The FAA Has Missed Its Congressionally Mandated Deadline To Regulate Drones

derekmead writes: When Congress passed the FAA Modernization Act in 2012, it gave the agency until September 30, 2015 to fully regulate commercial drones for use in the United States. Well, it's October 1, and we're left with a patchwork of regulatory band-aids, quasi-legal "guidelines," and a small drone rule that still hasn't gone into effect yet. This news shouldn't surprise anyone. The agency has missed most every milestone—both internal and lawmaker mandated—that has been set for it. The last two years have been fraught with lawsuits, confusion on enforcement within its own local offices (some FAA agents have told pilots they can't post videos on YouTube, for example), and various conflicting guidelines as to who can fly a drone where, and for what purposes.

Comments

Congressionally mandated penalty

[phantomfive]

If there is no congressionally mandated penalty, it's not really a law.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[davester666]

..and some entity actually willing and able to enforce the penalty...

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[Dutch Gun]

Tie some of their funding to the completion of their legal mandates, and they will become fearsome regulation-writing warriors. You just have to understand Bureaushido - the Way of the Bureaucrat.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[CaptQuark]

I wonder if we can do that for ALL of congress and the government. Don't do the job you are mandated? You don't get paid.

I wonder if they will remember that in December when they threaten to shut down the gov't again because they can't agree on a debt ceiling resolution.

--

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[0123456]

No, it's more like "mumble, mumble, national air space, mumble, mumble.".

I just checked the Constitution, and I don't see "national air space" mentioned anywhere.

The Founders would look at you like a madman if you went back in time, showed them a drone, and asked whether the Federal government had the right to regulate them under the Constitution they just signed.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But when the Constitution was signed, the "national airspace" consisted of the tallest flagpole or the yardarm of the tallest ship in the harbor.

They would probably also look at us as madmen if we showed them a HDTV or smart phone and asked them if they should regulate the EM spectrum.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

FAA is one of those organizations that really needs to be funded 100% all the time

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[drkim]

The Founders would look at you like a madman if you went back in time, showed them a drone...

More likely, they would have you burned as a witch.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[mysidia]

See 49 U.S. Code 40103. The airspace is outside of the jurisdiction of any state; the states are considered to only control what goes on at the ground. By act of congress, the US federal government has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of the United States.

Can they explain where the FAA gets any Constitutional authority to regulate drones?

Drones are flying, so they are encroaching upon airspace which is used by aircraft crossing the country and multiple states to carry cargo, passengers, and conduct other interstate commerce.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[schwit1]

The penalty should have been that Congress took the drone regulatory authority away from the FAA and gave it to themselves or a separate entity.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[dave420]

And they'd think you just as mad to treat the constitution as some sort of divine document that can never be updated. If the FAA regulating the national airspace is of vital importance to the functioning of the country, add it to the constitution. Simple. Problem solved.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[mrchaotica]

You failed to explain where Congress gets the authority to create that law in the first place.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[wirefarm]

No, The Founders would burn you for witchcraft if you went back in time, showed them a drone...

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

When the Constitution was signed, the legal principle was that you owned everything above and below your land ad caelum et ad inferos. I think it's pretty clear that they would have disapproved of the federal government intruding into state and individual property rights the way the FAA is doing.

Furthermore, the airspace described by "the tallest flagpole or the yardarm of the tallest ship in the harbor" is pretty much what we are talking about when talking about drones.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[phantomfive]

That's what I think, too.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[JasterBobaMereel]

They just need to wait until planes start crashing then get thier funding back ...

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[sjames]

So what makes aircraft especially privileged? The airspace belongs to the people and so users of it must share equitably with each other. Manned aircraft have no special moral claim to priority in that sharing.

For safety reasons, it makes sense to segregate air traffic and there is a compelling interest in keeping manned aircraft flying but that doesn't mean drones shouldn't be operating with as few impediments as possible.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[sjames]

Sure, but that has yet to be done, so...

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[Coren22]

I think you might be confusing patents with copyright. Patents aren't eternal in the same way that the copyright on Steamboat Willy is eternal.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[Coren22]

If you were in Salem maybe, but most of the US never had any issue with witches.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[Talderas]

The state lines issue regarding the interstate commerce clause was decided over 70 years ago. Based on the ruling, your not participating in an interstate market is in fact participation in the interstate market.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[EndlessNameless]

It's pretty clear that with the invention of aircraft, we needed to revise the way we handle real estate.

Either you make it uniform and hand regulatory authority over to a federal agency, or you have a hodge-podge of state and local laws which make modern aviation either outright impossible or extremely burdensome.

Neither air travel nor deep mining were available technologies at the time the Constitution was written; to claim that the Constitution has some clear guidance on the matter is disingenuous at best.

The Supreme Court agreed with the nationwide "easement" that established regulated air space. I.e., the body explicitly granted the power to interpret the Constitution decided that the FAA was legally granted the authority to regulate national air space. That is the end of the discussion unless you wish to amend the Constitution further.

Go be an armchair lawyer somewhere else.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The Supreme Court agreed with the nationwide "easement" that established regulated air space. [...] I.e., the body explicitly granted the power to interpret the Constitution decided that the FAA was legally granted the authority to regulate national air space. That is the end of the discussion unless you wish to amend the Constitution further.

So? I said nothing that contradicted what you said.

It's pretty clear that with the invention of aircraft, we needed to revise the way we handle real estate.

Yes, and with the invention of drones and the fact that general aviation has become little more than a playground for rich folks, it may well be worth revisiting the question again. For example, we might tighten requirements so that only licensed and insured commercial airlines are permitted overflight, in particular in light of the fact that general aviation is the primary source of conflict with drones, as well as the overwhelming cause of air travel related fatalities.

Go be an armchair lawyer somewhere else.

Learn to read and put up your straw men somewhere else.

Re:Congressionally mandated penalty

[ganjadude]

so...where is the constitutional amendment?

as it is, 10th amendment supersedes any federal law that is not amended to the constitution

Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of drone operators are not pilots. They're not trained in see-and-avoid procedures. Many are very ignorant of FAA rules. That is why many drones are flown for commercial purposes, above 400 feet (the limit for recreational use), and close to airports. They're not trained on what to do if a mechanical part fails on a drone and it has to be landed in an emergency. There are good reasons why there are prohibitions on flying drones close to people and structures, yet these are frequently neglected. This doesn't even address the people who will act out of malice toward other aircraft, which is the same thing that prompts people to shine green laser pointers at planes. I understand the benefits of drones, but they shouldn't be flown without a COA, which is special authorization from the FAA. The terms of the COA should require the drone operator be a licensed pilot. I don't see any other way to protect the national airspace because the current approach allows for reckless ignorance of safety rules that will lead to serious accidents if not corrected.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[TWX]

I think that we're going to need a definition here... What exactly is a COA?

There are already classes of manned aircraft that do not require the operator to have a pilot's license to operate. There are rules and the operators are required to follow those rules, but without a licensing requirement I expect that enforcement could be challenging sometimes.

If it's any consolation I agree that RC aircraft need reasonable restrictions. Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over. Operators need to not fly in heavily populated areas. Classes of RC aircraft need to be created so that there are sane rules governing relatively safe child toys as compared to larger amateur rigs and even bigger and more powerful professional rigs.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[CaptQuark]

Get a grip. We are talking about toy quadcopters, not military-grade autonomous vehicles. A certificate of airworthiness for a six-inch quadcopter? A license to fly an RC toy? I'm sure you're also an advocate for licenses for kite "pilots" too.

Yeah, I can imagine your next argument too. "I mean the six-foot hexapod copters carrying three cameras and FPV downlinks." Your problem there is using the nebulous and incorrect term DRONE to lump everything together. If you have a problem with six-foot professionally manufactured multi-rotor vehicles, THEN SAY SO!!! Don't lump everything from a smartphone controlled toy from Fry's together with a heavy-lift multi-rotor carrying a Sony HD, gimbal mounted camera package.

Most people are familiar enough with cars that they don't get their knickers in a twist about regulating every wheeled vehicle the same way. We don't worry about Tesla cars driving on off-road trails and we don't allow quad utility vehicles on the freeways. To call every multi-rotor air vehicle a Drone is like calling every wheeled vehicle a Horseless carriage. And seeking licenses for every version of multi-rotor vehicles is like requiring a license for roller skates.

If you really want to discuss COA and licenses, then be specific about what class of air vehicles you are talking about. I don't have a problem with licenses and COA for six-foot, eighty pound camera platforms that will be flying over property and people. I understand that if they crash into a crowd then there is a real potential for injury. But a 12-inch, two pound toy with a pin-hole camera making videos for Facebook and YouTube worries me about as much as a badly thrown Frisbee.

--

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Obfuscant]

I think that we're going to need a definition here... What exactly is a COA?

Already defined. And here.

There are already classes of manned aircraft that do not require the operator to have a pilot's license to operate.

There are. So?

There are rules and the operators are required to follow those rules, but without a licensing requirement I expect that enforcement could be challenging sometimes.

You must be kidding. You don't think the FAA would take any action against an ultralight pilot who violated the rules just because no formal license is involved?

Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over.

That would not be first on my list of rules that need to be created. As you point out, there are other pilots already operating, and none of them need permission to fly over property they don't own. That's part of the national airspace concept -- to prevent a patchwork of local regulations and limitations that would make flying nearly impossible.

Imagine if a private pilot trying to make a cross-country flight of just 100 miles had to get permission from every property owner whose property he might fly over before doing so. What a nightmare. And when one says no?

Operators need to not fly in heavily populated areas.

That would be higher on my list, along with proximity to persons and building limits. (Which there already are.)

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Obfuscant]

A certificate of airworthiness for a six-inch quadcopter?

A Certificate of Authorization for an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. Is your six-inch quad going to be used for commercial purposes?

Yeah, I can imagine your next argument too. "I mean the six-foot hexapod copters carrying three cameras and FPV downlinks."

Well, yeah, I think that size of drone is going to be used for commercial purposes more often than the six-inch quad. Don't you think so, too?

If you really want to discuss COA and licenses, then be specific about what class of air vehicles you are talking about.

I think it is sufficient to talk about the commercial vs. non-commercial use, and that will have a practical effect of differentiating tiny toys from work-capable equipment.

But a 12-inch, two pound toy with a pin-hole camera making videos for Facebook and YouTube worries me about as much as a badly thrown Frisbee.

By the time you get to that size, you do have potential for commercial use, and they probably don't use pin-hole cameras, either. Mine doesn't (but it's a bit larger than 12", I think.) Commercial users have monetary interests in doing more risky things than people who aren't. We already have different licensing for commercial vs non-commercial pilots, why is there a problem here?

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[mysidia]

A Certificate of Authorization for an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. Is your six-inch quad going to be used for commercial purposes?

For Many people, the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES, by the FAA's definition of commercial which includes the publication of video or photography on Youtube, and the advancement of any public or political benefit (Such as use by a non-profit for search and rescue work --- considered commercial use), or if there happens to later be any revenue from photography derived from a drone flight.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[NoKaOi]

should require the drone operator be a licensed pilot

I hope you don't mean the same type of pilot's license required for manned non-ultralight aircraft. I think there should, however be a separate license for drone pilots. There needs to be a set of rules and procedures, with a license test that requires you to demonstrate you know them via a written test, similar concept to a HAM technical class license . It doesn't have to be a huge barrier to entry, just make sure you know the rules. If you fly a drone without a license or you break the rules then you get a fine. The problem is that the FAA would take at least 15 years to come up with such a thing and the rules would be an arcane mishmash of 15 years worth of bureaucrats adding to them.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[drinkypoo]

If it's any consolation I agree that RC aircraft need reasonable restrictions. Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over.

When are we going to apply the same standards to other aircraft? Why only drones? Nobody should be able to fly an airplane over my property without my written permission!

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[drinkypoo]

A Certificate of Authorization for an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. Is your six-inch quad going to be used for commercial purposes?

What is it that causes people to froth at the mouth when something is uses for commercial purposes? Using something for commercial purposes doesn't make it dangerous. There should be one standard which is applied to all activity, commercial or not, and that standard should be based not on the type of activity but on the potential for harm.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[dave420]

I know what you mean, but I think you might have overlooked something: It's kind of like sex. For free it's one thing, to use it as part of your business model is clearly something else entirely.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[slimjim8094]

That makes sense! Let's create that rule.

Oh. It already exists as 14 CFR 91.119c: "[in sparsely populated areas] the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

Some other kinds of aircraft other than airplanes can fly lower and closer in certain situations (maybe even drones?), but here's the dirty little secret: the FAA figures out if they want to punish you, and then they figure out how to do it, and then they succeed. It's a privilege, not a right, so while there's a sort of a farce of due process it's not remotely as strong as even what you'd find in a traffic court. If you're being a jackass and flying too low and pissing people off, they'll probably bust you for the catch-all 14 CFR 91.13"careless or reckless operation". So even if it seems like technically you're being legal flying within 500' of someone's structure, you'll still lose.

There's no such thing as a loophole when it comes to the FARs. If you think you've found one, the FAA will smack you down as an example to the rest that - no, there really aren't any loopholes. This happens all the time. The question is "does the FAA want to punish me for what I'm doing?" and if the answer is "maybe" think very, very hard.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over. Operators need to not fly in heavily populated areas.

Why don't we apply the same rules to private airplanes?

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[drinkypoo]

Oh. It already exists as 14 CFR 91.119c: "[in sparsely populated areas] the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

Right, but we can't have drones flying over 500' because that's where the aircraft are flying. We don't let aircraft fly at less than 500' because of the danger of crashing into something, not because of privacy considerations. Let the drones have the area between 250' and 500'. If there are privacy considerations, they apply to planes, only even moreso because planes are bigger and you can mount more advanced optics on them.

There's no such thing as a loophole when it comes to the FARs. If you think you've found one,

No, I just think I've found the folly in trying to apply the same logic to drones as you apply to airplanes.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[drinkypoo]

Nobody should be able to fly an airplane over my property without my written permission!

Why the hell not?

Because my notions of privacy and safety are more important than legitimate uses of the airspace! Just like everyone seems to think about drones. Welcome to the wide world of sarcasm.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[ScentCone]

I know what you mean, but I think you might have overlooked something: It's kind of like sex. For free it's one thing, to use it as part of your business model is clearly something else entirely.

Why? If I send I a small plastic quad-copter up to 25 feet to check my gutters for debris after a storm, and there's a guy next door doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way for exactly the same three minutes using exactly the same equipment with exactly the same skill and exactly the same safety considerations ... but he's charging $20 to do it so he doesn't have to charge $50 to put up a ladder in five places around the house ... how is that Clearly Something Else Entirely?

And why is my own use, or that other safety-minded, business-reputation-at-stake adult's use of a small quad LESS safe than a twelve year old noobie kid who says, "Sure, mister, I'll get some pictures of your rain gutters for free! What how fast I can do it..." ? Please be specific. Personally, I trust my own skills far more than I trust some noob operating "recreationally" - and yet the FAA is implying that the guy who does it every day and cares about his reputation is more dangerous than a middle school kid flying the same equipment for fun.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

You've quoted the minimum safe altitudes regulation without any of the exceptions. Airplanes can fly lower than 500/1000 if they are taking off or landing. For instance, if you have a field in your backyard and you want to land your airplane there and then take off again, you can legally fly below those altitudes. I'm a helicopter pilot and we work jobs below 500/1000 all the time. There are requirements on us when working below those altitudes - we basically need to insure that we don't present a hazard to persons or property on the ground while doing such operations, even if we have an engine failure.

The problem for us with the drones is that they are small enough to be difficult to see, yet large enough to cause a fatal accident if we take a drone strike through the windshield or into the tail rotor, and they will be operating at the same altitudes we already have to work in for some jobs. In fact, we believe we may have already had a drone strike on one of our aircraft - the crew heard a bang and set down immediately. We found a dent in the helicopter that was very unlikely to be a bird strike... so what else flies into the side of the helicopter at 1000 feet? It may have been a drone. Luckily nobody was hurt, and the helicopter was repairable.

The national airspace is in the process of switching over from transponder equipped aircraft (radar) to ADS-B (radio+gps). Talking with one of the guys involved in the definitions of ADS-B it seems like they may have spec'd the system in a way to make it more difficult than it should be to require drones to be ADS-B equipped, but I'm pretty convinced that's the way we should go. That way drones will show up on my cockpit display and I'll have a better chance of avoiding them. Plus, I think there should basically be a requirement on the drone that "if an aircraft gets within (a certain small distance) the drone will autonomously land" so that the drone operator has a chance to land, but if they don't the drone lands by itself before it can be a collision hazard (again, think of landing the airplane in your backyard while your neighbor is flying his drone). Drones already have GPS; requiring them to have a low power implementation of ADS-B could be a relatively inexpensive solution.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

Right, but we can't have drones flying over 500' because that's where the aircraft are flying. We don't let aircraft fly at less than 500' because of the danger of crashing into something, not because of privacy considerations. Let the drones have the area between 250' and 500'. If there are privacy considerations, they apply to planes, only even moreso because planes are bigger and you can mount more advanced optics on them.

As I mentioned a few postings above, there are aircraft (helicopters) that work below 500'. And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off (for instance, from your backyard). Merely setting an altitude limit for drones won't prevent all collisions. I think we need a more complete solution (and as an engineer I tend to think of technology based ones like including drones in the ADS-B system).

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Morgon]

The other problem is that it would require you to assert things that are not actual law just to get the license, making fines all but a certainty. Revenue then becomes the incentive rather than fair play.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

I don't understand what you want. Unlicensed use of drones above 400 ft and close to airports is already prohibited. What benefit is there to imposing additional restrictions?

Furthermore, we may need to rethink priorities. Threats from drones to large commercial airliners and airports are small and fairly easy to deal with. So, the conflict mainly arises between drones and small private aircraft, and between those two, I think it's clear that drones are far more valuable to society than small private planes. So, instead of imposing draconian restrictions on drones, maybe we should strongly restrict the use of small private planes.

It's not just private planes. Or even planes. What about crop dusters? What about helicopters? Are we going to ground all of them because drones present an almost unavoidable hazard? (they're really too small to see until the collision is not preventable). There is lots of commercial work that takes place in commercial aircraft at very low altitude. As a helicopter pilot, our main hazards at low altitudes are wires and birds. The birds tend to get out of our way, and I would suggest that we need automation in the drones to do the same thing - we can share the airspace with them but there needs to be aids to help us see/avoid them, and they need to be able to autonomously get out of the way when a human occupied aircraft gets too near.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Morgon]

> The problem for us with the drones is that they are small enough to be difficult to see

How much force does a tail rotor generate (Genuine question)? I would suspect not much, but wouldn't it be enough to push away any quadcopter that isn't intentionally trying to run into it? But regardless, on that same token, the main rotor would most certainly bat one down (and I have seen multiple examples of video evidence to support such a claim).

Why do you think the dent in your helicopter was unlikely to be a bird strike? Did you see paint or any other rubbings in the dent? In all of the hard crashes I've seen, DJI's white shells always left some plastic residue.

I just think the 'danger' is being overstated. None of the commercial pilot 'sightings' have been substantiated, and in many cases, complete batshit lunacy - one recent report claimed he saw one at 3000 feet. Unless we're talking about a real government drone, that's extremely dubious.

I'm all for keeping everyone safe, but there needs to be coexistence, not "I'm better than you, you shouldn't be able to fly" or "you can only fly if I say you can". ADS-B seems overkill. Maybe useful for commercial operation (I'd be curious in discussing it with folks who use drones in this way, instead of speaking for them), but for hobbyists, completely unreasonable.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Morgon]

> And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off

But when does that happen? Most people already know not to fly near airfields. I highly doubt anyone noticing that you're trying to take off or land in your backyard (is that a thing? Is that just for ultralights or something?) is going to hang around in a position that gets in your way.

Merely setting ANYTHING won't prevent all collisions, drone or not. There needs to be a compromise, without over-reaching regulation or tracking via ADS-B. What we actually need is less blind fear.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Morgon]

Sorry, but you're not important than anyone else that you should have the power to forcibly control quads or anything else.
I'm not saying that quads are more important than you, either; just there's an element of safety and respect needed from both sides, equally.

You seem to have this notion that the people flying quads aren't real people. I'd venture to say that 90+% of all devices that would have the capability of being near you at any point also have cameras and can see that you're near. You should trust us to yield, just as we should be able to trust that you aren't going to chase after it in an attempt to ground it.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

Tail rotor pulls air in one side and pushes it out the other, so if the drone is on the wrong side it would actually get sucked into the tail rotor. Tail rotors are actually very delicate and losing even one blade can easily cause the aircraft to be uncontrollable (if, for instance, the gearbox comes off) which would almost certainly result in a fatal accident.

Main rotors are indeed much more substantial, however a main rotor strike on anything but the smallest of ultra-mini drone would most likely require replacement of the blade (generally figure $30,000-$50,000 per blade).

You also didn't mention the windshield, but you may not be aware that we don't have a windshield like a car in a helicopter. It's just a piece of cheap flimsy plastic. There's no way it will prevent a drone from coming through the windshield and striking the crew. I've started to consider wearing a helmet as protection against a drone coming through the windshield, but a helmet visor will only provide protection against the smallest of drones. If a larger drone with say a DSLR camera on board was to come through our windshield at even 50 mph (i.e. pretty darn slow flight for the helicopter) there's no doubt in my mind the pilot would be incapacitated (and therefore killed in the subsequent crash).

We don't think the strike was likely to be a bird because of a few things: the shape of the dent, the fact that bird strikes usually leave some feathers or blood behind, and the fact that the helicopter was struck sideways (i.e. the bird would have had to fly itself into the side of the helicopter, not something birds usually do). Bird strikes are usually when the helicopter flies into the bird, i.e. the strike is typically on a front facing surface of the helicopter.

As for the 3000 foot statement you make - what about that youtube with the guy flying the drone above the clouds? That was thousands of feet above the ground. I don't remember whether it was 5,000 or 10,000 but it was high.

Why would ADS-B be overkill? Drones already have up/downlink radios. They already have GPS. What more do you need for ADS-B? If it was a low power version it could probably be produced in volume for well under $100.00. A passive system (that basically would act like a bird, i.e. dive for the ground if an aircraft got too close) could probably be built for under $25.00.

The danger isn't being overstated. It might be true that right now, at this moment, there isn't a huge chance of a drone strike, but it's going to increase tremendously in the very near future. We definitely need to come up with workable solutions to sharing the airspace. To put it in perspective, the FAA requires the manufacturer of the helicopters I fly to make it extremely unlikely that a part of the helicopter will fail in a way that will cause a fatal crash. Generally by that they mean odds on the order of 1 in a billion. We need the same sorts of guarantees when we share the airspace between drones and manned aircraft. It needs to be extremely unlikely that drones will be causing fatal crashes.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Morgon]

I didn't mention the windshield because I truly don't think a quadcopter would remain airborne long enough to hit it (my assertion that the main rotor would move it), unless the pilot is intentionally trying to run through it. If that's the case, no amount of regulation is going to help.

The video of the guy flying 3000 feet (1000m) was A) A hexacopter (more stable; the point being that your regular quad still likely can't get this high), B) Not in the US, C) took very reasonable steps to confirm safety before flying. The fact that it crashed is irrelevant; malfunctions are equally possible in anything. The fact is that he was an informed operator; the argument should be for making more of those, not just knee-jerk over-regulation.

> I've started to consider wearing a helmet as protection against a drone coming through the windshield.
Apologies for the brashness, but is this lined with tinfoil, as well? Do you actually see them around Boston (directly see, not 'think you see'), or are you just playing into the media fear? You yourself even noted that the chance is low.

Your last few sentences are pretty much the only reasonable thing you've said. I am wholeheartedly with you on the need for better QA, both for public safety, and to protect the investment. Speaking about DJI products specifically, the motors are actually pretty solid, but the rest of it is very cheaply produced. I'd love to see higher standards. On the other hand, the fact that these are relatively flimsy is precisely why I think the blind fear and potential for serious damage is overstated.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Obfuscant]

And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off

But when does that happen?

At least twice each flight for every flight of every aircraft.

I highly doubt anyone noticing that you're trying to take off or land in your backyard (is that a thing? Is that just for ultralights or something?)

No. It is for "aircraft".

is going to hang around in a position that gets in your way.

The fact remains, an aircraft that lands or takes off out of your neighbor's property is very unlikely to have reached 500' AGL by the time it crosses the property line, and therefore there are times when even manned, powered aircraft can fly below 500' over someone's property without their permission LEGALLY.

What we actually need is less blind fear.

You got that right.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Morgon]

And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
       

But when does that happen?
               

At least twice each flight for every flight of every aircraft.

Well yes, but I meant in context of his question, which said something about a backyard (I should have been more clear). I realize they do so at airports, but no reasonable quad pilot is operating there, making it a pointless argument.

The fact remains, an aircraft that lands or takes off out of your neighbor's property is very unlikely to have reached 500' AGL by the time it crosses the property line, and therefore there are times when even manned, powered aircraft can fly below 500' over someone's property without their permission LEGALLY.

Of course. I'm not the one arguing that property lines (or "my rights") are being violated by the existence of quads or aircraft. :)

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

It's not a question of the people in the aircraft being more important than the drone operator. It's that their lives are at risk and his is not. I don't know where you got this idea that I don't think the people flying quads are real people. What I am saying is that you don't seem to see the difference in that you're asking aircrews and their passengers to accept additional risk to their lives and you aren't accepting the same risk. Yes, I think we need to integrate drones into the airspace. No, I don't think we're going to be willing to just trust you to yield to us. I can think of several ways this can work out:

1. Addition of ADS-B or similar system so that we can identify the presence of drones with other than visual means
2. Require drones to be visually easier to identify, i.e. make a requirement that drones can not be smaller than 30 feet in size nor operate > 30 mph.
3. Reverse ADS-B where all drones listen to ADS-B and land automatically when a manned aircraft is within 1 mile and 2,000 feet.
4. Maximum weight of 10 ounces for drones operated above 50 feet or within 1/2 mile of an aircraft landing area.
5. Spend billions of dollars to upgrade the current fleet of aircraft to make them drone-strike-proof.
6. Require NOTAM'd airspace before a drone flight. Charge $100 fee for each hour of NOTAM'd airspace to offset the cost of automated NOTAM notification for aircrews.
7. Mandatory death penalty for drone operators who cause a fatal crash due to the presence of their drone in the airspace

Any one of these solutions would probably work.

I know #7 sounds crazy and of course I'm not really serious, but it's exactly what you're asking us to do: risk our lives so that you can share the airspace with us. Why should we have to risk our lives to accommodate you if you're not willing to take on the same risk? How are you going to guarantee me that all the drone operators are serious careful operators like yourself, and that I won't have to deal with drunk/stupid/careless people putting drones in my path without regard to my safety?

The airspace below 18,000 feet is currently see and avoid airspace. Anytime an aircraft is operated in VFR conditions in that airspace, the pilots of all aircraft are required to see and avoid each other. It is not sufficient for one type of aircraft to see and avoid the other, it has to be possible for everybody to see and avoid everybody else. There are aircraft that are very difficult to see and avoid, for instance some ultralight aircraft (I'm thinking ultralight gyrocopters here). These aircraft are not much bigger than a person, and are extremely difficult to visually acquire. Frankly the reason this works is that there aren't very many of them, they don't fly that often, and typically only in good weather, and we tend to know where they fly from. Now we're talking about adding many vehicles to the airspace that are an order of magnitude smaller (and thus probably several orders of magnitude harder to see) and operating them all hours of the day. Basically, it will not be possible to see and avoid the average small drone like a DJI. I submit you need to incorporate a different method of collision avoidance because see and avoid will not work with drones.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Obfuscant]

how is that Clearly Something Else Entirely?

I'll answer your question because it doesn't have the inane hyperbole of the previous guy.

It's different for the same reason that the guy who charges you $50 for a short flight from your local county airport to the nearest big city so you can catch an airline flight has to have a commercial pilot license while your friend who does it as a favor to you doesn't. And why the guy who is flying that commercial airline aircraft has an even higher level of certification and ongoing standards.

That reason is that there is a financial incentive to the pilot and profit involved. Lots of people here rant on a regular basis about the awful profit motives of greedy capitalists and how money is the goal, but here we're turning a blind eye to that.

The guy you pay to do your gutter inspection doesn't get paid if he doesn't do it. He gets paid more if he does ten in a day than if he does one in a day. He's got more incentive to overlook safety issues. Is the aircraft completely airworthy? Are there weather or other hazards that are being dismissed because "it will probably work out ok?"

Second, as a consumer, it is assumed that you don't know his skills or abilities and are trusting that he's got them. You know your own skills, and have a good idea of your friend's, but you have no way of judging a stranger's piloting skills until it is too late.

That's why it is established legal precedent that a commercial pilot of any aircraft has a higher level of training and certification than a recreational pilot is required to.

And why is my own use, or that other safety-minded, business-reputation-at-stake adult's use of a small quad

What makes you think the profit motive hasn't degraded the "safety-minded" nature of the guy you're paying to do the job? And "business reputation"? Just how much do you really know about the internal operation of a business? How many shoddy workmen are still in business -- and if your belief that a "business reputation" would protect you from them, how are they still in business?

a twelve year old noobie kid who says, "Sure, mister, I'll get some pictures of your rain gutters for free!

It is your decision based on your knowledge of the twelve year old kid, and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY if things go wrong. When you pay someone you 1) don't know them from Adam and 2) expect them to be the ones who take responsibility for any problems.

the guy who does it every day and cares about his reputation

If every businessman cared about "his reputation" and that "reputation" had any enforcement properties attached to it, we wouldn't need laws about commercial service providers at all, and there would be no shoddy or incompetent workmen selling services to the unsuspecting public.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

I didn't mention the windshield because I truly don't think a quadcopter would remain airborne long enough to hit it (my assertion that the main rotor would move it), unless the pilot is intentionally trying to run through it. If that's the case, no amount of regulation is going to help.

No, it doesn't work that way. The downwash of the rotor at speed is not going to move something like a drone out of the way. It won't move a small bird out of the way, nor even a child's balloon. You're probably thinking of a hovering helicopter, not a helicopter that is in flight. In the case of a helicopter in flight if the object is at the altitude of the windshield, it's pretty much going to go through the windshield and take out the crew. Any bird larger than maybe a sparrow will go through the windshield. Certainly a DJI will...

In the case of the DJI F550 Hexacopter video, it's not a question of stability. It's not a question of whether it fell or not. It's a question of an object hanging in the air where an aircraft could have hit it. He says in the comments:

My arguments for performing a high altitude flight at all were as follows:
- No airplanes in this area ever fly as low as I did in the video
- There is generally not much air traffic in this area at all
- I checked with flightradar24.com before flying
- Military, police, and emergency flights are virtually non-existant in this area
- The multirotor was supposed to go straight up and straight down again

The problem with this is:

1) 99% of helicopter flying is done below 3,000 feet (so, he was definitely in the airspace we fly in).
2) "generally not much traffic" is not the same as "I know there was no traffic in the area"
3) flightradar24 (which is a relay of approach radar) only shows tagged aircraft - it's not going to show VFR/1200 traffic, and it's not going to show traffic at low altitude (where he was), i.e. it will almost never show my aircraft as most of my work is flying as untagged and often I'm below radar coverage anyway.
4) "Military, police, and emergency flights are virtually nonexistent"... But what about commercial operators operating off airway? How would he know?
5) "The multi rotor was supposed to go straight up and straight down again"... how would that prevent me from hitting it? If it happens to be there as I fly through the airspace, whether it's going up or down is immaterial. Just being there at the wrong altitude at the wrong time is a potentially fatal problem.

This also illustrates the problem with both him and you. He took these steps (like looking at flightradar24) not understanding that it wasn't showing the traffic that he was actually endangering. You think you know what you're doing, and you think you are taking precautionary steps, but in fact you don't know what you are doing and you're endangering people's lives .This is the best argument of all for the FAA to require an operator license in order to fly a drone. At least then there can be a course of training about how to avoid being a danger to air traffic, rather than people thinking they are being safe when they are not, just like your assumption that main rotor downwash or tail rotor downwash will help to avoid a collision which is totally wrong.

Apologies for the brashness, but is this lined with tinfoil, as well? Do you actually see them around Boston (directly see, not 'think you see'), or are you just playing into the media fear? You yourself even noted that the chance is low.

No, we don't see them and that's the problem!. We know they are out there: at this moment there are 6 NOTAMs for drones in the local area of my home airport. These are just the ones that people have bothered to notify the FAA about. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many many others. I can't see them. How do I avoid hitting them?

Your last few se

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Morgon]

All your comment said to me was that any usage of airspace that isn't a full-sized helicopter or airplane should be over-regulated. In your eyes, all of the cool experiments kids have been doing sending cameras into the stratosphere should be banned.

It's not that I'm failing to understand you, in theory. I fully agree that careless people can ruin your day. My argument is just that this is not limited to drone operators, and shoving regulation down their throats is stupid. Let's come back to this conversation when you have actually seen one, which you've admitted that you have not.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You seem to be starting from the assumption that all existing general aviation privileges remain untouched and drones somehow need to be fit into that existing scheme. But if we are going to have central decision making for a rational use of airspace, then the past privileges of general aviation need to be on the table. A rational policy for airspace use may well mean that drones don't have to accommodate all current forms of general aviation, but that general aviation instead become much more restrictive so that drones can be operated without hassles or risk.

In particular, many current uses of general aviation are probably more effectively handled by drones, including observation, mapping, crop dusting, news reporting, etc. Pilots like you, of course, will scream bloody murder, but face it, many of you will lose your jobs anyway because you simply aren't needed anymore.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Yes, I think we need to integrate drones into the airspace.

"Integrating" already presumes that current users and uses are accommodated largely unchanged. What we need to do instead is rethink the use of airspace from the ground up, taking no existing rights or privileges for granted.

I can think of several ways this can work out: [...] It's not a question of the people in the aircraft being more important than the drone operator. It's that their lives are at risk and his is not.

You leave out the most important and simplest solution: generally giving drones precedence over general aviation. That is, we'd severely restrict where news helicopters, traffic helicopters, air taxis, sight seeing planes, etc. can fly relative to what they could do in the past. Some of these uses of public airspace might simply be eliminated altogether because they are unsafe and unnecessary.

The few remaining cases where conflicts remain between drones and manned flights (e.g., rescue, police work) after eliminating all the current irrational uses of airspace are easily handled by upgrading those aircraft to be drone-strike proof, something they probably have to be anyway.

7. Mandatory death penalty for drone operators who cause a fatal crash due to the presence of their drone in the airspace

Sure, as soon as we institute a mandatory death penalty for any general aviation pilot who causes any fatalities.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[ScentCone]

You're still tap-dancing around the question. You've come up with a list of "what-if" scenarios, but only scenarios that tilt one direction. Why is it you're assuming that recreational noobs flying once or twice a month are safer than people who use the technology every day? Specifically.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Obfuscant]

Why is it you're assuming that recreational noobs flying once or twice a month are safer than people who use the technology every day? Specifically.

I'm not.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[ScentCone]

I'm not.

Then why aren't you calling for the same (or, really, much more) stringent regulations on the millions of casual noobs, instead of the comparative handful of people who happen to regularly use the technology as part of the bucket of professional tools? The vast majority of reckless behavior involving these devices is at the hands of idiotic beginners who - unlike professionals - don't think there are any consequences for operating like jackasses.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

You make some good points, and I don't really disagree (except that the pilots will scream bloody murder) but I'd like to make a few comments:

1) I don't think General Aviation will be untouched, and in fact if what I hope happens (drones incorporated into the ADS-B system) there will probably be an expense to all of General Aviation to modify our ADS-B equipment. Additionally, we're already affected in that part of preflight planning for a mission now includes identifying NOTAM'd drone operation areas and marking them on the chart so that we're able to avoid those operations. As the numbers of drones increases, that workload will increase (I pointed out in another posting that currently there are 6 areas around my local airport). I would be surprised if in 10 years the airspace I work in (eastern Massachusetts) doesn't have at least 10,000 drones in the air when I go flying.

2) I agree that lots of stuff that was done in manned aircraft will be done better by drone. We've already seen this - construction progress photography work and real estate photography are pretty much 100% gone because it's now being done by drones. And you're right that some people will lose their jobs (or already have lost their jobs) and yet the pilot groups are not screaming bloody murder. We realize that there are jobs that are done better with a drone and it's pointless to argue against that.

3) What I don't want to see is tasks that can not be done by drones no longer be able to be done by aircraft (at all) because it would be too dangerous with all the drones around. For instance, if medical evacuation flights can't land at the site of an automobile crash because the area is swarmed by drones taking pictures, that would be a problem. Or the recent example of fire fighting being shut down because of the presence of drones in the area.

4) As an engineer I tend to think of technical solutions, and this one seems pretty easy to solve. We already mix it up with small drone like animals (birds). If you make a drone autonomously act like a bird (gets out of the way when an aircraft approaches) you'll be 50% of the way there. If you then allow the pilots to know of the presence of the drone through a cockpit system like ADS-B displays, I think you'd be 100% there. If the equipment is required on most/all drones the cost should be less than $100 (maybe closer to $25) and would give the added benefit of allowing drones to operate higher than 4-500 feet.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[BostonPilot]

Sure, as soon as we institute a mandatory death penalty for any general aviation pilot who causes any fatalities.

Well, that was exactly the point I was trying to make - that's exactly what we have now - when there is a collision in flight the pilot most likely is going to die. Right now there is a disparity in the taking of risks, in that the pilot and his passengers are in mortal danger, and in general the drone operator is taking no risk to his person at all. This, and the low cost of entry to having a drone, mean it's possible (likely?) for people to operate drones in a reckless manner endangering airborne people. I think that whatever solution we arrive at needs to take into account that the average person who buys a drone probably can't be relied upon to understand and respect the risk they can be placing upon the other users of the airspace.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Well, that was exactly the point I was trying to make - that's exactly what we have now - when there is a collision in flight the pilot most likely is going to die.

That's a lousy analogy. Whether you fly and take on the risk of collisions with wires, birds, and drones is entirely up to you. If you don't want to take those risks, don't fly where those risks are possible.

This, and the low cost of entry to having a drone, mean it's possible (likely?) for people to operate drones in a reckless manner endangering airborne people.

The only "airborne people" that are being endangered are those that fly in the same airspace as drones.

I think that whatever solution we arrive at needs to take into account that the average person who buys a drone probably can't be relied upon to understand and respect the risk they can be placing upon the other users of the airspace.

I think the average person who buys a drone shouldn't be burdened with having to worry about "airborne people" or all the other nonsense that goes along with manned flight. That's what makes drones so attractive, after all.

Drone rules that make sense to me are:

(1) Over private property, private drone use by the owners has precedence over general aviation. That is, general aviation must stay above a reasonable flight altitude for drones, and drones must stay below it. I don't know what that is, but it may easily be several thousand feet. In effect, we extend the current rule for fixed structures to drones.

(2) Over private property, drone use by others is subject to the same limits as general aviation. That is, drones that fly over someone else's private property should not interfere with the property owner's drones or structures.

(3) In the few cases where public or private entities get exceptional use of low airspace over private property (e.g., for rescue, police, etc.), the aircraft that intrude into the private airspace are responsible for taking the appropriate safety precautions; the property owner has no responsibility.

In fact, in effect, that's roughly what the FAA is tending towards anyway, but they have their altitudes screwed up. Instead of substantially raising the lower altitude limit for general aviation, they try to squeeze in drone traffic below; that needs to change.

Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs?

[Obfuscant]

Then why aren't you calling for the same (or, really, much more) stringent regulations on the millions of casual noobs, instead of the comparative handful of people who happen to regularly use the technology as part of the bucket of professional tools?

What makes you think I'm not calling for regulations on noobs? The fact that I'm explaining why commercial pilots have more stringent regulations on them doesn't mean I'm not in favor of regulations on others, too.

The vast majority of reckless behavior involving these devices is at the hands of idiotic beginners

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be regulations on the commercial pilots.

Are these going to be regulated also?

[thinkwaitfast]

https://deals.slashdot.org/sal...

I can see them getting even smaller in the future.

Because it requires money/effort and coordination

[hawkingradiation]

Regulating drones requires definition/implementation of new standards (fail at that one before), regulation (even bigger fail) and money and effort put into researching new technologies and protocols. In effect they have to corral an entire industry into a framework. It is no wonder that they failed and will probably not do it until someone big enough like Google does the equivalent by bringing in a consortium of companies to define and implement these standards, technologies and protocols. It is going to take a group as large as government in this area to do what the government is supposed to do.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[0123456]

At least not without their expressed consent. That should be rule number one.

Why?

A one-ounce drone crashing into you will hurt a heck of a lot less than a cricket ball. Probably less than a football or tennis ball.

The only thing such nonsensical 'rules' will do is ensure the drone industry takes off in sane countries, while American companies are left behind.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

Why? Because it is my person and my property, that is why. In addition all drone operators should be required to carry at least $1million in liability insurance at minimum to cover such incidents as crashing into stadiums and interfering with fire control.

Re:Don't panic over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

I don't get the resistance over protecting personal property rights here. We are talking about the government giving rights to others to violate people here.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

As for #4 it would be difficult to ascertain a persons IQ before depriving them of their rights, but the rest are very reasonable.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

Uh, what? That's kind of ridiculous - that's like 20 times the average liability for car insurance. Far more damage is done by a car than a 4-lb quad, and far more frequently.

Also, "your property" might not be as 'yours' as you think. The general regulations for what's "yours" above your property is "what you can reasonably enjoy". Should it be defined? Maybe. But a common fallacy is to think that your property lines extend vertically to infinity.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

"depriving them of their rights"? I think you're vastly overstating the impact of a 4 lb quadcopter on your life.
Also, #4 is pretty easy to ascertain: If they blindly rabble about "rights" or "privacy", the statement evaluates true.

Re:Don't panic over people or private property.

[Morgon]

No we aren't. We're talking about keeping the government out of over-regulating something that only needs minimal intervention. The FAA is not "giving" anything by failing to act except a little more freedom. I can assure you that you are not special enough for anyone to want to "violate your rights".

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

From heaven to hell is a doctrine held for thousands of years. In the US public airspace is defined as navigable airspace above 500ft. Again I ask, why are so many here eager to cede property rights?

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

So you'd be okay with allowing anyone who wishes access to your bathroom? It would be beneficial to public after all.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

"From heaven to hell" is not a thing in modern law. Please do more reading.
I have no interest in 'violating your rights' or 'invade your privacy'. It's your insistence that simply flying a quadcopter is inherently out to get you that we're arguing against.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

...what the hell are you going on about? Flying in public airspace is not equivalent to a bathroom inside my house. How you got from one to the other is absolutely baffling to me.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[CaptQuark]

Uh, what? That's kind of ridiculous - that's like 20 times the average liability for car insurance. Far more damage is done by a car than a 4-lb quad, and far more frequently.

Actually, it isn't that far off the mark. Any RC hobbyist that joins the AMA does have an impressive insurance coverage.

Member Insurance Benefit

$2.5 Million Liability Umbrella
$25,000 Medical Coverage
$1,000 Fire and Theft Coverage

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

I didn't say it was out to get me, I said it was invading my space. So at elevation would you limit a persons property rights too?

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

That's neat and all, but I don't (currently) want the AMA representing quads. Otherwise, we'd be stuck flying loops in the same fields over and over, which is not the purpose of this technology. I also think 400 ft is overly-restrictive (COAs allow for 500 ft). You must adhere to both of these in order to receive any of those benefits.

We need realistic policies that work with the technologies of these devices. It doesn't need the horizontal space of an RC plane, and they don't require the same kind of control as an RC helicopter. The sooner that lawmakers and organizations actually understand what quads are, the better everyone will be. I fully concede that it will take some work on the part of the idiots hovering over emergency situations, but "the public" can help by not being so stupidly fearful of the 'd' word.

Re:You don't own the sky

[EzInKy]

Actually I do. If I didn't any 3D entity could trespass on my 2D space whenever they will.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

If I'm flying at 100-some ft or more, and I just happen to go over your imaginary line, whether by accident or on the way to a destination, I am not "invading your space" in any fathomable sense of the phrase.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

Both are property.

Re:You don't own the sky

[Morgon]

No you don't. Again, you REALLY need to do some reading.
Or have you been calling commercial airliners to demand they stop flying above your house, as well?

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

Public airspace is for all to enjoy. It is not yours. For the fourth time, please actually research your implied claims.

FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Both these companies could quickly come up with policies that would satisfy most regulatory laws. Google could probably have something the FAA could use as a blueprint out within a few weeks; Amazon really wants the drones to fly AND doesn't want it to be some insane schema but just enough regulation so their lawyers and insurers can get behind it from the risk mitigation standpoint. I think we need two different "classes" (at minimum) for this, commercial vs. civil. It's ridiculous (and has been talked about many times) to equate a $50-$200 RC craft to a large cross country cargo drone than might cost millions.

The conspiracy theorist in me says the FAA is dragging their feet because right now that feel they have total power over this, and it's completely arbitrary as to what they say is "FAA law" from day to day. If they actually had written rules, this would restrict their power.

Re:FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[EzInKy]

You are forgetting that their many, many of us out there who do not want drones flying over a property.

Re:FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[Obfuscant]

Both these companies could quickly come up with policies that would satisfy most regulatory laws. Google could probably have something the FAA could use as a blueprint out within a few weeks;

Let me make sure I understand this: you are all in favor of corporate lobbyists with dogs in the fight writing laws that apply to them? I just want to make sure you understand that's what you're saying here.

I think we need two different "classes" (at minimum) for this, commercial vs. civil.

FAA has already created three categories: recreational, commercial, and public agency use.

The conspiracy theorist in me says the FAA is dragging their feet because right now that feel they have total power over this,

The FAA isn't "dragging their feet", they're being prudent in not creating laws that may have seriously bad side effects or not result in the effects that are desired. They just don't know yet how unmanned and manned aircraft will mix in the national airspace. We're in the middle of a transition from radar guidance to ADS-B and NexGen aviation services, so we're talking about predicting how unmanned systems will interact in an airspace system that doesn't yet exist.

And that includes finding out how the non-ADS-B equipped manned aircraft fit in and how their existence is going to impact the system as a whole.

That new system won't be in place until 2020 when the ADS-B mandate goes into effect. Creating a bunch of laws that will just have to be replaced in a couple of years is a waste of everyone's time, and unsafe. It's bad enough when FAA changes the rules on manned pilots and they don't get the word, imagine whole classes of recreational drone pilots who don't even know the FAA is involved.

Re:FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[EzInKy]

So you are the type is believes it is corporations who should dictate policies then and fuck everyone else affected by them?

Re:FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[drinkypoo]

I think we need two different "classes" (at minimum) for this, commercial vs. civil.

That makes sense in full-scale aviation because the bar to having a big plane is money. But you can have a big quad without spending a lot of money.

Re:FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[dave420]

Holy jumping-to-conclusions, Batman! Maybe he just realizes that owning property does not include owning the part of the universe above it.

Re:FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Planes already do the same thing, and have been for a long time.

Planes got limited overflight rights, under the assumption that 500-1000ft above the tallest structure is something that wouldn't impact property owners. Low flying drones certainly do impact property owners, so the same reasoning doesn't apply.

What you want is irrelevant.

Well, fortunately, it isn't, since we live in a democracy.

Re:FAA should just ask Google / Amazon

[Morgon]

That's quite relative. "big quads" are generally multiple thousands of dollars, out of reach for the vast majority of folks. Consumer-level DJI quads are ~$1K, but at 4 lbs, I'd hardly call them 'big'.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

Give up 400ft now, give up another 50ft tomorrow. Where will it end? A centimeter, a millimeter? A nanometer?

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

So your solution, instead of seeking permission, is to have the government force people to allow you to fly your toys wherever you like?

Re:You don't own the sky

[EzInKy]

Cases I've read seem to indicate the government as usurped all but around 500ft above my home. You are proposing to allow them to usurp even more?

Re:Don't panic over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

By giving that freedom to a few thousand they usurp the property rights of millions.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[EzInKy]

Yes, and the drone nuts want to claim what personal airspace we have left as their own.

Re:You don't own the sky

[Obfuscant]

Cases I've read seem to indicate the government as usurped all but around 500ft above my home.

If you know the rules, then you know they control aircraft from the surface up. Try hopping in your Cessna 172 and flying just 200' AGL and then tell the FAA that they don't regulate what you're doing...

Re:You don't own the sky

[EzInKy]

I think the big disconnect here is between those of us who believe we are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of our property and those who feel they are entitled to fly there drones wherever and whenever they choose. Both believe that any intervention will be an encroachment on their rights. As much as hate government regulation, this is one of those cases where it is necessary.

Re:You don't own the sky

[EzInKy]

Neither, I am already in the flight path of the local airport so have to put up with jets shaking the very foundation of my home constantly during holiday season. I don't won't the additional headache of having drones buzzing over my head constantly just to deliver someone too lazy to cook a pizza.

Re:You don't own the sky

[Obfuscant]

I think the big disconnect here is between those of us who believe we are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of our property and those who feel they are entitled to fly there drones wherever and whenever they choose.

No, I think the disconnect in what you are arguing is that you equate "no drones ever" with "peaceful enjoyment of your property", whereas most people realize that a drone 100' above your head doesn't automatically mean your peaceful enjoyment is prevented. Or a drone that wanders 10' over your property line while being used to take pictures of the next door neighbor's house doesn't ruin your entire life and make your property unusable.

And most people realize that the airspace is governed at a higher level than "homeowner" because there are valid uses of that airspace and having homeowners able to prohibit all uses of the air over their heads would be a stupid and ridiculous way to manage that space.

As much as hate government regulation, this is one of those cases where it is necessary.

You only think it is necessary because you are a dog in a manger.

You need to get over the idea that the FAA does not regulate the airspace from the surface up. They do. That battle is long over. It's well entrenched in the FARs. You saying that someone should never have any right to fly anywhere over your property with their aircraft is a battle you have lost.

Re:Because the drone is smart small light

[KGIII]

We need to work on some definitions or you're being dishonest.

Re:You don't own the sky

[EzInKy]

The disparity in our opinions are likely lead to stupid laws like having to have a flagman 50 feet in front of a horseless carriage. In the end we ended up with clearly marked routes of right of way. I'm certain there can be compromise, but it is doubtful if you continue to insist you have a right to invade my space.

Re:Because the drone is smart small light

[khallow]

Nobody is stopping you from working on those definitions.

Re:You don't own the sky

[mysidia]

Or have you been calling commercial airliners to demand they stop flying above your house, as well?

Commercial airliners don't, and they don't have the right to: hover over your property and zoom in on your wife sunbathing in the secluded and fenced-off backyard or go fly over other random properties outside their flight plan, and flyover your property in order to scan it or take detailed photography of your property in particular.

Commercial airliners are not a threat to the secrecy or safety of items or structures you have placed behind a 10ft fenced off area, and if they are: their aircraft are identifiable, and you can be certain there is an entity behind that aircraft to hold responsible for damage who will have an ability to pay.

Commercial airliners have licensed pilots, great safety records, flights determined in advance, and the only thing they're allowed is expeditious passage through the air space. They don't have the kind of rights to the usage of private property that drone owners are trying to utilize.

You still own the property, the commercial airliners are authorized nothing other than expeditious passage from point A to point B public or private airports authorized for use by the aircraft, even though your property happens to be under that path, But otherwise: it wold not be possible for them to make that trip.

Re:Because the drone is smart small light

[KGIII]

I did so, at one point. People seemed inclined to agree. I suppose I could go back through my comment history but I'm not sure what thread it was in or whatnot.

To me...

Drone - autonomous w/various subsets but fully autonomous.
R/C aircraft - user controlled with some computerized assistance possible and various subsets.
Unguided aircraft - not entirely unguided but stuff like model rockets is a good example.
Subsets can include power supply, purpose, ability, etc...

Now, my definitions don't count unless we agree on them. So, no matter if someone stops me or not, I'm still in limbo until we've universally agreed (or mostly agreed).

Also, my earlier definition was much more involved but that's the gist of it. I don't think I included unguided in the earlier definitions but they were much better worded than this synopsis.

To reference the GGP, the drones would have object avoidance. An R/C aircraft may also have that. However, it would not be a requirement. A recent example would be the science teacher in NY who piloted a 'drone' (which I'd term an R/C) into a crowd of spectators at a tennis match. That RC did not have object avoidance. Well, if it did then it did a poor job.

My issue is, and I'm not a hobbyist or a fan really, that I dislike draconian laws even when they don't impact me directly. You, if you are a fan and a user, really need to start some sort of educational program and outreach program because if you don't regulate yourselves you're going to end up very, very pissed off. As a person who believes you should have as many freedoms as possible, with regards to the commons, I'd hate for your enjoyment to be restricted/limited because of a bunch of idiots.

Re:Because the drone is smart small light

[khallow]

I'll just point out that I've looked at three dictionaries and all three agree that a drone is a remotely controlled, pilotless aircraft. Rather than the term being a lower bound on autonomy, it is an upper bound!

Re:Because the drone is smart small light

[KGIII]

Then maybe we'll need to go "Automated Drone" and "Attended Drone" (or Piloted Drone or similar). These will need definitions and, likely, legal definitions. The sooner you proactively work on this the better I think it will go for you in the long run.

I'd prefer to leave drone as a strictly autonomous thing as the name implies (to my mind, at least).

However, I'm not the one in charge and it doesn't actually impact me a single bit. Not one iota of shit will be given by me with the definitions. The major concern I have is that there's a likely set of draconian laws in the hobbyist's future. I don't wish that on anyone.

Re:You don't own the sky

[fred911]

" zoom in on your wife sunbathing in the secluded and fenced-off backyard "

Are you familiar with the focal attributes of the cameras included on most quad-copters? Most of them are so wide angled one needs to process the video to rid fish-eye. Additionally, I don't know of any with zoom features.

Re:Because the drone is smart small light

[khallow]

I'd prefer to leave drone as a strictly autonomous thing as the name implies (to my mind, at least).

You can do that, if you like. But it's worth noting that "drone" as used elsewhere implies a significant lack of autonomy, such as a male social insect whose sole purpose is to breed with prospective queens or someone with a slavish devotion to a bureaucracy or ideology.

Re:You don't own the sky

[Morgon]

You've been watching too much TV.

Your first example would actually be a violation of privacy - BUT WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST THAT. We do not need 'doubled up' regulations. Although, as someone else said, no 4lb civilian quadcopter has the ability to zoom. "Fly over your property in order to scan it" --again, too much TV. Or overinflated sense of ego; either/or.

It's clear that you don't actually know what you're arguing against. You're fearful because you've only been spoon-fed stuff from the media instead of actually taking the time to research these, or see them in person. You should go to your local hobby shop and ask for a demo. It's really *nowhere near* as scary as you think; they're actually quite fascinating and you might end up buying one for yourself.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[Morgon]

No, the "solution" is to encourage common sense. You keep saying "wherever you like" and NOT ONE PERSON has EVER argued for that. Stop it.

There is a very large area between "fly anywhere" and "no overzealous regulation". We already have laws that cover every existing 'bad' thing you can do with a quadcopter; any other issue should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Because the drone is smart small light

[KGIII]

Sort of but it is autonomous to quite a degree. You give it directions and it goes off and does it without need of oversight or further interaction. Much like the drones go out and get honey and return with it and go out again to get more honey and return with it or whatnot. They don't really need any supervision. Thus, in these terms, drone would be something you tell to go to *this GPS coordinate* and it does it utilizing software/hardware to get there and do what you told it to do.

Focusing on the wrong area.

[buck-yar]

Bicycles need regulating more than drones. More than 800 people were killed in 1 year, more than twice the number that have died in mass shootings since the year 2000

Re:Focusing on the wrong area.

[Morgon]

Even if bicycles haven't directly *killed* one person (although you're forgetting riders; I don't find it that difficult to believe a handful of folks died from injuries sustained by accidentally jousting with trees, for instance), you can't tell me that there haven't been injuries from bikes hitting others. I've personally seen several over the past year. Much more than quadcopters have.

You'll talk about how there are more bicycles than quads, and you'd be right. But that's also the point. Accidents will ALWAYS happen, and everyone incurs risk simply by existing - we cannot allow ourselves to be nanny-stated into oblivion to prevent some single-digit accident figure.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Public airspace is for all to enjoy. It is not yours.

Yes, "public airspace" over my property is actually mine. Congress established a public easement that allows people to cross that airspace 500 ft above the tallest structure on my property, but that's it. As soon as start using that airspace myself, your easement vanishes and you can't use it anymore.

How to regulate drones

[jonwil]

There should be a simple set of rules governing drones, RC aircraft or anything else that files and is controlled from the ground with no pilot inside. These would be a set of rules that stipulate what you can do without a license. If you want to do anything outside these rules you would need permission from the FAA.

The rules I propose are:
1.No flying within x distance of any airport, landing strip, runway, airbase or aerodrome (there is probably already an FAA definition that covers anywhere piloted air vehicles land and take off that could be used here)
2.No flying higher than x distance off the ground
3.No flying over private property without permission of the occupier of that property (so for a house that would be the people living there, for a school that would be the school administration and so on)
4.No commercial flying (the same rules as for piloted flight would apply here in that if you are a private pilot, fly in your plane, shoot video or photos and post that on YouTube or something, its not considered commercial but if someone pays you to fly in your plane and shoot video or photos of something specific, it is considered commercial)
5.No flying in any no fly zone, restricted airspace or prohibited airspace
6.No flying within x distance of any piloted aircraft (this rule plus the no-fly-zone rule would cover the problems of people flying drones into fire zones and making life hard for firefighting aircraft for example)
and 7.No flying if you cant see your drone (with some rules in there to govern drones flying with cameras where the operator can see what is going on via the camera and is therefore still in "visual control" of the drone and where its going and can avoid hitting anything etc)

Re:How to regulate drones

[Morgon]

"4. No commercial flying" -- Uh, why do people consider this some magical transformation in the physical attributes of a quadcopter? Providing aerial footage for someone who does not have the means to do it themselves, and getting paid for the privilege, is not any more harmful than providing aerial footage for you and your friends. Thanks for conceding that putting videos on YouTube is not 'commercial'; the FAA has been disagreeing with that.

Also, "7. No flying if you can't see your drone" is a little shortsighted (no pun intended), as well. 2015 refreshes of quadcopters have allowed for high-quality live feeds in consumer-level offerings. My Phantom 3 can go a mile or more and beam live 720p video of my surroundings. If I know I'm in a safe area (open field, plain, water, etc), why should I be arbitrarily restricted?

We need more case-by-case personal accountability and less blanket-statement bullshit. I don't disagree with reasonable 'best practices' in general, but not all situations are equal, and they shouldn't be criminalized by laws that don't take free will into account.

Re:How to regulate drones

[david_thornley]

The upper limits of your airspace over your property are not well defined, and they don't extend up to 400'. If you as a property owner, can show actual harm or a genuine threat of actual harm, you've probably got control over that airspace. (The highest the Supreme Court has ever ruled was controlled by the property owner is 83', as I remember, high enough not to frighten the chickens too much.)

What do you have against commercial drone use? I'm happy with the idea of regulating this more heavily, but there's a whole lot of potential uses that I wouldn't want to ban.

Re:How to regulate drones

[jonwil]

I never said "lets ban commercial drone use", I said "lets allow people to do a,b and c without a license but if they want to do anything else, they need a permit or license from the FAA"

Exactly how hard that permit would be to get would depend on the intended use. A film studio wanting to use drones as part of a film shoot would need a different permit to a retailer wanting to use drones to deliver packages.

As for flights over property, ok so introduce a rule limiting flights under these "general drone rules" over other people's property to no lower than 100ft or something and have some rules on drone noise and things so people aren't assaulted by unwanted drone noise at all hours of the day.

Re:How to regulate drones

[squiggleslash]

Shouldn't the rule for a retailer wanting to use drones to deliver packages be exactly the same as a private user who sends his or her drone out to pick up and retrieve a package?

They haven't figured out how to bork them

[RogueWarrior65]

IMHO, it's pretty simple. The FAA hasn't figured out how to completely bork the use of the technology to the point of always having to ask them for permission to fly in the form of regulatory fees. Thus far, most of the existing regulations are stupid. The 5-mile rule is dumb because the ILS approaches and patterns don't need that much space. The commercial rules are dumb because what makes anyone think that because you're getting paid to fly means that you're automatically going to do something stupid? Spying on your neighbors? Seriously? People are far more likely to have their identity stolen. Noise? Pfft. Wake me when you require motorcycles to have mufflers and spank those law-breakers hard. What's worse is that there is a gaping hole in the identified uses for these things, that being search & rescue operations. By definition, you don't have the luxury of time to ask for permission to fly nor do you have the luxury of only flying in approved areas. I would really enjoy introducing some dumbass FAA inspector to the grieving family of the 2-year-old who died of exposure because said dumbass wouldn't let searchers fly.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[ScentCone]

Actually, it isn't that far off the mark. Any RC hobbyist that joins the AMA does have an impressive insurance coverage.

That only applies if you're flying in strict accordance with AMA rules. Flying in your neighbor's back yard, at 25', in order to help him check the shingles on his roof? AMA insurance dries up and goes away. Poof.

Re:Don't fly over people or private property.

[ScentCone]

You've got your basic facts wrong, and your entire understanding of this is based on mixed premises that don't reflect reality.

Re:You don't own the sky

[BostonPilot]

I think the big disconnect here is between those of us who believe we are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of our property and those who feel they are entitled to fly there drones wherever and whenever they choose. Both believe that any intervention will be an encroachment on their rights. As much as hate government regulation, this is one of those cases where it is necessary.

What about people who live near an airport? Are they entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property? Because I've visited people who live near a major US airport and the noise of a landing airplane every 30 seconds is awful. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just asking whether some people are entitled to peace and quiet and others are not?

Hopefully a combination of laws and common sense will apply to drones: basically "thou shall not annoy your neighbors with great regularity". An occasional drone flight over my yard is not going to get me upset... Having a drone hovering constantly over my yard making a racket will, as will one that is so low over my backyard that I worry about getting hit, or having it knock me off my ladder!...

Re:Dave420 has to "eat his words"

[Coren22]

Did you ever replace that 400hz computer you claim to run so much faster with hosts files?

Perhaps if you spent a couple hundred on a new computer, you could stop being worried about the difference in memory usage of Adblock vs you Hosts file.

Oh, and did you ever get out of your mother's basement?

Re:You don't own the sky

[Obfuscant]

The disparity in our opinions are likely lead to stupid laws like having to have a flagman 50 feet in front of a horseless carriage.

You're right. In this analogy, your position would be that any horseless carriage on the street is violating your right to peaceful enjoyment of the street and that no horseless carriages should be allowed anywhere but on someone's own private property because they're scary.

I'm certain there can be compromise, but it is doubtful if you continue to insist you have a right to invade my space.

I'm certain that no compromise is possible as long as you keep trying to claim every molecule of air over your head as your private airspace and that any incursion whatsoever is stripping you of your basic right to life. As long as you keep using phrases like "invade [your] space" when you are talking about the airspace over that tiny part of the planet that you claim ownership to, then no progress can be made.

This issue has been long decided. The FAA regulates from the surface up, not from some arbitrary 500' limit that you want to impose. An aircraft in the space over your head is not destroying your life.

Re:You don't own the sky

[Obfuscant]

What about people who live near an airport? Are they entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property?

You mean people who bought a house next to an airport because it was cheap and then complain that there is noise from airplanes? Like the people who buy houses next to the railroad tracks and then complain about trains going by?

Hopefully a combination of laws and common sense will apply to drones: basically "thou shall not annoy your neighbors with great regularity".

As common sense, that's not a bad rule. As a law it would be atrocious. I'm annoyed by the cooking smells coming from my next door neighbor's house. Should that be illegal?

consequences

[eric_harris_76]

So, is the FAA going to have its allowance cut, for not doing its chores on time?

Ha, ha. Just kidding.

The FAA might get an increase, since it failed. That's how it works and should work, right?