Slashdot Mirror

According to this, the difference in the US is that recreational model aircraft are covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, while Unmanned Aerial Systems require either a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) or Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC). Operation in restricted airspace is another matter. In all cases, a pilot in command must maintain control of the aircraft (which I take to mean line of sight is required).

The other agency US unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have to contend with is the FCC. There are frequencies available for recreational RC use, and amateur radio bands, but last time I checked there was nothing for controlling a commercial UAS.

Regardless (and to further digress), I hadn't thought about your premise that the passenger may have been struck by a piece of debris. I suppose it'll never be known for sure. Ugh. Makes one want to think twice about sitting in line with a jet's fan blade or a propeller's plane of rotation. I can think of two other incidents where passengers were gruesomely killed by flying engine parts.

One was a Convair incident in Brainerd, Minnesota in January 1983 where a propeller blade separated from the hub and entered the cabin killing one and injuring another.

Another was Delta Air Lines flight 1288 in July 1996. An uncontained failure of the engine killed 2 passengers and injured 5.

And, of course, none of this has anything to do with the original article.

But I still ask, how come commercial space didn't happen in 1980s. Was technology too exotic? There was the Soviet threat but no ITAR.

You might want to dig a bit into the history of OTRAG to see some of the difficulties that people faced in the early development of commercial spaceflight. The largest problem was mainly a "giggle factor" where regulators and people involved with even permitting this kind of activity happening. It took Ronald Reagan to pass the Commercial Space Launch Act which in turn created the Office of Commercial Spaceflight and encouraged government agencies to hire private companies to perform services that previously were done by government personnel.

In other words, it was largely a political issue rather than necessarily a technological one. When AT&T sent up their Testar satellites, they needed specific legislation passed by Congress just to be permitted to launch vehicles into space. For a long time it is this whole permitting process that has had the government getting in the face of anybody trying to seriously consider going into space, and even now the regulations on building spacecraft still are a major hassle and consume full time employees just to meet those regulations even in a very small start-up company with just a dozen employees. Don't even think about starting a company with space-based assets or things going into space without one or more lawyers on staff.

The other aspect is that the internet also created a whole bunch of tech savvy geeks with money. Many of them wanted to do stuff in space, having grown up watching the Apollo Moon missions and hoping that things would be moving along faster in space than it actually has. There were dreams that by the year 2000 we would already have colonies on Mars, yet that didn't happen. Arguably the reason why that didn't happen is because it was too expensive to go there, and Congress seriously gutted the space program following the completion of the Apollo missions. These geeks decided that since government programs aren't getting the job done, they would be willing to try to do it themselves.

The X-Prize is something that has been a catalyst for getting the current generation of commercial spaceflight happening, where conferences before the X-Prize were mostly concentrating on how to expand NASA funding and building constituencies, and conferences after the X-Prize (particularly after Burt Rutan won that X-Prize) started talking about venture capital funding, business plans, and how to avoid getting bogged down in government regulations to get your project going. There really has been a radical change in thinking in recent years, and that explains part of what is happening in commercial spaceflight at the moment.

Aren't you supposed to be able to land blind under IFR?

If the plane and crew are qualified, and the runway has a CAT III ILS, then yes, you can land effectively blind.

Most airports are not set up for this, however. You can find a list of ILS systems in the US by category here.

In a restaurant, I can ask my waitress to tell you to STFU. If she fails to, I can (and will) walk out.

And in an airplane, I can ask the cabin crew to tell you to STFU. The cabin crew will, because they would rather shut down an asshole on the phone than deal with a planeload of pissed off passengers. And the cellphone user will comply once a few assholes are fined $25,000. http://www.faa.gov/data_research/passengers_cargo/unruly_passengers/

a) No, the FAA doesn't yet have standards for UAVs

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?print=go

I guess "standards" is pushing it a bit - they're approved on a case-by-case basis for experimental use, just like a lot of planes people fly in are.

No, safety standards aren't differentiated for "running published airline routes".

My mistake. Looks like the term is "conducts airplane operations as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire in air commerce, or as a direct air carrier" (14 CFR 119.21(a))

However, the standards certainly are different for that vs just giving somebody a ride in your plane.

if we accept that these are digital fly by wire aircraft (and they are), they will promptly become $100K creatures if they are required to meet any modern nation's standards for fly by wire aircraft.

Maybe - it remains to be seen how things are standardized. Also, building the first one will likely be expensive, but as with anything aviation-related the prices get more manageable as you scale up.

You might want to think again. Look at appendix B of http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2013/InFO13010SUP.pdf which has some supplementary information on the actual report at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/ped_arc_final_report.pdf

They specifically state that T-PED (Transmitting Personal Electronic Device) is covered by the ARC report. And handheld amateur radio transmitters with power from 1W to 7W are also specifically mentioned. Assuming that Obfuscant is using the normal definitions for QRP, his transmitter is 5 watts or less which ought to not cause any problems.

You might want to think again. Look at appendix B of http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2013/InFO13010SUP.pdf which has some supplementary information on the actual report at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/ped_arc_final_report.pdf

They specifically state that T-PED (Transmitting Personal Electronic Device) is covered by the ARC report. And handheld amateur radio transmitters with power from 1W to 7W are also specifically mentioned. Assuming that Obfuscant is using the normal definitions for QRP, his transmitter is 5 watts or less which ought to not cause any problems.

Here's the law I'm aware of (pdf links):

Here's the policy clarification stating that commercial uses don't come under AC 91-57, which is the normal RC plane rules.

And here's AC 91-57 itself.

Nothing there includes AMA rules, AFAICS. To me, this seems to be one of those common-knowledge things where many people "know" it, and merrily expound it as absolute truth, but nobody actually gives any reason, so I'll remain unconvinced until I see it. If someone does *know* it, and can provide a citation to prove it, I'm willing to be convinced.

Here's the law I'm aware of (pdf links):

Here's the policy clarification stating that commercial uses don't come under AC 91-57, which is the normal RC plane rules.

And here's AC 91-57 itself.

Nothing there includes AMA rules, AFAICS. To me, this seems to be one of those common-knowledge things where many people "know" it, and merrily expound it as absolute truth, but nobody actually gives any reason, so I'll remain unconvinced until I see it. If someone does *know* it, and can provide a citation to prove it, I'm willing to be convinced.

Large cities do tend to have large airports and large airports tend to have restricted airspace around them,

If they did, nobody could land at them.

You mean they have controlled airspace around them, under the control of various ATCs. The levels of control range from class B (most requirements for use) through class E (not much). G is uncontrolled. These have been around for a long time, unconnected with 9/11.

Why did they start at B instead of A? Class A airspace covers the entire US at and above flight level 180 ("18,000 feet as indicated by a sensitive altimeter set to a standard air pressure of 29.27 inches of mercury"). All pilots who fly there must be on IFR flight plans.

Restricted airspace is a place that nobody is supposed to fly except under very special circumstances. "Within X distance of Air Force One" is one very common bit of restricted airspace. There used to be restricted airspace over the submarine pens up near Seattle. There is now restricted airspace over the White House and other DC stuff.

One that still exists and should probably be cancelled because it is not needed is;

ALL AIRCRAFT AND PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A 3 NMR UP TO AND INCLUDING 3000 FT AGL OF ANY STADIUM HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000 OR MORE PEOPLE WHERE EITHER A REGULAR OR POST SEASON MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, OR NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL GAME IS OCCURRING. THIS NOTAM ALSO APPLIES TO NASCAR SPRINT CUP, INDY CAR, ...

The ridiculous part of this rule is that pilots must know 1) where these stadiums are and 2) when a game is taking place, and for college football, 3) is the college an NCAA division one school. (What happens when a Division II school plays a division I? Is the game "Division 1" or "Division 2"?) They aren't marked in any special way on the charts, and there are no standard NOTAMS (notices to airmen) issued for them. Just the one blanket one.

yeah, thanks obama.

The only thing you need to thank Obama for is to address the FAA's inability to enforce the existing regulations.

UAVs are already regulated under existing rules. For example, the term aircraft is defined as follows:

A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

A "drone" is a such a device. In theory, all aircraft (except toys, of course) are required to have an airworthiness certificate, as per FAR 91.203. And since the FAA requires a pilot's certificate for UA operation (see this), it is in practice impossible to legally fly a civilian drone for the simple reason that there is no certification category for such aircraft:

Is a FAA issued pilot certificate required to operate civil UAS?
Yes. If the aircraft is issued an airworthiness certificate a pilot certificate is required.

Summarizing: the regulations are there, they're just not enforced yet.

the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan

If it's for hobbyist reasons, no, it doesn't.

From the FAQ:

Do I need to get approval from the FAA to fly a model aircraft for recreation?

No. FAA guidance does not address size of the model aircraft. FAA guidance says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes. 1, 2

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn2

pdf1: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

pdf 2: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

The second PDF applies to model aircraft. The first to SRS BZNS "money making" UAVs. It's when you start getting into SRS BZNS that the FAA says you need a waiver.

These quadcopters that are less than two feet across (even though the FAA in the second PDF says they don't define by size) that aren't SRS BZNS are obviously "model aircraft" and have never been needed to be regulated

The second PDF cited above has "guidelines" for "good neighborliness." They are good ideas if you don't want to injure anyone (where the real risk lies) and get sued in civil court for negligence. But they are not hard and fast administrative laws

--
BMO

the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan

If it's for hobbyist reasons, no, it doesn't.

From the FAQ:

Do I need to get approval from the FAA to fly a model aircraft for recreation?

No. FAA guidance does not address size of the model aircraft. FAA guidance says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes. 1, 2

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn2

pdf1: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

pdf 2: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

The second PDF applies to model aircraft. The first to SRS BZNS "money making" UAVs. It's when you start getting into SRS BZNS that the FAA says you need a waiver.

These quadcopters that are less than two feet across (even though the FAA in the second PDF says they don't define by size) that aren't SRS BZNS are obviously "model aircraft" and have never been needed to be regulated

The second PDF cited above has "guidelines" for "good neighborliness." They are good ideas if you don't want to injure anyone (where the real risk lies) and get sued in civil court for negligence. But they are not hard and fast administrative laws

--
BMO

the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan

If it's for hobbyist reasons, no, it doesn't.

From the FAQ:

Do I need to get approval from the FAA to fly a model aircraft for recreation?

No. FAA guidance does not address size of the model aircraft. FAA guidance says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes. 1, 2

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn2

pdf1: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

pdf 2: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

The second PDF applies to model aircraft. The first to SRS BZNS "money making" UAVs. It's when you start getting into SRS BZNS that the FAA says you need a waiver.

These quadcopters that are less than two feet across (even though the FAA in the second PDF says they don't define by size) that aren't SRS BZNS are obviously "model aircraft" and have never been needed to be regulated

The second PDF cited above has "guidelines" for "good neighborliness." They are good ideas if you don't want to injure anyone (where the real risk lies) and get sued in civil court for negligence. But they are not hard and fast administrative laws

--
BMO

It's fairly boring. Here is the NOTAM:

FAI FAIRBANKS INTL

!FAI 09/092 FAI TWY FLOAT POND RD AT TWY B CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED TIL 1309302355

You can find it at Pilotweb, unfortunately I can't immediately see how to post a direct URL. You can see it matches the details in this article.

[s]UA(S|V) - [small] Unmanned Aerial (System | Vehicle)

Although personally I do prefer "drone". It does afterall refer to "an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control".

Wrong NOTAM, as they were in Boulder County, not Larimer County. There is a NOTAM for Lyons, but since the drone operators were operating under Boulder County SAR's authority, they were not violating it.

That's actually not that paranoid. The FAA has been working on guidelines for unmanned aircraft for the last year. The things people call r/c aircraft when you do it for fun, drones when the government does it for tracking/blowing up people. So far the rules they've come up with have been pretty lax (no rules or limitation on flights under 400 feet as long as it's kept away from populated areas and regular aircraft). But some people are opposed to the current rules and want greater restrictions or outright bans. Fatalities from r/c aircraft are nothing new, but this is the first time I've seen one get this much press. I haven't seen anything unusual or notable about this particular death compared to previous r/c accidents, yet for some reason the story has gone national.

The problem with an entrepreneur making a profit in space is getting cooperation from government to get that to happen. Note that I'm not saying that the government must necessarily subsidize the venture, but it is possible to set up a "business climate" that encourages or discourages entrepreneurial activity in space.

Two big examples for how the U.S. government basically killed entrepreneurial spaceflight activity:

Space Services, Inc. designed and built the Conestoga rocket. They got to the working hardware stage of development which actual flights of the hardware (most rocket launching companies don't even get that far). While there were admittedly problems with quality control and other problems, the primary issue that this company faced was competition from the Space Shuttle program, where NASA claimed commercial customers could buy launching services for about $1000 per pound to low-Earth orbit. This basically threw out the business case for Space Services to continue developing this rocket, thus they bailed out. The funny thing is that NASA never delivered on that promise of commercial launches and the Space Shuttle never could have been able to fly payloads at that price even if commercial payloads were actually flowing freely like was originally promised.

The OTRAG rocket wasn't even manufactured by an American company, but instead was mostly composed of European investors and engineers. Again they got to the working hardware stage of development and even started to build some launch sites for their rockets.... except those launch sites were located in "sensitive countries" like Libya and Zaire (now called Congo again). Intense diplomatic pressure (perhaps justified) was employed by the U.S. government to kill the development of this rocket, not to mention that Arianespace had formed as a competitor (government funded as well... something OTRAG didn't have) so all further permits were cancelled.

The interesting thing is that more recently there was sort of the opposite sort of anti-entrepreneurial activity that took place, especially following the success of the Ansari X-Prize when Burt Rutan's Spaceship One finally made a successful series of sub-orbital flights. Noting that Scaled Composites was hardly the only company, the Office of Commercial Spaceflight was established to at the very least permit entrepreneurs to try and see if they can make a commercial effort in space. It also doesn't hurt that existing government launcher efforts like the Constellation program and the SLS have proven to be so horribly uneconomical in their operations and development that the case for commercial launcher operations is basically a slam dunk business case at the moment.

What I'm trying to say is that the government can either encourage private entrepreneurial efforts in this regard, or they can completely screw them up so they would never be successful no matter how hard these entrepreneurs try. Also, spaceflight really is a very capital intensive business. Not nearly so much as petroleum exploration and refining (which definitely has much more capital tied up in those business), but unfortunately space transportation services is also a razor thin profit margin as well. In the words of Elon Musk, commercial spaceflight launchers is an excellent way to turn billionaires into millionaires.

The pilot HAD to manual land, the ILS system and PAPI glidepath height assistance for runway 28L (and 28R) at SFO is down, as reported in the current NOTAMs(Check for SFO)

!SFO 06/005 (KSFO A1056/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359
!SFO 07/046 (KSFO A1326/13) SFO RWY 28L PAPI OTS WEF 1307062219

That means he was relying on nav beacons and glidepath estimates to come in. Given that SFO's beacons are approx 1.2 miles apart, if he picked the wrong beacon to guild his descent he would have been too high, dropped steeper than usual to get down once he noticed the discrepancy, and didn't have the necessary power to flare and ascend at the end of the runway, so he tailstruck. That makes it pilot error, but confounded and mitigated by most (if not all) the regular guidance and assistance systems they rely on being out of commission.

Really? The FAA says you are wrong in respect to the 2004 application limit. I am sure some of the active agencies didn't apply until after drones were a reality for them (2007 or later)... http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

From your link:

There are currently two ways to get FAA approval to operate a UAS. The first is to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for private sector (civil) aircraft to do research and development, training and flight demonstrations. The second is to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft. Routine operation of UAS over densely-populated areas is prohibited.

In other words, to experiment in a local area (experimental airworthiness), or actually fly the drone around remotely (COA), which is currently what DHS and the DoD can do. They don't give dates, but the next paragraph is very explicit:

Obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS.

And if you follow the "more info" links from that page, you will reach this:

Can I fly a UAS under a COA or experimental certificate for commercial purposes? No. Currently, there are no means to obtain an authorization for commercial UAS operations in the NAS. However, manufacturers may apply for an experimental certificate for the purposes of R&D, market survey and crew training.

There is also a pretty clearly worded "clarification" statement from the FAA, distributed as a PDF.

Finally, your link below describes only applications, which, as I mentioned above and pointed out in the previous post, have all been on hold since 2004.

Really? The FAA says you are wrong in respect to the 2004 application limit. I am sure some of the active agencies didn't apply until after drones were a reality for them (2007 or later)... http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

From your link:

There are currently two ways to get FAA approval to operate a UAS. The first is to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for private sector (civil) aircraft to do research and development, training and flight demonstrations. The second is to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft. Routine operation of UAS over densely-populated areas is prohibited.

In other words, to experiment in a local area (experimental airworthiness), or actually fly the drone around remotely (COA), which is currently what DHS and the DoD can do. They don't give dates, but the next paragraph is very explicit:

Obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS.

And if you follow the "more info" links from that page, you will reach this:

Can I fly a UAS under a COA or experimental certificate for commercial purposes? No. Currently, there are no means to obtain an authorization for commercial UAS operations in the NAS. However, manufacturers may apply for an experimental certificate for the purposes of R&D, market survey and crew training.

There is also a pretty clearly worded "clarification" statement from the FAA, distributed as a PDF.

Finally, your link below describes only applications, which, as I mentioned above and pointed out in the previous post, have all been on hold since 2004.

Really? The FAA says you are wrong in respect to the 2004 application limit. I am sure some of the active agencies didn't apply until after drones were a reality for them (2007 or later)... http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

From your link:

There are currently two ways to get FAA approval to operate a UAS. The first is to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for private sector (civil) aircraft to do research and development, training and flight demonstrations. The second is to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft. Routine operation of UAS over densely-populated areas is prohibited.

In other words, to experiment in a local area (experimental airworthiness), or actually fly the drone around remotely (COA), which is currently what DHS and the DoD can do. They don't give dates, but the next paragraph is very explicit:

Obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS.

And if you follow the "more info" links from that page, you will reach this:

Can I fly a UAS under a COA or experimental certificate for commercial purposes? No. Currently, there are no means to obtain an authorization for commercial UAS operations in the NAS. However, manufacturers may apply for an experimental certificate for the purposes of R&D, market survey and crew training.

There is also a pretty clearly worded "clarification" statement from the FAA, distributed as a PDF.

Finally, your link below describes only applications, which, as I mentioned above and pointed out in the previous post, have all been on hold since 2004.

They probably tried and the FAA probably told them to fuck off.

It's impossible to get a commercial UAS license for urban areas currently. Not to mention the airframe needs to be certified too.

It won't fit under the seat in front of you or the overhead bin.

A hockey stick certainly would fit in an overhead bin, at least on any aircraft larger than the Embraer/CRJ types used by commuter and express operators.

Yes, but it doesn't meet the dimensions required to qualify as carry on. According to the FAA website:

The maximum size carry-on bag for most airlines is 45 linear inches (the total of the height, width, and depth of the bag). Anything larger should be checked. No oversize packages or luggage can be stowed onboard.

So while the TSA may allow it through the checkpoint, the airline should not allow it as carry-on and it should be gate checked. Unless a hockey stick is less than 45 inches. I can't say I really know for sure. But this This site indicates the smallest Junior size is 46 inches.

The problem isn't even conclusively in the batteries themselves. It may be the chargers used, the thermal cutoff, or simply overloading.

Some reports in the press suggest that the batteries are being recharged way too fast:

An inspection of the All Nippon Airways 787 that made an emergency landing in western Japan found that electrolytes, a flammable battery fluid, had leaked from the plane's main lithium-ion battery. Investigators found burn marks around the damage. ... The two incidents resulted in the release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage and smoke, the FAA confirmed. The release of battery fluid is especially concerning, safety experts said.

Once the electrolyte (which includes the lithium) catches fire it is very hard to put out. Boeing, knowing this provided special containment for these batteries, which has kept the fires from doing much besides destroying the battery (so far). However the risks are very real that this will be insufficient.

Large size Lithium batteries (over 8 to 25 grams of lithium) are not even allowed on aircraft as baggage or carry on, due to the propensity to burn when shorted or punctured, but some how Boeing talked the FAA into certifying this plane with these batteries to save a weight. Bad enough that these batteries are prone to catch fire when shorted, but Lithium fires are almost impossible to put out with the fire suppression systems found on planes (page 9). How Boeing talked the FAA into allowing this on the plane (in multiple locations) is beyond me.

No, that's not why.

The reason is that lithium fires happen fairly easily, and the fire extinguishing systems aboard aircraft are not all that effective against such fires.

Several FAA bulletins have reported that "The current fire suppression agent, Halon 1301, found in class C cargo compartments is inefficient in controlling a lithium metal cell fire." Yet halon is just about all they have on board other than water.

See Slide 7: http://www.777cheatsheets.com/resources/Lithium_Battery.pdf

See Page 9: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/04-26.pdf

Tests were conducted using 4, 8, 16, and 32 CR2 batteries, the 10.75 fire pan, and 220 ml of
1-propanol. In each case, the results were identical. Discharging the halon prior to battery
ignition resulted in the extinguishment of the 1-propanol fire and no battery involvement.
However, discharging the halon after only one battery was ignited had no effect on stopping the
propagation of the battery fire to adjacent batteries. The halon extinguished the 1-propanol fire
immediately but had no effect on the lithium fire with the exception of turning the normally
white sparks bright red.
The color change of the lithium sparks indicated that a reaction was occurring between the
lithium and the Halon 1301. This reaction had no effect on the fire progression, neither
hindering nor promoting the spread of the battery fire. The vented electrolyte fires, normally
pale red in color, turned bright red when exposed to Halon 1301.

Yeah, it's the same as the "50 danger/warning stickers on a ladder" problem. Nobody reads them all, and very few people read any of them.

And despite actions appearing to the contrary, their mandate is not the growth of the airline industry. The closest thing their mission statement says is "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." I'm not sure where "efficiency" comes from other than providing air traffic control services.

Are there lobbyists pushing congressmen to have FAA regulate in their favor? I'm pretty sure that's a big "yes." Are there FAA stooges planted by the airlines and aircraft manufacturers that are "insuring from within" that the FAA does things that benefit them? I don't think anyone can prove that one way or another. Does the FAA get a lot of stupid and crappy input from the DHS? Certainly. But on the whole, I think the FAA is about as independent as a government agency is likely to get.

I am assuming that's not counting the 0% tax rate on aircraft fuel, and large amounts of tax breaks for the aircraft builders ?

Do you have a reference for the 0% tax rate on aircraft fuel? I find that it is 0.043 per gallon for commercial aviation. And that is in addition to the listed 7.5% ad valorem tax on your ticket cost, all all the other fees and taxes. Far from being 0%, it's quite high. Anyone who's flown recently would know that fact.

My most recent flight, from Shanghai back to Los Angeles, had a $717 base ticket fare, with $199.90 in taxes added, for a total of $916.90. The 777 I flew on consumes about 0.02 gallons per passenger mile. That means my 6485 mile flight used ~130 gallons for me - with the additional fuel tax being $5.72. Total Federal taxes for my flight would be $205.62. A far cry from zero.

The Federal DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics says the subsidies are an order of magnitude or higher for passenger rail over passenger air. And the FAA certainly charges fuel taxes as well as additional ad valorem taxes that are not charged for rail (7.5% base on the ticket). Quite a different picture than you paint!

It's in AviationWeek but behind a paywall, you can find the link in SpaceX website, for actual Chinese launch price you can check the PDF from FAA which you probably already have seen: LM4B=$50M, LM3B=$60M, LM3A=$50M, considering the payload capability of LM3A/3B/4B, I think the statement is not far fetched.

Of course your price for Atlas V is correct, so yeah the price difference is that big, yet.

Ya'll just voted in the administration that just LOVES to regulate everything about your lives and livelihoods...

Partisan idiot. The other guy ran on an anti homosexuality, anti abortion, anti birth-control platform. We elected the guy who has been actively working to reduce government regulation of our lives and bodies.

Also, this kind of policy is set by the FAA, not the feds. The current FAA administrator is a former pilot and professor.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=58196

Actually, if the drone is equipped with both ADS-B transmit and receive, and within range of a ground station, they will receive TIS-B data for the local area, which is essentially the same radar that traffic control sees. So as long as these drones are in ground station range, they will see your friends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/flashMap/index.cfm

GPS is not the primary means of navigation for airlines. It sees a lot of us in General Aviation, but not for scheduled airline service.

But it will be, "soon".

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/

The FAA Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Program Office provides satellite (GPS) based positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services in the United States to enable performance-based (RNP/RNAV) operations for all phases of flight from en route, terminal, approach, and surface navigation. PNT services are an essential enabler required to overcome the deficiencies in today's air traffic infrastructure and support implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation (NEXTGEN) system for the United States' National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA's plan to provide PNT services requires implementation of two GPS augmentation systems, the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and the Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS). Both systems improve the accuracy, availability, and integrity needed to support continuous all-weather use of GPS as a primary means of navigation and automated dependent surveillance (ADS-B) within the NAS.

"GPS as a primary means of navigation ... Within the NAS".

The new system relies on GPS ADS-B

Very cool in the Alaska brush. If GPS went out it would be like tossing Alaska general aviation back 50 years when they crashed into mountains a lot. Now we only crash into mountains on rare occasions.

If you get involved, sooner than you may think: Press release: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13835 Instructions (check out page 11): http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/PED_RFC_8-27-2012.pdf Send your feedback to PEDcomment@faa.gov by 11/5.

If you get involved, sooner than you may think: Press release: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13835 Instructions (check out page 11): http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/PED_RFC_8-27-2012.pdf Send your feedback to PEDcomment@faa.gov by 11/5.

Not safe right now... the difference being is that we can make continually make self driving cars more safe, since driving only requires a set of rules and environmental awareness. Humans will never become more safe, in general, because they are inherently mistake prone due to fatigue, poor judgement, distractions, intoxication, and many other factors.

With that I'll agree. But standards have to be in place to ensure that whatever machine drivers you put on the roads, they are at least no worse than human beings.

Just look at the wonders of automated flight. Most airline accidents that aren't due to terrorism or mechanical malfunction are due to pilots overriding the autopilots.

Do you have a cite for that? It's not that I doubt your word so much as I think you're making shit up. Because my understanding is that most accidents happen during takeoff and landing where autopilots aren't routinely used and that weather is a big factor in many accidents: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/

Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.

Not necessarily in the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration "... does not certify, certificate, or approve aircraft kits. Also, the FAA does not approve kit manufacturers." Though I'm sure there are regulations for the person piloting the aircraft.

If you'd ever flown you'd know that they ask you to stow all personal effects - books, bags, coats. So it's clearly not EM emissions they're worried about.

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2091.21-1A/$FILE/AC91-21-1A.pdf

4. BACKGROUND. Section 91.21 (formerly 91.19) was initially established in May 1961 to prohibit the operation of portable frequency-modulated radio receivers aboard U.S. air carrier and U.S.-registered aircraft when the very high frequency omnidirectional range was being used for navigation purposes. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subsequently determined that other PED’s could be potentially hazardous to aircraft communication and navigation equipment, if operated aboard aircraft. Amendment 91-35 amended the scope of former section 91.19 to prohibit the use of additional PED’s aboard certain U.S. civil aircraft. Earlier studies conducted by RTCA, Inc. (RTCA), Special Committee 156, Document No. RTCA/DO-199, Volumes 1 and 2, entitled “Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard,” have contributed greatly to an understanding of the operational effects of PED’s aboard aircraft. (See paragraph 7b for obtaining copies.)

Which by a process of elimination leaves a) attention and b) clutter. And c), both.

I think you missed one:

d) because someone told them their job depends on them repeating that magic phrase.

I don't fly nearly as frequently as I used to, but I've [also] never been asked to put away a book I've been reading.

The "pay attention" notion seems reasonable - which is why it probably is not true. Instead the truth seems to be that they are enforcing a rule from the 60's that probably doesn't make much sense [any more].

Common sense and federal regulations, eh?

If you'd ever flown you'd know that they ask you to stow all personal effects - books, bags, coats. So it's clearly not EM emissions they're worried about.

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2091.21-1A/$FILE/AC91-21-1A.pdf

4. BACKGROUND. Section 91.21 (formerly 91.19) was initially established in May 1961 to prohibit the operation of portable frequency-modulated radio receivers aboard U.S. air carrier and U.S.-registered aircraft when the very high frequency omnidirectional range was being used for navigation purposes. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subsequently determined that other PED’s could be potentially hazardous to aircraft communication and navigation equipment, if operated aboard aircraft. Amendment 91-35 amended the scope of former section 91.19 to prohibit the use of additional PED’s aboard certain U.S. civil aircraft. Earlier studies conducted by RTCA, Inc. (RTCA), Special Committee 156, Document No. RTCA/DO-199, Volumes 1 and 2, entitled “Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard,” have contributed greatly to an understanding of the operational effects of PED’s aboard aircraft. (See paragraph 7b for obtaining copies.)

Which by a process of elimination leaves a) attention and b) clutter. And c), both.

I think you missed one:

d) because someone told them their job depends on them repeating that magic phrase.

I don't fly nearly as frequently as I used to, but I've [also] never been asked to put away a book I've been reading.

The "pay attention" notion seems reasonable - which is why it probably is not true. Instead the truth seems to be that they are enforcing a rule from the 60's that probably doesn't make much sense [any more].

Common sense and federal regulations, eh?

nowadays if you go around picking on a public figure becuase of how they dress you're likely to face a defamation lawsuit

...and certifications and accreditations always come with disclaimers

the FAA would hve certified the system to the current airworthiness regulations, which no doubt impose much more stringent requirements than any other type of software security certification (you're probably thinking of something rediculous like McAfee's "Hacker Safe" certification, which is total bullshit, and is nothing like the rigor that the FAA goes through in its certification of anything related to air safety)
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/portfolio/trans_support_progs/adsb/faq/#2

Once the FAA puts these designs through the wringer, it'll be much the same involved certification process as current aircraft. Time, money and commitment keep most people out of recreational aircraft now, I doubt any of that will change. These are just overpriced new designs.
    http://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/

The FAA still has official knowledge of these planes and their destination.

The FAA not too long ago realized that they had a lot of bogus data for aircraft registrations. They have now started reregistering all civil aircraft in an attempt at cleaning up their database.

As for knowing the destinations? No, sorry. Anyone operating VFR under Part 91 (and probably other parts) doesn't need to file a flight plan listing a destination, so the FAA would have no idea where that plane is going. When departing a towered airport, you'll tell the controller which direction you are going so he can plan for routing of traffic in his airspace, but once you leave the airport traffic area you can turn any direction you want. In Class B or C airspace, you don't need to tell the controller your destination, just the route you want to fly to get out of that airspace. (You'd have to tell him your destination if it is in the controlled airspace.) If the controller asks and the destination is outside his control (and you're not getting an IFR clearance) you can tell him any destination you want -- you don't have to go there in reality.

Even with a flight plan on file (and an IFR clearance for IFR), all the pilot has to do is request a different destination while airborne (even as late as on final approach) and he's going somewhere else. Under a VFR flight plan, the pilot doesn't even have to ask, all he has to do is go there, making sure to either amend the plan or cancel it prior to his ETA. (On final at a tower-controlled airport, he'll have to tell the controller his direction of flight, but not destination.)

If they load up a small plane with explosives, how will keeping a destination private, except for the FAA, who is the one watching, help them?

The only reason the FAA would be watching a small aircraft is if they are in positive control airspace (Class A, B, or C, e.g., or Class D around a towered airport), or the small aircraft has asked for it (IFR flight plan or flight following.) You can easily approach many suitable targets without the FAA noticing.

Now, if you are headed towards a location with a TFR (temporary flight restriction), like around Air Force 1 or over large stadiums during sporting events, or headed towards prohibited airspace (over the White House, e.g.) the FAA will take notice and send your information to the Air Force who will come to visit you PDQ. They won' t know who you are, but they don't care who you are, just that you aren't supposed to be there.

Ah, well, if it's a slip-up on their part...

I knew the rest of this, though. Other people happening by the thread might not though, so appreciate the detail.

(read through good part of the FAA airplane handbook and IFR handbook, also played around a bit with VATSIM via X-Plane.)

Ah, well, if it's a slip-up on their part...

I knew the rest of this, though. Other people happening by the thread might not though, so appreciate the detail.

(read through good part of the FAA airplane handbook and IFR handbook, also played around a bit with VATSIM via X-Plane.)

Apparently the government does it: "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Insurance Program provides products that address the insurance needs of the U.S. domestic air transportation industry not adequately met by the commercial insurance market. The FAA currently is providing war risk insurance under two separate programs; 1) Premium War Risk Insurance, and 2) Non Premium War Risk Insurance."

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_insurance/
Copied by Opera. Visit opera.com for your own copy.

• Plane crashes caused by lithum batteries, last 10 years: 2.
• Plane crashes caused by terrorism, last 10 years: 0.

And Fast Company is whining that the USPS is overreacting because they refuse to ship a product that randomly catches fire and blows up? And sets off other batteries in the same shipment?

The FAA has a whole site on aircraft fires. All their lithium battery documents appear there. Here are the current US battery rules for air transportation. Phone batteries usually aren't big enough to be a problem, but as battery sizes move up from "small" to "medium" (laptop batteries) the restrictions get tougher.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?print=go#Qn2 Doesn't address any Line-of-Sight issues. Aside from the autonomous part, I just wanted to note that with an Amateur Radio license you can setup a remote control capable of beyond LOS, along with a video link. Amateur TV transmitters in the 70cm or higher range are available and you can watch them on your old NTSC TV. You could use 6m/50mhz for the control link which has capability beyond LOS, or through the use of a repeater station you could expand that range further (heck, use a balloon mounted repeater over your operation position to increase your LOS distance and you could use all sorts of LOS frequencies and equipment) Or, I guess you could go the other way, and build some high end optics and get them aboard the next AMSAT bird and send the photos back via SSTV or ATV. :D

DISCLAIMER: IANAL, so this is not legal advice.

Having said that, I am rather interested in DIY drones, and therefore, I have been following technical and legal aspects of amateur drones/UAVs/UAS' for a couple of years. I don't see any *technical* reason why what you want to do isn't possible. However, if you live in the USA, I don't believe what you want to do is legal. As I understand, the FAA requires amateur operated drones to be under line-of-site control at all times. Here are some links to help you figure out the legal restrictions for what you want to do:

DIY Drones Regulatory FAQ

  FAA Advisory Circular 91-57

  Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

HTH!

Also: Fact Sheet - Unmanned Aircraft Systems