Slashdot Mirror

So that would preclude FPV . FPV is an acronym meaning "First Person View". A person referring to "flying FPV" is referring to piloting their model aircraft from a first person perspective onboard. This is accomplished by means of tiny video cameras and wireless RF links. The typical FPV plane consists of many components that must work well together to get the job done. In this case the drone may be out of sight (behind a tree), but the person flying the mulit-rotor vehicle may have a better view than if he was flying by sight.

Remotely controlled aerial vehicle must be under direct visual observation at all time per FAA regulations.

With respect to UAS used as model aircraft, the FAA reiterated the operating guidelines in AC 91-57, and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraft would need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes, and within the visual line of sight of the operator.
The policy statement also clarified that AC 91-57 applied only to modelers and “specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.” 72 FR at 6690
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

so if you fly behind a tree and lose the visual line of sight, your operating outside the FAA guidelines and I suspect that any system permitting FPV from a UAS affordable by a hobbyist or small or medium bussiness would only be capable of transmitting on a strictly line of sight basis and any obstructions in the LOS would cause losse of the video transmission.

When dealing with the law, it is rarely as simple as a one sentence post on Slashdot will ever provide.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic...

There are two categories of airspace... regulatory and non-regulatory...

Within those, are 4 types:

Controlled
Uncontrolled
Special Use
Other

---------------

This is why there is pilot training and pilot certification, and why commercial pilots need more training than private pilots who only fly for fun.

It is more complex than the average layman probably suspects it is.

... a bird. And airplanes hit birds on approach almost every day. Certainly every week.

N417SW SKYWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT SKW2608 BOMBARDIER CL600 AIRCRAFT ON FINAL, STRUCK BIRDS, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT IS MINOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/a...

UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is just about zero.

Might depend on if it's got a couple of sticks of dynamite (or whatever) stuck to it when it gets sucked into an engine.

... a bird. And airplanes hit birds on approach almost every day. Certainly every week.

N417SW SKYWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT SKW2608 BOMBARDIER CL600 AIRCRAFT ON FINAL, STRUCK BIRDS, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT IS MINOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/a...

UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is just about zero.

Yeah, but birds can't carry explosives, so Congress needs another 7 trillion for the anti-drone drones.

Don't forget about the Faceless face of Terror that we pin a different face to every week. You better start Acting like a PATRIOT, and think of the damn children already.

Now hurry up and take your shoes off and your belt. We're about to board.

... a bird. And airplanes hit birds on approach almost every day. Certainly every week.

N417SW SKYWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT SKW2608 BOMBARDIER CL600 AIRCRAFT ON FINAL, STRUCK BIRDS, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT IS MINOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/a...

UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is just about zero.

"Navigable airspace" actually has a definition, you know.

"Navigable airspace" is airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and must include airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft. By policy, the term "airspace above minimum altitudes of flight" is interpreted to mean "airspace at or above minimum flight altitudes."

The referenced 14 CFR 91.119 defines minimum altitudes as altitudes allowing a safe emergency landing, and various other restrictions depending on whether you're over a "congested area", "other than congested area", or a "sparsely populated area".

So if you're over cornfields, the plains, a beach, or a lake (with no boats within 500 feet) it's perfectly legal to fly at 20 feet, and that counts as "navigable airspace". Hence the FAA purview. It's well established that the FAA has authority over all airspace in the country. The only rebuke the FAA has gotten in court has been "you have to go through rulemaking for this, you know" - which is precisely what they're doing.

Frankly, these drone idiots are ruining things for everybody. Model aircraft folks came to an understanding with the FAA something like 30 years ago, and the rules were quite sensible, and kept everybody safe and out of each other's way. But in comes Mr. Drone flying his just-bought Phantom out of sight at 1500 feet in an approach path, and now they have to regulate it.

I'm a pilot, and getting too close to birds gives me the willies. But birds don't have metal. If your toy puts a hole in my windshield with a closing speed of 230 MPH, it will probably kill me - what skin do you have in the game?

I know it would add cost but as someone else said why doesn't the FAA require a license and transponders on drones so that everyone knows what's in the air and who owns it?

With identity information, you're talking about a mode S transponder. These things are more expensive than you probably think.

Also, because the USA is really big, and (lesser, mode C) transponders aren't even required for flying in most airspace: you need one in class A airspace ( > 18,000ft MSL), in or above class B & C airspace (near large airports, with larger radii at higher altitudes), in the mode C veil around class B airports (an even bigger cylinder around the biggest airports), and > 10,000ft MSL unless you're < 2,500ft AGL.

Simple, right?</sarcasm>

So basically, transponders are only currently required at higher altitudes and near large airports. ATC is simply too busy dealing with the current air traffic to handle the rest of the country's airspace.

I wonder what the legal requirements for filing these restrictions are, I know most similar documents require those filing them attest to the real reason for the request under penalty of perjury. If that's the case for these documents then someone effectively committed a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Also a quick browse of the relevant advisories in regards to Temporary Flight Restrictions does not suggest there is any allowance for "because we don't want the media to see", National security (specifically mentioning the DOD), High ranking politicians movements, Spacecraft launches, major sporting events, hijacking incidents & wildfires, but nothing about the press so I doubt that was the reason put down on the forms.

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

I tend to believe the FAA is blowing smoke, too. The current restriction is on commercial use of UAVs, to which the FAA is in the process of allowing exemptions to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 on the road to adopting final rules by 2016. It's interesting to read applications for exemption by companies eager to offer their services. Most of the exemptions I am aware of have thus far gone to petitioners associated with the film industry and/or companies that desire to sell similar services. I first became aware of the FAA restrictions several weeks ago when attending a presentation by a university professor of geography for the local Audubon Society chapter who uses his personal UAV for various studies and have been looking more closely into it since. IMO, a farmer using UAVs to survey his/her own property with their own equipment solely for private use would not be engaging in commerce. And so, the restriction wouldn't apply as long as operations are within non-navigational airspace below 400 feet and outside controlled airspace in the vicinity of airports (i.e. Class B airspace). However, if the farmer were contracting with some entity to conduct such surveys in exchange for payment of a fee, the restriction would prohibitively apply to the contractor. If interested, start here: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations & Policies (FAA) https://www.faa.gov/uas/regula...

The FAA has their own idea of what their business is. You can choose to believe that the FAA is incorrect, but you do so at your own peril. We have learned that some untrained pilots are pretty bad at handling the UAVs when they are within line-of-site and even worse when the use first-person cameras. If that drone has a 0% chance of crashing into people or property, I may think about siding against the FAA. I also want that drone to have 0% chance of seeing in my bedroom window (which has a privacy fence in front of it). There are many use cases for drones in which the technology is capable of producing dangerous or abusive results. It does not mean we need to ban it, but it does mean that it should be regulated.

There is a strawman in the idea of flying a drone over your own land in the boonies. The FAA has not cracked down on that. It is probably technically illegal, but unenforced. They have cracked down on unlicensed contractors flying drones over a farmers land to do surveys.

If the FAA was a private corporation this would never be an issue.
They’ve been spending money on an Operational continuity plan (OCP) for 13 years.
The FAA can only spend money on paperwork, not on productive products.

FAA garbage doc 1
FAA garbage doc 2
Do a keyword search for OCP or BCP to see whats going on.

If the FAA was a private corporation this would never be an issue.
They’ve been spending money on an Operational continuity plan (OCP) for 13 years.
The FAA can only spend money on paperwork, not on productive products.

FAA garbage doc 1
FAA garbage doc 2
Do a keyword search for OCP or BCP to see whats going on.

One basis for the lawsuit is that the FAA did not follow the rules for changing its guidelines, because, for example, there was no public comment period before the change was made. Saying that the "new rules violate federal regulations requiring passengers to stow all items during takeoff and landing" is non-sensical because the new rules are federal regulations.

Note that this was a change in the rules for what the airlines can allow, not what the public can carry on and use on the airline. It does not give you the right to play Angry Birds during taxi; it allows the airline to verify you playing Angry Birds will not interfere with the operation of the aircraft and, if it doesn't, allow you to play Angry Birds during takeoff and landing.

Here is the FAA notice on expanded electronics use in case you want to read more about how the change was made and what the change was.

The FAA requirement for a lock on the door was only issued after 9/11

On October 9, 2001, the FAA published the first of a series of Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) to expedite the modification of cockpit doors in the U.S. fleet. This Phase I fix included installation of steel bars and locking devices.

No mandatory door locks before 9/11.

Yes, but the claim was that prior to 9/11 pilots were asking that locks be installed and that airlines refused the expense. I was asking for a citation supporting those claims -- that pilots asked and airlines refused.

On October 9, 2001, the FAA published the first of a series of Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) to expedite the modification of cockpit doors in the U.S. fleet. This Phase I fix included installation of steel bars and locking devices.

No mandatory door locks before 9/11.

Sure thing.

https://www.faa.gov/regulation...
Section 336

perhaps they don't need to be certified like the insignificant masses.

They are certified for use by the FAA.

Public UAS
COAs are available to public entities that want to fly a UAS in civil airspace. Common uses today include law enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, disaster relief, search and rescue, military training, and other government operational missions.

I wonder if they could employ some sort of 3D tracking* and then selectively shutter the relevant mirror whilst the bird flies through, it should only be momentary and not impact performance to a great extent. I'm making an assumption here that there is a way to shutter or otherwise divert the mirror for normal servicing operations, or 'throttling back'

Of course, if the bird gets closer to the boiler, more mirrors will be in play and likely difficult to manage, but this could be combined with an appropriate scare that can be mounted, or flown around the central structure

* A quick search reveals similar systems for airports, may be adaptable? http://www.airporttech.tc.faa....

Why does shouting and crying always get everyone's attention? When you try to advice, or (god forbid) educate in a clear and rational way on the other hand, no one will listen...

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says more than 9,000 birds are reported struck annually by planes in the U.S., a figure that is rising every year. (http://wildlife.faa.gov/downloads/StrikeReport1990-2012.pdf)

I am somehow thinking that the fossil fuel industry noticed that this way of generating power works a bit too well or something.

And to think that killing 2 birds with one stone is considered clever...

Back to my rock.

It's already an accepted standard of law that people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when on their own property, including in their vehicles. Thus, photographing them by ANY means (my emphasis) is already illegal unless supported by a lawfully-obtained surveillance or search warrant. To single out "drones" as a means of obtaining photos or video is knee-jerk at best, and arguably could lead to severe restrictions on photography in general.

It's sad that there are some (for lack of a better term coming to mind) quadrotor-cowboys that are more interested in whether they CAN obtain footage using their newfangled toys than stopping to think about whether they SHOULD. Those are the ones that will poison the well for legitimate experimentation and application, such as search and rescue, crop monitoring, etc. Before the dust has settled, the moneyed interests will make sure that the only players allowed to take to the air are Department Of Defense contractors, and if people aren't careful, even the radio-controlled-model industry will find itself under the heavy end of the regulatory hammer, even more so than when the FAA issued its "interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft" in July. That "interpretation" alone could, IMO, completely destroy the first-person-view mode of operation if followed to the letter.

Just my 2p worth...save up the change for a spool of Cat6 or something.

there are two flight recorders

There are two data recorders on civilian airliners, which record different things : a flight DATA recorder (FDR) and a separate cockpit VOICE recorder (CVR). Though quite what new data these would provide is not at all clear to me. Do you think that the alleged Ukrainian fighter plane would have been in conversation with the plane or something? Why would they do that? What's the FDR going to contain? [Flying][More Flying][More Flying]All hell breaks loose, with many sensors and/or power and/or hydraulic buses going down. That's going to tell us that the plane wasn't CFIT by a mad pilot (which is an allegation I've not heard from anyone), and that there wasn't piecemeal falling apart of the plane because the welders were pissed the day they built that airframe (another allegation I've not heard). So what new information are they going to add?

I've never heard of any aircraft carrying two FDR and/or two CVR. Unless you know differently (citation, please). They're expensive bits of kit and take non-trivial maintenance, so only the minimum required is fitted.

What data did the FDR record? That's up to the operator - after the 88 parameters required by FAA specifications. (I assume the FAA requirements will be a minimum, as the airframe was by Boeing, so has made at least one flight originating in the US, and therefore subject to FAA regulations ; it may never have been subject to FAA regulations since, but re-programming and/ or re-wiring the FDR to comply with some other relevant standard would be a significant maintenance task, and why spend the money. I checked the FAA's standard here, and to my surprise they refer back to a European standard "European Organization for Civil Aviation Electronicsâ(TM) (EUROCAE) publication ED-112, Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Crash Protected Airborne Recorder Systems" ; if you want to follow the paper trail, feel free.)

CFIT - one of the most terrifying of aviation acronyms : Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

Another reply has already pointed out the "navigable airspace" limitation. The specific FAA rule is FAR Part 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes. Basically 500 feet everywhere, and 1,000 feet over "populated areas".

Back in 1981 the FAA addressed RC operators with Advisory Circular 91-57. It requires RC operators stay under 400', remain in line of sight, and coordinate with an airport if they are within 3 miles of the airport (which is where planes may be under those minimums due to take offs and landings.

This set of rules basically insures vertical separation of RC operators and "real" planes. It's worked for over 30 years, quite nicely. In fact the FAA is quite happy with this for "drone" (really RC quadcopter) operators. Buy one, fly it over your house within the rules, take a video and post it on YouTube for your "hobby" and the FAA is perfectly ok with it, and won't give you a hard time.

Rather, the FAA is drawing a different line here. They have a long history of distinguishing between commercial and private operations, and have different regulations for both. They have generally held in the past that "all commercial operators must be licensed", which in the context of real planes makes perfect sense. But with these new quadcopters this rule has gone screwy. If you take the same video from the last paragraph and provide it to your realtor to help sell your house, suddenly you are a "commercial" operator and can't operate without an FAA License, and oh by the way they have no procedure to license RC operators right now so you can't get one, but you can ask for a one off waver, it may be approved in a few months.

And that's what is stupid here. If it's a RC device, operated by a human, under 400' and in line of site, they should stay out of it. Commercial or hobby shouldn't matter.

Keyword is "navigable airspace" though. FAA has established authority over "navigable airspace" only which FAA itself defines as

'"Navigable airspace" is airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and must include airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.' https://www.faa.gov/air_traffi...

So what is the minimum altitude of flight? I would bet that it excludes the entire range where drones can fly as they can fly pretty darn low. It must be some number, so if it is e.g. 100m, so drones that fly under 100m should be clear, should they not?

Not saying that some regulation isn't needed, just that the existing one does not apply.

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.

If you've followed the various stories here regarding drones you'd see that the feds have been dragging their feet for a long time. The federal courts have even contradicted the FAA on occasion, stating that they can't do a blanket ban on all uses of drones based on the simple fact that the FAA regulates US airspace. I remember that one clearly because the courts stated that the FAA would have to regulate paper airplanes, by that definition of their areas of responsibility.

I'm pushing it a bit saying they have no intent, but they're not exactly going out of their way to make it a priority. One has to wonder if this is even something that should involve the FAA. Drones (at least the smaller ones that are generally discussed) are a far different thing than what the FAA usually regulates.

Ballsy is banning it without any intent to develop regulations or to even consider if regulations are necessary.

So the FAA has no intent of developing regulations or considering their need, but they have created a UAS study program including six regional test sites. Interesting.

Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f

Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f

Well, as far as flying too close to an airport - I think there are a lot of people in that category that aren't trying to hurt someone, but are just plain stupid.

As far as your assertion that the jet will last long enough to turn around and land again - The landing and takeoff phases for an aircraft (most likely cases where it will hit a small RC aircraft) are the most dangerous ones. Typical RC aircraft have components that are harder/stiffer (worse for a jet engine) than a bird - and a bird into a jet engine on takeoff can be disastrous (see the Miracle on the Hudson - yes that was a rare dual-engine birdstrike, but even a single engine out during the most dangerous parts of a flight is a big deal).

I think the problem is that this video was done by a guy who was screwing around and probably not thinking about negative consequences - if he'd coordinated with the fireworks people to ensure that they agreed there were no safety issues he didn't think about, it would be fine. But now, there's likely to be legislation that is going to be directed at this but contain collateral damage.

See the recent rulings on FPV flight - http://www.faa.gov/about/initi... - I believe this was primarily driven by incidents like http://www.ksdk.com/story/news... (due to timing, not THAT specific one most likely, but similar incidents). End result is - because of some people being completely reckless with FPV flights, the FAA has created an effective blanket ban on FPV flights.

FAA limits model aircraft to a height of 500 feet

No it doesn't.

The 400 (not 500) foot figure comes from FAA advisory circular 91-57 made back in 1981, and the key thing about this is that it's *advisory*, not mandatory.

The AMA safety code says "Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator." -- but those are just safety rules for AMA members (and a good idea for everybody) -- but they do not have the force of law behind them.

Now, the FAA may change the laws in the future, but so far ... this 400 foot ceiling people talk about does not exist. (Some places have restricted airspace ... that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this blanket 400 foot height limit people keep bringing up that doesn't exist.

We may need to see something similar.

We already have it, SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT of the FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF
2012: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C...

The current issue is that the FAA has decided to "interpret" that section by more or less pretending it does not exist or apply to them:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initi...

The FAA isn't interested in the law. They consider themselves to be a country unto themselves, consisting of all a space greater then 12" above the land.

If you can search - and most people can these days - you'd see that there is no new regulation nor changes to existing regulations.

This is just FAA clarifying the existing rules. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_...

You can verify it yourself if you think there are some "UFO's" hidden somewhere...

Actually, what happened there is that the reporter didn't know what he was talking about and contradicted his opening statement in the 3rd paragraph.

No, he didn't. The judge DID strike down the rule. He then went on to explain that the reasoning the judge used was because it wasn't part of a formal rulemaking process. But it would be a mistake to then assume that if they HAD made it part of a formal rulemaking process, it would automatically be legal!

This is important: yesterday SCOTUS made it very clear that the FAA does not have authority to regulate things that are not specifically authorized by Congress and signed into law. Their CO2 regulations were part of a formal rulemaking process... and were smacked down. Because Congress did not give them authority.

And Congress hasn't given FAA authority for this.

What the law allows the FAA to do is to regulate navigable airspace . Nothing else. (Navigable means, roughly, continuously travelable by human beings in vehicles... similar to the way navigable rivers are defined.) Navigable airways are clearly defined throughout the United States, down to damn near the square meter. There isn't much wiggle room there. My father was a pilot and I put it a pretty good amount of airtime.

Low-altitude commercial drones (of the kind the NTSB judge ruled about, and the kind Amazon wants to use) do not operate in "navigable airspace". Therefore, the FAA does not have authority to regulate them.

They're displaying, yet again, the same kind of blind arrogance they recently displayed in front of SCOTUS. They're just asking for another smackdown.

Another point: even if Congress did want to give them authority to regulate low-altitude drones, it probably couldn't. Because Federal authority is limited to interstate transportation. It does not have authority over all the airspace in the U.S.! Common law says a property owner controls the airspace over his land. Navigable airways were deemed an exception to this principle, for the sake of interstate air travel.

So it looks like it's going to have to remain a matter of State regulation.

Myth #3: Commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations.

Fact—There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state and local governments, and public universities) may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA)

I'm afraid your assertion is quite false - about 90% of all landings done daily by large civil aircraft (737 upward) is done by the autoland system, with the only requirement for a manual landing being to retain certification for the pilot.

Using ILS, I totally believe. Full autoland, i.e. flare, touchdown, rollout: I'd like to see a very good source.

Considering that autoland requires that the runway be equipped with ILS CAT III(b), this seems unlikely: China has one FAA approved CAT III runway, Hong Kong 25R.

There are none in Singapore, none in Thailand, there's one in Australia (Melbourne 16), three in India (all the same airport though, Delhi).

Of the 1369 ILS-equipped runways in the US (Excel warning), just 113 have CAT III (no idea whether those are level a or b).

Sure, most of them are at the biggest an busiest airports, but considering that an autolanding
plane severely limits a runway's capacity due to increased spacing requirements, I doubt ATC
would be too happy to accomodate lots of autolands especially on those.

They just don't have the timeslots.

I'm afraid your assertion is quite false - about 90% of all landings done daily by large civil aircraft (737 upward) is done by the autoland system, with the only requirement for a manual landing being to retain certification for the pilot.

Using ILS, I totally believe. Full autoland, i.e. flare, touchdown, rollout: I'd like to see a very good source.

Considering that autoland requires that the runway be equipped with ILS CAT III(b), this seems unlikely: China has one FAA approved CAT III runway, Hong Kong 25R.

There are none in Singapore, none in Thailand, there's one in Australia (Melbourne 16), three in India (all the same airport though, Delhi).

Of the 1369 ILS-equipped runways in the US (Excel warning), just 113 have CAT III (no idea whether those are level a or b).

Sure, most of them are at the biggest an busiest airports, but considering that an autolanding
plane severely limits a runway's capacity due to increased spacing requirements, I doubt ATC
would be too happy to accomodate lots of autolands especially on those.

They just don't have the timeslots.

We've had this exact conversation already two months ago.
The FAA regulates ALL US airspace, and ALL flying machines.
It really is that simple.

Reposting my post from http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:

-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.

-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.

-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas

-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)

-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.

http://www.faa.gov/news/update...

Do not fly within 5 miles of an active airport or helipad,

Here is the actual circular;

Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.

You can fly close to an airport but you have to tell them. There are many RC clubs that fly from unused runways at open airports.

The FAA appealed and the decision is not in effect.

Looks like the FAA appealed the decision on March 7th.

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_...

You don't need a license to fly a commercial UAS?

Not even one of these

You don't need a license to fly a commercial UAS?

Not even one of these

Current guidelines already include rc aircraft. The only difference here is 'commercial.' The FCC has guidelines for non-commercial use, but haven't done anything for commercial use.

And the "guidelines" they have for this non-commercial use of R/C planes that you're referring to says nothing of commercial or non-commercial use, and it's *advisory* -- not binding.

The FAA is basically just making up their rules as they go along, and they can't even bother to write them down so that people will know what the rules are. Instead, people get letters from the FAA saying that they're breaking the rules. Now, from that, people have sort of deduced what these unwritten rules are now, but it's still messed up.

Which is probably what prompted this ruling against the FAA ... they can't enforce laws that they haven't even made yet. (That said, they continue to try, and other courts may agree with them. But they could fix this by actually writing down their rules and making them official.)

Cars are forgiving, the sky is NOT. If as many people flew small planes as people drive it would not be as safe in terms of fatalities. It is true when you compare apples to oranges driving is more dangerous; but if you want to even get close to a fair comparison you would compare jets to buses and you'd compare fatalities and injuries separately... since car accidents are far less likely to result in fatalities.

Actually, the odds are about identical to riding a motorcycle. Driver or a passenger. I've never had an accident on my motorcycle nor my airplanes. It is a great idea to watch how a pilot flies before you fly with them. A good reference will do as well. I never take someone up on bad days and I try to avoid it if I think it will be even a bit rough. Good flight. When you run into trouble is with people that don't fly that often or people that skimp on maintenance. I always keep my aircraft in good repair. Reduces what I call excitement.

The FAA has strong rules about flying others around and the FAA never changes the regulations, they only add, never remove. The exchange of money at all for any connected reason is going to cause trouble.

Ok, don't comment on things you know nothing about. Paying for your portion of the cost for gas is actually in the regulations and it is allowed. http://www.faa.gov/news/safety... In the past decade they allowed light sport aircraft where you don't even have to have a pilots license. Just a drivers license. Right now it is looking like you won't need a 3rd class medical any longer for aircraft under 7500 lbs. There are other examples I can give. Not to say the FAA is all a bowl of cherries. They aren't. As with most things they generally do a good job though I have read of cases of some real scum bucket FAA people. I haven't had a problem. I also follow the rules. That could have something to do with it.

Besides, if you thought the taxi lobby was a problem for ride sharing; you'd never even dare to mess with the airline industrial complex (which is so heavily subsidized, it is more of a scam than a market.)

This is funny. GA pilots like me are never going to be a threat to those guys. Sure, I can take up to 3 people in my Bonanza. Big deal. I generally don't fly if there is bad weather, nor that often. They also don't service where I go. They can't. The airports simply can't support them. On the other hand I can go wherever they can go, just not as fast. Even JFK. Some places I can fly the nearest commercial airport is at least a couple of hours or so away. Some places even more driving time.

Sure, if I had access to something like this, I'd love it. I need to keep the aircraft flying and right now I take up friends when I do that. Often I'm alone enjoying the incredible view. Really is a wonderful place that we live in, that most people don't get to see. I'd think it is great to give someone that needs a lift a ride.

Found this online:

http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...

The FAA covers airspace from elevation 0 up (FAA myths). They currently don't bother with noncommercial hobby stuff if it's under something like 500 feet and not otherwise being a pain, but they could if they wanted to deal with the paperwork.

That's like saying the FAA could require security screeners to do interrogations under torture. Just because the airspace is their domain doesn't mean that the public wants them to be able to do anything at all in the regulation of it.

There is no public good served by having central Federal regulation of drones at low altitude not operating unmonitored near airports. The FAA should only be regulating things when it serves the public good.

By all means ticket somebody who flies model planes into crowds, just like you'd handle somebody throwing rocks at a crowd. It just isn't a federal issue and it isn't best handled with absolute bans until somebody gets blessed with a $800k light commercial drone design.

Now, at altitude the FAA should be progressive and allow UAV flights using the right technology for collision avoidance/etc. Of course, they can't even modernize their ATC for manned aircraft, so I'm not holding my breath for that. As much as I'd love to be able to fly unsupervised at 14k feet, I recognize the real danger that presents to air travel and fully support not allowing it until procedures are defined. One thing the FAA should do at a minimum is create certification requirements for drone operators that actually reflect the nature of their operations. There is no point training drone operators to land Cessnas with yoke and rudder when the drone is just programmed with waypoints and an FMS. On the other hand, the need for proper procedures around flight planning and testing transponders and dealing with TCAS/etc are more vital than on a piloted aircraft.

Bottom line is the FAA shouldn't treat a UAV like a tiny airliner. It needs to treat them for what they are with regulations that make sense.

The FAA covers airspace from elevation 0 up (FAA myths). They currently don't bother with noncommercial hobby stuff if it's under something like 500 feet and not otherwise being a pain, but they could if they wanted to deal with the paperwork.

Being.
Snide.
Isn't
Useful.


The FAA was originally created as part of the Department of Commerce to provide regulation for commercial aviation. As in, common traffic lanes, signaling standards, and so on. Which is probably why this rule about commercial use of a drone is part of the story. The creation of the FAA had nothing to do with annoying hobbyists, nor was there any mandate to "regulate anything that flies".

Laws regarding reckless endangerment, negligence, public nuisance, and so on had nothing to do with the FAA since they pre-exist that agency by several centuries.

I understand wanting to regulate full-sized military-style drones, but going after small commercial entities flying go-pro carrying quad-copters is a bit much.

Thats a seriously optimistic read on the situation. https://www.faa.gov/about/init...

Here is the relevant section from the 2007 Notice:

The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 6 AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

The policy statement makes no new rules, and therefore needs no review process, but points out that the commercial operation of UAS's in US airspace has no authorization while private use does (CA 01-57). The point is that for a civil aircraft to operate in the US it requires a special airworthiness certificates. No UAS has one of these certificates therefore no UAS is allowed to fly commercially in the US.

I found the document that you quoted. I consider what you did as selective quoting in taking one sattement out of context. Here is the next sentence which you didn't quote:

However, insofar as those policies reflect regulatory requirements, those requirements are manadatory.

This is referring to the regulatoryrequirements governing civil aircraft ie certification.

The Raphael Pirker is not a test case as to whether or not commercial UAS's are allowed because he was not charged with that. He was charged with 14C.F.R.91.13(a)states that"[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.