FAA Proposes Rules To Limit Commercial Drone Use

An anonymous reader sends this report from the NY Times: In an attempt to bring order to increasingly chaotic skies, the Federal Aviation Administration on Sunday proposed long-awaited rules on the commercial use of small drones, requiring operators to be certified, fly only during daylight and keep their aircraft in sight. The rules, though less restrictive than the current ones, appear to prohibit for now the kind of drone delivery services being explored by Amazon, Google and other companies, since the operator or assigned observers must be able to see the drone at all times without binoculars. But company officials believe the line-of-sight requirement could be relaxed in the future to accommodate delivery services.

Comments

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you can see me, I should be able to see you," is a core consequence of free society.

The operator needing line of sight with the drone is per se much less important than the ability for the drone to be recognised and associated with its operator.

Re:Good.

[ScentCone]

The operator needing line of sight with the drone is per se much less important than the ability for the drone to be recognised and associated with its operator.

These two things have nothing to do with each other, and the FAA has repeatedly mentioned that privacy concerns are not their turf and won't be part of what they do in rule making or enforcement. That's more a local law enforcement matter, and there are already abundant laws on the books dealing with that.

Re:Good.

[Richard_at_work]

And yet that doesnt apply to aircraft or satellites...?

"If you can see me, I should be able to see you," is a core consequence of free society.

That sniffs like a made up assertion ;)

Re:Good.

[Rei]

if there must be a line of sight between the operator of some monitoring equipment and the equipment itself, it's much harder for that equipment to be used to invade a person's privacy.

Really? So if I run a spy satellite and it's currently above the horizon where I am then it's "much harder for that equipment to be used to invade a person's privacy"? Really?

There's a world of difference between "I can see what you're doing" versus "I can see something that can see what you're doing."

Re:Good.

[ScentCone]

They do in practice unless you're being wilfully intellectually dishonest.

What? The FAA's mission has never included privacy concerns. They already regulate all of the ways you can do aerial photography (yes, including kites, if you send them high enough), and none of their rules speak to privacy, because that's not their territory, regulation-wise. You do actually understand that, right? No? Yes?

Re:Good.

[ScentCone]

There's a world of difference between "I can see what you're doing" versus "I can see something that can see what you're doing."

It doesn't matter. That's not what the rule is about. The Line-Of-Site rule is meant to make up for the fact that there is no pilot onboard the aircraft, and thus no way (if you're beyond line of site) to do the duty of seeing and avoiding other air traffic. If your UAS is a couple of kilometers away, invisible beyond something like a big tree line, you've got no idea how to quickly maneuver it if it's entering the path of, say, something like an air ambulance that's descending through 500' to land at an accident site. That's exactly the sort of scenario they're worried about: somebody like a journalist trying to get overhead shots of something like an accident scene, and sending his flying camera robot half a mile away BLOS to the location - and in comes a properly piloted traffic, S&R, or police helicopter. Or two. The journalist might be able to hear them, but if he can't even see, unaided, his own machine in the air, that's a serious hazard. Hence, LOS operations.

Re:Good.

[ScentCone]

For example, one of its first roles was overriding the privacy concerns of householders when aircraft started flying over their houses, by declaring a height above which the property owner doesn't get a say.

Federal regs and laws surrounding overflight of private property aren't about whether or not someone can use a camera during that flight. You're still confused about the FAA's role relative to privacy. The DoT isn't about privacy either, even though you might very well be using a 1000mm lens on a camera as you sit on the shoulder of a federal highway photographing over someone's fence into their back yard.

Re:Good.

[Rei]

1. Actually, it's often pretty easy to spot satellites. Visibly. There's 100-ish that are brighter than mag 4 (the limit for unaided vision in perfectly dark skies is 6, about 100-fold dimmer). If the position and angle are right the ISS can be mag -5.9 - an order of magnitude higher than the peak brightness of Venus, and readily visible during the day if you know where to look. Most commonly it's -2 to -4, so roughly between the average brightness of Jupiter and the average brightness of Venus. Iridium flares can get on rare occasions up to a staggering -9.5, though they usually max out at around -8.

2.Whether you're talking about radio or visible is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you're changing the angle of the "sight", from the horizontal to the vertical.

Re:Good.

[Rei]

Yep, treating them like an other vehicle sounds like a reasonable approach, as does banning storing of recorded images without extenuating expressly-permitted/licensed circumstances.

The barrier for getting to fly delivery missions should be compared to delivery vehicles: if the per-package rate of collateral damage can be shown to be similar to or less than that of delivering by truck, and likewise with emissions, then it should not have a bunch of legal barriers put in front of it. Drone manufacturers should have a straightforward process to demonstrate their safety to gain approval (demonstrating acceptable results in realistic failure scenarios), and statistical data on drones in real-world usage should be collected to handle the adjustment of the safety standards that future drones have to meet.

Even if in the beginning they can't quite meet the safety levels of ground vehicles, that doesn't mean they should be totally banned - just not allowed to go widespread until they can (pilot programs only). Unless there's a sizeable hazard to the public, one generally allows a little leeway with new technologies. One can just imagine where aviation would be today if the earliest planes had to meet the safety standards of ground-based vehicles, for example.

Re:Good.

[CaptainDork]

So what you're saying is TFA lists TWO (2) proposed FAA regulations:

1.) Drone has a camera
2.) Drone does not have camera

I didn't see that and, I didn't see:

3.) Drone has a microphone.

Please provide a quote.

Thanks.

Re:Good.

[M1FCJ]

If pilots were all that's needed to avoid air to air collusions, there would be none in the history. None of your theories would justify a pilot.

In Future News...

[Rei]

Amazon employees have become frequently sighted in the Space Needle holding remote controls. Waves of reportings across town have been made of drones carrying lightweight parabolic solar reflectors that can be seen by the unaided eye dozens of miles away....

Re:In Future News...

[Rei]

Come to think of it, even a green pen laser kept aimed at the operator at all times would provide naked-eye visibility to a couple dozen miles out, barring obstructions or inclement weather.

Re:In Future News...

[Joe_Dragon]

Not Amazon employees but independent contractors. And if they get busted / fined / crash the drone / have it in-pounded / etc they have to pay for it + the package.

Re:In Future News...

[Thud457]

+1, sick, sad future

Re:In Future News...

[g0bshiTe]

The problem is then orientation, is the craft moving parallel to you or flying toward or away from you?

I have flown RC tons in the last 30 years, and I can tell you orientation can be a bitch.

My take is the latest is a way for them to weasel out of providing clear regulation.

What you will get is the same thing that's always happened, those wishing to use them commercially will follow guidelines and use them accordingly those not will ignore regs and keep using them how they always have been.

We will still see the DJ videos where you see it flying into oncoming traffic until it hits a truck.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2h3oub

What is different?

[MobyDisk]

Isn't this what the rules say now? How does this differ from what is already in place?

Re:What is different?

[MobyDisk]

Ahh, ScentCone posted the answer. Prior to these laws, all commercial drone use was prohibited. Wow... how silly...

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

Prior to these laws, all commercial drone use was prohibited.

And still will be for at least a couple of years while this regulatory wagon rolls slowly down the road. Meanwhile, developed countries around the world are getting their shit together, and seeing immediate economic benefits from work in this area.

Right now, if you want to do sUAS aerial work for pay, you have to do an incredibly onerous federal dance in filing for a 333 exception, and have to have at least a Private Pilot's License. That's right, you're flying a tiny little DJI quadcopter with GoPro on it 8 or 10 meters off the ground to inspect some roofing shingles, and you need to have spent $10,000+ and hundreds of hours (including stick time in rented, fixed-wing, actual real-live airplanes flying in controlled air space!), pass physicals and a DHS background checks But if you're doing exactly the same thing for fun, none of that is necessary and you can fly right now. The guy running the roofing business, though? He'll have to wait a couple of years or become a pilot and an expert on navigating section 333's paperwork mill (and spend thousands, and still wait months for the FAA waiver allowing him to use his DJI Phantom). Thanks, Obama administration.

Re:What is different?

[emj]

Thanks, Obama administration.

I know you are bitter and ranting, but really, calm down please.

Re:What is different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Schools in my area charge around $7,000 for a private pilot license package deal. They are far from the cheapest in the nation. The minimum required flight time for a PPL is 40 hours, with 20 hours instruction. The average time is around 70 hours. Not hundreds. You need to pass one medical exam, which is fairly basic. And the DHS does the background check (once), there's not much you need to do.

If you think these rules have anything to do with who is in the White House, you have no clue about the FAA and how it operates.

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

I know you are bitter and ranting, but really, calm down please.

So, which part is a rant? Specifically?

Am I confused about who Huerta's boss is?

Am I confused about the words written in the proposed rules, and the disparate impact they would have on a scenario exactly like the one I described?

Or are you simply in ad hominem defend-the-administration mode, and carefully avoiding any actual comment on the substance of the matter because you're the one who's bitter and ranty about the reality of it?

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

If you think these rules have anything to do with who is in the White House, you have no clue about the FAA and how it operates.

Huerta, a political appointee, is 100% in charge of the agenda here. He's the one that has decided to ignore the congressional requirement on the timing of this, and the one who is tap-dancing around the the issues that people raise when addressing the oddly capricious lines being drawn.

You many think the average farmer who wants to fly a cheap quadcopter over his bean field to look for dry spots is going to be able to start from scratch and get a PPL in 60 hours (never going to happen) and that there is no opportunity cost for him beyond the amount of the check he has to write for the instruction, rentals, fuel, and tests and the time spent sitting in the classroom or the cockpit (you really think there's no time required outside of the instruction room and flight time? really?) ... we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm telling you that the entirety of the time, effort, and expense is substantially greater than 60 hours. Farmer Bob isn't going to be able to teleport from his rural kitchen to the classroom and back, either. Life isn't that simple. The FAA's own economic analysis of the proposed rules estimate that the real-life cost to the potential commercial sUAS applicant is, for example, at least double what the federal fee will be.

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

So I'm a little foggy, here. Are you saying that the roofing guy who wants to send a 4-pound quad with a GoPro a couple dozen feet in the air to inspect some gutters and shingles before he risks his neck climbing a 30 foot ladder ... should have a PPL? But that a recreational RC operator who wants to participate in weekend races involving 200mph turbine-powered machines weighing over 100 pounds is fine, because that's much safer? Just trying to understand the rationale here.

Re:What is different?

[cayenne8]

So, which part is a rant? Specifically?

Because you dared speak ill of the "Chosen One".

Please report to Room 101 for re-education.

Re:What is different?

[russotto]

The guy running the roofing business, though? He'll have to wait a couple of years or become a pilot and an expert on navigating section 333's paperwork mill

Or he'll just do it. The FAA doesn't have the manpower to catch him... and even if they do catch him once, the fine is $10,000 and thus lots cheaper than doing it legally.

Re:What is different?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I think I understand the FAA's position. The precaution to ban all commercial use until a good system is put in place is unfair to roofers but likely prevents some far more wild and daring commercial ventures -- people motivated by money will go a lot further than people motivated by leisure -- that would likely have resulted in damage and injuries or worse. That's the reality of needing laws -- they are bound to be unfair to some but are considered to be beneficial for the society overall.

And IMO had the rules be more lax from the outset and a few bad accidents had happened, it would likely have brought bad PR for drones in general (not that they are terribly loved now) and would likely stun the progress in that area for longer.

I'm not a big fan of the current administration but I think being cautious about drones *in this country* is the right thing to do.

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

The antidote to dishonest hyperbole is not more dishonest hyperbole.

Which didn't stop you from also carefully avoiding any attempt to point out which of the facts mentioned is wrong or ranty - just another lazy bit of ad hominem, showing you prefer to deliberately avoid talking about the actual matter at hand. Thanks for being predictable, at least.

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

No, you didn't make that point hard to find, you just failed to make it relevant to the question.

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

people motivated by money will go a lot further than people motivated by leisure

You mean, like those guys who video themselves on motorcycles weaving through traffic at 120mph, compared to professional drivers? Or (more topically) the guys who fly RC machines beyond LOS in the clouds or around national monuments or through moving traffic 10' off the ground, or who (like Pirker) buzz pedestrians, buzz police cars, etc., all to stir up YouTube traffic for fun? Compared to, say, a farmer who wants to look for crop damage, a local volunteer who wants to support LEOs in a rural search and rescue, or a tower maintenance climber who wants to reduce his chances of dying in the course of pursuing very dangerous work (compared to, say, un-paid people who BASE jump off of structures, frequently killing themselves)?

Recreational jackasses do dangerous stuff all the time. Almost every example of someone flying an RC machine in a stupid manner is an example of a (usually noob) hobbyist being clueless, not a working person with their business on the line being carefully about what they're doing.

If the rules had been more lax back when congress passed a law saying the FAA needed to make it so, you'd see a country (just like countries all around the world who aren't paralyzed by the need to spend years hand-wringing over thousands of new regulations every year) where the average person would already have seen their local landscapers, construction contractors, S&R teams, artists, realtors, and farmers making regular use of this incredibly useful technology. Instead, we get what we have now - uninformed fools who can't make the distinction between a quad for bridge inspection and a predator drone. Who think that someone with an ultra-wide angle lens mounted on a tiny sensor is going to be able to read their bank web site password while stealthily hovering outside their kitchen window, but haven't thought about what someone on the ground with a $100 spotting scope can see while leaning over a fence.

Every year the administration breaks the law by deliberately dragging this process out past their legal deadlines, they're making it harder, not easier, to make this all work sensibly. The administration should be out showing off these business opportunities - which require no poorly assigned tax dollars, unlike the billions that have been poured into failed warm-and-fuzzy initiatives like bankrupt solar companies, which the administration has repeatedly fallen all over themselves to quickly finance, and to exempt, with lighting speed, from any number of the sort of regulatory burdens they're just shrugging about in this sector.

Re:What is different?

[publiclurker]

the part where you rant on about the scary black man being so scary is the rant son. remember, dog whistles don't work around grownups that have heard them before.

Re:What is different?

[ScentCone]

So you're saying that even though the roofing guy has every last skill he needs to in order to fly a plastic toy multirotor a couple dozen feet in the air to help reduce the risks and costs in his business, you're suggesting that he constantly arrange for a third party with a pilot's license to show up and bill him to do that exact same three minute task. You're so busy calling someone else a moron that you can't see how transparently you're trying to set up rent-seeking protection for pilots who will expect each of those visits (to where the roofing guy is already traveling anyway!) to fetch him hundreds of dollars. At which point the roofer would be better off hiring day labor to do a multi-man ladder setup for each sales pitch, which completely defeats the purpose of using readily available technology to speed business and make a given single person more productive. I suppose you're also going to suggest that he hire a full-time FCC-approved HAM to follow him around and make sure he's using his mobile phone, truck CB, and any other emitting devices according to regs, right? I mean, there are plenty of professionals skilled in the use of radio communication devices, so it's crazy for the roofer to even OWN a cell phone when he could hire a professional with a HAM license to do all his on site communications, right? And YOU'RE the one saying that someone else is like a "creationist?"

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is (of course you do) to make thousands of contractors run out and spend hundreds or thousands a week to bring in hired pilots to fly 4-pound plastic toy RC copters 30 feet off the ground for them? Do you understand how absurd that is, or how absurd you come across for suggesting that's better than them doing it for themselves? Of course you do, and you're just trolling. Why, is the question. You must be a licensed pilot who's worried about losing some old-school AP business, huh?

Re:What is different?

[david_thornley]

Is there another administration that would handle this in a way you think better? This is the exact process I'd expect. If Obama were holding anything up, the relaxed rules wouldn't be anywhere close to passing. All you can say is that he hasn't expedited the process, and it isn't clear to me that another President would. Your "Thank you, Obama:" probably should be "Thank you, FAA" or "Thank you, bureaucracy".

Headline 100% Wrong

[ScentCone]

The FAA's current position is that ALL (with very, very few waivered exceptions) commercial use of UAS is not allowed. Their proposed new rules would reduce their restrictions, not add to them. You can't get more restricted than "completely banned." But don't get your hopes up. It will take two or three years before these proposed rules, or some variation on them, actually take effect. In the meantime, thousands of small businesses, farmers, etc., will continue to just operate on the down-low and risk large fines.

Especially ridiculous, of course, is that people flying the exact same machines, in exactly the same place, at exactly the same time, with all of the exact same safety precautions and practices, but who are doing it for recreational purposes, will not be beholden to the same rules. Flying after the sun goes down? Just fine if you're an enthusiast. Making exactly the same flight, but getting $50 to do it? Federal fine!

Another capricious, irrational regulatory stance on the part of the executive branch. The new rules, if and when they ever stick, despite congress requiring them, by law, to have it done by September (it will never happen), will have zero impact on a reckless amateur noob or someone malicious. This is just a fee grab looking to feed the FAA with $150 every 24 months from some guy who does roofing and wants to inspect gutters without putting up a dangerous ladder. Right now he's not allowed. Someday he will be able to, if he pays more money to do so. But his neighbor can do it for fun with no legal risks. Absurd.

Re:Headline 100% Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to 21st century America, Citizen. Hope your freedom was worth the security.

Re:Headline 100% Wrong

[ScentCone]

I honestly don't get what your point is Like, are you saying that if commercial operators can't fly drones nobody should, or maybe the other way round? Either way it is an absurd false equivalence.

I'm just telling you what the actual situation is. You can decide for yourself if you think that means that a journalist flying a 4-pound plastic quadcopter with a GoPro should be able to do the same things as the hobbyist who's standing right next to him doing exactly the same thing with the same equipment in exactly the same way, or whether you think the enthusiast should be subject to the same limitations as the journalist. Think what you will. I'm pointing out that the Obama administration thinks that the journalist should be currently banned from flying at all while the guy standing next to him can carry on unmolested. And that the proposed rules, once they go into effect in a couple of years, will still make strangely arbitrary distinctions between the two uses (and users).

Re: Headline 100% Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Big deal, you can fly a small plane with friends and have no problem. Fly them for $50 and you can get fined if you do t have a commercial transport license.

Re: Headline 100% Wrong

[ScentCone]

Big deal, you can fly a small plane with friends and have no problem. Fly them for $50 and you can get fined if you do t have a commercial transport license.

So out of curiosity, how do you justify that distinction? What is it about the $50 that makes the pilot suddenly less safe? Specifically.

Re: Headline 100% Wrong

[XxtraLarGe]

So out of curiosity, how do you justify that distinction? What is it about the $50 that makes the pilot suddenly less safe? Specifically.

The government isn't getting their cut, which means the pilot will soon be surrounded by men with guns. That's what makes them suddenly less safe.

Re: Headline 100% Wrong

[asylumx]

It's not about the $50, it's about the fact that you're working "for hire" as as such are required to have a specific level of training and upkeep. Similar to going to your friends house for dinner vs. your friend opening a restaurant from their home. The latter requires periodic health inspections, for example.

Re: Headline 100% Wrong

[asylumx]

BTW when your buddy flies with you, they can split the cost with you -- as long as they are flying with you and they are not commissioning the flight itself.

Re:Headline 100% Wrong

[otter42]

The journalist is not doing exactly the same thing. The journalist is flying for money, the hobbyist not.

The FAA's rules for aviation are written in blood. The reason I'm not allowed to fly for money is because experience shows that people take risks when money is involved, risks they wouldn't otherwise take. In general, the pressure to fly my plane in order to get home in time for is much less than the pressure to fly in order to get a paying client home on time for his dinner, especially if I need the money and won't get it if I don't fly.

Note, this is not a discussion about the relative risk of a 2kg UAV being flown for money. I'm focussing only on the mistaken notion that motivations are not important for predicting an activity's danger. Motivations are *crucially* important here.

Re: Headline 100% Wrong

[otter42]

It's really simple. Past experience has shown that pilots do stupid things for money. We take risks we shouldn't when our paycheck is on the line. It used to be that I didn't need a commercial license to fly for money, but after seeing too many people get injured and die because of risky behavior (weather, fuel, maintenance, etc...) the FAA saw that regulations about commercial flight were necessary.

Imagine there's a blizzard outside. Think about your motivations to drive yourself to a friend's house, vs. your motivations to drive an uber passenger to his friend's house when the client is paying a 10.0x surcharge. And you really need the money because you're short on rent. Think you're more likely to take the risk when there's money on the line? Of course you are. We all are. But in aviation, you're always one hiccup away from an accident so the consequences of chasing money are much worse.

And that's why $50 makes all the difference.

Re:Headline 100% Wrong

[ScentCone]

Note, this is not a discussion about the relative risk of a 2kg UAV being flown for money.

OK then, talk about that, instead.

Two guys standing right next to each other, each flying their 4-pound micro quad up to the top of the same 25' chimney to see if there's raccoon damage to the metal mesh at the top. They each do the same pre-flight checks, operate according to exactly the same safety standards, control people in the area the same way, handle their identical rigs in the same way, complete their 30' flights in a minute and a half, and land right back at their feet. One of them has been offered $20, and other is doing it out of interest. Can you tell which one it is, and therefore which one should be fined $10,000?

Re: Headline 100% Wrong

[publiclurker]

Basically, people tend to take more chances when money is on the line.

Re:Headline 100% Wrong

[DNS-and-BIND]

I'm pointing out that the Obama administration thinks that the journalist should be currently banned from flying at all while the guy standing next to him can carry on unmolested. And that the proposed rules, once they go into effect in a couple of years, will still make strangely arbitrary distinctions between the two uses (and users).

Heh, heh, welcome to the twilight world of the kind of laws that apply to firearms. I'm glad the rest of society can enjoy the sorts of muddle-headed thinking such as the assault weapons ban of 1994.

Re:Headline 100% Wrong

[david_thornley]

On an individual flight, you won't be able to tell. Over a long period, you'll likely find that the commercial guy will be more reluctant to turn down work, and will fly when a hobbyist might take the drone out of service for maintenance, or decide the weather's too bad, or something. The commercial pilot is also likely to take more risks in the flight, if there's some problem with getting a good view of the raccoon mesh or whatever.

The law is not a precision instrument. It can only function by putting people into categories by objective criteria (which may have to be subjectively judged). Putting commercial X and hobby X into different groups has worked pretty well over time.

Re:Headline 100% Wrong

[david_thornley]

s/Obama administration/FAA/

Re:not in my city

[Rei]

Because traffic and diesel fumes and road noise from surface delivery are a-okay in your book?

But then

[penguinoid]

how will the drones be able to fly through my pet door to deliver my bag of potato chips directly to my couch?

Re:But then

[OzPeter]

how will the drones be able to fly through my pet door to deliver my bag of potato chips directly to my couch?

Oh, that is easily answered!

Step 1. Start with the pool of tech workers who have been displaced by the oversubscription of H1-B visa workers (The Pacific NW will be a great place to start!)

Step 2. Sign them up with brand new car ride-share service Druber (Drones R our Uber!) (that is, all the ones who own cars, and not those hipsters who eschew the Modern American Car)

Step 3. Using a new social networking App (DroneDrivers!), they check in at the automated, drone based delivery service's warehouse. (Let's call it DroneToHome!)

Step 4. When you order your bag of potato chips (baked of course, in olive oil, and only lightly salted), online, through the PCWS (Potato Chip Webservice), using DroneDrivers, it pings the all the Druber driver's nearest to the DroneToHome warehouse.

Step 5. Through a process of consensus, all but one of the Druber drivers decides that the proposed job is not worth their time. The remaining driver rocks up to the DroneToHome drive-through and and is handed a remote control to a drone. While this occurring, some minimum wage monkeys (formally wanna be rockstar programmers from defunct start ups) release the Kraken^W drone (that carries your potato chips) from the roof of the warehouse.

Step 6. The Druber driver then takes control of the drone, and simultaneously drives towards your house, while piloting the drone. This is achieved through the use of a special VR headset that overlays the flightpath of the drone on the surrounding view of the road, combined with a leftover Nintendo power glove that the Druber driver uses to punch virtual controls that only he/her can see in his/her field of vision[1]. The headset also incorporates a live camera feed from the drone. That camera feed also has a virtual map overlaid on the video that shows the route that the driver must take [2].

Step 7. When the Druber driver finally reaches your home, he simply flies the drone to your cat door, lands it, and in a transformer like way, converts it into a walking style robot that pushes through the cat door and makes its way to your couch!

Thus by outlawing non-direct view drone flights, the FAA has enabled at least (at least I tell you) 3 different startup opportunities!!! [3]:

1. Druber - Drones R our Uber delivery service!
2. DroneDrivers - Find the right person to drive your drone delivery!
3. DroneToHome - The only way to fly (your packages)

Notes:

[1] This step is predicated on the fact that no-one has yet outlawed flying drones while driving.

[2] A couple of months ago I was watching the NOVA program on landslides (Killer Landslides) and one fascinating part of it was film from inside a rescue chopper that showed a display in the chopper that has a live feed of the terrain overlaid with graphics showing where the roads were meant to be.

[3] Will provide future workers for Step 5.

Bureaucratic red tape

[Dereck1701]

"keep their aircraft in sight"

So they're basically negating the one major aspect of a drone, the ability to fly significant areas autonomously by tethering it to someone on the ground. Sounds like bureaucratic red tape to me, if you can't kill a thing make it useless to do it by wrapping it in so many "common sense" measures as to make it useless. I can understand some things, requiring insurance, constant tracking, keeping records, but maintaning line of sight either shows a complete lack of understanding of what a drone is or a blatant attempt to kill a (possibly) nascent industry.

Re:Bureaucratic red tape

[JaredOfEuropa]

A lot of cases where drones are being used commercially (aerial photography / site surveys / inspection of industrial installations) can still be done within the line-of-sight restriction. Because the operator still enjoys the other major aspects of drones: stable flight characteristics, and a telemetry+video downlink. I'm not a ig fan of regulations, but in this case I understand why they take a conservative stance for now.

Re:Bureaucratic red tape

[LWATCDR]

These are safety rules people Keeping the aircraft in sight means and having the ability to have the operator take control is actually a good rule. It should help keep down injuries and property damage. Remember this is for a vehicle of up to 50lbs. A 50lbs vehicle moving at say 80 mph can do a lot of damage.
And before anyone says it this is for all remote control aircraft and not just quadcopters! I have seen fixed wing RC aircraft moving a lot faster than 80mph.

These rules will allow for things like aerial photography for movies, news, and real estate, also for a lot of AG uses and other inspection tasks.
Nope these are good rules to start with and in a few years maybe opened up.
The last thing anyone wants is for a 50lbs drone to crash into a school bus full of Nuns taking orphans to a Christmas party and having it crash into an animal shelter killing all the kids, nuns, and puppies.

Re:Bureaucratic red tape

[ScentCone]

Except one rule that sort of prevents aerial photography for movies - the part about "can't fly over people".

You're cherry-picking words. It's can't fly over people unless they are involved in what's going on and under control safety-wise. Exactly like you can't use a 100' construction crane "over people," but you can use a 100' camera crane over people (without hard hats!) when everyone involved is under the care of people who are controlling the set and looking out for the safety of all involved. Flying a 20-pound drone to film a car chase through a controlled set is WAY safer than using a full-scale manned helicopter to do the same thing.

Re:Bureaucratic red tape

[LWATCDR]

"In most cases, they could not fly over people other than the operators."
It says in most cases.
On a closed set with safety precautions it would be allowed.

Re:Bureaucratic red tape

[tlhIngan]

So they're basically negating the one major aspect of a drone, the ability to fly significant areas autonomously by tethering it to someone on the ground. Sounds like bureaucratic red tape to me, if you can't kill a thing make it useless to do it by wrapping it in so many "common sense" measures as to make it useless. I can understand some things, requiring insurance, constant tracking, keeping records, but maintaning line of sight either shows a complete lack of understanding of what a drone is or a blatant attempt to kill a (possibly) nascent industry.

The problem is, and has been, that drones need to integrate into the air system we have today. Low level flights are generally allowed because aircraft don't usually fly that low (hence the 400 foot rule), but once you go above that, you can find yourself in the middle of air traffic - maybe not so much an airliner, but bug smashers and helicopters. And if you're going to be in that, you need to participate in full VFR rules at a minimum (including see and avoid). And if you can't see your drone, well...

In fact, that's been the primary problem the FAA has been wrestling with - how to integrate drones into the national air traffic system. Everyone wants the same rules applied - if your drone is going to occupy the same airspace, it will have to obey the same rules, including necessarily avionics (transponders, controlled airspace and ATC, etc).

The lowlevel rules are an attempt to let a fledgling industry not require everyone who flies a drone be a fully licensed pilot.

(The NTSB has ruled that even RC planes are "aircraft" and ARE subject to the FARs. The FAA's advisory is just that - advisory on how to partake in the hobby in ways that are unlikely to call the FAA's attention). So the FAA wants to treat small drones as RC style aircraft with the same RC style limitations.

It's already happened that idiots have tried to abuse it (hence why the NTSB has ruled RC aircraft are aircraft) - some idiot with a drone was bobbing and weaving it and causing a nuisance to the public flying it through pedestrian tunnels and dive bombing them, etc.

The problem is, drones are so easy to fly, most users are idiots, and the FAA has to basically balance the demands of fully licensed airspace users against those of hobbyists and small commercial operations.

Large drones are still subject to full pilot and aircraft/airspace regulations. (There also have been large RC aircraft that end up having to qualify under experimental aircraft rules).

Re:Bureaucratic red tape

[Dereck1701]

Nothing is guaranteed. But just because a remotely operated vehicle is out of physical sight doesn't mean it is out of control. First off they shouldn't be operating anywhere near aircraft, drone flight should be restricted below 500' (planes, jets and helicopters are supposed to remain above this altitude), above 300' unless they have the permission of the land owner to fly lower and nowhere near airports. And no one in their right mind is saying that these things should be allowed to fly about unmonitored. But if you have someone monitoring the video and/or telemetry from each drone it should be as good as line of sight and shouldn't overly effect their usefulness. If the drone up/down link fails the drone should either return to base or immediately and land. Requiring line of sight makes them virtually useless, I saw a University presentation on their working with the FAA's program (about a year ago) beyond the obscene paperwork requirements to do a survey of a relatively small 10 acre field required a half dozen people. Imagine two scenarios both surveying the same 50 acres of woods. In scenario one we have the line of sight requirements, they either have to post people with some form of control of the craft every few hundred feet, requiring dozens of people thereby putting many more people under its flight area. Or move a few hundred feet at a time with one or two people, either way it would either take a full day or even days. Scenario two, a single van with a single person pulls up next the woods, they set the drone outside and press a button in the van, the drone goes about its work with the person monitoring it from inside the van. Even if the drone had to come back for battery swaps it would probably take a few hours and the one person that is in the operations area is safely in a van where they cannot be struck even if control is lost.

Commercials

[penguinoid]

FAA Proposes Rules To Limit Commercial Drone Use

I've always thought commercials drone on and on. Glad to see the FCC is doing something about this.

Re:Commercials

[andrewbaldwin]

Well said

I'd like to mod you as both Insightful and Funny

Re:not in my city

[Richard_at_work]

The not having the delivery truck crashing through the roof of my house because of a strong wind is a-okay in my book.

What about fees that should...

[EzInKy]

...be paid to landowners for easements? We've already been sold down the river when it comes to commercial aircraft and radio waves that pass over our property. Personally, I think the line should be drawn here. You want to fly a drone a few feet over my house, you pay.

Re:What about fees that should...

[Rei]

Yeah, and you should get money for every satellite that passes over you too!

First off, nobody is talking about flying "a few feet over your house". Unless you just ordered something, wherein one would presume that you're giving the drone permission to come to your house.

Secondly, you purchased a piece of ground. Not a cylinder of area reaching from the Earth's core up to the edge of the known universe. You have rights in the immediate vicinity of your house, but not far above it. As it should be.

Technical solution?

[ArcadeMan]

In an attempt to bring order to increasingly chaotic skies, the Federal Aviation Administration on Sunday proposed long-awaited rules on the commercial use of small drones, requiring operators to be certified, fly only during daylight and keep their aircraft in sight.

So if we add an external camera on a stick, pointed toward the drone, does that count? /duck

Re:not in my city

[Rei]

Straw man. First off, any commercial drones are going to have to be able to prove that they can cope with whatever conditions they're permitted to fly in (and not fly in conditions they're not approved for), as well as to gracefully handle failures. And secondly, even a piano won't crash though the roof of a house - let alone a couple dozen kilo (tops) drone. Roofs are not as weak as you seem to think they are - unless your house is condemned or something. And third, if the wind is strong enough to blow a drone into your house, it's also going to be throwing all sorts of other debris into your house as well; at least the drone would be actively *trying* to resist and/or gain altitude to safety (with a powertrain that can do 50+ mph). When was the last time you saw a tree branch or piece or other debris do that?

Lastly, while an out of control drone may not be able to go through the roof of your house, let me assure you, an out of control delivery truck absolutely can go through your walls.

Bureaucratic red tape

[cozytom]

Can you promise the drone, out of your site, will not run into another aircraft, person or building?

For experimental situations over known terrain maybe autonomous drones will work fine. For commercial operations in situations where other aircraft may be operating (IE EMS helicopters, AG aircraft, other drones, etc), the drone needs to operate under the same rules as the manned aircraft they are in the vicinity of. Manned aircraft have to see and avoid other aircraft. It doesn't always work, but certainly with two pilots looking gives a fighting chance of one pilot noticing. Today pilots have a hard time seeing birds, and putting drones in their way will cause more accidents.

Please consider aircraft of all sizes and types. Sure a 5lb drone may not hurt a 747, but a 5lb drone will probably go through the windshield of a small twin engine aircraft. If the drone were to be ingested by a turbine engine, it is likely to cause damage to the engine (and destroy the drone), but who gets the bill. If I were running an airline, I would certainly want the $millions to repair that turbine reimbursed.

Once again, short-sighted

[RogueWarrior65]

The no night flying restriction is incredibly myopic when it comes to search & rescue operations. As an 8-year veteran of SAR ops, I can tell you that most searches start at night. Why? Because it's only after it gets dark that the reporting party decides that they need help. We never ever delay an initial response for daylight hours. Low-cost FLIR cameras are starting to become available. And I'm certainly not going to submit a flight plan 24 hours in advance. 87% of all searches are resolved in the first 12 hours. For this administration to tie one hand behind our backs is further evidence that Washington knows nothing about what goes on in the real world. I have the same opinion towards the line-of-sight rule. We may need to get eyes on in a remote canyon that we can't see from a decent launch point or it might take several hours to hike up to where we would have line-of-sight.

Granted that this is all supposed to be about commercial flying but try convincing some bureaucrat that SAR ops are not. For evidence I point you towards the recent FAA/Texas Equusearch dust up. Personally, I would enjoy introducing said bureaucrat to the family of a missing 3-yr old with the following words, "Allow me to introduce Mr. Head-up-his-ass who won't allow us to use every tool to find your child."

Re:Once again, short-sighted

[Rei]

It would be great if you could find someone who would pledge to pay your legal bills if the FAA sues you, and then launch anyway and hopefully use it to save someone's life. The publicity such a case would bring would do wonders for improving drone regulations.

Re:not in my city

[cayenne8]

Because traffic and diesel fumes and road noise from surface delivery are a-okay in your book?

Doesn't bother me...

Re:not in my city

[Rei]

A drone (or anything that is designed to fly) is supported in the air by the air going over it's airfoils.

The amazon drones are quadcopters. They have no airfoils other than the propellers (rapidly rotating airfoils, moving at speeds faster than even tornado-force winds).

A tree branch, barring some insignificant wind resistance

Last I checked, tree branches breaking and falling into houses during windstorms is not a myth, so I'm not sure what exactly you're going on about.

No matter it's horizontal or rotational velocity, if unsupported, it will accelerate to terminal velocity straight down

You'll find that the terminal velocity of a branch is far higher than the terminal velocity of a quadcopter. Even completely unpowered, propellers undergo autorotation when falling, which acts as a brake.

However, the air around it is not still, it can move in any direction. And the drone will move with the air, even a slight breeze, since the air is the only thing supporting it. An airplane flying at 50 MPH airspeed in a 60 MPH headwind will be traveling over the ground backwards at 10 MPH.

Meanwhile, windblown debris will be moving at up to 60 MPH with 36 times the kinetic energy per kilogram.

And seriously, are you so daft as to think that Amazon and others would be licensed to launch drones in a hurricane? Launches would very obviously be limited to times where the peak anticipated gust speed is still with a large margin of error controllable by the craft; it's absurd to think licensing would allow anything else.

It does not take much wind to blow a drone off course

Actually, drones that lock to GPS positions are incredibly hard to blow significantly off course (look at how little the drone has to rotate off the vertical to hold position - it could easily tolerate winds far stronger than that). You clearly know nothing about drones if you think they're easy to blow off course. If they have to use their whole power output to hold position, they do just that.

go watch small aircraft take off and land at an airport in a 10+ MPH gusting wind

Quadcopers are not light planes. You might as well start comparing quadcopters to eagles next. "Look, Amazon's drones are going to steal all of our salmon! Look at what eagles do!"

and they are 20 times as heavy

With many hundreds of times the surface area, with no ability for rapid changes in angle or power output, and no computer control system to do so automatically.

with a much more powerful engine than any drone.

Power to weight ratios on drones are many times higher than on light planes. Which is obviously what matters, and I certainly hope you're not daft enough to think that absolute power is what matters.

It takes far, far, far less wind to blow one off course than a falling tree branch

Do I really need to reiterate my entire previous post?

A 10 MPH gust can happen without being forecast and will absolutely toss a drone

Yes, about 10 centimeters before the control software compensates.

Forms 1040 and 1099 exist

[tepples]

The government isn't getting their cut

Why should this cut exceed the tax on the income that an independent contractor already declares on form 1040?

Re:not in my city

[ShanghaiBill]

The not having the delivery truck crashing through the roof of my house because of a strong wind is a-okay in my book.

This size and structure of the delivery drones makes it very unlikely that they would go through your roof. They are mostly made of Styrofoam.

It's an opportunity!

[CmdrTamale]

I envisage a helicopter load of UAV operators in "line of sight".

For the helicopter providers, it is a great opportunity.

For the LOS UAV operators, it is a wonderful range extension.

For the rest of us, underneath, maybe not so great.
--
Most people are not nearly as paranoid as they should be.

the fanciful way of doing things

[paul mafinga]

Posing politicians are part of the process, no doubt. To what extent the model we learned about in school exists, or whether it ever existed, is not terribly relevant. There is a belief about the US government that many Americans share. Here goes ...

Fundamentally, complaints should go through the judicial branch; if they are serious and lingering enough, legislators write laws to address the issue; and finally, the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws.

When the executive branch circumvents the complaint and legislative processes, as we're seeing with "proposals from this federal agency, or that federal agency" it raises concerns about conflict of interest. How much scrutiny of the solution is happening by other authorities? Doesn't the scientific method demand more eyes and more input?

Why not let small players, new graduates out of MIT or the local tech school, innovate drone technology at the street level for awhile. If there is abuse of drones, address it through channels, for example complaints through the judicial branch.

So many times, the executive branch has the appearance of favoring entrenched players that contribute to the party in power. It appears to be a driver of many of their proposals that bypass the judicial and legislative branches.