Slashdot Mirror
FAA Report Says Near Collisions With Drones On the Rise
The Washington Post reports that Pilots around the United States have reported a surge in near-collisions and other dangerous encounters with small drones in the past six months at a time when the Federal Aviation Administration is gradually opening the nation’s skies to remotely controlled aircraft, according to FAA records. ... Many of the previously unreported incident reports — released Wednesday by the FAA in response to long-standing public-records requests from The Washington Post and other news organizations — occurred near New York and Washington. The FAA data indicates that drones are posing a much greater hazard to air traffic than previously recognized. Until Wednesday, the FAA had publicly disclosed only one other near-collision between a drone and a passenger aircraft: a March 22 incident involving a US Airways regional airliner near Tallahassee, Fla.
Funny how this revelation comes out just before they are about to release their regulations for "drones".
Because every asshole out there with a DJI Phantom couldn't figure out flying around airports (or over 400 feet) was a bad idea.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Do the pilots fully comprehend the fact that even though there's nobody inside the thing that it's still being controlled. Couldn't this be more about human psychology than actual danger?
From TFA, these drones passed within a few feet of a/c during critical phases of the flight. Having something zoom by while you are landing or taking off increases the pucker factor and it's irrelevant wether or not the thing is controlled. The drone pilots, if found, need to be heavily fines and serve some time to let them and others know thi isn't just some minor thing but a serious matter that endangers people's lives.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The skies are open, they are owned by nobody.
The Air Commerce Act of 1926 takes issue.
Birds, the organic things that flap their wings, are a far greater hazard to aircraft.
By that logic, there'd be no point legislating against murder because heart attacks are a far greater hazard to people.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yes, the FAA is going to use this to drum up business. Never let a crisis go to waste. But it's still a problem. And the likelihood of a Phantom sized drone actually crashing a commercial jet is low, but nothing on the order of non zero. Airports spend millions of dollars a year on bird mitigation despite the fact that most strikes are just fatal to the bird.
Some strikes hit the engines which, at the very least, cause the plane to be pulled from service and inspected. Sometimes they wipe out both engines. Oops. A bigger concern for me, as someone who spends a lot of time in little planes, is said Phantom womping into the leading edge of a Cessna or Beaver - planes that aren't constructed a whole lot heavier than the drone. That could ruin your day.
So yes, it's being hyped but the underlying problem is real. It would, however, be nice if the FAA actually did something about it. However, the FAA is a government entity for whom speed is an unknown quality. They probably think they're going balls-to-the-wall here and both interns working on the problem haven't been able to go to lunch for weeks.
(An as aside, a pilot friend of mine thinks the answer to this issue is to arm the planes. A small gatling type gun with say, hard plastic bullets would take down any drone in existence. Think of the fun! You could hook them to an airliner's video feed and charge passengers to look out and possibly shoot drones and birds and UFOs. Better than an in flight magazine any day.)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Define a few feet please.
The FAA has this definition which seems especially relevant in this discussion.
And do pilots also report to the FAA everytime they pass "within a few feet" of a bird?
It's quite common for pilots to radio their controller when they encounter a hazard. That's how your pilot knows to turn on the "fasten seatbelt" light when you're approaching turbulence; the same goes for flocks of birds or unidentified aircraft. Even so, it's not really fair to compare birds drones, for the same reason that deer don't get jaywalking tickets.
I can say through personal experience that just seeing other aircraft / birds takes a huge amount of my attention, even when the other gliders have 15-18 meter wingspans. Drones are much smaller than manned aircraft and they tend to move very slowly, making them even harder to see. The problem of seeing other gliders is a big enough issue where someone developed a technology called FLARM to reduce the number of collisions by notifying pilots of other gliders within ~4km; it has already saved many lives despite being only 10 years old.
So when I'm flying, I spend a large amount of my time looking for other aircraft. My eyes have much better resolution and FoV than a drone's camera, and I can swing my head around to look from side to side, and up & down - this gives me a better capability to look for hazards. Birds also tend to have good eyes & ears. There is a very good incentive for us to be vigilant: our lives are at stake.
On the other hand, drone pilots only have a camera, hooked up to a low-resolution video screen, which they would need to aim all around in order to scan for other aircraft. The problem is magnified by the fact that have a poor incentive to look for collision hazards: they have a few hundred dollars at stake, and they're probably already using the same camera to look at something on the ground.
The FAA has been hell bent on gaining government control over drones and they will make up any excuse they can, the scarier the better.
Sorry, I just don't buy the regulatory overreach argument in this case. My life could be put in jeopardy by someone playing with their new toy while I'm already flying low and slow on final approach; the last thing I need is another distraction when I'll be touching down (one way or another) within 15 seconds.
I would wager that most of the people writing the regulations are pilots of some capacity, and those who aren't certainly have ready access to many extremely experienced pilots; these people are just trying to protect the lives of millions of airline passengers, flight crew, and pilots.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
And those pesky helicopters keep chasing them around.
The basis of authority for the Air Commerce Act was the authority of the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce... hence the name! FAA has authority over "Navigable Airways", which are airways that can be used for interstate commerce (commercial flight). In practice, most any airport that supports private flight can also be used for interstate commerce, thus the breadth of regulation.
But just as "navigable" waterways are only a minority of all waterways, navigable airspace is not all airspace. It is generally limited to "cruising altitude" for various kinds of aircraft, plus areas around airports. And there are certain geographic regions which are explicitly excluded.
But the FAA does NOT have authority over everything in the air. The latest court ruling by a Federal judge was that the FAA does NOT have authority over small drones that are operating at low altitude and not around airports or other navigable airways... regardless of whether they are being used commercially.
So no... the Federal government does not have authority here, despite the Air Commerce Act. The authority for that act is Interstate Commerce, and little if any private drone use can reasonably be said to have anything at all to do with interstate commerce.
The FAA has appealed that ruling, though it will surely lose the appeal too. However, in the meantime it is trying to bull through regulation so that it's a "done deal" before they get to appeals court.
"Navigable airspace" actually has a definition, you know.
"Navigable airspace" is airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and must include airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft. By policy, the term "airspace above minimum altitudes of flight" is interpreted to mean "airspace at or above minimum flight altitudes."
The referenced 14 CFR 91.119 defines minimum altitudes as altitudes allowing a safe emergency landing, and various other restrictions depending on whether you're over a "congested area", "other than congested area", or a "sparsely populated area".
So if you're over cornfields, the plains, a beach, or a lake (with no boats within 500 feet) it's perfectly legal to fly at 20 feet, and that counts as "navigable airspace". Hence the FAA purview. It's well established that the FAA has authority over all airspace in the country. The only rebuke the FAA has gotten in court has been "you have to go through rulemaking for this, you know" - which is precisely what they're doing.
Frankly, these drone idiots are ruining things for everybody. Model aircraft folks came to an understanding with the FAA something like 30 years ago, and the rules were quite sensible, and kept everybody safe and out of each other's way. But in comes Mr. Drone flying his just-bought Phantom out of sight at 1500 feet in an approach path, and now they have to regulate it.
I'm a pilot, and getting too close to birds gives me the willies. But birds don't have metal. If your toy puts a hole in my windshield with a closing speed of 230 MPH, it will probably kill me - what skin do you have in the game?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Did you read what I wrote? The vast majority of the airspace of this country - including lots of airspace that drones have been using - is regulated by the FAA. Inasmuch as "a fraction" is "a very small fraction, like If you're a pilot, but not a crop duster, what are you doing flying at low altitudes when not around an airport?
What? That's the regulation and I'm allowed to be there whether I'm a crop duster or not. What is the drone doing there, is the question. In any case, the vast majority of this country has no altitude restriction since it counts as "sparsely populated areas". Otherwise it's 500 feet - hence the RC limit of 400 feet (since they generally fly in "other than congested" but not "sparsely populated" areas).
Flying drones in [in approach paths] is already against the law. So what's the problem?
Exactly. Like I said, the FAA came up with rules in 1981 to have planes and RCers get along. The AMA is pretty careful about this, actually, and it works well. But these drones don't require any skill or investment (and hence limited likelihood of interacting with the community), and the self-regulation isn't working any more. Do you expect the guy buying a Phantom on Amazon to be able to read a sectional and figure out where planes are likely to be? If they all did, we wouldn't be having this problem! So we need tighter regulation to make sure the drone guys follow the rules... unfortunately for everybody who was getting along just fine.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.