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.'"
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.
Always ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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).
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.
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 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...
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.
Same rules as non-commercial, plus you must register and find out any local rules.
davecb@spamcop.net
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
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.
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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!
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.)
The federosaurus: all hat and, as we saw today in Nevada, no cattle.