Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Proposes Rules Allowing Drones To Operate At Night, Over Populated Areas (reuters.com)
The Trump administration is proposing rules that would allow drones to operate over popular areas and end a requirement for special permits for night use. The goal is to "help speed commercial use of small unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States," reports Reuters. From the report: The proposals, drafted by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Transportation Department, come amid concerns about dangers that drones potentially pose to aircraft and populated areas. The FAA said that in developing the proposals its challenge was to "balance the need to mitigate the risk small unmanned aircraft pose to other aircraft and to people and property on the ground without inhibiting innovation." The FAA is proposing ending requirements that drone operators get waivers to operate at night. Through 2017, the FAA granted 1,233 waivers and "has not received any reports of (drone) accidents," it said. The FAA would require that drones have "an anti-collision light illuminated and visible for at least three statute miles," as well as testing and training.
Under the FAA's proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an "unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold." Those larger drones could not have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and could not operate over people if they have any safety defects, the FAA said. The FAA would prohibit operations of the largest drones over any open-air assembly of people. The report also mentions that the FAA is "proposing allowing discretionary waivers for operations over moving vehicles, for operations over people that would not otherwise meet the standards outlined in its proposal, and for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement."
Under the FAA's proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an "unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold." Those larger drones could not have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and could not operate over people if they have any safety defects, the FAA said. The FAA would prohibit operations of the largest drones over any open-air assembly of people. The report also mentions that the FAA is "proposing allowing discretionary waivers for operations over moving vehicles, for operations over people that would not otherwise meet the standards outlined in its proposal, and for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement."
People are going love that racket buzzing over their houses all night long...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Currently, probably not much of an issue. But it brings to mind the Electric Scooter and Bicycle Rental debacles, where the companies attempted to rapidly permeate the urban walkspace. If you have ever flown at night ( or navigated a boat ) at night, the presence of an exponentially expanding sea of randomly moving lights will gradually deteriorate situational awareness - it is very very difficult to estimate distance and closure rate of point sources of light at night ( See Norwegian frigate collision ).
They need to figure out what that density is, and then work backwards from there, or and / or establish flight path corridors. Then they can hold something like spectrum auctions if there is some upper limit.
How the plan was conceived:
(Think of the old Guinness commercials, with two old time guys talking to each other):
Guinness guy #1: "Almost all the problems between planes and drones have been when drones are SEEN in the vicinity of aircraft or airports."
Guinness guy #2: "Correct."
#1: "Yes, and drones are much HARDER TO SEE at night."
#2: "Again, correct."
#1: "So we'll fly drones at night. The planes and airports won't be able to see them, so there will NO LONGER be problems between planes and drones."
#2: "BRILLIANT!!"
Tens of millions of people in the U.S. drive automobiles and other vehicles every day. The potential for accidents, even fatal ones, is omnipresent. Operators must take driver education courses; they must be licensed; they must carry insurance; there are criminal penalties for reckless operation. Plus, there are rules: signs, designated lanes, speed limits, etc. Why should aerial drone operations be any different? Too many people are losing their fricking minds over the prospect of a sky filled with purposeful drones when that's exactly what we have on the ground, already. The technology is new but it's not the problem; the problem is how we humans determine its most beneficial use and, in the case of aerial drones, that requires regulation similar to that governing the operation of automobiles.
There are currently no drones on the market below the .55 pound limit that are serviceable for any sort of commercial use. The lightest drone capable of anything meaningful is the DJI Spark, which weights 10 ounces or 300 grams, 50 over the 250 gram limit. I'm sure DJI could produce a lighter drone to sneak under the limit, but they already had to sacrifice a lot of functionality (short flight time, only 2 axis gimbal, limited obstacle avoidance cameras) to get the Spark to 300 grams.
The important bit here is how many manufacturers work with the FAA to get drones above 250 grams certified.
That was funny. +1 for the humor.
I noticed it is nighttime in the US. If you were to go outside and look at the sky, you would see things that are millions of miles away. You can't see them at night. You'd also see about 100 times as many planes as you can see during the day. In a few hours, you'll be able to see the International Space Station.
You may have noticed in the summary they are required to be clearly visible from at least 3 miles, minimum. During the day, my drone is visible out to about 300-400 meters, or 0.25 miles max. So at minimum it's required to be visible at 12 times the distance it's visible during the day.
If you're not sure I'm right, go get yourself a milk jug or something and try looking at it from a mile away. Then at night glance around and notice you can clearly see the lights on the antenna tower 10 miles away. My friends and I discovered a Bic lighter is visible at almost a mile at night. We used that to show our position while camping in the mountains.
The TFA starts:
The Trump administration on Monday proposed rules that would allow drones ...
This immediately primes a bunch of people to look for fault with the rules, and another bunch of people to ignore any possible faults with the rules. Why not say "The FAA on Monday ..."?
Is this something driven by political office holders/appointees, or is it just the FAA doing its job and modernizing its rules as best it can? Technically anything federal government does can be attributed to the Trump administration, but it is misleading to make this attribution unless the action was directed by someone at the Whitehouse.
The TFA does say
In 2017, President Donald Trump launched a program to expand testing of drones in what the White House said would “open the skies for delivery of life-saving medicines and commercial packages (and) inspections of critical infrastructure.”
This is some justification for bringing the administration into it, but without more information I'm left wondering how much influence this program had on the proposed rules. Does anyone have information to show a connection?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
So many opportunities for terrorists, so little time.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Came to see formerly libertarian Slashdot mainly grouse at some level of sensible freedom being restored - was disappointed but not surprised
If I took the hamburger you're eating, crapped on it, and then wiped off most of the crap before giving it back to you, would you believe I'm doing you a favor?
That's more or less what happened here. Under the previous (before 45's administration screwed with it) FAA rules, a hobbyist could legally fly at night. People argued (on drone forums) incessantly over whether or not it was actually legal, but the FAA never took any action to indicate they gave a rat's ass if someone flew their Phantom around in the moonlight.
Also under the previous FAA rules, anything 0.55lbs was considered a toy, not an aircraft. Barring any local regulations against it (like public parks that ban consumption of alcohol), it was perfectly legal to fly a toy above people. Also, barring any regulations against unlawful discharge of a firearm, you could legally shoot them down, too. Now, for some bizarre reason, the FAA wants to regulate God damn toys.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.