Slashdot Mirror

Just because there is a new toy that is out, that happens to have the name of a controversial military device it becomes a major threat.

First, before I get mauled, I'm not entirely crazy about this new proposal. Under a particular altitude and as a hobby I think we should leave unregulated, that said... The drone market is filling up. Drones have way more people in it than the model rocket and RC Airplane markets and I would dare say combined. Drones are also a lot more industrious than say the model rocket or RC plane. Drones are being used for photography, to move goods, be the ultra creeper you've always wanted to be, traffic reports, and so on which are all way more than what the model rocket and RC plane market have ever done.

So considering that the drone market has been able to do all of that and the others are a no go, yeah I can see why the FAA feels there is a need to regulated it. Now that's not to say the others can't do that, it just to say that they haven't, if and when they do, then I'm pretty sure they'll start regulating that as well. But let's be very clear that this comment isn't a voice of support or disdain at the regulation. It's that you can't very easily compare model rockets, RC planes, and what have you with the drone market simply because they are vastly different markets. People have found drones to be really useful and have started creating a lot of points where they intersect with everyday life. The same can't be said for those other markets.

For those who like rigorous formulae on why anyone does anything, I would say (and simply my opinion) that the FAA acts when a particular class of aircraft is used in X number of applications that has Y number of general public using those applications and there are Z number of opportunities to purchase that class of aircraft. (I know really rough formula there, I don't espouse to know what goes on inside the FAA's head) However this rough formula would say that as any of those values X, Y, or Z increases, the likelihood that there will be regulation increases proportionally. Drones are "X" used in numerous applications, "Y" are criss crossing the general public a lot, "Z" you can buy them pretty much everywhere. I'm pretty sure the same could have been said about bi-planes in the early days of aviation.

Again, I'm speculating here as to the logic because it would be wrong for us just to assume, "Hey I'm government and I just want to regulate anything and everything I can possibly." If that was truly the case one would think we'd have a modern Stamp Act. However, considering that we are talking about a public entity, we could forgo the speculation and render my entire comment useless and just simply write them an email asking, "Hey what particular factors does your agency feel led to the regulation of drones and not something like RC airplanes or model rockets?" Again, this just my two cents, I don't condone or condemn this new regulation, just speaking purely out of the these things you talked about model rockets and RC planes != drone market and for better reasons than it's named after the thing we use to murder (don't get me started on that) people around the world with.

The facility is meant to be used by any aircraft that weighs less than 1,320 pounds.

That's an oddly specific number. Where have I seen that before...

The FAA regulates it, yes... but see this:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLib...

They advise the best practice of flying below 400ft. So that's where the 400ft comes from.

"from the ground to outer space, period"

And what is your source for this statement? Everything I've ever seen says that the FAA is responsible only for "navigable airspace", which the FAA itself defines as 500' AGL (except around airports where their claims are more extensive). And in any case courts have never really ruled where your property ends and "navigable airspace" begins, the only case I know of on point is United States v. Causby which put it somewhere above 83ft.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Here is the FAA's report. Unlike the partner article it contains said definition as well as several pages of equations used to calculate the 250 gram lower limit.

Actually, I was totally wrong; according to "pilot guide to takeoff safety," company policy is used to tell pilots how much thrust to use. (See Section 2.3.6).

Anything below 500ft (approx 150m) in the USA is considered private airspace of the property owner as defined by the FAA. Air Rights Article and Legal Information Institute, Cornell University

What else is interesting is that according to this FAA guidance RC craft should not be flown above 400 feet

His privacy was no more threatened than it is by aviation; anyone who files a flight plan can legally overfly him, and nothing prevents them from taking pictures as they go. And his property was not threatened; he shot down the drone, it was not revealed to be a firebomb.

Umm, no. There are restrictions regarding altitude "above ground level" (AGL) for aviation. https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...

There are also property rights for airspace above your property. Just for you.. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/...

They don't have rules, the have suggestions for safe operation that they encourage people to follow.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_...

Here

Unless you've filed a flight plan for your "plain", you should probably let the actual aviators make these kinds of decisions. Until then, here's a link to the FAR/AIM which covers those sort of things.

Because General Aviation is a lot more than low-flying executives

93% of aircraft in GA are personal, business, instructional, or sight seeing aircraft (70% of those aircraft are personal aircraft).

So, crop dusting, news reporting, and all the other uses are 7% percent of all aircraft. And the vast majority of those uses are handled better by drones.

https://www.faa.gov/data_resea...

and it's been around and well regulated since the 1930s.

Yes, and back then technology and air space usage was entirely different. It's time to seriously overhaul the regulations.

Drones and GA can coexist. Why do you argue as if it's an either or situation?

I'm not arguing that it's an either/or situation. I'm arguing that GA simply should take much lower priority than both commercial drones and private drones and that flight limits should be changed. Furthermore, the clear principle should be that any costs that arise should accrue to GA operators, not to drone operators.

Can you explain to me what public interest is served by you flying your airplane over my property at 500 ft altitude?

Can you explain to me why some weekend pilot flying his Cessna is more important to the public's interest than efficient and cheap drone delivery of goods?

You are looking for FAR 91.119 This is the regulatory language covering minimum safe altitudes.

You'll notice there is an exception for helicopters. Essentially there are no limits for helicopters other than the flight has to be "conducted without hazard"

mapbox has a really useful map https://www.mapbox.com/drone/n.... FAA have a really simple description https://www.faa.gov/regulation...

It shows the exclusion zones around the airports. Defined as Class B airspace.

The rules are fairly simple. Ground or above is controlled airspace. ATC must know and must be able to know where your aircraft is. You could possibly argue that below the treeline/building line should be considered safe, but the rules are clear.

Likely the company repeatedly flew in the area north of central park which is restricted. In particular this company has been doing it for a while with both UAV and manned aircraft, and should have known better. For this type of fine, likely they had been warned too.

I think that we're going to need a definition here... What exactly is a COA?

Already defined. And here.

There are already classes of manned aircraft that do not require the operator to have a pilot's license to operate.

There are. So?

There are rules and the operators are required to follow those rules, but without a licensing requirement I expect that enforcement could be challenging sometimes.

You must be kidding. You don't think the FAA would take any action against an ultralight pilot who violated the rules just because no formal license is involved?

Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over.

That would not be first on my list of rules that need to be created. As you point out, there are other pilots already operating, and none of them need permission to fly over property they don't own. That's part of the national airspace concept -- to prevent a patchwork of local regulations and limitations that would make flying nearly impossible.

Imagine if a private pilot trying to make a cross-country flight of just 100 miles had to get permission from every property owner whose property he might fly over before doing so. What a nightmare. And when one says no?

Operators need to not fly in heavily populated areas.

That would be higher on my list, along with proximity to persons and building limits. (Which there already are.)

Pilots at those airports simply revert to the rules surrounding uncontrolled airports--which is to coordinate with other pilots at the same airport on the tower frequency in order to work out (according to some well defined rules) who has landing and takeoff priority.

Some information here: FAA: Operations at non-towered airports

Perhaps there is something applicable here: https://notams.aim.faa.gov/#Ne...

First, this isn't new. Software-based no-fly zones already exist in drones, such as over the DC area. See this story from the Washington Post about this already being done. The difference is that such zones are static, not dynamic.

A NOTAM is a notice to airmen of potential hazards to aircraft. If police or firefighters need exclusive access to a portion of airspace, they need to issue a NOTAM indicating that all other aircraft should avoid that area. This is already done for military training operations, for example. Other events that might present hazards such as fireworks, hot-air balloons, and air shows issue NOTAMs so pilots know to avoid those areas. In reality, what needs to happen is that drones obey NOTAMs and any such restrictions included within, whether temporary or permanent. And the issue involving DC wouldn't have been a problem had the drones simply obeyed NOTAM 0/8326.

It's not clear to me how that information will be transmitted to drones in real-time, though. Other aircraft generally aren't programmed to specifically avoid areas under NOTAM no-fly restrictions, mostly because pilots are expected to be trained to obey them. So either there has to be a way for drones to automatically download and obey NOTAMs or their operators need to be able to receive NOTAMs and manually comply with them. The latter solution is difficult right now because anyone can operate a drone for recreational purposes under 400 feet in areas without flight restrictions. There are basically two options, and they're not mutually exclusive: 1) require some kind of certification to legally operate a drone that shows they understand the rules and can do so safely or 2) program drones to automatically comply with NOTAMs.

Selfish idiots like this are going to ruin the hobby for all of us. The FAA rules are pretty clear: 5 miles of an airport, nowhere near stadiums.

Quads fall out of the sky. A motor fails, a battery unexpectedly dies (or explodes), a sensor goes haywire... the number of things that can cause a quad to quit working is endless. If something quits, it drops like a stone - and a responsible pilot know that.

I hate the idea of an R/C license... but if it keeps the selfish idiots grounded then it's probably the way to go. Unfortunately.

Isn't there already a sufficient ban in place?

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

For example, the FAA regulates low-altitude operations to protect people and property on the ground. The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.” Id. Therefore, although such low-altitude operations may pose a lower risk to aircraft flying much higher, the operation may still pose a risk to persons and property on the ground warranting enforcement action when conducted unsafely.

It seems like the FAA has already done what needs to be done. Why do we need a similar state law that's actually less restrictive in many respects?

The idea that drones are allowed to fly over your property and so whatever they want simply isn't true. You're not allowed to fly drones too close to buildings or people, and clearly the drone operator violated this rule. There are clear risks to people on the ground, especially if one of the motors fails or the drone runs out of battery power. While that doesn't make it legal to shoot down the drone, possibly creating an additional hazard, it shows that the drone operator had no business flying the drone in that area. The flight was pretty clearly illegal and the drone operator probably should be guilty of menacing or wanton endangerment according to Kentucky law. That ranges anywhere from a class B misdemeanor to a class D felony.

Here's what the FAA has to say about this:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
For example, the FAA regulates low-altitude operations to protect people and property on the ground. The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.”

A bit of confusion over nit-picking terms is not surprising, given the FAA itself sounds confused. From http://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/, "FAA's rules for getting a pilot's license (certificate) " and "There are several different types of pilot's licenses...".

One might be forgiven for assuming that the certificate is evidence of licensure.

The FAA actually has pretty good case law with RC model airplanes, showing their ability to regulate them and, at some level, treating them the same as any other aircraft. See Model Aircraft Operations.

Model Aircraft Operations Limits
According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control towerwith prior notice of the operation; and
(6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator.

18 U.S. Code 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

That's potentially quite a bit more than " I might get a civil offense for it. Meh... I can pay the fine". Merideth wanted privacy, well the problem is it took 3 clicks on google to find William H Merideth, 488 Earlywood Way Louisville, KY 40229-4020 , 502-277-1686, punching that address into google Earth we can see his house, his white pickup and red sedan in the driveway, the pool and spa in the backyard that's over-stuffed with clutter and from the looks of the grass back there he's probably more worried about what HOA will say than his daughter's sunbathing; privacy outside is mostly illusion. So this guy thinks it's OK to shoot down remote controlled aircraft to protect his privacy, what's next manned ultralight aircraft, general aviation aircraft?

That's not what the FAA says. In fact, if that neighbor had been flying his toy quad for $15 to check someone's gutters for debris, the FAA says that he needs an actual pilots license, same as he'd need to fly a Cessna.

The FAA is just like many other government organizations in their tendency to overreach.

But it seems many quad operators would like for their toys to be considered real aircraft too. In fact the FAA has published their proposed rules regarding unmanned aircraft systems, which the vehicle in the story would fall under. Some of the more interesting requirements include licensing of operators, registration of the aircraft, and preflight inspections. Oh and no operating these vehicles over people not involved in the operation (this means the neighbor's back yard). The expected cost of all these regulatory requirements is around $6000 dollars, just to use a quadrocopter.

So I guess the drone owners are getting what they want, recognition as a real pilot. Not too sure they will enjoy it though.

You can't fly over people when below 1000' (and can't fly above 400'). . FAA RC statuary regulation and FAA FAR part 91. https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...

I wouldn't think so, since as far as I know "aircraft" need to do things like file flight plans and such.

You know wrong. Aircraft don't file flight plans, pilots (or their dispatchers) do. And there is no blanket requirement to file one. The only three requirements I ca think of right now are 1) if you are going to ask for or need an IFR clearance, 2) you are going to cross or enter an ADIZ, or 3) you are crossing into the US and need to deal with ICE. And even for (1) you can file an abbreviated plan at the time you need a pop-up clearance, such as when you've realized the airport you are going to has gone IMC and you need an IFR clearance to get in.

No, "aircraft" is defined by its intended use, from here: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Note that this is not specific to lighter or heavier than air flight, so balloons are also aircraft.

Why don't we simply apply the rules to drones?

Those rules do apply to drones, as they apply to any UAS.
Some dumbasses just don't follow the rules.
News at 11.

Its not an aircraft

It is an aircraft according to the FAA.

In my day this was an RC TOY.

Those are not mutually exclusive categories. It is legally and functionally both an RC toy and an aircraft.

I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.

No, TFS has it correct. It's classified as "Commercial Spaceflight," and the Federal Government deliberately moved jurisdiction from NASA to the FAA.

lithium battery fires have caused at least three cargo aircraft crashes

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2? 3? Not sure - plenty of "implicated but not proven" or "something caught fire, landed safely, nobody hurt but extensive damage".

This is an interesting read, though - lengthy report of incidents, including minor (e.g. smoking bag before being loaded) between March 1991 and April 2015:
http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...

The FAA already has that authority.

Yes, you are right.14 CFR specifies that the FAA has authority over everything that is man-made and flies.

People are ignoring the rules, or just aren't aware of them. This not evidence that we need more regulations.

The FAA has authority to create rules, but the current set of rules need to be applied to newer technology. In short, the rules are limited to:

restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring that the devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft; and using observers to assist in operations;

(source: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...)

What we should have is a set of rules which make a clear distinction between a "drone" and a toy aircraft. For example, I have one of those tiny Hubsan x4 quadcopters. The maximum distance it can fly is 300ft according to the spec, but by then I've already lost it as it is so tiny. A friend of mine has a $2000 GPS-equipped quadcopter with a call-home function. That would probably fit in the not-so-toy specification.

At this time, no skill-test is required to fly a heavy drone. All I'm advocating for is that we get people certified in rules and regulations, and make RC pilots aware of the NOTAM and TFR systems.

Hide their association from who, exactly? Air traffic control? It's not like you can see who registered a plane from the ground.

Ummmm, planes have these big numbers and things on the side that you can go look up here, and those same numbers are often used while talking to ATC by radio. That wireless thing that anyone can listen in on.

This statement just screams "we are breaking the rules and don't want to get caught"

No, this statement screams "there are nuts who would do deliberate damage to an airplane if they knew it was operated by the FBI and we're protecting the lives of the people who fly in them."

The FAA and the model aircraft folks have an understanding - they have worked with the FAA for many years and kept their members in check (using, among other things, the carrot/stick insurance approach). Before the 2012 law that explicitly orders the FAA to work with the model aircraft folks to come up with reasonable rules, there's been an advisory circular ("this is our interpretation of the rules, just a heads up because we'll enforce them this way") since 1981 that's still basically the rules: AC 91-57. You'll note that they're hardly onerous and really there's been very few problems with the "traditional" model aircraft folks. An advisory circular isn't a rule as such - and in fact one of the court cases over the drones was the judge saying "you can't enforce an AC as an official rule" - but it is broadly speaking "intent to rule". The actual federal air regulations are quite nonspecific and allow a tremendous amount of leeway for the FAA to say exactly what the rule means - and unless the interpretation is deliberately capricious the administrative law judge (basically a trial for regulations, not laws) is bound to their interpretation so they almost always win. Best not to violate the AC, since that's how you know what this interpretation is that they'll hit you with.

The FAA trusts the AMA guys to do this right, and really they've done a remarkably good job and have a many-decade long track record. It's hard to build and fly model aircraft, and if it's a hobby it's much easier to do things "right" by joining a club and using their field and following the rules.

They're not the problem. No, the problem is the drone idiots who go on Amazon and buy a "point and fly" DJI Phantom or something and go to the park and fly it up to check out a police helicopter, or the planes in a major airport's approach path. They have no training, no sense, and no community that will keep them in line. They don't care about being accredited and having insurance - their level of commitment is a few hundred bucks and a couple hours' time.

Irresponsible drone use is ruining it for the rest of the hobbyists. There is responsible use, but since drones are so easy to use, there's a lot more irresponsible use than there was with traditional model planes. It's really that simple. They are causing a safety hazard and forcing the FAA's hand to more proper regulation than their laissez-faire "the AMA seems to be doing this properly" approach of the last 30 years until now.

I am a fixed-wing pilot, anything that can fly through my window at 140MPH pisses me off. Birds are bad enough, but at least they're not metal and we can't really control them. I trust the model aircraft guys to stay low and in their traditional fields and away from my airports. I don't trust the drone guys.

As for incorrect information... the GP was more accurate than you on balance, so maybe look a little deeper next time?

The only "rules" I've ever heard of are the safety guidelines put in place by the Academy of Model Aeronautics: http://www.modelaircraft.org/f.... Better follow those guiidelines if you're a member, so you'll be covered by their liability insurance: http://www.modelaircraft.org/m.... Then it's "not your ass".

Even your referenced link points to "Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012)": https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/.... Did you catch the date on that? Unless you're ten, I would call three years a "very long time." The majority of points listed in your post are not contained within SEC. 336. The only one that is valid is flying a model aircraft within five miles of an airport... and even that can be done, when " the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation"

You're spreading incorrect information.

You are so very wrong, and/or are so very young. The rules for RC aircraft (in the U.S.) have been around for a very long time. One of them has always been that flying over property that doesn't belong to you is illegal, as well as flying over streets, flying within so many miles of an airport, or in non-designated for RC use public places. The reason you don't fly over property that isn't yours is you have to trespass if it crashes and you need to go get it, along with if it hits something (or someone) and damages something on that property it's your ass! Then there's flying over streets--similar logic and safety concerns involved, only you have a much higher risk of causing a fatality because your RC aircraft crashes on a busy street. Those are the very reasons the FAA made the rules to begin with and made them so simple that even children could understand and remember them.

Nowhere in the FAA release does it mention package delivery. It only covers the following;

CNN will be researching how visual line-of-sight operations might be used for newsgathering in urban areas.
PrecisionHawk, a manufacturer, will be surveying crops in rural areas using unmanned aircraft flying outside of the pilot’s direct vision.
BNSF Railroad will explore the challenges of using these vehicles to inspect their rail infrastructure beyond visual line-of-sight in isolated areas.

The update was likely to some item of data the application uses, not the application itself.

I don't see how you have any information to support this assumption. I'd guess its more likely an IOS update and some resulting incompatibility. Updating the data itself is probably the least likely change to cause error. Also, that data probably doesn't change very often, so it would have been pretty obvious if that were a root cause.

The evidence to suggest that it was a data change and not an application update was that their entire fleet of 737's was down. There was no report of another airframe being affected. Also, the data does change on a regular basis. From the FAA:

if your chart is more than 8 weeks old it probably isn't current. Aeronautical information changes frequently; more frequently than every six months. That is why we publish the Aeronautical Chart Bulletin in the back of each Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) every 56 days and why it is important that you consult the Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) prior to each flight.

Hi Okian Warrior We're actually very interested in the avionics field---the FAA has a whole, what seems to be fairly mature department for home built aircraft https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/g... In the medical world, there's no such thing. Of course, if you are SELLING stuff, that's when things get FDA oversight discretion. However, when you are making your own (like the inventor of angioplasty balloons) there is no such things. We don't have all the answers, that's why we are learning, and opening up questions and technologies that allow us to explore these things. Jose

Minor nitpick: In the US The drone (and R/C Aircraft) maximum altitude has had a "recommended" altitude no higher than 400 feet ... but the FAA technically has no jurisdiction below 700 feet.

there is no requirement for a pilots liscence. you are totally off base

Yes, there is. The only way you can get a section 333 waiver is if you are a licensed pilot. Period. Here's the existing process:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/legisl...

Their currently proposed rule changes contemplate a simpler grade of permit, but still make no provision for BLOS flight. You'd still need to pass an FAA operator's test, and pay to sit and re-take it every year. The proposed rules also require each and every aircraft to be registered - something that makes flying continually changing prototypes off the work bench a near impossibility.

I'm not "totally off base," I'm aware of the actual situation. You're just engaged in wishful thinking, or making excuses for the administration, and hoping nobody will do any fact checking.

But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity.

Of course it is. Just look at that list and tell me they're not involved in business licensing. You still seem to have a problem understanding that the exact same activity is considered very differently depending on whether it's used for commercial or non-commercial purposes. It's no different than how anyone can cook for their family, but it's illegal to serve that same food to strangers and charge for it without a proper license.

You should also note that these are experimental certificates. The summary should really have pointed to the actual proposed rules for commercial drones. Here's an especially relevant paragraph:

Under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. A small UAS operator would not need any further private pilot certifications (i.e., a private pilot license or medical rating)

In other words, a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future. It's just that these rules and regulations are all still being developed, so in the meantime, a pilot's license is the next best thing to nothing, since at least pilots are guaranteed to know the basic rules of air safety. The FAA is just erring on the conservative side, which shouldn't be all that much of a shock.

If you feel strongly enough about this, you can read the actual proposals and comment on them here. That undoubtedly have more of an effect than arguing about it here on Slashdot. :)

But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity.

Of course it is. Just look at that list and tell me they're not involved in business licensing. You still seem to have a problem understanding that the exact same activity is considered very differently depending on whether it's used for commercial or non-commercial purposes. It's no different than how anyone can cook for their family, but it's illegal to serve that same food to strangers and charge for it without a proper license.

You should also note that these are experimental certificates. The summary should really have pointed to the actual proposed rules for commercial drones. Here's an especially relevant paragraph:

Under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. A small UAS operator would not need any further private pilot certifications (i.e., a private pilot license or medical rating)

In other words, a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future. It's just that these rules and regulations are all still being developed, so in the meantime, a pilot's license is the next best thing to nothing, since at least pilots are guaranteed to know the basic rules of air safety. The FAA is just erring on the conservative side, which shouldn't be all that much of a shock.

If you feel strongly enough about this, you can read the actual proposals and comment on them here. That undoubtedly have more of an effect than arguing about it here on Slashdot. :)

The FAA has proposed drone rules. See http://www.faa.gov/news/press_... and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F... (Federal Register Vol. 80 No. 35, Feb 23, 2015) for details. Read them and send in comments.

Note to people complaining about the restrictions on Amazon and other drone operators: Now's your chance to make a difference. If you don't read the NPRM and send in comments you only have yourself to blame when the final rules aren't agreeable to you.

423.003 likely did not apply there, because that's not really private property and I doubt the intent was to "conduct surveillance". (The term has a specific legal definition -- "Observation and collection of data to provide evidence for a purpose" -- and I'm not sure Texas has a more specific definition. Is looking for a cool picture "providing evidence"?)

Also note that APD's supposed ban says nothing of cameras, only of "drones". (No, contrary to what the media may tell us, R/C aircraft do not all have cameras or missiles.)

And of course "Reckless conduct" is vague enough that they could probably apply it to anything.

What probably did apply there is this NOTAM from the FAA which prohibits flying under 3000' over stadiums shortly before, during and shortly after events. State police don't normally enforce FAA regulations, but it's certainly possible.

That won't apply to the city of Austin during SXSW, and 423.003 probably won't apply to public spaces, but certainly, APD could try "reckless conduct" -- and even if the charges were eventually dropped because they don't really apply, that doesn't beat the ride downtown.

Here you go.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/

3 links at the bottom of the page going over regulation for government, non-government, and hobby usage, including relevent references to existing law.

And none of those laws pertain to drones. At most they give the FAA authority to regulate them. That means the FAA can create regulations. It doesn't mean that they can put up a webpage and tell people what to do.

By all means cite a law or regulation you believe says otherwise. However, I want a citation of a specific passage of law, not an FAA website.

Hint, you can find it all at one of these two sites:
http://uscode.house.gov/
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/EC...

Every enforceable law has a basis in one of those.

What article did you read? The one i read said:

"It added the pilot didn’t have sufficient certification for night flight with passengers or flying on instruments alone."

I guess its possible, but ive never heard of someone getting their commercial before their IFR.

The Commercial certificate does not require an Instrument rating.
However: The pilot, age 29, held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for single engine land, multi-engine land and instrument airplane.

But he did not meet the currency requirements, particularly FAR 61.57(b).
According to all available documentation, the pilot undertook an illegal flight for which he was not qualified.

Flying at night can be very disorienting, hence the currency requirement. That alone could have caused the crash. This has been happening since long before portable electronics were invented. There is no evidence that cell phone cameras were used on this flight. Actually, we know that his GoPro camera definitely was not used. He had a habit (documented on GoPro) of careless and reckless operation: using a cell phone in critical phases of flight (including allowing passengers to use their flash cameras). On some previous flights, both were used, which is why the NTSB is wildly speculating that cell phone/camera usage is what happened this time.

there is no such thing as a "no fly zone" in the US. It's a "Prohibited Airspace" red zone on a TAC, and for the most part PAs are permanent and extend to space. Flight is under Terminal Restriction rules 15nm around Ronald Reagan IA, Red Zone PA extends above the Capitol Building and the White House, and generally any air traffic (AT ALL) around the Baltimore-DC Metro area is subject to constant FAA monitoring with the added requirement of a permanently open channel to ATC.

Citation: http://sua.faa.gov/sua/siteFra...

As I recall, for model aircraft the FAA rules reference (or incorporate verbatim?) the rules of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, the primary hobbyist association

Not true, though they are pretty similar in some respects.

Also note that the current FAA "rules" (FAA Advisory circular 91-57 - Model Aircraft Operating Standards) is *advisory* -- it's not mandatory. It's not a set of rules at all, just guidelines. It encourages "voluntary compliance".

The AMA bars flight over populated areas, encouraging people to find a cow pasture IR something.

The AMA rules (not binding, but they can refuse to pay insurance claims if you violate them) say that you will not fly RC planes "directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures". Not quite the same as you put it -- flying in a populated area is fine, as long as you aren't flying directly over people and aren't flying in a careless or reckless manner.

It may seem odd that a private club has effectively been given authority to make law

Again, it has not. The AMA rules are even *less* restrictive than the FAA circular in one way -- the AMA rules say not to fly over 400 feet near an airport without notifying the airport, and the FAA suggestions say not to fly over 400 feet above the surface, period. And note that R/C pilots, especially those flying gliders, fly over 400 feet quite often.

any doctor violating these generally accepted standards is likely to lose any court case.

Now, that part rings true ... the AMA safety code is basically the industry standard and if you're sued for hurting somebody, not following those standards will hurt you in court.

And indeed, it seems that whatever new *mandatory* standards the FAA comes up with be largely influenced by the AMA safety code ... but we are not there yet.

It's definitely excessive. Just like the actual NOTAM that this is supposedly based off of is actually 30 miles (which extends just shy of the Baltimore city border).

One of DJI's own dealers is within this 15 mi radius, too. Will definitely be interested in seeing if it affects that side of the business, and/or how much they promote DJI's products.