FAA Moves Toward Treating Drones and Planes As Equals (hackaday.com)

Hackaday's Tom Nardi writes about the Federal Aviation Administration's push to repeal Section 336, which states that small remote-controlled aircraft as used for hobby and educational purposes aren't under FAA jurisdiction. "Despite assurances that the FAA will work towards implementing waivers for hobbyists, critics worry that in the worst case the repeal of Section 336 might mean that remote control pilots and their craft may be held to the same standards as their human-carrying counterparts," writes Nardi. From the report: Section 336 has already been used to shoot down the FAA's ill-conceived attempt to get RC pilots to register themselves and their craft, so it's little surprise they're eager to get rid of it. But they aren't alone. The Commercial Drone Alliance, a non-profit association dedicated to supporting enterprise use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), expressed their support for repealing Section 336 in a June press release: "Basic 'rules of the road' are needed to manage all this new air traffic. That is why the Commercial Drone Alliance is today calling on Congress to repeal Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and include new language in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act to enable the FAA to regulate UAS and the National Airspace in a common sense way."

The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act does not simply repeal Section 336, it also details the new rules the agency would impose on unmanned aircraft and their operators. Under these proposed rules, all unmanned aircraft would be limited to an altitude of 400 feet unless they have specific authorization to exceed that ceiling. They must also be operated within line of sight at all times, effectively ending long-range First Person View (FPV) flying. There's also language in the Reauthorization Act about studying the effects of flying unmanned aircraft at night, or over groups of people. It also states that drones, just like traditional aircraft, must be registered and marked. It even authorizes the FAA to investigate methods of remote identification for drones and their operators, meaning it's not unreasonable to conclude that RC aircraft may be required to carry transponders at some point in the future. To many in the hobby this seems like an unreasonable burden, especially in the absence of clear limits on what type of small aircraft would be excluded (if any). The report also notes that the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act will require drone operators to have to pass an "aeronautical knowledge and safety test," and to show proof of their passing to any law enforcement if questioned. Also with the repeal of Section 336, "young people might actually be excluded from flying remote-controlled aircraft," Nardi writes. "While many RC planes and quadcopters are marketed as children's toys, in the absence of Section 336, it's not clear that a child could legally operate one. The FAA requires a person to be 16 years of age to obtain a pilot's license, and if unmanned aircraft are truly expected to obey the same 'rules of the road,' it's not unreasonable to assume that age requirement will remain in effect."

Comments

Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Require all drone operators to undergo $15,000 worth of training and certifications. That will teach them how to behave with their toys!

irresponsible youths and their toys

[iggymanz]

with the unsafe and perverted nonsense going on in my neighborhood because of punks with drones, some testing and regulation might be a good thing

Re:irresponsible youths and their toys

[Frobnicator]

When it comes to policy (government, business, whatever) I have two questions: (1) What specific problem is it trying to solve, and (2) will the policy actually solve the problem.

I'm not sure what the "punks with drones" in your neighborhoods are doing, but it does feel like that's the biggest set of problems. "Punks with drones" brings up images of people who are ignorant of the risks or problems, and also people who intentionally or maliciously use their aircraft for things like dive-bombing people or to otherwise annoy or harass. Since the law has now actually passed, it's a matter of looking at what it does.

Going through the list in the law, I think the rules mostly address actual problems, but introduce many of their own.

Item 1 on the law brings back the "strictly recreational purposes" rule, which was the source of several lawsuits that brought about the earlier policy. Now that it is back you can be sure lawsuits will follow it. Landscapers, survey crews, and similar workers lose a valuable tool but they weren't a problem before. Photographers and journalists lose the exemption although some of them were "punks with drones", some were not. Community search and rescue groups lose the exemption and they definitely weren't a problem. These eight words are highly problematic.

Line of sight restrictions are trying to solve a real problem, but the wording change is heavy-handed and sloppy. I have two aerial hobbies, and have had words with drone pilots who were beyond trees, flying their aircraft in areas that were still inside their line of sight above the tree line, but not where they could see the surrounding areas and couldn't see the dangers. I have been overflown, sometimes dangerously close, by pilots who were buzzing what they saw was the tree line, flying at the edge of their visibility. Their dangerous flight still meets the requirements of line of sight but they had no idea how close they were to causing major damage. Contrast with craft with cameras that grant a good view of the entire area yet fly out of direct line of sight. Even though the pilot might not see the craft, they have high visibility of their environment. There are far better solutions than the 28-word section of the policy.

Not interfering with manned aircraft, not interfering with established flight zones, and limits to height are all known-good solutions and were part of the old policy. Those solve real problems, both for other aircraft and for people on the ground. Many air fields (including model aircraft shows) have boundaries, and sadly many pilots (including those who know better) violate the boundaries and risk the safety of others. There is no bright line to know you've crossed the boundary, and it sadly needs better enforcement.

The rule about passing a safety test and maintaining "proof of test passage" to be displayed on request (i.e. must carry a license) doesn't seem to solve an actual problem. Those licenses require many hours of training, plus a few hundred bucks for the tests. The cheap little whirlygigs and palm-sized quad-copters really are children's toys and shouldn't need the license, but the policy includes them. Larger craft that cost thousands of dollars could reasonably require some training because they can easily cause serious damage and personal harm, HOWEVER, those pilots tend to get training because a crash is expensive and most people don't start with one of these. I don't know if a requirement to carrying a license that can be given to law enforcement on request is the right solution, but it doesn't feel like it. Time will tell, it might help with the "punks with drone" problem you describe, but I doubt it. Instead it will mean outlaws have drones because near-everybody is an outlaw.

The proof of registration is for tax revenue. It doesn't solve a real problem, it's just feeding the coffers. There are currently more than one million of these craft currently registered. Registration used to be mandatory but free. Now it is mandatory and paid. Some gov

Re:So I can land at airports?

[viperidaenz]

After you get their permission and pay the landing fees, sure.
Along with the usual flight plans and registering them with air traffic control.

Re:FAA?

[LynnwoodRooster]

why did they do something as stupid as treating drones and planes equally?

Why does the FCC regulate micropower AM/FM stations? Why does the DOT regulate home-built cars?

The Commercial Drone Alliance ...

[CaptainDork]

... , a non-profit association dedicated to supporting enterprise use of Unmanned Aerial Systems ...

Is that like a special interest group for "for-profits", kinda like lobbyists or a PACs or stuff?

Re:The Commercial Drone Alliance ...

[oh-dark-thirty]

They want the hobbyists to go away so they can own that airspace for their member's delivery drones and other money-making gimmicks.

Re:FAA?

[PopeRatzo]

Why does the FCC regulate micropower AM/FM stations? Why does the DOT regulate home-built cars?

First of all, the DOT does not regulate home-built cars. I'm not sure where you got this bad information, but I'm not surprised, considering the quality of most of your assertions.

Second, "regulate" is not the same as "treat as equals". But thanks for setting up those two dopey strawmen for me to set afire.

Re:This isn't new -- or particular burdensome.

[Lothsahn]

I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.

You're either very confused or straight out lying.

I fly a RC aircraft at a small RC airfield in a rural area which is around 10 miles from the nearest (small) airport. I fly a homebuilt RC aircraft that cost me $400 total (including the controller) and weighs roughly 2 pounds to a maximum altitude of around 300 ft. I only get to fly 10 times a year due to time constraints, and in fact, I didn't fly at all last year.

Now we have the FAA pushing to RC planes like manned aircraft. Keep in mind a pilot's license currently costs $4-10k plus lots of training--to fly a toy in mostly unnavigable airspace.

Yes, we have a problem. There are drones operated near and in class B airspace, and they have caused issues and encounters with aircraft. Something must be done. But treating toy RC aircraft like planes is insane. Calling those laws "no burden" is wrong.

Yes, this is oppression. I should be able to play with toys without tons of training and paperwork in my own backyard. Except for near airports, the safety argument is crap. Last year in the US, 818 people died riding bikes. 110 died from lawnmowers. 51 died from lightning. How many people have died in the history of recreational RC aircraft? 3?