UK Overriding DJI's No Fly Zones

[The Editor]

Seems like it leaves out operators in the US, since there are no formal sUAV licensing rules from the FAA.

My understanding is a 333 exemption will suffice since it shows a level of competency of air navigation/airspace rules etc since in order to get an air worthiness certificate for your UAS you will already be in possession of a pilots cert. If that's not correct perhaps someone can step in but that is my understanding.

 

[Gary E]

My take on the 333 is it's an exemption from rules that are not formal. By getting a 333 the receiver of such is admitting the proposed FAA rules are in acceptance. Regardless, if that is so or not, my take is that the 333 does not give a sUAV an air worthiness certificate. Having a pilots license (certificate) of whatever rating does not automatically provide an air worthiness certificate for an aircraft, in this case, an sUAV (is it really legally an aircraft?). A pilots license and an air worthiness certificate are two separate pieces of paper and are not related. An individual can have both or either one without the other.

My input on this is as a result of my knowledge of it, having built a high performance experimental aircraft (Lancair), getting it formally inspected by an FAA inspector or its representatives, and receiving an airworthiness certificate, which by the way, is contingent upon flying a certain number of hours (25 or 40 hours depending on engine/prop used) in a specified flight test area during its phase I flight testing.

I may be totally wrong in my interpretation, but until I read official government documents otherwise, I believe this to be so.

 

[Quadpilot]

My take on the 333 is it's an exemption from rules that are not formal. By getting a 333 the receiver of such is admitting the proposed FAA rules are in acceptance. Regardless, if that is so or not, my take is that the 333 does not give a sUAV an air worthiness certificate. Having a pilots license (certificate) of whatever rating does not automatically provide an air worthiness certificate for an aircraft, in this case, an sUAV (is it really legally an aircraft?). A pilots license and an air worthiness certificate are two separate pieces of paper and are not related. An individual can have both or either one without the other.

My input on this is as a result of my knowledge of it, having built a high performance experimental aircraft (Lancair), getting it FAA inspected, and receiving an airworthiness certificate, which by the way, requires a certain number of flying hours (25 or 40 hours depending on engine/prop used) in a specified flight test area, by the inspector, for its phase I testing.

I may totally wrong in my interpretation, but until I read official government documents otherwise, I believe this to be so.

The 333 exemptions are required in order to, among other things, provide relief from the requirement to have an airworthiness certificate for your sUAS. Craft registration is still required, as well as proof of ownership in lieu of a formal manufacturer's bill of sale.

Please go here to read up on the requirements for obtaining 333 exemption, and what they exempt one from.

At any rate, as @The Editor explained, proof of a grant of 333 exemption and COA should suffice to verify that an operator is legal to perform commercial work, and should therefor be eligible for NFZ over-ride if required for the work.

 

[Gary E]

The 333 exemptions are required in order to, among other things, provide relief from the requirement to have an airworthiness certificate for your sUAS. Craft registration is still required, as well as proof of ownership in lieu of a formal manufacturer's bill of sale.

Please go here to read up on the requirements for obtaining 333 exemption, and what they exempt one from.

At any rate, as @The Editor explained, proof of a grant of 333 exemption and COA should suffice to verify that an operator is legal to perform commercial work, and should therefor be eligible for NFZ over-ride if required for the work.

Thanks for the info. I have previously read the 333 requirements and had decided it is not for me. A part of me feels the 333 commits one to agreeing that the FAA proposals, which are in definance of curerent govvernment law, are appropiate to the industry. Whatever it takes to run a business I guess. I find it odd that one can 'jump thru the government paper work hoops' and be legal (well maybe) to fly a sUAV in a NFZ, but a pilot of a manned aircraft cannot.

 

[Quadpilot]

Thanks for the info. I have previously read the 333 requirements and had decided it is not for me. A part of me feels the 333 commits one to agreeing that the FAA proposals, which are in definance of curerent govvernment law, are appropiate to the industry. Whatever it takes to run a business I guess. I find it odd that one can 'jump thru the government paper work hoops' and be legal (well maybe) to fly a sUAV in a NFZ, but a pilot of a manned aircraft cannot.

Forgive me, but a little spell checking would go a long way toward making your post understandable, if not less misinformed. I just don't understand your last sentence. NFZs are a DJI imposed firmware solution for keeping their craft from flying into or being launched at major airport traffic areas. They are not TFRs, or NoTAMs. Manned aircraft that follow the requirements of communication with the controlling agency are not banned from airports, last I checked.

And how did you come to the conclusion that the 333 process is in conflict with current regulations, or law, as you put it? It is a process directly created by law, passed by Congress in 2012, directing the FAA to create regulations to integrate UAS and sUAS into the NAS.

 

[Gary E]

Forgive me, but a little spell checking would go a long way toward making your post understandable, if not less misinformed...

Because I had an extra 'v' in the word government? And your response coming from someone that mis-spelled 'NOTAM'. I am not going to respond to a thread poster that is hitting below the belt. Some of your post is uncalled for.

 

[IrishSights]

Because I had an extra 'v' in the word government? And your response coming from someone that mis-spelled 'NOTAM'. I am not going to respond to a thread poster that is hitting below the belt. Some of your post is uncalled for.

Guys we are getting petty and off topic. If correct spelling was a requirement to post here I would be the no.1 offender and English is my first language!

BTW both spellings are acceptable. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM

 

[The Editor]

Guys we are getting petty and off topic. If correct spelling was a requirement to post here I would be the no.1 offender and English is my first language!

BTW both spellings are acceptable. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM

Agreed - enough guys. Let's move on.

 

[damoncooper]

Unsubscribed

 

[CaptainBadge]

My take on the 333 is it's an exemption from rules that are not formal. By getting a 333 the receiver of such is admitting the proposed FAA rules are in acceptance. Regardless, if that is so or not, my take is that the 333 does not give a sUAV an air worthiness certificate. Having a pilots license (certificate) of whatever rating does not automatically provide an air worthiness certificate for an aircraft, in this case, an sUAV (is it really legally an aircraft?). A pilots license and an air worthiness certificate are two separate pieces of paper and are not related. An individual can have both or either one without the other.

My input on this is as a result of my knowledge of it, having built a high performance experimental aircraft (Lancair), getting it formally inspected by an FAA inspector or its representatives, and receiving an airworthiness certificate, which by the way, is contingent upon flying a certain number of hours (25 or 40 hours depending on engine/prop used) in a specified flight test area during its phase I flight testing.

I may be totally wrong in my interpretation, but until I read official government documents otherwise, I believe this to be so.

Unmanned aircraft, regardless of whether the operation is for recreational, hobby, business, or commercial purposes, are aircraft within both the definitions found in statute under title 49 of U.S. Code, section 40102(a)(6) [49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6)] and title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 1.1.[14 C.F.R. § 1.1].

Section 40102(a)(6) defines an aircraft as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air.” The FAA’s regulations (14 C.F.R. § 1.1.) similarly define an aircraft as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” Because an unmanned aircraft is a contrivance/device that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, an unmanned aircraft is an aircraft based on the unambiguous language in the FAA’s statute and regulations.

In addition, Public Law 112-95, Section 331(6),(8), and (9) expressly defines the terms “small unmanned aircraft,” “unmanned aircraft,” and “unmanned aircraft system” as aircraft. Model aircraft are also defined as “aircraft” per Public Law 112-95, section 336(c).

 

[MrVal]

Great topic i must say!
Oh and hello everyone, first post for me.

Have DJI released any documents or a googlemap on all their NFZs?
It would be good to know before actually checking in with my ATC and takeoff..

I was flying close to ESSB CTR the other day and that was no problem, maybe Sweden is not on the list?

 

[Scotflieger]

Great topic i must say!
Oh and hello everyone, first post for me.

Have DJI released any documents or a googlemap on all their NFZs?
It would be good to know before actually checking in with my ATC and takeoff..

I was flying close to ESSB CTR the other day and that was no problem, maybe Sweden is not on the list?

Hi MrVal
Welcome to the InspirePilots forum. Check out the DJI No Fly website here

 

[Shazbot4]

Thanks for the info. I have previously read the 333 requirements and had decided it is not for me. A part of me feels the 333 commits one to agreeing that the FAA proposals, which are in definance of curerent govvernment law, are appropiate to the industry. Whatever it takes to run a business I guess. I find it odd that one can 'jump thru the government paper work hoops' and be legal (well maybe) to fly a sUAV in a NFZ, but a pilot of a manned aircraft cannot.

Home run man, someone with some real perspective. I have to say I'm pretty disappointed with forum members attitude on this subject. The 333 exemption appears to have given its holders a new level of egotistical stuck up "I'm better then you" mind set. All of the sudden this piece of paper which does nothing to prove pilot competence or aircraft worthiness makes its owner think they are better then everyone else who doesn't have it. I do plan to apply for it but only if it becomes absolutely necessary. Until then it's a pretty meaningless document and anyone who thinks other wise should take a step back and humble their selves.

 

[dopeytree]

DJI appears to have implemented a system back in august: Unlock DJI GO No Fly Zones | Heliguy INSIDER

How to apply for a DJI GO unlock
This is the information you'll need to complete our online application:

1. You must provide a written statementthat you are legally allowed to fly in the intended area.
2. The ID of the person signing the document must be provided.
3. The disclaimer form must be signed.
4. The NDA(Non-Disclosure Agreement) must be signed.
5. You must provide the serial number of the aircraft.
6. Name and address of the area to be unlocked.
7. Intended date and time of flight.

 

[The Editor]

So dji appears to have implemented a system back in august: Unlock DJI GO No Fly Zones | Heliguy INSIDER

How to apply for a DJI GO unlock
This is the information you'll need to complete our online application:

1. You must provide a written statementthat you are legally allowed to fly in the intended area.
2. The ID of the person signing the document must be provided.
3. The disclaimer form must be signed.
4. The NDA(Non-Disclosure Agreement) must be signed.
5. You must provide the serial number of the aircraft.
6. Name and address of the area to be unlocked.
7. Intended date and time of flight.

Correct - I had raised this with DJI R&D back in August (see first post in this thread). It is a temporary measure until the online system is implemented.
Unlock will only be granted for a specific zone for a specific time window.
You must hold your countries aviation authorities approval in order to apply and have permissions from the areas controlling person or persons (ATC etc) before an application will be considered.
It should also be kept in mind that DJI NFZ's have no legal standing and are not authorative in any way. That lies with the countries governing body controlling airspace.
As a side note - Heliguy have confirmed to me recently that NOT ONE SINGLE application has been accepted/granted thus far.
I have taken this up with DJI.

 

[skylabimaging]

This has to be a long lead time though...

 

[DrJoe]

ANY update on the process yet?

 

[The Editor]

ANY update on the process yet?

Nope.......still waiting, which is annoying as I have a job on an RAF military base and its a DJI NFZ .
I have permissions in place, ATC clearance and authority passed all the way up the food chain. However DJI deem it a NFZ so unless I can get it lifted I will have to use another platform that is not crippled by Nanny Fly Zones.

 

[skylabimaging]

Use one of your other machines?

 

[The Editor]

Use one of your other machines?

Yup, I can do but I love the Inspire and the ability to stream 720p straight to a monitor which the client can see whilst it's in the air.
I can use one of my Hex's but they are only analogue 5.8ghz SD feed. I suppose I will have to invest in a Lightbridge system ........... More money