Slashdot Mirror

Honestly, some have hit around this but it's really the killer, autonomous flight. I don't know where the OP lives but autonomous vehicles of any kind are illegal for average citizens to operate outside a sanctioned, controlled environment. This includes academics doing research. You can't even get a car that drives itself and you want a plane with cameras? Clearly, OP is leaping without looking. Although a fun idea, this one will likely land you in a heap of legal trouble within days if not hours after it flies. Granted, in the U.S. the FAA is working on regulations for commercial UASs (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/2012-2032/media/Unmanned%20Aircraft%20Systems.pdf) but who knows what will actually come of it. Right now, without proper certification and permissions in the U.S., illegal.

I'm pretty sure an ebook reader can take down an airplane.... unlike electric shavers, which don't give off such interfering signals.

"Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit use of most portable electronic devices aboard aircraft, but they specifically exempt portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers and electric shavers because they don’t give off signals that might interfere with aircraft systems."
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275

The ATV launches on the Ariane 5ES variant, which is priced at $220m.

FAA Launch Report, Appendix A.

If you really want to know, look at:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

Specifically, here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/

Basically, for general aviation, you don't need to file a flight plan or anything. You go out to your plane, get in and fly...like your car. If you are at an airport with an operational tower, you will need to get clearance and authorization for when to take off, but it is still your decision where you go, and when. As soon as you leave the airport's airspace with VFR flight, you can fly however you want.

If you really want to know, look at:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

Specifically, here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/

Basically, for general aviation, you don't need to file a flight plan or anything. You go out to your plane, get in and fly...like your car. If you are at an airport with an operational tower, you will need to get clearance and authorization for when to take off, but it is still your decision where you go, and when. As soon as you leave the airport's airspace with VFR flight, you can fly however you want.

I see worries in the comments about "the police using them to spy on civilians". They already can.

The only thing a new law like this does is to fix a loophole. UAS and UAV systems can already be used by cops and state govs, by universities (limited), by companies developing experimental aircraft (limited), and for hobby purposes (unregulated, but there are some clear limitations such as flying within range of an airport or above buildings). But you cannot be legally paid to do aerial photography from a UAV/UAS! In other words, you have to pay a pilot to fly a photographer around to legally get aerial pictures. The only other option was using blimps (tethered) and cranes. An entire industry has evolved for erecting collapsible poles to attach cameras because of this rule.

Here are the rules. In it you'll find a letter with the common sense approach for hobbyists, and statements that the FAA will not grant companies any licenses to fly UAS except for experimental aircraft.

Lastly, SHAME ON THE NYT for that last sentence. They just had to jump on the idiot bandwagon and imply a connection between terrorists and photography.

CFIT is nowhere near the leading cause of fatal accidents in general aviation.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13103&omniRss=fact_sheetsAoc&cid=103_F_S

It's pretty hard to find statistics for combined civil aviation, please post a link if you can find one.

FAA UAV standards which they'll have to make up as they go along

or they could just use the ones they already have.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/

Under loss of oxygen supply, a pilot has 12 seconds left before he will lose all ability to do anything. Unfortunately, about six seconds are needed to fully comprehend the situation they are in and that leaves six seconds.

Even worse, their heart rate will double and they will likely consume the oxygen remaining in their blood stream in half the time. Assuming they are still not quite in a position of panic.

So once a pilot realises what they have to do, they have just three seconds to do it, without panicking. At best, that is five seconds if they remain absolutely calm in the face of an "Oh Shit" situation.

This is from USAF research into tests that went wrong in which people suffered sudden loss of pressure in test situations.

I've noticed this is not mentioned anyway despite being widely known.

eg,

e. While other significant effects of hypoxia usually do not occur in a healthy pilot in an un-pressurized aircraft below 12,000 feet, there is no assurance that this will always be the case. The onset of hypoxic symptoms may seriously affect the safety of flight and may well occur even in short periods of exposure to altitudes from 12,000 to 15,000 feet. The ability to take corrective measures may be totally lost in 5 minutes at 22,000 feet. However, that time would be reduced to only 7 to 10 seconds at 40,000 feet and the crewmember may suffer total loss of consciousness soon thereafter. A description of the four major hypoxia groups and the recommended methods to combat each follows.

Printed from Summit Aviation's Computerized Aviation Reference Library, 7/15/2005
Page 1
AC 61-107A - OPERATIONS OF AIRCRAFT AT ALTITUDES ABOVE 25,000 FEET MSL AND/OR MACH NUMBERS (MMO) GREATER THAN .75

This probably explains why the pilot couldn't get the emergency oxygen going... You try doing something really basic like holding your breath, running 10m, jump into a car and in less than three seconds, do the following... Close the door, put your seatbelt on and then lock the door.

Can you do it? Sure. Try it. But if you knew that if you took longer than 3 seconds knowing you'd be dead? Bet you'd screw it up...

GrpA

However, the FAA's advisory circular AC 91-57 restricts them to flight under 400 feet and under direct visual control of the operator. If you're standing on the ground watching the aircraft and controlling it, that's fine. If you're sitting in front of a display and controlling it without directly seeing it, it is not a model operating under AC 91-57

Please point out where on AC 91-57 the world "direct visual control" appear:

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

Have you tried this:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/

...just pointing out that provided they don't fire it into controlled airspace, no-one's going to bat an eyelid...

Ummm...he did fire it into controlled airspace. In most of the contiguous United States, any airspace over 1200 feet above ground level (AGL) is "Class E" airspace. Okay, I don't know exactly where he launched from, so he could have been in one of the exceptions where the floor of Class E airspace is "as published", but even then, anything above 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and below 60,000 MSL is "Class A" airspace (see the 14 CFR 91 and the Aeronautical Information Manual for more information on and Class E airspace). I would assume he notified FAA before launch, and received permission to penetrate at least the Class A airspace; I'm not sure if any notification would be required to penetrate Class E, since (for aircraft at least) there is typically no regulatory requirement to contact air traffic control before entering the airspace.

FAA regs have been recently updated, here they are.

Except for the fact that the minimum safe distances DON'T account for that. Have a look at page 23 of the following PDF, that's the unlimited race course for Reno. Notice the safety buffer at the closest point: 1534'. You know how long it takes a plane going 450mph to travel 1534 ft? About 2 seconds.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/5899aca707d02f8b862569dd00768601/%24FILE/Appx1-3.pdf

The airports and cargo are under the guidance of the TSA at the moment, but the FAA is in control of the airlines. So the option to be a grope free airline would really be beyond the scope of any kind of private deal.

There is a movement to privatize airports in the US. Chicago Midway is the biggest one moving through the system.

For more info on Arlington's use of drones, see http://www.uasvision.com/2011/07/05/usa-arlington-police-test-small-unmanned-aircraft-for-public-safety-purposes/.

Since the Challenger explosion, almost all payloads which could be placed upon EELVs (the Delta and Atlas series of rockets) has been pretty much standard practice for some time. Nearly all unmanned flights have been on these other launchers with the Shuttle being used most recently for things which simply require an astronaut.

Yes, back in the early 1980's there was an effort to essentially kill almost all other launchers in favor of just using the Shuttle, under the unrealistic presumption that the Shuttle program was thought to be cheaper than other launch systems. That proved not to be the case and was more wishful thinking on the part of mission planners of the era. It was a huge political empire building exercise that ultimately failed in a big way, and also took a whole bunch of people with it as it killed some efforts to privatize spaceflight back in the 1980s. If your memories are from the propaganda being spread around by NASA from this era, what you are saying was the "conventional wisdom" of the time that the whole of the U.S. civilian (and even military) space program was to use the Shuttle.

Even now, trying to nail down how much it cost to fly the Space Shuttle is so slippery that you can't really get the cost down to within an order of magnitude from multiple sources, and nearly every estimate I've seen is substantially different from the next one. About the only thing I've seen in universal agreement, however, is that flying on the Shuttle proved to be incredibly expensive and much more so than was originally promised.

The one thing that private launchers have going for them now as opposed to a couple of decades ago is the FAA-AST or "Office of Commercial Spaceflight". Simply put, the whole regulatory regime has been pulled completely away from NASA altogether and put under the direct authority of the Department of Transportation through the FAA. All of the "international regulations" and other requirements like insurance (in case the rocket lands on somebody's house) and licensing spaceports is done through this office. Anybody who has received a flight worthiness certificate from this office clearly has their act together and in some ways I think are much better than the vehicles which were designed for NASA. I certainly would trust riding in something certified by the FAA than something "blessed" by the political mess which is NASA.

Another interesting thing about Groom Lake is its status as restricted airspace. If you find R-4808N on the FAA's Las Vegas sectional map (e.g., at http://skyvector.com/ ), you'll see that it covers two things: a large area over the old Nevada Testing Site, where the Department of Energy used to test nuclear weapons, and a big conspicuously square area with a large dry lake bed called Groom Lake smack dab in the center. The fairly large airport that's been built next to and extending onto the lake bed is also not labeled on those maps, despite the fact that various other land features and manmade structures just a few miles away (including in the Nevada Testing Site) are labeled to serve as landmarks to pilots.

Restricted airspace listings (the text versions, to be used in conjunction with various airspace maps, e.g., http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/SUA.pdf ) tell you a few things that provide a mechanism for legally accessing them. For instance, they tell you what hours they are restricted (such as a fixed pattern of hours each week, or by specifically issued FAA notice, etc.), what elevations are restricted, the using agency (the agency for the benefit of which the airspace is restricted), and the controlling agency (whom you would contact to try to get clearance to enter the airspace) in the case of "joint use" airspace.

If you look up R-4808N in the restricted airspace listings, it tells you (a) that the restricted airspace is in continuous operation, i.e., it's restricted 24 hours a day every day; (b) it's restricted at all elevations from the ground up; (c) there is no "controlling agency" listed, meaning the airspace is not joint use; and (d) the using agency is the Department of Energy, meaning that the block of restricted airspace is lumped in with the Nevada Test Site even though the Air Force actually runs the Groom Lake facility. All of these characteristics are fairly unusual as restricted airspace goes, and I've only found one other bit of restricted airspace in the listings that doesn't list a controlling facility (a tiny bit of airspace at the Tooele Army Depot in Utah).

Nellis AFB near Las Vegas manages almost all of the restricted and military operation airspace in that area, and they're the ones who will angrily contact you via radio if you even approach the restricted airspace in that area. The restricted airspace is more of a legal mechanism to deal with pilots who encroach on the airspace after they land, and Nellis AFB will send fighters out to strongly dissuade anyone who comes too close to the airspace even if they don't enter it.

One other thing to note is that the runways at Groom Lake are actually quite busy. There is a restricted access terminal at McCarran (Las Vegas) Airport where some thousand or so people board planes that make trips to and from Groom Lake throughout the day. The flights use the name "Janet" when talking to the tower at McCarran (similar to how a United Airlines flight would be referred to as, e.g., "United 123").

Flight Data Recorders have to do a lot more than what you are proposing.

EUROCAE, which the FAA takes it's specifications from, specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s) for 6.5 milliseconds. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots (310 mph) and a deceleration or crushing distance of 450 cm. Additionally, there are requirements for penetration resistance, static crush, high and low temperature fires, deep sea pressure, sea water immersion, and fluid immersion.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/CDFB8415D43E695786256DAC0061EC73?OpenDocument

They record significant flight parameters, including the control and actuator positions, engine information and time of day. There are 88 parameters required as a minimum under current U.S. federal regulations.

Most modern units self eject, they have to be big enough to show up on sonar and have an acoustic and visual beacon for 30 days.

What's even more disturbing is that the FAA is currently looking to move away from traditional radar and even human air traffic controllers, as part of their "NextGen" system. GPS is just fine as long as there is a redundancy in the system. But the idea of abandoning radar as if GPS were a time-tested system is a little scary.

having met many of the people in the FAA Office of Commercial Space, and as someone who cares about seeing an economically sustainable space system develop, I'm damn glad those people are there.

It just more bureaucracy and big government. Of course big businesses like it because it reduces their competition.

creating a solid legal framework for licensing and regulating commercial launches and re-entries is absolutely critical for getting anything thats not a pork-filled government project into space. Otherwise the entire industry is likely to shut down after the first accident.

Like when aircraft were first built, they had to be licensed so people did worry they would crash. AHAH! According to wiki's Pilot licensing and certification article pilot licensing started with the Aero Club of America certificates which "were not mandatory and were more for prestige and show". That was around 1905, after aircraft were in the sky. Add according to the FAA aircraft licensing started after the International Air Navigation Convention, held in 1919. Then licensing wasn't required though nations came together for licensing cross border flying. The FAA page goes on to say "The earliest legal requirement for the N marking is found in the first general amendments to the Air Commerce Regulations on March 22,1927."

Falcon

Press Release – FAA Announces Decision on Child Safety Seats

...The agency said its analyses showed that, if forced to purchase an extra airline ticket, families might choose to drive, a statistically more dangerous way to travel....

Oh you mean the ozone that protects everyone here on earth is suddenly gone when flying?

No, the ozone isn't gone, but you are flying partly outside of its protection. At ground level, the entire atmosphere offers you maximum protection from cosmic radiation. The higher you go, the more you'll get, and aircraft aluminum has little to no shielding effect.

The "ozone layer" is not something like a Star Trek shield that offers 100% protection from everything until it suddenly vanishes. Protection from cosmic radiation is offered because the Earth has a very thick atmosphere and most (not all) cosmic radiation is absorbed into that atmosphere at various levels. While it is true that the actual ozone layer offers a lot of the protection, the rest of the atmosphere plays a significant role, and the higher up you go the more your exposure to radiation.

Fortunately, even at 50,000 feet, it's not a massive megadose of radiation, but if you fly a whole lot (like, say, a pilot), it's something you need to be aware of.

I have heard lots of people saying that but absolutely no science to back that statement up.

According to the EPA, radiation exposure on a cross-country flight is 2-5 millirem(1). The World Health Organization agrees with that number (2). The FAA has a web page dedicated to the levels of exposure for their pilots (3). NASA is even more concerned about the radiation exposure on polar flights, where protection is even weaker (4).

(1): http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html
(2): http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/cosmic/en/
(3): http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/radiobiology/reports/
(4): http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html

If you mistrust scientists and want to see the science for yourself, carry a radiation dosimeter on your next flight (provided you buy one that measures in millirem or lower) and test it for yourself.

Toyota found to be playing cost analysis games when their products are defective? Hmmm, last I heard, the unintended acceleration cases were primarily overblown: see here. Also, I am not entirely sure what your point is with regards to the FAA and NTSB. Both agencies are setup to help regulate both the logistics and safety concerns regarding modern transportation, which, incidentally, also includes regulating space tourism: see here. The reason some regulation is needed is not because every company that has access to a particular technology will abuse it at the expense of its customers. The reason regulation is needed is because in any industry there will be a lot of quackery products right alongside viable products. So, while Virgin or SpaceX might establish a safe and healthy space tourism industry because they need continued revenue from customers, another company might come along, make some, "too good to be true," claims about cheap access to space, charge it's first set of customers for a ride, kill them, and run off with their money. Regulation helps establish a barrier of entry at a particular point that balances the need to prevent a monopoly with the need to prevent fraud. This is a good and necessary thing.

If you are under the impression that any and all companies will hurt their customers simply to make a buck, you are quite mistaken. While there is no shortage of examples of this happening, there are also quite a few companies that genuinely do attempt to provide good, safe products. Some that come to mind are Trader Joe's groceries, Maytag appliances, Cessna, and Bobrick. It's easy to think that companies and corporations are out to do nothing more than screw their customers because that's all we see in the news about companies and corporations. But what a lot of us fail to realize is that for every scandal story involving a single company, there are probably a dozen other small, medium, and even large companies that don't make the nightly report because they don't screw their customers. Thus, we get inundated with a very single-sided view of business.

So I guess what I am getting at is that, while there are companies that have killed people in the past (due, more often, to accident rather than negligence), there are also a lot of companies that haven't. Thus, immediately jumping to the conclusion that a new industry, filled with new players, is going to skimp on safety in order to save a buck is nothing more than bias. As it stands now, we don't have enough data to determine whether or not Virgin, SpaceX, Bigelow, Masten, or anyone else is going to kill their customers. My default assumption as an engineer is that they won't because, well, their engineers get paid not to. Supposing someone does die in a crash eventually (and eventually someone will, I have no doubt about that), I will wager that occurs due to some unforeseeable accident (which does happen because even the most intelligent engineers and scientists are not precognitive) rather than some terrible negligence or intentional flaunting of safety regulations on a company's part. As the space tourism industry stands right now, it is employing some of the most talented engineers in the field, and it is under extreme scrutiny by existing players (NASA and the FAA, not to mention various congressional financing committees), thus, I think jumping to the conclusion that any players in the industry will skimp on safety is fairly unfounded cynicism.

The distinction between Lithium Ion and Lithium Metal batteries is by no means made clear in the FAA report. After reading through it, I have to disagree with others who suggest that this doesn't affect laptop batteries. It does.

Sorry, there may well be, (somewhere) a few government workers who have not been driven insane through the repeated need to exist in an increasingly cognitively dissonant state, but it's a solid bet that they are few and far between. Not counting those who are outright sociopaths, of course.

ANY advisory coming from the government is liable to be false, spin, or otherwise manipulative in nature. In this case, I think, it's probably a set-up for future controls.

It should also be noted that batteries on their own can't burst into flame due to environmental heating in a cargo bay. (It's COLD up there at 10,000 feet!) The FAA report was only talking about batteries catching alight in an already existing fire.

But that's not the way the media story tracked. Everybody assumed batteries burst into flame of their own volition. Public impression and emotional reactions are far more important than facts today. No doubt the idea of over-charged batteries bursting into flame will be floated by alarmists.

Just another way to put the squeeze on travelers. International travel will soon require that you navigate several paradoxical gauntlets just to get seated. Best to just stay at home where you won't see what the outside world is really like.

Fascist nations never like their people to travel. This is the same thing, with one subtle difference; they're trying to sneak it by as a series of rational measures we all voluntarily agree with rather than force it upon us overtly.

-FL

The summary is basically a complete failure to understand the issue. Actual advisory here.

Basically what this says is, a fire in a cargo compartment could easily heat lithium batteries to the point that they cause explosions and large secondary fires. Also, the fire suppressant commonly used in cargo bays may not control a lithium fire. Thirdly, shorted lithium batteries may get so hot that they ignite other materials around them, even if they don't catch fire themselves. Lithium-Ion batteries are also mentioned, basically restating the above but suggesting that existing fire suppression can more easily control a fire from a lithium-ion cell.

In the end, the recommendation is to change reporting rules so that lithium batteries in cargo must be reported to the pilot in command. Effort should be made to carry them in cargo bays with sufficient fire extinguisher capability. Also mentioned is storing them in containers designed to keep fire or explosion contained, and that existing containers will not do this.

It is even specifically noted that this advisory applies to bulk shipments and does not include batteries brought aboard by passengers.

Wow, so apparently TFS == TFA (which in turn is nothing but a copypasta of an AP release from earlier today. Is there really no more information on this? For example, how hot is too hot? My laptop gets pretty freaking hot sometimes and I'd guess a fair bit of that heat finds its way into the battery.

Doing some quick looking, I came across a study which exposed lithium batteries to fire and heat (PDF). On page 32-34 it says (paraphrased):

- Heated cells vent flammable electrolyte gas
- Cells begin venting at approx 470-500 Deg F
- The electrolyte gas occasionally exploded
due to hot surface ignition
- Cells produce a pressure pulse when venting
- As little as four cells can raise the pressure in a
sealed 10m cubed chamber by one psi.

Kind of interesting. It looks like I probably don't need to worry about my laptop's head igniting the battery, but it does sound like either some batteries are a lot more susceptible to heat, or airplane cargo compartments get really hot. I would guess a lot of other stuff doesn't like being stored at those kinds of temperatures either. A quick look indicates most plastics melt at about 300-450 degrees F. In fact, ABS plastic (usually used in laptop battery enclosures) melts even lower at 221 degrees F.

~500 degrees F is hot.

That's what ADS-B is supposed to do - give anyone who wants it a picture of what's in nearby airspace. It may have been a mistake to implement that capability and mandate that the transmitters be installed on aircraft. But, with that done, bitching about people using the data is pointless.

An attacker could buy a general aviation ADS-B receiver for $1495 and get the same data on an HP iPAQ. So this only protects against terrorists with very low budgets.

Just who is this "somebody else" that is building to NASA's still yet to be published manned spaceflight requirements?

I firmly believe that the manned commercial spaceflight market is going to swamp and overwhelm the NASA projects in time. That isn't quite the case right now, but I think it would be bad business planning to depend solely upon NASA as the only potential customer. I'm not saying "if we build it, NASA will buy it", but rather think more along the lines of how aircraft manufacturers design new vehicles for commercial flight. The U.S. Postal Service (as an example of a government agency who got in early with new technologies like aviation) did and still does have some significant impact in terms of commercial aviation. At one time it looked like they would be the only customer for aviation besides the military, but now the USPS (previously the Post Office Department) is a comparatively minor player in the game. It is FAA requirements, not USPS requirements that drive safety features in aircraft.

As for the heavy lift rocket.... that is something I think is ultimately doomed to failure as a spacecraft in search of a mission even from NASA. There is no mission besides a trip to Mars that needs such a vehicle, and even a trip to Mars is out of the question in terms of congressional funding. The first action that NASA is going to do with a completed "heavy lift vehicle" in whatever form it takes is to cancel the program and write a page in a history book about concept. At the very least show me what needs (not would be "nice to have") and is an absolute mission requirement for such a vehicle. Yeah, it would be nice to have a Saturn V right now, but we can't relive the past and pretend that decisions made in the past don't impact the present.

FYI, the FAA does have jurisdiction on all commercial spaceflight activity by means of their office of commercial spaceflight. They are the regulatory agency and it is through the FAA that commercial astronauts are certified. NASA has a role only because some in congress can't give up the fact that NASA no longer has a monopoly on spaceflight in America. The jurisdiction of the FAA extends quite a bit further than up to 100,000 feet.

Let's see, how frequently do airplanes have to use the following FAA rule:

1. Practice the "see and avoid" concept at all times regardless of whether the operation is conducted under Instrument (IFR) or Visual (VFR) Flight Rules.

(from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/tracon/anchorage/pilots_info/mca/ )

I'm thinking FAA would frown on this type of plane simply because of the potential safety issue...

"Hey, did you see that big transparent plane over their thru the fog?"

(1) The occurrence of any failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane is extremely improbable, and [(2) The occurrence of any other failure condition which would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions is improbable.

it would essentially mean that a failure that was 'hazardous severe' could well become 'catastrophic' purely because the single pilot crew cannot cope with the increase in workload during emergency conditions.

That list is woefully incomplete. The complete list for the FAA only: (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident) has more than twice the number of incidents as listed on wikipedia for the world.

It's technically illegal to fly UAVs without visual contact in visual flight rules air space.

Not quite.

The FAA controls the national airspace with a white-list approach. Everything is illegal unless a specific category of safe flight has been defined. AC 91-57 defines the Model Aircraft Operating Standards and creates a specific legal exemption for vehicles flown for recreational purposes. This exemption also applies to UAVs, provided they are flown for recreational purposes. However, there is no exemption for operating a UAV for commercial purposes. Even flying an R/C aircraft is illegal if the operator attaches a camera and attempts to sell the resulting aerial imagery!

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 AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
-- from FAA–2006–25714, Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System; Notice of Policy; Opportunity for Feedback (FAA link to pdf is down right now)

Technically, you or I could fly a 1:1 scale F-22 Raptor, but only if it were for recreational purposes.

Aside from an RC plane of some sort, all you need is about $100 in parts and some electronics know-how to build your own (basic) UAV.

While the FAA has recognized that most of these toy UAVs still qualify as RC aircraft (as long as they stay below 400 and fly within line of sight), it is illegal in the United States for a corporation or government entity to purchase or build a UAV for commercial or public use without completing an airworthiness certificate and obtaining a Certificate of Authorization from the FAA.

Per the FAA:

Currently, civilian companies may not operate a UAS as part of a business without obtaining a Special Airworthiness Certificate - Experimental Category (SAC-EC). However, this SAC-EC is very limited in scope of operational use. Contact FAA for details or see FAA Order 8130.34.

So don't expect Google to be flying this over populated areas for quite a long time. Current estimates are about 2030 or later before UAVs are fully integrated in the national airspace, and they very likely will seldom be allowed over densely populated areas without some major public good justification

Is that your Beech? What happened to it? The wing looks like crumpled and burned aluminum foil.

I've been in aircraft with the doors open above 15,000' without noticing anything except my ears popping.

It implies you're in very good shape, or, it implies you're in average shape and didn't realize just how bad off you were. At roughly 13,000 feet higher brain function, for the average person, begins to significantly shut down. Critical thinking skills begin to significantly suffer. Worse, almost without fail, people begin to feel unaffected believe themselves to be perfectly capable of continuing. More modern studies indicate that even at lower altitudes, typically starting at roughly 7,000 feet, higher brain function is negatively affected to some degree. This, of course, assumes the average person is not acclimated to operating at higher altitudes. Remember, the majority of the world's population isn't that far off from sea level.

FAA O2 Requirements can be found here. And yet, despite that requirement, you find that a minority of pilots, because of more recent studies, have begun to takes periodic hits of O2 before entering critical phases of flight (landing or instrument approach) even when they've been flying at altitudes as low as 6,000 feet.

In that case the engineering drawings for a 777 (or anything else) should also be open to public scrutiny. Is that reasonable?

Absolutely

... once you start babbling about the effect of capricious supernatural sky fairies on mass transportation. What's the difference between a transistor burning out in a VOR receiver, versus a sudden hailstorm that shuts down the whole airport? Only a matter of scale.

None actually.

CFR 14, Part 25, Rule 25.1309.

(a) The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is required by this subchapter, must be designed to ensure that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable operating condition. (1) The occurrence of any failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane is extremely improbable, and [(2) The occurrence of any other failure condition which would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions is improbable. [snip] (g) In showing compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section with regard to the electrical system and equipment design and installation, critical environmental conditions must be considered.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/EF544B3CFE11DB2B85256673004D3EC4?OpenDocument

Well, those were taken in April, the NOTAM issuing the TFR was dated June 9th. Obviously they were too little too late preventing all aerial photography :)

The reports of journalists being more unofficially banned from beaches where BP contractors are "cleaning" up the oil or from flying over the affected areas of the gulf.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/publications/oep/version1/reference/eram/

"The third and by far most complex step (ERAM Release 1) is the replacement of the Host Computer System with new software and hardware ... national deployment begins in FY 2009 and concludes in FY 2011"

and a lack of qualified workers to direct existing traffic, I don't think Skynet is happening anytime soon.

Can't really argue with that complaint, but isn't a lack of qualified people more likely to lead to the development of Skynet?

Actually here is the NOTAM
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_2957.html#restrictions
Yep flight restrictions from surface to 3000 ft.
But dudes that is what telephoto lenses are for.
3000 ft isn't that bad of a restriction but it is still a restriction.

NO, there are are certain frequencies and radiation levels that can affect aircraft avionics. Especially the flight control (Nav) and communications system. The latter being the most important so the assertion that these won't cause interference is a mute point.

Published 3/15/10 in FAA AC 20-164, an advisory circular that the FAA published around the whole certification and use process around Portable Electronic Devices. I was in the field, so going through all of these documents is mandatory before you allow something to be used on-board an aircraft. It's available here: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-164.pdf

In general, the FAA does require, as stated below, that during takeoff, taxi and landing PEDS have restrictions on use. It would be up to the airline, the device maker and the certification process to vet when these PEDs can therefore be used and approved by the FAA. Given that it's difficult enough for a flight crew to prepare for takeoff/landing, just asking everything to be "shut off" will most likely be the norm for quite awhile. On most flights now, FAs are now demanding "complete off" not "Airplane Mode" either on PEDS. Even AirCell (GoGo) has automatic features that disable and enable the service at around FL 10000.

"Use of RTCA/DO-294C Guidance by Aircraft Operators. RTCA/DO-294C, Guidance on
Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices, dated December 16, 2008, describes how
aircraft operators can show whether using PEDs on board aircraft is acceptable. The aircraft
operators may use RTCA/DO-294C for operational assessment of potential interference from a
particular transmitting portable electronic device type, such as cell phones. RTCA/DO-294C
methods would generally allow approval of a specific transmitting PED type for a particular
operator on a particular aircraft type and model only. The FAA would generally require
restrictions during taxi, takeoff and landing. Therefore, RTCA/DO-294C is not suitable for
demonstrating aircraft tolerance to all types of PEDs.
"

I'm reading this post, and I don't know what to even think of it. Edwards AFB as an American spaceport of choice?

I've heard somewhat recent reports about the commercial spaceport in Mojave, California; on Wallops Island, Virginia; Kodiak Island, Alaska; Burns Flat, Oklahoma; Cape Canavaral, Florida; and the big one that is being financed almost exclusively with state money in southern New Mexico. Vandenburg AFB, also in California, has been mentioned a few times although the military keeps things pretty well locked up there. In nearly all discussions of commercial spaceflight I have never even heard a peep about Edwards. It may be something that NASA has been using for quite some time and certainly has been the landing site for many Space Shuttle landings, but as a commercial spaceport, it is not merely missing, it is completely off the radar for any company doing private commercial launches. Quite a bit is even happening on the Kwajalein island in the Marshall Islands with American companies.

If there is something to point out, seriously, I'd love to see it. Perhaps during the Reagan administration some bureaucrat tried to turn Edwards into something more commercial, but whatever has been happening along those lines has been a complete flop.

This image from the FAA shows a map of all licensed spaceports in the USA, and I see that Edwards is listed on there. Perhaps the proximity to the Mojave airport is what really is the key factor, as Edwards offers almost no other significant benefits and in fact lacks some of the infrastructure necessary for private commercial projects. It would be a great place for a classified military project, but not for something that would carry passengers or commercial cargo. Really, the Mojave airport is more like how Silicon Valley was back in the late 1960's to early 1970's as the happening place to be right now for private spaceflight.

You are correct, but this rule won't do anything to stop people who are breaking the rules already.

We are not talking about a new rule that has been established by the FAA.

The FAA has issued an InFO (Information for Operators) reminding that cockpit distractions are bad. The InFO is located here-- is in fact referenced by the second link in the summary.

In TFA (second link anyway), they make reference of the Sterile Cockpit Rule which they did impose in 1981.

Basically, the Sterile Cockpit Rule is that pilots shouldn't be doing anything but flying the plane when they're supposed to be flying the damned plane. Most especially, while they're supposed to be doing take-off and landing.

The FAA has issued a memo indicating that operators should stress to their pilots that they need to keep the number of personal electronics and other distractions in the cockpit to a minimum so they're not violating existing FAA rules.

This is more of a reminder that pilots shouldn't really have their laptops powered up while they're supposed to be piloting.

The timing of this likely coincides with the fact that in March:

A pair of Northwest Airlines pilots who had their licenses revoked after losing contact with air-traffic controllers for more than an hour and flying roughly 100 miles past their destination airport last fall could return to the cockpit in a matter of months, under the terms of a settlement with federal regulators.

I realize a lot of people think they can text and drive a car, but messing about with other stuff while you're supposed to be flying a plane is a big deal. The FAA is reiterating that stance.

Sorry to be so vocal (and pedantic about this), but having been around airlines as part of a previous job, it's something I kinda get a little protective of when people act like the incident this is all about wasn't really a potential disaster.

Cheers

You are correct, but this rule won't do anything to stop people who are breaking the rules already.

We are not talking about a new rule that has been established by the FAA.

The FAA has issued an InFO (Information for Operators) reminding that cockpit distractions are bad. The InFO is located here-- is in fact referenced by the second link in the summary.

In TFA (second link anyway), they make reference of the Sterile Cockpit Rule which they did impose in 1981.

Basically, the Sterile Cockpit Rule is that pilots shouldn't be doing anything but flying the plane when they're supposed to be flying the damned plane. Most especially, while they're supposed to be doing take-off and landing.

The FAA has issued a memo indicating that operators should stress to their pilots that they need to keep the number of personal electronics and other distractions in the cockpit to a minimum so they're not violating existing FAA rules.

This is more of a reminder that pilots shouldn't really have their laptops powered up while they're supposed to be piloting.

The timing of this likely coincides with the fact that in March:

A pair of Northwest Airlines pilots who had their licenses revoked after losing contact with air-traffic controllers for more than an hour and flying roughly 100 miles past their destination airport last fall could return to the cockpit in a matter of months, under the terms of a settlement with federal regulators.

I realize a lot of people think they can text and drive a car, but messing about with other stuff while you're supposed to be flying a plane is a big deal. The FAA is reiterating that stance.

Sorry to be so vocal (and pedantic about this), but having been around airlines as part of a previous job, it's something I kinda get a little protective of when people act like the incident this is all about wasn't really a potential disaster.

Cheers

You are correct, but this rule won't do anything to stop people who are breaking the rules already.

We are not talking about a new rule that has been established by the FAA.

The FAA has issued an InFO (Information for Operators) reminding that cockpit distractions are bad. The InFO is located here-- is in fact referenced by the second link in the summary.

In TFA (second link anyway), they make reference of the Sterile Cockpit Rule which they did impose in 1981.

Basically, the Sterile Cockpit Rule is that pilots shouldn't be doing anything but flying the plane when they're supposed to be flying the damned plane. Most especially, while they're supposed to be doing take-off and landing.

The FAA has issued a memo indicating that operators should stress to their pilots that they need to keep the number of personal electronics and other distractions in the cockpit to a minimum so they're not violating existing FAA rules.

This is more of a reminder that pilots shouldn't really have their laptops powered up while they're supposed to be piloting.

The timing of this likely coincides with the fact that in March:

A pair of Northwest Airlines pilots who had their licenses revoked after losing contact with air-traffic controllers for more than an hour and flying roughly 100 miles past their destination airport last fall could return to the cockpit in a matter of months, under the terms of a settlement with federal regulators.

I realize a lot of people think they can text and drive a car, but messing about with other stuff while you're supposed to be flying a plane is a big deal. The FAA is reiterating that stance.

Sorry to be so vocal (and pedantic about this), but having been around airlines as part of a previous job, it's something I kinda get a little protective of when people act like the incident this is all about wasn't really a potential disaster.

Cheers

I agree with you 100%, but we are talking about Minesweeper and Solitaire. There is a big difference between minor diversion and totally engrossing secondary activity.

Actually, we're not talking about Minesweeper and Solitaire. Those got thrown in by the editor or the submitter -- neither TFA nor the referenced FAA statement specifically mention those.

This is an "InFO" (Information for Operators) -- basically it's a memo saying people should refrain from doing things which can distract them from the operation of the aircraft.

And, really, depending on the person and the context, I've seen Minesweeper become a totally engrossing activity.

This isn't exactly true. According to part 91.21 of the federal aviation regulations, governing the use of portable electronic devices, these devices are forbidden on aircraft being operated by an air carrier or any aircraft under IFR. However, there are a few specific devices which are explicitly allowed, as well as a blanket exception for any PED the aircraft operator has determined will not cause interference with navigation or communications systems on that aircraft. This means that the airline or pilot is allowed to permit the use of any particular device they choose.