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.'"

Comments

Re:Fuck the FAA

[drew_92123]

Somehow I don't think the local police or sheriff are going to turn down the help regardless of what the FAA says. Seems to me the potential bad press due a a fatality should he not be allowed to help would be enough to keep them away... Of course everybody seems to be going crazy these days so who knows.

It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Chibi Merrow]

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.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[phantomfive]

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.

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

This is something that is bothering a lot of people, but this particular guy is becoming the face of the problem for political reasons, because if you want to get something done, it is easier to show someone with a sympathetic cause that can get people outraged.

This is similar to calling some group of people bigots. The FCC is an anti-search-and-rescue bigot.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Opportunist]

That's the whole bullshit here. It is not commercial if it is not commercial. So what's the fuss?

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Rich0]

There is no reason that they need to be incompatible. Just require that all aircraft have a functioning ADS-B transceiver and TCAS, both manned and drones. Require drones to obey resolution advisories. That will eliminate most of the midair collision that exists today, manned or unmanned.

They also need to find a solution to the cost problem. There is nothing in a ADS-B+TCAS which isn't in every smartphone on the planet, and yet the former costs $10k while the latter costs $400 new from Google. I'd think the government could just put out a bid for a reference model and get a bulk deal on them, shielding the manufacturer from liability as long as they conform to the spec. There is no reason you shouldn't be able to buy one for $100, making them useful for even recreational aircraft.

And yes, I know there are aircraft flying today which don't even have batteries in them. That would have to change. There is no reason that you couldn't have a combination ADS-B+TCAS+VHF for $500 that runs on batteries and having one of those in such planes would GREATLY improve safety. Indeed, many aviation procedures are inefficient and even increase risk simply to accommodate people who want to fly around in such aircraft without radios/etc.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[BitZtream]

There is no reason that they need to be incompatible. Just require that all aircraft have a functioning ADS-B transceiver and TCAS, both manned and drones. Require drones to obey resolution advisories. That will eliminate most of the midair collision that exists today, manned or unmanned.

You just destroyed the entire R/C aircraft industry in one instant.

I'd LOVE for them to do this.

The problem is that I can go out and fly my turbine powered 100 pound F16 at several hundred miles an hour for crowds of spectators with an old 72mhz radio that has pretty much zero interference rejection ... but I can't fly my 2 pound quad and take a pictures with it for commercial use even though my quad will never exceed 10mph and uses a DSSS based radio that will reject any signal that doesn't have the right GUIDs and checksums ... and is never used for in front of crowds, nor does it carry a half gallon of kerosene for fuel, and the quad has an auto pilot that will land it if it gets a low battery, over current, loss of control radio, loss of telemetry radio, or simply flying outside of the geo-fenced area.

Its fucking retarded. Its okay as long as no one can possibly profit from it, but if there is profit, fuck it, the EXACT same thing is illegal, and there is NO WAY I can make it legal without treating the UAV as if it were an aircraft capable of carrying passengers for hire!

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[dougmc]

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

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

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

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

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Rich0]

There is no reason that they need to be incompatible. Just require that all aircraft have a functioning ADS-B transceiver and TCAS, both manned and drones. Require drones to obey resolution advisories. That will eliminate most of the midair collision that exists today, manned or unmanned.

You just destroyed the entire R/C aircraft industry in one instant.

Not at all. You can have some kind of exception for the kinds of toys you buy for $20. For anything bigger there is no reason that some automation has to make the cost prohibitive - you can get most of this stuff for $100-200 already, minus the ADS-B/TCAS. Adding those is really just another chip, if that (they already have GPS and a radio - this is just another band, and you'd probably want WAAS if they don't already have them).

You can still have manually-piloted aircraft. They just need an autopilot on-board that takes over if a potential collision is detected. As you already mentioned, people use geofencing all the time now so that they don't lose their aircraft if they make a mistake (something that happened to somebody I know a few years ago with a fairly expensive helicopter over a field of REALLY high grass). People can have all the fun they want, but with training wheels.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[BitZtream]

As I said, you just killed the RC industry.

ALL of my 'UAV's are normal models. I have 1 quad, 3 helis, and one seaplane. The quad needs computer stability control from the start since you can't fly a quad without automatic stabilization and augmentation. The quad started out with an ArduPilot, all my other aircraft have since had them added. They have GPS, compass, barometer, fully automous capabilities, 1 radio for direct digital proportional control, and one telemetry radio that can be used as a backup control those its very course and I'd hate to land the seaplane with it. You can buy any of these aircraft from tower hobbies or heliproz. The autopilot is open source and pre made (what I buy) versions are available from HobbyKing for dirt, though I buy mine from 3d robotics since they actually pay for the development.

They ALL have cameras on them, usually its a Sony ActionCam AS-15 for video, sometimes its an iPhone or other still image camera.

The difference between me being legal and me being illegal ... are the photos for commercial use? If you answer yes, its illegal, if you answer no, I'm legal.

Thats it.

If you were to try and force my RC aircraft to use TCAS ... that requires me to ALSO carry an active radar system ... thanks, you just tripled the cost, added at least an order of magnitude more mass, and 2 orders of magnitude more power requirements, added so much more surface area to the frontal profile that its probably an order of magnitude larger if not 2 orders ... and thats JUST for the radar, that doesn't include the ADS/TCAS transmitters and computers. And fine me a radar system for less than $1k USD. Example: I have this on my boat: http://www.amazon.com/Lowrance... $1200 and its several years old, dome is about twice the diameter of my head and a little higher ... and thats COMPACT!

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Rich0]

If you were to try and force my RC aircraft to use TCAS ... that requires me to ALSO carry an active radar system ...

I was referring to the term TCAS to refer to the capability, not the specific implementation. I mentioned ADS-B, and if all aircraft are required to have it, then there is no need to use radar to detect aircraft in conflict. Every aircraft would be continuously broadcasting its position, so the only thing you need to detect nearby planes is a radio, a CPU, and a GPS.

It is true that TCAS historically required radar, because transponders only responded to radar. ADS-B eliminates the need for radar entirely, to the extent that all aircraft participate in the system.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[mikael]

The FAA are like a Home Owner Association.They'll use the catch-all clause "Every resident must not cause a nuisance or annoyance to the other residents." if they see something they don't like. Most of it is common sense like: all aircraft flights above 500 feet might have an approved flight plan. Any piloted flying vehicle must be air-worthiness approved and have a maintenance log. Any remote control model must remain in line of sight of the operator".

But then they have a problem with remote controlled vehicles with cameras, because they are out of line-of-sight,, but the operator can still see using the remote camera. That goes into a sort of gray-area, so they haven't made any rules up yet. Perhaps there should be a camera on a pole behind the model so the operator can see the state of the model relative to the surroundings.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Chibi Merrow]

There is no reason that they need to be incompatible. Just require that all aircraft have a functioning ADS-B transceiver and TCAS, both manned and drones. Require drones to obey resolution advisories. That will eliminate most of the midair collision that exists today, manned or unmanned.

ADS-B is not some sort of magic bullet, despite what they've told you. It *may* increase safety (though studies have shown all the glass we've put in cockpits probably does the opposite), but it's not suddenly going to prevent all collisions.

In addition, STUFF BREAKS. Your UAS that depends on ADS-B for sense-and-avoid isn't going to see that Bonanza with a transponder failure. If all the electrical systems in a manned aircraft go out, the pilot can still at least bring it down where it won't hurt anyone, the same is not true of a UAS. If you really want to be terrified, you should look at some of the FAA's results on simulating GPS system failures in a future, ADS-B only scenario.

And that's all irrelevant anyway, as there is never going to be a requirement (at least probably not in my lifetime) for manned aircraft to have an ADS-B transponder anywhere they don't already need a Mode C transponder. That will never fly, pun intended. The vast majority of private pilots will never need ADS-B out, as they don't fly where it matters. There are huge swaths of airspace you can fly in WITHOUT A RADIO, much less a transponder. This is a matter of philosophy: the airspace of the United States belongs to the people, and they should have free use of it. The FAA is only supposed to provide the minimum amount of regulation and oversight to keep everyone safe.

Finally the reason this stuff costs so much is the certification overhead (and the low production numbers). Sure, we could make it cheaper by cutting out certification requirements, but that goes back to my original statement: We'd have to accept lower safety levels. There is a legitimate argument to be made that the current certification regime may not actually result in increased safety, and that maybe it would be better for more aircraft to be equipped with SOMETHING, even if it's not certified, but that will require years of study to determine.

And as a final aside, the costs aren't quite that bad. The company I work for makes a pretty good ADS-B in/out solution for about $4k. You need a compatible transponder, too, but those aren't that bad. And a compatible display if you want TIS-B/FIS-B. Otherwise we have an ADS-B-in only solution that's battery powered and integrated w/ an iOS or Android device for about $600.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Chibi Merrow]

You should look at U.S. Law 112-95 Section 336. In particular, it says to be an RC Plane:

In this section, the term ââmodel aircraftâ(TM)â(TM) means an unmanned aircraft that isâ"
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

This guy doesn't meet those requirements, hence his aircraft is treated as a UAS, and for those the FAA requires individual certification and a LOA.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[Rich0]

In addition, STUFF BREAKS. Your UAS that depends on ADS-B for sense-and-avoid isn't going to see that Bonanza with a transponder failure.

So, require every plane to have 2 of them then, with independent everything. Require them to have fallback to a non-GPS satellite positioning system as well.

And that's all irrelevant anyway, as there is never going to be a requirement (at least probably not in my lifetime) for manned aircraft to have an ADS-B transponder anywhere they don't already need a Mode C transponder. That will never fly, pun intended. The vast majority of private pilots will never need ADS-B out, as they don't fly where it matters. There are huge swaths of airspace you can fly in WITHOUT A RADIO, much less a transponder. This is a matter of philosophy: the airspace of the United States belongs to the people, and they should have free use of it. The FAA is only supposed to provide the minimum amount of regulation and oversight to keep everyone safe.

The problem is that this kind of mindset keeps general aviation (and aviation in general) stuck in the 20s. Why do aircraft spin on turn to final? Well, for starters, because there IS a turn to final - something completely unnecessary if you have the ability to do a precision approach to any runway with an RNAV with traffic awareness.

Of course, it is a sword that cuts both ways, because legally right now you can fly an unmanned drone anywhere in the US, commercial or not, monitored or not. Cite a law or regulation that says otherwise (hint, you can't, which is why a Federal court ruled against the FAA recently in the only case to go to a ruling that I'm aware of) - no, advisory circulars are not laws or regulations.

Sure, we could make it cheaper by cutting out certification requirements, but that goes back to my original statement: We'd have to accept lower safety levels.

Or we could just have the government bless a reference design and sell it for cost, with the manufacturer having no liability for failure (responsibility for quality would rest with the FAA), and other manufacturers would be able to freely manufacture the same design at any price they wish, with no liability as long as they conform to the reference.

The problem with aviation is that the regulations GREATLY lag technology, and the certification requirements drive everybody to openly avoid modernization. Then everything gets grandfathered in, so procedures have to assume that there is a piper cub with no electrical system nearby all the time.

I don't mean to pick on collision avoidance and ADS-B in particular. Problems like this exist all over the aviation industry, especially in general aviation. Cars have had FADEC and automatic transmissions for decades now, the typical training aircraft that costs $100/hr to operate lacks both (indeed even fairly expensive new piston aircraft still tend to lack them).

Sometimes I think the solution to the aviation problem isn't to think about how to allow drones to safely operate in a world of piloted aircraft, but rather to to think about how to allow passenger-carrying aircraft to safely operate in a world of drones.

Re:It's been a lot longer than 2007

[dougmc]

Reading the citation you gave, that definition is for setting the scope of the laws/regulations that the FAA has been ordered to create by Congress. The FAA has not created those laws/regulations yet, so it can't very well enforce them yet.

This may be very important once they've created these regulations ... but they're not there yet.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[ColdWetDog]

Always ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

It is a Hobby

[microcars]

According the IRS if you run a business and don't make a profit, it is considered a HOBBY.

Re:It is a Hobby

[phantomfive]

Doesn't matter how the IRS considers it, it only matters how the FAA considers it. Welcome to the friendly world of bureaucracy, where bunnies hop through the fields and birds fly through the air and nothing can ever get done. Just ask Kafka.

Re:It is a Hobby

[Maxo-Texas]

Lots of non-profits pay their executives salaries between 150,000 and 650,000 dollars. Plus lots of benny's like free gala's every month, travel, etc.

And, just thought of this: Churches are non-profit and make millions or even billions of dollars, their executives travel and drive really nice cars and have plush offices (not to mention owning tons of land).

Re:It is a Hobby

[CrimsonAvenger]

You should actually read your link.

If you INTEND to make a profit, it's a business. Even if you don't actually make a profit.

Re:It is a Hobby

[PRMan]

A typical church of 700 people has an annual budget of around $2 million. Out of that, they have to pay for 5-6 pastors, office staff, janitorial staff, etc. And their bills are huge with electricity, water, printing costs, etc. Nobody's getting rich except for a very small percentage on TV.

Re:It is a Hobby

[KingOfBLASH]

When you have billions of dollars your versions of "hobby" may be very different from what a normal person would do

Re:It is a Hobby

[mysidia]

This is solely for the IRS' purposes, to ensure that you cannot subtract losses related to your non-profitable business, from your other income or inflows into your business: in other words, the IRS "HOBBY" definition is for the purpose of maximizing government tax revenues.

Other regulators are not beholden to their position. IRS Will also reclassify as non-Hobby when it is in their interests to do so.

Re:It is a Hobby

[Frosty Piss]

When you have billions of dollars your versions of "hobby" may be very different from what a normal person would do.

Maybe so, but going back to original post about what the IRS considers a "hobby", a "non-profit" is not the same as a business that makes no money.

Re:It is a Hobby

[KingOfBLASH]

Depends in what sense you use the word.

Re:It is a Hobby

[Frosty Piss]

Depends in what sense you use the word.

No, not to the IRS, and that was the original question.

Re:It is a Hobby

[KingOfBLASH]

Believe it or not in a conversation people do not repeat the same point over and over again. The granchild of a post can legitimately not be talking exactly about what the grandparent was talking about

Re:It is a Hobby

[mmell]

This isn't the IRS. It's the FAA. Their bat, their ball, their rules.

Re:It is a Hobby

[radarskiy]

ITT, separation of powers is bad.

Re:It is a Hobby

[TrollingForHostFiles]

If you really believe
That folks don't repeat
APK's hosts files screeds
Will provide a real treat

BURMA SHAVE

Re:It is a Hobby

[Frosty Piss]

Believe it or not in a conversation people do not repeat the same point over and over again.

Believe it or not, when your initial argument is bullshit, it doesn't change the facts...

Re:It is a Hobby

[Lehk228]

that is to prevent abuse of "business" deduction. I can't declare myself as aspiring professional gamer and take all my steam purchases as business expense deductions, my prother could not call himself a movie critic and take deductions for all his blu ray purchases and netflix account.

Re:It is a Hobby

[KingOfBLASH]

Dear Neckbeard:

Let me introduce you to social skills. Do keep your hands and feet inside for the length of the ride, and keep all questions for the end, mmm-kay?

Oh, and as someone who has started several businesses, I should tell you I do know what I'm talking about at least in regards to the IRS (though in all situations you should consult your own accountant / tax advisor / lawyers and not some guy on slashdot)

The poster, microcars, mentions that the IRS does not let you have a business that doesn't make money just for tax deductions. This prevents me from taking the ridiculous amount of money I spend on, say, photography and trying to create a non-profitable business just to make money. That's because in the past people have said, "Wow, look at all the money I sink into x, if I make it a business I can save money because i'll get tax deductions even if I don't

Non-profitable meaning that the business doesn't actually make any money because it's not profitable. You have 10 years from which you start a business to recoup startup costs once a business becomes profitable. So if, for instance, you keep good records, and you spent five years building a business in your garage, you can go back and get a tax write off for the last five years. Take 12 years to start up a business and, IIRC, the first two years are a "hobby" and the last 10 can be used for write offs. You can, in some instances, take the write off in the year the loss is recorded (but it gets complicated and this is the point you should be contacting your financial advisors), but in NO CASE can you take the write off if your screwing around with computers in your garage is just for fun.

This is to avoid people who have hobbies from trying to scam the tax system. And you can be sure if your business a) does not show a profit b) does not show significant business activity c) involves something like video games, windsurfing, drag racing, scuba, golf, or any other thing people pour gobs of money into for fun, and d) has just one employee, YOU, the IRS will red flag it and take a closer look.

A not-for-profit corporation that is a charity is something completely different.

Follow me so far?

Well your response was downright funny. Made me laugh out loud, although I'm sad to say at this point it was not clever wit.

Because, really, the reason I can't turn a hobby into a business for write offs is money. If I were Bill Gates, I could buy a famous photostudio. They could continue making money for me, and I could suddenly buy and write off thousand dollar cameras. Running the business might be fun for me, even though my career and my money come from somewhere else. Follow?

So knowing all this, and because we're joking, the NATURAL response for me would be to joke in response.

As we were joking, you could have kept up the joke. You know, to be FRIENDLY, like?

Micro: The IRS calls anything that's not profitable a hobby.
Pissy: Like Bill Gates' charity?
Me: Heheh. Guess rich people have different version of hobbies then us.
Pissy: Yeah if I were that rich I'd totally buy up a series of brothels and casinos in vegas and be the one in the QA dept.

See now I might respond, and we'd get a conversation going. That's how it works with normal people.

Instead, you keep blathering on like an idiot, and it's really funny because Micro was indeed correct. Instead you're so focused on being RIGHT (what exactly do you think you're going to be right about anyways?) you insist on pissing me off and keeping this going.

Maybe next time reconsider your response. It also might make the discussions on slashdot more lively. It seems these days every child or grandchild thread is a jackass, which kills conversation, and frankly my enjoyment of said site.

END PSA.

Re:It is a Hobby

[Maxo-Texas]

True for individual churches and smaller independent churches.

Not so true for the larger denominations which can have budgets running in the hundreds of millions to billions.

For example, the mormon's recently purchased and will operate several tens of thousands of farmland as a tax advantaged church business. And they have a really plush HQ. It's similar for the catholics and other large orders.

SAR

[EmperorOfCanada]

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.

Re:SAR

[sribe]

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.

Interesting. That's not at all the case where I live, so my perspective is completely opposite yours. Probably good for both of us to be reminded that the attitude of local SAR is going to be extremely variable across regions...

Re:SAR

[Antique Geekmeister]

Most SAR types aren't in it just for the money. They actually do want to help. Saving money on much slower, wasted search time leaves far more resources for prevention and better equipment for when rescues for people, not just lost corpses, is still possible.

Human guidance is still needed because mathematics cannot reveal "it looks like there was a campground there, where did someone doing that get wood and water? where would they have seen light or sought shelter" without a lot more data and intelligence than a drone can provide, and without coordinating with ground based personnel who can look inside shelter.

Re:SAR

[AK Marc]

The SAR types I know want amateurs out of the way because looking for one guy lost often ends up looking for 15 lost people. If he can help with demonstrably zero risk to himself, I don't know an SAR type that would be against it at all. They would just make sure he's lost next if he found the lost person and went directly to the private news helicopter with the information, rather than involving SAR.

Re:SAR

[AK Marc]

You'd find hundreds of deer and no humans?

Re:SAR

[ColdWetDog]

Local attitude is local. News at 11.

10:00 where I live.

Re:SAR

[EmperorOfCanada]

In my area I don't think the local SAR have found anyone alive in years. Either they turn up themselves, or they turn up dead. But I bet that they have kick as safety briefings, training sessions, and paternalistic "we know what we are doing better than you civilians" crap.

Basically what I see with drones is not a few remote controlled toys with a camera but a flock of fast flying drones that are given hints as to where to look and fly at some optimal level over the trees looking for things that are interesting. Then slower quad copter drones then fly in to take a look at the interesting things such as deer, bears, and whatnot. Then if someone is found they are identified as either the lost person or a searcher. If the lost person is found, a heavy quad copter could fly in with some quick and dirty supplies including comm. Then the humans would go straight to the person, not only using an efficient route but one that was mapped out by the drones.

Keep in mind that a drone can use a nice combination of humans back at the base combines with cool sensors. They can look for colors that don't belong in the forest, the smell of sweat (a Vietnam war technology), infra red, things that look like people, etc. Then these images can be relayed back to base for verification. (Nope that is a sleeping bobcat, not a lost child).

If anything a bunch of humans tramping about might slow the drones down.

Re:SAR

[mikael]

You mean like Magdalena Glinkowski, who went hiking up into the Mt. Tamalpais when the weather forecast was 90% chance of rain?

http://napavalley.patch.com/gr...

This is only the beginning

[ThatAblaze]

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.

Re:This is only the beginning

[PPH]

This. And large windmills are already required to be equipped with anti-collision lights and, if large enough, be included on air navigation charts, NOTAMS, etc.

Your drone has to navigate within the constraints of existing marking and mapping regulations and right-of-way rules.

Re:This is only the beginning

[ThatAblaze]

Awesome. Looks like I'll be using old jet engines to keep drones off my property in the future. Suck them up and sell em for scrap.

Didn't you get the memo? Drones are for killing...

[aristotle-dude]

The government wants to be the only group with drones and they like to use them for spying and killing rather than saving lives.

Not just an RC Plane

[timeOday]

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

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.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[Anonymous Coward]

RC planes with FPV cameras mounted on them are far easier to fly, and thus safer. And keeping them in line of sight certainly does not stop them from going outside of radio range. It is good practice to have a slight curve to flights in case of radio loss or going out of range. The plane will slowly turn back into range eventually.

I highly suggest you go out and try one at any local meetup. RC people are friendly and it could give you perspective on what they, and little drones, are really like.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[Opportunist]

Let's ponder for a moment... which one is probably going to be flown higher off the ground: A drone that aims to find something on the ground or an RC glider that aims to stay in the air as long as it can?

If the FAA is afraid of drones getting in the way of planes due to their flight level, they should probably be more concerned with model planes.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[Kaenneth]

It's all well and good until it collides with a manned SAR Helicopter, killing a few paramedics...

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[fyngyrz]

You don't want an rc plane anyway. You want an rc quadcopter or hexcopter. Able to hover perfectly stable at any assigned altitude, able to carry cameras and sensors that aren't streamlined without seriously affecting the flight profile, still have decent OTG speeds for this kind of application, able to go down *between* trees if there's just a little room and it has a decent camera system, good complement of nav/running lamps, etc.

The *last* thing I'd want to go hunting for something would be an rc plane or unstabilized heli.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[timeOday]

Quadcopters don't have the range, speed, or flight duration for SAR.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[fyngyrz]

Nonsense. Quads are ideal for turning one person into a center of a decent radius search at a rate much higher than can be done alone. Duration is as long as you have a pocket full of batteries and a vehicle (anything... a 4x4 or a dirt bike will do) available to charge them, which could be days at a time. My quad can hit just under a hundred, so it's way faster than it needs to be for any sensible perception of what you (or it) is looking at. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been out on hunts for people many times here in Montana, and I can tell you if I'd had the quad then, I'd have a much better idea of what was around me, a lot sooner. Many searches are of relatively small areas, and often by small groups. Anything that helps... helps!

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[Spiked_Three]

you have no idea what you are talking about. Butt out while you can. This dude has been doing it for a while, last I read I think he had located 11 deceased children, and he uses a wing. How's your quad record?

Quad's do not have the range, period. It is common sense, called glide.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[BitZtream]

No, they don't Quads (and hexas' and octos) are the most inefficient models in existence. They are only popular because they are mechanically simple WITH MODERN ELECTRONICS. You can not fly a quad without computer augmentation.

I have 1 quad, 3 helicopters, and one Fixed wing sea plane. The quad is the lightest of them all, flies about 15 minutes with, range of 5km, with 8200mah of batteries. Thats 5k out and back, at full speed, no hover, and thats pushing it. More battery will actually reduce the flight time. I've pushed it as far as this particular model is going to go.

My seaplane has about an hour of time on a 2100mah battery at 60 knots. I haven't bothered to carry more battery with it, though its entirely possible that more battery might lower the flight time. That includes a rise-off-water takeoff, which is only second in energy use to the seaplane taking off from wet grass. Its a seaplane, but a highly efficient design of my own thats much more like a sailplane than a standard powered fixed wing aircraft.

The helis I use for aerobatics mostly, but they fall somewhere in between with the 4200mah battery, I've never bothered to push them as I've got them setup for 3D (inverted, tic-toks, ect) so they aren't exactly in an 'efficient' configuration, just hi performance.

ALL of them carry a Sony AS-15 ActionCam with its water poof holder, and all but the quad carry the cameras on gimbals, the gimbal and camera are completely exposed. The quad doesn't have a gimbal yet.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[BitZtream]

My Quad (and my 3 helis and 1 seaplane) all weigh less than the birds these aircraft are designed to deal with.

A goose is far more dangerous than what this guy flies. I doubt you could actually fly one of his 'flying wing's into a helicopter fuselage because the down draft from the main rotor would most likely force it under the heli even if they came at each other head on at full speed.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[thegarbz]

20min vs multi-hour flight times. You do not want to use quads for search and rescue unless the search area is VERY small.

Search and rescue is not about flying down in between trees or careful manoeuvring, it's about flying high and getting an areal view of any signs of life. As for your definition of "decent search radius" in the reply below, a person can walk out of linear range of a quadrocopter in about 2 hours, and that's not taking into account moving back and forward or searching a grid.

Typical search areas are in the orders of hundreds of square km. You'll be there all year with your quad searching that area.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[BitZtream]

In my case, one of my drones IS a sailplane with a camera and gimbal mounted so I can pan and tilt to take photos of the ground while in level flight.

In any case, the problem is that the FAA lets me fly these aircraft legally ... taking pictures to post on my blog ... and its legal ... but if I even GIVE the picture to someone who uses it commercially (with my knowledge) ... THAT is illegal.

The rules are otherwise the same. Both must remain in line of sight, and both MUST remain under 400 feet AGL, as well as many other little rules related to how close it can be to an active airport/helipad and buildings or people.

It has nothing to do with safety. Its just retarded.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[Opportunist]

The part with airport/heliport actually does make sense, doesn't it?

Below 400 feet on the other hand is simply bull. How the heck should you know? I don't know about your RC planes, but mine don't come with an altimeter. Though IIRC they just recently outlawed areal pics around here unless you have a license for them. Privacy concerns... yeah, no kidding, that is the official reason. Even though you already must not fly RC planes in residential areas. So whose privacy could you violate? The ducks in the pond next to our RC "airfield"?

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[fyngyrz]

They are only popular because they are mechanically simple WITH MODERN ELECTRONICS. You can not fly a quad without computer augmentation.

Yes, and? I didn't suggest attempting this with obsolete, unstable old hardware. I really don't see your point. Quads with camera mounts and "modern electronics" (meaning GPS, compass, active pitch control/tilt sensors, altimeter, rock solid XYZ hover with no control input, auto-return) start at about $470. They get even better from there. A trunk full of them is within the budget of almost any S/R group with the willingness to stand in intersections for a day or so with hats and signboards out. Or courtesy of one or two kind benefactors. First thing I did after flying my first one was pull my jaw off the ground and go right back and buy the rest they had in stock. Had to be done, really.

I can take one up, hover it, take a stable high resolution image, move it, take another stable high resolution image, etc. This means even when it's getting dark, I have better detail -- and lower noise -- because I don't have to have such fast exposures. Bring it back (no landing strip required), swap quads and go back out on the next radial, while the crew pops a new battery into the just-returned unit, repeat every ten-fifteen minutes or so, and keep doing that while the images are checked over carefully. Out on one radial, in on the next. Full circle till you repo to the next GPS indexed location. Works great.

Gimbals... the quad can spin in place. While hovering in an extremely stable manner, for that matter, or spinning/panning while working through any set of heights I choose. Be nice to just have a tilt control. More weight. It's really not seriously limiting, nothing like that yet. Should try it though. Tilting the quad itself isn't really possible without it moving, or at least, not the ones I'm using.

While the range/duration would be wonderful, fixed wing requires far too much for this area -- your seaplane is great in some ways, but there's no body of water around here worth talking about for the vast majority of the area. There's nowhere to land. Nowhere to take off. "Wet grass takeoff"? Grass? How about rocks and cactus and nasty, sticky sand? Kind of puts a crimp in fixed wing efforts. Quad simply doesn't care. Put it down (on a rock, on your 4x4 or snowmobile, or just open your hand), up it goes, and you're off and hunting.

Then there are the badlands. Even worse. Not only is there no water, nowhere to take off, nowhere to land, the bloody ground wants to break you -- it's unstable everywhere, either collapsing under you or falling on top of you. Which is part of why people get stuck out there in the first place (wish to heck they just wouldn't go.) With a FW, how do you work down a twisty arroyo that's too complex to follow at speed, and too deep to get a camera angle into because you can't stay over it long enough to make it count? I can just go there and drop right into it and work it right along at whatever rate is convenient. Success? Pop-up and strobe. Awesome.

Battery reload is not the critical issue when you can see better, navigate better, have a more stable platform, get looks into places like arroyos and caves and under-hangs and under trees and bushes that would otherwise completely block your view, and remain on station instead of having to fly by repeatedly when it's called for. You can hover and think instead of getting further from a point of interest with every moment. Battery reload is nothing. You bring em back, instantly take another one off, while that one is reloaded, charge packs as required, no problem. Preparation is key, of course -- but it certainly isn't a problem or even a challenge. You still get essentially 99% active search time without overlap -- or underlap. I throw a trunk in, grab my crew, and go.

Aerobatics... that's an interesting undertaking, but not relevant for my use. Although I've seen people do some crazy things with quads, my own interest is strictl

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[fyngyrz]

How's your quad record?

Not nearly as good (or nearly as long.) No dead kids. One live and very stupid adult (ten hours), a lost cow. about 15 minutes, poor thing was stuck in a mudhole --- getting it out was a lot more challenging than finding it, and two dogs, one of which was seriously snakebit and down hard, but survived. They were both pretty hard to find. Size matters. And yes, this is all pretty new to me. Which is not to say it's not worthy. It's rewarding as all get out.

Quad's do not have the range, period.

You can cover a square km -- which is a *lot* of area -- perfectly with a pair of quads in rotation, regardless of terrain, with 99% uptime and plenty of reserves using some very simple procedures. Move 1km, repeat. It's reasonably efficient, and the search is much more fine grained -- it's almost impossible to miss something of reasonable size, those dogs notwithstanding. More below; see the other replies. I don't feel like explaining all this twice.

It is common sense, called glide.

You know what glide is? It's continuous motion, which loses detail, requires faster cameras for the same quality image (higher shutter speed, higher ISO), and raises the noise level in lower light. You know what glide requires? Height. You know what too much height does? Reduces detail. And that's not even all of the issues. You see, it's not that obvious after all. The task is to find, not just to fly long distances. When distance methodologies compromise seeing, as they tend to do, other options offer useful compromises.

You'd be a lot better off asking questions than you are pooh-poohing without knowing what you're talking about. Of course, this *is* slashdot, sigh.

Re:Not just an RC Plane

[Spiked_Three]

Again, results. The guy with the wing has them, you with your quad do not.

Now I do know the guy who sends up a red on an octo fitted with infared in bad weather. So there are some special cases when a multi rotor might be more appropriate, but day to day SAR, no, not even in the ballpark. If altitude is a problem you put something other than a POS GoPro on it. You arent trying to find anything real time anyhow. Actually, never mind. I'm starting to doubt you have ever done anything real, just your imagination.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[geekmux]

Always ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

Ask for a lawsuit rather than permission.

There we go. Fixed that for the 21st century litigious society we live in.

Ignorance will cost you in the world we live in today. Wise up.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[mlyle]

Yah, that's not a great move vs. a civil regulator like the FAA or FCC.

He has a pilot certificate that they can revoke; they can impose civil (not criminal) fines of tens of thousands of dollars before an administrative law judge, where there's no standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (only preponderance of the evidence).

Re:Fuck the FAA

[selectspec]

Amen

Regulations prohibit, not allow

[WoodstockJeff]

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.

Re:Regulations prohibit, not allow

[mmell]

Not legal. Compliant with regulation. There's a difference. The FAA doesn't pass bills or sign them into law. They establish regulations, a very different process.

That such regulations tend to carry the force of law is irrelevant.

Re:Regulations prohibit, not allow

[JoeMerchant]

I believe their major malfunction centers on "sense and avoid" - that's the standard for human piloted aircraft and they want drones to do it before they turn them loose.

Problem is, drones range in size from gnats to 707s, and there's absolutely no standardization of sense and avoid tech that works, or even has a chance of working across the spectrum of players.

Re:Regulations prohibit, not allow

[BitZtream]

Then why is my UAV legal when I use it for taking pictures of my city for a blog, but illegal if I take a picture for a real estate agent?

Thats the difference. Nothing else changes but who gets the picture, and the legality is completely different suddenly.

Re:Regulations prohibit, not allow

[BitZtream]

I'm fully aware of the rules, I've been doing this for 20 years, and I do it commercially, and have since long before the FAA decided to classify it as illegal for me to do so in 2007. I don't need a autopilot to fly around and take some pictures with a fixed wing aircraft or heli, only quads/hexas/octos REQUIRE stabilization to stay in the air. I've even got 3 million in liability coverage if anything goes wrong.

And no, amazon, netflix and red box will never be delivering with drones, if you knew anything about the range and payload, you'd understand why the whole Amazon drone commercial was a retarded joke.

Please don't try to tell me about this, I've forgotten more since starting this message than you know about it.

Government Monopoly

[theshowmecanuck]

The government/NSA doesn't want it's monopoly on aerial observation and spying infringed upon.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[sir-gold]

All this guy has to do is wait for the next missing person to show up dead from exposure/injury, and then go to the local paper saying "I could have saved this person, but the FAA wouldn't let me"

Using the FAA's flawed logic...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

Re:Using the FAA's flawed logic...

[DaMattster]

In fact, if your radio controlled aircraft is operating on HAM bands then you can probably, successfully argue emergency and disaster assistance. I know because I am a General-class HAM radio operator.

Re:Using the FAA's flawed logic...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The frequency you use to communicate with the drone have little to do with it. It's the actual activity being performed by the drone and if the drone is of sufficient size it is still falls under to jurisdiction of the FAA. The FCC only regulates the radio communication portion. Congrats on your license. I'm an extra class former section manager of ARRL myself.

Re:Using the FAA's flawed logic...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

BTW my answer in no way reflects the opinions of the ARRL which I haven't been a part of in quite a while. Just saying congrats from an old and experienced ham.

Re:Using the FAA's flawed logic...

[mmell]

Good thing the FCC doesn't use the FAA's logic, huh?

Re:Fuck the FAA

[DaMattster]

Well said! Fuck the FAA and fuck most of the federal government too. Many of those pea-brained morons couldn't make it in the real world anyhow.

Canada's allowed it for years.

[davecb]

Same rules as non-commercial, plus you must register and find out any local rules.

Shut him down why now?

[bjwest]

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?

Re:Shut him down why now?

[spiritplumber]

In countries that base themselves in English common law, since never. Looks like the FAA didn't get the memo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Re:Ummm, what about the delivery drones?

[craighansen]

Under the regulations (or lack of regulations) under which this guy is being shut down, drone package delivery would certainly be considered a commercial activity and ruled to be illegal. Amazon's drone program is clearly dependent upon a change of regulation to be viable.

I'm not at all clear how this is to be considered a commercial activity. It isn't commerce in the sense of money changing hands between the service provider and the beneficial recepient. It isn't commerce in the sense of operating for profit. The only basis I can imagine is that it's because it has a _purpose_, it's not just flying around for the f**k of it. Consequently, if it has a beneficial purpose, it has a reason to be allowed, and therefore it needs to be ruled illegal, so that it won't get in the way of having the FAA make whatever regulations they please. It's my tax dollars being wasted in the worst way.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[AK Marc]

I'd expect that he'd get community support of the fine or greater, should it come to that. I would continue to operate and document the FAA's case for them, plead not guilty and admit it in open court. Then go to the public with the FAA's stupidity and ask for public support. That type of civil disobedience has worked before. It would work again, for a good cause (like someone trying to follow the rules, but the rules not existing to follow, and the FAA spending more time persecuting search and rescue workers than writing rules so that he can follow them). A $10,000 fine? He'd have that raised in an hour, once his prosecution went wide-spread.

Re:Didn't you get the memo? Drones are for killing

[formfeed]

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.)

Re:Ummm, what about the delivery drones?

[spiritplumber]

I get around this by using wheelchair-sized "tanks" (they used to be tanks, now they have wheels to look less scary) to do my deliveries. Have since 2010.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[ComputersKai]

Maybe the government should take a look at their own drone safety record.
But anyways, I highly doubt the FAA will step in for legal action if he could potentially aid the search for missing children. Unless they are utterly ignorant bureaucrats, even they wouldn't want to face the public backlash and outrage.
Then again, if you look at the NSA, government agencies don't always care about public opinion, regardless of how badly their reputation is damaged.

Re:Didn't you get the memo? Drones are for killing

[ComputersKai]

Tell him also that you are searching for "potential target" in the fashion of a special ops agent in a 1900s movie.

Protecting Raytheon & Friends

[topham]

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.

Odd, it would be quite the opposite in my country

[Opportunist]

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.

If I were Gene Robinson...

[Bartles]

...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.

Re:If I were Gene Robinson...

[mmell]

They can't arrest you, and they won't have you arrested by the police (at least, I don't think they will) - but they will certainly see to it you never get a pilot's certificate as well as fining you out of existence. Good luck with getting around that - you can't even discharge the debt in bankruptcy. Welcome to economic serfdom!

Re:If I were Gene Robinson...

[Bartles]

I wonder if the FAA has snipers like the BLM.

The FAA has no authority over low flying drones

[Karmashock]

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.

Re:The FAA has no authority over low flying drones

[mpe]

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.

You'd typically find aircraft operating down to zero feet at or near airports. Also aircraft performing things such as powerline surveys and firefighting can be flying very low. So there might be cause for concern. But obviously not a big worry if the FAA has effectivly sat on this for several years.

Re:The FAA has no authority over low flying drones

[Karmashock]

We're not talking about the area immediately around airfields.

And as to low flying airplanes... that is correct... the FAA does not have authority there.

Do understand, you can apply additional regulations at the state level if you want.

But why would you want to do it? The point of the FAA is to keep commercial airliners from crashing into each other. Beyond that they really don't have a place in anything.

Re:The FAA has no authority over low flying drones

[BitZtream]

The FAA has control of the airway. Full stop. 0 to infinite above US soil. Wherever you found this 700 feet number, someone made it up.

I once held a private pilots license and leased a cessna ... I don't think it would MAKE IT to 10k feet, I certainly would NEVER want to be there since my cessna would do just under 100kts or so in fast cruise and 10k feet and above is reserved for 250kts or more on IFR rules. I typically flew at a 2-5k, and my aircraft wasn't ALLOWED to be there as it didn't have the right equipment.

Please stop talking out your ass, it stinks.

Re:The FAA has no authority over low flying drones

[Karmashock]

Class G airspace.

Explain why I'm wrong?

Because I'm pretty sure people that use hang gliders don't need pilot's licenses.

As to 10k feet... I said 700 feet. Could your plane go above 700 feet?

I'm going to ignore that last bit of rudeness at the end of your post and just give you an opportunity to respond. Please do so with more civility.

FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[drkim]

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...

Re:FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me correct one misunderstanding, Commercial Drones ARE legal in the US and the FAA isn't disputing that. What they are saying is you NEED AN FAA LICENSE if you want to fly one. Most people are not willing to go through the flight training and cockpit hours to get the license just to fly a drone.

The FAA is introducing a drone license in 2015. So basically this entire discussion is based on incorrect information.

Re:FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[radarskiy]

if you are saying specifically that the drone license is needed, then requiring a license that doesn't exist yet is indistinguishable prohibiting the licensed activity.

If you are saying that some pilot license is needed and there will be a drone specific license coming, then there is no reason to block Gene Robinson's activity because is is already a licensed pilot .

Re:FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[Rich0]

Commercial Drones ARE legal in the US and the FAA isn't disputing that. What they are saying is you NEED AN FAA LICENSE if you want to fly one.

And the court ruled that you don't, regardless of the FAA's claims, because the FAA never properly issued a rule.

I was curious and looked up the regulations around drones. There aren't any. They say that recreational drones have to stay under 400 ft and within line-of-sight, but the only documentation of this is an advisory circular. An advisory circular is just that - "advice." It has no legal weight at all. The US Code of Federal Regulations and the laws passed by Congress are the only rules that are legally enforceable (let's leave out executive orders and signing statements and all that stuff, which is dubious and not relevant here). If the FAA wants to actually create rules they have to publish the proposed rules, seek comments, and then make final rules using a standard process. The whole point is to give the public a say in anything that has the force of law, and if they try to do something really crazy Congress could always overrule them during the comment period. You can't just unilaterally issue some circular and force people to follow it.

Re:FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[BitZtream]

No, the court made no such ruling.

The court ruled that you can't classify RC aircraft as UAVs just because they are being used for commercial purposes. Otherwise a balsa glider you buy at the gas station and paper airplanes as well as a pop fly in a baseball game would ALSO could be considered UAVs and banned. Judges words, not mine.

Actually read the damn article if you're going to talk about it like you know what it says.

Re:FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[Rich0]

The court ruled, "It is concluded that, as Complainant: has not issued an enforceable FAR regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of aircraft by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance with the guidance expressed in AC 91-57, Respondent's model, aircraft operation was not subject to FAR regulation, and enforcement,"

That is what I said, "I was curious and looked up the regulations around drones. There aren't any." You can fly model aircraft however you like generally free of Federal restriction. If you destroy an airliner with one you might be responsible for vandalism, murder, criminal negligence, and so on, because all of those things are laws or torts already, to the extent that a court decides you were at fault.

You claimed, "What they are saying is you NEED AN FAA LICENSE if you want to fly one." They're saying that, but it isn't legally binding. If you want to assert that it is, then you'll need to cite a law or regulation that says so. The fact that they issued an order to a company telling them to cease and desist and they complied does not mean that the FAA actually had the authority they claim. I can send you a letter telling you not to leave your house, and you can choose to stay inside, but that doesn't mean that it had any weight of law.

Re:FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[drkim]

The court ruled, "It is concluded that, as Complainant: has not issued an enforceable FAR regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation...

You are correct. There is a difference, a legal difference, between FAA issuing 'policy' and 'position' papers, and passing actual rules.
They tried to fine this poor guy $10,000, and the court tossed it out saying the FAA had not (and still have not) passed a rule that carries the force of law.

Re:FAA loses: Commercial Drones Are Legal

[recharged95]

And the FAA reinstated their guidelines soon after and is appealing. So we're back to a month ago.

Smart move, loser.

[westlake]

Always ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

How often has that strategy ended in a geek pleading guilty to a felony charge?

Re:Smart move, loser.

[St.Creed]

Always ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

How often has that strategy ended in a geek pleading guilty to a felony charge?

I'd say that would be pretty much in every case forgiveness was not forthcoming. Several people in jail, some dead now. Yeah, the results of that type of INDIVIDUAL action aren't pretty...

However, one can seek publicity and organize. You can't jail 10.000 people out of hand (in the USA).

Re:Smart move, loser.

[buybuydandavis]

But jailing the leaders and organizers is enough.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[MrBigInThePants]

"Unless they are utterly ignorant bureaucrats"

and from the article

"...they haven't designed regulations to deal with situations like this, even though they've been working on it since 2007."

Seem a connection between those two statements yet??

Commercial drones are forbidden

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Commercial drones are forbidden

[mpe]

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.

The point is that what this guy was doing in no way fits the definition of "commercial".

So say it's non-commercial.

[Max Threshold]

Say it's a personal quest for fame and glory.

Re:What gives them the right?

[Bartles]

Then that flight would fall under the interstate commerce clause. The other flights would not.

Drones are still too dumb

[Animats]

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.

Re:Drones are still too dumb

[mpe]

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.

Unless drones were to start flying in large numbers of "flocks" they are unlikely to be as big a hazard to aircraft as birds.

Re:Drones are still too dumb

[Rich0]

The main thing preventing drone operators from using transponders is the FAA - I believe that transponders are required to be TSOed and that makes them REALLY expensive. As radio devices they can only be operated as licensed and I think that some of the rules for ADS-B transmitters basically require them to be assigned to a registered plane and permanently attached.

If regulations were relaxed or the FAA put in a bulk order for transponders there is no reason that you couldn't build them for $100, making them very practical for drones. For various reasons the FAA doesn't even require manned aircraft to have transponders (no gov'ment man gonna force me to put a battery in my cropduster!).

Re:Drones are still too dumb

[SysPig]

The FAA jurisdiction over RC aircraft within 5 miles of an airport only applies during IFR conditions. VFR - they can't do shit.

Re:Drones are still too dumb

[russotto]

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).

Many model aircraft can get above 500ft AGL. It's not a real problem getting them up there, it's a problem controlling them once they're up there if you're watching from the ground. Thus, "first person view" drones.

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 AMA is a bunch of irrelevant old retired guys; their main thrust is to convince municipalities it is too dangerous to allow anyone to fly model aircraft unless they have the AMA seal of approval, which they'll grant you (for a fee) if you're an old retired guy willing to fly your plane in a predefined pattern all day. They hate First Person View because they think it violates the purity of the hobby or something, and a lot of them object to anything that's not fixed-wing.

I suspect most people flying model aircraft in the US haven't heard of them; certainly few enough are members.

Re:Drones are still too dumb

[Rich0]

There is no need for Mode S in the age of ADS-B. It is unnecessarily complex, being first and foremost a radar transponder. It makes far more sense to use a protocol that does not interact with the ground station (it just broadcasts). And yes, I know that most airliners implement ADS-B via Mode S.

As far as cheap being faulty/bogus, that is only because of the regulatory structure. There is nothing that a position beacon must do that a cell phone doesn't do, and those are cheap (even feature phones interact with GSM towers and can broadcast their positions).

The whole point is to reform the regulatory structure and simplify it, not to simply require drones to abide by rules that evolved in the day of planes that didn't even have radios. Why have "standard radio rules" designed around humans talking to controllers when two computers can negotiate a clearance with two packets that last a few milliseconds each? Why have separation standards designed for radar (error of a mile or so) when all the aircraft broadcast their position accurate to within a few feet and can understand each others positions far better than a human controller?

We've turned airspace into an unnecessarily scarce commodity.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[ColdWetDog]

The police are allowed to use UAVs for any number of purposes many of which are questionable in my humble opinion. Does the FAA ruling affect them? No. Thought as much.

I would imagine so. Police helicopters still have to follow FAA flight rules. Yes, they get exemptions for things, but they are covered by regulations nonetheless.

Re:upside down, back to front world

[ColdWetDog]

A natural law? Ok, what is it and why is it 'natural'?

Re:Fuck the FAA

[mmell]

He's trying to avoid being led to the slaughter. Not sheeplike, IMHO.

Re:upside down, back to front world

[fyngyrz]

Well, with respect to r/c search flyers, one of 'em is "gravity." :)

And unfortunately...

[mmell]

Until the FAA (a government organization) addresses this issue directly, their edict is essentially the law of the land. Spare me the flamewar about how the FAA can't enact laws - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

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.

Re:And unfortunately...

[BitZtream]

Considering the only court case on the issue did not go in the FAA's favor ... and the judge basically said you have no right to ban this operation completely, case dismissed ... The FAA does NOT get to rule the land, duck or platypus.

Re:And unfortunately...

[mmell]

Courts often rule laws unconstitutional, striking them down; hence, your observation (while technically correct) is meaningless. The courts have not ruled on the FAA's ability to make such rules, merely on the legality of them. I therefore reiterate - if it looks like a duck...

Finding it hard to grasp

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Odd, it would be quite the opposite in my count

[fyngyrz]

curious: where is "over here"?

We are the United States.

[mmell]

We used to be These United States.

Arrest is just the start

[fyngyrz]

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.

That's just FUD...

[mmell]

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.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[sumdumass]

If the FAA doesn't have rules on it, they are not or should not be allowed to regulate it. The entire concept of freedom in the US is that we are free to do whatever unless a law stops us or we encroach on others freedoms. It is not that we have to look to some government authority for permission when they have nothing banning or barring it.

At least one court thinks the same too That article will probably explain it better then I can.

FAA dont know the difference between athority over

[ralphaostrander]

Real planes and toys.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[Spiked_Three]

wow - I expected a few of you to know what has been going on.

The FAA fined someone $10,000 not long ago. His lawyer filed a motion to dismiss. The administrative judge you name, indicated the FAA has no current authority to do dick (pirker vs. FAA).

The FAA has appealed, but at the moment, the ruling is The FAA doesn't have dick. Even with the appeal, because of how the ruling is written (somewhat intentionally I ber), the stay from appeal also means the FAA doesn't have dick.

If the FAA thinks they are going to force a humanitarian effort with support of local law enforcement to cease in order to extend their dick, guess what is going to get stepped on?

Re:FAA Didn't get the Memo?

[radarskiy]

Different federal court district.

Re:FAA Didn't get the Memo?

[Spiked_Three]

well, it's still in an appeals process, so I wouldnt say decided, but at the moment the FAA is on the losing side for sure.

Re:FAA Didn't get the Memo?

[Spiked_Three]

hot off the press - like 10 minutes ago; http://www.suasnews.com/2014/0... includes a link to the faa appeal

Re:Why do people still want to live in America?

[tepples]

In what country should people seek a work visa instead?

Wickard v. Filburn

[tepples]

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.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[BitZtream]

The FAA has lost the only court case on this matter they've fought. Its hard to think they've got the force of the legal system behind them when the only thing its done for them is throw their fine out the window and tell them they can't fine people without providing some sort of option to be legal OR logical reason that its illegal.

If they were to revoke his private license, they'd be in one hell of a shit storm, you can't revoke licenses for unrelated things regardless of how much you want to twist it.

The FAA is not god, they don't rule the air, they regulate it, and they've been beat down already for being useless douches.

Just because Boeing wants to use the FAA to ensure that no one other than multi-billion dollar companies can create UAVs doesn't mean that it will actually work out that way.

Equusearch is a non-profit organization

[RogueWarrior65]

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.

Re:Equusearch is a non-profit organization

[BitZtream]

Non-profit does not mean non-commercial in the legal sense, and the FAA regulations specifically state non-commercial vs commercial.

Re:Ummm, what about the delivery drones?

[craighansen]

Yep - that's about the logic I was expecting - if he was flying just for "hobby and recreation" it would be OK, but because he's doing it for a beneficial purpose, it doesn't qualify for that automatic exemption. I noticed that the FAA letter said it didn't matter whether he was flying line-of-sight or not.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[Mr.CRC]

Well it's not going to be that way much longer. The "concept of freedom" isn't understood or valued except for "my freedom to get what I want paid for by someone else."

The people, including most on this liberally biased forum, demand that the government give them whatever they want.

The consequence is that the government can do to them whatever it wants.

And they never grasp the connection.

It will eventually come to blows.

And what follows will be even worse.

Not the same

[RonBurk]

>more dangerous than what goes on every weekend at RC modeling sites
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.

Re:Gov Control

[RonBurk]

May I come to your local airport and shoot off my model rockets when your children are in a plane that's on short final?

Re:Fuck the FAA

[Applehu Akbar]

The federosaurus: all hat and, as we saw today in Nevada, no cattle.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[russotto]

The FAA has lost the only court case on this matter they've fought.

It's worse than that. Not only did they lose the case, they lost it in their own administrative courts. But of course they can force everyone else go to through the exact same long and expensive process because there's no cost to them for doing so.

Re:FAA Didn't get the Memo?

[russotto]

They tried to use 91.13(a) in the earlier case which they lost (in their own courts). In this case it was just "As I have told you before, UAS operations that are not authorized violate part 91(and some others) and hence are illegal."

I want everyone to remember, why they need us!

[buybuydandavis]

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?...

Re:Fuck the FAA

[buybuydandavis]

The entire concept of freedom in the US is that we are free to do whatever unless a law stops us or we encroach on others freedoms. It is not that we have to look to some government authority for permission when they have nothing banning or barring it.

Where's can I buy a bus ticket to your fantasy land?

In the real world, they'll fuck you even after they've given you permission. Because fuck you, that's why.

Re:Fuck the FAA

[buybuydandavis]

Maybe the government should take a look at their own drone safety record.

Silly goose, their drones are *supposed* to kill people.