Slashdot Mirror
FAA Has Approved More Than 1,000 Drone Exemptions
coondoggie writes: The Federal Aviation Administration today said it has issued 1,008 exemptions to businesses wanting to fly unmanned aircraft in the national airspace. Such small drones have been on the bad side of the news in the past few days: there have been at least three complaints about the diminutive aircraft flying near the flight path of JFK airport in New York. All three of the flights landed safely but the events prompted New York Senator Charles Schumer to call for "tougher FAA rules on drones," as well as geofencing software that could prohibit a done from flying higher than 500 feet, and keep it two miles away from any airport or sensitive area.
Eh, it's kind of like your Android phone not making root readily available. It's there to protect the unwashed masses from themselves. Serious hobbyists (or bad actors) don't have much difficulty getting around the restrictions. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that "geofencing" software will keep a terrorist from flying a drone into restricted airspace. What it will do is keep the "hold my beer and watch this!" crowd from flying their drone into the glide path of a 747.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1) Have the legislature pass a law against X with exemptions to be granted by agency Y and get the executive to sign it. (Ideally, X outlaws everyone from doing anything - see below.)
2) As an employee of agency Y, get into a position of power to grant exemptions
3) Accept bribes (quietly, the "invest $500K in my brother-in-law's fishing charter" kind) to grant exemptions to the law
4) PROFIT!
I am assuming they mean above ground, because otherwise it would be a stupid idea (I'm not saying that's impossible). Do you require drones to be equipped with laser or radar altimeters? Do you require them to use DTED?
Nobody is talking about geofencing birds, really? Can you really be that stupid? Bird control is a MAJOR concern at airports.
Did you miss my comment about flying over private property owned by the pilot (or presumably, where the owner has given the pilot permission to fly in it)?
It's just like driving a vehicle: if you have a big farm, there is zero requirement to register your car with the state government or get a driver's license, as long as you keep your vehicle on your own land. You can even let your 12-year-old kid drive your car on your land. It's only when you drive onto public streets that all that stuff becomes mandatory.
It should be the same with drones. Stick to your own land, or land you have explicit permission to fly over, and nothing is needed. If you want to fly in airspace shared by other aircraft, you need a license just like they do.
This exactly shows why morons like you have no business flying without a license. You have no concept whatsoever of "airspace".
You don't seem to understand that you don't own the air over your property.
Bullshit. You own the air up to 500 feet. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly within that zone without permission or a really good reason.
Are you saying that somebody launching a 3-pound quadcopter into the air above their property is inherently safer at 1000' than is the person who does that from some empty lot or a wooded park in the middle of nowhere?
No, someone with a 3-pound quadcopter has no business operating at 1000' because that's federally regulated airspace, unless that person has a proper pilot's license and type rating for that aircraft. Even there, they probably shouldn't be allowed to operate at that altitude because that aircraft is too small to be seen by other human-piloted aircraft.
What I'm saying is that someone who owns the property and also the drone shouldn't need a license to operate their drone, within their airspace (up to 500' AGL), as long as they stay within that box. If they crash their drone into their house, that's their own fault and their own problem. It's exactly like how we treat farm-use vehicles: they aren't required to be registered, tagged, or have licensed drivers as long as they stay on private land. If they screw up because they let their 12-year-old kid drive and he crashes, that's their problem, and auto insurance won't cover it nor do they need to worry about hitting other drivers.
Uh, as someone who *does* have a pilot's certificate, the GP is more right than you are.
First of all it's a certificate, not a license. Yes, the distinction matters. And there's lots of not-commercial aircraft - in any case the airspace rules are no different.
You don't own the air up to 500 feet by any means. The FAA's rules (mostly for fixed-wing aircraft) are in 14 CFR 91.119, paraphrased:
- Always where an emergency landing can be conducted without "undue hazard" (note, not "no hazard") to people or property on the surface
- Congested areas, like towns and other areas the FAA decides (naturally only after they come after you) are "too populated", like highways. 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet. At a minimum, includes the yellow areas on the World VFR chart here.
- "Other than congested areas", but not "sparsely populated" - that's your 500ft rule
- "Sparsely populated areas" can be operated arbitrarily low (subject to the first rule) as long as they're 500ft away from person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. This is why crop dusting is legal.
Of course this obviously doesn't apply to takeoffs and landings. It also doesn't apply for helicopters (they have a looser set of rules) and a few other kinds of aircraft.
The long and the short of it is I can fly over your field at 20 feet all day long if I want to. It's not very courteous, but it's quite legal. I can fly 501 lateral feet from your second-story bathroom window, even if it's over your property. And of course a helicopter can fly lower and closer than that, even over a congested area. Again, not courteous and not necessarily smart, but there's a whole lot of things in flying that are legal are not good ideas.
You have no special sovereignty over the air above your property. You can use it to the extent the use is reasonably connected to the property below. For instance you can put another level on your house without asking anybody, or even a tall radio tower (>200ft or near an airport you have to tell the FCC), but you can't put up a "spite pole" just to keep airplanes away. So basically you have a right to your airspace to the extent you don't try to exercise control over it by excluding airplanes.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.