Originally published at: Part 108’s Implications for Drone and GA Safety
Part 108 proposals raise questions on right-of-way, portable EC devices, and pilot responsibilities.
1 Like
As an aircraft owner, ATP rated pilot of 50 years, A&P/IA with an FCC General Radio Telephone certificate, you can’t get anything approved by the FAA now, no field approval’s.
Most of the pilot owners that I come in contact with are struggling to afford a set of tires for their 172 ($1000) let alone a piece of equipment that does nothing to improve the safety or performance of the aircraft. If the Drone operators feel that they want to operate autonomously, they and or the FAA can finance this whole thing. We’re still mandated to install enough equipment in our A/C that does no good to most of us on a daily/ yearly basis.
I 100% agree with the previous poster. I did my part and submitted a comment opposing any changes to the pt 91 right of way rules based on ADS-B signals.
The portable EC devices would enhance safety for glider clubs. It’s time for the FAA to permit their use in America.
I do a lot of low-level (well below 500 feet AGL) oblique landscape aerial photography over sparsely populated areas maintaining a horizontal separation of at least 500 feet from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure (14 CFR § 91.119(c). That’s the principal reason I own and fly an airplane which is equipped with ADS-B In and Out. Nevertheless, I have concerns about this proposed rule. Will the UAS see and avoid me based on ADS-B and/or artificial sight? Many UAS are very small and difficult for a pilot to see. Are we gradually surrendering surface through 400 or 500 feet AGL airspace to UAS? Is 108 the beginning? Will the FAA eventually recommend that GA pilots avoid surface through 500 feet just to be on the safe side?
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.