Slashdot Mirror


Drone Search and Rescue Operation Wins Fight Against FAA

An anonymous reader writes: Back in February, officials at the Federal Aviation Administration told a Texas search-and-rescue team they couldn't use drones help locate missing persons. The team, which is called EquuSearch, challenged the FAA in court. On Friday, the court ruled (PDF) in favor of EquuSearch, saying the FAA's directive was "not a formal cease-and-desist letter representing the agency's final conclusion." EquuSearch intends to resume using the drones immediately. This puts the FAA in the position of having to either initiate formal proceedings against EquuSearch, which is clearly operating to the benefit of society (as opposed to purely commercial drone use), or to revisit and finalize its rules for small aircraft entirely. The latter would be a lengthy process because "Congress has delegated rule making powers to its agencies, but the Administrative Procedures Act requires the agencies to provide a public notice and comment period first."

5 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. comments are now underway on just this issue by Todd+Palin · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can visit the FAA comment site to comment on proposed rule changes that address this issue. The comment period ends on July 25. The proposed rules will cripple drone use by civilians and also cripple most RC aircraft operations in the USA. The proposal is simply draconian. Check it out:
    http://www.regulations.gov/#!d...

    1. Re:comments are now underway on just this issue by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would also be a big help to send a copy of your comments to your congressional representative. This is especially true if your representative serves on the Aviation Committee that oversees the FAA. These are the members:

      Republicans
      Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey, Chairman
      Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
      Howard Coble, North Carolina
      John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
      Sam Graves, Missouri
      Blake Farenthold, Texas
      Larry Bucshon, Indiana
      Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania
      Richard L. Hanna, New York
      Daniel Webster, Florida
      Jeff Denham, California
      Reid J. Ribble, Wisconsin
      Thomas Massie, Kentucky
      Steve Daines, Montana
      Roger Williams, Texas
      Mark Meadows, North Carolina
      Rodney Davis, Illinois, Vice Chair
      Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, (ex officio)

      Democrats
      Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
      Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
      Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
      Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts
      Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
      Steve Cohen, Tennessee
      André Carson, Indiana
      Richard M. Nolan, Minnesota
      Dina Titus, Nevada
      Sean Patrick Maloney, New York
      Cheri Bustos, Illinois
      Corrine Brown, Florida
      Elizabeth H. Esty, Connecticut
      Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, (ex officio)

      It will be much easier to stop these regulations, than it will be to repeal them later. The skies should belong to the people, not the government. The time to act is now.

    2. Re: comments are now underway on just this issue by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The skies should belong to the people, not the government. "

      You mean the government for and by the people? The ones we elected to make up that list? Your exercise of writing those letters shows regulations should be at the behest of the people and this isn't us vs them.

      So please drop this "people or government" dichotomy. This sets us all back. It's ignorance, it goes against your point and tells people the government isn't ours to control. It's how we get regulations we don't like. Instead keep the first half of your sentiment and we can have both, regulations by and for the protection of people.

  2. Re:both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you 'search the net' for events relating to drones ... take away the EquuSearch related results, you'll find that pretty much EVERY ONE OF THEM is some fucking moron doing something that either DID hurt someone, was dangers as shit, came very close to hurting someone, or certainly had the potential to hurt someone.

    I've been paying attention to the almost daily news stories about "drones," and I have not observed what you claim. The vast majority are people spooked by multirotors hovering around.

    A commercial drone at a wedding
    A creepy guy flying a multirotor around a medical faciltiy
    NYPD getting excited about another multirotor
    FAA warns a multirotor pilot to stay at low altitude
    "Drone" crashes in someones yard
    "Drone" videos Pirates baseball game
    Drug smuggling with a multirotor
    "Drone" reported outside someone's apartment
    "Drone" used to spy on French football team
    Woman Attacking Teen with "drone"

    Some of those were dangerous to aircraft, but most didn't involve manned aircraft, and no one was hurt or killed. There have been plenty of close calls with model planes, but there haven't been many actual collisions and I'm not finding any deaths due to collisions with manned aircraft.

    In all likelihood there won't be either. Most of these "drones" are small and light. When they collide with manned aircraft they disintegrate and perhaps scratch some paint. Here is what happens when a aerobatic aircraft slams into a typical model plane. Balsa and foam don't rate against aircraft aluminum. Is a death possible? Of course. Obviously. However, I think the interval between such events will be many years and the fault will not be attributed to the drones in every case, either.

    I'm with you in that the stupid among us are creating the need for regulation. Adding to the hysteria of it all with claims of imminent "danger" is not useful.

  3. bonus points if you do your research and use gramm by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've gotten involved in a couple of rounds of agency rule-making before and it taught me a few things. I learned that this is where the skills learned writing papers in school can really be useful. The folks at the FAA think they know something about this topic, so they tend to discount comments that sound like the person is spouting off emotionally without having any real knowledge of the subject matter. On the other hand, they don't know everything that everyone is doing in the field, so they'd like to hear comments from people doing different things. For example, my local university has a drone research center and the FAA doesn't know what all the research center is doing, so they can appreciate comments about using drones in a research and educational setting.

    IF you really care about this topic, it may be worth putting some time into writing your comments well, or supporting an organization who will, such as the model aircraft association.