Report: Big Issues Remain Before Drones Can Safely Access National Airspace

coondoggie writes The story sounds familiar – while the use of unmanned [aerial vehicles], sometimes illegally, is increasing, there are myriad challenges to ultimately allow them safe access to national airspace. The watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office issued a report on the integration of unmanned aerial systems, as it calls them, in US national airspace (NAS) today ahead of a congressional hearing on the topic. As it has noted in past reports, the GAO said the main issues continue to include the ability for drones to avoid other aircraft in the sky; what backup network is available and how should the system behave if it loses its communications link.

Comments

Can I buy an editor?

[msauve]

I think that summary sets a new /. record for poor grammar.

Re:Can I buy an editor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly true. I can't even understand what the first sentence means.

Re:Can I buy an editor?

[AchilleTalon]

Yep, this one has been written to escape anyone's understanding at NSA. After the cryptography, the steganography here is the slashdography.

Re:Can I buy an editor?

[passwd]

Don't be silly, some commas are out of place but it's understandable.

The story sounds familiar â" while the use of unmanned, sometimes illegally, is increasing, there are myriad challenges to ultimately allow them safe access to national airspace. The watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office issued report on the integration of unmanned aerial systems as it calls them, in US national airspace (NAS) today ahead of a congressional hearing on the topic. As it has noted in past reports, the GAO said the main issues continue to include the ability for drones to avoid other aircraft in the sky; what backup network is available and how should the system behave if it loses its communications link.

becomes

While the use of unmanned drones, sometimes illegally, is increasing, there are several challenges to overcome before they can safely access US airspace. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued report on the integration of unmanned drones in US airspace today ahead of a congressional hearing on the topic. As the GAO noted in previously, the main issues continue to be: the ability for drones to avoid other aircraft in the sky; what backup network is available; and how should the system behave if it loses its communications link.

Simple!

Re: Can I buy an editor?

[jimmetry]

it's certainly poor, but it's no record-breaker.

Re:Can I buy an editor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Commas are tools of imperialist pigs from Murica.

Re:Can I buy an editor?

[AchilleTalon]

"unmanned drones" doesn't make sense. A drone is an unmanned aerial vehicule (UAV) by definition, hence an unmanned drone is a pleonasm.

Re: Can I buy an editor?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, I remember, reading in a av week magazine, a request for the pentagon, a manned drone. Special forces type thing.

Re:Can I buy an editor?

[McFly777]

The original "editor" had it correct, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).

And what is wrong with the word "myriad?" It means "a countless or extremely great number." I suppose one could say that it is hyperbole, but one can lean on the "extremely great number" part of the definition, or if desired, add another word to make it "seemingly myriad."

(Ok, "several" may be more readable/accurate/etc., but it is nice to read words above a 5th grade level every once in a while.)

Re:Can I buy some gay buttsecks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to where you came from you idiot the editors here are fine. Leave now.

For safe integration with existing air traffic

[DanDD]

At the minimum, these are the requirements for somewhat safe integration into the existing airspace. Anything less is asking for big troubles for any private and commercial air traffic that shares the sky with these things:

1. Mode S Transponder
2. ADSB In & Out
3. Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
4. May only operate in areas with active radar coverage under IFR flight plan (some legal airplanes do not have a transponder!)
4. Operators must be in constant contact and control of the drone and must be licensed pilots
5. altitude & airspace restrictions ( right of way: licensed drone rotorcraft fixed-wing airship )

Otherwise, they can keep below 300 AGL and in line of sight with their operators.

Anything less and drones will be a threat to anyone that flies on any airplane, anywhere.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[vux984]

Excellent suggestions.

"licensed pilots" should be a different license than what you'd need to fly a commercial jet of course... or even a Cessna ... there should be a separate category for unmanned drones.

And you didn't address what the drone should do if it loses communication with its pilot and/or loses GPS positioning.
That's one of the more unique and interesting problems.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[itsenrique]

What is the weight on the lightest implementation of the first 3 in that list I wonder?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[DanDD]

As for being a licensed drone pilot being a different class - agreed. Vertigo isn't likely to be a factor!

Ideally there would be 'drone recovery areas' where an autopilot would fly to automatically in the event of lost communications. There are lots of little details like this to work out. The big unanswered questions are those dealing with how to integrate safely with existing traffic. I'm not at all convinced that the FAA has a clear answer.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ihtoit]

if it's a commercial operation (any photo/video, BVR sensor/camera, surveillance or cargo), a commercial pilots licence. Private operation (no paid payload/cargo, leisure flights only below 300ft and line of sight - no cameras, that instantly puts it into a commercial licence), private pilots licence. Can we have a mandate for R/C transmitting equipment to be licenced as well? I'm pretty sure it was at one time anyway?

That will surely weed out most of the idiots.

Oh, and let's have mandatory penalties for anyone who knowingly or not violates terminal airspace without express clearance to do so. Jailtime and immediate forfeiture of equipment.

(As to the loss of control/communication, I'd do this - it's very simple: mandate the installation of a drop parachute which also cuts power/fuel feed to any motor to bring the drone in for at the very least, a softish landing, with a white smoke canister (paraffin flare) to indicate an unmanned aircraft in trouble (in the international language of "Look out, I'm coming in unpowered and unable to steer, get the fuck out of the way!")).

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously: fuck you.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ScentCone]

no cameras, that instantly puts it into a commercial licence

Why would a hobbyist using a GoPro to take some landscape pictures from 100' in the air be instantly considered - by you - to be a commercial operator?

Consider, say, Harry Homeowner who is using his hobby drone (say, a 4-pound DJI Phantom) to fly 50' in the air to see if his house's gutters are clogged with leaves. He's line of site, he's flying hundreds of feet below any air space used by "real" aircraft, and he's just using his little flying robot like the fun tool it is. The fact that he's got a tiny camera onboard, looking at his own roof, makes that commercial use, and reason to have the FAA fine him for not having acquired an actual commercial pilot's license? Are you even listening to yourself?

And for that matter, how is the safety of the situation any different if he's doing that, and then Neighbor Bob says, "Hey, Harry Homeowner! I'll give you $10 and a cold beer if you'll fly that little camera 50' to the right, and check out my chimney for me, OK?" How does Harry's acceptance of that $10 make what he's doing suddenly more dangerous? Be specific.

That will surely weed out most of the idiots

How? What mechanism do you have in mind that will stop somebody from throwing together $200 worth of parts and flying a nice little camera-carrying quadcopter anyway? The ONLY people you're looking to give trouble to are the ones who will already be informed, and operating with safety in mind. I suspect that your actual agenda is to preserve some piece of the AP market for yourself, at the expense of people willing to run a cheap little machine over a farmer's field or rooftop for pay.

But in practical terms, I'm more interested in your truly strange sense of what makes something suddenly commercial (carrying a camera? really? have you never used or even contemplated the use of a video downlink as a way to make the hobby more fun and more safe?), or why you think that people operating commercially aren't already doing so far more safely than somebody who just clicked "buy now" at Amazon because a little flying-drone-thing looks like fun to play with.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

300 AGL? "Anything less and drones will be a threat to anyone that flies on any airplane, anywhere."

What the hell? When do planes fly at anything less than many many many times that height? Assuming that people can't fly their drones near an airport (which you failed to add to your list of requirements) why would a plane EVER be so low as to require drones to stay below 300 ft?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

Why is commercial vs non-commercial even an issue? So that the FAA can make more money? To make sure there is a big barrier to entrance so that new entrepeneurs don't take business away from the big established businesses? I wonder who you work for...

Any rules should be the MINIMUM necessary to provide necessary safety. There is nothing inherantly less safe about adding a camera or... for that matter even getting paid to do so. Beyond what's necessary for safety the rule mongers should just go f themselves.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

This list is pretty ridiculous.

Here in AU you can fly anything you want (and it need not be human operated) under 400ft, the only universal rule is you have to be 5km away from the closest helipad / airport.

For non-commercial use there's further requirements (not above people, or within 30ft of other peoples property for example), these laws have been in place for decades though for hobby remote control aircraft users for example, laws haven't changed much for drones - nor should they.

Those more stringent rules don't really apply to commercial use though (but you're liable for fines and of course damages if you cause damage or threaten someone/something due to negligence - a.k.a. be sensible, or you'll get fined).

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Rinikusu]

/* What mechanism do you have in mind that will stop somebody from throwing together $200 worth of parts and flying a nice little camera-carrying quadcopter anyway? */

There isn't one. You seem to be under the impression that law is about prevention. Law merely provides a legal avenue to pursue *justice*. As many people point out: we have laws against murder and people still commit murder. You're right. The law gives us the framework to go after murderers and provide punishments that we, collectively, agree is appropriate (yes, there are plenty of times that incorrect sentencing and yes, there's the concept of unjust laws, etc). Those punishments and the justice system may serve as a deterrent, but that's not the primary basis for law.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[vux984]

"Hey, Harry Homeowner! I'll give you $10 and a cold beer if you'll fly that little camera 50' to the right, and check out my chimney for me, OK?" How does Harry's acceptance of that $10 make what he's doing suddenly more dangerous? Be specific.

Not that I agree or disagree with you. But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.

You probably report lemonade stands to the authorities too. No business license. Tax evasion. Child labor...

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[SydShamino]

The parent talks about "no cameras" in a clause immediately following a comment about line of sight flying. I read his comment to thus mean that a commercial license would be required to pilot remotely via camera.

I totally agree with you that the presence of a camera recording locally for later viewing has no bearing on the license. If that was the parent's intent he's misguided .

In your gutter idea, accepting $10 to check a neighbor's roof does make the job commercial, the same way accepting $10 to mow a neighbor's yard does, or bring over your scissors and give them a haircut. The fact some people ignore regulations on commercial, personal services doesn't change the nature of those services. In the aerial case, let's suppose mr pilot forgets about the overhead power line on his neighbors property and crashes into it. Oops, he's not an amateur making a mistake, he's a paid operator who's not bonded or insured.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[DanDD]

I failed to address lots of specifics - specifics which need to be addressed to keep from risking lives.

Crop dusters fly around at low altitudes all over this country, as do many other GA and commercial aircraft, and they are all within their legal right to do so. A few weeks ago I encountered a couple of NASA aircraft operating around 200 AGL while taking air samples. One of those aircraft was a P3 Orion.

Few people realize what a complex task it is to integrate into the nations existing aviation infrastructure. It is a complex engineered system and it needs to be dealt with carefully.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[DanDD]

This list is my stab at things that might be essential to keep drones and airplanes from crashing into each other by allowing safe separation and accurate position reporting. If it's ridiculous, then please come up with a better list.

Of note, I did exclude an image sensor, which all manned aircraft currently have in the form of Mark I eyeballs. Perhaps drones should include a vision system of some kind as well.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ihtoit]

remoting via camera is viable, it's here. You don't need line of sight to do that. Merely having a camera on the aircraft would be enough in a civil court to make the assumption that the equipment can be used for flying via a desk. It's called "balance of probabilities". It's less to do with commercial vs non-commercial (hell, I'm not even making assumptions about the relative pricing of the licences, you are), and more to do with the safety issues at hand. Can you physically see the aircraft when you look up? If not, you're flying a desk.

And no, removing a camera wouldn't upset the balance of the aircraft, if necessary you can always attach a dummy load.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[DanDD]

An aircraft can be equipped with any manner of cameras, sensors and antennas and still be operated as a non-commercial flight.

What is more interesting is the manner in which this equipment is added to an aircraft. Modifying an aircraft without some engineering oversight is generally a bad idea - people die from the unintended consequences of things coming lose, falling off, or by simply being a distraction in the cockpit.

Even 'experimental' aircraft must go through a well defined FAA certification program to make sure reasonable safety precautions are taken. Expect the same for drones that fly beyond visible range of the operator and that mix with other aircraft, manned or unmanned.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[damm0]

Historic precedent with airplanes would show this is not the case.

Companies incentivized to fly as often as they can have sacrificed airplane maintenance and pilot capability so that they can increase their profit. There are reasons that there are substantial limitations that commercial companies who want to fly for profit must meet.

With drones you'll see this as carring payloads barely within its capability envelope, drones flown hazardously above crowds, drones carrying hazardous materials, pilots without any understanding of human-carrying aviation airspace, etc. I could add a dozen more reasons why being paid makes things more dangerous.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[damm0]

Helicopters frequently fly at 300 ft. And I think a drone is more of a hazard to a helicopter than an airplane.

Also, I bet there are a lot of people who have no idea where airplanes might need to be flying low. One strange wind day, one aircraft with unusually low performance like a Cessna 150 or an old Cub, and one strange airport situation like a Class-D upwind extension and presto, you have airplanes at 300 feet where they normally are not.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ihtoit]

preachin' to the choir, I've several hundred hours under my belt building and certifying a hopper.

Watching an inspection team poring over twelve hundred yards of double-lapped ripseams is nerve wracking by itself...

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

Not that I agree or disagree with you. But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.

There isn't anything to "agree or disagree" about it, it is a commercial operation at that point, it is black and white.

Now, that is the letter of the law, in reality, does anyone care? No, and I doubt even the FAA cares unless they had their feet held to the fire and were forced to make a case out of it.

The law is very clear, any exchange of consideration (it doesn't have to be money) in return for flight, with very, very limited exceptions, is a commercial operation.

Now that being said, I'd turn down the $10 and do it for free, because my pilot certificate is worth a whole lot more to me than $10. :)

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

Why would a hobbyist using a GoPro to take some landscape pictures from 100' in the air be instantly considered - by you - to be a commercial operator?

He/she wouldn't be, the OP above you doesn't know what they are talking about.

Having cameras on an aircraft means nothing... getting PAID for it is what counts...

You are welcome to put a camera on your helicopter and take pictures of your own land, or anything else you want, for your own use, without a commercial pilot certificate.

You just can't get paid by someone else to do it for them.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

Helicopters frequently fly at 300 ft. And I think a drone is more of a hazard to a helicopter than an airplane.

Quite true...

The thing is, most of the drones that you are likely to be flying aren't THAT much of a hazard to the helicopter...

I've knocked down some pretty large birds with my helicopter before, some of the better helicopters can chop down small trees with their blades (UH-1 is a good example).

The RC drones that are sold for $300 on eBay? Those aren't really the threat... the bigger issue is commercial drones costing thousands of dollars and able to fly for hundreds of miles. Those are real aircraft and yes, THOSE would bring down a helicopter... or a light airplane...

And yes, the issues involved in having them fly in the national airspace system are more complex than a few sentences on SlashDot will ever cover.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

Why is commercial vs non-commercial even an issue? So that the FAA can make more money?

No, it is so that people like you, who don't know what you're talking about, can come onto Slashdot and spout off about it. :)

There is the pilot's requirements, a private pilot certificate vs. a commercial pilot certificate, then there is the operation itself, it could be a Part 91 operation, or a Part 135 operation.

Each has various levels of oversight required to enhance safety, from maintenance of the aircraft to how often the pilot needs a medical exam.

As for money, the FAA doesn't charge a dime for its services, obtaining a Part 135 certificate doesn't cost anything other than the time to go through the process. They do this specifically to avoid the appearance of accepting money to provide services.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[BitZtream]

Merely having a camera on the aircraft would be enough in a civil court to make the assumption that the equipment can be used for flying via a desk.

No it isn't. Having a camera is perfectly legal and has been for years. FPV is perfectly legal as well, as long as the pilot isn't flying by it.

You have to keep your eyes on the aircraft as the pilot for it to be legal in the US. It also has to be below 400 feet and you can't accept any money or any other form of barter for doing so.

The commercial vs non-commercial part of the rules is there to allow hobbyists to do it and prevent any incentive for massive numbers of people to just start trying to fly for profit creating dangerous situations due to the number of people and their shear ignorance, which generally accompanies people and companies trying to take advantage of a new and unregulated technology.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[vux984]

it is black and white.

And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.

Your right, technically the regs apply in your scenario, but its well beneath the FAAs notice, and we all know it.

The point is there are a lot of actually interesting things to discuss on the subject without dredging up fringe scenarios like that.

If the government proposes stiffer penalties for unpaid labor, you'd be the guy arguing how no one will risk running a lemonade stand with those regs in place. Its a waste of time; a distraction from meaningful discussion.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[xdor]

The FAA is helping protect people like you: people who went to the trouble to get your license and have now been relegated by auto-pilot tech.

If technology is a threat to a bureaucracy, the bureaucracy will ban the tech whenever and where-ever it can.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[martinux]

If this were true surely the US legal system would not impose ludicrous fines and prison sentences for computer-related and other non-violent crimes.

Aaron Swartz, Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum suggest that justice is not the primary consideration in many cases. The courts seem willing to impose penalties so egregiously severe as to create a climate of fear.

Re: For safe integration with existing air traffic

[SkiTee94]

It's actually quite common, even over populated areas. There's a section of the Class B airspace near JFK where general aviation flights are routinely routes at 500 feet along the shoreline to keep them below arrivals and departures at JFK. If you've been on Ling Island beaches you've probably seen such flights passing low along the shorline. Some idiot with a toy on the beach could fly their drone high enough to collide with such a flight.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

European or African drone?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Drethon]

Your right, technically the regs apply in your scenario, but it SHOULD BE well beneath the FAAs notice, and we all know it.

Fixed that for you. Just because something shouldn't be important enough for the government to bother with doesn't mean they wont. It wouldn't be the first time the government spent a million dollars over a two dollar issue.

Re: For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much black and white in the argument. Not enough Grey. Any money exchanging hand is commerce? Allowance anyone? Those few near misses reported during landing recently anyone? Those are black and white. So some idiots need rules. And some idiots give a damn about rules. Now, where's the grey? Like acft doing noise abatement landings in populated areas. Like jammers in landing paths, and phones off in the theaters. But regulators don't hear from hobbiests and moders aren't popular except with a few. So. Better get your quadracopter while you can, enjoy you fun while it lasts. Won't be for long.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA is helping protect people like you: people who went to the trouble to get your license and have now been relegated by auto-pilot tech.

What kind of imaginary world are you living in?

Auto-pilot may replace human pilots some day, but it's not there yet. If it were there would be pilot-free airlines, pilot-free sightseeing helicopter tours, or pilot-free crop dusting.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Drethon]

Haven't seen a crop duster in over a decade and I live around farmland, also haven't seen military aircraft operating low outside of normal touch and go flights near the airport. Also the typical drone being flown weights half that of a seagull and there are a lot of those birds around here.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

I, I don't know that aaahhhhhh!!!

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ScentCone]

But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.

You're responding to the wrong person. I don't think that doing the equivalent of mowing someone's lawn for $10 (like millions of teenagers do for their neighbors every day, using dangerous gas-powered machines with spinning blades, no less!) should suddenly be pushing the guy who owns a 4-pound quad copter into a position where he's subject to a $10,000 fine from the FAA for not having a commercial pilot's license that it costs thousands of dollars to obtain, not even including medical exams, hundreds of hours of training, etc. Don't you see how absurd that is?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a fucking moron. I can fly an ultralight which is way fucking bigger than a drone with no license at all completely legally. Why don't they just say that if my drone falls under ultralight requirements i can fly it with no license as well. So that means a drone with a stall speed of less than 51mph with flaps retracted and a gross takeoff weight of less than 1200 lbs. Shouldn't make a damn bit of difference as to how im flying it weather im sitting in the cockpit or using a video link to fly in the first person or keeping within line of site.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ScentCone]

You just can't get paid by someone else to do it for them.

Why? That's the issue here.

Picture two guys with their 4-pound quads, standing at the edge of a soybean field. Exactly the same equipment, exactly the same experience, exactly the same safety precautions, and about the fly the exact same route 50 feet off the ground with a GoPro looking down at the field. They'll each be in the air for under 10 minutes. One guy is doing it for fun, and the other guy, doing exactly the same thing is doing it for $100.

Which if them is doing the thing that the other is not, which is somehow making the flight riskier? Which of those two operators presents a risk to general aviation or a kid on the ground that the other does not? Specifically. Provide details that explain why one of them should have to spend huge amounts of money before making that exact same 50-foot flight over the soybeans, using exactly the same equipment in exactly the same way, that the other guy does not. You can't point out a difference in any single thing about how they operate or what they're using, or what the chances are of one of them making a bad judgement call or having equipment failure. Stipulate that everything is exactly the same except for one of them helping the farmer out with spotting dry spots in his field as an enjoyable favor, and the other one doing it for pizza money. I want to know how the physical presence of some twenty dollar bills in the one operator's pocket is suddenly causing his flight to be so much more dangerous than the empty-pocketed guy standing right next to him doing exactly the same thing. Again, please be specific.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ScentCone]

I totally agree with you that the presence of a camera recording locally for later viewing has no bearing on the license. If that was the parent's intent he's misguided .

Why should it matter if the camera's output can only be seen after the fact vs. live via downlink? The ability to frame the camera's shot in real time during the flight makes the flight more efficient, shorter, and safer. A live video downlink provides the operator with telemetry that shows the orientation, movement, battery health, GPS status, and other important information - all of which greatly improves the safety of the flight, whether it's for fun or for money. The with/without camera concept is an absurd distinction when it comes to separating a hobby flight from a commercial one.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

If I went to an event and someone was taking pictures of the crowd with a typical quad-copter / go-pro setup and it fell and hit me in the head how bad would it be! What do those things weigh, 1/8 lb? Less? How fast do they go? How much of the blow would be absorbed by the flexing of the vehicle's frame? Sorry but I just don't see that this is a big boogey man I need to be afraid of! I'd be far more concerned about getting hit by a ball at a baseball game. Should the FAA start regulating sports?

Now.. if the FAA wanted to do split "drone" into some reasonable classes where the free-for all anybody can do whatever they want ones are small, light-weight and maybe even require some padding I'd be all for that. But why bother? The only people so far to be flying anything that would fall in the bigger classes are the military and a few police departments. They are going to just do whatever they please anyway!

Pretty much shutting down arial photography to anyone without a pilots license, which by the way is a VERY expensive thing to obtain is just protectionist bullshit.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

And how much schooling do you need to be able to get that certificate? I suppose that's free right? How about all those hours of flight required to keep it? Yeah, that airplane fuel is peanuts!

All this just so I can take a few pictures with a little quad copter that is too small to hurt anyone at an event I happen to be charging admission to?

Or how about the farmer who wants to monitor his own damn fields that nobody else has any business being in? Good thing the FAA is there to protect the company he will have to hire!

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

How dangerous can a little quad-copter be?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[mbeckman]

DanDD, Those requirements are not enough. The current international standard for aircraft traffic separation, for both VFR and IFR, is "see and void". The video bandwidth and coverage technology in drones is not nearly the equivalent of a pilot's swiveling stereo human optics and visual cortex. TCAS doesn't cut it. As an IFR pilot using TCAS I can tell you that it's useless without the optical component. The closest technology weighs hundreds of pounds, and is only used on drones weighing 1000 lbs or more. This attempted integration of drones into controlled airspace is far too early for the technology available.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ihtoit]

if a soft fleshy seagull can take out a cockpit window or blow a turbine blade, a hard and metally drone sucked into an engine would make the landing very interesting. As in, fiery.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

And how much schooling do you need to be able to get that certificate? I suppose that's free right?

No, but that money isn't paid to the FAA, which was the original point made, that the FAA just wants money.

The FAA's job is to provide for the safety of flight and more importantly, the safely of the general public below the flight.

The point of additional training is to enhance safety. I suppose you could make the arguement that ALL pilots should meet the commercial pilot requirements, but that misses the point. Commercial pilots DO need more skill, they often have to fly when the weather is less than perfect, they fly when the boss wants them to, not when they choose to for fun.

A private pilot can look a the sky and say, "hmm, that weather looks kinda iffy, maybe I'll go do something else instead". He/she doesn't need the level of training of a commercial pilot because he/she has that choice.

All this just so I can take a few pictures with a little quad copter that is too small to hurt anyone at an event I happen to be charging admission to?

First, even a 5lb object falling from 100ft can kill, so be careful when you say something can't hurt anyone.

Second, are you talking about a small radio controlled quad copter that you fly only via visual observation, or via remote link? Not all RC aircraft are "drones", some are just RC aircraft.

Finally, if you are taking the pictures for personal use and not selling them, even if it was a real aircraft, it may not be a commercial operation. Depends on what you're doing with the pictures and why you're taking them.

Or how about the farmer who wants to monitor his own damn fields that nobody else has any business being in? Good thing the FAA is there to protect the company he will have to hire!

The farmer is free to buy his own aircraft and fly it around taking pictures of his own field all he likes, no commercial operation there.

If he HIRES a company to do it, then the company he hires must have a commercial pilot, and depending on what they are doing, might need a Part 135 operators certificate as well.

The purpose of these is to protect the general public. The farmer likely has no way of knowing if the company he hires is safe, has any idea of what they are doing, etc. The requirement for increased oversight provides a level of assurance to the general public that the companies that are operating for pay are doing so safely.

When you go to Las Vegas or Hawaii and get on a sight seeing helicopter, be happy that Part 135 rules exist, they help keep you safer and keep the for-profit operator of that helicopter at least somewhat in line, for it is very easy to cut corners until it crashes. And they still sometimes do, but not as often as they would without such rules.

Look at the airlines, they are very safe, in part because of the rules of operating under Part 121 of the rules is so strict.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ihtoit]

what fucking planet are you on?? In the UK you need a PPL and a medical pass to fly a microlight. Hell, you need a PPL to fly a fucking balloon here.

(source: PPL balloon pilot of 12 years standing).

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

Crop dusters fly over private property. The farmer should not be playing with his drone the same day as he hires the crop duster. I really doubt NASA is flying that low over populated areas. I'm pretty sure most people would be pretty pissed to have something that close to their homes.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

Picture two guys with their 4-pound quads, standing at the edge of a soybean field. Exactly the same equipment, exactly the same experience, exactly the same safety precautions, and about the fly the exact same route 50 feet off the ground with a GoPro looking down at the field. They'll each be in the air for under 10 minutes. One guy is doing it for fun, and the other guy, doing exactly the same thing is doing it for $100.

First, the thing is, that 4 pound quad might not be a drone, it might be a radio controlled aircraft, and it may not be subject to much regulation at all.

If it is flown via visual observation of the aircraft by someone with a hand held remote control, and it stays under a few hundred feet, it may not fall under FAA regulation at all.

Now, putting that aside, the question you're really asking is, "what is the difference with getting paid?"

I'll tell you... If you go out and buy your own aircraft and take pictures of your own field, the idea is that you have enough skin in the game to be willing to assess the risks and should have enough knowledge to be able to do so.

If you go out and pay Joe Blow $100 to do it, then you likely don't have enough knowledge to assess the risks, and you don't have enough skin in the game to care. Then when Joe Blow crashes, it creates a public safety risk.

These laws were not written to take your fun away, they were written to provide for the safely and welfare of the general public. It provides a way for the FAA to have oversight of someone who is operating for profit to prevent them from cutting corners and putting the general public at risk.

If it is your own aircraft and you're flying it, hopefully you have enough personally invested that you care that you're safe.

If it is just a fleet of aircraft that some business owns and hires pilots to fly, and at the end of the day there are business owners who want profits (and they don't fly the aircraft and probably don't know how), there is pressure to cut corners and operate in an unsafe manor to make extra profit.

The commercial pilot and commercial operator rules are designed to provide pushback against such for-profit pressures.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

Your strange wind day excuse is still limited to an area around a runway, even if it is a larger area than a layman might predict. There can certainly be laws that only apply within a certain distance of a runway. This is common in laws regarding antenna height for example. That is not a reason to restrict everyone nationwide!

As for the helicopter, I still think it would be very disruptive to have helicopters flying low wherever they feel like it. I did use to live within sight of a lifeflight landing pad. It was enough to blow branches out of trees!

Also, what happens if these vulnerable helicopters hit a bird? A bird is bigger and heavier than most personal drones.

Re: For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

And some guy in the middle of nowhere in Montanna should have the same regulations applied to him as someone stroling along the beach next to a major national airport why???

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.

Yes they do, and they exist for a reason.

A kid with a lemonaid stand in front of their house technically is breaking several laws, but generally no one cares, even law enforcement.

A reasonable person would not expect such a "business" to be following all the health codes and have a business licence, so anyone buying lemonaid from such a stand should be aware of the risks of doing so.

What about a kid's lemonaid stand setup at the state fair in a booth? What about at a local car race or hot air balloon event?

Should that be enforced?

There is some line, between "kid with a stand in front yard" and "kid with commercial stand in commercial location".

--------------

Back to operating aircraft "for hire", the FAA's primary concern is for the safely of the general public.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Does the FAA care about all of it? Not really. They don't... until they do...

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the US

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

WHo gives a fuck what is legal in the UK. We are talking about US law here moron and in the US you can fly a powered glider, glider, trike, powered parachute all with out any license or required medical exams.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[cozytom]

Imagine a 15 car pile up on the freeway going to downtown. The newspapers and TV stations are real close, but they dispatch their drones out to get live action shots of the carnage. Now there are 8 drones maneuvering in the sky above the carnage. Sure they want to be in the 50-300 ft altitude region, "out of other aircrafts way".

Who should keep the drones from bumping into each other?
Who insures the drones are maintained well enough so they don't rain down on the more healthy victims?

Now the medical personnel have asked for a couple medical helicopters to evacuate some seriously injured people. So the medical helicopters show up only to see 5 or 6 drones they must thread their way through (even though there are 8 up there, they didn't see all of them).

Who gives the helicopter pilots some priority?
Who tells the drone pilots to get out of the way? How do you talk to the drone pilots?
When the 3 lb drone gets sucked into the helicopters turbine engine, and that helicopter crashes, who pays for what?

No, the FAA has huge challenges and issues you and I haven't even thought of.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ScentCone]

First, the thing is, that 4 pound quad might not be a drone, it might be a radio controlled aircraft, and it may not be subject to much regulation at all.

Except the FAA's most recent published position on this is that ALL radio controlled flying machines are the same. They make no distinction between a hobbyist's 4-pounder and a much larger machine. This is why large organizations populated by mostly hobbyists are currently freaking out - because the FAA is gearing up to ban their events, meets, contests, etc. It's not about "drone"-ness, it's about "it flies in the air, period." Other government entities, like the Department of the Interior and all of their sub-departments, also lump them together. That's why you're no longer allowed to operate ANY sort of RC device on any of the millions of acres, ten thousand miles of coastline and river boundaries, etc., that fall under the administration of that agency. They don't care if you're getting paid or if you have a camera or downlink - it's just about whether you're flying something by remote control, period. The FAA's current position would prevent any hobby store from testing a 1-pound palm-sized quad in their parking lot, or prevent hundreds of decades-old model clubs from ever again holding contests where you might, say, win a free radio. No professionals will be allowed to demonstrate new products at events, no kids will be allowed to be sponsored as they fly RC. Why? Because like you, they can't draw any sort of rational distinction between that sort of "commerce" and FedEx flying an RC 747 at 30,000 feet.

If you go out and buy your own aircraft and take pictures of your own field, the idea is that you have enough skin in the game to be willing to assess the risks and should have enough knowledge to be able to do so.

No, the FAA says that if you're a farmer, you can't do that - it's commerce. Flying over your own soybean field to look for dry spots is using an RC aircraft to help your farm business. You now owe $10,000 or worse. But if your friend asks if he can fly the exact same device in exactly the same way, and wants to use your bean field as a place to goof around - that's OK. And you're saying that's OK because the hobby guy has "more skin in the game" than the farmer does? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

If it is your own aircraft and you're flying it, hopefully you have enough personally invested that you care that you're safe.

So, if two guys who OWN THEIR OWN DEVICES are flying right next to each other in exactly the same way, with exactly the same risks to their identical devices as they fly with exactly the same level of experience, you're saying that the guy who happens to be helping out the farmer for a small fee is the more dangerous one, and the hobbyist is by definition safer? Or better yet, what about ONE guy who flies a lap around a stock pond just for fun (hey, it's a hobby!), and then ten minutes later makes exactly the same flight while allowing the pond's owner to look over his shoulder at a high-def downlink display so he can see where the algae is blooming and pay $15 for that useful information - the EXACT SAME GUY FLYING THE EXACT SAME RIG MINUTES LATER - that that guy should be free and clear at 12:15 PM, but at 12:25, when the farmer is looking over his shoulder with a $20 bill in hand, he should be subject to a $10,000 fine? Yes or no, please. The FAA has already said yes - that the 12:25 flight is more dangerous and should be subject to life-altering financial damages, while the 12:15 flight is just fine, and that's because the 12:25 flight is inherently more risky because ... well, they never actually explain that part, because they can't.

They won't say what differentiates those two flights - in terms of equipment, practices, safety, risk, experience, or anything else - but perhaps you have the secret knowledge. When does the 12:25 risk begin? As the operator checks the props?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Still no fucking reply smart ass.

Flying Under Ultralight Rules (FAR Part 103)

Recreational flight limited to single seaters weighing less than 254 lbs
Any category, class or type of vehicle permitted (i.e. airplane, trike, powered parachute)
FAA has chosen not to promulgate Federal regulations regarding pilot certification, vehiclecertification, and vehicle registration, preferring that the ultralight community assume the initiative forthe development of these important safety programs. The ultralight community has taken positiveaction and developed programs almost two decades ago gaining FAA approval for their implementation.
FAA further states, "...it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support andcompliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy ofallowing industry self-regulation in these areas."

http://www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm

The FAA has had these rules in effect since the 60's and its never presented a problem. If it had they would have changed the rules. But now explain to me how a 5lb quad copter is more dangerous than any of those vehicles that weigh several times more and have a much larger performance envelope than a drone. This is a fucking money issue and they are preying on the knee jerk pansy ass reactions of people like you to shut out anyone smaller than a mega corporation from using the technology.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[damm0]

Any pilot will tell you that birds are responsible for avoiding bird strikes 99.999% of the time.

If drones move out of the way of airplanes autonomously, then great. They don't though. Hobby drones aren't really the issue here anyway, the real issue is the larger drones.

Also, some guy goes out and buys a drone, takes it up for a flight. Does he even know that he's within 4 miles of an airport? A lot of people have no idea where the GA airports are. Some really fundamental training on air space rules would go a long way towards safety I think. A few hours of ground school at the most, and passing a very simple exam. Could even be an online thing.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

Except the FAA's most recent published position on this is that ALL radio controlled flying machines are the same.

The FAA can say anything they want, it is what they can enforce in the courts that counts.

And it isn't civil or criminal court, it is administrative court where they usually win, however they recently lost a case against a RC aircraft pilot they thought they would have won, so they have held off filing other cases until they get that cleared up.

The FAA has an old Advisory Circular (advice, not law) about the operation of RC aircraft. For a very long time that was fine because most RC hobbyists were good about it and flew them out in the middle of nowhere where the FAA doesn't really care what happens, so long as it isn't bothering anyone.

Now we have more of them flying around cities and now the FAA does care.

The FAA's current position would prevent any hobby store from testing a 1-pound palm-sized quad in their parking lot

I would disagree with your view of their position on that one... I don't see the FAA going that far...

Because like you, they can't draw any sort of rational distinction between that sort of "commerce" and FedEx flying an RC 747 at 30,000 feet.

The rules for commercial operations were set for piloted aircraft, the FAA has not yet drawn up rules for the operation of commercial pilotless aircraft, nor what actually constitutes a pilotless aircraft.

Those rules will come, this will get sorted, just like all such situations in the past.

Clearly all would agree (even the FAA) that kids flying drones for charity is a different beast than FedEx flying 747s via remote control. There just are no rules for either at the moment.

It is easier for the FAA to say "don't do that until we have rules", because otherwise someone is going to die and then everyone blames the FAA "why didn't they do something". They are just covering their butts until it gets sorted...

No, the FAA says that if you're a farmer, you can't do that - it's commerce.

A farmer most certainly can fly their own aircraft over their own land, that is a private operation, no one is being paid, there is no third party. A private pilot certificate is all that is required and it is a Part 91 operation.

As far as "drones" go, that is another issue. I said it wasn't a commercial operation, which it isn't. I didn't say that drones were legal or illegal in that case.

It is worth making sure that we're talking about the same thing. ;)

So, if two guys who OWN THEIR OWN DEVICES are flying right next to each other in exactly the same way, with exactly the same risks to their identical devices as they fly with exactly the same level of experience, you're saying that the guy who happens to be helping out the farmer for a small fee is the more dangerous one, and the hobbyist is by definition safer?

History has many examples of why they are not the same in terms of safety. You clearly don't want to hear that, and that's fine.

When I was a full time flight instructor, I had many students ask questions about things like that, it was common to ask "so can I do this or that with a private, or do I need a commercial pilot certificate?"

Often the answer was, "even a commercial pilot certificate won't be enough, you also need a Part 135 operators certificate".

You seem to believe these rules are put into place to protect big business, but that simply isn't the case. I had a Part 135 certificate once, operated a Robinson R-44 helicopter on it for a few years, and we only had about 15 total employees, from the front desk girl to the mechanics to the pilots.

If you really want to understand, go sit down in personal with a certified flight instructor who can open a FAR/AIM and go over the rules with you.

Like it or not, those rules were put there for good reasons, many people died from stupid stuff before the industry got cleaned up.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ScentCone]

I would disagree with your view of their position on that one... I don't see the FAA going that far...

They've come right out and said that things like any use of hobby RC aircraft by people who are in any way compensated during their use would bring fines. They've already sent out Cease & Desist letters to one-man operations doing things like photographing farms out in the middle of nowhere - what makes you think they'll ignore businesses that sell lots of hardware and have multiple employees? If you think they put a lot of effort into the Pirker case, imagine how happy they'll be to go after people who (unlike Pirker) actually live in the US and have real money in the bank. And no, they haven't dropped (or lost) that case. They've appealed it up the food chain from that administrative judge's finding, to the full NTSB panel - and it's the NTSB that also just said they're leaning towards outright banning of this stuff.

History has many examples of why they are not the same in terms of safety. You clearly don't want to hear that, and that's fine.

If history is full of examples that show how the same pilot operating the same quad copter twice in the same hour, making the same exact flight in the same exact place using the same exact equipment is suddenly less safe when an exact repeat performance is compensated, then I'm sure you can provide an example. Or, you can just say why YOU think that operators second flight is more dangerous than his first one. Really - assume I'm just dumb, and can't guess at which step of the second flight the danger increases. Why not just tell me, instead of making me guess, or comb through all of history for an example? Because I can't think of what action the operator is taking in the second flight that is less safe than the first. Or, more likely in terms of your view, what is it about that first flight that is more safe? Which extra safety precautions is the operator taking when he's flying his same exact equipment for fun? Please, be specific about that exact scenario.

You seem to believe these rules are put into place to protect big business, but that simply isn't the case.

No, I think a lot of the push back is from small businesses - specially, old-school AP operators who have taken on the overhead of operating commercial full-scale, team-based rigs in order to do things that can now be done for some uses with a $500 piece of equipment carrying a $300 camera, flying lower and more safely than full-scale operators can. The FAA has come right out and said that some of their choices to shut down certain RCAP operators came as a result of competing full-scale operators finding web sites for RC-based competition, and writing to the FAA to get them shut down. Shocking, no doubt.

But regardless of the legislative history, the pending court decisions, and the FAA's often contradictory and foot-dragging responses to congressional requirements ... I want to hear you explain, in simple specific terms, why the same guy using the same equipment is suddenly more dangerous when doing exactly the same thing minutes later. Really. We both operate equipment in the real world. Explain it in real world terms, not in vague "because the government says so" terms.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[McFly777]

Of course, once you mandate the smoke canister, parachute, etc. you have mandated that the drone will be quite large, just to carry all the mandated gear. Getting hit by a 2 oz. quadcopter, is going to hurt a lot less than getting hit by the smoke canister carrying one, even if it has a parachute.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[McFly777]

When the 3 lb drone gets sucked into the helicopters turbine engine, and that helicopter crashes, who pays for what?

I get your point, but it is probably an extremely low risk for a helicopter. The drone would get knocked down by the rotor-wash long before it got to the intake. A more likely example would be a fixed wing aircraft flying into a drone, but that doesn't fit the hypothetical story as well.

I don't recall what the numbers are, but there is an airspace floor, which pilots of "real" aircraft are not supposed to fly below (except for takeoff and landing, of course). Keep the drones there.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

But regardless of the legislative history, the pending court decisions, and the FAA's often contradictory and foot-dragging responses to congressional requirements ... I want to hear you explain, in simple specific terms, why the same guy using the same equipment is suddenly more dangerous when doing exactly the same thing minutes later. Really.

The motivations of the two people are different, and that often produces very different outcomes.

I highly doubt that anything I type here would make a difference, you see what you want to see, and that's fine.

What I can tell you is that those rules exist for a reason, and your failure to understand the reason doesn't invalidate it. Your failure to understand it might be your existing bias... or it might be a lack of information and knowledge and experience...

But I do know from first hand experience, both working in the industry and being on the management side, that those rules are needed.

Regardless if you think so or not...

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

Most drones I have seen are not hard and metally, they are weak brittle plastic.
If seagulls are so bad how do they deal with them?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

"Second, are you talking about a small radio controlled quad copter that you fly only via visual observation, or via remote link? Not all RC aircraft are "drones", some are just RC aircraft."

Small.. definitely. I don't know many people who can afford to buy the big drones the millitary uses.

Radio controlled? Most of the time. Line of sight? The kid across the street loses sight of his quad copter all the time. When the battery gets low or it loses communication with his remote it automatically flies back to him. That shouldn't be outlawed!

I want home hacker/dyi enthusiasts "makers" if you will to be free to attempt to automate their little quad copters if they want to. That would make them drones would it not? Or.. fly by camera. Maximum weights and heights could definitely apply but they shouldn't be so small or low to keep people from experimenting. I'm not arguing that just anybody who wants too should get to fly full sized aircraft over a population!

"even a 5lb object"
Outside of millitary circles 5 lbs would be pretty big. I'm thinking maybe 1/2 lb on the REALLY big side, probably far less. That could probably kill too if it were a 1/2 lb brick but this weight would be lightweight materials all spread out among a lot of parts. Picture a quad copter, the weight is divided up among motors which are pushed out to the edges and the electronics in the middle. Most of it is just free space between a stick frame. I don't think it's going to achieve anything close to terminal velocity unless you drop it in a vacuum and if it hits you it's probably going to be a glancing blow with only one of the motors actually getting you.

"The farmer is free to buy his own aircraft and fly it around taking pictures of his own field all he likes, no commercial operation there."

Umm.. no! I'm pretty sure it was right here on Slashdot, probably been a year or so there was an article about that. The farmer's field IS his business. He was using some sort of drone to check the state of his fields and plan watering, fertilizing or pestiside spray or something like that. The FAA shut him down because using it on his field made it commercial.

For the most part I really think you and I are picturing something entirely different. That doesn't matter because the FAA is trying to take everything and regulate it as though it all the same. Your kinds of rules might make sense IF they are tempered by only applying to things beyond a certain size/weight. They also might be relaxed a little far away from airports. Even more in really unpopulated places. Does rural Montanna need the same rules as NYC and DC for example?

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

The vast majority of the country does not have sight-seeing helicopters flying overhead. Maybe you live in one of those places and so it is normal for you? Don't regulate the whole nation by the most extreme needs of a few places! use local regulations for that.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the bird know he's within 4 miles of the airport? Does a bird have a higher chance of avoiding a mid air strike than a drone operated within line of sight or one using fpv for control? I could agree to an online exam that was brief and mainly centered around making operators aware of the rules and hazards present in their geographic location. Similar to a hunting license.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ScentCone]

The motivations of the two people are different, and that often produces very different outcomes.

So when those two people are the SAME person, using the same equipment to acquire the exact same images - how does that work? You're saying that regulations should be applied not because of any material difference in skill, flight, equipment, or any circumstance other than motivation? You're actually cool with prior restraint based on thought crime? Really?

I highly doubt that anything I type here would make a difference

That's your reason? You're exhausted by the burden of your doubts? That's why you can't muster the energy to cite a single example of something you say history is full of, that would explain why two identical operators doing exactly the same things in the air and on the ground with identical equipment should be either let off the hook or subject to an enormous fine? If you were watching me twice fly exactly the same route, with the same procedures, the same care and the same equipment, and didn't know which of those two flights was for fun or for compensation, how would you (and I mean you, yourself) decide which of those two 10 minute flights over a farm field should result in my being fined $10,000 just for having done it, and which of the two identical flights was just fine with you? Would you flip a coin?

Regardless, it seems a little silly to speculate about whether I'd come away from your actual explanation with a different perspective when the only explanation you'll provide boils down to, "The government has its reasons, and they're good, and you wouldn't understand."

your failure to understand the reason

How about this: try actually mentioning the real reason. Saying that the FAA's reason for subjecting a kid flying his 3-pound plastic RC model to a $10,000 fine if he enters a prize-giving contest at his local AMA hobby club is that the feds consider his motivation to be much more dangerous than the motivations of a totally inexperienced, uninformed noob who just unpacked his first multi-rotor and makes exactly the same flight ... but without your personal righteous condemnation because there's no prize involved ... that doesn't cut it. Provide a rational explanation.

Saying, "Tust me, there are good reasons ..." might work on people who respond well to patronizing platitudes, but it doesn't work with people who want to know what those reasons actually are. The FAA's recently published interpretation document outlines a policy position that is going to kill off a multi-billion dollar industry (unless you're a defense contractor) and the retailers and service providers who are engaged in commerce that involves testing, showing, and using RC models (unless of course the $10/hour-earning employees at your local hobby shop are going to look under their sofas for some spare change so they can spring for a commercial license, right?). The feds are doing their best to chase innovation out of the country (sorry, all you engineers who want to work for companies developing and employing this technology - you can't actually touch it, try it, or work to improve it in the field unless you walk away from your hard-won profession and work instead to become a licensed commercial pilot!). But of course, all you engineers... you can go out on your lunch break and fly exactly the same equipment, in exactly the same way, and FlyHelicopters is OK with that, because your motivations are pure if you fly while you're chewing your ham sandwich.

But I do know from first hand experience, both working in the industry and being on the management side, that those rules are needed.

How did you sustain employment in that industry without being able to articulate something as central to your entire position on this as... what it is that th

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[FlyHelicopters]

How about the people getting in the sight seeing helicopters? How should they judge if it is safe or not?

That is why the rules are in place, to protect those passengers who have no way, as lay people, to judge the risks.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

My go-pro carrying quadcopter weighs several pounds and its extremely strong composite plastic props can cut 1/4th inch thick tree limbs with ease. Once my video link went down and I crashed in a rose bush. It cut a path through the rosebush like the 650w flying weedwacker it is. Once I broke a motor arm in a crash, and the props easily sliced through wiring, electrical tape, and thick foam. If you get hit by a quadcopter, I would expect to see injuries like this: http://i799.photobucket.com/albums/yy276/highflyer49/tumblr_mrse1kp_R7w1sc3yayo1_500_zps720f9b71.jpg [WARNING GORE!] If I recall right, that guy accidentally throttled up while he was working on his machine.

So yeah... I would say safety is an important consideration.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction. I have learned that image is actually a boat prop injury.
http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/5/4/1/8/7/a4256937-164-foto.jpg?d=1315161841 This is probably more realistic.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[morgauxo]

You are not making any sense now. I told you that most places don't have sight seeing helicopters. You responded by asking how people that are getting into helicopters that don't exist know if it is safe or not.

Most places don' t have interesting sites to see. If there are a lot of low flying sight-seeing helicopters around places like the ones you mentioned then maybe those places need extra LOCAL regulations. That isn't an good excuse to saddle the entire nation with the least common denominator sort of restrictive rule set. The United States may not be the biggest nation on the planet but it is still a very large place with a lot of surface area. We don't all need to be limited by the needs of a small minority!

Furthermore.. even where sight seeing helicopters ARE common.. that doesn't give their pilots and passengers an exclusive right to the air. Think of it this way, what if personal drones had been available and practical first, before your helicoptor tours started. We would be having the opposite conversation with encumbant drone users trying to keep the helicopters out ot THEIR skies. This is foolish, you can't own the air. Any rules should be well balanced allowing all interested parties a chance to do their thing.

Re:For safe integration with existing air traffic

[ihtoit]

motors are necessarily metal.

As to the seagull problem, loud predator distractions (the insanely loud crow calls you hear around food warehouses as well), trained predator birds, and good old fashioned shootists. Not so much a problem any more.

Re: For safe integration with existing air traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

You would prefer airspace to be regulated by the states? :O Nobody said anything about regulations having to apply everywhere- there are differences between Class B and Class E / Class G airspace. But whatever regulations are imposed are done through the same system and they do have to integrate.

So what you mean is...

[Anonymous Coward]

So not enough bureaucratic palms have been greased yet?

Re:So what you mean is...

[DanDD]

I have no concern for greasing bureaucrats palms - my concern is for my own life and the lives of those I share the skies with - as both a passenger and a pilot.

I've invested heavily in my flight training and I take the safety of myself, my passengers, and those I share the sky with very seriously.

Drone operators will take the safety of the entire aviation system seriously as well - either by will or by enforced regulation.

Re:So what you mean is...

[ihtoit]

if regulation of already regulated airspace is required to maintain safety in the sky, then so be it and I am all for it - as long as I can continue to use the sky without unnecessary restriction.

Re:So what you mean is...

[morgauxo]

Yes, you went to your school, paid a lot of money and now you own the skies and nobody else should get to use them. What a dick!

Re:So what you mean is...

[DanDD]

Lose a friend or a family member in an airplane crash and you'll be a dick too.

The point isn't to 'own' the skies - it's to share as broadly and as safely as possible.

Just because you can afford to buy or operate some new tech toy doesn't mean you automatically have the right to go barging in to a complex engineered system without training and some reasonable adherence to regulations.

Re:So what you mean is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well rest assured the standard hobby drone is no more of a threat to your aircraft than a bird. And remember there are a lot more birds out there than hobby drones. If you wan to make a point about a predator sized un manned vehicle id be willing to listen but in the sub 15 lb category all you are arguing for is draconian regulation for a non existent and irrelevant problem.

Re:So what you mean is...

[morgauxo]

Yeah, I'm going to lose a friend or family member because some kid decided to automate his quadcopter with a raspi or an arduino. Dream on! If that ever happens WTF was the pilot doing flying so low?!?!? This sounds more like an excuse to lock others out of your playground.

Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Tony Isaac]

The United States is (or has been) the world leader in many areas of technology, such as computers, Internet, space exploration, and medicine. This happened in part because the government stayed out of the way, at least in the early phases of development. When it starts to clamp down too quickly, that innovation can be stifled, and move to other countries. We are seeing this happen particularly in medicine. Apparently, we aren't all that interested in being the leaders in drone development...at least, other than for purposes of war.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what kind of demented world-view is that? Russia beat America in most space firsts, and when the USA wanted to play too, it was the government that did all the work.

You're insane.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it wasn't until the creation of the FDA that American medicine moved beyond things like patent medicine for babies containing cocaine and arsenic and the treatment of "hysteria" in women consisting of a good fingering by the local doctor.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, man. Fuck it. Let's not even talk about it. Just put a bunch of drones in the air with zero coordination!

You're a paranoid rube. There's stupid bullshit regulation (like the requirement that the post office fund pensions for workers that aren't even born, which IMO is an attempt to just privatize mail service) and then there's taking something that needs serious consideration and seriously considering it.

This isn't like trying to cram more into a fucking iPhone, but oh no, Uncle Sam says no more than one improvement per quarter! This about trying to make sure people don't fucking die falling from the sky.

Grow up and stop viewing the world in such a black and white view. Fucks sake.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also why mobile networks deployment really took off in Europe, not in the US, because standards were set there and this allowed general use of the same telephony systems, while moving around (has the roaming problem been fixed in US of late?). US is good for getting best technology, but is bad as dirty ass in getting it deployed successfully across wide areas with anything but islands of coverage. Hey, even broadband is more accessible in continental Europe, than it is in Murica. But that is OK - if you need it and can pay for it, then you can get it and fuck everybody else, This is the best way to live in a society and Murica will spare no lives and money in exporting Murican way abroad!

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Neil Boekend]

While that is true, in this case some restrictions should apply.
My simple advice:
1. No drones on or within 100 m of airfields unless allowed by traffic control of that airfield.
2. No drones within 50 m of any manned aircraft.
3. Only drones that can prevent crossing those conditions by themselves can either fly outside of the field of view of the operator or without an operator.

Note: this is excluding 300 pages of encoding by lawyers.

This would not stifle innovation much. It would just push it towards drones with the capabilities of detecting those conditions. Capabilities they need to be able to fly without operator.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Drethon]

That has worked out well for Russia in the long run hasn't it?

Re: Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong-o, reverse your idea. Back in the"grand old days" you got a tax credit for R&D. And the the"rich" american companies needed a credit to reduce the 70% tax rate. And laws effectively stopped them from moving their money overseas to shelter it. So they formed grants to colleges, created research schools, etc. And we do not have our flying cars because some dick changed a law, intended consequences.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! That's why every time I get a Space Nutter talking about how important space is and all the endless spinoffs and the incredible returns on investment, I tell them to pack their bags for Russia!

No takers yet.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Drethon]

Yet Russia didn't make it as far into space as the US.

Re:Technology leadership stifled by regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you have against fingering, I like fingering my wife and she enjoys that too. Besides the deployment of steam powered dildos was surely also a step science and economy needed to reach the moon eventually.

Which "myriad" challenges?

[Tony Isaac]

It would have been nice for the article to elaborate.

Google self flying drone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current Google street view cars do well, why not add elevation to the program?

Big issues for 3rd worlders

[koan]

The US government can't get shit done any more:

Outside of the US drones are indeed making headway way into general airspace. The GAO says Japan, Australia, United Kingdom, and Canada also allow more commercial UAS operations than the United States.

Every other country has a drone system and regulation set up and working but the US, we are behind in education, behind in Internet connectivity, behind in just about everything because this country is run by fucking morons and greedy little termites.

Re:Big issues for 3rd worlders

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, three countries with even more oppressive governments than the US plus Canada. Color me impressed.

They only mean "navigable" airspace, correct?

[scorp1us]

FAA only has jurisdiction over navigable and restricted airspace. Which means that unless you are in restricted airspace, up to 500 ft is still faie game. 500ft is the limit on kites.

Re:Can I buy some gay buttsecks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to where you came from you idiot the editors here are fine. Leave now.

Samzenpus? Is that you?

Anybody understand the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

EOM

Re: Android Studio 1.0.x? malware possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and the font you rode in on

Re:They only mean "navigable" airspace, correct?

[FlyHelicopters]

First, the term "restricted airspace" isn't really the right term.

The terms you're looking for are "controlled" and "uncontrolled" airspace.

There are some places where controlled airspace goes all the way to the surface. Take off in a helicopter and go up 50 feet and you're in controlled airspace.

Other places, mostly out west in the mountains, sometimes controlled airspace doesn't start until 10,000 feet MSL, but those are rare outside of the Rockies.

Next up: Kites!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here Billy. This is 300 feet of really great nylon string. We will just attach it to the "Eagle Soarer" and .... Hey. Look over there Billy. The police are after someone. Hello officer, what can we do for you? What? Jail? For flying a kite? Too high? What? No the camera is not attached to the kite. Arrested? For flying a kite too high? Because we violate a drone regulation exclusive to the United States of America? Land of the.... the what? If you want to fly a kite you had better be brave. The FAA, the DHS, there are 3 letter agencies that will be all over you.

The biggest problem is local

[Anonymous Coward]

As in Rednecks, with shotguns.

Yeah, that's what I'm hoping happens to a lot of drones. A local solution to a big problem.

Interesting EBOLA statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

You are 1800 times more likely to be shot and kill by a LEO (beat cop, border patrol, fbi, et al.) than from getting and dying from EBOLA. And for those that aren't killed, you are still more likely to have died than those who contract EBOLA.

Whee!

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Just wait till everyone gets flying cars!

Denmark

[terminal.dk]

In Denmark, they traffic regulating orginization is disussing these issues with the comercial parties. I am still missing the resume of the latest meeting.
Anti-collision is discussed, ADS-B was suggested, but everybody was afraid it would flood the frequency. So maybe something ADS-B like ? And policies about what drone will give way to which. Most ideas hinted, that GPS would be used to determine and broadcast position.

This still needs to be something for which planes can get receivers as well, and possible broadcast a wider ranging signal so clear a path in front of it approaching an airport.

A fair and equitable solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

In my personal opinion, the FAA is just not thinking. What we need, and probably won't get, is something logical.

Like this:

Identification - "All sUAS, regardless of scale, shall be clearly marked with information sufficient for identification of, or prosecution of, operator in case of accident."
Commercial use - "Any activity defined - explicitly - as being directly taxable as a commercial enterprise by the IRS."
Safe Operation Envelope - "As long as it is out of the way of any manned aircraft operations or likely operations, and is not in the position of causing danger to buildings, uninvolved persons, or possessions, anything goes. Minimum 50 foot horizontal separation from all non-involved buildings, and 100 foot horizontal separation from all non-involved persons."
Close Proximity Operations: "No operator shall operate in any manner where a 2 second loss of directional control will cause injury to a bystander."
Design and Construction: "All aircraft intended to operate within 10 operational seconds of a bystander shall have shrouded or 'bumpered' propellers/fans to prevent blade-strike injuries."
Altitudes should be simple: 400 AGL feet or lower, fly it safely and under control under AMA or applicable Commercial Ops regulations. 500 feet to 800 feet AGL, fly it safely with local ATC cognizance, over 800 feet AGL you need a cert/license specific to that platform type with "see-sense-detect-avoid-tell" capability. ATC cognizance required for all operations within 3NM-5NM (Cessna/Piper/Ultralight only = 3nm, ETOPS Airliner capable = 5NM) of an airport. All operations within 2NM of active runways, glide-paths, or climb-out corridors shall require regular OTA working-channel communications with ATC.
Avionics: If the big boys (DOD) can use it to control their drones, it is legal for all. FPV legal with a buddy-box observer, split-screen, or OSD HUD. Remote "kill" switches to control run-away/fly-aways with "fail-safe" equipment. Avionics/control systems shall have at least one of the following capabilities:
    A. "loss of signal, orbit."
    B. "loss of signal, return to launch."
    C. "loss of signal, controlled landing."
    D. "loss of GPS functionality, return to launch using IMU."
    D. "loss of primary IMU, return to launch using redundant IMU."
    E. "low power/fuel remaining, return to launch."
    F. "low power/fuel remaining, controlled landing."
    G. "attempt controlled landing on detection of catastrophic failure."

MTOW/Inertia: Different weights and intended operation areas have different speed limits.

This means:
1. Take all the pictures you want. The IRS taxes the sales of those pictures, not the taking of them.
2. Do all the mapping missions you want. The IRS taxes the sales of those maps, not the making of them.
3. Take all the video you want (obeying privacy laws). The IRS taxes the sales/distribution of those videos, not the making of them.
4. Commercial delivery service is a taxable industry.
5. The sUAS community would be even farther ahead of the FAA's ADSB mandate.

Re:A fair and equitable solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

H. catastrophic failure: turn off motors and deploy emergency parachute.

Applies if the battery fails in flight, the drone breaks apart, cpu dies, collision with bird/other drone/power line/...

Stopping the motors when the drone is falling is important, avoid cutting up whoever/whatever it hits. And the parachute means it comes down slowly - doing less damage than free falling.

Re:They only mean "navigable" airspace, correct?

[scorp1us]

I dug through the actual legislation (FAA charter) and that's what I found. I urge you to do the same. While controlled and uncontrolled ate the vernacular, the statutes that govern the FAA jurisdiction use "navigable". Therefore when speaking of legal matters and the FAA legal authority, we must use the same terms to prevent confusion.

Your neighborhood kids' parents should be worried

[Anonymous Coward]

it is black and white.

And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.

Kids are too young to know what they should or should not be afraid of. But their parents ought to be afraid of the things you listed.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/portland_lemonade_stand_runs_i.html
and http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/
and http://calwatchdog.com/2014/01/30/health-dept-shuts-down-11-year-olds-cupcake-biz/
and many more.

Absolutely no "technically true" violation of a government regulation is beneath a government inspector's notice if someone with money takes a negative view of the violation or of the individual committing the violation.

Or as political wonks say: whenever someone tells you that "well, yes, the law could be used to make X illegal, but it'll never be enforced that way" ... then it was likely written with the intention to be enforced exactly against X.

Re:They only mean "navigable" airspace, correct?

[Drethon]

I don't think the GP is nitpicking the use of "navigable" but the use of "restricted". See the below link, restricted airspace means an area where general aviation is not allowed to enter (ex flying over the white house is permanent restricted airspace). Controlled airspace is the airspace around an airport which according to the FAA Advisory Circular is when a model aircraft operator must notify the control tower (note the circular does not say you cannot fly there, just that you must work with the control tower).

Interestingly the FPV article in wikipedia appears to be wrong, which scares me slightly as some people take that for bible. That article states you must be under 400 ft when in controlled airspace. However when I read the FAA Advisory Circular it appears to state you must always operate under 400 ft, in addition you must contact the tower when 3 miles from an airport (as in controlled airspace). But I could be misunderstanding something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Sentry Drones to V

[GLowder]

Another issue is the approx 23 day train time to get Sentry Drones to V for the far better Tech II variants. Of course if you're going for distance from the drone then the 23d train for Sentry Interfacing to V may be a better use of time.

What seems to be missing from the comments...

[w3woody]

What people seem to be missing in all of the comments above is that Amazon and Google are investigating not just using unmanned arial vehicles, but they are also investigating using computer-controlled unmanned arial vehicles: that is, arial vehicles that are not flown with a human operator. So questions about "line of sight" or the nature of the license a human operator holds ignores the whole point of their research.

Beyond this, in order for a company like Amazon to make drone deliveries profitable, we're not talking about a handful of these devices. We're talking about a whole swarm of them making tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of trips a day in a congested area like Los Angeles, in and around the congested class B airspace of LAX, around the congested class C airspace around Burbank, Ontario and John Wayne, by helicopter traffic carrying police, news reporters and tourists, by student pilot traffic out in the San Fernando Valley.

(If a UPS driver makes 100 deliveries a day, as an article I recently read suggested, and assuming an out and back from a warehouse in El Monte takes on average an hour--half an hour each way--and assuming drone deliveries are handled during the same 10 hour window UPS driver operate--this implies it would take around 10 drones to replace that one driver, each making 10 deliveries a day. Multiply this by (as a guesstimate) 1,000 drivers in the Los Angeles area, and you're talking about 10,000 automated pilotless drones swarming the LA skies.)

Ultralight rules.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones should fall under ultralight rules for non commercial activities. If it has a stall speed of less than 51 mph a gross takeoff weight of less than 1200 lbs and a max cruise speed of less than 143 mph you should be able to fly one without a license or any other requirements beyond fitting that category. Additionally they should create a smaller class for commercially operated drones in the sub 100lb category which would amount to a small registration fee similar to a hunting or fishing license.

Re:They only mean "navigable" airspace, correct?

[FlyHelicopters]

When dealing with the law, it is rarely as simple as a one sentence post on Slashdot will ever provide.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic...

There are two categories of airspace... regulatory and non-regulatory...

Within those, are 4 types:

Controlled
Uncontrolled
Special Use
Other

---------------

This is why there is pilot training and pilot certification, and why commercial pilots need more training than private pilots who only fly for fun.

It is more complex than the average layman probably suspects it is.

Re:They only mean "navigable" airspace, correct?

[FlyHelicopters]

I don't think the GP is nitpicking the use of "navigable" but the use of "restricted". See the below link, restricted airspace means an area where general aviation is not allowed to enter (ex flying over the white house is permanent restricted airspace).

Yep, that is it... "restricted airspace" generally won't allow you in it for any reason whatsoever, such as over the White House.

The airspace around LAX is not restricted, it is controlled airspace, Class B to be specific.

Within a few miles of the airport, that controlled airspace goes all the way to the ground. You can't fly an aircraft at 100ft there without talking to ATC.

Sense And Avoid development banned by CAA

[NewtonsLaw]

I've been working on an active/passive "sense and avoid" SAA technology for about 18 months and it is showing great promise.

Despite being a little larger than a deck of cards and weighing under 200g, the sense element can now accurately detect and track objects within a 1.5Km radius and the tracking system interpolates the trajectories of other craft to detect potential collision with the craft to which the system is fitted.

The goal is to produce a system that can be sold for hundreds (rather than thousands) of dollars and could therefore be fitted as standard equipment to a huge percentage of the unmanned (and manned) aircraft that fill our skies.

Unfortunately, here in NZ, the aviation regulator (CAA) has been hijacked by the national model aircraft group and, because I dared to criticize the latter, I my development work has been effectively halted by the former.

Never underestimate the ability of bureaucrats and bullies use claims of "safety" as a blunt weapon to "deal to" those they don't agree with. Their motto should be: "Safety At All costs -- no matter how many innocent souls must die".

Sigh!

Re:Sense And Avoid development banned by CAA

[Hairy1]

The whole deal with CAA restricting your work is BS. You are free to fly what you like just by flying out of a farmers field more than 4km from a airfield. Does your system even compare to ADS-B? Small Linux computers can easily be used to receive ADS-B, and I expect they will be built into Quads and other hooby size aircraft soon. This way they will be able to avoid traffic long before it gets within 1.5km.
I am confident that CAA understand the issues. They have just released draft legislation which you obviously have not read yet, because if you had you would know that they are introducing a way of applying for permission to operate UAVs outside the hobby provisions. They are also going to remove the hobby references. I suggest you look it up and have a read.
What this new legislation will not do is integrate UAVs into normal airspace, and frankly until there is a reliable sense and avoid this is a position I support. Too many idiots out there who have little or no training flying Quads into controlled airspace. There needs to be real, reliable solutions for sense and avoid and technical enforcement of airspace before we open the integration door.
Frankly your hostile morally superior approach is not helping. The CAA has been very interested in an open conversation, and has listened to the community to come up with some regulations which are moving in the right direction. They have not addressed how to integrate airspace at this point, but they are not at all unreasonable. They are tasked with keeping the flying public safe, that must be the first priority.
I will be working on a proof of concept system which uses passive ADS-B for sense and avoid. This can detect aircraft potentially hundreds of kilometers away with precision. I also plan to extend the geo-fence system to ensure UAVs stays outside of controlled airspace and clear of terrain.