In short, if passed the law discussed would clear UAS under 4 4lbs (2kg) or its operator from any...

[G+_Jeff Brand]

In short, if passed the law discussed would clear UAS under 4.4lbs (2kg) or its operator from any airworthiness certification no matter what the use. This would render 333 exemptions, pilots licenses, etc. unnecessary within the bounds already set for hobby use.

 

As far as I can tell, the weight class includes DJI Phantoms but not the Inspire. Still, it does a lot to clear the path for small business use of this technology. I hope it passes.

http://www.suasnews.com/2016/02/41923/

[G+_Jeff Brand]

I'm sorry, but neither the article nor the actual amendment support your statement.

 

By bringing all micro UAS into the same tier as hobby sUAS, the new requirements that you quoted would still exempt the sub 250g class from any registration since that's exactly what those newly applicable regulations state.

 

The point of the lower-weight bound is that the working group determined that there's not much risk of injury should one fall out of the sky, and therefore little reason to track down its owner.

 

This is really an incremental step towards breaking down the largely-irrelevant but legacy hobby/commercial split in the existing laws.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

Those are the author's words, not the law's. Would it be clearer if he had said "the existing registration rules still apply"?

 

Yes, it creates a new class and then provides new rules that apply to that class. It only overrides very specific regulations and leaves the rest intact.

 

Here's the amendment. It's very short:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW00/20160211/104471/BILLS-114-HR4441-D000619-Amdt-38.pdf

 

Your argument doesn't make sense given the actual law text, nor does anyone at the FAA care about the sub .55 lbs class.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

What they don't say leaves it up to interpretation - by us and them. Clarification requires time in court but it's not worth their time if it's a legal gray area.

 

The same goes for FPV flight as left inconclusive by the phrase "within line of sight." The FAA interprets that to mean "by line of sight" but they haven't challenged it, to my knowledge. I think their interpretation is too strict and would lose.

[G+_52Degrees]

Ah, yes... Here it is again. Another opportunity to bring up the 10th amendment to the constitution.

 

Also, laws must be clear and unambiguous. When they aren't they shoulb be challenged.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

Wayne Hobbins, I plan to. Their interpretation isn't the law. There's plenty to litigate that's more egregious than this amendment. I still haven't seen any interpretation of this text that changes sub-.55lb drone rules in any way. They're still not coming for yer drones, whether a Syma X5C or FPV150.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

Seriously, that's your argument? That in order for the police to actively find a way to harass you, they'll just round down to maximize the opportunity? Guess what, it's not up to the police to determine that boundary, and the Federal level doesn't care about the lower weight class enough to make local law enforcement's life easier.

 

Please stop proposing these unfounded scenarios. We get it: you don't trust the government.

 

[G+_Larry Havenstein]

Sadly this new ruling doesn't take into account Model Airplanes in the speed account. 4.4 pounds is a good sized Model Airplane though so that's not a problem. Its not untypical for model airplanes to hit 120 mph although 75mph is more typical. I suspect this is one of the modifications that the AMA. was pushing for but the speed was missed. According to emails I have been getting lately the Special Ruling for Model Aircraft is supposed to be toughened in the bill that is going forth so registration will take more twists (hopefully for the better). 40 knots is fast for a quad but really slow for Model Airplanes which are covered in the Micro UAS rule like it or not.