; rather than the applicant guessing what the FAA reviewer is looking for in the application.

" I've applied for 2 daytime waivers: one was granted and the other denied, even though the applications were identical in addressing risks."

LOL. Been there, the process leaves one shaking his head and wondering if the Three Stooges are running the FAA. The only difference is the civilian contractor who received it, whether s/he was having a bad day, the phase of the moon, the star alignment, whether the dart hit approved v. disapproved on the wheel of fortune, whether the quarter fell on heads or tails, voodoo rituals, etc. One thing we know is that it does not depend on the quality of the application.

There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to justify different treatment for application written exactly the same.

 

[R.Perry]

What I don't understand is why the standards aren't applied equally to UAV, fixed wing, and helocopters. If a UAV pilot loses complete control of his drone, it is no different than a fixed wing or helo losing all flight controls. There is one big difference, the UAV will not cause nearly the damage a fixed wing or helo will when they crash.
Many years ago PSA had a mid air over LA, hit a Cessna 182 and the 727 went down in the city.

Today the airlines have collision avoidance, but they don't have absolute control over potential catastrophic failures such as the Sue City crash where all the hydraulic lines in the tail section were severed leaving no flight controls.

If UAVs and manned aircraft are flying at legal altitudes there should never be a mid air, so the only other issue is the potential for injuring someone on the ground, and UAVs nor manned aircraft can eliminate that potential risk completely but manned aircraft can fly over poeple, UAVs cannot.

 

[Dave Pitman]

For the record, it was flight 182, a Boeing 727, that hit a Cessna 172 over San Diego.

 

[R Martin]

What I don't understand is why the standards aren't applied equally to UAV, fixed wing, and helocopters. If a UAV pilot loses complete control of his drone, it is no different than a fixed wing or helo losing all flight controls. There is one big difference, the UAV will not cause nearly the damage a fixed wing or helo will when they crash.

Two words; airworthiness certificate. Until UASs are required to undergo an airworthiness inspection at predetermined intervals, we are never going to be thought of as the same as general aviation.