Slashdot Mirror
New FAA Rules Allow US Companies To Fly Drones Without a Pilot's License (faa.gov)
On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced new rules for commercial drones. It states that drone pilots can now fly without waiting to get permission from the government. Previously, commercial operators were required to apply for a waiver from the FAA to operate small drones for commercial purposes. According to the new regulation, a drone must weigh less than 25kg, and it must fly under 400 feet (122m) and at a maximum speed of 161km per hour. DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said: This is a major development for the future of drones in America. It means that businesses and farmers and government agencies and academic researchers can put drones to work without having to get an airplane pilot's license or follow other onerous rules. Those were pretty high barriers to entry. Part 107 is a vote of confidence from the FAA that drones can be safely integrated into the national airspace, and that a wider adoption of drones for all sorts of non-recreational uses will bring real benefits to America.More coverage on The Verge, and Reuters.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/P...
Is that not the point of the remote pilot airman certificate?
50 pound drones filling the skies flying to and fro. My, I am going to carry my umbrella more often...
It's ok to fly whatever drones you want if you're doing it commercially, but flying it for leisure is a nono.
Glad we established that business is more important than having fun.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
when can i get a waiver for driving on the ground, and they let these people fly drones commercially, what happens when the Coca Cola bottling company uses drones to deliver cases of coke to the local stores and they drop them on top of people? there needs to be accountability and liability for commercial drones flying over populated areas
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
So, we currently have millions of people flying millions of drones with many, many millions of hours in the air. How many have you heard of actually hurting people ... compared to, say, wet restaurant floors, police vehicles in high speed chases, poison salad bars, suicidally crazy airline pilots, or medical errors in hospitals?
And, handing out licenses in the name of "corporate profit?" Like, say, when a guy who runs a landscaping business wants to take some photos of his work? Or when a guy who does roofing for a living wants to check some gutters that are 40' off the ground? Eeeeevil corporations being all corporate and evil and trying to make money!
How do you even function, from minute to minute, as furious as you are at all of the people around you who are trying to make some money? Also, how is it that you feed yourself without making money?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Coca Cola isn't going to be using line-of-sight drone operations to deliver cases of liquid drinks with an aircraft weighing under 25kg. Laws of physics and whatnot.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There is a song for this, Pennies from Heaven.
On the first day of Yuletide, Santa sent for me, a drone carrying a fancy camera ... Pull! ... Pull!
On the second day of Yuletide, Santa sent for me, a drone carrying a fancy suit
Pennies. From Heaven.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Think of it as a favor. OR crony corporatism, if you prefer. Same thing. Corporations can do this, but John Q. Citizen has different rules, because, business.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So, the real problem is that you are unable to read. Is that also Amazon's fault? Are you unable to actually understand the phrase "line of sight?" Really? If not, why are commenting?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The actual rules seem to say that you DO need a license to fly a drone commercially. TFS and TFA do not agree on this one.
TFS says you don't need an airplane pilot license. Under the old rules, a commercial UAS operator had to have an airplane pilot license. Under the new rules, the requirement is for an operator to "be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."
And all the rules go out the window. The secret service will step in and forbid all drone flights within 100 miles of someone they are protecting.
There is nothing pertaining about use of drones in concert
I guess you missed the bit in the regulations about not flying over people:
The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation.
Exactly. All this is about commercial use. Hobby / recreation uss remains unchanged - although it's good to see the FAA formally acknowledge that.
Yes, Mr. Ludd, what about the jobs this new freedom allows drones to replace?
Oh, and while you're thinking about that, consider the jobs that were replaced when those new-fangled computers came on the scene. And cars. And refrigerators. And railroads. And the cotton gin. And sailing ships. And plows...the list goes on and on, eh?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Ha your sig caught me off guard! I'm heading to the Chapel Hill one today to pick up some cat food. Great stores! The NC showing on /. is always higher than I think it should.
It's totally not fair. Whenever Amazon wants to fly a drone they're all like, "we'd be glad to work with you" and "we'll grant you a waiver", but whenever I want to fly a drone they're all like "how did you get in here?!" and "that's theft of air force property!" and stuff. And the guns, always with the guns...
We let any Tom, Dick, or Harry walk around with a high speed killing machine strapped to his hip.
How DO you strap a pressure cooker or a minivan to your hip, anyway? Curious. Can you post some photos? Thx.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
... or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."
Suddenly the scenes from TOYS with the kids 'playing' video game arcade consoles, controlling real life 'warplanes' is scarily possible.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
So, lobbying for it to be legal to delivery pizza while using a skateboard is somehow lobbying against existing safety rules for over the road tractor trailers? Do tell.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A 'net' over the concert wouldn't be that odd, and could they then be classed as 'protected' ?
Also, could they class them as part of the UAS Operation ;)
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
I've got a van strapped to my hip whenever I buckle up. Or is my hip strapped to the van?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
when can i get a waiver for driving on the ground, and they let these people fly drones commercially, what happens when the Coca Cola bottling company uses drones to deliver cases of coke to the local stores and they drop them on top of people? there needs to be accountability and liability for commercial drones flying over populated areas
From the FAA press release: "The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation." Also, see SceentCone's comment regarding the laws of physics.
Amazon's drone delivery dreams aside, the vast majority of commercial drone usage is going to be infrastructure (power grid, railway bridges, etc.) or agriculture (crop monitoring). Plus (maybe) inspection of hard-to-reach areas of homes such as roofs and rain gutters.
Dropping cases on people would kind of require flying over people, which is not allowed.
Some kind of liability is needed as well so amazon can't just dump it all on the 3rd party subcontractor pilot who can't cover the pay out after it crashes into an plane.
Quoting the new regulation:
Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation
Under the new rules, the requirement is for an operator to "be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."
This rule is more restrictive than the current COA that I am covered by at work. If you look at the requirements for a "remote pilot certificate" you'll see that they require more than just a 2nd class medical and an existing pilot certificate. For example, for an existing "Part 61" certificate holder, you have to prove you can fly a real aircraft carrying people (BFR) before you can fly an unmanned 5 pound drone in your backyard.
And the summary isn't clear on who needs the RPC, it just outlines what it takes to get one. If it truly is only for commercial use, then fine.
Enjoy it while you can horseless carriage fans. There are at least a few morons among you who will still do stupid irresponsible things with their toys, someone will get hurt or killed or there will be massive property damage, and the local city council will throw up it's hands and say "We tried trusting you, but you clearly can't be trusted!" and they'll get taken away from you. On that day I and many others will rejoice that the scourge of pesky, noisy, death traps will finally be ended. Then automobiles will be in the hands of professional drivers and the military, as it should be.
If you look at the requirements for a "remote pilot certificate"
I did look. 16 hours of web-based in-home ground school, 10 hours of in-home UAV/Drone PC-based simulator, and 16 hours of hands-on flight training at a training facility. That doesn't sound to onerous to me. And you don't need any certification at all if all you're doing is flying in your back yard, as long as it's not for commercial purposes.
I did look. 16 hours of web-based in-home ground school, 10 hours of in-home UAV/Drone PC-based simulator, and 16 hours of hands-on flight training at a training facility.
I'm sorry, but which part of 107 specifies that? I see nothing in the list of requirements that is that specific. In fact, the only aeronautical part of the requirements as listed in 107.61 are passing a knowledge test (for non Part 61 certificate holders), or a BFR and a shorter test otherwise.
That doesn't sound to onerous to me.
I said it was more than what is required under the COA I work under. And yes, I think what you listed is pretty onerous compared to the truth.
And having to get a BFR for a manned aircraft in order to prove you know how to fly a 5 pound drone is ridiculous.
Thanks!
I don't respond to AC's.
In response to that, doing something is one thing. Doing it without proper precautions and oversight is another. There is plenty of discussion about how much regulation of drones is required. That is a separate debate. what is crucial to this is it's about industrial uses for these devices. Generally household drones only have a camera. Although...some very clever (and dangerous) people have mounted flamethrowers and firearms on homemade drones. Now technically this is not illegal, but it probably should be. To easy to do all sorts of things. Now we are talking about industrial use. And this could well go beyond carrying a book or two (which can be dangerous in itself actually even from 400 ft, which should have registered flight paths much like any plane), but these industrial drones (small with many working in concert), or larger ones, could eventually be dealing in more dangerous things. The crop dusters we used to use were hazardous enough, imagine hundreds of these, imagine the damage to organic areas/populations. Or other items. And yes, some of even the home drones have caused some damage: interference with airlines, invasion of privacy (the FBI/CIA is bad enough without public wannabes), people shooting drones out of the air as consequence. Even line of sight clauses. Oh, and what if one of these drones get hacked which most people don't even consider. Even industrial made drones may not be secure. there is a lot a business needs to be aware of before using these things large scale in business. and we don't seem to be treating drones and their potential with the respect they deserve. Potentially more dangerous than cars, but less regulation than on car drivers. Amazon or people who fear PR and lawsuits won't be the problem. but business who get too aggressive/ambitious will start making serious mistakes if we make it easy.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
The requirements I cited were from an FAA-approved training center. If you have a Part 61 certificate, you've had a BFR within the last 24 months anyway, right? You have to do that to maintain your pilot's license anyway. it's not a _requirement_ for the small UAS certificate; it allows you to bypass the "initial aeronautical knowledge test" otherwise required for the small UAS certificate. As far as being more than what's required under a COA, that isn't exactly surprising. From Part 107:
To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
o Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either:
-- Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center; or
-- Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a flight review within the previous 24 months, and complete a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA.
o Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
o Be at least 16 years old
Permanent registration numbers readable from 100'?
You don't think that might not be a tad impractical, given the size of most drones?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yeah it's limiting. One popular use is for high value real estate. That will be allowed, if for example you're selling a home with land, or any retail/ office real estate with a parking lot. Block the driveways some time when the business is closed and you're good to go.
I shoot fireworks shows. Fireworks shows have been popular with drone operators. In fact, there is a real nice professional looking drone video of one of my shows on Youtube. It just so happens that when we launch explosives into the air, we make sure there is nobody underneath, so drones can be used to video fireworks shows.
I'm sure there are many more examples. What is not clear is how they'll treat flight over areas where it's UNLIKELY that you'll fly over any people, such as some lakes and rivers, mountainous areas, etc. I suppose the operator can watch to be sure they don't fly DIRECTLY over any boats. Based on how the FAA handles ultralight aircraft, I think they'll be reasonable. Flying over any rural area will probably be generally okay of you're otherwise being safe; even though there is a small chance that a farmer on a tractor could drive under your flight path.
The requirements I cited were from an FAA-approved training center.
The rules don't talk about "FAA approved training centers", they say "knowledge test" and "FAA TESTING center". This training you're talking about is not a requirement for the RPC as you claimed it is, and it is irrelevant. It's a good money-maker for the drone manufacturers, however. "Come take our classes and buy our simulators...".
If you have a Part 61 certificate, you've had a BFR within the last 24 months anyway, right? You have to do that to maintain your pilot's license anyway.
Actually, no you don't. The "pilot's license" doesn't expire. Unless it is revoked for some reason, your "Part 61 certificate" is yours for life. You may not exercise the privileges under Part 91 without a demonstration of currency, but even then, it doesn't need to be a BFR.
There still is no reason to require a demonstration of flight ability in a manned aircraft so someone can fly a drone. Two different skill sets.
As far as being more than what's required under a COA, that isn't exactly surprising.
I didn't say it was surprising. I said it was. I wouldn't expect the final requirements to be more stringent than any temporary ones, though, and these are. But if it isn't surprising, why are you arguing with me about it?
To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
So you have at least located the requirements in the rules, but didn't notice that "10 hours of yada and 16 hours of yada" weren't part of them. Whatever those "FAA approved training centers" told you to try to sell you their services was a lie. Don't listen to them. Read the rules instead.
And I don't know about you, but if somebody crashes a drone into my property I expect them to be able to pay for the harm.
Do you feel that way about frisbees, or kids with bicycles?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
They did set it for 100 MPH, and use that in their press release. (For those of us who fly most manned aircraft, it throws things off a bit for us as the cap is 87 knots, which is a very non-round number.)
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You're ignoring efficiency issues. Coca-Cola is going to continue using trucks for delivery because it's more energy efficient and lower maintenance than using drones. Even if the cost of a drone comes down to $200 for one that can carry a case (about 10 pounds for a 12-pack), the ability to carry even 10,000 pounds involves an astronomical cost of $200,000 for a thousand drones, plus the time of operation for one pilot per drone ($7,250 per hour at federal minimum wage), plus maintenance and replacement costs, and that would cover only a small region.
There will be a point where drones can be used for delivery, but it will require far higher battery power density than we have now, and is probably decades in the future.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
In response to that, doing something is one thing. Doing it without proper precautions and oversight is another.
People have been flying RC aircraft for many decades now, without the nanny state being involved. And the FAA is still allowing hobbyists to fly all they want without "oversight" and certification, etc. You do get that part, right?
what is crucial to this is it's about industrial uses for these devices
And the new small UAS rule they published will be of only moderate use to industrial users. Why? Because it limits the size, weight, and (please pay attention, here) requires that all operations are line of sight only. The operator can't be a computer, or someone sitting in an operation center, etc. It has to be someone standing outside with their eyes on the craft and able to see its orientation and function. It can't duck down behind trees, go around a building, go below a bridge, fly above a smokestack, or any other function that would separate it from the pilot's direct line of sight. You're thinking about industrial users that already have a way to get permission to operate, but are investing millions in the equipment and have to apply for special permission from the FAA - something the agency has only granted to a handful of operators. This new rules doesn't change any of that.
Although...some very clever (and dangerous) people have mounted flamethrowers and firearms on homemade drones. Now technically this is not illegal, but it probably should be.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Mounting projectile weapons and incindiaries on board any aircraft is VERY illegal. That's not new. Firing a gun from an aircraft is a federal felony.
Now we are talking about industrial use. And this could well go beyond carrying a book or two (which can be dangerous in itself actually even from 400 ft, which should have registered flight paths much like any plane), but these industrial drones (small with many working in concert), or larger ones, could eventually be dealing in more dangerous things. The crop dusters we used to use were hazardous enough, imagine hundreds of these, imagine the damage to organic areas/populations.
What's stopping a criminal from using ANY of the existing crop-dusting technologies for a bad purpose. Companies like Toyota have been selling remote control crop dusting aircraft for many years. A person in a simple crop dusting biplane has always had the ability to fly over crowds of people if they want to, and can carry vastly larger payloads than a 25kg RC model. You get that, right?
And yes, some of even the home drones have caused some damage: interference with airlines, invasion of privacy (the FBI/CIA is bad enough without public wannabes), people shooting drones out of the air as consequence.
Yes, yes, just like people with balloons and other craft have always had the ability to get in the way of aircraft. A recent AMA study showed that almost all of the reports of "drones" entering general aviation space and being a cause of alarm were, in fact, things like birds being seen by pilots going 200+ mph from a kilometer away. A recent high-profile "drone" sighting in the UK, by a pilot on approach to Heathrow, turned out to be a plastic bag floating on the wind. The FAA reported two weeks ago that even as millions more devices like this are being purchased, the number of reports of flights in restricted areas is going DOWN. And ... people shooting them out of the air? Also a federal felony.
Oh, and what if one of these drones get hacked which most people don't even consider.
What? There are articles about that all the time, and they generally involve very cheap toy-like devices that run on WiFi only over very short ranges and which have so little battery life that they can't make it more than a very short distance before
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually, the FAA says it has authority over anything that flies, right down to one inch off the ground. Regardless, why do you think that a kid with a quadcopter (or a roofer who uses one to take pictures of chimneys, etc) is somehow more dangerous to you than a kid throwing a football (which weighs more than many of these copters) or a person trying to stand a ladder up on the side of your house? There are millions of "drones" in use now, operated by millions of people for years now. The number of incidents of property damage or injury are essentially non-existent compared to thousands of other everyday things that occur all the time. Why do you have any particularly special expectations about legal or financial requirements surround one object, and not another? If someone damages you or your stuff, why does it matter with what? They're liable for the damage, not liable for drone damage. Worrying about that is like worrying not at all about financial fraud, unless it's "on the computer," in which case... you'd use different standards?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There is nothing pertaining about use of drones in concert
I guess you missed the bit in the regulations about not flying over people:
What does flying in concert have to do with flying over people? You're confusing "in concert", as in "multiple devices cooperating to accomplish a task", which is what the rest of that sentence clearly talked about, with "at a concert", which is something completely different.
Well, not many because the vast majority of those people are flying toy quadcopters that weigh about 1-2 kg. Picture drones that are near the top of the spec range listed above -- 55 pounds traveling at 100 mph and 400 feet of altitude. There aren't many people flying drones like those -- yet. But if there were millions of them drone fatalities would be a commonplace event.
Clearly there should be unlicensed (but still regulated for things like privacy) drones at the low end of the mass/energy scale, and then some kind of graduated licensing scheme that kicks in when you get to scales that pose a serious risk of injury or property damage.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You could launch the case ballistically and hit someone without ever flying over them. You would have to fly 'at them' at least momentarily.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You're referring to autonomous cars, are you? ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
Other FAA regulations, for other purposes, refer to heavily populated areas. For instance, that term is used for ultralights, which I fly. The new commercial drone regulation is:
Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation
The commercial drone regulation mentions neither crowds nor heavily populated areas. You are forbidden to fly over "any persons". Indeed, that's even more clear than "people" - one person is an "any person".
Heh, there should be a requirement to have a man walk in front with a red flag, and if a horse or skater comes near, it should be required to land and let them pass before continuing.