Slashdot Mirror
FAA Shuts Down Search-and-Rescue Drones
An anonymous reader writes "For about a decade, Gene Robinson has been putting cameras on remote-controlled model aircraft and using them in search-and-rescue missions. But now the Federal Aviation Administration has shut him down, saying his efforts violate a ban on flying RC aircraft for commercial purposes. Robinson doesn't charge the families of the people he's looking for, and he created a non-profit organization to demonstrate that. He also coordinates with local authorities and follows their guidelines to the letter. The FAA shut him down because they haven't designed regulations to deal with situations like this, even though they've been working on it since 2007. 'So it's difficult to argue that his flights are more dangerous than what goes on every weekend at RC modeling sites throughout the United States, which can include flights of huge models that weigh 10 times as much as Robinson's planes; aerial stunts of nitromethane-fueled model helicopters; and the low-altitude, 500-kilometer-per-hour passes in front of spectators of model jets powered by miniature turbine engines.'"
Just keep doing it until someone physically stops you, then hope you have enough money to win in court.
Better get cracking FAA. You're lagging.
And they're nowhere near coming up with guidelines, as I'm pretty sure there's honestly no way to do this AND maintain current safety levels. At this point I'm pretty sure that manned and unmanned flight are just fundamentally incompatible.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
According the IRS if you run a business and don't make a profit, it is considered a HOBBY.
I like microcars
If you have ever met the local SAR types I am willing to bet that they were instrumental in shutting him down. The last thing in the world they would want is their "Seniority" to be challenged by some upstart with easy to use technology. If you want to see the living defintion of a blowhard then go meet your local SAR.
I am not talking about professionals such as the coast guard but these local types who periodically call for hikers to be licensed and whatnot.
Think about how easy SAR could be with semi-intelligent drones. They could blanket an area, looking for heat signatures(or other sensory clues) from a very low altitude, and then when one was found could potentially fly right down to the source for a look. Also they could fly in dangerously poor weather, at night, and at little cost. Also the mathematical patterns they could be doing would be pushing up against 100% efficiency so there would be little human input required.
This is just the start of something larger. Drones will get smaller and smaller until the technology will be there to release a cloud of gnat-like drones to monitor the entire world. What will the FCC say then if the gnat operators start suing people who have wind power generators for destroying their property? They need a policy that stretches back as far as possible. Without a defined line to draw it's just a long series of incremental advancements between RC planes and gnat drones.
Don't let the man keep you down brother!
you know emigration is possible,its time to start fleeing to first world countries guys that shit hole is falling apart
The government wants to be the only group with drones and they like to use them for spying and killing rather than saving lives.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I can't fully agree with that. RC planes don't tend to fly out of range because they have to be in sight. A remotely piloted drone is not flown in light of sight, so it could more easily be controlled up to altitudes that might pose a danger to aircraft, or out of radio range.
Not saying they should have shut this guy down, or that taking 9 years to make rules is acceptable. A SAR drone is almost certainly flying where there isn't much risk of crashing into anybody anyways. But keeping signal strength down into valleys would really present some challenges.
The Federal government is only supposed to be able to regular "interstate commerce". If there is no commerce (because it is non-commercial), and does not cross state lines, and is low enough altitude that it does not interfere with other aircraft that cross state lines, what right does the FAA have to regulate this activity???????
It is a fundamental principle in the United States that, unless something is illegal, it is legal. Regulations, therefore, should enumerate what makes something illegal, not what makes it legal. To do otherwise prohibits the possibility of inventing better ways to do something, until/unless the regulations are modified to allow it.
The problem within the FAA is that they have regulations that work both ways. In most cases, they tell you what you CANNOT do to remain legal, in others, they tell you what you MUST DO to remain legal.
The government/NSA doesn't want it's monopoly on aerial observation and spying infringed upon.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Using the FAA's flawed logic you could claim that it is illegal for amateur radio operators to help in search and rescue or during natural disasters emergency operations. I know this is not the case.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
This is the polar opposite of natural law, where you can do anything except that prohibited by law.
Fucking freshmen which their pop-philosophy bullshit. The only "natural law" - i.e. before humans - are the laws of physics, and they determine the entirety of what cannot and what can be done. As for human law, every freedom for one is a restriction for another - it's all about balance, regardless of how the ideologues rant.
Seems this is inconsistent information, since there are so many articles here on /. that reference a lot of tech companies looking into drone package delivery, and seems to me those drones would have to follow the FAA laws that this person has to.
Same rules as non-commercial, plus you must register and find out any local rules.
davecb@spamcop.net
First off, if he's not a business it's not a flight for commercial purposes (going non-profit kinda made it a business, however, even though he's not charging). Second, since when is it against the law to do something for which there is no law or regulation against?
--- Keep the choice with the user..
wow, you must have stretched your one brain cell to make up that drivel. There is a natural law - and the FAA along with the rest of the American government are not abiding by it. And you are disobeying the laws of nature just by existing.
The government wants to be the only group with drones and they like to use them for spying and killing rather than saving lives.
That might actually work.
Instead of calling it a "Search and Rescue Drone" call it an unmanned aerial surveillance vehicle that could be used by small units to safely scan unaccessible terrain. Then tell your local senator that you are a small start-up military contractor who needs help cutting some federal red tape to do real life testing of your beta model by using it in cooperation with local law enforcement.
(Be sure to pronounce "vehicle" as Vee-Hee-Kal and the word "federal" always with some disgust in your voice.)
Tell him also that you are searching for "potential target" in the fashion of a special ops agent in a 1900s movie.
Good idea, just rephrase everything to be hostile and generally illegal in nature.
Instead of "assist with search and rescue operations", say "provide aerial target location, identification and payload delivery capabilities to military and government agencies". The FAA can't get in the way of identifying targets, else how will other people know where to drop the bombs, or in the event of a payload allocation error, medical supplies.
This is an attempt by the FAA to protect Raytheon and friends. With the upsurge in UAV for military purposes aligning reasonably well with the ban on any commercial use it has allowed companies like Raytheon to establish themselves with hardware, as well as patents on the related technologies and purposes one would use remote controlled aircraft for. It's also why they don't actual have proper specifications to classify the aircraft, something which they so completely obviously should have done in the first place when the ban went into effect.
Should fly objects be regulated? Sure. But they've taken few steps to actually regulate them, it has just been a delaying tactic to prevent the upsurge in small companies from applying for, and receiving patents which could potentially be used to sue the likes of raytheon.
Over here, NOT aiding in an emergency situation is a felony, while at the same time it's nearly impossible to be prosecuted for helping (no matter how efficiently). As soon as whatever organization is in place signed you up as a helper there's nothing you could do short of looting that could possibly result in you getting into trouble.
Then again, I could not imagine our variant of the FAA acting like that. There's gotta be more to it than the official bullshit, that just doesn't make any kind of sense. My money is on someone wanting to make money with it and it's just so un-american that there's someone offering something for free that someone else tries to sell. Even if it's emergency aid.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...I'd tell the FAA to pound sand, and make them arrest me. I of course didn't RTFA, but if they are still forming regulations on this, it mean that they are still unregulated, which is the default condition.
In this case that's a potential risk, but what about all the other potential uses for this technology? There was that woman in a triathlon that was hit by a drone that was supposed to be taking aerial shots of the race. Until there are regulations covering what is and isn't appropriate conduct by operators it's best not to allow them to fly in commercial operations.
Also, they are working on regulations, it's not like they're sitting on their asses twirling their mustaches as children and hikers go missing.
By the law, their authority starts at something like 700 feet. Stay below that and they have no business saying anything one way or the other about it.
These drones pose no threat to conventional aircraft because they operate at closer to ten thousand feet... not under 700.
The FAA can do what they like above 700 feet. But below it they have no authority or purpose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Nonprofits are for the purposes of taxation, you'll typically have to file with various governments and if you comply with the regulations you're deemed to be a nonprofit. However, nonprofits vary in size, some of them consist of just one or two people and then there's hospitals and colleges where there might be thousands of employees that work there.
For the purposes that the FAA is dealing with it, the profit motive is far less important than the scale of the operation. The hobbyists get a pass in large part because having an RC helicopter with a range of less than a hundred yards is unlikely to result in significant disruption to air traffic. Whereas a set of drones that are designed to cover hundreds of miles of wilderness is far more likely to have unforeseen consequences.
Also, he's taking money from other people to provide the service, whether he can comply with IRS regulations is not relevant to whether or not he's a commercial interest with regards to the FAA or other government agencies.
Yep, the drone haters are winning.
The FAA has been overturned by a a federal judge on this, and non-commercial and commercial drone flying are now legal.
" NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled Thursday that the policy notices the FAA issued as a basis for the ban weren’t enforceable because they hadn’t been written as part of a formal rulemaking process. "
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Decision 3-6-14:
http://www.kramerlevin.com/fil...
I also think it depends where you are, a SAR drone can cover a ton of ground and in areas where you have visibility, a few drones can cover more area than a few people. Also, around here we have a ton of rugged areas where drones would be useful. We also have areas where there's a lot of trees, but in my experience, the areas with the trees tend to be somewhat less dangerous as long as you don't encounter a bear and you're not unfortunate enough to get turned around. But, that still leaves a ton of area where a set of drones could quickly eliminate that, while people search along the trails and talk with hikers that might have seen the people they're looking for.
The other side of the state has much more open space and drones would make much quicker work of that than they would on the western side.
Always ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
How often has that strategy ended in a geek pleading guilty to a felony charge?
And commercial flights of drones are forbidden in the US. The FAA is writing the regulations about what is and isn't going to be allowed, but until they finish that, any commercial flights of drone is in violation of the existing rules. I'm not sure why it's so hard for Libertarians to grasp that.
Say it's a personal quest for fame and glory.
The trouble with drones is that most of them don't have enough sensing to avoid other aircraft. Most don't have aviation transponders. Yet some of them are big enough that they're a hazard to other aircraft. Many of them can get 500 feet above ground level (AGL). (Aircraft other than helicopters are supposed to stay 500' AGL, 1000' AGL in congested areas. Around airports, airspace is controlled all the way to the ground.) This puts them in conflict with other aircraft. Here's a small Parrot drone at 1553 feet in the UK. It's little, but if it was sucked into a jet engine, the engine would definitely be damaged and might fail. In 2013, someone was flying a drone near JFK in New York and the drone had a near miss with a jetliner.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics used to have a 450' AGL rule, and the FAA has a clear rule about doing anything off the ground within 5 miles of an airport without coordination with the tower. That's enough to keep the little guys from interfering with aircraft.
The other side of this is that aircraft regulated by the FAA are considered not to be violating the property rights of the property overflown. Being overflown at 100' by an HDTV camera isn't a hazard to aviation, but property owners may object.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/commercial-drones-cleared-takeoff-judges-ruling/
This has been decided,and not in the FAA's favor.
A natural law? Ok, what is it and why is it 'natural'?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Well, with respect to r/c search flyers, one of 'em is "gravity." :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
o We only made X categories because we're imagination-free government drones
o We can't imagine dealing with anything not in our predefined categories
o Yet your application doesn't fit a predefined category, so we put it where it doesn't fit
o So you can't fly
o And little Mary Jane will die of exposure.
o Now, about next year: We'd like a budget increase for our yearly Vegas party, yeah?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The end result - rescue organizations will now have to refuse to accept his aid if they are aware that his operation of drones is in violation of FAA regulations. Consider the extreme edge case - can a rescuer use illicit drugs donated by a drug dealer to treat an injured subject in the field? Even in the absence of lawfully acceptable options, using illicit drugs would be illegal even if it relieved a victim's suffering and caused no harm, even if it saved lives. I personally would admire and support the moral and ethical decision to take such action, but law and regulation have to do with justice and control, not fairness or right and wrong.
Incidentally, this also applies to sport/recreational pilots. You want to fly your one-man light sports plane to provide unpaid support of a rescue operation? You're may be violating FAA regulations, and you may even become an impediment to others who operate within the guidelines. It also applies to private pilots. You want to fly your privately-owned Cessna 172G to provide support of a rescue operation? Same case. You may be violating FAA regulation. I'm not going to argue the wisdom of this condition, I'm merely pointing out what the condition is.
US law and FAA regulation have this in common - the ends cannot justify the means under either system - and in both cases, attempting to do otherwise will put an individual in direct conflict with a large, powerful government entity. Certainly better to document cases where such assistance might reasonably have been expected to produce a desirable result and work to correct that problem. It's a long way from an ideal solution, but it seems likely to me in my personal opinion (enough qualification there?) to be the fastest and most effective way to permanently and correctly fix the problem.
Because it's fucking stupid. And harmful. And inflexible. And consequently puts people at risk. Because it looks exactly like rules for the wrong reason, inability to deal with what the world actually is, entrenched reasoning for circumstances no longer extant...
You know, things like that. Stupid shite.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
curious: where is "over here"?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We used to be These United States.
Would you really, though? You want to lose your home, your job, perhaps your family, your freedom, your ability to be further employed, have your credit rating destroyed, end up on various lists like no fly, felon, etc... do you really?
It's pretty easy to be upset about this, but the reality of putting your head into the gears of legal process -- even when you demonstrably and obviously on the side of sanity and righteousness -- is that your head gets squashed and the gears are only further lubricated by your juices. I speak from experience.
If you'd really sacrifice pretty much everything on such matters of principle, my hat is off to you. Truly. But when people go in all bright eyed and bushy tailed to do battle with the abject moron we collectively call the justice system, they invariably come out much sadder, wiser, poorer, lower class, jobless, and without having accomplished a damn thing WRT their original intent. So you might want to give that another serious think. You can do more good out here, with resources intact, than you can speaking to a lawyer through bars and learning that your "way out" is, at best, a plea bargain that compromises you for the rest of your life. Even if they promise you it won't.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
oh, wait - that's just FOD. Sorry 'bout downing your aircraft - which needn't be a jet aircraft. What happens when a prop driven aircraft hits a much smaller, possibly hard to see drone? Hint - no aircraft in the history of mankind has gotten stuck up there.
It doesn't matter if you hate the FAA, call them names, or threaten to violate their body cavities. We live in an age where every aspect of our lives are controlled by government regulations. The only difference is it is now trickling down to the level where it is starting to affect common people. The rate of change is accelerating and soon everyone will be violating the law every day. I don't care if you like the Democrats of the Republicans, you are screwed. There is no way to change this through the political process. The burocracy no longer answers to the politicians, they control the politicians. This will not end well, as most people think the government is the solution, if only the right people get voted in. In reality, it doesn't matter and you are well and fully screwed because the 2 political parties are the problem and the system is set up to prevent change.
Real planes and toys.
natural law in the sense of libertarian values - ie you can do anything as long as you don't harm people or their property.
In some countries it is a crime to stand by and do nothing when you could have helped save someone. The FAA has turned this on it's head and made it a crime to help.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that non-interstate non-commerce is subject to regulation to the extent that it potentially competes with interstate commerce.
And we have another win for the paranoid assholes in their fight against the evil drones.
Thank you motherfuckers.
It's not about making money in this case because Equusearch is a non-profit and asks for no money from families or local law enforcement agencies. Speaking as a member of a search & rescue group, we're all volunteers and pay for all of our own equipment. Pretty much the only thing we get reimbursed for is fuel and that comes out of a state search & rescue fund. That fuel money is only given out on actual missions. Training expenses are all on our own dime. The Feds don't pay for anything.
That said, a UAV or a human piloted helicopter isn't a magic talisman that allows you to find the subject. If the subject is under a few feet of brush or tree cover, you won't see them from the air. Aerial vehicles are another tool in the toolbox. There are a few benefits to a UAV. One is it's significantly cheaper to operate. A jet ranger helicopter can cost well over $600 an hour to operate. A Robinson is cheaper but still expensive. A UAV can be programmed to take hi-res photos in a grid pattern for later review. Multiple people can review the imagery because different people will notice different things.
Now, as to federal regulation, this kind of B.S. makes our job exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Here there are several designated "wilderness" areas. Nobody is allowed to take a motorized vehicle into them even for matters of public safety. In fact, helicopters aren't allowed to land. They have to hover and touch a skid to off load search personnel. That's a very very dangerous thing to do. Then there's the BLM. These morons pull the same crap on so-called state trust land. Don't get me started on their incompetence when it comes to managing wildfires. Then there's the National Forest Service. Recently, they've unilaterally decided to close off a huge percentage of the roads in the forest. But they don't physically close them off. You're supposed to know which roads are open or closed and the only official map has no topographic features on it...at all. If you're on one, they can give you a ticket. Volunteer search & rescue folks are not exempt.
Which brings me to the FAA. Legally, they have no leg to stand on when it comes to UAVs. They keep referring to a 2007 policy hoping nobody will know the real deal. It's not an official regulation, only a policy recommendation. IMHO, what the FAA is doing as well as other federal agencies is trying to rule through intimidation and policies that would make Kafka envious. They know they're full of it but they also know that the average citizen doesn't have the resources to fight them in court.
a kite?
Its a freakin MODEL airplane, NOT a real aircraft butthead!! FAA has no frickin business in it. What a bunch of assholes.
Anonymous Coward -again, I'm tired of signing in all the fricking time.
My local RC park is marked on my aviation maps, which are updated with some regularity. People flying random devices at random places at random times pretty much have to be more dangerous than that, if they don't show up in the computer when I'm planning my flight route. As drone usage increases, we'll logically eventually see the first GA aircraft crash caused by a drone. It would be logically preferable to make the rules for avoiding that before it happens, but the custom in the U.S. is to wait until someone dies, then make a rule that's draconian, then fight back and forth over tightening and loosening based on what news events garner the most eyeballs over time.
The saving grace will be that MOST drones will be in positions that are illegal for GA aircraft most of the time. Still, even if a guy kills some little kids by hitting a drone while illegal buzzing his own house, involvement of any RC device will become the legal topic de jeur I imagine.
Fucking freshmen which their pop-philosophy bullshit. The only "natural law" - i.e. before humans - are the laws of physics, and they determine the entirety of what cannot and what can be done.
The previous comment by the other AC stands as applicable. "Harm" and "property" are social constructs, only distantly related to the actual laws of the Universe which govern their ability to exist. Physics is our model of those laws. You can take your "natural law" and see how well it prevents you from dying from lack of oxygen, lack of water, lack of nutrition, etc.. We'll be here when you get back from your scuba trip without any tanks.
yes, and your argument is? so far you haven't said anything that disagrees with what I said. Until you present an alternative viewpoint, I'll take it that you agree with me.
Because we won't *allow* you do for yourselves, as you might start getting ideas and feeling uppity.
Why? Because fuck you, that's why.
The Tax Ranchers' message to the Tax Livestock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...