Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Since the title * can be mis-interpreted to mean that you’ve never needed a license, I can forgive some commenters here from forgetting that just a few years ago, the only legal way to fly a drone was with an actual aircraft pilot’s license. Drone operators, rightly, thought that was pretty silly, but it took a number of years before the FAA crafted drone-specific rules and allowed drone flights under 400 feet without a license.

Having to attend a short online training course about what the rules are and to stay away from people and out of the airspace of manned aircraft seems pretty reasonable, and perhaps necessary given the growing number of drone accidents in the recent past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UAV-related_incidents

* edit: the HN title has been changed for the better. To clarify for anyone reading this now, my comment was referring to the previous HN title: “Effective Immediately: You need a drone license before you fly in the US”

> ...just a few years ago, the only legal way to fly a drone was with an actual aircraft pilot’s license.

As I understood it, small unmanned aircraft flown for hobby or recreational use had long been excluded from the full authority of the FAA (except for some basic rules for respecting the airspace of manned aircraft), or the need for a pilot's license. They were essentially treated like RC airplanes, which of course have not required a pilot's license to operate, albeit with some of those basic rules (I believe the AMA was involved in establishing some of those guidelines).

Of course, when drones became more popular, there was a lot of misunderstanding when it came to the interpretation of current regulations (e.g., line-of-sight operation vs FPV), and it was debatable whether or not the FAA even had the authority to regulate the operation of small hobby aircraft, including drones. Commercial operation was and still is clearly regulated by the FAA and requires a license.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in this category of aircraft (for recreational use), the FAA has become more involved and restrictive over the past few years, not less so. In my opinion, that's generally been a good thing (some people do foolish things with drones), but the regulation should also be balanced in maintaining some of those reasonable freedoms of operation.

>the only legal way to fly a drone was with an actual aircraft pilot’s license.

That must have been a rather large drone (or maybe what you mean is "fly a drone near an airport or city") since you don't even need a pilot's license to fly small planes in the US.

You don't need a pilot's license* to fly ultralight category aircraft in the US, but for the category commonly called "small planes", you do.

Ultralights are governed by Part 103 and limited to: single-seat, day-only, VFR-only, weighing less than 254 pounds, carrying 5 US gallons or less, and having a top speed of not more than 55 knots [calibrated].

* - Technically "certificate", but practically the same.

Yes, to people who don't fly though an ultralight and Cessna both look like "small planes."

The only reason I see for drones not being compliant with that is that they lack the single seat.

One part commonly overlooked is "see and avoid". That is, under VFR, a pilot should look out the window and avoid hitting other things. Which, strange as it sounds, has been a sticking point for some drone flight approvals.

It’s not strange at all. Drone pilots have more limited visibility.

The bigger issue is that drone pilots have no skin in the game. If they cause an mid air collision resulting in fatalities: opsie daisy!

only the most psychopathic individuals say "oopsie daisy" after causing accidental death.

for everyone else the result is usually a lot of sobbing.

that doesn't mean they're not blase about taking risks ahead of time. but that's more because they misevaluate the risk, and can't clearly imagine the negative outcomes.

Does a person need to be sitting in the seat? Or could I just put some plastic Lego seat on my drone and qualify?

You'd fail 14 CFR § 103.1.a:

"Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;"

Huh, so if I build a remote control system for an intended-to-be-manned ultralight, I could use it as a drone without a certificate, but not an actual purpose-built drone?

So long as you could successfully argue in front of an FAA Administrative Law Judge that you "used or intended to use it" as a manned aircraft.

Since it sounds like you're doing so with the specific intention to use it as an unmanned craft, the Part 103 rules would not apply (and would not permit it). (The law is “is” rather than “was originally built to be”.)

The commercial use aspect also came into play- if you were hired to use the drone to do something (like take pictures), or were a company using a drone as part of a product/service, it would arguably fall under a different set of rules. Which is another reason clarification was needed.

You don't? Multiple people I know who fly regularly say they're required to fly a certain amount or else they'll lose the license to fly.

They won’t lose their license. They’ll just be out of currency. Which means they can’t fly passengers until they get current which is as single as three takeoffs and landings.

I appreciate the new system. When the first set of rules requiring certification went through, I called all 3 of the training locations the FAA had listed in my state and none of them had any idea what I was asking about. I ended up not flying my drone for over a year, until I brought it to Mexico.

If I remember correctly that legal requirement was rejected / nullified by legal challenge to the FAA n federal court,

Reply on news.ycombinator.com